[wplug-plan] Organizational considerations

Evan DiBiase evand at wplug.org
Wed Feb 14 01:21:21 EST 2001


On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, David Tessitor wrote:

> 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.

You quoted nobody. Give me some quotations by some people involved in
this argument, and then I'll consider you at least semi-credible and at
least a little bit less trollish.

Member meetings are fine, but why hold them outside the scope of WPLUG?
The decision to hold the meetings was certainly not official. David, you
simply post to the list saying, "Oh, we're having an organizational
meeting in March at 2PM after the GUM." This is not the way it's done. I
would suggest something like, "I think it's important to hold an
organizational meeting this month on <TOPIC>. What do you guys think? Is
the room available?"

You'll note that other members seldom if ever fail to follow these basic
group folkways.

> > > 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.)

Can you point to examples where you posted to the plan list about an
organizational meeting, as opposed to announcing one?

The general membership can go do whatever they want. Such is the nature
of our country. What I'm saying is that they DO NOT have the authority
to call WPLUG meetings without first consulting and getting a general
consensus from the plan list. This is rather vague, granted, but it is
the commonly accepted practice, and it works.

The officers and executive committee are, effectively, the plan list.
That is where planning takes place. I'm sorry if you don't like the fact
that you have to go through other people to do things, but that's the
way it has to be.

> 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).

Quite frankly, I don't care what it was -- the plan list was not
consulted, and that means that these organizational meetings were not
official WPLUG meetings.

> > > 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.
> 
> 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.

I'm interested in progress, not politics. I agree that we should talk
about what we want to see happen in WPLUG; in fact, I think that this
should be an ongoing process that is naturally part of the fabric of the
group. To some degree, it is: a problem arises, a need or want is not
fulfilled, and someone speaks up.

However, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with a committee
coming up with specific bylaws. This reeks of the very type of
centralized control that you so abhor. Why not make it an open process,
perhaps using a similar kind of voting system to the one I suggested?

-Evan




More information about the wplug-plan mailing list