| Grex > Coop12 > #124: Question about BOD bylaw |  |
| 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 43 of 299: |
Aug 26 18:21 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
| response 44 of 299: |
Aug 26 18:24 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
| response 45 of 299: |
Aug 26 18:24 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
| 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?
| response 47 of 299: |
Aug 26 18:40 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
| response 48 of 299: |
Aug 26 19:01 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
| response 49 of 299: |
Aug 26 19:09 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
| response 50 of 299: |
Aug 26 19:13 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
| response 51 of 299: |
Aug 26 19:26 UTC 2002 |
Does Grex even have a suitable meeting space available to it that would have a phone line? If not, accomidating a non-local member might be a significant expense, if we had to go from getting meeting space for free to renting it somewhere. I think the people who are blaming this on "xenophobia" are trying to gloss over the real logistical problems, or maybe just trying to stir the pot.
| response 52 of 299: |
Aug 26 19:30 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
| response 53 of 299: |
Aug 26 19:41 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
| response 54 of 299: |
Aug 26 19:56 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
| response 55 of 299: |
Aug 26 20:03 UTC 2002 |
The primary reason this issue has not been addressed is that it has never been relevant. When a non-local member runs for board and is elected, then we will have to deal with it, and we will, but until then, there are only hypotheticals guiding the potential solutions, so why waste the effort? Grex BOD presently meets in a small room at Zingerman's, a local food emporium, when said room is available. If not, we improvise.
| response 56 of 299: |
Aug 26 20:05 UTC 2002 |
resp:48 - I don't spend a whole lot of mental energy on insults for people who don't deserve the attention, so I'm going to to speak solely on the topic you had the lack of class to perpetuate. Since you've never given anything remotely resembling a coherent argument to link my post to a xenophobic mindset, your opinion has little substance. Once more for the record, are you or or are you not posting such an accusation? _________________________________________ Sapna, WCC is Washtenaw Community College. Other answered the other question.
| response 57 of 299: |
Aug 26 20:09 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
| response 58 of 299: |
Aug 26 20:19 UTC 2002 |
I *do* agree that something should be in place before this happens, instead of crossing bridge when the BOD comes to it, as there are several issues that, ideally, should be addresse. This would likely cause serious churn if the issue isn't resolved until an "out-of- towner" gets elected. Look how long it takes to get quarum every month.
| response 59 of 299: |
Aug 26 20:31 UTC 2002 |
57: I was thinking the same thing. What's the point of even allowing an out-of-towner to run if you don't even know whether he or she will be allowed to teleconference in? The decision has to be made first. If you think it's a good idea that someone 500 miles away should run for BoD, then you should think teleconferencing is a good idea, too. Personally, I think it's a very good sign that people from out of the area want to get involved. Fwiw, you can pick up one of those conference call thingies that you set in the middle of the table very cheap at Office Max.
| response 60 of 299: |
Aug 26 20:36 UTC 2002 |
The factors which weigh on the decision are primarily the current state of technology which would allow a nonlocal board member to have a functional presence at a meeting, and the cost of implementation. Since these factors are impossible to determine in advance, any effort to decide a course of implementation in advance is a waste of time, in my considered opinion. I do not believe there is significant opposition, in principle, to the election of nonlocal board members, all other things being equal. So, the process of dealing with such a situation would not be ideological, but practical. Which technology to employ, and how to handle the cost, not whether to do something. I do not believe there is any reasonable basis for fears that an elected board member would be left out in the cold because of either action or inaction on the part of either the rest of the board or of the membership.
| response 61 of 299: |
Aug 26 20:43 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
| response 62 of 299: |
Aug 26 21:28 UTC 2002 |
Speaker phones and phone calls are cheap. I don't think cost is an issue. I used to be a member of the Arbornet (M-Net) board. One of the things we noticed was that online interaction among the board members had all the pitfalls of, well, online interaction. Face-to-face meetings brought out the best in people, and disputes which seemed intractable online were worked out easily in person. Thus, I would be opposed to using "party" or similar text mode for board meetings. I suppose that voice conferencing is better, even if not quite as good as face-to-face. Grex's community is far more geographically dispersed than ever before, and it makes sense that its leadership (at least the board) reflect that.
| response 63 of 299: |
Aug 26 21:54 UTC 2002 |
If you wish me to keep repeating myself, reread my previous posts and pretend I reentered them.
| response 64 of 299: |
Aug 26 22:49 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
| response 65 of 299: |
Aug 27 00:26 UTC 2002 |
What of the things I said are you claiming is wrong? And if it is wrong, what then is right?
| response 66 of 299: |
Aug 27 00:28 UTC 2002 |
Could a conference call thingie work for multiple board members participating at the same time? Would these same remote board members be able to carry out the duties of president, secretary and treasurer? And how expensive would it be to have a multiple remote site conference call for 2 hours? The concept is interesting but I'd really like to see the details of how it would come together, be fair to all, and affordable.