|
Grex > Coop9 > #26: Proposed Bylaw Amendment: Clarify who can be a board candidate and who can make nominations | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 120 responses total. |
mta
|
|
response 67 of 120:
| 
Jan 4 19:47 UTC 1997 |
looks fine to me.
|
mdw
|
|
response 68 of 120:
|
Jan 5 08:59 UTC 1997 |
I'd hate to see someone disqualified from running for the board because
they were late getting their membership check in. Why not "nominees
must be a member as of the *end* of the voting period"?
|
popcorn
|
|
response 69 of 120:
|
Jan 5 16:28 UTC 1997 |
Because then we wouldn't know who we could put on the ballot until the time
when the polls close. (The nominating period ends when the voting period
starts. So this amendment essentially says that candidates have to be members
by the end of the nominating period. Which is the beginning of the voting
period.)
|
arthurp
|
|
response 70 of 120:
|
Jan 6 02:49 UTC 1997 |
I agree with Valerie on that one. Logistics and clarity and such.
|
tsty
|
|
response 71 of 120:
|
Jan 8 02:03 UTC 1997 |
or ... "nominees must hold a valid membership for the duration of their
elected board term, effective no later than the first official board
meeting after having been elected."
|
valerie
|
|
response 72 of 120:
|
Jan 8 04:45 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
davel
|
|
response 73 of 120:
|
Jan 8 17:20 UTC 1997 |
(Or find even one member who thinks that's an alternative worth proposing.)
|
remmers
|
|
response 74 of 120:
|
Jan 9 11:33 UTC 1997 |
Sorry for the delay in getting the vote program set up on this.
Some days it's slipped my mind, other days I haven't been able
to get on Grex. I'll try to get it set up later today.
|
valerie
|
|
response 75 of 120:
|
Jan 9 15:32 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
tsty
|
|
response 76 of 120:
|
Jan 15 17:49 UTC 1997 |
actually, valerie, (#72), the difference being proposed is elitist, to
a certain extent. the proposal creates a tilted playing field where
one did not exist before. currently, as evidenced by the most recent
election, opportunity to run for office is restricted only by the
trivial amount of effort necessary to establish a loginid. level
playing field. if there were 3000 or so nomineees some day, i would
consider that a "problem" existed. absent that (well maybe even at
the 250 nominee level) there is no "problem." there is nothing to "fix,"
except an election.... uhhhh, let me rephrase that ... there is
nothing to "repair" (hmmm, better) in the election process.
serving on the board, at/after installation of new officers doesn't
appear to be *much* of a problem either, however, codifying the necessities
for such service might be touched up a bit.
#71 seems closer to the actual solution if a touch up is deemed a benefit.
if there is the actuality of an equal opportunity to contribute thoughts,
opinions, ideas and suggestions which play a vital part in helping grex
serve the needs of its thousands of users, the final sentence of #72
appears to be out of place.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 77 of 120:
|
Jan 15 19:03 UTC 1997 |
I think she meant propose it for formal adoption. Anyway...are we ready for
a vote?
|
valerie
|
|
response 78 of 120:
|
Jan 16 01:32 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
e4808mc
|
|
response 79 of 120:
|
Jan 16 03:39 UTC 1997 |
which proposal is the actual proposal. Could it be restated, please?
|
valerie
|
|
response 80 of 120:
|
Jan 16 20:23 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
srw
|
|
response 81 of 120:
|
Jan 17 18:18 UTC 1997 |
or click on resp:66 in backtalk
|
tsty
|
|
response 82 of 120:
|
Jan 17 19:59 UTC 1997 |
so, there is about to be a vote on a proposal which *will* tilt the
openness and level of the election field?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 83 of 120:
|
Jan 17 22:36 UTC 1997 |
Not at all. Illogical continuations are not openness and levelness.
|
ajax
|
|
response 84 of 120:
|
Jan 18 06:54 UTC 1997 |
Re 82, there will be a vote on the bylaw change in #66. People can
spin it however they want ;-).
|
mta
|
|
response 85 of 120:
|
Jan 19 20:27 UTC 1997 |
This proposal is not going to "tilt" and "playing field", it's going to make
clear what the bylaws failed to make clear. Until the last election people
were actively required to be members to accept nominations to the board.
I know. Severla years ago I was unemployed and *very* actively involved
with GREX both as a user and a staffer. I was also way too broke to afford
to become a member. I was nominated to run for the board, but the nomination
was quickly retracted when it became clear that I couldn't afford to become
a member. Did I complain about the "unfairness" of it all? No. I didn't.
It was as I felt it should be. As I had argued in founders meetings it
should be. For the well being of our system, I think it's very important
that people running for the board must have a certain amount of committment
to the system. A committment that is certainly not displayed by the attitude
"I'll pay to become a menber of the board, but not just to support the system
I enjoy using."
Yeah, there are people with a great deal of committment to GREX who, for one
reason or another can't afford the $6 a month to be GREX members. I've been
one myself. But look at it this way. No one says a member has to pay
personally for his or her membership. If you're all that committed to GREX,
it shows. If you'd like to run, but can't afford membership there's nothing
to stop you from announcing to all and sundry that while you'd like to serve
on the board, you can't afford membership right now. If your services
are seen as sufficiently valuable, no doubt there will be some folks willing
to help out with membership to allow you to run.
I, for one, am fervently in favour of the proposal just as Valerie has
submitted it.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 86 of 120:
|
Jan 21 17:25 UTC 1997 |
So when we gonna vote on this?
|
remmers
|
|
response 87 of 120:
|
Jan 21 20:28 UTC 1997 |
Now.
The vote program is now set up to vote on this proposal. Sorry
about the delay. In accordance with the 10-day rule, the polls
will close Jan. 31.
|
ladymoon
|
|
response 88 of 120:
|
Jan 22 05:37 UTC 1997 |
Like NOW now?
|
valerie
|
|
response 89 of 120:
|
Jan 22 06:29 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
robh
|
|
response 90 of 120:
|
Jan 22 07:38 UTC 1997 |
Re 88 - NOW now would be correct, yes. >8)
|
srw
|
|
response 91 of 120:
|
Jan 22 08:10 UTC 1997 |
I voted.
|