|
Grex > Coop11 > #146: Results of the 1999 Board Election | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 90 responses total. |
gypsi
|
|
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.
|
other
|
|
response 34 of 90:
|
Dec 22 00:39 UTC 1999 |
try this: your donation represents sufficient evidence of responsible
goodwill toward grex that it is what qualifies you to be eligible to serve
on the board. though that donation does not in any way constitute proof, i
think it is reasonable to ask a certain minimal financial commitment to the
organization before the responsibility of board membership can be conferred.
|
spooked
|
|
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.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 36 of 90:
|
Dec 22 15:34 UTC 1999 |
Er, I'm not sure that the current "incentives" are really what cause local
users to take up membership.
I support Grex for the same reason I give money and time to other service
organizations: they are doing good, and I like the good they do slightly more
than the good done by organizations I don't have enough money to donate to.
|
keesan
|
|
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.
|
gypsi
|
|
response 38 of 90:
|
Dec 22 17:41 UTC 1999 |
Yeah, I hadn't even thought of that. I had wondered why you had to be a
paying member to vote (besides it being a perk), but that makes complete
sense. You can regulate it based on the list of members. If there are x
amount of members, there should be x or fewer votes.
|
richard
|
|
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.
|
gypsi
|
|
response 40 of 90:
|
Dec 22 23:11 UTC 1999 |
Do you have any idea what a pain in the ass that would be? Besides,
they could create fake ids and send in photocopies of their friends'
ids.
|
gypsi
|
|
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.
|
spooked
|
|
response 42 of 90:
|
Dec 23 02:19 UTC 1999 |
I support Grex also because I think it's cool and want to see it continued
existence. I certainly gain nothing from the Internet services (I never need
to use them, having faster connections for free where I am). The voting is
neat, though I am one of a very few International Grexers to have met quite
a few local Grexers. I'm just suggesting that some people, not me, are driven
by incentive (and not just warm-heartedness), and we could do well to
*consider* this issue in bringing more non-local memberships in.
|
mary
|
|
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.
|
spooked
|
|
response 44 of 90:
|
Dec 23 03:13 UTC 1999 |
Cool, I hope we never need to, either, but we may have to some day.
|
gelinas
|
|
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.
|
remmers
|
|
response 46 of 90:
|
Dec 23 05:16 UTC 1999 |
I wouldn't want to see Grex become that kind of an organization.
As for perks - I think the best perk that Grex can offer is an
open-access platform dedicated to free speech. That is, what we
offer right now. That's certainly the "perk" that keeps me
interested in it.
|
spooked
|
|
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"?
|
remmers
|
|
response 48 of 90:
|
Dec 23 14:47 UTC 1999 |
Legally speaking? Not sure what you mean.
|
don
|
|
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.
|
spooked
|
|
response 50 of 90:
|
Dec 24 01:21 UTC 1999 |
hehe There are a lot of places out there which don't sensor things, though.
|
don
|
|
response 51 of 90:
|
Dec 24 01:46 UTC 1999 |
Not places that would have conferences open to minors that are specifically
about sexuality. Not places that would fight so hard to throw out that state
law against everything on grex.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 52 of 90:
|
Dec 24 02:11 UTC 1999 |
Well, I for one am glad we don't censor things either. But I thought there
were some sensors in the Pumpkin. ;-)
|
spooked
|
|
response 53 of 90:
|
Dec 24 02:14 UTC 1999 |
(=
|
scg
|
|
response 54 of 90:
|
Dec 24 05:22 UTC 1999 |
Limiting voting to paying members makes sense to me. It's an issue of those
of us who are paying to run this place determining how our money should be
spent.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 55 of 90:
|
Dec 24 05:45 UTC 1999 |
I'm not a member. I voted although I knew that my vote would not determine
the outcome of the election. I had not intended to vote, but then I saw
the comment that non-members' votes were counted for their curiousity value.
So I voted. :)
It makes sense to me that only members' votes affect the election. I don't
see a need to change.
|
don
|
|
response 56 of 90:
|
Dec 24 15:30 UTC 1999 |
Of those non-member votes: how many of them do you think were due to people
not knowing that their vote wouldn't count and trying to vote "for real"?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 57 of 90:
|
Dec 24 21:44 UTC 1999 |
I've no opinion. Maybe someone else does?
|