Nominations for the Board of Directors

Oct 28 01:40 UTC 1999

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, 2000, and are two years in length. Three 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
Andre (steve), John Remmers (remmers), and Jan Wolter (janc).
Therefore, there is no point in nominating them.

The four Board members whose terms end on December 31 are Mark
Conger (aruba), Dan Gryniewicz (dang), Scott Helmke (scott), and
Misti Tucker (mta).  All four are completing two consecutive terms
and are therefore not eligible to run for re-election (although
they will be eligible again next year).

Use this item to make nominations. To see the current membership list,
type

       !members | more

if you are running Picospan.  Although a person does not have to be
a member at the time of nomination, to be eligible to run they must
be members by the time voting begins on November 15.

The Bylaws are posted in item 2 of this conference and enumerate the
duties of directors.

response 2 of 167:

Oct 28 06:20 UTC 1999

I believe it's traditional for the members to merely elect people to the
board, and then for the board to select officers from the board members.
A peculiar and unintended consequence of this practice is that grex
technically doesn't have any officers from 1 jan to the first board
meeting in january (oops).  There are also I think only 4 openings, not
7.

It's also a good idea to elect people who have the time and will work
well with each other and with staff, since this will be crucial to their
success on the board.  This is unfortunately something of an art, and
not always easy to predict.

response 4 of 167:

Oct 28 07:14 UTC 1999

re 1:
        While I appreciate the nomination, I would make a horrible treasurer.
I have enough trouble keeping track of my own money.  I'm also not interested
in being on the board at all at this point.  It was sometimes interesting,
sometimes fun, and even sometimes both, but four years was enough.

response 6 of 167:

Oct 28 16:44 UTC 1999

That's right, attendance at meetings is required.  Thanks for
catching that.

Re resp:2 - That's correct.  Board members aren't elected to
particular offices.  Once elected, the board selects its own
chair, treasurer, and secretary.

response 8 of 167:

Oct 28 23:57 UTC 1999

well here is your problem, that you require presence at board meetings
and make no amends for those who can't make it themselves but would rather
designate a representative.

why don't you find out who CAN meet all the criteria, which includes
the three months' paid memberships, living near enough to A^2 to make the
meetings, and is also willing to serve on the board ? 

the first two criteria can be found in the user database.

the third criteria could really only be discerned through self-
nominations. 

in any case i read the bylaws and cast my nominations to the rules. 
but in thinking about them (and in asking KRJ whether or not he WANTS to
be pres.) it seems like i could do to re-cast my nominations, but i'm not
going to bother -- to cast effective nominations i would have to go around
talking to each person on the list of paid members , asking ach of them
about whether or not they want to serve and then whether or not they can
make a meeting.

the result is the same as what we would have if people just nominated
themselves.

so, i'm going to leave my nominations as they stand whether or not they
eem at first to be 'good for it' . if the people i nominted get the votes
then they do, if they don't they don't.

response 10 of 167:

Oct 29 01:26 UTC 1999

You can nominate as many people as you want, eyenot.

response 12 of 167:

Oct 29 21:42 UTC 1999

In the past when I've posted the nominations item, I've always
suggested that people check with their proposed nominees first
to see if they're willing to serve, before nominating them.
I didn't do that this time, the reason being that when I was
nominated last year, it was done without asking me first.
If the person who nominated me had asked me privately, I'd
probably have said no.  As it was, when by surprise I found
myself nominated publicly, I thought about it for a few days
and accepted.  So maybe we'll get more candidates by
surprising 'em with a nomination.

(Of course, to be on the ballot, any nominee should affirmatively
accept before voting begins.  We're volunteers here, not
draftees.)

In that spirit, and in the hopes of getting new folks on the
board who haven't served before, I'll nominate:

    Eric Bassey (other)
    Colleen McGee (cmcgee)

response 14 of 167:

Oct 29 23:03 UTC 1999

        this is just in response to the suggestion that i should 'talk it over'
        with potential board members before nominating them ...

        what you suggest is basically that a person shouldn't be nominated
        until it's been brought to their attention that

        1. the election is coming up
        2. they qualify to be nominated as a board member
        3. they might have a shot at it

        3 is just about negligible considering it's fancy before the actual
        voting occurs.

        2 is discernable to anybody who knows who they are and that they log
        in here on a 3-months' paid account and are of age

        1 is known to anybody who logs on with message of the day

        basically to suggest that you 'talk it over' with potential 
        candidates is to suggest that instead of nominating anybody else at 
        all, self-nomination should be the rule. 

        the purpose of my nominating others is 
        (1) to indirectly propose what i consider to be an ideal board 
        (2) to nominate those m****f***s whether they want to be nominees or
            not , and if they don't then they'll obviously turn down the 
            offer to candidacy
        (3) to exercise democracy as it's been guided and framed by the bylaws
            ... any extraneous 'rules' or what have you that simply restraing
            the democratic process

        and furthermore somebody had better change the bylaws
        because i've seen two insistances that the board
        'is elected as seven members and these members choose among them-
        selves who will hold the chair, treasury, and secretary'
        as the bylaws clearly state that nominations should specify to which
        position on the board you are nominating candidates.

        insistance upon 'tradition' or 'rules' is autocratic and if you read
        this you can't insist otherwise.

        

response 16 of 167:

Oct 30 00:45 UTC 1999

It's strange that you think "insistance upon 'tradition' or 'rules' is
autocratic".  An autocracy is a government in which one person possesses
unlimited power.  Since that one person has unlimited power, he can
make, change, or break any rules he pleases, anytime he wants.
Tradition is almost precisely the opposite of that; it's a set of rules
that have been handed down from "antiquity".  It's easy enough for one
person to break tradition, but not so easy for one person to "make"
tradition.  In order for it to become a tradition, other people have to
agree to continue the practice after the originator has gone away,
almost inherently non-autocratic.

In this particular case, the grex bylaws, one of the major purpose of
those rules is to make it much harder for an autocrat to take power.
This is why there are 7 board members, not just one, why half of them
are up for re-election in any one year, and why none of them can serve
for more than two consecutive years.  Given the purpose behind the grex
bylaws, it's more than passing strange that you claim supporting the
rules defined by the grex bylaws is autocratic.

'Tis most true the grex bylaws don't prohibit minors from serving.
However, the grex bylaws don't stand alone, but define a body that is
organized under the laws of the state of michigan, and is bound to
respect and obey the lawful rules of that state and the union of which
that state is a member, just as much as any other rules grex might
choose to define for itself.

PS.  I don't believe any of the candidates you nominated has engaged in
sexual congress with any of their maternal ancestors.  The total pool of
potential nominates is about 100, and while I suppose there's a chance
one has committed maternal incest, I greatly doubt any will admit to it.
If you are looking for candidates who have engaged in this unpopular
practice, I believe you may experience acrimonious dialogues.

response 18 of 167:

Oct 30 03:24 UTC 1999

Oops -- yes.

response 20 of 167:

Oct 31 12:45 UTC 1999

Well, folks are being pretty coy about jumping in here and
accepting or entering their name as a candidate.  Maybe
many feel as I do and don't really want the job but would
be willing to run if too few acceptable volunteers presented.

But I also don't want to harass people into running who aren't
really sold on doing the work, mostly following the issues and
showing up for the meetings.  

Having said that I like to twist the arms of mdw, cmcgee and 
other as encouragement to accept a nomination.  Bummer jiffer
is moving.

response 22 of 167:

Oct 31 18:25 UTC 1999

and anybody who would bother to take the time to tell everybody that
they aren't going to nominated themselves , or that they are interested
but aren't going to nominate themselves for some round-about reason

might as well parade down main street nude .

response 24 of 167:

Oct 31 19:08 UTC 1999

I should point out that *lots* of people have self-nominated on Grex in
previous years, and many of them got elected.  There is neither a rule
nor a tradition against self-nomination.  If anyone wants to run, they
shouldn't feel shy about doing so.  It's perfectly normal.  The only
purpose the nomination process here serves is to give people you'd like
to see running a little push toward the starting line.