jep
|
|
The jep agenda: Board election 2013
| 
Dec 26 19:14 UTC 2012 |
I wrote the following in the item asking for nominations, foolishly
asking that it not be cause to take over the nominations item. I am
sorry for that.
This item is the place to argue over my agenda, and my other
qualifications and intentions if I win a seat on the Grex Board.
---
I have a specific agenda. I want Grex/Cyberspace Inc. to merge with
Arbornet. If necessary, Grex should disband and donate it's assets to
Arbornet. It could then use either the general conference as it now
uses agora, or ask for the grex conference to be renamed 'agora' and
it's usage changed to duplicate the current Grex agora.
The purpose is that there are not enough people to justify two systems.
Grex is not self-sufficient. It has no staff other than tonster who is
the staff of both systems, and i who acts as cfadm on the rare occasions
when that is needed. M-Net really isn't self-sufficient, either. It
exists on the sufferance of tonster who keeps both Grex and M-Net in his
basement, and through the continuing efforts of tonster and Greg Russo
(who acts as cfadm).
Arbornet's bylaws currently allow for there to be one Board meeting per
year, and for that to be done on-line.
There is currently no Board for Arbornet.
At present I do not represent anyone. I have not attempted to gain any
support for my agenda from either M-Netters or Grexers.
Beyond that agenda, I served on the Arbornet Board for several years,
though not currently. I have been treasurer, vice president and
secretary. I never missed a Board meeting, and I always promoted the
best interests of Arbornet. I think I would be an asset to
Grex/Cyberspace as well. I will serve if elected, even if my agenda is
not accepted, but I will persistently and energetically pursue that
agenda if I become a member of the Board. I expect it to pass if I am
elected.
|
jep
|
|
response 1 of 71:
|
Dec 26 19:36 UTC 2012 |
Both tonster and cross are opposed. They are also both staff members of
M-Net and Grex.
My initiative is not intended to resolve staff issues. I think it could
help, but that isn't the intention.
The purpose is that the two systems support a *tiny* number of users. I
would like to see the two communities join to become a more active
community. This could work. It may not, but it could. What we've got
isn't working. We're all waiting to see which of the exclusive list of
users lives the longest, then that person can shut down the system.
The purpose is that neither organization is sustaining itself. Neither
Grex/Cyberspace nor M-Net/Arbornet has regular board meetings or
elections any more. Neither one really needs them, either; they aren't
doing anything anyway.
The purpose is that things really can't get any worse. When you get
close enough to that point, it's time to make a change, and it doesn't
matter much what it is. For several years, I've been reading regular
items titled "Future of Grex", complaining nothing is changing. All
right, here's change.
The purpose is NOT to make everything be like M-Net, or like Grex. Even
if Grex shuts down and becomes part of M-Net, it's not going to do that.
Right now, three people could become members, call for an election, and
take over all of Arbornet. It wouldn't take much more effort to take
over Cyberspace Communications. (It is conceivable to me that I did
that already by nominating myself. If no one else wants anything here,
I will have an easy time of enacting my agenda.)
Eventually I'll post something like this on M-net's policy conference.
It is entirely a side benefit, and probably a silly one, but I have
always hated the name, "Cyberspace Communications". It doesn't describe
what this place is about, or was ever intended to do. It captures a
buzz word. That is all it does. It's a buzz word from 20 years ago at
that. It's like opening a tomato stand in 1958 and calling it
"Eisenhower Interstate Highway System, Inc.". If I can cause us to do
away with that name, it will be worthwhile.
|