|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 17 new of 299 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 284 of 299:
|
Sep 1 18:18 UTC 2002 |
#s 281 and 282 slipped in.
|
jp2
|
|
response 285 of 299:
|
Sep 1 18:26 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 286 of 299:
|
Sep 1 18:47 UTC 2002 |
The bylaws do not put any restrictions on members running for office, so
any member can regardless of residency. However the bylaws appear to
*intend* that board meetings require the physical presence of the board
members. This really should be amended to make it more clear that board
members may attend via electronic communications, if that is thought to be
acceptable.
|
carson
|
|
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.)
|
carson
|
|
response 288 of 299:
|
Sep 1 20:17 UTC 2002 |
resp:274 (I don't know. ask mynxcat.)
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 289 of 299:
|
Sep 1 21:57 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 290 of 299:
|
Sep 1 22:22 UTC 2002 |
plz 2 speak eng....
i am about romania
:>
|
janc
|
|
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.
|
aruba
|
|
response 292 of 299:
|
Sep 4 18:28 UTC 2002 |
A poposed amendment is in coop item 126.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 293 of 299:
|
Sep 4 23:36 UTC 2002 |
Hey, I don't support making M-Net's conferences searchable on the Web.
I didn't think Grex's were either.
|
tod
|
|
response 294 of 299:
|
Sep 5 02:47 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 295 of 299:
|
Sep 5 11:48 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 296 of 299:
|
Sep 5 14:24 UTC 2002 |
Re #293: Grex's conferences are anonymously readable but not
"web searchable".
|
tod
|
|
response 297 of 299:
|
Sep 5 16:14 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
janc
|
|
response 298 of 299:
|
Sep 5 16:58 UTC 2002 |
There is a robots.txt file suggesting the conference not be indexed.
Not sure if that's what did it, but it seems to have worked mostly.
Though I wouldn't be surprised if some robots searching the web for
email addresses to sell to spammers don't thumb through Grex's
conferences with regularity in spite of the robots.txt file, reputable
search engines seem not to.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 299 of 299:
|
Sep 9 18:50 UTC 2002 |
Thank you, Jan, for you post. I really appreciated it.
|