Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!agate!ucbvax!DECUSERVE.DECUS.ORG!KILLEEN From: KILLEEN@DECUSERVE.DECUS.ORG (Jeff Killeen Exec Committee) Newsgroups: comp.org.decus Subject: FYI - From DECUServe Message-ID: <99FBF15C800037BB@decuserve.decus.org> Date: 2 May 91 04:06:00 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Lines: 113 <<< EISNER::DUA3:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>> -< DECUServe Soapbox >- ================================================================================ Note 340.142 The DECUS reorganization 142 of 145 EISNER::MAYHEW "Bill, Business Practices UIG Chair" 84 lines 1-MAY-1991 15:05 -< ENfranchisement; what's missing; near-term prognosis >- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Hmm, Notes/EVE won't let me cut-and-paste from a more-than-one note conveniently, so I'll wing this; please forgive me if I misstate someone's opinion, it is NOT my intent.) Larry Stone's point about disenfranchisement of volunteers in .138 is well-taken. Mike T. made a comment about an observed correlation between people who oppose the reorg, and people who support disenfranchisement of members. I don't agree, or I don't observe it. As a reorg opponent, I support *EN*franchisement of members. If the present proposal had three additional attributes I would most likely support it. I'm sure that, to varying degrees and with somewhat different attribute-choices, the same is true of a tremendous majority of the DECUS leadership. The work has NOT BEEN DONE -- has not even *attempted* to be done -- to bring about this consensus. (My three attributes, if anyone cares: 1. Improved "voter education" -- at a minimum, lifting some of the current rules and regs which effectively (sometimes through misinterpretation, but still effectively) disable voters' ability to understand what Board members -- and bylaw proposals! -- represent, in full dialog. 2. A member-initiated recall mechanism for Board members. Most (if not all) units have a method by which their volunteers (and, at least in some cases, their broad membership) can recall officers and steering-committee members -- the people those officers and steering-committee members report to. Elected Board members report to the Chapter membership and should be recallable through some method which has a high entry-threshold (to minimize nuisance efforts) but which is achievable (to give it teeth). Engineering such a mechanism will take time. An effort was made to put a watered-down member-recall mechanism in the proposal before you today, but the Board rejected it. I'm glad they did because I don't think it adequately met the above criteria. The engineering of that failed mechanism was attempted in, what (help me other DCSers), 3-4 weeks? DECUS needs more than that. 3. *Either* leadership consensus that the change makes sense, *OR* documentable, squeaky-clean methodologies used to arrive at it that are fully open to member scrutiny. 4. (Optional but highly desirable) Inclusion of external experts on the Board in some capacity, to give us the industry-wide perspective that can help keep us from tunnel-vision planning. ) Someone (forgive me, I don't recall who) raised the issue of getting DECUS' work done, vs. this political debate. Mike T. was right when he said when you have 2 people, you have politics. *MOST* DECUS volunteers want very badly to do their real work; we don't have time to do this nonsense. (While I find it an interesting exercise in management skills and interpersonal skills and organizational development, I simultaneously am trying to help launch 2 UIGs, run my own business, and give my family life (which is frankly my top priority) the amount and quality of attention it needs and deserves. This is not the time for "interesting exercises" but since I care about whether or not I will be able to successfully launch those 2 UIGs into something I'll want to participate in in the future, I feel I have to put effort into the reorg question.) There is NO WAY that passage of this proposal will permit the universe of DECUS volunteers to get back to "business as usual." If this proposal passes, all the volunteers directly affected will be consumed with shuffling their organizations around to match the new scheme. Organizations which report to, or depend on, those organizations will be flummoxed while all this large-scale Brownian motion goes on, since approval paths will be unclear, etc. -- look how long it takes DEC to adjust to a reorg in any of its divisions, and remember *those* people (DECfolk) work full-time and have full-time communication paths -- we don't. When I imagine the effort that will be expended in implementing this in the world of "DECUS time" (part-time volunteers who don't always communicate so well), my eyes glaze over. If this thing were really well thought-out and there were consensus about it, the implementation plan would be precise, clear, complete, and there would be minimal confusion. I don't see that happening with this plan by 1 July -- sorry, gang -- many of the unit leaders don't have a clue how they will be expected to work or with whom. There are no proposals that have been published that even create and populate the committees that will have to replace the Management Council. Therefore what we will have is either (a) a big vacuum of operational leadership, or (b) an operational leadership structure that is dictated and rammed into place by a few Board members. Not a pretty picture. ================================================================================ Note 340.143 The DECUS reorganization 143 of 145 EISNER::MAYHEW "Bill, Business Practices UIG Chair" 16 lines 1-MAY-1991 15:16 -< Whatta mess... >- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As if there were not enough controversy on all this, two technical flaws have been found in the ballot package as printed. The Concepts Document ends mid-word. The Bylaws are missing a verb in section 5.6. It is therefore not even certain that an affirmative vote on this package would be a valid affirmative vote. The Board did not make the required 2/3 vote to put *this* package before the membership -- they voted to put the version _without_ these flaws out to vote. DECUS could conceivably have to cope with a legal challenge based on these problems, if the re-org is affirmed. At minimum, it seems to this non-lawyer that an *additional* bylaw change will be required to insert the missing verb...