|
Grex > Coop > #277: Board Meeting - 23 May 2010, 18:00 | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 73 responses total. |
slynne
|
|
response 25 of 73:
| 
Jun 3 01:14 UTC 2010 |
resp:24 I think that is an excellent idea, Kent.
|
richard
|
|
response 26 of 73:
|
Jun 3 02:19 UTC 2010 |
I don't think there is anything in the bylaws that would allow
election of a 'temporary' board member. Just vacate his position and
fill it normally, but with an unofficial understanding that whomever
gets elected agrees to resign when he returns if he wants the job back.
|
tonster
|
|
response 27 of 73:
|
Jun 3 03:47 UTC 2010 |
wow, we're seriously talking about kicking a guy serving in the military
off the board? is there a clamor of people waiting to sit on the board
I haven't seen? Is there REALLY that much business that is going to be
so contested that his vote is vital for that couldn't wait a few months?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 28 of 73:
|
Jun 3 04:30 UTC 2010 |
It is quite normal and not an insult or indictment of anyone if they are
unable to attend most board meetings and so step down so that the board
can appoint someone that can attend. When the person returns, they can
again run for the office in the usual way. No one needs to be "kicked
off". This is not a matter for getting worked up about. It happens all
the time in most organizations. I've done it.
Some organizations have bylaw provisions that terminate a board member's
service if they miss some specified number of board meetings in some
period of time. It is at least worth considering what would be
reasonable in this regard for Grex, even if not in the bylaws, in which
case persons can act upon their expectations of absence.
|
slynne
|
|
response 29 of 73:
|
Jun 3 14:41 UTC 2010 |
resp:27 I wouldn't support kicking him off the board permanently but I
don't see that it is insulting to fill his position temporarily while he
is gone. when is he coming back anyways. I would be willing to fill in
for a few months.
|
richard
|
|
response 30 of 73:
|
Jun 3 18:54 UTC 2010 |
tonster, grex couldn't have a board meeting in May because they
couldn't make quorum. Surely you can see that it is responsible for an
organization to have board members who are available. What if all the
board members were serving overseas? You'd just shut grex down rather
than 'insult' military members? Please. Its not about respecting or
disrespecting anything, its about what might need to be done to
continue conducting business.
|
slynne
|
|
response 31 of 73:
|
Jun 3 19:24 UTC 2010 |
On a side note, I think grex needs to change the requirements for a
quorum if that is even possible. Either that or reduce the number of
board members.
|
kentn
|
|
response 32 of 73:
|
Jun 3 20:46 UTC 2010 |
If we can't get any more members (and I'm not counting those who were
given "membership" for purposes of voting in the election), and we run
out of our 6 month moratorium on board members being members, there will
only be two of us with paid memberships (as far as I know; treasurer has
not given us a membership report yet). So, we'll again be hard-pressed
to have an election if we need one (whether to replace board members or
to change the by-laws).
|
slynne
|
|
response 33 of 73:
|
Jun 3 20:54 UTC 2010 |
right. I am not currently a member. I am a bit short on cash at the
moment but should be back to my normal cash flow soon. (I'm buying a car
with all cash and forgot about the $600 in sales tax).
|
richard
|
|
response 34 of 73:
|
Jun 3 21:10 UTC 2010 |
re #32 so what are you implying, that after the six month moratorium
expires that Grex should again consider shutting down for good?
|
kentn
|
|
response 35 of 73:
|
Jun 3 23:57 UTC 2010 |
No, that Board Members need to, to the best of their ability to pay,
renew their memberships. And that we need to encourage other people to
become members or renew their memberships. That, of course, also means
we need to do more than keep a system running, such as provide software
and/or services that encourage people to use grex more. Unfortunately,
we're still dealing with system instability. One solution to that, buy
a new system, would mean paying out the majority of the money we have
(and with no memberships to pay for operations). And we still have no
clue what we'd do with a new system other than what little we are doing
now.
|
richard
|
|
response 36 of 73:
|
Jun 4 03:26 UTC 2010 |
Grex needs to prove it can attract new users before it can justify
buying a whole new system. It cannot attract new users without a
fully open user. Staff made a fatal decision when it agreed to let
Cross put in his patch on newuser so that newusers have to be
verified. Newusers that are asked to wait to be verified won't, don't
and haven't stayed around. By the time staff waves their wands and
says, 'thou art not evil, thou art worthy of grex', they are gone.
But again and again board meetings happen and nobody agrees to take
that patch out.
|
tod
|
|
response 37 of 73:
|
Jun 4 03:55 UTC 2010 |
perhaps richard can fill in for cross while he's off banging afghan chicks?
|
kentn
|
|
response 38 of 73:
|
Jun 4 14:10 UTC 2010 |
Yeah, talk is cheap. Volunteering takes more effort than most would
like to give.
|
lar
|
|
response 39 of 73:
|
Jun 5 10:52 UTC 2010 |
"re #22 why is Cross even on the board if he's out of the country for
the rest of the year? "
er...maybe because he's worth a hundreds pinko faggot morons like you?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 40 of 73:
|
Jun 5 14:03 UTC 2010 |
Can't say I'm too keen on the idea of booting Cross from the BoD.
|
jgelinas
|
|
response 41 of 73:
|
Jun 5 15:38 UTC 2010 |
The bylaws were changed to allow participation by telephone. So far,
Dan has attended the meetings that have been held, to the best of my
recollection. We discussed his continued participation before he left;
he did not think it likely to be any more of a problem than it has been
for the other remote Directors. I don't see that the situation has
changed.
And yes, if we cannot get the members to support the Corporation, then
grex *should* shut down. I don't _want_ it to shut down, but my wants
are not particularly important.
|
slynne
|
|
response 42 of 73:
|
Jun 5 23:52 UTC 2010 |
IF Dan has been attending board meetings by phone, there is no reason
for us to even be having this discussion. He's one of the best board
members grex has ever had.
|
tod
|
|
response 43 of 73:
|
Jun 6 02:51 UTC 2010 |
he's like STeve minus the bad memory chips!
|
lar
|
|
response 44 of 73:
|
Jun 6 04:54 UTC 2010 |
and the 400lbs of blubber
|
denise
|
|
response 45 of 73:
|
Jun 8 00:22 UTC 2010 |
As a reminder to the board and staff, there's a meeting scheduled for
this upcoming Sunday, 6/13 at 6 pm. Check your board or staff email for
location and phone #. See 0 in this item for the proposed agenda.
|
kentn
|
|
response 46 of 73:
|
Jun 14 02:28 UTC 2010 |
Thanks to all the board members who attended tonight's meeting and the
others who came and contributed to a good discussion.
Thanks, Denise, for allowing us to use your home for our meeting.
|
mary
|
|
response 47 of 73:
|
Jun 14 13:36 UTC 2010 |
Yes, thank you for having us over. And thanks in advance for figuring out
how to summarize what was a long and twisty discussion. I don't think I
could do it sober.
|
denise
|
|
response 48 of 73:
|
Jun 14 19:34 UTC 2010 |
I'm glad to be able to help out. The minutes have been posted; other
attendees can add things that may have been missed in my notes.
|
tsty
|
|
response 49 of 73:
|
Jun 14 20:29 UTC 2010 |
#27 of 48: by Tony Publiski (tonster) on Wed, Jun 2, 2010 (23:47):
wow, we're seriously talking about kicking a guy serving in the military
off the board?
ummm, no ... that was just some chad-esque chaff that has benn knownd to
distract real conference thoughts nwo and then.
|