response 269 of 299:

Sep 1 00:58 UTC 2002

Let me mention to those who are trying to influence the opinions of members
of this community:  Every group has "opinion leaders" whose views are
influential.   It is not about "founders" or "members", it is respect
for their ideas, and their demonstrated ability to look at what is good
for the whole community.  

What strikes me about this whole issue is the absence of support of
those whose perspective I trust.  There have been one or two of them
make observations, and in a couple instances, state their position.
But I don't see a consensus developing, and I don't see a lot of people
saying "Oh, wow, this really is a problem! And the solution is so
obvious!  Let's do it!"

I do see a very few people who feel strongly that the minimum change
they will accept is a bylaw change.  They seem to be looking for a big,
dramatic change in the system.

I see a couple people who are saying, well it's not a big problem, and
here is an incremental change we could make to see whether it makes it
a better system, without causing a great imbalance.  

I also so a whole lot of familiar names not making any comment at all.
As Sherlock Holmes pointed out, the dog _not_ barking was a very big
clue.  

response 271 of 299:

Sep 1 01:22 UTC 2002

If I see one more post that amounts to "if you don't do this now, you're all
a bunch of evil xenophobes", I'm forgetting this item.

response 273 of 299:

Sep 1 03:30 UTC 2002

(I won't write one, but I'm willing to sponsor any resolution that 
jmsaul OKs.)

(why Joe?  because he's reasonable and has had first-hand experience 
with the issue at hand.)

response 275 of 299:

Sep 1 04:30 UTC 2002

Yes, why do we? No matter what motion is made and no matter how everyone
votes (ala #272), any "remote" member anywhere can run for election
REGARDLESS of the outcomes and opinions. As soon as one does, we will
learn how he/she plans to address the board meeting problem. Why not leave
this whole question up to members that wish to run for election, rather
than going through motions and polls, which in reality will have no effect
whatsoever? 

response 277 of 299:

Sep 1 15:15 UTC 2002

Re #273:  I appreciate the endorsement and the compliments, but this isn't
          really my issue.

response 279 of 299:

Sep 1 17:45 UTC 2002

The Michigan State laws say that presence by voice is legally the same
as physical presence. There is a point of ambiguity in the state law,
in that 450.2521 also says:

"(3) Unless otherwise restricted by the articles of incorporation or
bylaws, a member of the board or of a committee designated by the board
may participate in a meeting by means of conference telephone or similar
communications equipment by means of which all persons participating in
the meeting can hear each other. Participation in a meeting pursuant to
this subsection constitutes presence in person at the meeting. " 

I've been puzzling over this a bit because, if the last sentence is true,
then all meetings conducted that way are legally "face-to-face"  and the
first sentence "restriction" becomes moot. Also, the Grex bylaws do not
specifically require "presence in person", but only an ambiguous (not
defined in law) "face-to-face". Is video conferencing "face-to-face"? 

I'll agree that it would be clearer if this were specifically permitted
in the bylaws.

response 281 of 299:

Sep 1 18:11 UTC 2002

It's nice to know Michigan law wouldn't have a problem with our officers
living out of state.  Grex bylaws are pretty specific in that they expect
face-to-face meetings.  But this shouldn't be a problem.  You simply ask
for a change in the bylaws and the membership gives it the okay, if they
agree.  You really wouldn't want to try to implement this unless the
majority of members supported the idea anyhow. 

response 283 of 299:

Sep 1 18:17 UTC 2002

The bylaws don't have to. Any legally permissiible acts not addressed
by bylaws may be undertaken by any corporation. Most corporations adopt
further rules (call them Acts) to regulate their business. If you think
of the US Constitution as the national bylaws, all the acts adopted by
Congress are the further rules governing other matters. 

In this case, being a Michigan corporation, State law supercedes ANY bylaws
or acts of Grex, but otherwise Grex is free to adopt any consistent bylaws
or acts. 

I would say that, for absolute clarity, a bylaw amendment is preferred,
so that questions are resolved in advance.

response 287 of 299:

Sep 1 20:15 UTC 2002

resp:277  (that's the beauty of it.  you don't care enough to make it 
          a big issue, and I don't care at all, so anything that looks
          OK to either of us will likely be OK to most.  plus, I 
          suspect jep will sponsor the eventual proposal anyway.)

response 291 of 299:

Sep 4 18:10 UTC 2002

Bylaws:

   It should be possible for people who don't know much about the law to
   read and understand Grex's bylaws.  So if we want to allow some form
   of telepresence at board meetings, then we should make an amendment
   to make this clear to all vaguely sensible folk who may read them.

   So although a bylaw amendment is not technically needed, one would be
   desirable.

   It would also provide a useful context and time limit for this
   conversation to make such a proposal (I don't read coop much lately
   so it's possible on has been made by now).  People would have a
   clear definition of what is being discussed, and a clear time limit
   (election day) by which a decision would be reached.  Much more
   constructive discussion can be made in that context.

Teleconferencing:

   I've been saying that this is a change Grex eventually needs to make
   for years.  We are not a local system anymore, and need to adapt to
   that fact.

   There are definate advantages to being able to meet face to face.
   But there are also advantages to being a non-local organization.
   It's just cooler to be geographically diverse.  So we have to bite
   the bullet and accomodate non-local board members.

   I don't know what the best technical solution for this is.  There
   are certainly some adequate ones.  We'll flail around until we find
   one that works for us.  It might disrupt a few board meetings.  No
   ships will sink though.  Grex board meetings are rarely as critical
   as all that (I seem to recall discussing whether or not to buy a
   stapler for half an hour - won't it be great when people worldwide
   can get in on this kind of excitement?).

   I'd love to find a way to do on-line meetings.  I'd love to
   experiment with various technologies for that.  I think most would
   be awful, but on-line communication is something Grex is supposed
   to be pioneering.  Nobody said it had to work well from the start.

   Allowing telepresence at meetings would help a lot, even now.  We
   have several board members who have a hard time getting their
   physical selves to meetings, even though they live around here.
   Being able to phone in might help more meetings start on time.

This Discussion:

   Grex does not talk.  Other is not Grex.  Aruba is not Grex. Jp2 is
   not Grex.  I am not Grex.  If you say "Grex does so and so" you
   are full of shit.  There are a lot of different styles and opinions
   among people who identify closely with Grex, and anything you say
   is inaccurate about some of us.

   I've instigated more changes to Grex than jp2 and jmsaul combined.
   Many of these changes have involved knock-down drag-out arguments
   on line (applying for 501(c)3 and making the conferences anonymously
   readable over the web are two I remember well).  Same thing happened
   on M-Net (adding multiple channels to party pissed off a lot of
   people, and there were endless wars over "tel").  I think anyone
   who doesn't expect people to resist and question change in any
   social group is sadly deluded.  Go to M-Net and propose opening
   backtalk to anonymous reading.  See if the proposal is met with
   universal glee.

Stapler:

   No, we didn't buy one.