[wplug-plan] Making the big changes

[Pat Barron]

Justin, I think you're right that it would be tough to get 12 people to 
show up at meetings and whatnot consistently to debate these issues, but 
it's not such a worry from my perspective, because I think Greg's 
"retail store" analogy is spot on.  I think there are plenty of people 
who are interested in consuming the "product" of WPLUG (and there could 
be plenty more if we could make improvements to the quality and 
consistency of the "product"), but who don't have much interest in being 
part of the "process" (or in many cases, just plain don't have the 
time).  Therefore, I believe it would not be difficult to get these 12 
votes by keeping people informed on what's under consideration, and 
making the case for how it would improve their lives as WPLUG members.  
Within the current bylaws, people don't even need to come to a meeting 
to vote in person if they don't want to, because voting on amendments to 
the bylaws must be conducted by absentee ballot (just like a board 
election), so there's the opportunity to send in a ballot without 
attending in person.  Maybe I am overly optimistic, but even if sweeping 
changes were proposed, as long as there was a good rationale for them, I 
do not think that getting the necessary support would be as difficult as 
you might imagine.

John, thanks for sending that link - that's a pretty good list.  I will 
say, WPLUG already does almost all of this, right now.  Now, I'm the 
first to admit, there are some things we definitely need to get better 
at (like doing timely updates to our event schedules and listings of 
related events, for instance).  Item #22 on the list is a particular 
sore spot for me, in that we've occasionally wandered into territory 
where it seems like we're trying to be a service organization (rather 
than a user group).  The thing about this list is that it assumes that 
the group can somehow arrange for there to be almost zero expenses, and 
that hasn't been the case for us at all.  The list talks about the 
importance of having a web site, a good domain name, shell access, 
e-mail lists, etc. - but is pretty much silent on how any of that gets 
paid for.  I would venture a guess that, in most user groups, these 
things get paid for by having a generous member who volunteers to pay 
for them out of pocket, or by passing the hat.  Meeting space in 
particular has been a problem for us.  All those types of places the 
list theorizes would be "happy" to host us - nope, not happening.  We've 
tried.  Maybe in other areas, but not in Pittsburgh.  For instance, we 
did have meeting space at CMU for some time, for free.  But only by the 
good graces of WPLUG members who worked there.  When people moved on, we 
were out (and my understanding is even then we were at "low priority", 
and were always at risk of being booted out without notice if there was 
something else going on and they didn't want us in the space that day), 
plus we were moved around a few times.  The list talks about the 
importance of having a regular meeting location, and the only way we've 
found to get that, in a location where it's suitable to do something 
like a presentation with a projector, is to pay for it (and even at 
that, we sometimes get bumped out of "our" room because someone else 
with a larger group [and probably paying more] needs the room - but at 
least we stay in the same building).  Another example, we recently 
talked to another local organization that has really nice space, that 
they said could be available for meetings - but we need to have one of 
their full-time employees on the premises at all times while we're 
there, and they insist on a list of attendees in advance.  Meeting space 
(especially free or cheap) is hard to come by around these parts, in our 
experience.

Regarding the virtues of e-mail as a means of conducting business - 
don't even get me started...  This is my *single biggest complaint* 
about the current bylaws, that this is effectively prohibited.  And I 
totally understand why the bylaws specify this (I think...).  But I 
think the ideas behind it are outdated and obsolete.  If I could change 
one thing (or set of things...) about the current bylaws, it would be to 
go from a system where board meetings are monthly, for an hour or two a 
month, in person, have to be called with adequate notice (to avoid 
having people cut out of the process because they couldn't make a 
short-notice meeting), etc., to a system where there's a "board meeting" 
24 hours a day, 7 days a week, online (by e-mail, IRC, whatever seems 
good), and decisions can be effectively made on the fly.  And if I 
couldn't get that, at least a provision that lets the directors waive 
notice of a meeting by unanimous consent (that's not currently allowed, 
either).

John, I totally understand your focus on "getting stuff done", but I 
firmly believe there needs to be a robust process infrastructure behind 
it.  The "product" is what we do, the "process" (i.e, the bylaws) are 
how we do it (and maybe a bit of specification of what it is we do and 
don't do in the first place).  The membership is at least owed some 
consistency in terms of what to expect, as people in leadership 
positions come and go.  Chances are, the board today isn't going to be 
the board three years from now.  But the membership shouldn't have to 
worry so much about who the leaders are, and how they do what they do, 
in terms of getting a consistent "product" - it should be pretty much 
the same "product" as they already know and love.  Though one place 
we're not great right now, is figuring out what that "product" should 
be, and what it is we really want to do.  And I will agree that that 
discussion is just as important as the process discussion - but I don't 
think one should happen without the other.

And yeah, we don't need to wait.  I mean, we're effectively doing this 
right now.  ;-)

--Pat.