response 20 of 299:

Aug 26 14:08 UTC 2002

Re #15: I've never seen a truely full-duplex speakerphone.  If they exist I
bet Grex couldn't afford one.

Re #18: If someone who doesn't live near Washington is elected President,
they invariably move there, though.  So the analogy would be to let someone
run for the Grex board as long as they moved to the Ann Arbor area if they
won. ;)

response 26 of 299:

Aug 26 15:02 UTC 2002

There's an amendment procedure specified in the bylaws.  Basically,
any member of Grex can propose an amendment; there's a discussion
period in Coop; then an online vote.  So the simple answer to why
this particular bylaw has never been amended is that no Grex member
has ever proposed that it be amended.

Rane raises an interesting point in #11.  Depending on how one
interprets "face-to-face", it may be possible to allow non-local
board members without any change to the bylaws.  

In any case, however, the policy followed should reflect what the
members want.

response 32 of 299:

Aug 26 15:07 UTC 2002

Re #28:  As I noted in #26, nobody's ever proposed that the "face-to-face"
provision be amended.  I'll also repeat that any member of Grex can 
propose an amendement at any time.

This item should be linked to Coop.

response 34 of 299:

Aug 26 15:49 UTC 2002

At least remmers caught it. A telephone presence at a board meeting IS
"face-to-face", because Michigan law says it is. 

(Not knowing this is a consequence of md's observation in #13. It is
useful to know Michigan corporate law if one is trying to run a
Michigan corporation.)

response 38 of 299:

Aug 26 17:33 UTC 2002

resp:36 - Can you for once stop correcting everyone's posts?  That's 
becoming highly annoying on so many levels.

Regarding the subject at hand, Mynx, you could be more constructive.  
All I hear from you is about being pissed off and how "unfair" it is.  
We ought to want to decide what's best for grex as a whole, not what's 
best for one individual whining about how he or she thinks it is 
unfair.  Is it just you you're concerned with, or do you actually care 
about other remote grexers aside from yourself?  You don't think that's 
selfish? It may be outdated, but it's not "unfair."  

By the way, a minor (and, admittedly, rather petty) point:  Your case 
is not as valid as Brooke's, jp2's, beeswing's, or individuals in 
Toledo who are physically unable to get to Ann Arbor, if you've managed 
to get up here for reasons of enjoyment and drive back the same day.  
So it would be possible for you to be a BOD member without changing the 
bylaws.  Changing the bylaws because you Don't feel like driving is a 
tad bit frivolous.  Yes, you live a fair distance away, so we don't 
have to debate that.  But put this all in perspective, no?
________________________________________________________________________

I'm done singling out folks out now.  Now to be constructive myself.

The idea that simply because other boards do it means Grex ought is an 
incredibly silly argument that cannot stand on its own.  Just as 
different ethnic groups have their own distinctive cultures, so too do 
cyber communities.  Grex has always been a very in person, face-to-face 
oriented organization as far as the business end goes.  While that does 
not automatically mean it should remain this way does not mean it is 
wrong, either.  Instead of barking about how unfair it is and 
throwing "community" in others' faces, why not approach it from that 
level of understanding?  More progress would be made that way, I 
think.  How would not expanding interaction of the greater community, 
in favor of conceding to the person that whines the loudest, solve 
matters at all?

I do think it is a good idea to discuss this and decide once and for 
all how this should play out.  Grex did start with just Ann Arbor 
members, and expansion should be made to accommodate a growing 
membership outside of grex.  There are several ways this could be 
handled, if all of the very unnecessary ire over the subject was put in 
its proper place.

If the amendment could be changed to allow the BOD to include members 
from outside of Ann Arbor . . .
    - Does this mean that all seats are up for grabs for both local 
      or remote members, or will there be a limit to this amount? 
OR
    - Can seats to the BOD added that are solely to be filled by
       individuals remotely?

    - Should an international seat be offered, or would the board
      membership continue not to include those users as well?

    - Does this mean that officers can be remote members if    
      they cannot physically get to A2 for each meeting?

    - How can this be set up to accommodate schedules of individuals 
      away from the local meeting, especially those who may live in a
      different time zone?

    - Can some meetings be set up so that remote members give their
      opinions via e-mail to the other participants on the meeting and  
      voting be cast the next day, with the other half of scheduled
      involved live discussion with all members, including the remote
      representatives?

In order for the "will of members" to be known, we should all be 
voting.  Many of us, however, are not.  In order for the needs and 
wishes of users systems wide, whether they be members or not,there 
should be more communication.  If non-members really want key changes 
to take place, they've got to become members and vote for them.