On 28/01/2011 20:29, Geoff Wicks wrote:
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Dilwyn Jones" <dil...@evans1511.fsnet.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 3:09 PM
To: <ql-us...@q-v-d.com>
Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] [QL-Users] Sandy Futura (PDF from Urs)
Snip
John Gilpin will be standing down from his numerous committee roles
at the AGM and the new post holders should quickly find that his
emails suddenly arrive in their inbox, provided we (or Geoff, any
ideas???) don't invent devious ways to force him to stay against his
wishes ;o))
Dilwyn asked me a question just before Christmas which I deliberately
did not answer as I did not wish to interfere with the democratic
election process. I know nothing about the current state of
nominations, but as the deadline is Monday it is time to reply.
I don't know why I am bothering. About a year ago I posted a detailed
clause by clause interpretation of the Quanta Constitution arguing
that the committee had misunderstood the constitution and that John
Gilpin did not have to step down from the committee until 2012. I
invited people to dispute my interpretation on legal grounds and no
one, but no one, has done so. Not even Quanta who cannot justify their
own interpretation in the same detail.
Instead of taking my advice the committee stuck two fingers up at me -
or more correctly as there were 6 committee members at the time - 12
fingers.
What the committee did last year was absolute crass stupidity. It was
not their intention, of course, but they have almost certainly placed
Quanta on the wrong side of British law. And not just civil law.
Should anyone doubt my qualifications for expressing such a firm
opinion may I remind you that for a quarter of my working life I was
an officer of the British law courts.
Somewhat perversely Quanta's breach of the constitution and of British
law could be its salvation this year.
John Gilpin was appointed treasurer in two clear breaches of the
constitution. As he voluntarily resigned from the committee at the
2010 AGM he lost his status as an officer and the full rigours of
clause 5.2 applied to him. Under the constitution he became not just
ineligible but, more strongly, forbidden to be treasurer. The
co-option was also irregular as the committee have no powers to co-opt
an officer. Clause 5.8 only permits the co-option of ordinary
committee members.
In other words neither the constitution nor British law recognised
John as a valid committee member or a valid treasurer. Legally he did
not sit on the committee last year. By the next AGM he will not have
been a committee member for a year and thus can stand again for
office. However this has to be by the nomination of two members before
1st February. As he was not legally on the committee last year, he
will also have to pay his £14 subscription before the nomination paper
is signed.
Having written all this let me be the first person to state in public
that the time has come for Quanta to be wound up. When an organisation
is reduced to breaching its constitution to survive it has become a
gigantic farce. If we needed Quanta we would be using it. In practice
the active members of Quanta represent under 10% of the UK QL
community and under 5% of the international QL community. The demise
of Quanta is something the QL community can survive,
Best Wishes,
Geoff
_______________________________________________
QL-Users Mailing List
http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
I don't want to become embroiled in the discussions over the
constitution of Quanta and without seeing the minutes of the meeting at
the end of the AGM, I presume that the committee co-opted John under
article 5.8 which says that
"The Committee shall have power to fill vacancies by co-opting ordinary
members to the Committee. Such members shall have a vote in committee
and shall serve until the next Annual General Meeting."
It does not say anywhere that the co-opted members cannot serve as
officers and vacancies is wide enough to be interpreted as meaning three
officers and not more than 6 other committee members, unless I am
missing something, but I agree that the constitution is badly worded.
At the end of the day, if members were really bothered about John Gilpin
being co-opted back on as Treasurer, they would need to take action -
but then, what has been the loss to Quanta or its members as a result?
As it stands I wonder just how nominations will be received for people
willing to stand as a committee member, let alone officer.
I disagree that Quanta should be wound up - yes, it needs dragging into
the 21st century, and perhaps this year, more so than any other year, is
a real opportunity for people to put themselves forward to have a say in
how Quanta is run and to make a real difference.
Before suggesting that Quanta should be wound up, it has to be borne in
mind, that they still hold quite a considerable war chest, which could
be used for the benefit of the QL community in some way (such as with
their recent loan to help finance another run of keyboard membranes -
which actually are now only £15 each, a lot cheaper than the £20 I was
having to charge before). There are other projects, such as Peter's SD
card reader and who knows what else, which could benefit from such
funding, if there are enough pro-active members on the committee to help
drive projects through.
If Quanta is wound up, then their funds have to be distributed to
charity, and that would be the real loss to the QL community.
I would like to say that the QL community does benefit in other ways
from Quanta - their magazine remains a lifeline to some of the QL'ers
who may not have internet access, or can't afford QL Today, or even
those who find QL Today too in-depth.
Unfortunately there are more areas in which Quanta would benefit from a
more pro-active committee and new ideas / new blood - such as their
website (good as an idea, but still not really progressing very far),
new ways of making their magazine and library available, improved QL
shows and more.
I did start a thread on the QL Forums about how to improve Quanta, but
even the QL community seems divided here - some people will stick
steadfast to the ql-users mailing list, whereas others prefer the forum,
where it is easier to find and follow previous threads.
My view is that Quanta is still needed and rightly so - plenty of people
are still returning to the QL and need a source of knowledge and
hand-holding, it is just that Quanta needs more members and particularly
committee members to help drive it forward.
--
Rich Mellor
RWAP Services
http://www.rwapsoftware.co.uk
http://www.rwapservices.co.uk
-- Try out our new site: http://sellmyretro.com
_______________________________________________
QL-Users Mailing List
http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
