|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 299 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 193 of 299:
| 
Aug 30 04:50 UTC 2002 |
The board doesn't seem to consider itself a source of new ideas (except
sometimes in regard to hardware). New *concepts* have to be implemented
by the members. There is a procedure. No one has any grounds for complaint
about new ideas not being implemented. It does take some effort, however.
You have to familiarize yourself with the current procedures and the
bylaws (and MI nonprofit law), and write reasonable and accurate motions.
This is usually too much for most people (as illustrated by jmsaul).
|
tod
|
|
response 194 of 299:
|
Aug 30 04:57 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
scg
|
|
response 195 of 299:
|
Aug 30 05:19 UTC 2002 |
Sometimes, it's more productive to try to figure out where the other people
in a debate are coming from and address their concerns, rather than ridiculing
them or making accusations.
It seems pretty easy to see why this would be seen as an "us vs. them" issue.
Grex members in Ann Arbor have historically been able to choose to run for
the board, and to serve if elected. Many of us have decided, for whatever
reason, that we wanted to do so. Whether that's a rational desire or not,
I don't know. By the end of my four years on the board, I was pretty glad
to be off it, but I did enjoy it for a while. For those who are currently
on the board, and who therefore presumably at one point wanted to be on the
board, to be telling other who may not be allowed to be on the board that they
are still full fledged members of the community and to stop complaining seems
to display a very basic lack of understanding of the other person's position.
How is somebody a full fledged member of the community if they're being denied
rights and privliges other members of the community can take for granted?
On the other side, there seem to be some legitimate concerns about the ability
of a remote person to participate in board meetings on the same level as a
remote person, and we've got people belittling eachother over that issue.
I don't think anybody would deny that having somebody joining by phone changes
the dynamics of a meeting a bit. The person on the phone can't be seen, so
jestures, facial expressions, and so forth can't be seen. They can't raise
their hand to be called on, so they just have to jump in when they have
something to say, but I'm not sure anybody ever raises their hand to be called
on at a Grex board meeting. Until the people on the phone get familiar with
the voices of the people in the room or on other phones (which usually happens
pretty quickly) people may need to identify themselves before speaking.
Occasionally something doesn't get heard correctly, and needs to be repeated.
As has been pointed out, it's a lot harder to hug somebody over the phone
(although I'm not sure I remember anybody being hugged at the Grex board
meetings I was at). When it's easy to walk over and see somebody, I'll almost
always choose that over phoning them. But as one of my former bosses used
to say a lot, "better is the enemy of good enough." It's great if everybody
can be together in person, but my feeling is that having people be able to
join by phone is probably good enough to be able to discuss issues and make
decisions, which is the actual purpose of the board. If there are reasons
why it isn't good enough, that's what we should be discussing here.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 196 of 299:
|
Aug 30 08:27 UTC 2002 |
fag.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 197 of 299:
|
Aug 30 08:32 UTC 2002 |
fag.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 198 of 299:
|
Aug 30 08:34 UTC 2002 |
fag.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 199 of 299:
|
Aug 30 08:34 UTC 2002 |
fag.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 200 of 299:
|
Aug 30 08:38 UTC 2002 |
fag.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 201 of 299:
|
Aug 30 09:21 UTC 2002 |
fag.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 202 of 299:
|
Aug 30 09:24 UTC 2002 |
fag.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 203 of 299:
|
Aug 30 09:43 UTC 2002 |
fag.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 204 of 299:
|
Aug 30 09:58 UTC 2002 |
fag.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 205 of 299:
|
Aug 30 12:56 UTC 2002 |
Re #193: Care to back up your claim about me, Rane?
|
gull
|
|
response 206 of 299:
|
Aug 30 12:57 UTC 2002 |
Re #183: I think the resistance to change isn't a matter of elitism. I
think it's more that Grex has done pretty well with things as they are.
That makes people reluctant to change things willy-nilly.
Re #184: I think people were pretty willing to consider non-local board
members, at first. What got them annoyed was the constant accusations that
because we hadn't immediately made this change, or because some people had
concerns about it, we're all a bunch of elitists and xenophobes. What did
you expect? Of *course* people got defensive and stubborn once the
name-calling started. Once that happened the chance for reasonable debate
pretty much ended.
This is a recurring technique for jp2 and a few other people. If they don't
get their way immediately, they try to force the issue by trying to bully
people with accusations of discrimination, bogus legal issues, or threats to
pull their memberships. Hint: Those tactics don't work here. Maybe they
work on mnet, I wouldn't know. But they're a very quick way to turn people
off on Grex, and eliminate any support you might have had.
|
jp2
|
|
response 207 of 299:
|
Aug 30 13:18 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 208 of 299:
|
Aug 30 13:43 UTC 2002 |
I had a much longer post, but I've changed my mind. I'm done posting.
I already know my opinion on the subject, and have stated it online.
This is going around in cricles, and I consider this item, though not
the issue, usless. No one's really listening to each other anymore.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 209 of 299:
|
Aug 30 13:51 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jazz
|
|
response 210 of 299:
|
Aug 30 14:32 UTC 2002 |
Of course "discrimination" is involved. I couldn't imagine that the
board of directors of any organization would not discriminate on the basis,
say, of candidates for the board being over six months of age. Ignore that
most people say "discrimination" when they mean "discrimination on the basis
of gender" - which is reprehensible as a hiring criterion but quite reasonable
when it comes to designing bathrooms - or "discrimination on the basis of
race". Since everyone is in agreement about what the criterion is here, and
understands that it makes some people ineligible, then it's a non-issue to
call it "discrimination".
Perhaps what you meant to say is "unfair discrimination", though that
does raise the responsibility of explaining what you feel is fair, and why
you feel it is not.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 211 of 299:
|
Aug 30 14:46 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 212 of 299:
|
Aug 30 14:49 UTC 2002 |
I'm pretty sure Jazz is smarter than you give him credit for. Stop the
nonsense.
|
gull
|
|
response 213 of 299:
|
Aug 30 14:54 UTC 2002 |
I think the only way to get around talking this in circles is to put
together a formal proposal and put it to a membership vote.
|
jazz
|
|
response 214 of 299:
|
Aug 30 15:12 UTC 2002 |
Unfortunately, Sapna, I don't think you have my meaning -
"discrimination", though the word is often used to mean something bad, isn't
inherently bad. It's often quite necessary. Saying people are being
"discriminated against" is rhetoric, therefore, not logic.
|
jp2
|
|
response 215 of 299:
|
Aug 30 15:30 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
danr
|
|
response 216 of 299:
|
Aug 30 15:45 UTC 2002 |
What he's saying is that someone who is currently a member needs to
make a formal motion as stated in the bylaw.
|
scott
|
|
response 217 of 299:
|
Aug 30 15:56 UTC 2002 |
To put it more bluntly: If the membership wants it, the board will do it.
Your job is to convince the membership.
|
