|
|
| Author |
Message |
valerie
|
|
Questions to the Candidates
|
Dec 4 17:51 UTC 1997 |
This item has been erased.
|
| 35 responses total. |
valerie
|
|
response 1 of 35:
|
Dec 4 17:56 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
valerie
|
|
response 2 of 35:
|
Dec 4 18:04 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 3 of 35:
|
Dec 4 21:21 UTC 1997 |
1. Resources, not just hardware and phone lines but also staff. We are
getting hard to manage at our size.
2. No.
3. Yes.
4. Freedom of speech is important. I don't like obscenity much, but we can't
satisfy everybody.
5. Depends on the situation. I'd resign if things got too busy to ever do
the board work (not that much work to do, mostly).
|
mary
|
|
response 4 of 35:
|
Dec 4 22:06 UTC 1997 |
(Good questions, Valerie!)
|
other
|
|
response 5 of 35:
|
Dec 4 22:06 UTC 1997 |
1) What do you see as the most pressing issues facing Grex?
> Functionality (read speed and reliability), Membership growth (public
>awareness)
>
>2) Should board meetings be conducted by Robert's Rules?
> Nope. The president should strive to maintain order, and the board as a
>whole should strive to function in an orderly manner. If this is so, then
>a structured procedure is unnecessary.
>
>3) Should Grex seek 501(c)3 status?
> Yes. It was the original intent, it may well increase donations, and since
>we try to maintain the standards anyway, why not obtain the benefits as well?
>
>4) Which is more important, freedom of speech or freedom from obscenity?
> Freedom of speech is a basic element in the construction and maintenance
>of a free society. Who defines obscenity, or the freedom from it?
5) At some point in the future while you are a member of the Grex board of
directors, if you found yourself really busy with other activities and unable
to devote much time to being on the Grex board, how would you handle it?
I would try to weigh the time I had available against the time requirements
of my position and if I felt I could not reasonably and properly fulfill my
responsibilities in that time, I would either drop other activities, or resign
my position, depending on personal priorities.
7) Should members have access to more dial-in modems or other perks than
non-members, as an incentive for non-members to join?
I don't know. I think there should be *some* incentive, but I'd like to
devote some more time to brainstorming and considering.
|
aruba
|
|
response 6 of 35:
|
Dec 4 22:50 UTC 1997 |
1) I think the most important thing is to keep Grex a healthy, viable
community. Grex succeeds because it has a lot of people who think it's a good
place. The most important thing is keeping those people and gaining new ones.
2) I will admit that there are times when I wish the board meetings were
more orderly and, if not professional, then at least focussed. I don't think
we need RRO though.
3) If Grex can obtain 501(c)3 status without having to make any major changes
to our culture, then yes, definitely, we should go for it.
4) Freedom of speech is more important to me.
5) If I were too busy to do work for Grex, I would ask for help. If I felt
that someone else would really do a better job and Grex would be better off
without me, I'd resign.
6) I'd like to add a thank you to Valerie for entering this item!
7) I guess I draw the line between one-time perks and ongoing perks. I
thought giving out Grex handbooks to new members was a good idea, but I
think having extra phone lines comes too close to "providing services for
payment" for me.
|
mta
|
|
response 7 of 35:
|
Dec 5 01:36 UTC 1997 |
Lessee, I'll save question one for a later because it's very important and
I'd like to consider it for a while. Other than a crying need to get up on
the 670, which we're working on, I don't se Grex as being in crisis right
now.
2)Nope. The board doesn't need RRO right now. Maybe someday if the
temperament of the system and of the board changes a great deal we might, but
I think we actually get more done (and maintain a more friendly
atmosphere)without 'em./
3)Yes, I think we ought to go for 501c3 status. I agree with the other
candidates who have said, we're already sticking to guidelines -- why not get
the benefits, too, as long as it doesn't require a major change in our
community to do so. (I don't think it does.)
4)While I abhor obscenity, I abhor censorship more. I will always vote for
free speech if the issue comes up.
5)If I were too busy to meet my responsibilities, I certainly step down, just
as I'm stepping down as secretary of the board. The good of grex is very
important to me.
6) I want to keep access to grex as open and equal as we possibly can. I
think that extra lines or ongoing percs are a mistake since they would
fundamentally change the character of our community. One of the reasons I
was interested in helping to found Grex was in response to the problem of the
growing disparity between the information "haves" and the information
"have-nots". I don't think that the ability to pay membership dues is the
only 9or the best) criterion for how valuable a presense an individual is on
grex.
|
dpc
|
|
response 8 of 35:
|
Dec 6 00:14 UTC 1997 |
Very helpful responses to valerie's questions!
Now I have a question just for mta. At the last Board meeting,
some rather unpleasant comments were apparently made about large-sized
people. Apparently you expressed some serious reservations about
staying on the Board because of this. I would appreciate some more
info. What exactly was said? What exactly were your feelings?
How do you weigh your commitment to the Grexers who elected you
to serve a full term against your desire not to be insulted?
|
mta
|
|
response 9 of 35:
|
Dec 6 07:43 UTC 1997 |
It's over, it was inadvertent, and if I thought there was any chance it might
happen again, especially intentionally, I would have regretfully left. Given
how it was worked out amongst us, I feel comfortable committing to another
term on the board.
However I don't think that serving on the board should *ever* expose a board
member to insults or insensitive remarks. I wouldn't tolerate that sort of
treatment of anyone else and I was relieved to find that neither do my fellow
board members.
As to exactly what was said or by whom, I prefer to leave the incident in the
past. Suffice to say that some of the remarks were insnsitive, but none were
directed at me or intended to be offensive.
I am commited to serving the grex community, as I've shown through my many
years of working on Grexes behalf. But no, I won't do it at the cost of my
dignity. I wouldn't think anyone would be expected to.
|
dang
|
|
response 10 of 35:
|
Dec 6 17:37 UTC 1997 |
1. Usability (hardware and software improvements, staff time to impliment
them, etc.) Membership. I'd very much like to see the fraction of users who
are members higher.
2. no. I think RRO is a needless imposition. The board meetings run fine
now, as far as I'm concerned.
3. Yes.
4. Freedom of Speech. Obscenity doesn't really bother me. Censorship does.
5. If I really didn't have enough time, I'd step down in favor of someone who
does.
6. Nothing add at the moment.
7. No, I don't think there should be "for pay" differences other than those
necessary to keep the sytem running and a good netazin.
|
mziemba
|
|
response 11 of 35:
|
Dec 8 05:55 UTC 1997 |
(1) MOST PRESSING ISSUES - Grex must maintain healthy growth cycles
harmonious with its resources in order to continue to provide meaningful
community.
(2) ROBERT'S RULES - Grex need not conduct board meetings with Robert's Rules
of Order, unless it is deemed useful by the board. The small size and
small amount of time devoted to meeting don't seem to warrant it, now.
(3) 501 (c) 3 STATUS - I'm unfamiliar with the significance of 501 (c) 3
status, at this time.
(4) FREEDOM OF SPEECH VS. OBSCENITY - Freedom of speech is certainly the more
important of the two freedoms. It does not, however, absolve of us the
responsibility to foster constructive dialogue.
(5) TIME CONFLICTS - Grex has been a meaningful environment of community for
me, and I'm willing to make a board position a balanced high priority in
my life. If that ever failed to be the case, I would work with the board
to alter the situation in an acceptable way.
(6) ADDITIONS - I'm an open-minded listener, a capable organizer, and a
flexible planner with a particular interest in constructive social
interchange. I'm currently mostly visible on Grex in the music conference
and as a host of an upcoming Grex book club. I manage, professionally,
and I'm involved with tutoring at an Ann Arbor middle school.
(7) MEMBER PERKS - I don't know that Grex has the resources to spare, at this
point, to offer enticing perks for members that wouldn't compromise the
system, as a whole. It's certainly worthwhile to investigate this as a
possible avenue of boosting membership, so long as it doesn't conflict
with Grex's resources and non-profit status.
|
valerie
|
|
response 12 of 35:
|
Dec 9 01:58 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
davel
|
|
response 13 of 35:
|
Dec 9 11:10 UTC 1997 |
Then you're out of luck, Valerie.
|
richard
|
|
response 14 of 35:
|
Dec 9 22:54 UTC 1997 |
#12...which is the problem I keep pointing out. You like all these
candidates and have no real reasons not to vote for any one of them,
so it becomes simply a popularity cont. Lacking any compelling
issues to differentiate candidates, you simply vote for the ones you
know best. Which means the same people get re-elected again and
again.
I thin of the deserving new people a chance to serve on the board,
is to change the bylaws as follows:
"No member of the board may run for consecutive terms unless, at the
end of a nominating period, there is not a full slate of candidates
otherwise running. Any current board member will normally be
eligible to run again after not being on the board for at least one
term".
The current setup, where members of the board can serve consecutive
terms makes it much harder for any new person to get elected. I
think there are enough qualified grexers who would do a good job on
the Board that it warrants this further restriction on election
eligibility.
|
mary
|
|
response 15 of 35:
|
Dec 9 23:31 UTC 1997 |
I had no trouble deciding who to vote for and I appreciated
having lots of choices. The more candidates the better.
|
remmers
|
|
response 16 of 35:
|
Dec 10 00:36 UTC 1997 |
Any more questions for the candidates?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 17 of 35:
|
Dec 10 02:29 UTC 1997 |
Re #14: I do not like term limits in any form - good people should be
kept around. Elections are the preferred mechanisms for changing office
holders. Cronyisms must be attacked by an active and alert membership.
"The price of liberty.....".
The word "normally" should not appear in bylaws.
|
aruba
|
|
response 18 of 35:
|
Dec 10 07:17 UTC 1997 |
Of course, you know, Richard, if you became a member you could make that
motion for real. (Sorry, I haven't made that taunt in a while, and I just
couldn't help myself. I realize I'm just asking for the standard "the
membership system is a fascist exclusionary system which allows the rich to
rule over the poor" response. But occasionally I just wish you'd put your
money where your mouth is, Richard.)
|
robh
|
|
response 19 of 35:
|
Dec 10 12:28 UTC 1997 |
<robh is tempted to propose it on Richard's behalf, just to
enjoy the peace and quiet when it gets defeated and richard
doesn't enter any responses for a few weeks>
|
nt
|
|
response 20 of 35:
|
Dec 10 14:27 UTC 1997 |
TRUTH is always BITTER
|
richard
|
|
response 21 of 35:
|
Dec 10 16:22 UTC 1997 |
sheesh, this isnt congress or the senate (Im opposed to term limits for
most public offices) Grex is just a club basically that would ed benefit
from having as many people involved as possible. The same people getting
elected and re-elected all the time makes that much more difficult. As
long as there are so many people who would do a good job on the board, my
suggestion is perfectly logical.
(
And as to rob's last response, Ive said many many times that the reason I
am not a paying member is because I disagree with the established criteria
for membership. I disagree with the restriction that one cannot become a
member under any circumstances unless money changes hands, especially when
all monetary contributions here are referred to as "donations" NOT fees.
If after 3+ years on grex, starting and fw'ing several confs and being an
active participant in much of what goes on here, I cannot prove my
committment to grex unless money exchanges hands, I think that is
wrong. Everything in this world always comes down to money and I find it
a
f
m
a
|
richard
|
|
response 22 of 35:
|
Dec 10 16:28 UTC 1997 |
I cut mysel off...I was saying that it is sad that everything in this
world always comes down to money, and that even in an otherwise
enlightened place like grex, criteria for membership not based on
something coming out of one
's wallet cannot be established for membership.
I love grex, Id have contributed money to it a long time ago (and
would certainly do so if grex were in a real financial crisis anyway)
if I felt ike I could have a voice here regardless of whether I
contributed anything. If I felt anyone could be a member regardless
as long as they had demonstrated by staying around and being active
for a period of time, that grex is a place that interests them and has
value to them.
Membership shouldnt be about money. It should be about committment,
and that is something one demonstrates, not something one buys.
|
valerie
|
|
response 23 of 35:
|
Dec 10 17:20 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
davel
|
|
response 24 of 35:
|
Dec 10 18:10 UTC 1997 |
Re #22: Richard, I assure you that you have no less of a voice here than
you would if you contributed anything at all to the system.
|