<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Thank you David.</p>
<p>I agree.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I think the SGM is going to feel very short. I am pleased that
the substantive issue, Dissolution / continuation is being
discussed by members in this forum. Please don't get diverted by
side issues. Focus on what UKTUG is going to do and how it is
going to achieve that.</p>
<p>I'd warn you that this forum is not the SGM, and that you may
expect opinions to vary. And motivations. And interpretations of
motions. At the meeting, as chair, I shall give some notes on the
motions. I will say it is the wording of the motions that counts,
not the proposers intentions. I'll state how the committee is
going to interpret the motions. Don't make your mind up until you
see that interpretation. <br>
</p>
<p>Since you don't know the voting procedure, I think it is
premature to express a vote. Opinions are welcome of course.
Reasoned ones, even more so.</p>
<p>I don't know why Jonathan Fine seeks to start the (voting at the)
SGM early under his own rules. It is not a cooperative or
supportive act. It may not work in your interests. Please don't
get sucked into that. <br>
</p>
<p>I urge you to vote, when the time comes, for dissolution, not
continuation. I can't urge you from inside the SGM, as I'll be
chairing it. <br>
</p>
I think Howard's motion is clear that some form of continuation of
UKTUG is demanded. As to achieving that practically, that is worth
debating if continuation is your chosen option. <br>
<p>Jonathan Fine has posted here that he sees no prospect of UKTUG
continuing into 2022 because, even if you vote to continue (as he
now urges!) he sees no prospect of a committee coming about for
2022. I agree with him. There's no prospect of a useful future
committee. <br>
</p>
<p>I have repeatedly (over the last two years) asked members to step
up and actually do something towards keeping UKTUG going if that
is what they want. No member has stepped forward to do so. In
2019, or early 2020, Two members did propose they discuss a plan.
I put them in touch. I still have not heard the outcome of any
discussions that might have taken place. I conclude that the
membership is not prepared to do the work necessary to keep UKTUG
going. Well, nor am I. <br>
</p>
<p>I believe it would be irresponsible for members to vote that the
committee continue UKTUG if they (the members) are not prepared
to make the effort to help UKTUG continue. Not just irresponsible,
also damaging to UKTUG. To continue without a potent committee,
dooms UKTUG to an impotent existence, not able to spend its
money, nor to have a constitutionally acceptable committee that
could organise meetings at which it might acknowledge its plight
and shut itself down. The constitution is a little more
optimistic, but how to recruit committee members from a membership
who will not serve? It's my judgement that this is the last
chance UKTUG will have to shut itself down. And that it should
while it still can.</p>
<p>I can't speak on behalf of the existing committee as a whole. I'm
just 1 human, in less than perfect health. I can't run UKTUG on my
own, even if I had an ego big enough to want to. I tell you
plainly I will not be implementing Howard's motion. It's my belief
that this attitude is shared by multiple members of the
committee. I won't be standing to be on the committee that runs
2021/2022, should Howard's motion be passed. That probably applies
to most of the committee. But they will speak for themselves. I
believe the proper action for a committee member who refuses to
enact a motion is to resign. I'd feel I had to do so if Howard's
motion passes. Whether I should continue in post long enough to
fulfil other responsibilities to UKTUG such as help organise an
AGM, I do not know.</p>
<p>Jay Hammond</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24/10/2021 15:37, David Carlisle
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAEW6iOgMxqd8XRtFPRPhxRJ=aR+zDN6Gd61jx7G6qOXCE60YzA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 at
14:44, Jonathan Fine <<a
href="mailto:jfine2358@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true">jfine2358@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hi</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I fully support Howard Vie's motion. Some
wish for our dormant funds to be applied to promote and
develop TeX. Some wish that UK TUG continues. Howard's
motion shows that these two wholesome wishes are
consistent. This solves many problems.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
This is voting for yet another year of inaction. It solves
no problems at all. The subject of winding up or not has
been essentially the only subject at the last two AGM (and
sporadically for the last 20 years) There is no indication
of who would be on such a committee or what any such
constitution would say, just some hope that these unnamed
persons can find something acceptable to write down.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We should wind up UKTUG. As has already been shown if
there are useful activities that can be carried on,
distributing DVDs, a UK based tex email list, the old uktug
FAQ, or whatever, they can be done without any need for
UKTUG to be kept going for another year and carrying on the
kind of pointless pseudo-legal discussions that have blocked
this list for the last month, and which have made the
internal uktug committee discussions largely dysfunctional
as far as I can tell (and was my experience when I was on
the committee)<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We should wait until the voting procedures are announced
before deciding on which motions to vote for and whether it
makes sense to vote for more than one. It would have been
better really to have had just one motion (Jay's, on behalf
of the committee) to wind up and then we could have had a
simple yes/no vote but we are where we are.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>David</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Here is the text of Howard's motion:</div>
<div dir="auto">===</div>
<div dir="auto">That UK-TUG continue to function, with
the proviso that<br>
(a) the Committee draft an updated Constitution to
better reflect outcomes achievable by the group, and
arranges for the members to consider this update as
required by the current Constitution;<br>
(b) the Committee reduce asset holdings in line with
part (a), donating dormant resources to TUG and DANTE<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">===</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div>I will be voting for this motion. If you also
support this motion, please say so on this list.
Passing this motion will give both sides something to
celebrate!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Happy TeXing</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jonathan</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</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>