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 will be held December 1 through December 15. Terms of office begin on January 1, 2006, 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: Joe Gelinas (gelinas), Steve Van Loon (vanloons), and David Cahill (dpc). Hence there is no point in nominating any of them. The four board members whose terms end on December 31 are S. Lynne Fremont (slynne), Mary Remmers (mary), Bruce Howard (bhoward), and Larry Kestenbaum (polygon). Mary Remmers is completing the second of two consecutive terms and is therefore *not* eligible to run this time, although she can run in future elections. The other three are completing a first term and can run for re-election. To appear on the ballot, a person must be nominated in this item by November 15 and affirmatively accept the nomination in this item before the start of voting on December 1. Seconds are not required. Self-nominations are permitted.115 responses total.
I'll start by nominating the three incumbents who are eligible to run (slynne, bhoward, polygon), plus Mark Conger (aruba).
I will accept my nomination and will second everyone else's there.
I nominate slynne, bhoward, polygon, and Mark Conger (aruba).
I am more than happy to make the following nominations: that of remmers (user remmers), that of S. Lynne (user S. Lynne), and that of naftee (user asw).
Because this item has been archived offsite so you can't erase it, I am compelled to nominate our scholarly scholar.
I would like to nominate the following Grexers for the 2006 Grex Board of Directors: Todd Plesco (tod) Amichai Jeffrey Rollin (twenex) Sean Granger (granger)
I'll second all of those.
(Wait, I can't; I'm not a member anymore. Nevermind.)
I nominate Dan Cross.
I respectfully decline.
I'm nominating AND seconding all the following users: naftee nharmon cross cross naftee cross
slynne is curropt and did bad things with volley, the only thing she should be running is fat ass to get on a diet. seriously slynne should be allowed to run for anything she is a evil liar and not worthy to run.
I would like to now adopt nigger as a nominated negro.
Re #8: You don't have to be a member to nominate people.
I'll second (or third or whatever we're up to) the nomination of nharmon.
I nominate Aitch (H) *hugs* remmers. (phD)
I'd like to nominate John Remmers and Mike McNally.
Thank you for the nomination but I respectfully decline.
I'd reconsider if I were you, Mike. I think you would be a terrific member of the board. And the complications / cost of attending meetings by long distance have eased tremendously with the advent of iSight and Skype.
Between work and house renovations I'm already fairly busy and am reluctant to add more time commitments when my recreation time is already regrettably scarce. I've already got a volunteer role on Grex (as staff) that I so far haven't been able to give much time. I'm not sure how you manage it, Bruce, but I've also got concerns about the time zone factor. With a four hour time shift between Ann Arbor and Alaska I fear weekday evening meetings would conflict with the tail end of my workday. I'll reconsider in the future when the time commitment required by my house settles down a bit but at the moment I don't think it would be a good idea.
re #6 Unforutnately, I'm only volunteering for domestic NONprofit corporations at this time. Is Cyberspace, Inc the former ANEW, INC or am I mistaken? (just kidding) I accept the nomination.
GOOD LUCJ THIS TIME AROUND< TOID
THANKS SOUP
I'd like to announce that I support the todd campaign, though I don't think he's done enough since the last election (where I also supported him) to sway the opinions of thick-headed Grexers who don't seem to realise he's the best thing that could possibly happen to Grex. Todd, the issue of Grex crashing every two days seems to be more one to do with PEOPLE than with technology. It seems pretty clear that crashing every two days is something indicative of a SERIOUS PROBLEM and that this serious problem probably wouldn't be all that hard to fix. However, Grex's staff seems to insist on merely restarting the system every other day -- which, probably, is going to end up taking up more time than merely fixing the problem once and for all -- rather than trying to tackle the problem this all poses. What, as a board member, will YOU do to make sure the potentially serious problem is fixed and will not cripple Grex?
A new rack and new disks purchased with a great warranty is the most logical step. Part of Cyberspace's mission is the advancement of scientific endeavors but Grex is being treated like the shuttle Challenger. The Cyberspace Communications Board of Directors have a fiduciary responsibility to protect assets from potential liabilities. I would say that the system being unavailable with this frequency is a liability that needs mitigation. As a board member of Arbornet, I've recognized this liability in same and have worked through back channels to acquire a rack mount system with Rex Roof. This has had zero financial burden to the corporation and membership and sooner than later we can expect to hear it is ready to go live. Simply put, M-Net is light years ahead of Grex in the "uptime" realm. We have not had our mandatory annual Arbornet meeting and have rather focused on the real issues at hand (i.e. downtime. It would be a pleasure to utilize my resources to help Cyberspace Communications realize such benefits as an elected board member.
With a new rack and a policy that you have just seen in writing, it should seem foolish that one would not vote for todd plesco.
I accept the nomination.
I nominate the exception. YEAH< ROOCJK ON LEFTism ./ f
i nominate scholar.
I accept the nomination. Thanks.
I'll accept my nomination too.
Cool.
:o
Sweet
I predict that Todd will lose, but only because Grex won't be up long enough for the election to take place.
No wonder this item as so few responses.
Steve VanLoons has announced in mail, to the board, that he is resigning from Grex's board. He sited the fact that he's not been at a meeting in a long time and that this would be a good time to step down, what with an election at hand. That I remember, this hasn't come up before. I'll suggest we simply increase the number of candidates for this election from four to five and not change any of the deadlines. What do other folks think? Also, thanks to Steve for his service on the board.
Ack. s/cited/sited
(It works the other way around, Mary. s/sited/cited)
Nominations close November 15 - seven days from now.
Here are the nominees thus far. I've noted those who have accepted
and marked with a * those who are members currently. (To appear on the
ballot, you have to be a member in good standing by the time voting
starts on December 1.)
slynne* (accepted)
bhoward* (accepted)
polygon* (accepted)
remmers*
naftee
scholar
tod* (accepted)
aruba* (accepted)
nharmon*
twenex
granger
I think it would be consistent with the bylaws to handle the vacancy as
Mary suggests in #37, using five slots instead of four. The Board
should probably authorize this officially.
Steve's term had another year to run, I believe. So we want to ignore that and simply go to elections of five and two instead of four and three, alternate years? Or we could have the winning candidate getting the fewest votes fill the remainder of Steve's term, which is one year. In the event of a tie, flip a coin or draw lots. I'd rather something along the lines of the later, so we could keep the number of candidates each election year as it has been.
I agree with Mary in #41, but maybe it should be a seperate election entirely?
re 39 Don't confuse her with technical computer stuff.
I also agree with resp:41
#41 makes sense to me.
I'd like to nominate a few more people: Walter Cramer (i) Eric Bassey (other) Ken Josenhans (krj) You'd all be (have been) a great fit for this job. Please consider accepting the nomination.
I'd like to nominate devnull
I would like to nominate happyboy
I would like to second happyboy's nomination, only because I like him, not because I expect him to accept or anything. But who knows. Maybe before slynne nominated, she made sure it'd be accepted. Maybe we're in for a surprise, folks.
No, I didnt discuss it with him. I would be surprised, but pleasantly so, if he accepted. Although I disagree with him on a lot of things, I think cyklone would probably do a good job and I nominate him although I doubt he'll accept.
:/
:\
:|
Re #41: I think the bylaws require 4 ballot slots one year, 3 the next. So if we merge the vacancy-filling election with the regular one, some scheme (such as lowest vote-getter, or drawing lots) would be needed. Now that I think of it, holding a special election for the vacancy, separate from the regular one, might be the cleanest way to go. That way, there'd be no ambiguity about what a candidate was running for. The bylaws require that an election to fill a vacancy be held within three months of the occurrence of the vacancy. We could hold the regular election, with four slots, on schedule and the special election anytime before early February. The downside of that would be a longer period of time with a reduced- size Board. The Board should decide how to handle this.
This is me not accepting Thanks for the the thought though.
I'd rather do it in one election, as Mary suggests in #41, so that we have 7 board members as soon as possible. But I suppose that's not 100% consistent with the bylaws.
Could one of the outgoing members stick around until February? If more than one of them were willing, have the voters choose one for the short-term position?
Whatever we do has to be 100% consistent with the bylaws. We don't want to give anyone a reason for challenging an election.
I rescind my acceptance of the nomination.
what ! that's a big word. you're not running anymore, tod ?! :(
Re: #46 Thank you, but i've already said "yes" to a bit more board work than i can do a really good job at.
At its meeting last night, the board decided to hold a separate election to fill the vacancy after the regular electionn. Probably in January.
The nominations were due to close on the 15th, but Grex was offline between the 12th and the 19th. The board is exchanging mail in regards to how this should be handled. I've asked for the board to vote, in mail, to allow the nominating period to remain open for an extra week to compensate for this downtime. There seems to be a question about whether the bylaws address this specific situation. Anyhow, this question needs to be resolved fairly quickly to be helpful. If anyone has any comments or concerns about the propriety of such an extension, please let us know.
I would like to know what Mary Remmers and the candidates think about death threats on Grex.
Yeah; what scholar said.
I fully support the free speech rights of all users to express their utter disappreciation for the harm that scholar and naftee have inflicted upon Grex. And while I would normally consider it rude to make users feel threatened and or not welcome on the system, I believe that in this case scholar and naftee have brought that onto themselves. With great humility and appreciation to those who have nominated me, I must respectfully decline. This decision has nothing to do with any current events, but rather due to my current commitments.
Hey, baby, this is Grex.
I'm all in favor of death threats on Grex, but ONLY if they are "credible and specific." (Or is it "specific and credible?" I can't remember.)
Please don't forget that I withdrew my nomination acceptance.
Okay, I *think* it's okay to extend nominations by three days, the amount of time remaining in the nomination period when Grex went down for the OS upgrade. I believe the bylaw language on election extensions allows this. So I hereby declare that nominations are open now through November 25. The board election will take place December 1-15. There are nominees who have not yet definitely accepted. They have until midnight November 30 to accept, and should do so by indicating acceptance in this item. To appear on the ballot, one must also be a member in good standing who has paid at least three months' dues. I'll post a summary of the nominations and acceptances in a day or two.
I appreciate the nomination, and I respectfully decline.
Ditto.
Okay, nominations are closed. Nominees who have accepted are: slynne, bhoward, polygon, aruba. Scanning the item, I think granger, naftee, and remmers were nominated and have not accepted or declined. Let me know if I missed anybody. Such people have through Nov. 30 to accept and to become members in good standing if they aren't already. Re my own nomination: I appreciate the thought but will decline. At this point, there are four nominees who accepted, which equals the number of board vacancies. Recall that there will be a special election early next year (the board needs to set the dates) to fill the vacancy created by Steve VanLoon's resignation.
I'm not a member; I can't seem to run.
Even though it looks like there will be no competition for board seats this time, the vote program is now operational. If nothing else, this will provide an opportunity to test it under OpenBSD. From a tty interface, run it by typing 'vote' from a Unix shell prompt or !vote from most other prompts. From the web, go to https://grex.org/cgi-bin/pw/voting-booth . (http and https both work, but I suggest using the more secure https, since you have to authenticate with your grex id and password.) The vote runs midnight to midnight EST, December 1 through 15. If you try to vote outside that timeframe, you'll get a terse message about the polls being closed.
the message has a comma splice. Please replace with : We're sorry; the polls are closed.
Oh joy, I get to vote in my first grex election! There. I voted for everyone.
This is sorta like the old Soviet elections - You can vote for anyone you like, as long as they're a member of the communist party.
I like Bruce Howard's statement
Whoops, sorry about that. The permissions are corrected and the statement properly reinstalled now.
Larry, how come you didn't mention that you're county clerk for Washtenaw County? Your campaign statement says you work at U-M's ISR. Though there aren't any choices, there are 4 great candidates.
I think Larry's campaign statement is left over from the election two years ago.
I was told to vote for a maximum of 4. How would I go about voting for 5?
In this case you couldn't, since the vote program wouldn't let you.
You can, however, vote for 0, 1, 2, or 3.
What I meant was, with only 4 candidates, why am I still told not to vote for 5?
This response has been erased.
Just in case you had developed malice of forethought... ;-)
Because five is right out!
1, 2, 4 - no, 3!
Re #86: Well, here's a technical answer. The program logic says "Display the message 'Vote for at most N'", where N is the number of candidates. I didn't make an exception for the special case that N is equal to the number of slots. So the message is displayed when it is impossible even to try to vote for more than N.
Has it ever happened that N-1 people ran for N slots?
I think it happened last year.
I believe last year we had 4 people for 3 slots.
Wouldn't that be N+1 people for N slots? I think what Sindi was asking is, have we have had less candidates than open slots available?
We've always had enough candidates to fill the vacancies, as far back as I can remember.
We've had enough candidates as far back as I can remember too. i.e. to the beginning of Grex.
Okay, the election is over and the vote program shut itself off. Even though it's not a contest this year, I'll report the totals when I get confirmation from the treasury dept. that the voter rolls are up-to-date.
THe voter rolls are in a bit of disarray for the moment, so please be patient. I know this race was a nail-biter, and everyone is anxiously awaiting the outcome, but we wouldn't want a recount...
Accuracy be damned, I need closure!
Closure has arrived! 20 out of 62 eligible members voted. The total
votes received by each candidate are as follows:
aruba 20
bhoward 18
polygon 18
slynne 17
Since the number of candidates equalled the number of board vacancies,
everybody is elected.
The vote program allows non-members to vote too, although their votes
don't count in determining the outcome. Eighteen non-members voted; the
totals are:
aruba 5
bhoward 10
polygon 9
slynne 7
i hope slynne doesn't feel bad. :(
Everybody's a winner!
except slynne is the least winningest. :(
Wow, not many people voted. THanks to everyone who did.
Congratulations aruba, for getting the most votes. I wonder why two members bothered to vote, without voting for everyone? Maybe they did not understand how the voting process worked or were semiliterate and thought you could vote for only one. Thanks to all of you for agreeing to run in this election and I hope we can find someone to run in the next election.
Re #105: I imagine the turnout was lower than usual because it wasn't a contest.
maybe because the weather was crummy. by weather, i mean uptime
Don't upset the flora of my vagina.
It was higher when we had more paying members.
Maybe people just don't care as much.
> Maybe they did not understand how the voting process worked or were > semiliterate and thought you could vote for only one. You don't really believe that, do you?
Do you have a better theory?
I would bet it was deliberate.
TROGG IS DAVID BLAINE
You have several choices: