<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Jonathan Fine invites me to motivate my Dissolution motion here.
I don't know that you, the members will be interested. But in
case you are, here is the bigger picture. <br>
</p>
<p>I'm a volunteer. I give what I can. UKTUG is demanding much more
than that. As a result, the outcomes are not perfect**. UKTug
was failing two years ago. It has got worse. It has failed in my
opinion. Dissolution can be orderly. Other realistic outcomes are
likely to result in UKTUG funds being locked in to an impotent
organisation that cannot revive itself enough even to dispose of
the funds responsibly.</p>
<p><font size="+1"><b>Content:</b></font><br>
</p>
<p>Why did I put "UKTUG resolves to dissolve forthwith" to the
committee for submission to the SGM? <br>
</p>
<p>Why a motion to dissolve?</p>
<p>Why the timing in the motion</p>
<p>Why the timing of putting the motion to committee.<br>
</p>
<p> (with a comment on formal process and practical politics)<br>
</p>
<p>--------------------------------</p>
<p><b>why put a motion to committee for submission to the SGM?</b></p>
<p> The SGM is on the topic of dissolution, the exact motion must be
notified to the members in advance. The SGM does not have a motion
yet. <br>
</p>
<p><b>why a motion to dissolve?</b><br>
</p>
I said that I'd try to shut down UKTUG in an orderly fashion when I
stood as chair nearly two years ago. from the introduction above
you'll see I have not changed my mind.<br>
<p>-- why dissolve UKTUG --<br>
</p>
<p>Dissolution is necessary because UKTUG is unrescuable*,
dysfunctional, and does not serve its members efficiently (if at
all) nor is it able to benefit the TeX community as much as it is
committed to do. The shutdown will be orderly because provision
is being made for members to get the benefits they had from UKTUG
in the last few years another (easier) way. Some UKTUG funds have
gone to TeX supporting projects in the past two years. Not enough.
Those provisions were not in place last time it was suggested to
shut down UKTUG.</p>
<p>The dissolution committee is empowered to spend funds on the Aims
of UKTUG, as well as get residual funds to suitable organisations.
It can rescue UKTUG Intellectual Property. For example, We don't
have to erase Baskerville or the UKTUG web-site as a whole.
Modification will be necessary. I think of that as memorialising
it.</p>
<p><b>Why the timing in the motion</b></p>
<p>Most of the the committee has now thought about whether
dissolution should be triggered when the vote on the motion is
announced. <br>
</p>
<p>We've recently decided yes. I don't want to spend long on
hypotheticals. But why "forthwith" ?<br>
</p>
<p>Putting a time and or date to the dissolution adds extra
complications to the process. For instance the period between the
passing of the vote to dissolve and the dissolution process
starting is a sort of limbo. The creaky constitution will still
be in place, and I dread to think what interesting loopholes could
be found to frustrate your vote. </p>
<p><b>Why the timing of putting the motion to committee.</b></p>
<p> Committee rules apply.<br>
</p>
<p>Under UKTUG committee rules Committee discussions are private:
Jonathan Fine should not be publishing them to you. He should not
have access to minutes of meetings he was not at. But he does and
reveals them to you. You won't be surprised to hear that most of
the current committee is saying little in its actual meetings
until its mind is made up. Real discussion is taking place
elsewhere. Now that most of the committee is clear about the best
approach, it's time to do the formal stuff.</p>
<p>The whole committee has enough days (under rules that JF pointed
out to me, thanks JF) to formally discuss and agree to put a
dissolution motion to the SGM, with a short reason.</p>
<p>-------------------------</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>* I tried too hard at getting members to put together a rescue
package, and missed deadlines as a result. Sorry.</p>
<p>** see *, and the same thing nearly happened with reducing funds
by approving grant applications.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>---------------------------<br>
</p>
<p>On 05/10/2021 10:00, Jonathan Fine wrote:<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALD=Yf-dfk81Uypwm8d8enW+ofpKQ0fndnpKhis3MpmYe4WLUw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">Hi all
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Early this morning (2am) Jay Hammond moved a committee
motion, that "the last motion for the SGM be: UK TUG resolves
to dissolve forthwith."</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>I suggest we all hold back our comments on this until
2pm, to give Jay ample time to tell us why he's moving his
motion-on-a-motion.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jay's also invited and welcome to speak on this at the UK
TeX Hour tonight. (He's copied in on this message.)</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Here's the official text of Jay's motion this morning.<br>
</div>
<div><a
href="https://tug.org/pipermail/uktug-committee-motions/2021q4/000680.html"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://tug.org/pipermail/uktug-committee-motions/2021q4/000680.html</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>with kind regards</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jonathan</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Email use <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jay@jjnr.uk">jay@jjnr.uk</a></pre>
</body>
</html>