[wplug-plan] Organizational considerations

David Tessitor dttessitor at home.com
Wed Feb 14 00:32:39 EST 2001


Evan DiBiase wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, David Tessitor wrote:
>
> > OK, so we have two people who think that some members should be excluded from the
> > decision process about the group's matters; that having organizational meetings
> > open to the entire membership is a bad idea; and that a unanimous vote by a
> > larger group of members than have ever taken part in these discussions on the
> > list is not valid.
>
> Which people are these, exactly? Can you back up your assertion with
> quotations?
>

I quoted them in my posting.  The attack on member meetings and the insistence that
only the plan-list is valid, regardless of whatever else one may want to say, is a
rejection of what a large segment of the group has officially decided.  Even though the
vote was kept informal (in keeping with the tenor of the group and in answer to the
concerns about formality mentioned in the expressed opposition to Roberts Rules), the
decision to hold meetings was certainly more official than any other decision I have
ever seen made on the lists.

>
> > Twelve members attended each of the first two meetings and 18 were at the third.
> > Each meeting had at least some different members from the others (16 of the last
> > were not at the first two), and at each meeting the idea of having the meetings
> > and continuing them was agreed to without dissent.  Nobody has sought to exclude
> > the list from the discussion process, nor has anybody proposed that the list
> > should be excluded at any time in the future.  The list will continue to be a
> > valuable part of the discussion and consideration process, and nobody has said
> > otherwise.  Still, there are those who have adamantly insisted that the ability
> > to participate in real time, real space meetings should be denied to those
> > members who wish instead to be involved through such meetings.
>
> I'm not saying that meatspace meetings are a bad idea, I'm pointing out
> that you saying, "We are having meetings at such and such a time and at
> such a such a place and these meetings are WPLUG meetings," without
> talking to -plan first is irresponsible and contradictory to the basic
> ideals that you claim to champion.

It was put before the list when it was first scheduled as an action taken at a member
meeting.  It was discussed on the lists then and before the other meetings.   Unless we
are to change the currently accepted definition of membership to instead say that only
plan-list subscribers are WPLUG members and that anybody who (for whatever reason)
isn't on the plan-list is not a voting member, then we must accept that the general
membership has the right to make decisions about holding a meeting and that member
meetings are legitimate forums for such decisions.  (Remember, there are no officers
and there is no executive committee, so such a decision is left to exclusively to the
membership.)

This was not a bylaw revision that was pushed through; it wasn't a surreptitious
election of officers; it wasn't a  financial or contractual commitment of the group;
nor was it a subversive or exclusionary undertaking.  All it was is a majority vote to
hold a member meeting that would be open to all.  The later continuation of the
meetings on a regular basis was unanimously voted upon by those present, including
yourself -- albeit not by a ballot or roll call vote but, with there being a large
consensus and nobody speaking against the proposal, by stating "there being no
objections ..." (this was in keeping with the general desire for using the minimum of
formality; BTW it's also provided for in Roberts Rules and other manuals on
parliamentary procedures).

>
>
> > It doesn't seem to make any difference how much these matters are pointed out, so
> > I don't expect to have anybody change their mind.  But somebody has to answer
> > them.
>
> The answer is: let's do this orderly, through the proper channels, so we
> can make sure that everyone who needs/wants to be involved in the
> decision-making process for holding meetings is involved.
>
> -Evan

We don't need to quibble.  Lets talk about what we want to see WPLUG do and how.  Then
I suggest a committee (or team or whatever one wants to call it) of several individuals
sit down together and pick out some specific bylaw provisions to propose.  I'd suggest
we see how things go between now and the March meeting.

Dave




More information about the wplug-plan mailing list