|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 299 responses total. |
mynxcat
|
|
response 137 of 299:
| 
Aug 28 20:24 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 138 of 299:
|
Aug 28 20:35 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 139 of 299:
|
Aug 28 20:37 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 140 of 299:
|
Aug 28 21:06 UTC 2002 |
party automatically announces who the speaker is with each line entered.
I agree that some ground rules would have to be set, but I don't think
they'd have to be extensive, so long as they were agreed to by all
attendees.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 141 of 299:
|
Aug 29 00:44 UTC 2002 |
The (small) point that I was making is that when everyone is physically
present the chair can pick a raised hand and call on that person. In
party or over the phone there could be a simultaneious clamour of
members announcing themselves and therefore harder for the chair to
pick one. I agree that everyone should identify themselves over the
phone, but that's a different problem.
|
jep
|
|
response 142 of 299:
|
Aug 29 01:33 UTC 2002 |
I think we should draw a distinction between remote Board members
calling in via conference call, and an on-line Board meeting conducted
via party. I wouldn't want the failure of one of these ideas to
automatically lead to dismissal of the other.
|
other
|
|
response 143 of 299:
|
Aug 29 02:45 UTC 2002 |
The idea here is to try the one we can try now without additional
hardware or expense, and see it if works. We're not going to draw
conclusions about anything else just on the basis of the results of this
experiment (assuming it happens at all).
|
gelinas
|
|
response 144 of 299:
|
Aug 29 03:06 UTC 2002 |
Re #114: That's not a "conspiracy"; it's "majority rule."
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 145 of 299:
|
Aug 29 03:44 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 146 of 299:
|
Aug 29 04:13 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 147 of 299:
|
Aug 29 05:01 UTC 2002 |
I am in favor of trying an online board meeting, but have just been
pointing out some circumstances that may arise. I believe that these
possible difficulties can all be overcome, and a bad "practice" would
not be a reason to give up the game.
|
scg
|
|
response 148 of 299:
|
Aug 29 07:44 UTC 2002 |
I've had a lot of experience over the last few years with meetings via
speakerphone, and I've never had the sorts of problems gull thinks are
inevitable. Certainly, such problems can exist, but they're solved pretty
easily if they're not declared to be unsolvable.
The ideal way to have conference call meetings is with those Polycom
speakerphones, which have microphones facing three different directions, and
also some external mics to put at the far ends of the table. I have no idea
how much they cost. The $150 ATT full duplex speakerphone I have at home
isn't quite on that level, but does pretty well. A lot of other phones (even
phones that are expensive for other reasons) throw in half duplex
speakerphones just to be able to list them as a feature, and those don't work
very well.
Cost can be handled a bunch of different ways. Phone companies will sell you
a conference bridge, but those are expensive. Many companies have
MeetingPlace, or something like that, running on their PBXs, since that's
cheaper than paying a phone company for every conference they want to set up,
so it's possible you could get somebody's employer to donate use of their
conferencing system during off-peak hours, when the Grex board meetings
generally are. Alternatively, for some greater than one but not large number
of remote board members, you can set up a conference through your local phone
company's switch for somewehre around 75 cents per call. Beyond that, you've
got the long distance phone charges, which at five cents per minute comes out
to three dollars per hour per remote board member.
That leaves the issue of finding a room with a phone line (speaker phones,
large crowds, and the low bandwidth codecs used in digital cell phones are
a bad combination). A corporate conference room (anybody have an employer
who would let a crowd borrow a conference room for one evening per month?)
would likely include both the phone line and the Polycom. If that's not
available, I think HVCN, or WIN, or some such group once had a meeting in a
hotel that allowed the use of a conference room on the condition that
everybody order food. Alternatively, does Zingerman's still offer wireless
Internet access to their customers? A notebook computer with a good sound
card and an external microphone could make a very nice VOIP speakerphone.
How's the sound quality on Net2Phone and its rivals?
|
md
|
|
response 149 of 299:
|
Aug 29 10:51 UTC 2002 |
The speakerphone thingie that sits in the middle of the table is not
perfect. It certainly isn't as good as face-to-face, and it can be
annoying sometimes. If you're looking for something that's as good as
a face-to-face meeting you're not going to find it. You just have to
accept all of that and make up your minds to deal with it, if you want
to have meetings that include out-of-area members. I've participated
in more such meetings than I can count, some high tech with giant
screen video, and some minimal tech with just the thingie sitting in
the middle of the table. If you really want to do it, you'll accept
the system's shortcomings and just get on with it.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 150 of 299:
|
Aug 29 13:30 UTC 2002 |
resp:145 - That's rather dismissive of you, Sapna. Disruptive meetings
result in issues that do not get resolved, time wasted and frustration
for all involved. You call that minor? If nothing gets accomlished
because the meeting format does not work, there is a problem. Don't
overlook that simply because you want to get your way.
resp:149 - This is not a "get over it and get on with it" issue.
Neither is it a "you'd do it if you really wanted to" issue. You're
talking about investing in equipment as well as what will work best
given the facilities the board has to choose from, the quality of the
technology, and other variables that ought be considered. If all of
that isn't considered and the board purchases equipment that doesn't do
the job, then people will start complaining that grex isn't responsible
with its money.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 151 of 299:
|
Aug 29 13:58 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 152 of 299:
|
Aug 29 14:06 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 153 of 299:
|
Aug 29 14:23 UTC 2002 |
resp:132 - I didn't say anything about Christmas. Randy's just being a
dolt. This time of year a lot of folks vacation, especially when you
get around October. Nothing will be resolved before the next board
meeting, I suspect, and as you get closer toward the end of October,
you're getting into the start of Board meeting election "season." If
this is a Bylaw change, how much are you going to want to get into
trying to do that when half of the board may not be there? So the
decisions either need to made fairly soon, or a working plan should be
in place, at least, before the elections start.
resp:151 - You make it sound like this is an "Us versus them" thing.
Please then say what you mean, as opposed to simply dismissing
someone's argument, then there's no need to explain youself more often.
It's more of the style of the meeting. Although there is an agenda, it
is rather free form in that if something needs to be discussed, a
usually reasonable amount of time goes by before someone suggests that
it is time to go onto the next agenda. If this were employed, the
meeting would simply have to be structured differently. Actually
that's going to be the case for employing any new meeting format. It's
now a matter of deciding what technology fits grex's approach best,
keeping the spirit of the original idea while utlizing new technologies.
Spots should be added to the board to represent remote representatives.
|
jp2
|
|
response 154 of 299:
|
Aug 29 14:40 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 155 of 299:
|
Aug 29 14:54 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
randyc
|
|
response 156 of 299:
|
Aug 29 15:07 UTC 2002 |
Me a dolt? How cheeky!
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 157 of 299:
|
Aug 29 15:10 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 158 of 299:
|
Aug 29 15:11 UTC 2002 |
I've been a remote user for most of my time on Grex. I still might as well
be one, since I've never attended a board meeting -- about the only
difference now that I'm "local" is I occasionally use the dial-in lines.
I've never gotten the impression that my input was unwelcome. If you feel
your input is not being considered, you may want to look at the way you
present your ideas before you start claiming discrimination.
|
jp2
|
|
response 159 of 299:
|
Aug 29 15:31 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 160 of 299:
|
Aug 29 15:42 UTC 2002 |
The conflict could also be resolved by killing all the non-Jews.
|
jp2
|
|
response 161 of 299:
|
Aug 29 15:43 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
