|
Grex > Coop > #39: Member Proposal: Create Three Classes of Grex Accounts: Users, Community Users, Validated Users |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 150 responses total. |
scholar
|
|
response 125 of 150:
| 
Sep 12 21:54 UTC 2007 |
This response has been erased.
|
cross
|
|
response 126 of 150:
|
Sep 12 21:55 UTC 2007 |
please do.
|
scholar
|
|
response 127 of 150:
|
Sep 12 21:57 UTC 2007 |
I think the way people are trying to railroad this through, especially
cmcgee's threat to do it even with the anaemic support we're receiving
from the members, is a disturbing departure from the way Grex has
functioned since its inception.
That's the short of it, and I'll post the long of it, including better
solutions to the problems Grex is facing, in another item when I have a
bit more time.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 128 of 150:
|
Sep 13 00:39 UTC 2007 |
When I said "I support this", I meant I supported this measure to be
voted upon by the membership. I'm sorry I was not clearer.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 129 of 150:
|
Sep 13 00:59 UTC 2007 |
Let's be clear here. Mark Conger first raised this issue in this
conference on March 31, 2007, for inclusion in the April 1 board agenda.
A through explanation of the board discussion was posted on April 2nd.
We have also had more than a month of discussion since I posted the
initial draft on August 6th. This seems to be a fairly traditional
pacing for discussions and decisions on Grex. If anything, it may be
overly slow.
You, scholar, have visited this conference frequently since then. You
have had numerous chances to contribute to the final shaping of this
proposal.
Now you get to vote on it. It may pass, it may fail. If it passes, the
Board will implement it to the best of its ability. If it fails, the
Board will try to solve the problems some other way.
Stopping the vote will not stop the problems, nor the Board's duty to
try to solve them.
|
scholar
|
|
response 130 of 150:
|
Sep 13 06:28 UTC 2007 |
Hey, guess what, the membership wants the Board to follow the by-laws.
|
scholar
|
|
response 131 of 150:
|
Sep 17 00:50 UTC 2007 |
I can see Grex is continuing with its illegal vote...
|
unicorn
|
|
response 132 of 150:
|
Sep 17 03:00 UTC 2007 |
And why are you getting so excited about what you perceive to be an
"illegal vote"? Are you not the one who tried in vain to convince
me to forge a message in someone else's name to support the proposal,
and got all upset because I refused to do it? And are you not the
one who then suggested that if I was unwilling to do that, that I
should go ahead and set up the vote anyway (under the assumption
that because it was suggested by cmcgee that I take that responsibility,
that the responsibility was mine)? And again, are you not the one
who got all upset because I refused to do so? And now you're pretending
to be the ethical one who insists on doing everything by the book?
Why is that?
|
krj
|
|
response 133 of 150:
|
Sep 17 03:24 UTC 2007 |
I support bringing this proposal to a vote. Sorry, I hadn't been
paying attention and forgot about that requirement.
|
krj
|
|
response 134 of 150:
|
Sep 17 03:30 UTC 2007 |
(( MOTD announcement about the election should be updated to include
the END of the voting period, which is now of more concern to
voters than the BEGINNING of the voting period. I'd do it myself
but I don't know when the end is... ))
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 135 of 150:
|
Sep 17 03:32 UTC 2007 |
krj, try refreshing your browser cache. gelinas fixed that on Saturday.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 136 of 150:
|
Sep 17 03:35 UTC 2007 |
I see. The MOTD is not changed, but the Backtalk page is.
|
scholar
|
|
response 137 of 150:
|
Sep 17 22:12 UTC 2007 |
re. 133: it's too late for your support to be valid.
re. 132: it's not too late for you to start making some sense here.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 138 of 150:
|
Sep 19 13:49 UTC 2007 |
I finally got onto the machine today. I've now updated the motd.
I re-counted the endorsements; I found, in addition to nharmon, support for
voting from remmers, mary, cross, scholar, gelinas and slynne, all seven of
whom are members.
|
scholar
|
|
response 139 of 150:
|
Sep 19 21:08 UTC 2007 |
At no point did I endorse taking this motion to vote.
|
remmers
|
|
response 140 of 150:
|
Sep 19 23:12 UTC 2007 |
Assuming the online member list is up-to-date, there are 56 members, so
6 is a sufficient number of endorsements.
|
denise
|
|
response 141 of 150:
|
Sep 20 00:24 UTC 2007 |
If you want/need another, I endorse the vote...
|
gelinas
|
|
response 142 of 150:
|
Sep 20 02:35 UTC 2007 |
"I wholeheartedly support this proposal and will definitely be voting for it"
(scholar, response 41 above).
"I reiterate my endorsement and suggest others endorse as well" (scholar,
response 71 above).
|
scholar
|
|
response 143 of 150:
|
Sep 20 21:02 UTC 2007 |
Right. I was endorsing the proposal, NOT endorsing taking it to vote.
Same with Nate (He said something like 'I support this').
|
scholar
|
|
response 144 of 150:
|
Sep 20 21:04 UTC 2007 |
It should also be noted that my interpretation is the one set out as correct
by the by-laws, and that hcmsgee didn't endorse taking the proposal to vote
either.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 145 of 150:
|
Sep 23 00:58 UTC 2007 |
The Treasurer has certified the list of voters, and I have counted the votes.
Twenty-four people, fifteen members and nine non-members, voted. The members
voted 14 to 1 in favor of the proposal, so the proposal passed. The
non-members voted 6 to 3 in favor of the proposal.
|
krj
|
|
response 146 of 150:
|
Oct 1 21:00 UTC 2007 |
Party-land has a couple of returning long-time users who "we"
would like to get tel and mail privileges added for.
Their old accounts were reaped, so they appear as newbies
under the new rules.
How're the implementation details on this coming along?
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 147 of 150:
|
Oct 1 21:20 UTC 2007 |
As I understand it: cross finished the "add first class (new) users to
the second class group" script before he left; unicorn and gelinas are
each looking at how to put second class people back into first class"
script.
Board created the "porters" group at last board meeting; gelinas
populated that group with the board members.
Next board meeting we need to add any other members to the porters
group, and decide how to handle inter-group communication for the
porters. Then we can start adding first-class users to the second-class
group.
Primarily we're waiting on the completion of the script. Right now, you
can send mail to help@grex.org asking staff to add specific userIDs to
the 2nd group. As always, staff will be the ones to decide whether to
block a user ID. Porters will only be able to move IDs between the two
groups.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 148 of 150:
|
Oct 2 01:19 UTC 2007 |
(I see that the group "porters" exists and has been populated as cmcgee
described, but I didn't do it.)
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 149 of 150:
|
Oct 2 01:21 UTC 2007 |
uhhh, ok, it was unicorn then.
|