In Art. II, Sec (a) of the Bylaws, an individual is only eligible for membership in the corporation if they support the goals and objectives as enumerated in the Preamble. That's nice. In the Preamble, the objective is "to provided an open-access computer conferencing system for the education, intellectual enrichment, and entertainment of its users through the peaceable interchange of information and ideas" (sic). That's also nice. As two members, valerie and jep, are currently working actively to suppress the interchange of information and ideas, it is my belief they are no longer eligible for membership. Therefore, I propose expelling both from the corporation.44 responses total.
Kick out people who disagree with you. Now *there's* a fine example of supporting free speech.
This response has been erased.
(Which argument could be used to find you not in support of the Preamble and so eligible for expulsion.) It seems to me that the present unpleasantness is educating several, intellectually enriching others, and entertaining some. The removal of a few items has not hendered, indeed, has enhanced, the interchange of information and ideas, if not necessarily "peaceably". I find no ground to support your proposal.
The premise presented in sentence one of paragraph two of response
#0 is false, or at least unsupported by the evidence, rendering the
conclusion irrelevant. No action of the sort proposed is either
appropriate or called for.
Note: Article III, Section c. of the bylaws reads as follows:
c. The BOD shall make decisions related to system maintenance,
staff responsibilities and appointments, and issues related
to daily business.
I believe that determining eligibility for membership falls clearly
under "issues related to daily business" and is therefore the sole
and exclusive province of the Board of Directors.
This response has been erased.
Prove it. This is an issue of qualification for membership, an issue which is plainly essential daily business of the organization. Only in exceptional circumstances is the issue controversial, and in all other circumstances, the Treasurer -- a member of the Board -- makes the determination as a matter of course. Provide some evidence to contravene this.
This response has been erased.
If you can get 50% of the membership to vote for me to leave Grex, then I'll voluntarily make a commitment to never return. That is, no special software, or firewall rules, or anything of the sort, will be necessary to get me to stop logging in. Hmm, this is starting to feel personal, so I'll respond accordingly. If you can get 50% of the members to vote that they'd rather have you as a participant of Grex than me, I'll leave. (But I doubt if you'll even get so far as to get the voteadm to set up the question.)
Now there is an interesting proposal. In the interest of keeping things entertaining and fun, I propose and amended proposal, to wit: Let the membership make a choice between two options: 1) Kick jep off of Grex; and 2) Keep jep, and kick polytarp/dah/willcome/naftee off of Grex. In the event of a tie vote, let jp2 be given the boot. (I like these odds much better.) :):)
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Just out of curiousity, is there precident for removing someone's membership by member vote?
No, it has never happened nor has it been attempted. There have been discussion items, where someone would offer to leave if there were enough votes that he do so.
(it's happened on M-Net.)
(This ain't M-Net.)
How do you know?!
It has not happened on M-Net, irrelevant though that is to Grex.
Then how do you explain how did I lose my membership?!
This response has been erased.
re 9 If you haven't noticed, for once, the title of this item does not refer to myself and willcome. (Of course, we are not troublemakers at all)
(whih is why the title doesn't refer to us.)
Re #19: Let's take this discussion to M-Net, where you'll show me the
citizen initiatives in which their access was removed.
Excellent idea! While we're at it, let's take the whole GreX community there, as a kind of "cultural experience".
Re. #22: the response uptop [0(00000)] is about membership, not access.
This response has been erased.
Dra-mah.
Re resp:23: Field trip!
Best two words in the English language!
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Hmm. Among the text everyone here has seen on running newuser, in the section entitled "Declaration of Principles", it says: > > This system is intended to foster community education and the > spiritual and intellectual enrichment of its users through > the peaceable interchange of ideas. > The members of this system hope to attract a large, diverse, and > mature group of thinking individuals and thereby to contribute > to a better-informed citizenry. > Governance of the system is based on cooperative principles, > including open membership, democratic control, and non- > profit economics. > This is an open-access system; the public is welcome. However, > regular users are encouraged to become members and help > support the system financially. Voting on system policy > matters is restricted to members. > It should go without saying that the system is specifically NOT > intended for any illegal purpose. > Users are asked to be considerate of others, and are especially > asked to make a point of setting a good example for those > few who may from time to time fail to return the favor. That last sentence would suggest that jp2 be have to be one of the first exiled, if this ridiculous suggestion were put into practice. I don't mean *merely* his actual practice of ignoring it, but his repeated statements indicating that this is a matter of deliberate policy on his part.
You'd be kicked off by the third sentence, so your suggestion has no merit.
Hey, don't mock those rules. Jan Wolter carried them out of a sacred machine room, band-printed on tablets of stone.
I'd rather we don't expel anyone from Grex.
I'm still wondering if it's pronounced "love-lace" or "lovel-ace" or simply "lo-velace".
You have my permission to keep wandering ... er, wondering.
Aww, you aren't gonna help?!
<donning voteadm hat...> I've posted a summary of the rules regarding voting in item 75, response 179 (resp:75,179). The earliest voting could begin, should Jamie elect to bring it to a vote, is January 26.
JERK>
Jamie, are you really going to bring to a vote whether I can be a member of Grex? Valerie has already resigned her membership so that part of the proposal seems moot to me. I'm sure you know how it would come out, but I am curious as to whether you're going to go through making remmers set it up and asking people to vote on it.
This response has been erased.
Actually, I don't believe Jan had much to do with the "Declaration of Principles" that you see in newuser. This text came from the founders, and existed in nearly its final form by 1996. I believe what's enumerated there largely matches Jan's personal principles, and I suspect he'd write something pretty similar if asked, but Jan was down in Texas at the time and the founders did not have the opportunity of his input. Regarding "who is eligible for membership"; it is generally up to each individual user to decide if they are eligible. Only they can decide if what happens on this system is something they value. Since this system is largely defined by the participation of its members, it is disingenuous to suggest that the board or members ought to be expelling members for expressing their views.
TROGG IS DAVID BLAINE
You have several choices: