response 32 of 299:

Aug 26 15:07 UTC 2002

Re #28:  As I noted in #26, nobody's ever proposed that the "face-to-face"
provision be amended.  I'll also repeat that any member of Grex can 
propose an amendement at any time.

This item should be linked to Coop.

response 34 of 299:

Aug 26 15:49 UTC 2002

At least remmers caught it. A telephone presence at a board meeting IS
"face-to-face", because Michigan law says it is. 

(Not knowing this is a consequence of md's observation in #13. It is
useful to know Michigan corporate law if one is trying to run a
Michigan corporation.)

response 38 of 299:

Aug 26 17:33 UTC 2002

resp:36 - Can you for once stop correcting everyone's posts?  That's 
becoming highly annoying on so many levels.

Regarding the subject at hand, Mynx, you could be more constructive.  
All I hear from you is about being pissed off and how "unfair" it is.  
We ought to want to decide what's best for grex as a whole, not what's 
best for one individual whining about how he or she thinks it is 
unfair.  Is it just you you're concerned with, or do you actually care 
about other remote grexers aside from yourself?  You don't think that's 
selfish? It may be outdated, but it's not "unfair."  

By the way, a minor (and, admittedly, rather petty) point:  Your case 
is not as valid as Brooke's, jp2's, beeswing's, or individuals in 
Toledo who are physically unable to get to Ann Arbor, if you've managed 
to get up here for reasons of enjoyment and drive back the same day.  
So it would be possible for you to be a BOD member without changing the 
bylaws.  Changing the bylaws because you Don't feel like driving is a 
tad bit frivolous.  Yes, you live a fair distance away, so we don't 
have to debate that.  But put this all in perspective, no?
________________________________________________________________________

I'm done singling out folks out now.  Now to be constructive myself.

The idea that simply because other boards do it means Grex ought is an 
incredibly silly argument that cannot stand on its own.  Just as 
different ethnic groups have their own distinctive cultures, so too do 
cyber communities.  Grex has always been a very in person, face-to-face 
oriented organization as far as the business end goes.  While that does 
not automatically mean it should remain this way does not mean it is 
wrong, either.  Instead of barking about how unfair it is and 
throwing "community" in others' faces, why not approach it from that 
level of understanding?  More progress would be made that way, I 
think.  How would not expanding interaction of the greater community, 
in favor of conceding to the person that whines the loudest, solve 
matters at all?

I do think it is a good idea to discuss this and decide once and for 
all how this should play out.  Grex did start with just Ann Arbor 
members, and expansion should be made to accommodate a growing 
membership outside of grex.  There are several ways this could be 
handled, if all of the very unnecessary ire over the subject was put in 
its proper place.

If the amendment could be changed to allow the BOD to include members 
from outside of Ann Arbor . . .
    - Does this mean that all seats are up for grabs for both local 
      or remote members, or will there be a limit to this amount? 
OR
    - Can seats to the BOD added that are solely to be filled by
       individuals remotely?

    - Should an international seat be offered, or would the board
      membership continue not to include those users as well?

    - Does this mean that officers can be remote members if    
      they cannot physically get to A2 for each meeting?

    - How can this be set up to accommodate schedules of individuals 
      away from the local meeting, especially those who may live in a
      different time zone?

    - Can some meetings be set up so that remote members give their
      opinions via e-mail to the other participants on the meeting and  
      voting be cast the next day, with the other half of scheduled
      involved live discussion with all members, including the remote
      representatives?

In order for the "will of members" to be known, we should all be 
voting.  Many of us, however, are not.  In order for the needs and 
wishes of users systems wide, whether they be members or not,there 
should be more communication.  If non-members really want key changes 
to take place, they've got to become members and vote for them.  

response 42 of 299:

Aug 26 18:11 UTC 2002

"Grex did start with just Ann Arbor members, and expansion should be 
made to accommodate a growing membership outside of grex.  "

I meant to say "Ann Arbor."  Sorry about that!

resp:41 - Who taught you reading comprehension?

resp:40 - Are we going to constantly do nothing about argue 
leaglities?  If your reason for wanting this is strickly due to the 
law, I respect that.  I do not think that anyone want to purposfully 
disobey the law, once the interpretation in agreed upon.  However, 
remember what I said about Grex's origins?  If you can't have any 
respect for that and approach it in a manner that is more cooperative, 
there's nothing really left to discuss, because all you're saying 
it "you're wrong, fix it" as opposed to discussing how it should be 
fixed beyond the legal aspect.  How much do you care about the 
organization versus being right?

resp:39  - Whether or not you did not originally bitch about this in 
your post does not make my argument any less valid, for several 
reasons.  At one level, it is about what you choose to do with your 
time, and on another, it is about what is reasonable.  However, if 
you're going to make the argument about the weekend, what are saying?  
That if it was more friendly to *your* schedule that you would have no 
problems making the trip and you would have a problem with the way it 
stands?  If that's the case then how would your argument benefit any 
other person who live remotely but cannot make the trip?  As for 
bitching about the trip, you just did. My point has beeen made.

response 46 of 299:

Aug 26 18:27 UTC 2002

I was not off on a tangent. Did you bother to read the rest of my post?

resp:43 - I didn't dispute that.  My question is regarding your 
attitude regarding the legal aspect.  Clearly something needs to be 
fixed, whether the bylaws are included in that overhaul or not.  Next?