I wrote the following in the item asking for nominations, foolishly asking that it not be cause to take over the nominations item. I am sorry for that. This item is the place to argue over my agenda, and my other qualifications and intentions if I win a seat on the Grex Board. --- I have a specific agenda. I want Grex/Cyberspace Inc. to merge with Arbornet. If necessary, Grex should disband and donate it's assets to Arbornet. It could then use either the general conference as it now uses agora, or ask for the grex conference to be renamed 'agora' and it's usage changed to duplicate the current Grex agora. The purpose is that there are not enough people to justify two systems. Grex is not self-sufficient. It has no staff other than tonster who is the staff of both systems, and i who acts as cfadm on the rare occasions when that is needed. M-Net really isn't self-sufficient, either. It exists on the sufferance of tonster who keeps both Grex and M-Net in his basement, and through the continuing efforts of tonster and Greg Russo (who acts as cfadm). Arbornet's bylaws currently allow for there to be one Board meeting per year, and for that to be done on-line. There is currently no Board for Arbornet. At present I do not represent anyone. I have not attempted to gain any support for my agenda from either M-Netters or Grexers. Beyond that agenda, I served on the Arbornet Board for several years, though not currently. I have been treasurer, vice president and secretary. I never missed a Board meeting, and I always promoted the best interests of Arbornet. I think I would be an asset to Grex/Cyberspace as well. I will serve if elected, even if my agenda is not accepted, but I will persistently and energetically pursue that agenda if I become a member of the Board. I expect it to pass if I am elected.71 responses total.
Both tonster and cross are opposed. They are also both staff members of M-Net and Grex. My initiative is not intended to resolve staff issues. I think it could help, but that isn't the intention. The purpose is that the two systems support a *tiny* number of users. I would like to see the two communities join to become a more active community. This could work. It may not, but it could. What we've got isn't working. We're all waiting to see which of the exclusive list of users lives the longest, then that person can shut down the system. The purpose is that neither organization is sustaining itself. Neither Grex/Cyberspace nor M-Net/Arbornet has regular board meetings or elections any more. Neither one really needs them, either; they aren't doing anything anyway. The purpose is that things really can't get any worse. When you get close enough to that point, it's time to make a change, and it doesn't matter much what it is. For several years, I've been reading regular items titled "Future of Grex", complaining nothing is changing. All right, here's change. The purpose is NOT to make everything be like M-Net, or like Grex. Even if Grex shuts down and becomes part of M-Net, it's not going to do that. Right now, three people could become members, call for an election, and take over all of Arbornet. It wouldn't take much more effort to take over Cyberspace Communications. (It is conceivable to me that I did that already by nominating myself. If no one else wants anything here, I will have an easy time of enacting my agenda.) Eventually I'll post something like this on M-net's policy conference. It is entirely a side benefit, and probably a silly one, but I have always hated the name, "Cyberspace Communications". It doesn't describe what this place is about, or was ever intended to do. It captures a buzz word. That is all it does. It's a buzz word from 20 years ago at that. It's like opening a tomato stand in 1958 and calling it "Eisenhower Interstate Highway System, Inc.". If I can cause us to do away with that name, it will be worthwhile.
"Cyberspace Communications" (and cyberspace.org), as name and domain, may have some value on the internet market. Certainly as antiquarian value. I'm inclined to lean toward keeping them. What do the articles of incoporation of the two require on dissolution? That might have some affect on the decision.
As I noted previously, Grex is not running of money, and with our current expenses, the donations people make cover them reasonably well. We are looking forward to a new server soon, which will be a huge jump in performance. That may let us do some things we never could do before due to resource limitations. Something to look forward to! The Board has met, on average, more than once a year for the last several years. The Board has made numerous decisions, including bringing to a vote the reduction in Board size that makes it easier for us to field enough candidates to keep that aspect of Grex running. As rabid as some people on each system are that "that other system" not be merged with, agreed with, cooperated with, etc. I'm guessing at least some people would rather see any benefits of a dissolution go to any other charity other than the other system. I don't know if many users would hang around after such a change. The two systems have their own cultures and tend to be like oil and water. Thus, dissolution to improve the other system doesn't seem like a good thing to pursue. Grex has a lot of resources left, but I'd agree that motivated volunteers tend to be in short supply. Even so, we have a dedicated staff working behind the scenes, whether you see them or not. The Board has been in communication and making decisions the entire year, mostly in e-mail. This is the first time, I think, that we've had the majority of Board members from outside Ann Arbor. That has been a challenge, but we have a method of communicating for meetings (teleconference) and it does work. Our bylaws allow for this form of Board meeting. I oppose any dissolution of Grex at this time.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
I seem to recall that I suggested a grex/mnet merger on mnet's 'grex'' conf two or three years ago, at a time when grew was down for a few weeks, and dave was posting (former owner of mnet at the time grew was formed) He said something along the lines of "any such merger will happen over my dead body' He still harbored much bitterness toward the group of users that left mnet after he bought it and apparently became dictatorial, to form grex all those years ago. I think I said it was silly for him to still be that bitter, but that only made more angry. I think its a good idea to merge. I did then.
Heh, Dave Parks (kite) hasn't been associated with M-Net since shortly after he sold the system to OAFS and then OAFS merged with Arbornet. That was about 1990 or thereabouts. You should run for the Board, richard. We can make it happen.
I think it's a bad idea to merge. I sure hope it doesn't happen.
For the record, I actually support a merger. I think it would make things simpler, and I'm kind of into the idea of setting up separate communities on the same physical system, but I recognize that that's not universally wanted.
The trouble with a merger, Dan, is that usually one culture or the other will eventually get dropped. This is because one organization owns both and someone will suggest to remove the duplication to save money (it's only common sense to do so, right?). Want to guess which system gets dropped if Grex is taken over by Arbornet? And yes, I've seen this before in companies taken over by merger. It's no fun and the loss of a good culture to the owner of both leaves a lot of people wondering why things turned out so badly. It may take a few years before it happens, but there's a very good chance it will. The reason Grex started was to control its own destiny. A merger will destroy that.
Oh and before anyone nitpicks the word "money" in my response, feel free to substitute any other excuse (time, effort, aggravation, perceived slight, cognitive dissonance, etc.). Mergers are generally about synergy between the two organizations and I don't see much here other than the system maintenance aspects. It seems to be all to Arbornet's advantage otherwise. Not a good thing if you hope to maintain any cultural aspects of Grex. And bear in mind, dissolving Cyberspace Communications would essentially mean the end of Grex. There is no guarantee the new owner of Grex's money, hardware and files would do anything other than spend the money, use the hardware (or sell it), and delete the files. To the victor go the spoils. Any assurances to the contrary prior to any merger are not to be believed.
I don't see it as a winner versus loser situation. For one thing, Arbornet has nothing to do with the move. They aren't doing a takeover of Grex. They aren't doing anything, of any sort. For another, I expect to negotiate a deal where Grex's Agora will remain. I don't see why the old conferences couldn't be moved over as well, and remain exactly as they are now. The disk space requirements are insignificant. It isn't 1985 any more, when every megabyte had to be fought over. Did you notice the part where I explained that Arbornet has no Board? Grexers can keep your dark possibilities from happening. I love Grex. I have been here since it first opened to the public, and was at one of the planning meetings before it came online. I spend much time on Grex, participating in serious discussions with other people I have known for a long time. I don't want anything bad to happen to Grex. I see the move as consolidating two groups which used to be vibrant, but which are both dying. I see it as consolidating two organizations which have duplicate purposes and little energy. I see it as shaking up things which have remained static for decades. When you want to make a change, sometimes it's not a bad thing to bring people together who don't talk and have them work on something together. I don't think Arbornet needs any more hardware. There's not enough money, for either organization, to lose any sleep over. This is anything but a grab for resources. Arbornet doesn't need them. I'm not trying to nitpick anything, Kent. I hope it doesn't seem that way to you. I have no intention of doing that. I have great respect for you and am trying to pay attention to what you mean and what you want to say. I think I am proposing a significant change, and I see your response as filtering out to this: "But then things might be different!" (Please correct me if that is wrong.) You wanted change a few years ago, but nothing happened. Nothing at all. Isn't that true? I want your support. I would like this to be a consensus move. What would get you to join in? Grex can keep sliding ever downward, until it goes off line someday and no one notices, or it can try something new and take a chance. This is something new. It's not the only possibility that exists but it's the most realistic one.
This is about Grex's independence and control. That's what got Grex going in the first place, for good reason. Loss of that independence and control will not improve things in spite of the passage of time. As for "nothing happened," that's not quite true. We've made several changes in the past few years, including reducing Grex's costs and replacing an aging server (and preparing to do so again soon), giving users more disk space, doing a better job of validating new users, updating our web pages, reducing the size of our Board, updating the operating system, installing more applications, removing the dial-ins which few were using, and more. It takes time and effort to make things happen, but we did get quite a bit done. It can be frustrating to try to make things happen, but that's a volunteer-run organization for you. In comparison to Grex's past operation we've been doing a lot of things recently. We can still do more. More work, such as planning, needs to occur outside of Board meetings, and even that is possible to do if people are willing to help. Merging/dissolving Grex will mean no more Cyberspace Board and no Arbornet Board. Then what? Adding more money to Arbornet's bank account will not magically make things happen. It's a matter of motivation. What will motivate people to help? That's the question we need to answer for Grex. I don't see dissolving Grex as helping. Spending time on this is distracting from other tasks we need to be doing.
Ken has done a whole lot to keep Grex alive over the past few years. He is kinda the honey badger of making sure we survive. When almost everyone else has lost enthusiasm for the cause - Ken is working, in the background, to make sure we're up. If you get up in the morning and log into Grex you should thank Ken, cross & tonster for keeping the lights on. M-net would despise having anything to do with Grex. Really. Almost to a fault everyone there would freak. I can't think of a good enough reason to force the two systems to have any joint responsibilities. I think jep has an alternate motivation here - to get people to run (against him) for the board seat. If the time comes when we really can't support ourselves in terms of money or staff then I'd much rather we move to The Well where there is a large and thriving community of users. The Well was recently purchased, from Salon, by a group of its users, many of whom have been there since it began in 1985. We have much in common and I think we'd do as well there as anywhere.
Not much to add, except that I agree with Kent and Mary.
re resp:14: I wouldn't run just to get others to run. I wouldn't say I'll do something if I wasn't willing to do it. I wouldn't do it if I didn't expect good results. I would back off it if I became convinced it would be bad for Grex, though I think that is unlikely to happen. I think it's best, that is why I am pushing for it. I don't have any other ideas in reserve that would be better. If I did, I would say so now.
What's your response to the points Kent and Mary raised in resp:13 and resp:14?
re resp:17: I write more than I post. I wrote responses to those things but trimmed them out. re resp:13: Grex was started because the founders didn't think M-Net would last under Dave Parks' wildly erratic control. Several of the principal founders were M-Net's staff. They gave up on Dave, and committed to a new system controlled by a group instead of an individual. M-Net uses basically the same structure as Grex now. I've said repeatedly that Grexers can become members of Arbornet and run M-Net. Control the Board, replace the staff, call the combined system "Grex" and rename genera to "agora". Break my heart and rename Arbornet to "Cyberspace Communications". No one is going to tell Grexers what to do. Name one thing -- ONE -- that hasn't happened because I am running for the Board of Cyberspace Communications. I am known to just about everyone here. I've been involved in M-Net for a long time. Now I'm involved here. I don't think anyone would consider me an obstacle or deadweight. Grex needs people like me. re resp:14: I know of only two people on M-Net who say they despise Grex and Grexers, and one of them does so because of the other one. The parts of your response that I didn't address previously, state that I don't appreciate kentn. That may be true; I have not tried to follow a lot of the hidden operations that keep Grex running. I'm aware of those things (I did them for a few years for Arbornet) but have not paid attention to them here. I am of course glad Grex is still here, and grateful for all of the work that is done to keep it going. As a Board member I will expect to participate in that work. I have a record that you can review on that. I was part of M-Net's Board for a number of years. I did quite a lot during that time. I didn't just throw out sweeping revisions and expect others to do the things that were needed. IN GENERAL: If anyone has concerns I haven't addressed, please let me know about them. I don't intend to ignore anyone.
My dues have been received. I am official a member and eligible to run.
Here's a question for ya. Given the fact (as you note) that Grex led the way as a group-run organization and Arbornet/M-Net played copycat, why wouldn't it make at least if not more sense for M-Net to disband and merge with Grex as it would for Grex to disband and merge with Arbornet? (The question is largely rhetorical; I think the two organizations should remain independent.)
Yesterday I looked on M-Net but could not find any mention of your intention to encourage a merger. Did I miss it somewhere?
re resp:20: Arbornet was a member-run organization before Grex came into existence. That stuff is a quibble, is it not? I am not proposing that Grex disband. I am proposing to pursue a merger. If there's no other way to do it, I've said I am willing for Cyberspace Communications to disband but that's not my first choice. re resp:21: I haven't mentioned it on M-Net yet. Feel free to do so any time if you want. I'm not hiding anything, but just haven't gotten to the point where I'm ready to bring it up over there.
You go first, please. It's your idea and I wouldn't want to get it wrong.
Okay.
Re #22: Both Grex and Arbornet are Michigan corporations. How would you suggest they "merge"? They could share a system but remain separate corporations (but then, to who would be members of which, and would they have separate dues structures, and what would be the responsiblies of each corporation?). And, if they merge into one corporation, would it be a new one, or if not, which current one would disband?
This "merger" is very likely to be more work than just doing a better job of running each organization. It'll cost money to merge them, I'm sure, which will hurt the assets needed to pay the bills into the future. It will take time from staff and Board. It will likely anger some people enough to never come back. Managing two organizations on one computer system isn't technically a problem, but it is a problem for political reasons. As I've noted before, when organizations merge (or are forcefully combined), one of the two original cultures tends to be pushed out or marginalized. Which one depends on who is in control after the "merger." That, in turn leaves bad feelings (again), so you're less likely to get participation from users of one of the original systems. People will still not be motivated to help or participate and in fact may be less likely to help because they harbor bad feelings about how their original system has been treated in the "merger." Nothing prevents a small group of unhappy users from starting another system. If that happens you're right back where you started. My advice would be to focus on running each system better, but separately. Technical collaboration is still possible.
re resp:25: It isn't that hard to merge two corporations. Why would we need two corporations to manage one system? re resp:26: I don't think it is hard to merge two organizations. At the simplest, one simply joins the other, which is what OAFS and Arbornet did when they merged. Arbornet started to run M-Net. We did then spend money. We got an office (Grex later took it over, and called it The Pumpkin), Arbornet assumed responsibility for M-Net's modems, we collected money for operations and to buy a new computer, and things like that. Four M-Netters were added to the Board of Arbornet until we got around to having an election. There are risks to doing anything, including nothing. We don't have new users in the conferences. People depart from time to time so that Grex isn't even static, it is declining. That's not news to anyone here. We've been pretty complacent about it for a long time. That is the status quo. I'm running to change it because I think the situation here is bad enough to require a substantial change. That's it in a nutshell. I'll be a catalyst for change. I don't mean that as a buzz phrase. I mean if I am elected to the Board, I will initiate some visible, noticeable changes that are intended to improve the Grexer conferencing experience. I will also work on them and follow through with them so they happen. I can't guarantee every change will result in smooth, unquestioned joy for everyone at all times, though that will be the hope. The only prominent idea I have right now is to merge Grex with M-Net. If I can't get that to happen, I'll find other things. If you don't want change, I am not worth your vote. If you like things the way they are, you would be nuts to want me on the Board. If you do want change, and think either that my ideas might work or that I'll come up with others that will, and you believe I will work to make them happen, then please consider voting for me.
So, you think the two cultures will merge without problems? There are plenty of things to work on for Grex that are a lot less problematic than a merger.
Re #25: I didn't say it was hard to erge two corporations. I was just asking how you proposed to go about it. Tell us.
re resp:28: I do not think they will merge perfectly, without any perception of problems from any user. I think they will both vanish smoothly, and that will happen more quickly if they don't merge. re resp:29: At the simplest, one simply joins the other. It may be more complicated than that but I hope it won't be. There will have to be a conversation that includes both groups, on whether to proceed, and how to go about it. I think it's time to give it a try. Both M-Net and Grex are near the end. I don't want them to end.
Saying it's simple does not make it so. I don't think all the issues with this are being recognized. And the benefits will be less than expected. If we'd spend more time trying to make Grex a better place, it might pick up more. We still get new users all the time, but we make it hard for them to use the system at first, with lots of hoops to run through before they get an account with more commands. This was set up this way due to past abuse of the system (to prevent future abuse), and from that perspective works relatively well. But if we could improve the process to remove some of the hoops, that might help. Most of the people who run newuser never request validation, for example. We also have not done a lot to get more of our text-based services on the web so that they can be accessed via smartphone and tablet as well as laptop and desktop. We do offer the MindTerm terminal in a browser app, but we could do more. Much of this depends on staff time, which is usually in short supply. This argues for more staff to help with things like installing and administering new software when current staff are busy with $work and family. Merging is not apt to help this situation since two systems will still need to be managed, and they share staff already. We have free hosting so no costs will be saved that way. A merger is not a magic soution for any underlying organizational issues and I don't see that you are addressing any of these in a meaningful way. In fact, a merger may exacerbate some issues and leave the rest as-is, which is not helping anything. It is not wise to assume these issues won't happen.
This response has been erased.
Bear in mind that Arbornet, MNet's parent, doesn't have a sterling reputation as a non-profit? Did Arbornet not get some large grant from the government years back on the premise of buying computers for the school or some such, we're talking thousands of dollars, and noone ever fully accounted for the money and how it was spent? I think merging the systems under one company might make sense, but rather under cyberspace communications than arbornet. Grex makes the offer to buy mnet
It will all end badly, Richard. We don't have any clue how much Arbornet has in the bank and they have no Board to meet to find out. Wonderful. I sure would not and will not vote for this (as if a Board vote would be enough--it isn't, by the way).
Re #30: "re resp:29: At the simplest, one simply joins the other." Oh? Do their respective articles of incoporation permit that? Grex does have a corporate membership, but it has no voting rights for the corporation that "joins" it. You can't just propose a "merger" unless you specify how it would work (legally).
re #34 good point. Such a merger would surely require a member vote. Does grex have any 'voting members', as defined by the bylaws, at this point? I'm assuming no dues have been collected or memberships updated/renewed in quite some time. You can't have an election or a referendum if nobody is eligible to vote outside of the board members
I didn't provide all of the details on how to go about it. I am not sure if there's any interest in merging. I am confident it can be done because it was done once already, when OAFS/M-Net merged with Arbornet. It wasn't that hard to do then. At the simplest, Grex could dissolve and donate it's assets. It'd be a little more complicated to make agreements before that, such as 'keep the agora conference', but there's no reason it can't be done. It will not solve all problems. There'll still be a smaller user base than there was when Grex and M-Net had thousands of users, but there might be a larger user base for the two than either one separately. Our combined user base is still going to be small. The next step will clearly be to work on increasing it. M-Net still has an open newuser program. The problem of the validation process *would* be solved. Every user who never requests validation is someone who is lost as part of this system; someone who had enough interest to go through 'newuser' but too much dignity or not enough need, or something, to jump through hoops that occur only here, not on the rest of the Internet. re resp:33: TeacherNet was a failure, but no one has ever suggested dishonesty. Please be careful when throwing accusations around. If you don't know what you are talking about, then please find out before saying anything. Loo9sely making baseless accusations is a disgusting habit.
I believe the bylaws require that if Grex (which is to say Cyberspace Communications) voted to dissolve, that its assets must be liquidated and the money donated to charity. Arbornet is not a charity.
Arbornet is not a 501(C)3? Didn't know that. I haven't looked, but usually a 501(C)3 organization if it dissolves is required to distribute its assets to another 501(C)3, since the assets were obtained without paying taxes. However Arbornet could donate all its assets to Grex. That wouldn't be a "merger", just a donation.
Indeed, Arbornet has always been a 501(c)3, just like Grex.
Arbornet has been a 501(c)(3) since 1986. The bylaws at: http://cyberspace.org/cgi-bin/backtalk/pistachio/read?conf=coop&csel=&item= 2&rse l=all&noskip=1&showforgotten=2 http://tinyurl.com/cci-bylaws state this in Article 8: In the event the membership is unable to support Cyberspace Communications, all property belonging to the club shall be sold. The remaining cash assets, after paying final bills, shall be donated to a charitable organization, as determined by the BOD. All elected officers shall then be released from their obligations and the corporation dissolved. What's the definition of "charitable organization" if not a corporation organized under 501(c0(3)? I don't think M-Net particularly needs Grex's money but if the Board wanted to donate it to Arbornet, it could.
So the question remains, how would one execute a "merger" between two independent 501(C)3 corporations? One could absorb the other, or another 501(C)3 could be formed (or found) to absorb both. Or not merge. That's four options for two organizations: what's your choice?
re resp:42: I don't know. It doesn't seem difficult to me, and the method used does not matter. The result is what matters to me. There are not enough people to be worth keeping two separate organizations, and two separate computer systems. There are not enough differences, either. There were in 1992 but that was a long time ago. I am hoping we can sustain *one* community. I would like to think we can see growth for that. I don't see either M-Net or Grex growing separately, not after 10 or more years (I've lost count) of continuous decline.
Combine the two systems, and I think the observation "There are not enough people..." would still apply. Regarding the Arbornet/M-Net merger: I think it's instructive to look at the whole history of that, as it underscores one of the points Kent made earlier regarding the consequences of trying to meld two distinct cultures. M-Net got 501(c)3 status from the merger, but I'm having a hard time seeing what benefit Arbornet got from it. If I recall correctly, something they were *supposed* to get was a home for their conferences, but that never happened. There was shared governance for a while, but the M-Net culture predominated, and the core Arbornet folks - I'm thinking of people like Jeff Spindler, Chuck Rader, Mara Price - lost interest and drifted away. The Arbornet community ceased to exist. Back to the present: From observing and participating in both systems, but I see Grex and M-Net as two very distinct and not particularly compatible cultures. That, and there's a long-standing hostile attitude towards Grex on the part of some core M-Netters. There's an Arbornet group on Facebook, and when a rumor of a merger surfaced a few months ago, the response of those people was, shall we say, not pretty. I see some very distinct negatives to a merger and nothing much in the way of positives. And as far as I can tell, not many people seem to want it.
There were four Arbornet members before the M-Net/Arbornet merger was proposed; Jeff Spindler, Marae Price, Chuck Rader and Iain O'Cain. None of them are around any more. Iain is, sadly, deceased. The M-Netters who were involved in that merger aren't around any more either; Jim Knight, Dan Byrne, Larry Kestenbaum, and a few others, except myself. It was always obvious in those days that M-Netters would predominate. There were thousands of M-Netters, and 4 Arbornetters. I don't think the results surprised anyone. I also don't think they are very relevant now. There were Arbornet conferences on M-Net but they fell into disuse and were removed or combined with M-Net conferences. Now there are about as many active M-Net conferences as there are Grex conferences; 2 or 3. Times are different now. There are two M-Netters who have been vocally opposed to a merger. As far as how many Grexers support the idea, we will find that out. No one has ever explored it seriously before. I've made it my entire campaign, so if I am voted onto the Board, I intend to pursue it.
Sorry, jep, but you are short on details. I guess you learned from Romney about this. Just toss out an idea and say it's easy and then watch what happens if it passes. I'm not impressed at all.
re resp:46: Ah, this is all about the politics of the presidential election for you? I tried to treat your comments seriously, Kent, but that's too far outside of reality for me. If you're trying to get back at me for something related to that, have at it, but don't expect me to participate. If you want to talk about Grex, it's is a different subject, and you should phrase your questions and comments in another way.
On what to do with Cyberspace Communications, Inc, assets: Ann Arbor has an educational foundation; I think Ypsilanti has one as well. There are PTOs that could use some additional money. The United Way and American Red Cross aren't like to refuse donations, either. All are eligible to receive our money, should we need to dispose of it. There are probably other places as well. On the general question of merging, three examples come immediately to mind: Daimler-Benz/Chrysler, Warner-Lambert/Upjohn/Pfizer (okay, that one is something like a half-dozen by itself), and Sears/K-mart. Chrysler was so thoroughly mauled that it has been sold off by Daimler. We don't need to rehash Pfizer. Sears/K-mart has kept both afloat, but not smoothly. The only thing I see to be gained by merging M-net and Grex/Cyberspace is some convenience for the staff. I suspect that convenience will be illusory. The cultural differences will keep the communities apart. Trying to force them together will hasten the end, not delay it. Note that those who currently participate in both use different forms in the two places. Those who don't are shunned.
re resp:48: Joe, I don't agree you have to be different to participate on both systems. I don't do that. I'm active on both systems on a daily basis, have never concealed on either that I do that, and have never felt I was being shunned by anyone on either M-Net or Grex. Both tsty and tonster are on both systems. The cultural differences you cited are not large at all. Were you arguing that mergers can never work? Some other corporate mergers in recent memory include eBay and Paypal; Wendy's and Tim Horton's; Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and Burger King as Yum Brands; BP (British Petroleum) and Amoco; Nestle and Gerber; Google and Motorola Mobile... there are thousands of these every year, you know. Most of them are so smooth that few ever notice them. There have been failed mergers, of course. Pfizer wasn't one, though; neither was Sears/K-Mart. Sears/K-Mart is a pretty good example of a similar situation to Grex and M-Net; two related, failing organizations who combined and extended their life as one company.
jep: If you are elected to the board only to find that our membership rejects the idea of a merger, will you serve out your term on the board respecting the members' wishes in this and other matters?
re resp:50: That is a question I had to consider before I said I would run. Yes, i will serve my full term on the Board even if I can't convince Grexers to pursue a merger. I intend to pursue the merger idea because I think it will be a benefit. I can be pretty vigorous about such things. I'll do my best on that. I haven't thought of any other initiatives to propose, yet, but I will surely try if that is needed. Even aside from bold new directions, there is work to be done and I can help with that. I am strongly bound to the idea of Grex/M-Net style local community conferencing. M-Net is what brought me into the Ann Arbor area. It and Grex have been a big chunk of my life. Grex isn't my #1 priority but it isn't something I want to see go away, either.
Re #s 48 & 49: the cited cases are mostly not mergers. They are purchases. In fact, a lot still keep their identify, although owned by the other. The purpose in all cases was to make more money. That doesn't apply here, and in fact the law is very different for profit making businesses and non-profits. This is not to say that different corporate arrangements are impossible, just that it is necessary to define exactly what is proposed, before anyone can vote on doing it.
Okay, jep, please provide more detail about this so-called "merger" by dissolving Grex. I just don't see it as working the way you think it will. You've provided little to nothing to back up your side of it, and included some misrepresentations, such as there are only 2 staff members doing anything on Grex, which I find insulting. Or about Grex not being self-sustaining, when it is. You just don't provide any evidence for these sort of statements. As a result I don't think you have a good grasp on the outcome of what you are proposing, unless you came here to benefit Arbornet and destroy Grex or have a flawed understanding of how Grex works. So far, about all you are doing is helping make sure we won't get the support we need, which I don't find helpful at all. It's very easy to destroy things. The more courageous course would be to make things better.
I am not running for Grex merging with M-Net. I am running for a seat on the Board of Directors with the intention of causing that to happen, which is somewhat different. I haven't run all the changes through a lawyer, or even written them down. Everything I've done has been to write about it in this item. There is much to do, before the merger happens. I will have to convince the Grex Board. (If I am elected, I will regard this as partly accomplished.) I will have to convince M-Net. There will be negotiations. I have mentioned that before. They haven't happened yet. THEN it will be time to write up the specifics, when we all have a sense what we want from a merger, and want to make sure everyone gets what it is they think they agreed to. A vote for me is the same as a vote for a merger. You'd be nuts to vote for me if that is not what you want and expect. You might think, "jep's a great guy and has a lot of energy; I want that for Grex and am willing to go through a merger for that purpose". You might think, "A merger is a magnificent idea! We should do it. Jep sucks but it seems the only way to get a merger." Don't think, "jep's a great guy (or would be great on the Board, or is better than TS) and is just blowing smoke with all this merger BS". I am serious about it. I am also very serious that I don't want anyone saying, "I never would have voted for him if I knew he'd do THAT." I'm going to vote for me. I want a merger.
re resp:53: kentn: Okay, jep, please provide more detail about this so-called merger by dissolving Grex. I just don't see it as working the way you think it will. jep: Honestly I don't want to dissolve Grex. I want Grex to survive. I want to dissolve Cyberspace Communications, and have Grex be part of M-Net's conferencing system (or have M-Net be part of Grex's, but I envisioned it as happening on M-Net). It could be done by merging the two groups, or by dissolving one and having it's active conferences become part of the other. I don't see the technical part of migrating conferences as being much of a challenge. The legal part may be difficult or it may not. If Cyberspace dissolves, it can give it's assets to any charity chosen by the Board of Directors. Arbornet is one option, but others have been mentioned. Arbornet doesn't need anything, as has been pointed out. If they're to be given to another organization, I'd want it to be something noncontroversial. I'd rather have them go to the Red Cross than the NRA, Planned Parenthood, Irish Republican Army, or something one-sidedly partisan. If I am missing part of the point of your question, I am sorry, please let me know what I missed. kentn said: You've provided little to nothing to back up your side of it, and included some misrepresentations, such as there are only 2 staff members doing anything on Grex, which I find insulting. I sincerely apologize for saying there are only two staff members. I didn't intend to slight anyone or insult anyone but was not aware of what others do. I should have been aware of at least some of it. kentn said: Or about Grex not being self-sustaining, when it is. Kent, I have said Grex is in decline. I believe that to be true. The number of users in the conferences has decreased. I don't believe that to be controversial. There aren't new users -- who's the last new user who posted on two different days? Also, the system itself has gone down several times over the last couple of years, for multiple days at a time, once for *months*. Those things are facts. I'll discuss them further if you wish to dispute them. They're not very far off and you know it. What's self-sustaining about Grex right now? kentn said: You just don't provide any evidence for these sort of statements. As a result I don't think you have a good grasp on the outcome of what you are proposing, unless you came here to benefit Arbornet and destroy Grex or have a flawed understanding of how Grex works. So far, about all you are doing is helping make sure we won't get the support we need, which I don't find helpful at all. It's very easy to destroy things. The more courageous course would be to make things better. Well, I provided verifiable facts and cited why they are reasons for my proposal. Challenge them if you will, I'll join that debate. I have never had any interest in destroying Grex. Do you really think that's something I want? I love the agora conference. The only other active conference -- as far as I am aware -- is this one. I've been a long time participant here, too, but won't claim it's always a lot of fun. I've tried to contribute to it for all the time it's been around, whenever I could. What have I ever done to stop anyone from supporting Grex? At worst, the "jep agenda" is a far-out, easily dismissed idea. It doesn't hurt anyone or any thing. At best, it'll save Grex, and M-Net too, by adding users to a combined base and bringing together user activity to an increased and more sustainable level. Maybe that can actually grow, gain some new users, and be more interesting. That's what I want. I also said this: for years, you've been asking for ideas on how Grex can change. Well, I've proposed a change. I sure wish you'd propose something better, rather than attacking me, as a Republican; as someone who wants to destroy Grex; as an evil force. It's possible I'll be a force. If so, I'm an outside force; I've never been involved in running Cyberspace Communications before, unlike anyone else who's ran for the Board for many years. I am not evil. I don't want to destroy Grex.
I think dissolving Cyberspace Communications, Inc. will pretty much be the end of Grex, for the reasons I've mentioned previously. Mergers tend to result in reducing unneeded resources, including a "declining" conferencing system. Something always gets lost in a merger and especially when the "merger" is a dissolution of one organization. As to hurting Grex, just talking about dissolving the corporation and donating its assets gives people the idea we don't want to keep it going. And that may quite possibly result in even less donations and use. When I ask for ideas it is about how to make Grex a better, more useful place. Conferencing is not the be-all end-all of Grex. So pointing out it is declining, while it may be true, is not helping. Grex is used by all sorts of people, many of whom never do any conferencing. We still get people asking for validation virtually every day of the year. We still get donations. How long that will continue if we seriously discuss ending it, I don't know. But right now, due to our lower costs of operation, we are covering our costs more or less. It's good that you don't want to destroy Grex. The question then is what can we do to keep it going rather than shut it down? We have a very long item full of ideas to pull from. I've tossed out some ideas already, too. They will be incremental, of course, because that's how Grex works. We've actually come a long way in the past several years. We have more work to do.
As of just now jep has not made mention, on M-Net, of his intention to merge the two systems. Kind of odd, that. So I entered an item there with John's candidate statement.
Ye[, after saying you would let me bring it up there when I am ready. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You didn't point at this item in your item on M-Net, strangely, so I will do that.
The item on M-Net can be reached here: http://tinyurl.com/jep-agenda-m-net or by going to the January 2013 general conference and looking in item 13.
I tried using the link. Either my 'denise' login id has been deleted or I'm not remembering my password correctly. It's been awhile since I've been over there so it might have been deleted.
Passwords don't get deleted and we haven't reaped accounts for a long time. Your account still exists. Let me know if you need your password reset.
My account here on Grex still exists [though I haven't figured out yet how to change my password since it was reset recently; I'll do more searching about it when I have more time; maybe later today]. It's my M- Net account I was talking about. Either that account has been reaped or I don't recall the password.
As I e-mailed you, type 'passwd' at the command prompt and follow the prompts. Your account still exists.
[I did get that mail from you, Kent. And I responded by saying that I don't see [or am not understanding] a prompt or place that gives me an option to enter the 'passwd'. With my access here is the web-based version of abalone which is menu-driven. I don't know how to access grex or mnet in any other way. I realize most people here CAN do stuff like this but with exploring around a bit, I haven't figured out how to change my password here. At mnet, when I log in and it asks for my password, I tried typing passed [and!passwd as well because I read that one of the places, the ! is needed] in the password prompt which of course didn't work. I don't like being so technically challenged! I seriously do appreciate everything your doing for Grex, Kent; I know your here on a daily basis doing stuff that needs to get done so you don't really have time to hand-hold those of us that don't understand this stuff.
There is a mindterm terminal link on Grex's front web page that will get you a java-based terminal you can use to get to a command line. Have you read through the Grex FAQ (link on Grex's main web page, too)? It explains a lot of this stuff. We may need to reset you Grex password if you can't find the e-mail I sent (or I can see if I can resent it). You responded to it, so I know you got it.
You did reset my password; I just need to change it from the one you sent me. I did see the FAQ while looking around last night but haven't read much of it yet because it was kind of late when I got home [so I was tired]. What I DID read [I think] talked about using the command line. So I'll explore this later today. Thanks, Kent.
Okay, let me know if you need more help getting to a command line. Unfortunately we don't have a web-based password reset page. That's one of those improvements we could do, but there are potential issues because we don't have an easy way for all users to authenticate to prove they are the person who owns the account. Thus, we make it a dialog with the help desk. New accounts have an external e-mail address associated so we can use that as part of the authentication process.
unable to access ... both my m-b0x ids have been disabled ... adn hte url lrequires a login.
ummm:
#59 of 69: by John Ellis Perry Jr. (jep) on Thu, Jan 17, 2013 (13:05):
The item on M-Net can be reached here:
http://tinyurl.com/jep-agenda-m-net
requires login ...
tsty: it seems somehow your accounts have *both* been reaped on mnet. you should probably run newuser. apparently they weren't protected, and I reaped them last april. sorry about that. I've added you to noreap now.
You have several choices: