[wplug-plan] Organizational considerations

[David Tessitor]

Evan DiBiase wrote:

>
> 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.

The inclusion of the original comments is called quoting as I have done for you.  I included
the comments of Zach and Jonathan which attacked the validity of the member meetings.  That
attack is in effect saying the members do not have the rights to make the decisions that
members of an organization should be able to make unless otherwise denied in the bylaws,
which is not the case with WPLUG.

>
>
> 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?"

Nothing was being done.  Requests directly made to members of the plan-list were ignored.
Not everybody has the opportunity to be on the list and at the time I had to restrict my
email because it was through TRFN on a non-profit account.  Other members have had other
reasons.  The decision was only made after many months of requests and then only by a member
action at a member meeting.  All future meetings were agreed to be held on a regular basis at
the last meeting which you attended and concurred with.  The previous meetings had decisions
for the next meeting that were approved by those in attendance including a number of
plan-list members as well as members not on that list.

>
>
> 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 plan list was notified with the rest of the organization and engaged in considerable
discussion about the meeting.  The entire membership of a member-based organization is the
organization and as such holds the ultimate power. The plan-list is a subset of the
membership and, as with any committee, derives its powers from the membership.  In the
absence of bylaws stating otherwise, the general membership need not consult anybody for
permission in advance of making a decision.  The membership is the stockholders of the
organization.  Whereas management may run the company, if the stockholders vote to override
or bypass the management, they have the right to do so.  This is rare and only happens when
management is not effective, which is analogous to the failure of the list to adequately
perform.  I am not saying the list is useless -- to the contrary I have always held that it
is a valuable tool -- but it is not the be-all-to-end-all and should be regarded as an
important augmentation, not the whole substance of a viable organization.

>
>
> 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.

Again, that failed to produce results.  I agree that if it ain't broke, don't fix it, but it
wasn't working and things were spiraling downhill rather fast.

>
>
> 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.

No they aren't.  That is merely a convenient misinterpretation of the facts, and it does a
great disservice to the organization to perpetuate that myth.  There are no officers and
there is no executive committee, not by any stretch of the imagination.  That is why there is
a need to develop bylaws and eventually elect officers.  Things weren't functioning well and
the membership sought to fill in as necessary to get a reorganization effort in motion.

>
>
> > 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.

Au contraire, they were approved through the normally accepted democratic, parliamentary
process.  The plan list did receive notice and discussed the meetings, albeit not in advance
of the decision.  While a matter of protocol which may have bruised some egos, there was no
fatal violation of process as there is no decision process on the plan-list anyway -- things
just sort of ooze out of it whenever anything does happen as it is.

When the matter of holding the meetings on a regular basis was brought up for consideration,
you consented when I asked if there was a consensus and you did not voice any objection when
I stated, "there being no objection..." -- THESE WERE EACH OFFICIAL WPLUG MEETINGS!  To say
otherwise is to say the product of them should be rejected -- a serious mistake of shooting
oneself in the foot, or should I say cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

>
>
> > > > 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

Evan, somebody has to propose something.  It needs to be done through an interactive
consultation among those developing the proposals.  This is most effectively done in a
meeting where discourse can be engaged rather than on the list.  The people involved should
be the most knowledgeable and/or the most interested in that part of the process.  Nothing is
to be decided in a vacuum.  That is the purpose of consulting the membership to find out what
they want at the beginning.  Neither is the proposal the final or absolute word.  It can
include more than one alternative provisions.  Everybody can then comment and suggest
changes.  These can be taken into account in revisions.  If there is any controversy with
particular provisions, the final selection by membership vote can be on a provision by
provision basis.  However, if the volunteers who compose the proposals are sensitive to the
membership's concerns, there shouldn't be any controversy.


>
>
> _______________________________________________
> wplug-plan mailing list
> wplug-plan at wplug.org
> http://www.wplug.org/mailman/listinfo/wplug-plan