<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head><body dir="auto"><br>
<br>
Just dipped into today’s exchanges (Jay’s e-mail). Skimmed. I assume we are all programmers.
<div>These days, I’m a lawyer (too old to think but still capable of criticising other people’s algorithms :/ ). As a lawyer, one of my greatest bug-bears is algorithms expressed in English language terms that are non-exhaustive. That’s normal for lawyers (who
don’t get maths/logic) but disappointing for coders.</div>
<div>A constitution is a mixture of “law” and coding. It should deal with most situations but should also have a final “else” to the effect “apply common sense” to resolve any outstanding issues. </div>
<div>I would like to think that the courts would take that approach; I’d also like to hope the courts wouldn’t have to. Whilst, as a lawyer, I am acutely aware of how under-rewarded we are for our time and expertise, as a member I would hate to see UK-TUG’s
assets dissipated in favour of the legal profession, “Your assets should go to xxx. Net of the my fees, those assets amount to -£1,000 and I Iook to the elected officers to contribute their liability for the difference”.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What a sad ending :( Unless you are the lawyer! Let’s avoid that. Please?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div>Ewan.</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>[Typed using the touchscreen of my iPhone - e&oe]</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 15 Oct 2021, at 23:54, Jay Hammond <jay@jjnr.uk> wrote:<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="auto">I've not read all of this thread. You seem to be discussing order of motions and are discovering that ordered motions have disadvantages. Joseph and I thought that it might be possible to allow each motion to be discussed in its own separate
thread, but in parallel. I assume each member still has one vote per motion. What does it mean if both "dissolve" and "continue" motions pass? I think the motion with most positive votes gets priority.
<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Your comments<br>
<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">BTW, dissolve forthwith means effective now. Not at the end of the meeting. Hence constitution stipulation about timing of motions directing surplus funds.
<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">2019 motion on surplus funds had an if in it. The condition was not and cannot now be met. The motion passed but makes /made no direction to do anything. There is precedent for motions of the form
<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">If <condition> then <action><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Hth jay<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><!-- tmjah_g_1299s -->Get<!-- tmjah_g_1299e --> <a href="https://bluemail.me">
<!-- tmjah_g_1299s -->BlueMail for Android<!-- tmjah_g_1299e --></a><!-- tmjah_g_1299s --><!-- tmjah_g_1299e -->
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 15 Oct 2021, at 16:54, Jonathan Fine <<a href="mailto:jfine2358@gmail.com" target="_blank">jfine2358@gmail.com</a>> wrote:
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr">Hi David
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I have wasted some time which I apologise, and even more of my own (which I deeply regret). Please ignore for now my previous message and respond only to this one.
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I feel most uncomfortable at the order paper being so arranged that the mover of a motion can be denied the opportunity to speak to the motion (except through an explicit procedural motion). UK TUG general meetings have operated on the principle that all
motions are heard. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In more detail, your proposal would allow the SGM to prevent the discussion of valid motions on the order paper, as a consequence of voting to dissolve UK-TUG before the motion comes up for debate. So far as I can recall, every general meeting of UK-TUG
has discussed all motions on the order paper. </div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Your proposal would reverse the custom and practice that every motion should have its time at the general meeting (unless prevented by an explicit procedural motion, such as that the motion not be put or that the meeting be closed).
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The SGM can if it wishes by procedural motions prevent the discussion of any motion on the order paper. To arrange the order paper so a substantial motion prevents the discussion of another motion is contrary to custom and practice. The reasons you give
have logic behind them, but I find the conclusion unacceptable. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>with kind regards </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jonathan </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<br>
This email has been sent by the Faculty of Advocates or its subsidiary Faculty Services Limited a company registered in Scotland (SC048261) and having its registered office at Advocates Library, Parliament House, Edinburgh, EH1 1RF.
The email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager, sysadmin@advocates.org.uk This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by Mimecast Ltd for the presence of computer viruses. Visit our website at www.advocates.org.uk
</body></html>