You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-20   20-28         
 
Author Message
9 new of 28 responses total.
kentn
response 20 of 28: Mark Unseen   May 14 03:40 UTC 2010

OK, so are there any other opinions of our mission?  It has been in
place for almost 20 years and while it was well-written and for at least
some of that time was what Grex did, do we need to change it now?  Or
change how we're running Grex to be more in line with the original idea
of what Grex should be and do?  Or both?

It doesn't hurt to review the purpose of an organization periodically,
especially if times change and the organization seems to be drifting
from its original purpose.
mary
response 21 of 28: Mark Unseen   May 14 13:50 UTC 2010

Would changes to our mission mean we'd need to update our 501(c)3 filing?  
If so, I say we let it ride for now.
kentn
response 22 of 28: Mark Unseen   May 14 14:24 UTC 2010

As long as we adhere to the general principles of our filing in our
operations, I don't see any issue.  To expect nothing to change in 20
years is a bit much.  If we modified our mission to do something totally
different, then I'd expect we'd need to make sure our filing was still
okay.  We're not doing anything totally different.  In fact we're doing
essentially the same thing we have been doing all along (for example,
computer conferencing, discussion).  I don't think we are proposing to
do something totally different, either.  At least, I have not heard
such a proposal. 

In terms of our ideals, I don't think we're too far off from what we
want to be (though that is something it's good to revisit from time to
time), so in that sense we can leave the principles as-is.

The next step, though, whether we change principles or not, is making
sure we're operating in agreement with those principles.
rcurl
response 23 of 28: Mark Unseen   May 14 19:29 UTC 2010

As long as we don't violate the terms of 501(c)3 we can do *anything*. However
there are a few hoops tojump through. See

http://is.gd/c990F
kentn
response 24 of 28: Mark Unseen   May 14 19:48 UTC 2010

Thanks Rane.  That would be a good reason not to change our principles.
But, as for operations, we're still doing essentially the same thing
yet, we probably need to review a few things to make sure we're still
in line with our status.  As I've pointed out, it's a good idea to
review this sort of thing every once in a while to make sure we're
still on track.  
kentn
response 25 of 28: Mark Unseen   May 15 13:19 UTC 2010

Of course, I don't think we're planning on changing from doing medical
education conferences to assisting children like the organization in 
the link information.  That is definitely a change in purpose for an
organization and would require re-review.  
remmers
response 26 of 28: Mark Unseen   May 23 14:06 UTC 2010

Grex (or more properly, Cyberspace Communication, Inc.) is a
Michigan not-for-profit corporation and as such is legally bound
by its Articles of Incorporation: 
http://grex.org/cyberspace/articles.xhtml

Here's what the Articles say about our mission:

    The Corporation is organized for such charitable and
    educational purposes as may qualify it for exemption from the
    federal income tax under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal
    Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (or the corresponding
    provisions of any future United States internal revenue law.)
    More specifically, such purposes include, but are not limited
    to, the advancement of public education and scientific
    endeavor through interaction with computers, and humans via
    computers, using computer conferencing. Further purposes
    include the exchange of scientific and technical information
    about the various aspects of computer science, such as
    operating systems, computer networks, and computer
    programming.

Is anybody thinking of taking Grex in a direction that's wholly at
variance with this?  I'm inclined to doubt it and in any case, the
mission statement is open-ended enough to give us a lot of
flexibility to tweak things, I'd think.  Note the "not limited to"
escape hatch, in particular.

Whatever else it is that we might want to do, I do think that Grex
could benefit from a major facelift to the conferencing software,
which is solid and stable but *SO* 1980s.  My feeling is that the
rigid and venerable conferencing model on which Grex (and M-Net,
and a few other systems) is based needs a serious re-do in the
direction of more flexibility, probably by recasting it as a web
service with an open API.  Something that would facilitate the
development of third-party clients, in much the way that can
currently be done with Twitter, Netflix, and any number of other
web services.

Of course I realize I'm not being very specific at this point, and
that I'm talking about a fairly major project.
rcurl
response 27 of 28: Mark Unseen   May 23 20:29 UTC 2010

As long as it doesn't get fancier (and therefore harder to use) than at
present....
cross
response 28 of 28: Mark Unseen   Jul 11 16:20 UTC 2010

Just do it and see what happens.  No one said we'd have to shut off 
backtalk or fronttalk if there was another conference option available
on  Grex.  Could this be the second system that Mary proposed, or at
least a  prototype of some such thing?
 0-20   20-28         
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss