|
Grex > Coop12 > #16: Should we change Grex's ID policy? |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 140 responses total. |
other
|
|
response 75 of 140:
| 
Oct 26 18:48 UTC 2001 |
1. To have a way to send out email notices to members from a secure,
established email address recognized as belonging to the organization.
2. To create a low-cost informational website.
IM's also provide a way for organizational users of Grex to show their
appreciation of Grex's services, but simultaneously keep our governance
within the limits of the one individual-one vote restriction.
|
keesan
|
|
response 76 of 140:
|
Oct 26 20:57 UTC 2001 |
So why not have one member of the organization join as a grex member? OR
simply donate to grex if you don't want to vote, and you can still send out
email and have a website. What do you gain by being a paid institutional
member other than incoming ftp and outgoing telnet?
|
aruba
|
|
response 77 of 140:
|
Oct 27 15:09 UTC 2001 |
Sindi: One of the secrets of fundraising is to give people as many different
options as possible. We added the idea of institutional memberships because
there was a demand for them. Any institution is of course free to choose
the route you suggest, but institutional memberships give them another
option.
|
jp2
|
|
response 78 of 140:
|
Oct 27 17:18 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 79 of 140:
|
Oct 27 18:12 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
md
|
|
response 80 of 140:
|
Oct 27 18:23 UTC 2001 |
That's a very good point: someone like Timmy, who has at least two
separate personalities, should be able to buy one membership for each,
no? I'd extend the question by asking: are all of the personalities
Timmy buys Grex memberships for entitled to separate votes? If so,
then Timmy could get Jamie elected all by himself. You guys are in
trouble.
|
jp2
|
|
response 81 of 140:
|
Oct 27 18:29 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 82 of 140:
|
Oct 27 18:33 UTC 2001 |
I think he should try it and see what happens. Lessee, If I figure
right, he'd have to buy at least 40 or so 1-month memberships at minimum
to swing the vote for jp2. Multiply by $6... That's a nice $240 bump in
the Grex bankroll. All right!
|
janc
|
|
response 83 of 140:
|
Oct 27 20:12 UTC 2001 |
I thought someone said the "member is a person" definition implies only one
membership per person. I also seem to recall seeing a section saying that
for home-owner orginazations, if a person owns more than one home, then it
OK for them to have one vote for each property. This would seem to suggest
that for other types of organizations this isn't true.
|
jp2
|
|
response 84 of 140:
|
Oct 27 20:17 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
keesan
|
|
response 85 of 140:
|
Oct 27 21:42 UTC 2001 |
I thought you needed a 3-month membership to vote.
|
krj
|
|
response 86 of 140:
|
Oct 27 21:57 UTC 2001 |
Stock corporations, and homeowner associations, are organized on the
principle that those who have more money at risk should have a
proportionately larger voice.
Grex, even if we didn't remember to write it into the bylaws, is
organized on the principle of one person, one vote. Giving extra
money to Grex is not supposed to get you more votes. Philosophically,
that extra money was freely given; it is not a financial investment,
like stock or real estate. One can't buy stock in Grex.
|
jp2
|
|
response 87 of 140:
|
Oct 27 22:02 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 88 of 140:
|
Oct 27 22:13 UTC 2001 |
I don't have the resources or time at the moment to debate the legal
question. Given the quality of most of your legal arguments, like
the flat statement that photocopying a driver's license is a felony, I'm
not too worried about it. :)
I do tend to doubt that elections of every membership organization
in the state are open to the highest bidder, which is what you are
stating. It could be that the Grex bylaws need tweaking to defend a
policy of one person, one membership, one vote.
|
jp2
|
|
response 89 of 140:
|
Oct 27 22:17 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 90 of 140:
|
Oct 27 22:22 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 91 of 140:
|
Oct 27 22:50 UTC 2001 |
We don't have to prove photocopying a license is legal. It's on you to prove
it's illegal, and so far you've failed.
|
jp2
|
|
response 92 of 140:
|
Oct 27 22:53 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 93 of 140:
|
Oct 27 23:07 UTC 2001 |
I've long noticed that Jamie is really big on "proof by assertion."
|
jp2
|
|
response 94 of 140:
|
Oct 27 23:10 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 95 of 140:
|
Oct 27 23:17 UTC 2001 |
Notice the not-so-subtle trick in #94. The argument is over whether it's
legal to photocopy a driver's license for ID purposes. What he asserts in
#94 is that it's illegal to in Ohio *forge* a driver's license. Big
difference.
Anyone want to bet his copyright arguments are similarly a matter of slight
of hand?
|
jp2
|
|
response 96 of 140:
|
Oct 27 23:22 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 97 of 140:
|
Oct 27 23:23 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 98 of 140:
|
Oct 27 23:45 UTC 2001 |
Jamie might think about the elements of fraud or deception required
for a crime of forgery, and the difference between that and a photocopy
of an ID used as a second-generation, transmittable evidence that the ID
exists.
US currency notes are not ID cards.
|
jp2
|
|
response 99 of 140:
|
Oct 27 23:49 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|