response 25 of 90:

Dec 18 03:26 UTC 1999

Thanks to everyone who ran, and congratulations to those who won seats 
on the Board!

response 27 of 90:

Dec 21 17:49 UTC 1999

why not change the bylaws so one board member position is an "at-
large" position who could be voted on by all grex users, not just
members in a separate election.  Wouldnt be unlike a city council where
there are usually one or two council members who  dont represent
districts, but are voted on "at-large" by the entire city population.

This would increase the likelihood of diversity on the grex board. And
we are only talking about one position on a seven member board, so 
the membership wouldnt be ceding any real power.

response 29 of 90:

Dec 21 22:05 UTC 1999

(richard forgot to take his grex-tourette's medication again...)

response 31 of 90:

Dec 21 22:58 UTC 1999

but see grex does have users who dont become members for other reasons--
such as international users in places like India where $6 a month is a
lot more money and its difficult to convert their currency into dollars.
Or users who live out of the area and decline to become members because
it isnt physically possible to come to meetings and voice opinions about
how the money is being used.

Having one seat out of seven, just one, as an at-large would not dilute
the paying memberships ability to exclusively make policy.  

I guess the underlying question, is that if dues are defined as "donations"
and as being "voluntary", how do you call them "mandatory" for membership
at the same time.  There is no such term as "voluntary mandatory"  If
grex was really enlightened, membership would be open to anyone who is
willing to provide validation of their identity and has been a user of
grex for six months or more.\

response 33 of 90:

Dec 22 00:31 UTC 1999

To use your examples, if someone isn't a member because they're from India
or out-of-state, chances are they aren't going to attend a board meeting.

Board meetings are open to the public, which include non-members.  They don't
get to vote.  How would being a non-member, non-voting member of the board
be any different?  

You donate money to Grex and gets perks.  That's like donating money to PBS
and receiving a monthly newsletter and discounts at bookstores.  Or, like
donating money to a marching band for a little card that gives you 15% off
at area music stores.  Think of it that way.

response 35 of 90:

Dec 22 01:09 UTC 1999

Two points:

Richard's suggestion, even if it had merit, wouldn't work in practice as
user's are annonymous, and someone could vote themselves 100 times in
different accounts.

I think there has to be more incentive for non-local Grexers to take up
membership.  Sure, they can vote in election, but they can't stand on board
because they're non-local.  Outbound Internet services aren't significant,
because they would've had to have telnet to reach us in the first place -
similarwith other Internet services.

Just food for thought.

response 37 of 90:

Dec 22 17:04 UTC 1999

I support grex because I want it to continue existing.
Sarah, you got my little joke about non-voting board members.
You do not have to attend board meetings in any capacity in order to discuss
grex policy issues.  Join coop.  Present your ideas to the board members
and/or the voting members.
How many grex users from India voted (as non-members) in the last election?
That was a good point made about anyone being able to open 100 new accounts
to vote for themselves anonymously.

response 39 of 90:

Dec 22 23:09 UTC 1999

you could open voting to all "validated" users (those who send in proof 
of identification to validate their login)  Then all validated users 
would be eligible to vote for the at-large board post, while only the 
paying members would be allowed to vote for the other six.

response 41 of 90:

Dec 22 23:23 UTC 1999

Oops...ambiguity...  by "fake ids" I meant "fake account names", not 
fake drivers licenses or state ids.

response 43 of 90:

Dec 23 02:57 UTC 1999

When you start encouraging members to join, for perks, you then
start selecting for voting members who think perks are great and
wonderful things.  In time I suspect a majority opinion along those
lines would leave us with a less diverse community which sees Grex
more like a for-pay than a non-profit service.

My opinion - we don't need members who are here for perks.

response 45 of 90:

Dec 23 04:01 UTC 1999

"for-pay" and "non-profit" are NOT mutually exclusive.  "Non-profit" just
means that the *owners* can't make money off it.  Staff can make oodles
of cash, and the corporation can bank lots more.  Merit Network, Inc. is
a non-profit that pays its staff reasonably well; the UM is another.

response 47 of 90:

Dec 23 07:32 UTC 1999

Legally speaking what separates Grex from other conferencing systems in terms
of providing "freedom of speech"?  

response 49 of 90:

Dec 23 22:54 UTC 1999

What separates us is that we don't sensor anything, not the cflirt conference,
not the annoying "quit exit help GET ME OUT OF HERE!" items in agora, and
definately not that hilariously odd stuff from Ali Naiman.