Proposal: Open the membership, to allow all users who can be validated
to be full members of Grex and for their votes to count in all elections.

Discussion: Dan Cross has suggested this in the agora conference.  My
intention is to propose what he has suggested.  If he suggests changes
to the wording of the proposal, I will almost surely them.

The justifications for requiring dues are that the corporation needed
the money to pay the bills, and that a financial contribution allowed
for verifying the identity of the member.  Those things are not issues
any more.  A few years ago, there was a proposal where the votes of
non-paying members were counted and meaningful (or was it an election).
 It worked okay as I recall.

43 responses total.

What by-law changes do you propose?

I have not gone through the by-laws to list the ones that need to be
changed.  Is there a definitive current set of the by-laws?  If you
search the WWW page, you eventually can come to a set that refers to 7
Board members and membership fees of $60 per year.

Meanwhile, I hope it is okay to start the process with a general proposal.

"money to pay the bills" is not an issue anymore? Has Grex no costs? That's
great, if true, but doesn't that mean no hardware repairs or upgrades?

We have bills to pay periodically. And there is always the chance that
some repair is needed, even in new hardware.  At some point in the
future our situation might change.  It would not be wise to let our bank
balance run down significantly just because we (mistakenly) believe we
have no expenses now.

Re: bylaws, what URL are you using, jep?  Here is what I see when I pull
up the bylaws on our web page (under Governance):

    ARTICLE 3:  BOARD OF DIRECTORS

  a.  The Board of Directors (BOD) shall consist of five individual
      members of Grex, and shall include a chairperson, a secretary, and
      a treasurer.

No SEVEN member board there.

In coop the previous bylaws (7 directors) is item 26 and the current bylaws
(5 directors) is item 325. 

Both versions do not say how officers are chosen, although saying three 
of the directors will be officers (chair, secy, treas). I suppose the 
implication is that they are chosen among themselves. However members 
can run for the Board with no intention of being officers. What happens 
then (perhaps, literally, nothing, as we seems to be the case)? Somehow 
the election process needs to ensure that there will be 3 potential 
officer candidates among the nominees. An alterntive is to have the 
Directors elect the officers from the membership, and not require that 
they be elected directors. If that is chosen, then it needs to be 
specified whether the officers do or do not have a vote on the Board 
(and the Directors only need to choose a chair from among themselves).

I do not support opening the membership to verified users.  One of the tests
of the viability of the organisation is the support of the membership.  Not
just financially but in service, too.  We lowered the number of Directors to
make it easier for the membership to support the Board.

The conference system is not the entirety of grex, or of Cyberspace
Communications, Inc.  However, it is the linchpin of the governance of both.
People who do not participate in the conferencing system cannot affect the
governance.  Including them as 'members' will not inspire them to vote, to
run for election as a Director, or in any other way to support the
organisation.  All it will do is increase the number of members, making it
even harder to get anything done.  I was going to say, "Achieve a quorum,"
but the only only thing for which a quorum is required is to bring proposals
to a vote: ten percent of the current membership must approve voting on a
proposal.  We currently have some four thousand users.  If we make even one
tenth of them members, we need forty "ayes" in this item to bring the
proposal to a vote.  The good news: they wouldn't become members until after
the proposal passed.  Since the voter list tsty provided for the election had
sixteen names, we only need two 'ayes' to take the matter to a vote right
now.

As a side note: I consider the experiment of non-local Directors to have
failed.  We have not been able to get them to meet, and the Treasurer, at
least, must be local to Ann Arbor, to check the mail and the bank.  If the
only local Director does not have the time to be the Treasurer, the
Corporation is in trouble.  As we can all plainly see.

re resp:5: I eventually found the bylaws by going to this site:

   https://www.grex.org/faq.xhtml

and searching for "bylaws".  I did a fair amount of searching to find
anything.  I didn't find a page called "Governance".  Our WWW page is a
efficient means of concealing information, though it looks friendly.

Ah, I found "governance" on that page.  It contains a link to item:2 in
this conference, which includes this:

      ARTICLE 3:  BOARD OF DIRECTORS
 
  a.  The Board of Directors (BOD) shall consist of seven individual
      members of Grex, and shall include a chairperson, a secretary,
      and a treasurer.

How can I get the current set of bylaws?  I guess I stumbled across a
different "Governance" page than you did.  If you can give me a link, or
a universally usable set of steps that will get me directly to the
bylaws, I will probably read them.

https://grex.org

about

Cyberspace Communications

Bylaws

I've updated the item number in the bylaws link in faq.xhtml.

Interesting journey, jep.  I looked at the main page: 

        http://www.cyberspace.org/

I saw a green block, with white text, "Welcome to Grex".  Below it, was a
brown box, with text about Services and "Become a Grexer."  Along the right
side, another brown box had text about Accesssing, Fress Services, Help
Support, More Info, Frequently Asked Questions, and Also Cool.  The section
entitled "More Info About" included Our Web Site, Our Governance, Our
Computers and Staff, and Our History.  The link that is "Our Governance" took
me to a blue page that included a link to "Bylaws," which took me to

        http://www.cyberspace.org/cyberspace/bylaws.shtml

So I don't know what you were looking at, nor why you could not find what you
wanted.

None of which answers my objections to the proposed change, of course.


Oh.  I had a wild thought, which led me on to something interesting.  I tried

        http://www.grex.org/

This time, the background was blue, and the box that was on the right was
now below the scroll.  It still provided the same information I found above.

We should probably make sure that both main pages use the same text and
layout.


Still, I've not seen answers to my objections above.

It's a width issue in the page I think.  If you make the browser window
too narrow, the right hand box goes below the rest of the page.  I
changed it to our winter colors.  Next will be spring colors, then
summer colors. We don't have autumn colors yet, though.

See if it is better now.  I tweaked some of the widths and other
settings a little (mainly to bring them into line with our summer
pages).

Thanks all.  I'll have to review this when I am not at work.  If I can get 
the current by-laws, I'll post something more specific.  If not, I'll ask 
again.

I'll go through the item to answer questions, too.

Yes, it looks better.  Thank you, Kent. :)

You're welcome.

resp:7 It's the lynchpin only because a few folks say it is; that
doesn't mean it *has* to be.  For that matter, that doesn't mean
that it REALLY is.  Change any document that makes reference to the
conferencing system to NOT make such references.

Also, regarding non-local board members....  Really?  It seemed to
me, when I was on the board, that it actually worked well.  I think
that the recent inability to get people to actually meet has been
with all-local board members.  If anything has failed, it has been
the Ann Arbor-based board membership.

I see no need to dissolve the organization.  I *do* see a need to
combine forces with M-Net (and whoever else wants), but that's
separate.

The members are supposed to talk to one another about the governance of the
Corporation.  If they aren't communicating here, where are they
communicating?  Those folks asking for validation or verification are going
to communicate with the other members how?  And where?  And, most
importantly, WHY?  How are they to even know that they now have membership in
the Corporation, or what that membership means?  If you want to influence the
governance of Cyberspace Communications, Inc, this is where you have to act.

We had five board members, only one in Ann Arbor.  Somehow, the other four
never managed to meet.  Yup, it's a failure of the local board members.

NB.  We still only have one local board member: tsty.  Everyone else lives
elsewhere.  Kent is the closest, but he has to travel to meet in Ann Arbor.

If you are within 30 or 40 miles of Ann Arbor, I'm considering you
local.  Who is on the board now for whom that is not true?

It's easy to get people to communicate via some mechanism other
than the BBS.  Start a mailing list; put notices on the web page;
perhaps use a web-based forum.  It's clear that the traditional
PicoSpan-derived BBS has failed.

Run its course, maybe. But it's had a good long run. And if you'd enjoyed it 
for as many years as I have... Well, hardly a failure.

Failed in the same way that a car engine fails if it runs out of gas.  But
hey, now we're arguing semantics, in good Grexian fashion.

I'd like to see a newer, web-based forum if we can get one.  We can keep
the old BBS running for those who like that sort of thing (in line with
our previous discussions of running text-based apps in parallel with
web-based or GUI).  But more web-based services would help in terms of
getting us onto more devices including tablets, possibly.  Perhaps a
forum and blogging might go hand in hand if the application supports
both.

I'm within 30-40 miles and so is TS.  I don't think ryan, glitch, and
ball are, though.

ball is the one I've not been able to remember for three days. :(

We are on the web, by way of back-talk.  I don't see it bringing in new
voices.  Am I just deaf?

It's an old interface.  Time to try something newer.

I have noticed a fault in the bylaws as posted at:
  http://www.cyberspace.org/cyberspace/bylaws.shtml

      ARTICLE 4:  ELECTIONS AND TERMS OF OFFICE
 
  a.  BOD members shall be elected to two-year terms, that begin
      on January 1 of each year.  Terms of office shall be
      staggered, with 4 board positions being filled beginning in
      even-numbered years and 3 in odd-numbered years.

Yes, and if you paid any attention to the Board's minutes
you'd know we know already and have been trying to get it
fixed.  

My proposal should read as follows:

-----
Article 2b.
   To be eligible to vote, an individual must be a validated member.  No
individual may cast more than one vote per opening in any election, or
vote for any other member.

Validation can be made via a check or Paypal contribution to pay dues;
presenting the original or photocopy of a government issued ID bearing
the individual's name, birthdate and photograph to the treasurer; or by
such means as established by the treasurer.
-----

I'm not really happy with the phrasing for how to validate someone. 
Suggestions would be welcome.

re resp:26: Kent, does everyone who proposes a change to the by-laws
have to read all of the minutes for every meeting to see if such things
were mentioned, or is that just for me?

It's a darn good idea to get some background.  Also, fixing that 4:3
wording is not as simple as changing the numbers.

Dan's idea was tomake "verified" users members, not "validated" users.
There is a difference (based on the policies of this organization).  Did
you mean "verified"?

resp:23 You don't see the web site bringing in new users because
your definition of the "Grex on the web" seems to be, "backtalk"
and your definition of user seems to be, "someone who uses the BBS."

I don't understand why it's so hard to accept that new users are
coming to Grex regularly, but they are almost uniformly NOT interested
in the BBS.  Why would they be?  What does the BBS possibly offer
that they would be interested in?  Do you really think that a
generation raised on the Internet is going to find anything on
Grex's 1980's era "BBS" that they couldn't find more easily, more
completely, more accurately, etc, elsewhere?  Even the "BBS" monicker
is outdated.  I mean, we're talking about a program from the early
1980s, and a web interface that hasn't changed fundamentally since
the late 1990s, when "web standards" were a distance fantasy and
HTML 3.2 and Netscape Navigator were cool.

It seems to me that there are two choices here: either force these
new users to play by Grex's existing rules, which clearly isn't
going to happen, and are only cared about by a handful of old timers
anyway.  Or change Grex's rules to accommodate the new users, who
are far greater in numbers and actually interested in some of the
things we have to offer.

It further strikes me that there's a group of folks who absolutely
cannot stand to see Grex change, and would rather shut it down than
let it evolve.  Personally, I think that's silly and selfish.  It's
like someone saying that, because the kids don't like the swings
anymore and prefer the sea-saws, we should shut down the playground
because anyone who doesn't like the swings isn't contributing.  The
swings are where all the cool kids hung out and decided who runs
the playground.  If you aren't into the swings, you clearly aren't
a cool kid and don't deserve to play in our playground.

Grex started out as a small, regional BBS and despite a few years
of rapid growth in use, stayed that way for far too long; THAT is
why it is stagnating now.  That and this imperative to retain the
BBS as the central focus of the system, despite limited use and
relevance to a new generations of users; I'm kind of shocked that
no one has mentioned 'party'.  But again, what would a generation
raised on IRC and AOL Instant Messanger and gTalk find compelling
in THAT interface?  But some are suggesting that the solution to
this is to ... do what, exactly?  Push the BBS on people because
if they aren't posting there, then they're not contributing?

Grex's founders were not the founding fathers of the United States,
and the bylaws are not the Constitution.  Why should we continue
to be constrained by the vision of a group of folks who sat around
pot luck dinners in the late 80s and early 90s -- before the Internet
explosion; before the World Wide Web -- and wrote out how they
thought out a computer conferencing system should be run?  They did
a fine job, but times have changed.

re #31 I agree.  I don't want to see Grex shut down at all.  I want to 
see changes made and I believe the corporate structure (cyberspace 
communications inc) and related member requirements, bylaws and 
articles, are an obstacle to that change.  The way to affect real 
change, like Grex working with the Well or something else, is to 
dispense with the corporation, and set up a situation where these things 
can be considered *without* respecting old bylaws and old articles.  

I believe grex's current caretakers and newer members need not be 
permamently constrained by a corporate structure that has long since 
served its purpose and become outdated.  To reach the future, you need 
to let go of the past.  

re resp:29: I don't know how to distinguish between "verified" and
"validated" users.

This isn't worth it to me if I have to drag and fight through it against
Kent.  You win this one, Kent.  I give up.  You have successfully
repelled a change.

I had thought Dan wanted to move away from the pay-to-vote model, and I
could see that as a good thing.  I now perceive that Dan wants something
else entirely.  I don't know what it is, with regard to voting
privileges, anyway.  I am not sure he knows, but it surely isn't what I
thought.

It would be much easier to discuss this, Dan, IF YOU WOULD READ WHAT I WROTE
INSTEAD OF WHAT YOU WANT TO ARGUE AGAINST.  You are better than that.

No, I don't think the BBS is all that important.  It's fun, for some of us,
and was fun, for others.  Yes, people are using grex for "cool" things.
Great.  Wonderful.  They aren't interested in agora, or any of the other
conferences.  That's cool.  No problem.

They want to vote?  On what?  They want to be Directors of the Corporation?
Cool.  We need more people to take on those duties.  Who are they talking to
about it?  Where are they talking about it?  I'll be glad to join them and
add my two-hundredths of a dollar.  Where do I go?

Re 32: The issue, John, is that validated users (group=people) are
roughly 1000 people on the system, many of how got their accounts and
never came back.  They aren't likely to participate.

Verified users, of which there are 104 users currently (group=verified)
at least wanted to be here enough to either pay for membership or
provide an ID to use the system.  So, from that perspective, are more
likely to want to participate.

If you want to go forward with your proposal, feel free. But I wasn't
sure if you knew the difference between the two user categories and what
that means to a proposal such as you are making.  If you are, then carry
on.  But I would not support making "validated" users members.  I would
at least be willing to discuss making "verified" users members (since
as Dan points out, we verify members, anyway).

resp:33 I am, Joe.  I read item 256, in which you revived the
discussion of dissolving the corporation, and item 338, in which
you suggest that those who login to Grex and not participate in the
conferences are not contributing.  You also said something along
the lines of shutting down Grex if the membership "barely" outnumbers
the number of board members.  (Something along the lines of, "We
know WHAT to do, even if we don't WANT to do it.")

I don't know if they want to vote.  I don't much care.  The grex
community shot itself in the foot on that over the popcorn incident,
when Jamie Howard and others kept proposing member votes to restore
the items that Valerie Mates deleted, and finally the Grex community
got tired of it and passed a resolution that any proposal had to
be endorsed by 10% of the user population before it could be brought
to a vote.  Now, no one cares enough to bother endorsing anything,
so essentially nothing can be brought to a vote.  Whoops.  But I
don't see any reason to go to the administrative burden of tracking
membership expiration and all the rest of it.  It's soooo much easier
to just declare that a person is a member forever after becoming a
member once.  It makes bookkeeping easier.

You want to know where to go to communicate with these folks?  I
don't know; it's TBD.  But it ain't the conferences.  It hasn't
been for years, and never ever will be again.

I've been catching up on this discussion. I'm opposed to the proposal to
let anyone who's validated have a vote and have some doubts about the "a
person is a member forever after becoming a member once" concept, but I
do agree that Grex should take a hard look at its membership model. I'll
enter my ideas in a new item.

The current discussion in 256 is about how to accomplish the dissolution of the
Corporation.  If it must be done, how it should be done.

The discussion in 338 is about eligibility for a Directorship.

As for the conferences, I guess I really wasn't clear: the only conference of
interest is coop.  

If Proctor & Gambles' stockholders want to affect the governance of Proctor &
Gamble, they have to attend the stockholders' meeting.  Sure, the
stockholders can meet in bars and at one anothers homes.  They can write
letters to each other, to the Directors and Officers, and to newspapers like
the Wall Street Journal.  But when push comes to shove, they have to show up
at the stockholders' meeting.

coop is the stockholders' meeting of Cyberspace Communications.  If people
want to affect the governance of the Corporation, they have to participate in
coop.

If you don't know whether they care about the governance, why suggest making
them members?  What does granting a franchise they don't want and won't use
accomplish?

My memory of the change to bylaws on proposals does not match yours.  I
remember the approved proposal specifying ten percent of the membership, not
ten percent of the "user population."  In fact, Article 5, Section b, says,
in part, "In order for the motion to be voted on, at least 10% of the
eligible voting membership must endorse bringing the proposal to a vote."

Making the bookkeeping easier at the expense of actually being able to
accomplish anything is a misplaced priority.

I'm looking forward to seeing John's proposal.  'Twould be nice to have a way
to continue.

Sorry, I meant 10% of the membership; my bad.

The advantage of not expiring memberships is that it makes them easier to keep
track of: membership monotonically increases, and the members list is simply
appended to.  Hey, right now, no one is doing it as far as I can tell.  May
as well make it as dead simple as possible.

Saying that 'coop is the stockholders' meeting of Cyberspace Communications'
is only true because an existing group of people want it to be true.  They
could change their minds and say, 'A mailing list is the stockholders' meeting
of Cyberspace Communications.'  Why should that be a problem?

Only because the change would have to be approved in coop. :)

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss