|
Grex > Coop11 > #38: Nominations for the Board of Directors | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 126 responses total. |
jiffer
|
|
response 18 of 126:
| 
Nov 4 20:15 UTC 1998 |
I think keesan would be helpful, not everyone (alot of people in fact) don't
know alot of things about computers. You could put a fresh light on how users
feel, I hope that Keesan will think about it some more. I am also sure alot
of board and staff members would not mind explaining things (I should hope)
.,
|
rcurl
|
|
response 19 of 126:
|
Nov 4 20:22 UTC 1998 |
I served on term on the board. The board is sort of an extension of staff,
with a lot of discussion of technical matters by board members, rather
than just accepting or rejecting the proposals from the staff. Further
than that, I discovered that my expertise in non-profit organization
functioning and management was not as useful as it could have been, as a)
little of that is done, and b) established informal practices rather than
good business practices rule the day (e.g., Robert's Rules of Order are
not followed except in a sort of pot-pouree of what people think they
remember). I should also say that I enjoyed the experience and made some
contributions - but the long techie digressions were a bit tedious, and
should have been delegated to someone to obtain the answers and make
recommendations.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 20 of 126:
|
Nov 5 03:36 UTC 1998 |
I would *love* to think that someone like Sindi was asking staff to explain
things in plain english. One measure of a techie's high-level understanding
of a system is their ability to make simplified, but accurate summations about
the system. If staff can explain things to someone non-technical, then
they've probably thought through the problem to a parsimonious solution.
It is the job of a board to set policy and future directions, not to solve
hardware problems.
|
mdw
|
|
response 21 of 126:
|
Nov 5 04:38 UTC 1998 |
Actually, it's not the board's job to do either. To "set policy and
directions" is the job of all us members, right here, in this
conference. To "solve hardware problems" is the job of staff. But that
doesn't mean the board can just set back and do nothing. The job of the
board is really to be a catalyst, to make sure that all these things can
happen. And that means the board can't afford to be above all that
technical stuff, because that is, after all, what makes this system
possible. That doesn't mean *everyone* on the board needs to be
technically qualified; indeed, I'm sure Sindi would do fine. It just
means it would be a mistake if everyone on the board were to become
non-technical, and more interested in "properly implementing" ROR than
in worrying about how to improve the internet link.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 22 of 126:
|
Nov 5 06:13 UTC 1998 |
You have the experts suggest the solutions to improving the internet link.
There is, of course, no reason experts can't be on the board, but they
should do the problem solving *off* the board, and bring the alternatives
to the board (in simple terms). The board can then decided between clearly
presented choices. This is a good way to function, but it doesn't work
that way too well on Grex. If it did function this way, the board could
have a larger proportion of non-techies with knowledge of business,
finance, public relations - and contacts in the community for obtaining
support, etc.
I think another factor is that the majority of the membership reserve
their highest admiration for congenial techies. This is logical, as the
techies really control everything that is done, and the members are
pleased to see good things done.
One doesn't have to think about "properly implementing" ROR - they are a
simple list of procedures of expediting decision making, but making sure
the minority voice is not silenced. Most nonprofits proced under RRO with
no problem whatsover. A few groups, though, seem to have developed a prior
allergy to using any procedures that are written down. It is unfortunate
for the easy and logical management of board meetings, but that's how some
people are.
|
keesan
|
|
response 23 of 126:
|
Nov 5 17:41 UTC 1998 |
I nominate Colleen and Jiffer for board members. And I think that board
members should have been grex members for over ayear first, I have
not been, still learning the ropes. I will be happy to attend meetings when
I have time (Jim was sick during the last one so we stayed in). I do not even
know what an IC link is so prefer not to vote about it, I am really dumb as
concerns computers, just know how to type on them.
But thanks to all of you for your blind faith in me.
|
jiffer
|
|
response 24 of 126:
|
Nov 5 18:26 UTC 1998 |
I don't think I would be able to make the meetings, unluckily. I work till
8p on the weekdays.
Thank you for the nomination. =)
|
mdw
|
|
response 25 of 126:
|
Nov 5 22:53 UTC 1998 |
We've gone through ROR before, no need to rehash dead horses here.
|
scg
|
|
response 26 of 126:
|
Nov 5 23:26 UTC 1998 |
re 24:
The time for the board meetings is not set in stone. If a board member
can't make it to meetings because of the time, it would make sense to change
the meeting time.
|
other
|
|
response 27 of 126:
|
Nov 5 23:36 UTC 1998 |
re #25: We *could rehash dead horses here, but now it's illegal to do it in
California...
|
janc
|
|
response 28 of 126:
|
Nov 6 03:00 UTC 1998 |
Agree strongly with resp:24. Weekend evenings would be possible for
board meetings.
|
jiffer
|
|
response 29 of 126:
|
Nov 6 15:18 UTC 1998 |
Okay, I could work that out. =)
|
remmers
|
|
response 30 of 126:
|
Nov 7 00:24 UTC 1998 |
I accept the nomination. Thanks, Scott and Eric.
|
davel
|
|
response 31 of 126:
|
Nov 7 01:05 UTC 1998 |
I also think that it would be bad for the board to become
non-technically-able, but very good to have some members of the board who are
not technically oriented. Sindi, IMNAAHO you should reconsider.
(I also note that we're using "technical" in a somewhat limited sense.
Sindi's translation work is surely quite technical at times, for example.)
|
dpc
|
|
response 32 of 126:
|
Nov 7 01:14 UTC 1998 |
I would also support Sindi's candidacy, as a fellow non-techie.
|
keesan
|
|
response 33 of 126:
|
Nov 7 21:30 UTC 1998 |
I nominate Dave Lovelace and David Cahill for board members. I will be happy
to attend an occasional meeting but really do not know enough to make
decisions (i. e., vote). My technical expertise is in things like pharmacy,
chemistry, and botany, I don't even understand many of the words used in this
conference. I don't know what an IC is.
(Or what part of speech it is).
|
davel
|
|
response 34 of 126:
|
Nov 8 00:02 UTC 1998 |
I decline, for reasons too many to name, but thanks anyway, Sindi.
|
remmers
|
|
response 35 of 126:
|
Nov 8 11:44 UTC 1998 |
Re resp:33 - IC is the name of the company that used to provide our
internet connection.
|
remmers
|
|
response 36 of 126:
|
Nov 8 11:55 UTC 1998 |
People accepting nominations so far are, in order of acceptance:
Jan Wolter (janc)
Eric Bassey (other)
Jennifer Kriegel (jiffer)
John Remmers (remmers)
In addition, STeve Andre (steve) and Colleen McGee (cmcgee) have been
nominated but have not yet either accepted or declined.
Nominations close on Sunday, November 15. That's one week from today.
|
robh
|
|
response 37 of 126:
|
Nov 8 12:54 UTC 1998 |
I believe Dave Cahill was nominated back in #33, but has not
accepted or declined yet.
|
remmers
|
|
response 38 of 126:
|
Nov 8 21:27 UTC 1998 |
That's correct. Sorry for the omission.
|
dpc
|
|
response 39 of 126:
|
Nov 9 19:05 UTC 1998 |
I accept the nomination.
|
jep
|
|
response 40 of 126:
|
Nov 9 19:59 UTC 1998 |
Dave Cahill has been an excellent Board member for Arbornet.
|
scott
|
|
response 41 of 126:
|
Nov 9 20:27 UTC 1998 |
(I've emailed several people to see if they are willing to be nominated)
|
steve
|
|
response 42 of 126:
|
Nov 12 05:06 UTC 1998 |
Oops. Shoulda read #6 more closely. I accept.
|