<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm">
Hi members,</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm">Structure of the
SGM. </p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm">Thank you for
considering dissolution here before the meeting. Thanks to those
who
submitted motions. I have not prepared a report for you, or
planned
the SGM. </p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm">So Joseph was not
able to advise you what format and structure of motions would be
acceptable to the SGM. That was an error on my part. I can offer
reasons why this happened. But it’s not edifying. I do apologise
to you. I’m not able to achieve all that I want for you. I have
had no offers of additional help on the committee. Despite my
requests for it. And that’s a part of the motivation for
dissolution. Jonathan Fine is more stark on this topic. He’s right
though. There won’t be an effective UKTUG in 2022. UKTUG will be
pretty much
impotent or have dissolved in an orderly fashion. I prefer the
latter
option. You hardly have a choice. At least give UKTUG a decent
burial. It’s not seemly to be precious about all the complex
motions. <br>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm">Back to the SGM
Structure: </p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm">Because I have not
yet
put the SGM design in place, proposers have had to guess what
structure will emerge for the SGM. And it’s not a surprise that
the
guesses differ. The SGM can’t
have multiple conflicting structures at once. So I need to devise
an
SGM that suits the motions and I also need to ensure the motions
fit
the one SGM structure we arrive at. It seems to me inevitable that
someone will have to make modifications to the motions. The
question
is when: Now, or during the meeting? The latter is impractical, as
we
are meeting in the e-SGM by email for only 7 days. and who?<br>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm">I have been trying
to devise a structure of SGM that would be simple and
straightforward
and allow the motions to be clearly voted on. Unfortunately, some
of
the motions are complex, time dependent and have other “difficult”
features. Which would lead to a confusing complex SGM structure to
support these features.</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm">My preference would
be to have one “UKTUG resolves to dissolve” motion and as many
money motions as differ and are constitutionally acceptable, and
stop there. But I’d prefer to have the agreement of the proposers.</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm">Now I see the
motions, there are 3 that propose dissolution, some with
conditions
some without. And some other motions urging action contrary to
dissolution. Trying to allow you to vote clearly has given me some
turbulent nights. I have to simplify the meeting. </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>No member can be
expected to be alert and available to the meeting for 7 days
continuously. Nor is it a reasonable demand that members attend a
particular time slot because they wish to be informed about, or
vote
on a particular motion. The member may have other commitments at
that
time. It is reasonable to expect members to find time to address
the
motions during the extent of the meeting.
</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm">That’s why I
suggest that all the motions are up for discussion and voting for
the
duration of the meeting *. The motions will have no time dependent
features. Or if they do, they are explicit in each clause of the
motion. There will be no complex interactions between motions. </p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm">The money motions
might need an if clause to restrict their application to the
circumstances in which UKTUG resolves to dissolve in 2021. ( 2019
had
a similar structure of motion.)</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm">* Like Knuth, I
lied
for simplicity of exposition. Voting ends before the end of the
meeting, leaving the secretary time to tally the votes, and
announce
the results on the last morning of the meeting.</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm">I’m not sure if we
need Single transferable vote options for the money motions.
Perhaps
first past the post is enough.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Here’s a couple
of suggestions about how to adjust the motions to suit this SGM
design.
</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm">Plan A: all
proposers agree to modify their their motions. Proposers and
committee, or at least officers meet. Modifications to motions are
agreed.</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm">If plan A fails, </p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm">Plan B: As chair, I
shall rule that some motions are inimical to the orderly running
of
the meeting. That it/they be not put to the meeting. </p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm">Plan B2 that I
substitute a similar manageable motion for the inimical one(s).
This
might require the consent of the SGM, and that is a vote that has
to
take place in an early time slot. Which I have already said is not
fair on members. Not an easy option. But not doing B2 would rule
some motions out, with no possibility of discussion of their
validly
submitted intentions.</p>
<br>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm">What can be done to
make the motions manageable? Break them into
their own meaningful elements, such as dissolve, allocate money,
etc. Then sort and uniq. There will be a small number of action
groups. E. g. Give surplus funds to: a successor organisation, to
Dante and TUG, to... </p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm">Further
simplification may be possible, necessary at this stage. Such as
dissolve,
with and without a "forthwith" being merged. </p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm">If these groups are
full of mutually exclusive options, each member can have one (Yes)
vote per group, and select their preferred option.</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm">This solution
requires major changes to some motions. But it allows you, the
members, to clearly express your wishes, within the limits of the
subject of the meeting, and the scope of the motions that were
submitted.</p>
<p>Comments on the
approach are welcome. Comments on the motions belong in a
different
thread. Please. If you think a motion will suffer unfairly under
this
approach, abstract away the content of the motion in your reply.
Thanks
</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm">Jay</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<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>