|
Grex > Coop11 > #115: Did the Board overstep its authority? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 11 new of 73 responses total. |
janc
|
|
response 63 of 73:
| 
Aug 12 15:01 UTC 1999 |
Darn, we thought if we hid it in the publically posted minutes, nobody
would ever notice it.
I don't understand why you think that the board makes decisions only on
important things. We deal with an awful lot of trivia. Recently we
considered the question of whether or not to buy a stapler.
This decision was urgent only in the sense that there wasn't much time
left to make a decision. I thought it was better to have a basic plan
in place than not, but I didn't think it was an important decision.
Just a stopgap contingency plan to cover an extremely unlikely
possiblity. I consider it roughly as important as buying a stapler.
While a stapler is a pretty small part of our operating budget, at least
it was 100% sure that we needed a stapler. It was only about 0.1% sure
that this policy would ever be used.
|
jep
|
|
response 64 of 73:
|
Aug 12 15:16 UTC 1999 |
From hints given in this item and the other two in which it's being
discussed, there was a fair amount of time spent at the Board meeting
discussing the issue. Is that common for unimportant issues? How much
time was spent discussing the stapler? Did whoever wanted the stapler
show up at the Board meeting, ask for it, and (despite it's absence on
the agenda) get the same treatment as the "unimportant" question of
whether to shut down Grex?
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 65 of 73:
|
Aug 12 15:33 UTC 1999 |
Ack, jep. Don't you remember the stapler? It was the people who didn't want
us to buy the stapler that caused the long discussion.
|
dpc
|
|
response 66 of 73:
|
Aug 12 18:31 UTC 1999 |
If either of janc's MOTD messages had been posted, I think the BoD
would have performed its duty of properly implementing a very
*bad* policy. That would have been better than *improperly*
implementing a very bad policy.
|
mary
|
|
response 67 of 73:
|
Aug 12 22:34 UTC 1999 |
Actually, I think the discussion about modifying vs. purchasing
a stapler did go on somewhat longer than the temporary shutdown
discussion.
But, go on...
|
i
|
|
response 68 of 73:
|
Aug 13 01:30 UTC 1999 |
Re #58/60/61:
Yes, Indian as in "a lawful citizen of the Republic of India". As in
India's per-capita GNP is a fraction of what's spend on the *average*
American's health care.
The "right" of Grex users that i was referring to in #58 was the "right"
to time-consuming personal attention from a staff member who had a
hundred or more users asking for such attention - all at the same time.
|
mary
|
|
response 69 of 73:
|
Aug 13 11:03 UTC 1999 |
Your comparison now makes it even worse. You're saying it's simply not
going to happen, give it up.
I don't really think anyone was asking for "time-consuming personal
attention" here. They're asking to be kept informed and the more
excuses I see for why we can't, don't, or won't, the more I
understand their tenacious response.
We screwed. Everyone who was starting to make any plans for
a worst-case scenario and who didn't think to start a public
discussion goofed. I was a big part of that - I'll be more
careful in the future. There wasn't a good excuse.
Keeping the users informed isn't a courtesy it is their
right. It's in the bylaws.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 70 of 73:
|
Aug 13 14:04 UTC 1999 |
I don't think they were trying to avoid public discussion. They said they
were trying to avoid panic reactions from people (including me) who were
worried about a low-probabilty event, a low-probability reaction and a
short-term solution. Yeah, the board could have done this much earlier and
could have had discussion in coop about it before they took this action.
But our board members didn't think of that ahead of time. So they did the
best they could. It is now being discussed in coop. The board has time to
create a plan to put on the shelf in case the legal outcome is not what we
think is the most likely scenario. I, for one, am not worried about a goof
of this magnitude (small to miniscule).
|
lilmo
|
|
response 71 of 73:
|
Sep 11 03:10 UTC 1999 |
Reading these last two items (in their entirety, I might add, except for
skimming one or two exceptionally long responses) has been somewhat
depressing. While I didn't really expect any better from richard, I was
disappointed by the reactions of other users (but not user "other" *grin*)
who seemingly read two lines and shut off their brains.
We had just submitted a legal brief in which we went into DETAIL about how
we could not expect to continue operating were the law to go into effect.
WHAT OTHER OPTION DID THE BOARD HAVE THAN TO PASS THIS MOTION?!?!??!???!??!?
None.
Now, maybe some MOTD announcement along the lines of the one in resp:62
would have been appropriate. I am inclined to think that it would. However,
if the options considered were nothing versus the one in #61, I would lean
towards nothing (those seem almost designed to produce panic).
We **DID** discuss options for what the law would mean for Grex operations,
extensively. To maintain otherwise requires a degree of ignorance I thought
would have been difficult to maintain among regular coop readers. That the
board had the power (not to mention the responsibility) to do what it did is
similarly unteneble (sp?), considering that it is the board's responsibility
to run the corporation Cyberspace Communications, Inc. ***UNDER MI LAW***.
*sigh*
|
keesan
|
|
response 72 of 73:
|
Sep 16 20:43 UTC 1999 |
untenable. (it is either -able or -ible or rarely you have a choice, as in
collectible/collectable)
|
lilmo
|
|
response 73 of 73:
|
Sep 21 21:17 UTC 1999 |
Thanks - in spanish, the verb is "tener", so I must have chosen the 'e'
subconsciously. I knew it didn't look right, but I didn't care enuf to take
the time to find the right one.
|