[Fsfe-uk] Re: Proposed roadmap

[mark]

Hi Tom,
I think you are aiming for an "ideal" solution. From my (admittedly 
limited) experience of AFFS there is little possibility of a broad 
consensus amongst members on a large number of issues surrounding free 
software. There have obviously been recent problems amongst members of 
the AFFS committee. In practical terms, and based on my experience in 
other walks of life I would have to agree with John Seago's assessment, 
especially when he writes:-

"However it does
need the Committee to follow the usual proceedures and put up with the
inconvenience of holding regular meetings, and keeping accurate and
complete minutes of those meetings, available at the very latest one week
after the meeting to both the members and the Committee, otherwise, at the
very least, those at the meeting will be unable to remember what actualy
happened. Only in really exceptional circumstances should those minutes
not be freely available to the members, (as any business conducted by the
Committee is conducted on behalf of the members)."

There is no reason in my view why AFFS members who are unable to attend 
meetings should not be able to vote on certain issues, and even for 
election of committee members. This could be done either online or by 
post. It also needs committee members who are able to organize this 
sufficiently well that everybody is kept onboard. If the committee 
members can get to the point where somebody stands up in an AFFS 
meeting, fully cognisant of the AFFS minuting and procedures, and says 
something like "I'd like to say something off the record...." and then 
proceeds to outline a piece of hearsay, or their knowledge on a 
controversial topic, then you will know that the system is working as it 
reasonably should. In my experience these moments are often what makes 
going to the meeting worthwhile. Conversely, if somebody says something 
controversial and then says "make sure my comments are recorded 
correctly in the minutes" the AFFS committee should have procedures in 
place to make sure this happens. It may also be desirable to record 
peoples' attendance, or absence, at the meetings that are held.
I was disappointed to read that Nick Veitch has not renewed his 
subscription. If he is still reading these emails then he might like to 
suggest areas where AFFS should concentrate and improve it's efforts in 
the future, and possibly attract him back.
Regards,
Mark



Tom Chance wrote:

On Thursday 30 Jun 2005 14:29, John Seago wrote:


> On Thursday 01 Jan 1970 00:59, Tom Chance <address@hidden> wrote:
>   
>
> > It involves a phase of documenting current procedure, a phase of
> > gathering input from all "stakeholders" (for want of a better word), and
> > a phase of formulating proposals for change.
> >     
>
> Whilst I can accept that you are proposing a series of 'changes' in good
> faith, there really can be no change at all unless 2/3 of the membership
> at the AGM are prepared to vote for 'change'. Neither is there any need
> for 'change', the present structure, for a voluntary membership
> association, is perfectly adequate to run any size of organisation. the
> problem seems to lie with the "current proceedure" in that decisions have
> not been adequately recorded, the constitution/rules are quite capable of
> allowing the AFFS to do whatever its members want it to. However it does
> need the Committee to follow the usual proceedures and put up with the
> inconvenience of holding regular meetings, and keeping accurate and
> complete minutes of those meetings, available at the very latest one week
> after the meeting to both the members and the Committee, otherwise, at 
> the
> very least, those at the meeting will be unable to remember what actualy
> happened. Only in really exceptional circumstances should those minutes
> not be freely available to the members, (as any business conducted by the
> Committee is conducted on behalf of the members).
>
>   
>
> > We could just carry on as we are. We could let people elect a committee
> > at AGM that would hopefully work out the issues. But I think that we
> > (the entire free software community) need a chance to discuss, with the
> > experience of the past few years, what we want the AFFS to be doing.
> >     
>
> What exactly do you mean by, "We could just carry on as we are. We could
> let people elect a committee at AGM that would hopefully work out the
> issues."? The members have a right to elect whoever they see fit, its not
> a matter of some giving others permission to elect a new Committee. The
> AFFS belongs to its members, they are the ones who have the say in any 
> and
> all matters. Who are the 'we' that will give the members permission to
> elect a committee? The Constitution/Rules lay down when committee members
> retire and elections are held. The only improvement to the current
> situation that needs to be put in place is the adoption of standing 
> orders
> for the conduct of General and Committee meetings. Perhaps this could be
> placed on the Agenda of the next AGM?
>   


John, I respect that things need to be done by the book in regards to 
constitutional changes and so on, but I think you are looking at this in 
completely the wrong way. The infrastructure of 'the AFFS' are 
meaningless, except insofar as they support and empower the aims of the 
AFFS.

IMHO, an AFFS that operates around a small membership, only makes 
decisions based on their opinions, and generally runs itself like a 
small club is going to totally fail the wider free software community. 
The current membership of the AFFS represents a small minority of the 
community, and a pinprick in the constituency that it works on the 
behalf of - the whole of society. The AFFS can either operate on behalf 
on its small membership, or it can try to reach out and provide the 
political arm to the UK free software community. Either goal is worthy 
in its own right, but, well, you can guess which one I'm more interested 
in :)

Just leaving this to the AGM, then, would be totally unacceptable. A 
room full of even fifty AFFS members isn't the right way to go about 
deciding the future of the AFFS I'd like to see. Nor would an all-day 
debate at the AGM ever fully settle these issues, IMO.

My proposal is that everyone willing coordinates some serious outreach 
work, and tries to work through some of the wider issues properly 
*before* the AGM. If it works, there will be broad consensus, 
representative of a large section of the community, on the key aims and 
activities of the AFFS. These can then be enshrined in constitutional 
changes and other decisions made at the AGM, according to the current 
rules, by the book.

Regards,
Tom