|
Grex > Oldcoop > #36: Grex Board of Director’s Meeting 11/25/03 | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 82 responses total. |
willcome
|
|
response 25 of 82:
| 
Dec 1 07:22 UTC 2003 |
VOIP!
|
bhoward
|
|
response 26 of 82:
|
Dec 1 13:43 UTC 2003 |
I assume that if elected to the board, I would carry the LD charges of calling
in from Japan since I would be calling into the meeting, not the other way
around.
Any idea what the local access charges would be for the person supplying the
cell phone?
In any case, it would be nicer if participation could take place via
i-chat or the like using zingerman's wireless access.
|
tod
|
|
response 27 of 82:
|
Dec 1 14:43 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 28 of 82:
|
Dec 1 15:59 UTC 2003 |
Hopefully a solution can be worked out that isn't prohibitive on both
sides. As for the sell phone charges, my guess is that it would depend
on the service in use.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 29 of 82:
|
Dec 1 16:00 UTC 2003 |
oops. Cell phone, damn it!
|
willcome
|
|
response 30 of 82:
|
Dec 1 19:25 UTC 2003 |
Remember: If jp2 gets elected, Grex'll end up paying big bucks. Is he worth
it?
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 31 of 82:
|
Dec 1 19:42 UTC 2003 |
I think some people misunderstood what I was trying to say. My concern
about call charges stemmed from the fact that it was stated that
a "cell-phone" may be used to take the incoming call from the non-
local board member. All minutes for incoming calls on a cell phone are
counted as air-time minutes and may be charged or are included in
the "Free" minutes on the phone plan. While I believe that the non-
local member should be responsible for any long-distance charges
incurred when they call into the meeting, my concern is who would be
held responsible for air-time minutes for the incoming calls.
Yes, the person whose cell-phone it is could treat it as a donation
and get the tax-deduction. But I'd like to see a more permanent
solution, one that didn't depend on someone's donation of cell-time,
or even depending on the fact that there is a cell-phone present at
the meeting. (And while we're on it, if a cell-phone is being used,
then it would make more sense for the board to call the non-local
member rather than the other way around. This way only the cell-phone
charges would be incurred, and the non-local member wouldn't have to
pay for it. But this is not what I'm driving at)
The whole internet thing using Zingerman's wireless access seems
viable, if it works, but again, we need to be certain that there is
computer access at the meeting. Or maybe moving the meeting location
to someone's house with a land-line.
Has this issue been discussed in the board-meeting? Or are we certain
that no non-local member would get elected anyways, making this a moot
point? ;)
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 32 of 82:
|
Dec 1 19:43 UTC 2003 |
RE 30> Take that to the mud-slinging item.
|
tod
|
|
response 33 of 82:
|
Dec 1 20:31 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 34 of 82:
|
Dec 1 23:00 UTC 2003 |
The part about Board's meeting place having "wired" capability seemed
to have been resolved with Zingerman's wireless access.
Could Zingerman provide a land-line that could be used, do you think?
I know it's a long shot, and I don't know how it's set up...
|
other
|
|
response 35 of 82:
|
Dec 1 23:03 UTC 2003 |
Given the small likelihood that their accounting system is set up to
deal with such a thing, I'd consider it unlikely.
|
mary
|
|
response 36 of 82:
|
Dec 1 23:39 UTC 2003 |
I'm looking into these issues and hope to have some answers
by the next board meeting, mid-December. I'll enter it here
too. Advice is very welcome.
Some of the possibilities include cell to cell, but speaker capability
gets weird here unless you're in a car. Even then, the quality is sucky.
Cell to a standard speaker phone looks easy enough although this may mean
we'd not be able to meet at Zing's. Still working on it. I don't think
use of limitless or mega-minutes would be an issue for anyone on either
end. I really don't think Grex needs a dedicated cell phone.
But the connection that intrigues me the most would have us using Internet
voice via computer - essentially using a computer to call our remote user
on his or her telephone. A number of companies offer this service,
supplying the software for free, and you purchase connection time in
advance. Airtime for calls to Japan run from 5-11 cents a minute, so a
board meeting would cost somewhere around $7.00. Doable, for sure. We'd
need find a low end laptop with a soundcard. I'd put Sindi on that one.
;-) Then we plug in a $12 microphone, and start talking. I think.
Anyhow, I'm not sure how Zing's would feel about our using their bandwidth
in this fashion, but I'm about to find out.
Then there is the possibility of using conferencing facilities at New
Center, WCC, or even Kinko's. But that may be way over the top of what we
can afford. It may be worth looking into that too.
I've send mail to all the remote candidates asking them how
they'd like to connect, should they get elected. Not everyone
has responded but it's only been a few days.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 37 of 82:
|
Dec 2 01:18 UTC 2003 |
Evil MSN has voice messaging technology built into its free Instant Messenger
service.
|
richard
|
|
response 38 of 82:
|
Dec 2 03:22 UTC 2003 |
#24..."the by-laws requier voice participation" Then I think the bylaws
conflict with state law and need to be amended. If the bylaws require voice
participation, you make it impossible for anyone who is deaf to participate
(and grex has had deaf users before btw)
|
richard
|
|
response 39 of 82:
|
Dec 2 03:26 UTC 2003 |
and by state law I mean laws prohibiting discrimination...if grex's bylaws
require "voice participation", is it not specifically disallowing text
participation by those who might want to participate and who are deaf or hard
of hearing? Grex should amend the bylaws to allow any participation
acceptable by the board as "live" participation, be it by voice, or by text,
or by sign language, or .etc
|
richard
|
|
response 40 of 82:
|
Dec 2 03:34 UTC 2003 |
why not change the bylaws from:
d. The BOD shall hold face-to-face meetings on a regular,
if he or she can, via a telephone or other electronic system,
hear and be heard by all the other attendees
TO
d. The BOD shall hold meetings on a regular basis, either face to face if
possible, or via a telephone or other electronic system that the board is
unanimously willing to accept as "live" participation. All other
attendees must be able to hear or have access to the text of comments of
those members who are not physically present.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 41 of 82:
|
Dec 2 03:46 UTC 2003 |
Wow mary! Thanks for following up. Looks like you've been really busy. I'm
sure everyone appreciates it.
I don't think a private channel is a good idea. Especially if the person on
party is going to get someone's interpretation of what's happenning in a
couple of lines. It's easy enough to vote, but my interpretation of the
minutes is that there is a lot of discussion, and by having one person on
text, you're limiting his contribution to the meeting. (Also what he gets out
of the meeting till he reads the inutes, and even then he'll prolly miss much
of the discussion. )
|
gelinas
|
|
response 42 of 82:
|
Dec 2 03:54 UTC 2003 |
What's that telephone system for the deaf? TTD? TDD? Rather common in the
US, I've heard. So the 'voice' limitation is no where near as restricting
as Richard opines.
This issue was discussed and decided may be a year ago. Do you have any thing
*new* to offer, Richard?
|
richard
|
|
response 43 of 82:
|
Dec 2 03:58 UTC 2003 |
good points mynx, but doesn't change the fact that by requring voice
participation you are effectively discriminating against potential members
who are not deaf. Their comments could not be "heard" by the other members
unless the other members knew sign language, or that member wrote his/her
comments down. And how would writing down the comments down be different than
typing them on the screen. I think a deaf user could sue Grex in court for
the right to run for the board, in spite of being in violation of the bylaw
requiring the other members to be able to hear their comments, and win.
The courts would probably require Grex to allow non-oral participat ion
|
gelinas
|
|
response 44 of 82:
|
Dec 2 04:05 UTC 2003 |
They would only win if there were damages: if it could be shown that their
failure of election was directly related to their disability. Since, to the
best of my knowledge, none have run, none have standing to sue.
|
richard
|
|
response 45 of 82:
|
Dec 2 04:42 UTC 2003 |
no, they'd win if they were elected to the board and then not seated because
they informed the board they were deaf and could not participate orally. OR
if they indicated a desire to run and were not allowed on the ballot because
they indicated they were unable to participate orally. Grex is a non-profit
and to maintain that non-profit status, Grex cannot discriminate, and its
bylaws cannot allow discrimination. If the bylaws have as a membership
requirement a rule that precludes the participation of any users due to their
own physical limitations, that would be against the law.
An online chat is a LIVE communication. So long as a member agrees to bring
a laptop and communicate online to members not physically present, why is this
an issue? Grex's problems aren't so complex that text participation need be
precluded
|
gelinas
|
|
response 46 of 82:
|
Dec 2 04:44 UTC 2003 |
Richard, your claims presuppose taht an elected director would not be seated.
What evidence can you offer that such would happen?
|
keesan
|
|
response 47 of 82:
|
Dec 2 05:01 UTC 2003 |
The two deaf people I know read lips well and also speak pretty well.
|
richard
|
|
response 48 of 82:
|
Dec 2 06:24 UTC 2003 |
the evidence is the bylaws. the bylaws say they cannot serve on the board
if the other members can't "hear" what they are saying
|
keesan
|
|
response 49 of 82:
|
Dec 2 10:00 UTC 2003 |
Why worry about this if nobody deaf is currently running for office?
|