Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!uunet!dac.mdcbbs.com!jmi
From: jmi@dac.mdcbbs.com (JM Ivler)
Newsgroups: comp.org.decus
Subject: Re: White paper
Message-ID: <1991Apr18.133244.1@dac.mdcbbs.com>
Date: 18 Apr 91 13:32:44 GMT
References: <1991Apr16.184758.23639@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: MDC - Douglas Aircraft, Long Beach, CA
Lines: 58
Nntp-Posting-Host: sl6210
Nntp-Posting-User: hook

In article <1991Apr16.184758.23639@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, kenf@darkstar.cso.uiuc.edu (Ken Fortenberry) writes:
> 
>    I read in the April 15 Digital News that a three page "white paper"
> has been written which outlines why the proposed reorganization plan
> would be harmful. Since we will sonn be asked to vote on the reorgan-
> ization plan I would very much like to read this document. 
>    Could someone who has a copy of the "white paper" post it to this
> newsgroup ?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ken Fortenberry
> kenf@darkstar.cso.uiuc.edu


Ken,

There are many of DECUS members who have had quite a bit to say on the re-org. 
The change in bylaws is not supported by everyone in "leadership". In fact, the 
way that this entire incedent has been (IMO) railroaded from the beginning is 
found, by some, to be enough justification for the "vote" on the bylaws not to 
be held.

While I have specific concerns, I will attempt to address why there is a "con" 
document and why it's not being published is blatently unfair.

After the "Board" determined that thay were going to have the vote for the 
change they created three groups. The first group would create the new bylaws, 
the second would create a transition plan and the third would create a sales 
pitch, oops, I mean a concepts document. The voters would then be sent a 400 
word "pro" statement, a 400 word "con" statement the bylaws and the 3000 word 
sales pitch, oops, I mean concept document.

The "concept document" has no force. It is just the way "they" (the supporters 
of the new bylaws) see the future of DECUS under the new bylaws. In no way are 
any of the items in the "concepts document" enforcable. For instance, the 
standing committees all serve at the pleasure of the President of the Board. 
These committees are all chaired by a board member, appointed by the President. 
There is no way of ensuring the impartiality of these committees and although 
the concept document states that most of the members of the individual standing 
committees should not be board members, there is no reason why they don't have 
to be (according to the bylaws).

As a member, you will see over 3400 words in support of the change in the 
bylaws, and 400 words against. It appears the the President of the Board has 
been asked, and has refused, to include the equivelent of a "con" concepts 
document, but the President has said that it will not be sent to the 
membership.

Now, in your own mind, you call it. One side gets 3400+ words to sell the idea, 
the other gets 400 to try to sell you on *not* changing the bylaws... the side 
which gets the 3400+ words is the side that has control over the information 
that you receive... When you read those 3400+ words, remember... there are 
lot's of words you aren't seeing that are *NOT* in support of the change in the 
bylaws.

jmi speaking for myself and not for any DECUS entity!
jmi@dac.mdcbbs.com