Motion to reject ~usgov membership

Apr 18 03:32 UTC 2001

In the interests of Grex, I as a member of Cyberspace Communications 
Incorporated do hereby move that the application for institutional 
membership by user usgov be rejected immediately, and that the check 
provided to secure that membership be either returned or destroyed within 
one week after passage of this motion.



See items 254 and 255 for details and discussion.  


In two weeks, on 1 May 2001, this motion will be voted on by the 
membership.

response 2 of 23:

Apr 18 05:14 UTC 2001

I will be voting no on this too.

I am appalled by the tone the discussion of this issue has taken.  Whether
Grex has changed, or whether I've just been expecting the wrong thing of it
I don't know, but I'm at a loss for how the Grex that's been reacting to this
membership request in this way can possibly be the system I've been enjoying
and supporting for so long.

This is a case of a user who has attempted to make a donation to Grex, and
receive a membership for that donation.  Unfortunately, this user didn't quite
comply with Grex's membership policies, and had a name some people didn't
like, and has been treated with great hostility from the beginning.  First
this was going on in private mail, and in fairness to the board and staff I
should point out that a good public face was put on the messages before they
were sent out to the potential donor.  This person was then told, as people
who don't agree with Grex's policies generally are, that he was welcome to
debate the policies in Coop.  So he comes to Coop, takes a somewhat hostile
tone but certainly no more hostile than some long time users who have been
encouraged to become members, and rather than discussing the issue people
throw insults at him.  Perhaps he started with the insults in public first,
but that excuse wasn't good enough for my nursery school teachers.

Under Grex's current policy, Grex can't accept a membership on these terms.
However, there's certainly no reason to drag it through the mud the way that's
been done here.  If an agreement can't be reached, Grex will need to return
the check, but it should be returned with an apology, not with the hostility
that's been shown so far.

Seeing how other Grexers are reacting when the "wrong sort of person" tries
to donate money (and tries to get a vote in Grex elections, although to be
fair this sort of membership doesn't include that anyway), I'm not at all sure
I'll feel comfortable renewing my membership when the time comes.

response 6 of 23:

Apr 18 15:34 UTC 2001

Ditto on what davel said.

response 8 of 23:

Apr 18 16:46 UTC 2001

Same as #7.  Of course, being a supporter of unlimited free speech,
I respect the right to post unpopular motions here in Co-op.  >8)

response 10 of 23:

Apr 18 19:46 UTC 2001

I think this motion is unnecessary, and sets a dangerous precident of 
motions targeting specific users that people happen to dislike.

response 12 of 23:

Apr 18 20:37 UTC 2001

I love to see a grown man beg.

response 14 of 23:

Apr 18 22:18 UTC 2001

(I don't think there are many here who would disagree with that sentiment, 
Eric.  however, I think most would quibble with your suggested method of
doing so.)  ;)

response 16 of 23:

Apr 19 05:12 UTC 2001

First of all, I would like to say that this motion was made by me as a 
member.  It does not require, nor does it reflect any action or position 
I would take as a board member.  

It is only because this issue has been brought to the attention of the 
full membership and the public -- by request of user usgov -- that I have 
taken this action.  My primary purpose was not to be hostile nor to set a 
precedent, but to crystallize opinion on the matter and find out how much 
of the membership really have any sense of the risks this situation 
presents.

I'd like to see further discussion by the full membership (or at least by 
those who care enough to express an opinion) on the issues brought out by 
this.

I would like to point out that unless the membership should decide to 
change the membership requirements, this motion is, and was from its 
inception, both irrelevant and redundant.  If the membership is inclined 
to change the membership requirements to allow usgov to obtain 
membership, then that would likewise indicate that this motion would fail 
anyway.  This was a means to cut through the crap usgov is so 
vociferously attempting to bury the real issues with.  So far, it seems 
to be working.  (With the exception that jp2 is so full of that crap 
already that he will never see his way clear, but that's another issue.  
Kiss, kiss, Jamie.)

response 20 of 23:

Apr 19 15:02 UTC 2001

If you lump people into categories as broad as "the left" or "the right" or
"Grexers", you're bound to be able to find someone in the category that you
don't like.  That's probably *why* Jamie makes his categories so big.

response 22 of 23:

Apr 19 20:39 UTC 2001

I agree with remmers.