response 236 of 299:

Aug 30 20:32 UTC 2002

Re #233:  I think #229 was meant to suggest that if you want this idea to
get anywhere, you need to build consensus, not hit people with verbal sticks
and try to shame them into doing something.

response 238 of 299:

Aug 30 20:51 UTC 2002

fag.

response 240 of 299:

Aug 30 21:01 UTC 2002

re 226:
        If that's what the website says about the power of membership votes,
the website is not in agreement with the bylaws.  The membership and the board
could go back and forth disagreeing on an issue, and if the issue doesn't
become a bylaw ammendment, whoever has voted on it most recently would be the
one whose decision was in force.  The membership could put a stop to it either
by ammending the bylaws, or by recalling the board.  In practice, teh boards
have tended to be respectful enough of the membership that such a situation
has never happened.


It's certianly not surprising that a lot of people here like the status quo.
People tend to join groups they like, and not stick around long in groups they
don't like, so the people here tend to be the people who like things the way
they are.  But, when there are people here who are active members of the
community, who want to get involved, attacking and belittling them certainly
doesn't seem like a constructive way to respond.  From my perspective, as a
formerly much more active user (and staff member, and board member), now
glancing in occasionally from more than 2,000 miles away, scott, other, and
now bhelliom seem to be among the worst offenders in this regard.  This makes
me sad, since they're all people I've liked and respected for several years.

So, we've got some questions here.  There are certainly some benefits to
allowing people not from Ann Arbor to be board members.  We'd get a wider pool
of candidates for the voters to choose from.  At a point when the Grex staff
is pretty overburdened, it might be a way to draw in people who would be
useful volunteers in other ways.  It might bring some new perspectives to the
board, perhaps better representing the vast majority of our users (but
currently a minority of members, I think) who are not local to Ann Arbor. 
If nothing else, it looks like it would make a lot of people feel better. 
There are probably some benefits I'm missing.  What are they?  Then again,
there also some drawbacks.  Some have to do with technology.  A meeting space
would have to be found that would accomodate a speakerphone.  The board
members wouldn't all be able to see eachother while meeting, and wouldn't be
able to socialize with eachother on a regular basis.  Discussions might slow
down a bit, to make sure those on the phone could understand and be
understood.  It would dilute the power of the Ann Arbor locals, and perhaps
cause the Ann Arbor locals to have to give up some control over Grex's day
to day operations.  What else am I missing here?  Do the benefits of this
outweigh the disadvantages?

response 242 of 299:

Aug 30 21:08 UTC 2002

fag.

response 244 of 299:

Aug 30 21:13 UTC 2002

fag.

response 248 of 299:

Aug 30 21:28 UTC 2002

fag.

response 250 of 299:

Aug 30 21:38 UTC 2002

        When you're proposing an idea, though, there's a way to do it and a
way not to do it.  Accusing someone of being prejudiced, for instance, is more
likely to make them not listen to your proposal, whatever its' merits, and
whether or not they are prejudiced in fact.  There is no ethical compulsion
to state your proposal in a manner that doesn't generate cognitive dissonance,
but if you're proposing a change, you're generally proposing it to a group
that (as mentioned before) is somewhat conservative in keeping the values that
have worked for them before, so it's simply more expedient.

response 254 of 299:

Aug 30 22:18 UTC 2002

fag.

response 256 of 299:

Aug 31 00:17 UTC 2002

(having finally waded through this item...)

(in resp:17, mynxcat asks why Grex has never amended its bylaws 
to "allow" remote board members.  the simple answer is that a proposal 
to do so was never made.  the only time the issue has come up before 
in discussion [that I recall] was last year, when jp2 made a run for 
the board.  IIRC, he wasn't prevented from running.)

(for me, the discussion seemed to fall apart somewhere around resp:18-
30, but I continued to wade through, only to watch it fall apart again 
with resp:154, which IMO didn't at all reflect on the prior 
discussion.  I should note that there are a number of "long-time 
Grexers" [who, frankly, haven't been around as long as I have, if that 
stick must be waved] who, although they speak "loudly", do *not* speak 
for the rest of Grex, any more than you or I do.  I certainly wouldn't 
put much stock in their "historical" perspective, because they don't 
necessarily have it.)

(I'll also add that if you, the reader, are going to base your opinion 
of what the Grex community is or wants on the comments of a vocal 
minority, I suppose I can't stop you.  however, I would encourage you 
to try to give each user's argument the weight it deserves, which 
sometimes is none, regardless of whether they've bought a membership 
or not.  there's 80+ members, and the discussion in coop isn't always 
indicative of how the membership will vote.)

(in resp:184, cross asks why Grex can't have non-local board members.  
well, most of the preceding responses indicate to me that we CAN.  
having re-read the entire thing, I can safely say that there were only 
two responses *total* that expressed opposition to the idea.)

(also, reading the preceding comments as a whole, I notice that there 
are many users [members, even!] who seem sympathetic to a change that 
would allow board members to participate in meetings from remote 
locations.  all it would take is a written proposal by an interested 
party.  heck, there's disagreement over whether THAT'S even needed.)

(the only board member who I can remember stepping down due to not 
being able to attend meetings was mju some eight years ago, and he 
actually should have stepped down for other reasons that didn't become 
obvious until later.  however, I suspect that, had he wanted to stay 
on, accommodations would have been made.)

(FTR, I'm not a xenophobe.)

response 258 of 299:

Aug 31 00:32 UTC 2002

fag.