\documentclass[a4paper,UKenglish]{article}

\usepackage[osf]{mathpazo}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}

\usepackage{babel}
\usepackage[babel]{csquotes}

\usepackage{geometry}

\usepackage[parfill]{parskip}
\usepackage{url}

\title{Annual General Meeting\\Draft Minutes}
\author{UK-TUG}
\date{14:00, 16th November 2019\\Trinity College, Oxford}

\begin{document}

\maketitle

Members present:
  Dominic Branford (DB),
  David Carlisle (DC),
  Elliott Clifton (EC),
  Simon Dales (SD),
  Jonathan Fine (JF),
  Jay Hammond (JH),
  Peter Kirby (PK),
  Phil Molyneux (PM),
  Michael Stanford (MS),
  Nicola Talbot (NT),
  Howard Vie (HV),
  Joseph Wright (JW).
 
Apologies received:
  Malcolm Clark,
  Brent Longborough,
  Arthur Reutenauer.
 
\section*{Chair of meeting}

In the absence of a formal Chair, Dominic Branford agreed to take the
chair for the duration of the meeting.

\section{Minutes of the last meeting}

The minutes of the last \textsc{agm} were agreed as a true record by all members
present, after correction of the list of incoming committee.

\section{Secretary's report}

JW summarised membership changes: there have been virtually no losses or
new members.

\subsection{Treasurer's report and accounts}

John Peters has had to retire for Treasurer role, and a replacement has only
just been appointed. A report is therefore is not available.

JW summarised the major financial operations over the last year, as far as he
is aware of them: TUG membership, DVD distribution, \textsc{agm} expenses.

The incoming committee should arrange a set of accounts.

\section{Chair election}

JW had received a total of 38 submissions
\begin{itemize}
  \item 1 Abstention
  \item 1 Spoiled paper
  \item 21 for Jay Hammond
  \item 15 for Jonathan Fine
\end{itemize}

Jay Hammond is therefore elected up to the end of the 2021 \textsc{agm}.

\section{Committee election}

JW had received nominations to elect
\begin{itemize}
  \item Malcolm Clark
  \item Simon Dales
  \item Brent Longborough
  \item Arthur Reutenauer
  \item Jonathan Webley
  \item Joseph Wright
\end{itemize}
to the Committee for 2019--20.

\section{Motions}

The meeting agreed to take the motions out-of-order.

\subsection{Motions 6 and 7}

Discussion started focussed on motion~6 then broadened to include motion~7.

DC started by summarising his case for dissolution: there has been no
significant activity over many years, and committee have not acted. He also
noted that turnout in voting on motions (electronically and at \textsc{agm})
was below half of membership, suggesting a general lack of engagement. He also
stated that it is evident that the group is unrepresentative of \TeX{} users in
the UK. He also noted the lack of spending. DC also outlined that he had
originally suggested that Committee bring forward motions concerning
winding up, but he had been concerned that the deadline would be reached
and no such motions would be put to \textsc{agm}.

JF spoke about a recent OxfordRUG (R group) meeting in Oxford, which attracted
around 22 registrations for a sessions focussed on using Markdown as a
front-end to \LaTeX{} for thesis preparation. He also surveyed the number of
\TeX{}--\LaTeX{} StackExchange users in Oxford based on public profiles. He
also suggested that sending funds out of the UK was less desirable than sending
them to \emph{e.g.}~\textsc{lms}, IoP, \emph{etc.} JF felt that there had
not been sufficient notice for an irreversible decision. It was pointed
out that minutes for the 2018 \textsc{agm} discuss possible winding up of
\textsc{uk-tug}.

There was some discussion of where the best venue for looking at winding
up was, and about specific interactions \textsc{uk-tug} has had in the
past with \textsc{lms}.

The committee were asked how many projects have applied for funding in recent
years. JW stated only one application had been made in the period he has acted
as Secretary. JF queried how widely the funding call was distributed; JW
reminded members that it has been present on the website for some years.

Discussion focussed on motion~7 was prefaced with a reminder that the
Constitution requires any destination for funds be selected before or
in parallel with a winding-up motion.

DC stated that he had picked the two groups in the motion for clear reasons:
\textsc{ctan} support from \textsc{dante} in particular helping all \TeX{}
users. He also felt members needed some idea of where funds would go. SD
supported the idea that these groups are reasonable given their aims.

NT asked if \textsc{uk-tug} is first a UK group or a \TeX{} group: the question
is one of emphasis and impacts on what constitutes a similar group. This led to
discussion of the role of maths in bringing people to \TeX{}: EC stated that
although he has a maths background, it was design considerations that led him
to choose \TeX{}.

The meeting agreed to take motion~7 before motion~6 as a decision on the latter
could be informed by the former.

\textbf{Motion~7}: 20 for, 8 against, 7 abstentions. \textbf{PASSED}

NT felt that \textsc{uk-tg} has been beneficial when functioning properly. JF
suggested that motion~6 did not allow an orderly shut-down. This led to wider
discussion of the balance between dissolution and continuation of the group,
and what that might mean.

\textbf{Motion~6}: 9 for, 20 against, 7 abstentions. \textbf{REJECTED}

Meeting was adjourned from 15:15 to 15:30.

\subsection{Motion 1}

JW summarised the technical requirement for this motion.

\textbf{Motion~1}: 32 for, 0 against, 3 abstentions. \textbf{PASSED}

\subsection{Motion 2}

JF spoke against the motion, stating that members were not sufficiently
informed to pass judgement.

\textbf{Motion~2}: 9 for, 24 against, 6 abstentions. \textbf{REJECTED}

\subsection{Motions 3, 4 and 5}

The \textsc{agm} agreed to take these motions together.

JH stated that he is not necessarily seeking dissolution, but does want to
allow an orderly process to both consider this and implement it if required. A
plan is needed now if committee is to recommend \textsc{uk-tug} continue.

MS asked what the experience of other groups has been. JW summarised the
situation as he understands it at \textsc{tug} and \textsc{dante}: numbers are
higher than ours but are falling. He also noted that other European groups are
small and face similar challenges to us.

\textbf{Motion~3}: 22 for, 6 against, 8 abstentions. \textbf{PASSED}

\textbf{Motion~4}: 24 for, 5 against, 7 abstentions. \textbf{PASSED}

JF noted that committee does not require a motion to force an \textsc{segm}.
He also noted that members may force an \textsc{segm} at any point. He therefore
suggested that the motion is not required.

Discussion centred on the need to trust the committee and to give them
time to act. Counter-arguments were made in that most members are passive
and this is an opportunity to force a trigger.

Chair noted that the motion does not in itself bind the incoming committee..

\textbf{Motion~5}: 24 for, 7 against, 5 abstentions. \textbf{PASSED}

\section{Any other business}

\subsection{Bounties}

NT suggested that \textsc{uk-tug} could offer bounties for work on
specific projects: she had seen this at the recent London \textsc{riscOS}
meeting. \textsc{dante} offer awards \emph{after} work is done: this might
be another model.

\textbf{ACTION}: Incoming committee to consider.

\subsection{Discussion meetings}

MS asked if extra more open-ended discussion meetings might be held.

\textbf{ACTION}: Incoming committee to consider.

\subsection{Newsletter}

JF asked if a monthly newsletter could be produced to go to members and on
the group website. This could cover material from committee and from members.

\textbf{ACTION}: Incoming committee to consider.

\subsection{Thanks}

The meeting noted John Peters' many years of service as Treasurer and all
present thanked him for his service.

The meeting closed at 16:05.

\end{document}