response 1 of 25:

Nov 26 00:11 UTC 1995

   I think it's great to have institutional members, but why do we
need to change the bylawys to do this?  I'm not trying to be dense,
but I guess I am.
   The part about an institution not being able to be on the board
is covered in some other law, as I remember, which is the only reason
why I can see that we'd need to change the bylaws.
   I think we've had institutions use Grex before, haven't we?  At
least, I know they have used Grex, and I think at least one of them
actually forked over some money once.

response 3 of 25:

Nov 26 02:48 UTC 1995

Grex offers all, members and non-members, individuals and groups, the
ability to participate in our Grex community and share computing
resources. If it is felt we need to encourage more groups to take
advantage of what Grex offers then I'd think we could simply get the word
out and welcome groups just as we do individuals.  If a group wanted to
have an open conference, use e-mail, publicize their agenda and encourage
new members, our present setup works well.  Also, I can't see how allowing
a group of 20, 30 (or more), all membership for a single $6.00 a month
membership could be considered financially supporting Grex.  I would think
if members of a participating group really wanted to support Grex they
would be more apt to take out an individual $6.00 membership, for a start. 

Would you have all members of a group be able to cast individual votes
under a single $6.00 per month group membership?  Or would one person vote
for the whole and would that be in proxy or after a sub-vote of the group
members?  If an individual member was also a group member would he or she
be allowed to vote twice, once in each membership category?  Would the
group be give any perks not afforded individual users or members, like
private conferences, excused from individual verification, and so on? 

Deja Vu.

response 5 of 25:

Nov 26 07:32 UTC 1995

To answer some questions:

Member classes and privileges are specified in corporate bylaws (state
law). Since the privileges for Institutional members are not identical
to those of persons, a separate specification is necessary.

The proposal does not include direct telnet access for Institutional
members, but rather the same internet access privileges as provided
to *nonmembers*. This is intended to avoid the identification and
potential abuse problems mentioned in responses above.

With Institutional member status not providing general telnet access
nor eligibility for board service, the identification as a *member*
of Grex has reduced significance. According Institutional members
one vote is the step to retain a sense of real membership. In all of
my experience with groups that have taken Institutional membership
with other organizations, the Institutional members have taken their
vote seriously, and exercised it during a meeting of members, or of
their board. How an Institutional member would implement this must,
however, be left up to the procedures of such groups.

Other suggestions were made for conveying understandings of the missions
of Grex, fair use, etc. These, and any other policies adopted in
connection with Institutional members, but not written into the bylaws,
can be provided in the usual information sources (newuser, into cf, etc).

response 7 of 25:

Nov 26 12:58 UTC 1995

  Rane's proposal seems ok to me, but it also seems to address an infrequent
case.  I'm not sure whether I'm for or against, but I think it would be more
attractive if we had a few groups using Grex that expressed interest in such
memberships.
 
  The three benefits in #2 might be "simulated" within the current membership
framework.  An organization can buy a membership for their board's secretary,
who can use telnet, vote on the organizations's behalf, and even run for
Grex's board to further represent their organization's views.  (If they're
democratically elected by Grex members, why not?)
 
  If they don't want those abilities, they're free to donate money to Grex
as they see fit, no membership attached, and use our free services.
 
  I'm confused about some other issues mentioned: #4 says organizations
aren't allowed .forward-style mailing lists; can't any account set up a
.forward list?  #2 says "one service...we could provide would be disk space,
web space, and mailing aliases."  We already provide the first two, even if
an organization doesn't pay money, no?  And for the community service reasons
mentioned, wouldn't we make a mail alias available whether an organization
gave money or not?  (I get the feeling I must be missing something here :-).

response 9 of 25:

Nov 26 19:51 UTC 1995

The alternatives suggested above will not work for MNAC. I am the only
member of MNAC knowledgeable enough to do the things necessary on Grex to
manage an MNAC account, web page, etc. However I am already a member, so
MNAC could not buy another membership for me that would give them a vote,
etc. MNAC could, of course, make a donation to Grex as "thanks" for the
services now provided, but a donation to Grex normally is recognized
(honored) with a membership. Without that closer affiliation, the donation
seems more like a purchase of services, a connotation I have been trying
to avert. 

I realize any club could have a member keep an account that is used for
club business, although there is an implication in many things that have
been said that accounts are supposed to be individual, not associated with
a group. The bylaws certainly say so. In the face of this, I remain
uncomfortable using Grex resources as an aid to the activities of the
MNAC. In the face of this implicit disapproval, I have to consider moving
the MNAC account elsewhere. I think other clubs and organizations would
tend toward a similar conclusion, unless Grex indicated that it was more
friendly toward assisting community groups. The creation of Institutional
membership would be a public avowal of such support. 

response 11 of 25:

Nov 27 04:57 UTC 1995

Lots of organizations donate to Grex (eg, stuff for JCC sales).  It would be
nice to have some low-key way to thank them.  (Send them a nice X-mas card?)
I don't think a "membership" is an especially good way to do it.

Maybe we should have a !sponsors command that would list all the organizations
and individuals that donated cash or stuff to Grex.  It can be a long list.
It could be separated into rough classes, distinguishing levels of support.

Maybe we could put a line in the motd for two days thanking each new member or
donor.

I certainly agree we should be willing to help other organizations, and even
more willing to take their money.  But I don't see membership as the best
vehicle for this.

response 13 of 25:

Nov 27 08:15 UTC 1995

Mary, I feel that you do not understand the concept of an individual or an
organization wishing to be a *member* of another organization, because
there is a good feeling of support and association. Whenever this comes
up, you respond cynically in terms of "perks" and cash, not intangibles. I
join many organizations whose purposes I support because I believe in
them, and want to have the association of membership (in addition to
helping them with my money). Organizations become members of other
organizations for the same reasons. My wish to have the MNAC become a
member of Grex is motivated by the desire to establish a "member"
association between two charitable, non-profit corporations, who can help
each other in their mutual community public-service purposes. I also see
this as a potentially mutually beneficial association between many
community clubs and small organizations, for whom Grex's capabilities are
appropriate.

This item was entered for discussion of the proposal, but it was not
specifically offered as a motion under Articles 7 (Amendment of bylaws)
and 5a (Voting procedures). I intend to so offer the amendment, or an
improved version of it, soon. However we are currently in the process of
voting for the name of the Grex newsletter (until 30 November), and then
we will be engaging in the annual election of directors (until 15
December), and *then* everyone will be jumping through the holiday hoops.
I also have in mind the time of our hard working votemaster, remmers, who
needs a break. Therefore I propose to offer the amendment to the bylaws
early in 1996, for the most convenient two weeks of official discussion
prior to the ten day voting period. 

response 15 of 25:

Nov 27 14:37 UTC 1995

Rane, you're the one who suggested that donating without becoming a member
"seems more like a purchase of services".  But yet I'm the one who doesn't
understand why someone would donate simply because it's the right thing to
do?  Right. ;-)

I have a real problem with the idea of a group having a vote. That would
mean some members would get to vote more than once and I'm kind of old
fashioned and feel there should be one vote to a member not one vote to a
membership. 

response 17 of 25:

Nov 29 15:36 UTC 1995

Re #9, 10 and #15: What I said in #9, that "Without that closer
affiliation, the donation seems more like a purchase of services, a
connotation I have been trying to avert", applies also to individual
users. Contrast the cases of individuals being able to join Grex as
members and pay dues, against the alternative of individuals only being
allowed to make donations to Grex, and there is no membership nor dues. In
the former case, individuals support the organization both financially and
as "members". In the latter case, individual users would have to decide
how much they will donate, and when. 

In that case in my opinion, most individuals would be thinking about "what
is the monetary value to me of the service I get from Grex". However this
dilemma is solved for members, as the nature of dues as a donation is well
established, and set by the organization (and recognized as tax deductible
for charitable 501(c)3 organizations). I think the same concept applies to
organizations joining as institutional members - they will rather have
fixed dues and a sense of membership support for the purposes of the
organization, than continually being pestered to make a monetary
contribution. 

Re #11: Jan suggests many other categories of donations to Grex. I agree
completely with him that donations should be more widely encouraged, and
acknowledged. This is a separate question, however, from accepting
organizations as Grex members. 

Re #15: voting. It is usual for organizations to receive a single vote as
institutional members of a membership organization. All (3) of the
membership corporations with which I have been most closely involved
permit this. I learned yesterday (by reading their Web pages carefully)
that our WIN Consortium colleage, HVCN, accepts organizations as members
with a vote.  Also Institutional Members of an organization usually take
their democratic responsibilities seriously, and direct their vote in
accord with their own procedures. The danger that one member gets more
than one vote is no more real than the danger of (say) collusion, in
voting, between two friends (or spouses). 

Re #16: while I have supported allowing organizations to have closed
conferences, this is not an issue in amending the bylaws to permit
organizations to become members. Other privileges would have to be adopted
through new policies. 

#16 also raises the question of increased load on Grex. I do not think
that the number of organizations that would join as institutional members
would be significant compared to the number of individual users. It is
possible, though, that encouraging the participation of organizations
would also encourage more of their own members to become individual users
and members, the latter increasing financial support of the system. 

The last point suggests a further benefit of having institutional members
- that members from organizations participating on Grex would increase the
possibilities for new and interesting conferences arising from the
purposes of those organizations. 

response 19 of 25:

Nov 30 03:34 UTC 1995

  Grex already has institutional logins of a sort...Grexohio has a login,
Spiral is the login of the Eye of the Spiral pagan group.  I am led
to believe in both cases the passwords are passed around to members of
the groups and it doesnt seem to be harming anything.  

And I didnt know an issue is dead for all time if it is voted down once...
I'd think the issue of closed confs at least where institutions are
concerned, might be worth re-considering.

response 21 of 25:

Nov 30 12:22 UTC 1995

From the overview of HVCN which I heard you give the Cable Commission
the other day, it seems HVCN will almost be specializing in linking
organizations.  So in a way the two groups will do exactly what you
stated should happen, communication needs are met by sharing resources
not with each organization trying to be all things to everyone.

response 23 of 25:

Dec 1 01:27 UTC 1995

Indeed, Mary, HVCN is doing some of the things that I wanted Grex to try to
do, but Grex doesn't seem interested in doing them. This is not what I wanted
for Grex, but the community will be OK, because HVCN will meet that need.

Yes, it is probably better in the full scope of things to have two systems
with distinct purposes. That way they can cooperate better without that
perception that one group is stepping into the "turf" of the other.