|
Grex > Coop8 > #81: Minutes of the June 26, 1996 Board Meeting | |
|
| Author |
Message |
srw
|
|
Minutes of the June 26, 1996 Board Meeting
| 
Jun 29 20:54 UTC 1996 |
Minutes of the Board Meeting of Cyberspace Communications, Inc.
Wednesday, June 26, in the dining room in the basement of the Michigan Union.
1. The meeting was called to order at 7:37 PM by Scott Helmke
Members Present:
Scott Helmke (scott), President
Mark Conger (aruba), Treasurer
Steve Weiss (srw), Secretary
Misti Anslin (mta)
Steve Gibbard (scg)
Rob Henderson (robh)
Absent:
Valerie Mates (popcorn)
Others present:
Damon Andre' (dea), Glenda Andre' (glenda), STeve Andre' (steve),
Rob Argy (ajax), Jonathan Baker (kain), Jeffrey N.C. (coyote),
Chimera (wolfg676), Bill Hosmon (wh), Joylynn Howie (nix),
John Remmers (remmers), Mary Remmers (chelsea), Dan Romanchik (danr),
Marcus Watts (mdw),
2. Treasurer's Report (aruba)
Mark Conger reported that we took in about $1000 this month, broken down as
follows:
$511.50 auction
$462 dues
$24 miscellaneous
$6 mug sales
The number of current members has dropped too87, 5 of whom are new this month.
Our current expenses are $400, so for the first time in three months, we
covered those expenses with membership revenues.
3. 501(C)(3) committee report (aruba). nothing to report
4. Computer Rehabilitation Committee report. (scott) nothing to report.
The current status is the same. We have 3 XTs and we are looking for a home.
5. Publicity Committee. (mta)
Misti had not arrived when this agenda item came up so it was moved lower
down in the agenda.
6. Technical Committee (steve)
* STeve reported that the hardware is doing well.
* Averaging 5.5 days between crashes. This is pretty good, actually.
* There might be an unapplied patch to fix the mbuf problem which causes
some of our rare crashes.
* We are experiencing 2600 login sessions per day.
* We tried installing another 32 MB of RAM, but it didn't pas the internal
memory diagnostics -- we still don't know if we can get more than 128MB to
work properly. We could use the extra memory if we can get it to work, as
we are swapping when the system gets busy.
* STeve has coded a program to control groovy's power remotely from Grex.
* Our 8mm tape drive may need service.
* Modems still need to be programmed and put in service.
* Groovy (terminal server) still crashes and loses its admin pw regularly.
STeve Andre' has been rebooting it regularly. Steve Gibbard is going to work
on it, and may remove it from the dungeon. It is only used for the staff
line, at present.
10. Newsletter Committee (mta) - Nothing to report.
11. Auction Committee (robh)
We have three items left. We have earned about $800 when it is all collected.
12. Grex has to move
This agenda item was deferred until the end of the meeting.
13. Changing to Centrex Service
There was general agreement about Centrex service, pending a determination of
the costs. Dan Romanchik expressed concern about the costs, especially.
Mark Conger agreed to find out what the costs would be.
14. People's Food Coop discount - Tabled.
Because Valerie was not able to attend this meeting, we decided to table this
question until the next meeting.
15. .yes/.no files policy
STeve Andre spoke against these, especially the .yes files. Most of the other
attendees appeared to favor this. Mark Conger expressed that he was
uncommitted either way. Scott Helmke, Mary Remmers, Glenda Andre', and
Steve Weiss all spoke in favor.
The arguments against them were that they tended to foster cliques or
fragmentation of the community. The arguments in favor that they suppressed
harassment, especially of women, and would permit some to open their
permissions tat are now closed to all incoming requests.
MOTION (srw,scott) Moved that the board express no objection to the
installation of software that allows a user to filter or permit other
specific users to send them real-time messages.
VOTE: 3 in Favor (scott, robh, srw)
None opposed
2 Abstained (scg, aruba)
2 Absent (popcorn, mta)
PASSES
John Remmers expressed interest in working on the project of making this
feature available.
16 New Business
Steve Weiss pointed out that in individual web sites on Grex there are
beginning to appear files which are not specifically excluded by our rule
that excludes multimedia files, are nevertheless of questionable desirability.
Java applets were cited, but there are other things, too.
Srw will post a summary of this in coop, and we can discuss there the merits
of extending our ban. No action was taken.
12 (from earlier) Grex Has to move.
The Ann Arbor Building Department has ruled that we cannot stay in our
current space because it does not qualify as office space.
We and our landlord are appealing this decision.
While this is going on, we are trying to find space that meets our needs
without it costing too much. Privately, and confidentially various staff and
board members are contacting people at possible locations to explore then as
possible new homes for Grex. There are many considerations that affect
the decision. Steve Weiss suggested a grid be created with criteria for
evaluating the various possibilities against each other.
The following suggestions were made for inclusion on the Grid. It will be up
to the board (with advice from staff) to determine the weightings of these
categories in relation to each other, and to determine the final choice.
These are in no particular order.
* Keep 761-3000
* 24 hour access (and related issues - how many people, is bonding needed)
* Legality of occupancy
* Cost (rent)
* Heat/ventilation
* internet link (applies to locations which might have special advantages,
or disadvantages) and related questions, like how many hops from Merit.
* lease. Will we be able to set up a long-term home there.
* Liability insurance (is it required? - a disadvantage)
* Power and phone availability
* Parking
* Rest rooms available
* Security
* Handicap accessible
* Landlord Sanity
(I am sure there will be others, but these were presented at the meeting.)
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:45
Respectfully submitted, Steve Weiss, Secretary <srw@cyberspace.org>
|
| 35 responses total. |
scg
|
|
response 1 of 35:
|
Jun 29 23:40 UTC 1996 |
Thanks, Steve.
For the record, my abstention in the vote on the .yeswrite and .nowrite files
was because the board normally doesn't have anything to do with software
upgrades, so adopting a policy that we don't object to something seemed like
just an extension of current policy.
|
aruba
|
|
response 2 of 35:
|
Jun 30 02:06 UTC 1996 |
My abstention was because I'm not sure I like what .yeswrite files could do
to Grex culture.
|
robh
|
|
response 3 of 35:
|
Jun 30 07:16 UTC 1996 |
I'd like to say how pleased I was with the number of new
faces I saw at this meeting, and I hope we endeavor to have
more Board meetings in accessible locations, and not at ITI.
|
scg
|
|
response 4 of 35:
|
Jun 30 07:30 UTC 1996 |
I agree. I proposed switching back to the Union in the hopes that it would
maybe help us get a few people outside of the usual board meeting circle
walking in, and we got a lot more than a few. It was a little noisy, but I
think it was worth it.
Of course, I don't think meeting in the Union will be possible once the
University starts up again in the fall and all the students are back. We'll
have to figure out what to do at that point.
|
scott
|
|
response 5 of 35:
|
Jun 30 12:03 UTC 1996 |
The Union was nice, but pretty much at the noise limit. We can't meet there
with the students back.
|
robh
|
|
response 6 of 35:
|
Jun 30 14:06 UTC 1996 |
True enough. Once we finish scouring the city for places
to put Grex, we should do the same for places to put our meeting.
|
rickyb
|
|
response 7 of 35:
|
Jul 1 18:12 UTC 1996 |
perhaps, both the same?
|
robh
|
|
response 8 of 35:
|
Jul 1 18:29 UTC 1996 |
A board meeting in a 100 square foot room? The seven board
members would have a hard time squeezing in, never mind others
who wanted to attend...
(If we get commercial space that has meeting rooms available,
that's another story.)
|
rickyb
|
|
response 9 of 35:
|
Jul 1 20:31 UTC 1996 |
(that's what I meant :-)
|
kerouac
|
|
response 10 of 35:
|
Jul 1 20:52 UTC 1996 |
Wait a minute....if the vote not to object to the coding of .yes/.no writes was
3-2-2, then the motion did not have the affirmative vote of a majority of the
board. Unless somebody wanted to change their abstention, it should have been
tabled until the next board meeting. Even when a quoroum exsists, it should
never bea majority of the quorum but a majority of the whole b oard that is
required to initiate action or pass a resolution. In congress if only half the
house of representative show of for a vote, it doesnt matter if a majority of
those who voted approved a lqaw, it is still not a majority of the entire
voting body so it cannot be passed.
supposed everybody but robh abstained? does his one vote pass it under those
circumstances? Besides, if people are choosing to abstain from voting, that is
a good indication that further discussion is needed. It should be put back on
the agenda at the next meeting.
|
robh
|
|
response 11 of 35:
|
Jul 1 21:23 UTC 1996 |
A majority of those board members present voted in favor.
End of story.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 12 of 35:
|
Jul 1 21:38 UTC 1996 |
yeah but it should never be just a majority of those present. If only 5
members show up, four of the five should have to vote yes so it constitutes
a majority of the entire board. A board member who does not attend a meeting
should be treated like an absention. therefore there were really 3 votes
in support and four abstentions.
|
scott
|
|
response 13 of 35:
|
Jul 1 21:41 UTC 1996 |
...which makes it worthwile to show up!
There are arguements both ways on how majority *should* work, but this is the
Grex way.
|
robh
|
|
response 14 of 35:
|
Jul 1 22:03 UTC 1996 |
"Should" is all well and good for you, ker, but absentee board
members do not count for anything in the voting process. That's
how it *does* work.
|
scg
|
|
response 15 of 35:
|
Jul 1 22:51 UTC 1996 |
Also, I think in general that abstaining and being absent are not the same
thing. Since Mark and I abstained, that left a board of five, three of whom
were there and voted for the motion.
Not that it matters, of course. This was a vote not to change policy, and
if it had failed, we wouldn't have changed the policy. For our vote to have
done anything, a majority would have had to vote for a motion to object.
|
jenna
|
|
response 16 of 35:
|
Jul 2 00:05 UTC 1996 |
right.. abtasining is not the same as being absent. it is
like removing yourself from the voting body for the purpose
of this vote, thus leaving 5 voting people to decide. 3 of whom
voted in favori of.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 17 of 35:
|
Jul 2 07:47 UTC 1996 |
That is correct - and in accord with Robert's Rules (!).
|
rickyb
|
|
response 18 of 35:
|
Jul 2 11:41 UTC 1996 |
re #17:
Roberts Rules of Order ? ! ?
These have no p[lace at the grex-table! ;-)
|
scott
|
|
response 19 of 35:
|
Jul 2 11:55 UTC 1996 |
Please, we've argued RRO to *death* in the past... let's not start *that*
discussion again.
|
brighn
|
|
response 20 of 35:
|
Jul 2 15:07 UTC 1996 |
I move that Grex abandon RRO and use Kerouac's Rules of Order instead.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 21 of 35:
|
Jul 2 15:44 UTC 1996 |
I checked the bylaws, because I thought they included a discussion of
exactly this situation, since it was discussed heavily at Grex founders
meetings. However, the bylaws don't specify, and I don't remember what
the decision at the founders' meetings was. I remember there was a
distinction between "important votes" and "unimportant votes", where the
number of people required to pass a motion differed depending on whether
the vote was considered "important" or not. But that distinction applied
to votes of the members, not to votes of the board. I don't think anything
about board votes is codified, other than the number of people it takes to
make quorum.
I'm content to say that if the number of board members voting for a
proposal is more than the number voting against it, it passes.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 22 of 35:
|
Jul 2 19:18 UTC 1996 |
I think board members should be able to vote regardless of whether they attend
the meetings or not (unless its someting really crucial) Valerie didnt need to
be at the meeting and hearthe .yes/.no discussion. She should have been
allowed to vote beforehand electronically if she was going to be unable to
atttend.
Since the agenda and issues that are to be voted upon are posted beforehand,
there is no reason all board members should not be able to render an opinion on
every issue.
You will never have out of town people be able to serve on the board without
establishing criteria for voting in abstentia.
|
ajax
|
|
response 23 of 35:
|
Jul 2 19:26 UTC 1996 |
The final wording of motions to be voted on are rarely, if ever, prepared
before a board meeting. Out of town people can serve on the board just
fine, if they come into town for the board meetings. If they can't attend
the meetings, and thus can't hear the issues being discussed, I don't know
as I'd want them voting on the issues.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 24 of 35:
|
Jul 2 20:27 UTC 1996 |
but why cant the final wording of the motions be worked out beforehand, or
something? This doesnt seem like a big obstacle. There are too many good
people who are disqualified from sitting or running for the board because they
cannot travel hundreds of miles to attend a meeting in person. Like Mike
(Nephi) He's on staff but he could never be on the board unless he committed
to drive all the way up from McKendree. This is silly and should be amended to
require only that a board member must abstain from specific crucial votes if
he/she cannot be there in person. Like a vote on a new home for grex for
instance, because you cant vote on a place you havent seen. But most votes
dont require in-person attendance to be fully informed.
If grex wants nonlocal people involved, this is something to be considered.
|