Ok, this is my small 'review' of the GA2008 meeting in Brussels. I thought we would get the minutes last week already, but I didn't...or maybe I missed it, not sure.

So there I was, on Saturday, at the GA 2008 meeting. Normally, I wouldn't have come until (and only) Sunday, but I got a phone (private matters) which made that impossible, and since I've been saying for a long time I should go and witness it, I decided to go the Saturday. Not knowing where it was (exactly), I stumbled into the income of a building. I had to cross a little pavement/plain, and it was raining fiercely (the yard was covered with an inch of water), so I hurried to the door I could see at the other end, with a paper on it (thinking it was about the FFII). While hurrying, I suddenly slipped, fell forward, and was just able to save myself from a broken nose, but to the expense of dripping-wet clothes. When I came to the door, I was able to read the paper on it: "Beware; the colored tiles can be slippery when wet." Heh. I wished they had put that in the front of the entrance...

At the end, it was a side-door I had to take. It wasn't really THAT easy to find (redirections in the building itself could have been better), but with a bit of perseverance I managed to find it. Since I came pretty late (around 18.00h), I thought much of it would already have finished. To my surprise, this was not the case. In fact, they had barely started. It was my first time to actually see the people 'in person'; sure, I had had some email-correspondence with some, now and then, but nothing really intensive. There were 12 people there - I believe, but I might be mistaken (that happens when one waits too long to write a comment about it) - anyway, something like that. Of which one woman - who went away before the meeting ended.

Now...to be honest, I had expected a bit more...quite some more, even. I mean, almost all people there were board-members or ex-boardmembers...but this was supposed to be a GA, for ALL members, not a boardmeeting. That was a bit disappointing, but then again, I can't comment much on it, because I too have had skipped 2 or 3 GA's in Brussels the years before, because of lack of time and opportunity. No doubt there are others like that too. Still, I would have expected some 30-ish people being there.

Anyway, we got the agenda, and the points to vote on. When I arrived, they were at 4.3, if I recall correctly. Alas, I can't find the paper/agenda back, so I can't go in detail about it (should be on this site, somewhere, though), but they weren't all that important - to me, at least (I wanted to get to point 5.0 and onwards). There was a vote on allowing (or not) votes by proxy. Some voted for it, a majority against it. I voted for it, because I know of no organization consisting of members (or even shareholders, if you wish) where voting by proxy is NOT allowed, if proper procedure has been followed. This strikes me as the most fair, also; why should it be made impossible for a member to give his permission to vote to somebody else, if he has agreed to it? and certainly with a world-wide online org as the FFII, one can't possibly expect that every member (take, for instance, from Latin-America) can simply take the plane and come to Brussels to vote for a few days. It's not very realistic and sociable to ask such a thing.

The counterarguments I heard were: that it's ok if people would answer/vote point by point to each article in the agenda, but not if it's just a blanco-extra vote to do whatever the person who got it wants to do with it. That would lead to 'political games'. The other one was, that our membership-database and procedures to let someone 'count' as having a valid (proxy) vote was a mess, and it wouldn't do anything good for the time being. I wasn't impressed by the first argument: it seems to me, reading the emails I got (and then stop reading them) there are already games being played, and pretty stupid and childish ones, at that. The problem here, is not the proxyvoting, but the people that talk crap and, indeed, play mindgames. I look with pretty much disdain to people who are all talk, shout the loudest, but don't do shit. Sure, I'm not doing all that much neither (as a member), but at least I acknowledge that, and try to listen and be constructive...and I *did* go to the GA meeting. The last counter-argument...well, I can understand it...sort of. It's true that you can't do much with proxy-voting if you have no clear database who's a member and who not, and who can vote with validity, and who not. So, I understand that they (well, most of them) didn't want it to allow it THIS TIME, but I would urgently ask that, once things are settled and cleared up, one comes up with a clear way to vote by proxy - maybe with some restrictions (limited amount per voter, for instance), but still, I think it MUST be allowed. You can't have a GA of a world-wide organization where you have hundreds of members that are then not allowed to vote on matters that involve them...which is the case, in practicality, if you don't allow proxy-voting and people have to come from the other side of the world, to be able to vote.

Next points were about the fiscal year of 2006, where it was asked if we would agree with the report on it. Since we didn't get any report, orally or written, I voted against it: one can't really vote one agrees to something one hasn't seen, after all. The same for 2007, and then also for some articles describing whether we agree the board did a good job during those years. Hm. It was recommended by some or another to NOT agree to it, and most followed this advice. I abstained, because this time, there were (parts of) a report on it (orally, it wasn't finished yet to have it on paper, apparently). So I couldn't say I heard nothing, but on the other hand, I didn't hear and know enough about it to agree to it neither - after all, no doubt it wasn't worth much; even the board itself asked to not absolve it. To my surprise (well, actually not, since I saw how long everything took) it was already around 23.00u; time for me to leave again, since I had to take the last train back.

All in all, the meeting wasn't THAT bad; based on the emails and hateful replies back and forth, I thought it was going to be one hell of a ride. But actually, most people there were pretty cool. Weird, but cool. Well, yeah: most of them (like me) were IT-guys, and pretty cliche ones at that. I suspect some had some 'issues' or, put more simply, had a screw loose...but at least that makes it lively and interesting. Even the appearances were indicative; typical IT-nerds. Well, to some degree, at least. Of course, it went from the nerd-type to 'cool hacker'-type; Gregor (or was that 'Georg'?) looked like some typical hacker: long blond hair, a wild rebellious stroke, and a heavy German accent in his English. In fact, the only one NOT fitting the general picture, and one whom could have been mistaken for a 'manager'-type, was Benjamin; you know, the 'slick' appearance of managers... But anyway, I'm only saying this to give my first impressions of the guys, it doesn't really have anything to do with their real person. As I said, things went reasonably well, apart from a major heated dispute between Gregor and the president. But, still, I have some small recommendations:

First of all; everyone should try to speak as clearly (English) as possible. It seems obvious, and no doubt I have my own accent, but it REALLY became difficult sometimes to understand anything that was said. And talking amongst eachother when discussing a point on the agenda doesn't help neither. I know it's not that easy; you had French, German, etc. people there, but it's no use saying something that no-one understands neither; better to be slow and articulate well, than to go on rambling (because, otherwise, one has to ask to repeat once or twice, and it takes even far longer). Most of the times, I could understand the German-accented English, and even the french-accented ones (due to my knowledge of these languages, I presume), but, for instance, what the president said was sometimes completely...well, I couldn't make it out, sometimes.

Secondly, the organization of the meeting itself could have been better. There were myriad of times, where people said "well, I have it, or parts of it, but it's on my laptop"...and then people were all rushing about to get it on every laptop available there (most boardmembers had one, though some fell without battery-juice midway). Or, "I would print it, but the printer isn't connected", etc. Sorry, but that won't do. First of all, it is a GA meeting, not a board meeting. It's presumptuous to think EVERY member that would come to vote (like me) would bring his own laptop with him. Secondly, one shouldn't have to meddle with usb's, and having to search for a printer and a way to connect it; that should have been made ready and prepared BEFORE the meeting started. In fact, all reports and other papers of importance should have been printed in front, so if people come, they can see and follow everything, even if they don't have their portable with them. I hope those things will be better organized the next thing.

Thirdly...there were an awful lot of times where someone said: it's almost finished, but... I mean, how can you vote (or do anything else with it, like discussing) if it are all drafts and oral statements, or the numbers "will be ready in a few days". I mean, the date was known: boardmembers should have all their necessary papers and numbers checked out and ready, by the time of the meeting. If you have a dozen things that still need a few days to be ready, maybe the meeting should have been postponed a few days..or the person in question didn't do his job well, since it's normally expected to BE ready by the time the GA starts. I know this is a recurrent problem of almost all members there; but hey, with the job comes a bit of responsibility; one can either take it, or leave it. And having your report and your numbers ready on time isn't THAT difficult, if you don't slack off. And, ok, it can happen once, but if it continues year after year, I think some 'official' reprimand isn't out of order. Boardmembers have a job, after all, and asking for complete reports to be able to vote on, isn't that much asked, of FFII members. Maybe it's due to the 'difficult' and unclear years of 2006-2007, but I sure hope things will be better prepared (in advance) for the coming year/GA.

And a last recommendation: for gods' sake, put a hold to all the pointless rambling. Discussions are very good and well, but if one has to vote, then don't wait an hour to start endless discussions which repeat themselves like clockwork and don't resolve anything. Especially shouting-fests should be 'subdued' as much as possible, and the 'battle' between Gregor and the president lasted much too long, and didn't add anything sensible to the issue at hand; it was just a bit of mud-throwing and some ego-tripping between rather stubborn characters. To his credit, Benjamin did shorten some endless-loop-debates and heated discussions, and tried to focus on the matters at hand, but sometimes, he was a bit slacking too. I wouldn't mind if he had really pulled all the guys back from their repetive commenting, to focus on the actual issues (and votes) a bit more. When you're leading the (discussion of the) meeting, you're leading it! Don't be afraid to lead the meeting in a bit of a faster, more focused pace, Benjamin. I mean, let's be honest: I arrived there at 18.00 and left at 23.00 and we got from point 4.3 in the agenda to....4.9. I mean, f-. A handful of articles that weren't even all that difficult to vote on, took 5 hours!! IMHO, even with a bit of discussion (if kept to the point), it shouldn't have taken longer then an hour. The whole evening I was there, we didn't even move to point 5 on the agenda! No, really, the moderation could be a bit more stricter, no doubt about it. And, to be frank, I think the workings and 'smooth' operation of the meeting (and organization in general) would be helped if one or two people resigned. Sure, divergent opinions are important and should be allowed, but it depends on how it is expressed, and one has to see how it impacts the general working of the FFII. If there is too much friction between egos, things don't proceed as they should, after all... instead, it gets counterproductive and amount in in-fighting with paralysis of the FFII as a consequence.

So, these were some practical recommendations. As for the more general ones; it's necessary to get the financial 'uncertainties' of the past years out of the way. I know we voted to get a real bookkeeper to sort out all things and make everything more transparent, so I hope this will become a thing of the past.

I also heard the 'Sunday-meeting' being described as being 'traumatic', so I guess it was worse then than it was Saturday. Apart from one or two 'heated' moments, it actually went pretty well, even when terribly slow, Saturday. It would be a good idea to give us the minutes of the whole GA, though. This is only meant as a glimpse of the GA meeting of 2008 by a 'newcomer' or 'outsider' (relatively spoken), and I hope people will appreciate it for that, but it's no substitute for getting the hard facts/discussions made during the last GA.

S (aybabtu)