|
Grex > Coop13 > #195: Grex Board of Director's Meeting: Sept 10, 2004 | |
|
| Author |
Message |
mooncat
|
|
Grex Board of Director's Meeting: Sept 10, 2004
| 
Sep 13 03:06 UTC 2004 |
Attending Board Members: Mary, Slynne, Mooncat, Gelinas, Aruba, and
Bhoward
Attending Non-Board Members: Steve, Remmers
Meeting began as informational as initially quorum was not achieved
1. Informational meeting started at 7:30
2. Treasurer s Report- on hold
3. Staff Report- recently had too exciting of a time. One of the
original disk drives from 97 died (hence Grex being unavailable). Boot
disk was affected, root disk lost 25 sectors, kernel came up- as soon
as it tried to do anything else it failed. Once staff was able to copy
a boot disk they were able to recover everything we need to. Didn t
lose any accounts. The delays in restoring Grex were caused by staff
being blocked and having to wait for each other- problems at first
creating a boot disk, then there was a delay in getting a replacement
disk back to the Pumpkin. The password save system worked flawlessly,
so even though there had not been a regular back-up done recently the
password safeguard worked as it was supposed to so none of that
information was lost. A follow-up issue is for Steve (he volunteered)
to take a look at the tape drive. The last tape back-up is from 2003,
at that time Kip ran into a problem (unsure if it is mechanical or
procedural). Steve will be looking into this and create a back-up.
Since the crash there has been a problem with Backtalk crashing when
searching through conference hot lists Next Grex- currently running
OpenBSD 3.5, needs to be upgraded to 3.6. Mail problem- need to get XIM
up and running, to get Spam Assassin to work, and figure out what s
going on with Backtalk and Fronttalk. Mentioned that staff needs to
have a meeting ASAP. Discussion as to what people thought the minimum
needed would be to make NextGrex available- discussed- Backtalk &
Fronttalk, possibly using Old Grex for mail processing, Newuser
(because of its connections to the password file). So Next Grex MUST
have- Conferencing: command line & web, Mail (with spam filters to the
extent we have now), login, party.
(during this Aruba entered, next Bhoward was able to call in-
experienced some technical difficulties.)
2. Treasurer s Report: In August $153 in, $375 out. No new
members. September has been the last month in the red for the last
couple of years, so hopefully things will turn around. So far in
September we have taken in $150. Additisonally, Aruba moved, sent
change of address to the state- they sent a letter back saying that he
cannot sign the form either the chair or secretary has to- Slynne
signed. Form will be sent back with $5 fee.
- Entered Executive Session to discuss a legal matter.
4. Next Meeting: October 22nd, 7:00pm at the Remmers.
5. New Business: No
6. Adjourn: 9:00 pm
|
| 58 responses total. |
aruba
|
|
response 1 of 58:
|
Sep 13 12:56 UTC 2004 |
Thanks for the minutes, Anne. The reason we needed to send a change of
address to the state is that I am Grex's registered agent, and my house is
the registered office. (Every corporation needs a registered agent and
office in the state in which it's incorporated. The office can't be a PO
Box.) So since I moved over the summer, we needed to change the registered
office.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 2 of 58:
|
Sep 13 14:05 UTC 2004 |
Right, I meant to explain that, I'm sorry.
|
aruba
|
|
response 3 of 58:
|
Sep 13 16:28 UTC 2004 |
The executive session the board went into was to discuss a subpoena we
received from a law enforcement agency, relating to a particular user
account. The board read over the subpoena carefully, and agreed to comply
with it. We have now done so.
|
tod
|
|
response 4 of 58:
|
Sep 13 18:07 UTC 2004 |
So they are finally going to investigate the vandalism by Valerie, eh?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 5 of 58:
|
Sep 13 18:08 UTC 2004 |
/cues "Outside the TRains Don't Run On Time" for janc
|
tod
|
|
response 6 of 58:
|
Sep 13 20:53 UTC 2004 |
/cues "Gone Fishin" by Taj Mahal
|
happyboy
|
|
response 7 of 58:
|
Sep 14 01:16 UTC 2004 |
YES!!!
|
richard
|
|
response 8 of 58:
|
Sep 18 02:54 UTC 2004 |
#3...aruba, for the sake of all the rumor mongers assuming things, what
exactly was the action the board had to take in order to comply with the
subpoena? I believe full disclosure will prevent people from assuming things
;.
|
spooked
|
|
response 9 of 58:
|
Sep 19 03:15 UTC 2004 |
It was nothing too exciting. And, when the court process is completed,
I'm sure we can tell you the not so big story.
|
richard
|
|
response 10 of 58:
|
Sep 20 00:20 UTC 2004 |
If it is not so big a story why the secretiveness? most companies disclose
legal actions against it in their minutes or annual reports as a part of
fiduciary responsibility. If Grex is going to have to spend funds, or
otherwise expend resources, human or otherwise, defending itself in court,
everything ought to be above board. Saying "we'll discuss it when the court
process is completed" is the sort of thing shady ceo's say to avoid the
company taking heat before it has to. Grex isn't big enough, important
enough, or anything of the like, to justify such secrecy. Just say what it
is.
|
spooked
|
|
response 11 of 58:
|
Sep 20 01:05 UTC 2004 |
Richard, I'm not going to offer any more information at this time. I will
make this point, however, the court action is not against Grex or its
principles. Stay relaxed 'cause we're not expending great amounts of
money or people resources on this at all. It will all become clear when
the court process is completed. We are only remaining quiet on the
specifics of the case because we have been asked to do so by the
authorities. Would you like us to pervert the course of justice to
meet your needy curiousity this minute? Not likely, so quit it.
|
slynne
|
|
response 12 of 58:
|
Sep 20 01:38 UTC 2004 |
Really Richard, we are not posting the specifics of the subpoena
because we have been told not to. We will disclose any information we
can at a later date.
|
richard
|
|
response 13 of 58:
|
Sep 20 02:19 UTC 2004 |
#12...WHO told you not to discuss it? It has never been stated that the
board has requested or retained any official legal advice.
But anyway, just in general terms, is the reason somebody said not to
discuss it openly because compliance with the subpoena by staff, would
require staff to do something the membership already voted (maybe even
more than once) to NOT do? Under what circumstances can staff unilaterally
choose to undertake an action that directly countermands the stated wishes
of the membership? And how ethical would it be for staff to comply in
this fashion without requesting another member vote to authorize it?
And if I'm way off base on what this is about, well this is what happens
if you choose not to discuss things. It is better to be open about
everything. I would suggest that whoever SUGGESTED that the board not
talk about this subpoena was simply offering bad advice.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 14 of 58:
|
Sep 20 02:33 UTC 2004 |
As usual, Richard, you are spouting shit.
|
richard
|
|
response 15 of 58:
|
Sep 20 03:10 UTC 2004 |
As usual Gelinas, you can't respond to the substance of a post and
instead resort to insults. I *said* that if I was off base, that is
the result of the lack of information being given.
Think about it? What would be the reason that the board gets a legal
subpoena and they decide not to discuss it? Logically, you'd think
the most likely explanation is that the action the board, or the staff
at the board's request, would have to take to comply with this
subpoena, MIGHT upset some people. "So lets keep it quiet until the
deed is done, and then people can complain all they want because it
won't matter"
Grex is supposed to be a place where everything is run openly. I
think if a law firm has requested copies of deleted items, or the
undeletion of items, or has in any way, shape or form requested the
altering, restoring or analysis of items posted on this board, then it
is material to the people who posted in those items.
And gelinas, don't tell me I'm spouting shit unless you are prepared
to back it up, and you can't do that without talking about whats going
on. So put up or shut up.
|
slynne
|
|
response 16 of 58:
|
Sep 20 03:18 UTC 2004 |
Richard, if you would like to donate money specifically earmarked for
us to get legal advice about this subpoena so that we can determine if
we should or should not comply with the request not to discuss the
specifics about it, I will make a motion that we accept the donation
and I will personally take this issue to the attorney of your choosing.
However, Grex does not have a lot of extra money kicking around right
now for legal fees and in the absence of any kind of legal advice, it
is best for us not to disclose the particulars of the subpoena we
received. I am sorry that bothers you. I can even understand why it
would bother you. We will let you know everything at a later date.
|
naftee
|
|
response 17 of 58:
|
Sep 20 04:44 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 18 of 58:
|
Sep 20 04:48 UTC 2004 |
richard should sue GreX for witholding information from its members.
|
other
|
|
response 19 of 58:
|
Sep 20 06:14 UTC 2004 |
Just to clarify, for those too dense to get it, the subpoena was
from a law enforcement agency presumably investigating criminal
activity, and the law enforcement agency requested that the material
contents of the subpeona not be discussed in order to avoid
hindering the investigation.
When the investigation is concluded and a case is brought, then
discussion will not be able to affect the process.
The board has made the choice to comply with the gag request,
presumably because of the threat of charges of interference with a
criminal investigation if they do not.
I believe this is a despicable act of government extortion and
bullying, but the individual members of the board have to make this
choice for themselves. If it were me, I would want to know the
nature of the investigation and what was at stake before deciding
whether or not to honor the gag request, and purely on
principle might not honor it as an act of civil protest against
inappropriate governmental secrecy. Keep in mind I say this knowing
nothing of the actual content of the subpoena.
|
other
|
|
response 20 of 58:
|
Sep 20 06:16 UTC 2004 |
Of course, if they were investigating polytarp for cyberterrorism,
I'd do everything I could to implicate him and assure his
prosecution and incarceration, but that's just because I love him.
|
mary
|
|
response 21 of 58:
|
Sep 20 11:41 UTC 2004 |
Way too much drama here. Way too much. ;-)
|
scott
|
|
response 22 of 58:
|
Sep 20 12:24 UTC 2004 |
Richard, please let it for the moment. I'm sure the board doesn't like the
gag order any more than you do.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 23 of 58:
|
Sep 20 13:32 UTC 2004 |
Richard seems to be assuming that the Board had decided not to say
anythig because of an attorney's advice, or because we don't want to,
rather than as an act of compliance to an official request.
|
mfp
|
|
response 24 of 58:
|
Sep 20 16:04 UTC 2004 |
I hope I'm not more involved with this than anyone else!
|