[wplug-plan] Making the big changes

[Justin at js-wordsmith.com]

What I was (badly) attempting to explain is that the bylaws can require member "participation" in an indirect sense. We need 12 members to amend the bylaws. Is it likely that 12 members would participate in planning discussion? In my opinion, no. Therefore, we would need additional support to enact any proposed changes.

I doubt these "additional" members would show up to a meeting and have simple up-or-down vote on a battery of controversial issues. Disagreements could cause us to run out of time. If that happened, we'd need to wait for another meeting and hope that similar numbers showed up again. Can we consistently count on 12 members being at our meetings? I wish I could say "yes," but I can't. We CAN count on participation from WPLUG's regular attendees, who are fewer than 12 in number.

To some extent, the current board has shown willingness to circumvent rules. John and I received details about yesterday's meeting less than 24 hours in advance. That's why I proposed bending the rules a bit with my convention.

Your counterproposal is actually more in line with the U.S. Constitutional Convention (USCC) than mine: state delegates showed up, hashed out their ideas, and then the finished product (our Constitution) was sent to the states for ratification. If we did it this way, we'd need to build our coalition of >= 12 in advance and settle any disagreements before holding the actual vote to avoid drifting along in the event of a failed meeting. It's more difficult, but still doable. If enough people are in favor of Pat's approach, then I'll sign on to it as well. 

Greg, I'm not saying that our bylaws have to go, but I'm also not saying that they have to stay. I AM saying that we should decide which approach to take and act on it. The original purpose of the USCC was to amend the Articles of Confederation, but they ended up devising a completely new system of government. Maybe we would as well; maybe we wouldn't. I'm not committed one way or the other.


Justin Smith
Electronic Communication Specialist
724-612-2837
http://www.js-wordsmith.com




>---- Original Message ----
>From: Pat Barron <pat at lectroid.com>
>To: wplug-plan at wplug.org
>Sent: Wed, Dec 5, 2012, 2:27 PM
>Subject: Re: [wplug-plan] Making the big changes
&gt;
>As an organization, WPLUG must operate within it's bylaws - we owe this 
>to the dues-paying members of the organization who voted to adopt the 
>current bylaws.  I agree that the current bylaws are an impediment to 
>sweeping, fundamental change - but to some extent, that's by design.  
>One of the purposes of bylaws such as this in a membership organization, 
>is to prevent a small, but vocal, minority from essentially "hijacking" 
>the organization, and to prevent money and/or technology from being a 
>"barrier to entry" in terms of having a voice in the organization.  Now, 
>we know that's not what's going on here.  But I guess my point is, the 
>apparent "inertia" of the organization, the built-in resistance to 
>change, and the (current) requirement that significant actions be taken 
>in the forum of an in-person meeting, are a safeguard, and aren't 
>something we can ignore when it's convenient to do so - even if it 
>appears to make sense to do so.
&gt;
>But the good news is - making fundamental changes does require broad 
>member *agreement*, but does not actually require broad and active 
>member *participation*.  Any member, or group of members, can propose 
>changes to the bylaws, or even propose that the bylaws be replaced 
>outright.  Proposing such changes (or just getting together with folks 
>to talk about what changes you'd like to propose) doesn't require the 
>approval of the membership, or of the WPLUG Board, and any interested 
>parties can come together to do it.  If enough of the current, 
>dues-paying members of the organization agree that the proposed changes 
>are a good idea (by virtue of a vote), even if they weren't actively 
>involved in crafting the changes at hand, then it becomes so.  The 
>bylaws, at the very least, anticipate their own modification, even if 
>there's a somewhat high barrier to change. And really, it's only 
>"somewhat high" - I think at last count there were 17 members - if you 
>can get 12 of them to say "yes", then you can make changes as sweeping 
>as tossing out the current bylaws entirely and replacing them with new 
>bylaws, or even an entirely different form of governance.  You don't 
>need the WPLUG Board's permission, or even participation, to do so...  
>Remember, at the end of the day, WPLUG is about it's members, and what 
>it's members want.
&gt;
>I can suggest two ways to begin an undertaking such as the 
>"Constitutional Convention" you propose.
&gt;
>1)  We can (and I say "we" counting myself not as a Board member, but as 
>a member of WPLUG and an individual who wants WPLUG to thrive and 
>succeed) gather up a group of likeminded individuals (who may nor may 
>not even be WPLUG members), and meet on our own via whatever mechanisms 
>we find most productive, completely outside of the existing WPLUG 
>infrastructure.  We can, in our own way, hash out a set of proposed 
>changes, and upon completion, a member can take the results of that work 
>and present it to the membership as a proposal.  The advantage to doing 
>it this way is that you're completely unfettered by pretty much 
>anything.  It's totally "do your own thing", the only time you hit the 
>existing bylaws is when you finally present a proposal to the membership 
>for approval.
&gt;
>2)  A member of the WPLUG board could propose creating a committee for 
>this purpose.  I can't speak for the rest of the Board (either the 
>current, sitting board, or the newly elected board that hasn't yet been 
>seated), but I can say that I'd be willing to advance that proposal, to 
>vote in favor of it, and advocate that the Board appoint anyone to that 
>committee who expresses an interest in being on it (remember, you don't 
>actually have to be a member of WPLUG to serve on a committee).  The 
>advantage of doing it this way is that you can get a budget from the 
>WPLUG treasury to pursue the work, to the extent that it's necessary 
>(and to the extent that the Treasury can absorb the expense).  So, for 
>instance, if the committee wanted to reserve meeting space over a 
>weekend at WSCC, just to have a "place to go" to pursue their work, that 
>could potentially be covered from the WPLUG treasury.  The down side is, 
>working within the existing infrastructure, the members of the committee 
>serve at the pleasure of the Board, and would have to report on their 
>activities to the Board just like any other committee (after all, if you 
>ask for a budget, the Board wants some reassurance that you're actually 
>doing something....).  The end result, though, is the same - the final 
>work product of the committee would be a set of proposed changes that 
>are presented to the membership for approval.
&gt;
>Does that seem sane?
&gt;
>--Pat.
&gt;
>_______________________________________________
>wplug-plan mailing list
>wplug-plan at wplug.org
>http://www.wplug.org/mailman/listinfo/wplug-plan