Hi Tom,
I think you are aiming for an "ideal" solution. From my (admittedly
limited) experience of AFFS there is little possibility of a broad
consensus amongst members on a large number of issues surrounding free
software. There have obviously been recent problems amongst members of
the AFFS committee. In practical terms, and based on my experience in
other walks of life I would have to agree with John Seago's assessment,
especially when he writes:-
"However it does
need the Committee to follow the usual proceedures and put up with the
inconvenience of holding regular meetings, and keeping accurate and
complete minutes of those meetings, available at the very latest one week
after the meeting to both the members and the Committee, otherwise, at the
very least, those at the meeting will be unable to remember what actualy
happened. Only in really exceptional circumstances should those minutes
not be freely available to the members, (as any business conducted by the
Committee is conducted on behalf of the members)."
There is no reason in my view why AFFS members who are unable to attend
meetings should not be able to vote on certain issues, and even for
election of committee members. This could be done either online or by
post. It also needs committee members who are able to organize this
sufficiently well that everybody is kept onboard. If the committee
members can get to the point where somebody stands up in an AFFS
meeting, fully cognisant of the AFFS minuting and procedures, and says
something like "I'd like to say something off the record...." and then
proceeds to outline a piece of hearsay, or their knowledge on a
controversial topic, then you will know that the system is working as it
reasonably should. In my experience these moments are often what makes
going to the meeting worthwhile. Conversely, if somebody says something
controversial and then says "make sure my comments are recorded
correctly in the minutes" the AFFS committee should have procedures in
place to make sure this happens. It may also be desirable to record
peoples' attendance, or absence, at the meetings that are held.
I was disappointed to read that Nick Veitch has not renewed his
subscription. If he is still reading these emails then he might like to
suggest areas where AFFS should concentrate and improve it's efforts in
the future, and possibly attract him back.
Regards,
Mark
Tom Chance wrote:
On Thursday 30 Jun 2005 14:29, John Seago wrote:
On Thursday 01 Jan 1970 00:59, Tom Chance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It involves a phase of documenting current procedure, a phase of
gathering input from all "stakeholders" (for want of a better word), and
a phase of formulating proposals for change.
Whilst I can accept that you are proposing a series of 'changes' in good
faith, there really can be no change at all unless 2/3 of the membership
at the AGM are prepared to vote for 'change'. Neither is there any need
for 'change', the present structure, for a voluntary membership
association, is perfectly adequate to run any size of organisation. the
problem seems to lie with the "current proceedure" in that decisions have
not been adequately recorded, the constitution/rules are quite capable of
allowing the AFFS to do whatever its members want it to. However it does
need the Committee to follow the usual proceedures and put up with the
inconvenience of holding regular meetings, and keeping accurate and
complete minutes of those meetings, available at the very latest one week
after the meeting to both the members and the Committee, otherwise, at
the
very least, those at the meeting will be unable to remember what actualy
happened. Only in really exceptional circumstances should those minutes
not be freely available to the members, (as any business conducted by the
Committee is conducted on behalf of the members).
We could just carry on as we are. We could let people elect a committee
at AGM that would hopefully work out the issues. But I think that we
(the entire free software community) need a chance to discuss, with the
experience of the past few years, what we want the AFFS to be doing.
What exactly do you mean by, "We could just carry on as we are. We could
let people elect a committee at AGM that would hopefully work out the
issues."? The members have a right to elect whoever they see fit, its not
a matter of some giving others permission to elect a new Committee. The
AFFS belongs to its members, they are the ones who have the say in any
and
all matters. Who are the 'we' that will give the members permission to
elect a committee? The Constitution/Rules lay down when committee members
retire and elections are held. The only improvement to the current
situation that needs to be put in place is the adoption of standing
orders
for the conduct of General and Committee meetings. Perhaps this could be
placed on the Agenda of the next AGM?
John, I respect that things need to be done by the book in regards to
constitutional changes and so on, but I think you are looking at this in
completely the wrong way. The infrastructure of 'the AFFS' are
meaningless, except insofar as they support and empower the aims of the
AFFS.
IMHO, an AFFS that operates around a small membership, only makes
decisions based on their opinions, and generally runs itself like a
small club is going to totally fail the wider free software community.
The current membership of the AFFS represents a small minority of the
community, and a pinprick in the constituency that it works on the
behalf of - the whole of society. The AFFS can either operate on behalf
on its small membership, or it can try to reach out and provide the
political arm to the UK free software community. Either goal is worthy
in its own right, but, well, you can guess which one I'm more interested
in :)
Just leaving this to the AGM, then, would be totally unacceptable. A
room full of even fifty AFFS members isn't the right way to go about
deciding the future of the AFFS I'd like to see. Nor would an all-day
debate at the AGM ever fully settle these issues, IMO.
My proposal is that everyone willing coordinates some serious outreach
work, and tries to work through some of the wider issues properly
*before* the AGM. If it works, there will be broad consensus,
representative of a large section of the community, on the key aims and
activities of the AFFS. These can then be enshrined in constitutional
changes and other decisions made at the AGM, according to the current
rules, by the book.
Regards,
Tom
_______________________________________________
Fsfe-uk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
