Nominations are now open for the Cyberspace Communications, Inc.
Board of Directors. In accordance with Article 4, Section d of the
Bylaws, nominations will close on November 15 and an online election
held December 1 through December 15. Terms of office begin on January
1, 1997, and are two years in length. Four seats are up for election
this time around.
Any current member of Grex who has paid at least 3 months' membership
dues is eligible to run for and serve on the Board unless they are
currently serving and are completing the second of two consecutive
terms. (People in the latter group are eligible to run again in
next year's election if they are still members at that time.)
The terms of three Board members have one more year to run: Steve
Gibbard (scg), Valerie Mates (valerie), and Jan Wolter (janc).
The four Board members whose terms end this December 31st are
Mark Conger (aruba), Dan Gryniewicz (dang), Scott Helmke (scott),
and Misti Tucker (mta). They are all eligible to run for re-
election.
Use this item to make nominations. To see the current membership list,
type
!members | more
at the next prompt. It is suggested that you check that a potential
nominee is eligible and is willing to serve before nominating them.
The Bylaws are posted in item 2 of this conference and enumerate the
duties of directors.
88 responses total.
(Correction to 1st paragraph: Terms of office begin on January 1, 1998 (not 1997).)
<whew>
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
I nominate Mark Ziemba (mziemba) to run for election to the board of directors.
Mark, 'scuse me if I'm just being dumb, but I don't happen to know you. Are you close enough to Ann Arbor to be able to attend board meetings?
Mark lives in Ann Arbor.
I accept nomination.
I accept mine, too.
(Oh, right, we have to accept) I accept nomination.
This response has been erased.
I could volunteer, right? If so, I volunteer to run again.
This response has been erased.
Hmmm, odd. I responded immediately when I got your message. I wonder how often my mail is getting lost.
If the nominations are limited to these six, I think two of Dang, Scott, Aruba and Misti should un-accept their nominations. Otherwise, the odds are very likely that they will allbe re-elected and the other two nominees, llanarth and mziemba, who have never served, will still not have the chance. The four incumbents should draw straws or pick numbers out of a hat, or something. The board will be better off with at least a little new blood.
I think that the membership of Grex should be the ones to decide whether to infuse the Board with new blood. I definitely do not think that Richard Wallner should be making that decision.
I never said that *I* should be making that decision, but that thefour incumbents themselves should be making that decision. Let the newbies serve These elections are all popularity contests anyway. Picking four out of six mewans voting against two for no good reason other than randomness orpopularity. If two of the incumbents decline to run, it will save anxiety.
Uh....if two withdrew, then there would be four candidates for four positions, and there would be no need for an election. Is that how you would like all elections held, Richard? No choices?
All of the board members up for re-election are on their first term. Dang has only served a few months. Jesse Helms is not among them. The Grex bylaws do prevent anyone from serving more than two consecutive terms. I nominate (without asking his permission to do so) Eric Bassey (other).
I should hope the elections are more than just a popularity contest. People should be voting for those they think will do the best job of operating grex. That means selecting people who will do the right thing, even in tough situations. Most (if not all) of the people nominated have been in fact active in coop and other places; it should be easy for members to get some feeling for what these people are like, as individuals. It is also fair to ask these people how they would cope with various situations, or where they would like to see Grex go. For instance, when CDA reared its ugly head, there were some *very* significant differences in the stances of various grex board members. While no board member at the time *liked* CDA, there were some that were willing to go to much further lengths involving grex to fight it, than others. Grex could have evolved in one of a number of radically different ways, depending on how those differences got resolved. If there had been enough grex members who were in fact in *favour* of CDA, grex might well have changed quite radically even before now. There have also been at times disputes about whether grex should grow, and how fast grex should grow. Even reasonable people can reasonably differ on this, and certainly, so far, grex has managed to grow quite a bit. There will be lots of issues coming up that board members will have to decide. While some of these are big issues the board should be bringing to the membership, many other decisions, including the decision about whether to solicit input from users, has to be made by the board members using their own best judgment. That means it's *important* to select board members who will be competent to make the small decisions, and who have the skills and experience necessary to work both with staff, to get things done, and with the membership, to resolve the big issues.
I certainly don't think that the board elections are a "popularity"contest.... gee! if it is, then i think we should have a swim suit section and maybe a talent section. Voting for board members should be around dedication and learning and etc. Its not popularity. That was in high school... I think that Grex is mature enough to have board members that make a difference not just for "looks"
Thank heaven that when I was elected, I didn't have to participate in the swimsuit competition. :)
Welcome back to coop, richard. <SIGH>
I dunno, I think I'd be amused to see danr in a bikini.. :)
I don't think I would like that atoll.
Bimini Crickets, can't we stop with the puns?
Next year, two current board members will have reached the two-term limit that Jan refers to in resp:21. So if there isn't "new blood" this time around, there will be a year from now. Personally, I think it's fine for people who have served only one term (or a fraction of a term, in dang's case) to run again, and I hope none of the nominees feel pressured to drop out.
okay points taken, but these *are* popularity contests. It is likely that there are no significant differences in views on issues among the candidates out there. There are no issues on the table political enough to provoke such differences. In fact the last time I recall anyone being on the board being strongly opposed to board or membership sentiment, was robh on the anonymous reading issue. And he resigned rather than disrupt the harmony of the board. Accepting this, how do you decide whether to vote for Misti, Scott, or LLanarth, when you can only vote for two of the three? Popularity. Who do you know better. Members are going to be more familiar with the names of those who have served. I submit that the overwhelming majority of the voting membership will vote based on popularity and familiarity, and that perhaps the bylaws should be changed so noone can serve consecutive terms. People can still run again in this scenario, just not in the immediate election after their term ends. This would be fair and would allow more people the opportunity to serve on theboard.
Well, that's not _necessarily_ a bad thing. I'd certainly feel more comfortable, were I a voting member, voting for someone I was familiar with and knew to be a decent person. On the other hand, if my familiarity with one of them came from being repeatedly flamed, I would vote for someone else.
Just a little correction to Richard's, um, *interesting* view of Grex history: I did NOT resign to avoid "disrupting the harmony of the Board", I resigned because the membership clearly showed that their views and mine didn't match any longer. If I thought the members had wanted one thiong and the Board had wanted another, I would have stayed and fought on their (the members') behalf. Remember, the main function of the Board (IMHO) is to serve the membership.
Re #30: This kind of thing has been pointed out before, but there's a formal procedure for amending the bylaws. You can set the wheels in motion for a change by convincing a member to enter an item with a formal proposal, or by becoming a member and entering one yourself. To take effect, 3/4 of those voting must vote in favor of the amendment. Are there any more candidates? Nominations are open through November 15.
I nominate robh...I need someone on the board who I can antagonize. you made your point by resigning, that issue's done with, so run again!
Your honesty is refreshing. >8) I must decline your nomination, as I have already declined someone else's offer to nominate.
I'm with mdw on the importance of Grex elections. Once the nomination process is done, I've got a bunch of questions for the candidates. Such as: Are you willing to set deadlines for projects to be completed?
I'll run to see if I'm popular enough to be elected
This response has been erased.
Dave: I'm with you and mdw too. I've got a whole bunch of answers. :) I guess it's time to heat up the o'l vim and get to work on my statement. Hey John, what are the size restrictions on the statments again?
As I recall, 23 lines, max of 79 characters per line.
Although I nominated myself, I guess I haven't officially accepted my own nomination. So, I'm officially accepting... As a new candidate, I don't object to running against a significant amount of current board members. While I obviosuly don't have previous experience on Grex's board, I am active in other aspects of Grex. I think this is something that would make me at least more than unfamiliar. A forum for discussion with the candidates before the election would familiarize any interested Grexers with our viewpoints and character. I assume there will be an opportunity for this, if only as a co-op conference item. I do, however, appreciate the enthusiasm demonstrated for new candidates!
As Dan & John were just discussing, there's an official setup for candidates' statements. In the past, sometimes someone (ajax, at least) has come up with a questionnaire & posted the results. But feel free to start a coop item yourself.
What would that official set-up be?
Candidates create a publically readable text file in their home directories called "statement" (without the quotes, of course) which contains at most 23 lines with at most 79 characters on each line. The file can contain whatever you want. When someone votes, they have to option to view a candidate's statement, if he or she has one. Thus, even people who don't follow co-op have an opertunity to see at least something about at least some of the candidates.
for others as well, it's quite restricting that a guaranteed pre-payment of 1 full years membership would not suffice for qualification to be nominated and run for a board seat. might even generate a few memberships - pending the outcome of the election, that is.
Was the question of whether non-members could nominate members for board seats ever settled? This came up three years ago, I believe, and I haven't been around much since...
Ah...thanks, Dan!
Re #46: Well, self-nomination is allowed, and a person who's been nominated has to say whether they accept the nomination or not, which is tantamount to self-nomination. So by that logic, it doesn't matter who first nominates someone. At least, that's how I remember that the issue was settled. (By the way: Hi, lilmo. Haven't seen you around for a loooooong time.)
This response has been erased.
Rob isn't interested in doing it this time around? Maybe folks would have a good question or two but aren't really looking to do the whole survey. Would you be willing to accept questions from users, Valerie?
The nominations period has one more day to run. Who are the current nominees who have accepted their nominations?
In order of mention, the nominees are:
dang
aruba
llanarth
scott
mziemba
mta
other (?)
jared
The (?) for 'other' means that he hasn't accepted yet, at least
not in this item.
This response has been erased.
Re: 49, 50 & 53 Thanks, Rob. And thanks to Valerie for volunteering to do if necessary. While looking through my directory the other day I found the Statement I used while a candidate in last year's election. I think I'll just keep it around as I don't think it will ever not reflect my feelings about Grex.
This response has been erased.
Gee what a coincidence, so have I. :)
and i have received said mail, and am doing the requisite reading of the bylaws while considering the most practical response. to quote that famous republican iconoclast, "i'll be back."
having now read the bylaws and the articles of incorporation, i will accept nomination to grex's board of directors. if my understanding is correct, i have until 1 december to deliver to the treasurer a minimum of three months' dues in order to be eligible for election to the board. please correct me if that is wrong. i will be writing a statement within the next few days. thanks.
Re #58: I believe that is correct.
Re #48: Yeah, that sounds familiar. And, thanks, it's good to be remembered after so long. I guess I made a big enuf pain in the butt of myself that my mere appearance was sufficient to cause a grimace. ;^)
Thanks to all of the willing candidates. It is very difficult to put your name up for consideration, and it is harder yet when winning means a year of (probably thankless) service to the community. Best of luck to all of you.
This response has been erased.
Heh. I'd have probably known that if this was M-Net. (-:
I should probably mention that nominations are now closed, it being after November 15. Voting starts on December 1 and runs though December 15.
Thanks for the reminder!
It's definitely not a thankless job. Many of Grex's users are quite appreciative of the efforts of the board members. I never felt bad about my term as a board member.
It's definitely not a thankless job. Many of Grex's users are quite appreciative of the efforts of the board members. I never felt bad about my term as a board member.
You can say that again.
Yep. Bears repeating.
Hmmm, looks like a backtalk response to me. (I'm happy toglad to see that I'm not the only one who does that occasionally.) <g>
(And I'm glad to happy to see that you're so happy to glad to see that, Misti.) (sorry)
I'm so adamant about it, I thought I'd say it twice. :)
A likely story.
re:previous messages..cantbacktalk be fixed so that it wont enter the identical message twice, even if it thinks it has been entered twice? Ive had this happen to me and I hate having to go backj and scribble repeat posts
What if you want to enter the same response twice? Do you have to retype it?
What if you want to enter the same response twice? Do you have to retype it?
How could backtalk tell if you had retyped it?
Exactly. Richard, this is not a backtalk problem, it's inherent in the way the web works. I've seen it in a whole slew of other contexts.
This response has been erased.
Yes, this is on my mental list of things I'd like to add to Backtalk. But it's a long list and this is not at the top.
This response has been erased.
Sorry, getting around to it...
Yes, I'd also like to see statements from all candidates so that I can cast an *intelligent* vote (within my limited capacity, natch).
Working on it. Currently having trouble working with a Unix editor I'm comfortable with. May just work on it on my system and then upload it as a text file. That's the main reason for my delay...
This response has been erased.
I'll put a link to Item 60 on the vote web page.
Thanx, John. That's a good idea!
Done. You can now go directly from the web vote page to Item 60 via a mouse click.
You have several choices: