[wplug-plan] Making the big changes

[Michael O'Connor]

Be careful on changing bylaws, it should not be taken lightly, I was on
the comity that helped put the original ones together (I think that was
back in 2006) and it is not something we took lightly (took us 6 months if
I remember right, of weekly meetings to get the bylaws written)

I am not say not to change them, but the bylaws that are in place are set
to prevent change from happening to fast, for good reason, you don't want
a hostel take over of the group by outsiders, or to change the group to
radicly to fast that could scare people away from the group.

While I may not be a current member (sadly I don't live in Pittsburgh
anymore) I do still care about the group deeply.


On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Pat Barron <pat at lectroid.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> I can suggest two ways to begin an undertaking such as the
> "Constitutional Convention" you propose.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Does that seem sane?
>
> --Pat.
>
> _______________________________________________
> wplug-plan mailing list
> wplug-plan at wplug.org
> http://www.wplug.org/mailman/listinfo/wplug-plan
>



-- 
Michael P. O'Connor
mpop at mikeoconnor.net
http://www.mikeoconnor.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.wplug.org/pipermail/wplug-plan/attachments/20121206/57c91c33/attachment.html