| Grex > Coop12 > #124: Question about BOD bylaw |  |
| response 151 of 299: | 
Aug 29 13:58 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
| response 152 of 299: |
Aug 29 14:06 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
| 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.
| response 154 of 299: |
Aug 29 14:40 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
| response 155 of 299: |
Aug 29 14:54 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
| response 156 of 299: |
Aug 29 15:07 UTC 2002 |
Me a dolt? How cheeky!
| response 157 of 299: |
Aug 29 15:10 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
| 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.
| response 159 of 299: |
Aug 29 15:31 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
| response 160 of 299: |
Aug 29 15:42 UTC 2002 |
The conflict could also be resolved by killing all the non-Jews.
| response 161 of 299: |
Aug 29 15:43 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
| response 162 of 299: |
Aug 29 17:12 UTC 2002 |
161: Heh. I suggest you get used to it. So, has anyone looked into buying one of those conference call thingies yet? I think I saw them on sale at Sams or Office Max for $49.95. I have occasional meetings with a group of people in Birmingham and a group in Albany, NY, and it's cheap and low tech but adequate. Have to ask someone to "say that again" once in a while, and I remember one time we went through a good fifteen minutes of meeting before we realized the connection to Albany had been lost. Nobody has ever discussed upgrading to a fancier device because it works well enough for our purposes, which is a monthly meeting to discuss changes, procedures, special requests, problems, and so on. In fact, take away the millions of dollars and hundreds of jobs at stake and you probably have the Grex board meetings.
| response 163 of 299: |
Aug 29 17:15 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
| response 164 of 299: |
Aug 29 17:15 UTC 2002 |
(As an added advantage, once you start including out-of-area board members, Jamie won't have that excuse anymore. Nothing will stand between him and total personal rejection by Grex. Think about it.)
| response 165 of 299: |
Aug 29 17:17 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
| response 166 of 299: |
Aug 29 17:18 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
| response 167 of 299: |
Aug 29 17:19 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
| response 168 of 299: |
Aug 29 17:19 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
| response 169 of 299: |
Aug 29 17:35 UTC 2002 |
166: Nope, I'm either getting a haircut that day or else visiting my uncle Louie at the nursing home, I forget which. (You know, I think in #165 I figured out why this discussion makes Jamie so nervous.)
| response 170 of 299: |
Aug 29 17:39 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
| response 171 of 299: |
Aug 29 18:02 UTC 2002 |
Sense is the bone the burglar throws to the guard dog. I think I meant #164, not #165.
| response 172 of 299: |
Aug 29 18:08 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
| response 173 of 299: |
Aug 29 18:13 UTC 2002 |
You may be right.
| response 174 of 299: |
Aug 29 18:20 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
| response 175 of 299: |
Aug 29 19:03 UTC 2002 |
resp:167 - Now *that* is a useless potshot, not to mention plain wrong. One is "rejected" based upon lack of votes. Inability to attend board meetings is a legitimate reason not to vote for someone, even when the [currently hypothetical] "remote rep" option is available. Attendence is kept to make sure the current reps, all locals currently, attend meetings. People can look at those stats and see just how active a Board Member is, and use that as a basis for voting for or against them, should they choose to run for another term or later on down the road. If remote rep seats are added, there will always be an assured representation of users outside the reasonable travelling radius. I believe that remote candidates are a good idea, but not because of your rhetoric. Now, personally, I think you *are* trying to make this more controversial than it is, and an "us versus them" issue. Maybe I'm cranky, but it's as if you are trying to perpetuate this "outside looking in" air, and it gets old. Last I'm I checked, you were apart of this community, too. Of course, that's entirely up to you.