|
Grex > Coop9 > #7: Members with more than one vote |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 186 responses total. |
kerouac
|
|
response 125 of 186:
| 
Nov 25 17:31 UTC 1996 |
#124...the bylaws say that any member in good standing has voting
rights. It does not say "any member in good standing who is an
individual and not an organization" has voting rights. To say flat out
that the bylaws do not allow an organization voting rights is not true.
The bylaws do not say that an organization cannot itself be a member,
and they do not say that any paying member for any reason should be
excluded from voting.
|
scg
|
|
response 126 of 186:
|
Nov 25 17:47 UTC 1996 |
Right, by tI think the bylaws do define a member as a person.
|
janc
|
|
response 127 of 186:
|
Nov 25 18:29 UTC 1996 |
I think we need to amend the bylaws to create a separate member-like catagory
for organizations that support Grex. It's not really worth debating what the
current bylaws mean, since I think we should change them no matter what they
say.
Specifically, I think the rules should go something like this:
- Members must be individuals, not organizations.
- We create a new class called "benefactors" or something.
- Benefactors can be groups corporations or individuals. They do not
need to be validated.
- Being a benefactor does not by itself confer any special access on Grex,
but all benefactors will be acknowledged on a list of benefactors.
(Note we leave it open that some benefactors may get more, so the board
has at least the option of making different kinds of deals with outside
organization.)
- Benefactor donations can be in the form of goods and services. Thus
IC-Net is probably already a benefactor. (This opens some cans of
worms that may not be worth getting into (eg, are all the fairwitnesses
benefactors because of the time they donate?), so maybe it's a bad idea.
Maybe the bylaws should just say that you can become a benefactor by
donating $100 in the current year or by being named so by the board, thus
leaving non-cash ways of being benefactors undefined.)
|
tsty
|
|
response 128 of 186:
|
Nov 25 18:46 UTC 1996 |
is that reconcilable with the law(s) that make corporations "people?"
|
kerouac
|
|
response 129 of 186:
|
Nov 25 18:50 UTC 1996 |
But would "Benefactors" get the usual member perks (other than
voting?)
|
aruba
|
|
response 130 of 186:
|
Nov 25 20:11 UTC 1996 |
I have indeed changed the name on the account "convocat" to be The Magical
Education Council of Ann Arbor.
|
dang
|
|
response 131 of 186:
|
Nov 25 21:00 UTC 1996 |
This item is linked to coop 9
|
rcurl
|
|
response 132 of 186:
|
Nov 25 22:18 UTC 1996 |
You don't need to amend the bylaws to create a non-member designation like
Benefactors (I'd start with Supporters, however). "Member like" does not
count. Only classes of membership belong in the bylaws. While anyone (or
anything) could be a Supporter (Benefactor, starting at $10,000/a...), there
is some attraction for corporate users to be considered members. The
Institutional Membership that I have suggested would serve this purpose,
even without the right to vote. Non-member Supporters give only money;
Members, of whatever stripe, give more than money - a degree of belief in
the purposes of the organization.
|
janc
|
|
response 133 of 186:
|
Nov 26 05:15 UTC 1996 |
That's a good point. But we might need to clarify that members must be
individuals. Though that is pretty clear to me as written.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 134 of 186:
|
Nov 26 22:55 UTC 1996 |
A non-member group or organization donor catagory would
be quite nice. As long as we don't get into the business
of selecting which groups we approve of and which we don't.
Would folks have a problem with the Nazi party donating
and becoming sponsoring group? I wouldn't. Either we
should allow any group or no groups.
|
tsty
|
|
response 135 of 186:
|
Nov 29 05:32 UTC 1996 |
i see no problem with either 123 individuals joining as members who
also happen to be members of the same, but different (i.e., not grex)
organization. well, i guess i *do* see a 'problem.' however that problem
has always existed.
the rest of the 'either' is one ppl joining to represent the views of
122 other ppl who also happen to be members of .......
if there is a 'membership with voting rights requested' that loginid votes
and receives whatever other benefits membership includes.
i *am* a bit surprised that teh owner of convocat was given no choice
as tothe attached (chfn) name! at first blush that *appears* to smack
of an un-grexian approach UNLESS (and i do NOT know) aruba is the
owner of convocat. apologies in advance if convocat is aruba's other
account.
since grex welcomes all, (shudder) dominos could be a member with
single, full voting privileges and dominos and the nazis could hvae
their own conference for all that matters as far as grex is concerned.
besides, no one has tackeled the question about corporations being
legally classified as "people."
|
dang
|
|
response 136 of 186:
|
Nov 29 18:15 UTC 1996 |
Tsty, you were confusing the "Real name" attached to a account, the
"Conference Name" attached to an account, and the "Who owns the account" name
that is maintained purely by and for the treasurer, and is based on the id
given with the account. It was this last, which only the treasurer controls,
that was set to the person who registered the convocat account.
|
aruba
|
|
response 137 of 186:
|
Nov 30 03:46 UTC 1996 |
dang is correct.
|
tsty
|
|
response 138 of 186:
|
Nov 30 07:05 UTC 1996 |
oh?
grep convo /etc/passwd
convocat:x:6287:50:Magical Education Council of Ann
Arbor:/home/convocat:/usr/local/bin/tcsh
i guess i am confused - !really confused.
|
scg
|
|
response 139 of 186:
|
Nov 30 07:34 UTC 1996 |
I think the name in /etc/passwd was there before, put there by some user of
the convocat account. What aruba did was to change his records to agree with
that.
|
robh
|
|
response 140 of 186:
|
Nov 30 07:49 UTC 1996 |
Right. aruba (wrongly) assumed that the account was owned by Kami,
since she'd sent the check. The account's full name was always
MECAA.
|
janc
|
|
response 141 of 186:
|
Nov 30 16:16 UTC 1996 |
I think that record dates from danr.
|
tsty
|
|
response 142 of 186:
|
Dec 1 06:43 UTC 1996 |
aruba?
|
robh
|
|
response 143 of 186:
|
Dec 1 17:24 UTC 1996 |
#141 is probably true; if so, my apologies to aruba for implicating him.
|
srw
|
|
response 144 of 186:
|
Dec 4 18:08 UTC 1996 |
Yes, Mark explained back at the beginning of this whole issue that the
"situation" of having two voting accounts belonging to the same person
is a situation that he inherited.
|
tsty
|
|
response 145 of 186:
|
Dec 7 07:51 UTC 1996 |
aruba?
|
srw
|
|
response 146 of 186:
|
Dec 7 16:23 UTC 1996 |
Yes, Mark (aruba) Conger
|
ladyevil
|
|
response 147 of 186:
|
Dec 9 03:39 UTC 1996 |
I think Tsty is calling for Mark to come out and say something..
|
davel
|
|
response 148 of 186:
|
Dec 9 11:48 UTC 1996 |
Ok, but why?
|
popcorn
|
|
response 149 of 186:
|
Dec 10 21:29 UTC 1996 |
For verification, I guess.
|