| Grex > Coop12 > #124: Question about BOD bylaw |  |
| 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.
| response 176 of 299: |
Aug 29 19:10 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
| response 177 of 299: |
Aug 29 19:33 UTC 2002 |
Is that a threat or a treat, the M-Net policy conf.? I'm tempted to ring the doorbell and run. FWIW you *did* cut of the beginning of my last post. It does change the meeting slightly.
| response 178 of 299: |
Aug 29 20:01 UTC 2002 |
I would say, by the way, that the "reasonable trvelling radius" should probably be no more than two hours.
| response 179 of 299: |
Aug 29 20:04 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
| response 180 of 299: |
Aug 29 20:06 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
| response 181 of 299: |
Aug 29 20:09 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
| response 182 of 299: |
Aug 29 21:13 UTC 2002 |
resp:178 - Reasonable travelling radius, meaning the distance one should be considered "local," and therefore expeted to travel to grex meetings. Anyone outside of that radius could be considered "remote," and could serve without the expectation of being physically present during a meeting. resp:180 and resp:181 - These accusations aren't helping any. What, you think that anyone that is apart of the "old guard" accused of refusing to "give up control" will suddenly be pricked in the heart and say "okay, you're right." What is the "old guard," really? Founders? Locals? Users who do not agree with you? Just whom would this old guard of which you speak consist of? The last time I checked, grex was made up of individuals. Stop lumping everyone into one humogous category. You'll both get a lot more people willing to work with you. Do you even *want* there to be a conclusion, or are you simply content to create conflict and stir up resentment?