|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 299 responses total. |
jep
|
|
response 82 of 299:
| 
Aug 27 13:35 UTC 2002 |
We have a once per week meeting at work, and we currently have two
people who work remotely. They dial in, and are able to participate in
the weekly meeting via conference call without significant problems.
One of them acts as secretary and e-mails the rest of us the weekly
minutes.
Grex has had, from time to time, problems with finding a place to meet
at all. Maybe it would be easier to have meetings be done via
conference call for all participants.
I agree with Larry that Arbornet's meetings were usually much more
productive than the on-line discussions. However, Grex doesn't work
the same way Arbornet did in those days. The Board here is not in the
role of making decisions for Grex or of leading; it almost always
implements the consensus reached on-line. If there's no consensus, it
doesn't act at all. Have there been any controversial issues which
were resolved at a Board meeting? For Grex, on-line decision making
would work just fine -- and does.
|
gull
|
|
response 83 of 299:
|
Aug 27 13:46 UTC 2002 |
Re #82: A conference call works if you can do the meeting in round-robin
fashion, with everyone taking their specific turn. That tends to really
drag things out, though, in my experience. The problem is without the
usual cues to indicate who wants to talk, you end up with chaos unless
you organize things in that fashion.
|
jep
|
|
response 84 of 299:
|
Aug 27 13:55 UTC 2002 |
re #83: Yes, I agree that that approach would probably work better than
any other.
re #81: I think going through the decision process of a vote is a good
idea, since this would be a major change from the current method of
running Grex.
If we're going to allow remote Board members, we should do so in a way
that there is no issue of the cost for someone's candidacy. I don't
want to see people having to make statements like, "It's worth the
extra $25 per month for me to be on the Board because..." If we're
going to accept remote Board members, I think that cost should be
budgeted in advance of the next election, or have some other pre-stated
method of handling it. (Such as stating in advance that the remote
Board member has to pay his own expenses for participating in the
meetings.)
|
jep
|
|
response 85 of 299:
|
Aug 27 13:56 UTC 2002 |
How about linking this item to coop?
|
jp2
|
|
response 86 of 299:
|
Aug 27 14:24 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 87 of 299:
|
Aug 27 14:42 UTC 2002 |
resp:79 - Thank you, Mary for saying this!
There is no controversy, and I do believe that folks are fueling the
pot instead of coming up with constructive ways of dealing with this
issue. I highly doubt this is "too radical" for grex, or that
there's "fear of the unknown." Those are charges as borne out of
arrogance, and they really don't help matters. I've proposed
questions, so has Mary, and others are to get a word in and lend to the
discussion. If this is going to be resolved one way or another, start
actually debating these questions, rather than throwing around charges
and making accusations.
To dangle a membership in front of grex's face and and demand that
certain conditions be met is beneath all of us.
In my opinion, the majority of the BOD should be local. If an
emergency meeting has to be called, all BOD members must be notified
and the location secured so that as many remote and local members can
be assembled as possible. Six reps, or eight?
Will "remote reps" only be eligible if they live in the US? This should
not neccessarily be the rule, but obviously time zone differnces will
affect some individuals' ability to attend the meetings.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 88 of 299:
|
Aug 27 16:05 UTC 2002 |
Re #77: the MNPCA is online as a PDF. Here is the page on the MI government
site from which you can obtain it (it is the third item in the list):
http://www.michigan.gov/emi/0,1303,7-102----S,00.html
I liked the old online format better - all in html with helpful search
and link aids. For one thing, the PDF has no index, which the printed
and earlier online version had.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 89 of 299:
|
Aug 27 16:18 UTC 2002 |
Thanks for the link!
|
jp2
|
|
response 90 of 299:
|
Aug 27 16:35 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 91 of 299:
|
Aug 27 17:39 UTC 2002 |
Hmm . . . I haven't gotten a chance to read it. Might as well take a
look at it anyway, as soon as I get around to it. Again, my thanks,
Rane.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 92 of 299:
|
Aug 27 18:33 UTC 2002 |
That's what comes of copy and paste of a url. Going back to it, I find
that searching on the *same* phrase gets different hits. So, here is the PDF
URL:
http://www.cis.state.mi.us/bcs/corp/pdf/act162.pdf
I have also found the searchable web index for the Nonprofit Corporation Act.
Go to http://www.michiganlegislature.org/law/
and choose Basic MCL Search. Then write Nonprofit Corporation Act
into Full Text Search. This will take you to the index for the Act.
(I don't see how to go there directly.)
|
other
|
|
response 93 of 299:
|
Aug 27 19:30 UTC 2002 |
http://www.michiganlegislature.org/law/printDocument.asp?objName=mcl-act-
162-of-1982&version=txt
Single document html file containing the entire Act.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 94 of 299:
|
Aug 27 22:23 UTC 2002 |
Good show.....though it also doesn't have an index, so the the route
given in #92 can be useful. How did you get to that page, other?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 95 of 299:
|
Aug 27 22:32 UTC 2002 |
OK - I found it:
http://www.michiganlegislature.org/law/mileg.asp?page=mostrequested
|
md
|
|
response 96 of 299:
|
Aug 28 00:24 UTC 2002 |
Btw, if you want to see what gets the honchos' panties in a bunch over
on mnet, check out the mnet Policy conference, item 162.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 97 of 299:
|
Aug 28 00:33 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
md
|
|
response 98 of 299:
|
Aug 28 00:47 UTC 2002 |
It's hilarious. You gotta care about *that*.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 99 of 299:
|
Aug 28 00:48 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
russ
|
|
response 100 of 299:
|
Aug 28 00:53 UTC 2002 |
A proposal I'd like to throw into this fray (after forgetting it
because of all the nonsense):
Directors unable to physically attend meetings should be responsible
for their own teleconferencing gear and telephone connections to whatever
site is used for the meeting. If the director fails to provide gear or
it fails to function adequately, the director shall be deemed to not
have attended the meeting. (In other words, if you want to hold a seat
you have to find a way to attend; Grex isn't responsible for that part.)
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 101 of 299:
|
Aug 28 01:01 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 102 of 299:
|
Aug 28 01:02 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 103 of 299:
|
Aug 28 01:26 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 104 of 299:
|
Aug 28 02:29 UTC 2002 |
Just because I thought it would be a good idea for us to have it as a
handy reference, I put the Michigan Nonprofit Corporation Act (indexed)
at http://cyberspace.org/mnca
The section title portion requires javascript.
|
mary
|
|
response 105 of 299:
|
Aug 28 02:40 UTC 2002 |
When two remote board members are calling in to a meeting can their
share one incoming call and one speakerphone or would two connections
and two speakers be needed? I doubt Zing's would be willing to
allow us free meeting space and access to their phone lines for
hours. So any ideas on where this could happen, on the cheap?
|
jp2
|
|
response 106 of 299:
|
Aug 28 03:15 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
