Nominations for the Board of Directors

Oct 27 02:30 UTC 1998

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, 1999, 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 four Board members have one more year to run: Mark
Conger (aruba), Dan Gryniewicz (dang), Scott Helmke (scott),
and Misti Tucker (mta). Therefore, there is no point in nominating
them.

The three Board members whose terms end on December 31 are Steve
Gibbard (scg), Valerie Mates (valerie), and Jan Wolter (janc).
Steve and Valerie will have completed two consecutive terms and
are therefore NOT eligible to run for re-election this time
(although they will be eligible next year). Jan will have served
only one term and may run for re-election.

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

       !members | more

if you are running Picospan. 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.

response 2 of 126:

Oct 27 02:37 UTC 1998

I should add that Board members should be able to attend the monthly
meetings, held in Ann Arbor.

response 6 of 126:

Oct 27 05:23 UTC 1998

I'll nominate STeve Andre'.

response 8 of 126:

Oct 27 13:10 UTC 1998

Seconds aren't needed, but I'll second Jan's nomination anyway. I think 
he's done an outstanding job as board member and chairperson.

Re resp:4 - Actually I said I wouldn't be able to get to it until *next* 
week, but thanks for writing the CGI anyway. Saved me some trouble.

response 12 of 126:

Oct 31 14:52 UTC 1998

I nominate John Remmers.

response 14 of 126:

Nov 3 20:36 UTC 1998

I decline the nomination because I know next to nothing about computers, but
thank you, Sreeni.  I will confine myself to helping Jim introduce computer
illiterates to the joys of grex.  Someone asked us to help set up computers
for their organization, which would like to help brain-damaged people find
new ways to socialize.  Many of them can type okay.

response 16 of 126:

Nov 4 15:39 UTC 1998

Yes you do.  I do not understand enough of the words to be able to vote on
the concepts involved.  Your idea of 'anything' may be different from mine.
I still don't know how to use DOS, let alone UNIX.

response 18 of 126:

Nov 4 20:15 UTC 1998

I think keesan would be helpful, not everyone (alot of people in fact) don't
know alot of things about computers.  You could put a fresh light on how users
feel,  I hope that Keesan will think about it some more.  I am also sure alot
of board  and staff members would not mind explaining things (I should hope)
.,

response 20 of 126:

Nov 5 03:36 UTC 1998

I would *love* to think that someone like Sindi was asking staff to explain
things in plain english.  One measure of a techie's high-level understanding
of a system is their ability to make simplified, but accurate summations about
the system.  If staff can explain things to someone non-technical, then
they've probably thought through the problem to a parsimonious solution.  

It is the job of a board to set policy and future directions, not to solve
hardware problems.

response 22 of 126:

Nov 5 06:13 UTC 1998

You have the experts suggest the solutions to improving the internet link. 
There is, of course, no reason experts can't be on the board, but they
should do the problem solving *off* the board, and bring the alternatives
to the board (in simple terms). The board can then decided between clearly
presented choices. This is a good way to function, but it doesn't work
that way too well on Grex. If it did function this way, the board could
have a larger proportion of non-techies with knowledge of business,
finance, public relations - and contacts in the community for obtaining
support, etc.

I think another factor is that the majority of the membership reserve
their highest admiration for congenial techies. This is logical, as the
techies really control everything that is done, and the members are
pleased to see good things done.

One doesn't have to think about "properly implementing" ROR - they are a
simple list of procedures of expediting decision making, but making sure
the minority voice is not silenced. Most nonprofits proced under RRO with
no problem whatsover. A few groups, though, seem to have developed a prior
allergy to using any procedures that are written down.  It is unfortunate
for the easy and logical management of board meetings, but that's how some
people are. 

response 24 of 126:

Nov 5 18:26 UTC 1998

I don't think I would be able to make the meetings, unluckily.  I work till
8p on the weekdays.

Thank you for the nomination.  =)