|
Grex > Coop9 > #11: Minutes of the November 20 Board Meeting |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
srw
|
|
Minutes of the November 20 Board Meeting
| 
Nov 25 07:37 UTC 1996 |
Minutes of the Cyberspace Communications Board Meeting
Held November 20, 1966 in the Cafeteria of the ITI Building on
Hubbard Road in Ann Arbor.
10. The meeting was called to order at 7:36 PM by Scott Helmke.
Board Members in attendance:
Scott Helmke (scott), President
Mark Conger (aruba), Treasurer
Steve Weiss (srw), Secretary
Steve Gibbard (scg)
Valerie Mates (popcorn)
Misti Anslin Tucker (mta)
Rob Henderson (robh)
Members of the public:
Jan Wolter (janc)
Jared Mauch (jared)
N. Siddall (nsiddall)
Peter Riley (nestene)
Rob Argy (ajax)
Jeff Kaplan (kaplan)
20. Treasurer's Report
Mark has posted the treasurer's report online in the coop conference.
In summary our income was $752 and our expenses were $607. We still owed
for last month's electricity, so we did all right in October. We broke even
if one accounts for the electricity but not the cost of the new disks.
Our bank balance at end of month was $4331.12 of which $60 is in the UPS
fund and the remainder is all in the general fund.
Mark mentioned that Ameritech had charged us for the whole installation of
the new centrex hunt group. This was an error, as those costs were supposed
to be spread over the first year's bills. STeve agreed to contact Ameritech
to straighten this out.
00. We briefly interrupted the agenda to recognize Rob Henderson's Birthday
30. Rehabilitation Committee
No progress was reported in getting the 8088s from scg to dang.
Someone mentioned that we could use one of those machines ourselves as a
serial terminal in the pumpkin headquarters.
Misti said that her office had some computers that it was giving away. Someone
will contact her at work to see what they have that we can use.
40. Publicity Committee
Valerie reported that Ken Josenhans (krj) said he would put together a flier
for the music conference, to be distributed in music stores.
Misti handed around some new fliers, and asked for comments.
50. Technical Committee
* Disk Failure: We had a disk failure. We were able to get the disk to
work again, and took a full backup. Following that the disk was in service
for about 24 hours but then failed again, this time without coming back to
life as before.
We bought 2 2GB disks. One as an emergency replacement for the failed disk
and one for growth as approved by the board last month. We were fortunate to
be able to buy both for only a few dollars more than we had allocated to buy
just one. Rob Argy located this excellent bargain for us.
The second disk will be used first as a medium for the project to rebuild
/home and then it will be used for growth.
Grex was off the air for 4 or 5 days while the emergency disk was ordered,
delivered, installed, formatted and the restoration of files was completed.
Fortunately the tape restore went flawlessly.
* Memory card failure: We had a non-recoverable error on a memory card and
we replaced it. We still have a few spare memory cards.
* Grex was freezing (almost crashing). It was a recoverable state. That is,
the system could be brought back to life from the console, so it wasn't a
full-fledged crash, but it required manual intervention. We aren't sure
exactly what is causing this, but it is related to the interrupt chain or
the clock we suspect. We re-seated all the cards and think that we may have
cleared this problem up.
* STeve Andre' ordered fans for our disk enclosures. We have enough
enclosures, but the fans are the wrong size, so he is returning them.
* STeve also will be returning the failed 2GB Micropolis Disk, which is still
under warrantee.
* We now have obtained the Centrex-Mate information from Ameritech
* IOLan Terminal Servers: The first one has been crashing every few days.
The second one worked fine on scg's Ethernet, but also crashes when
put on the net with Grex. Scg plans to contact Chase to follow up.
* Modems: We can work on those now that we have the Centrex-Mate information.
* Hierarchical Home - Staff plans to rebuild /home as a hierarchical directory
structure in order to improve performance. Most people will not notice any
effect. People with hard-coded home directory paths will have to change
them. Warnings have been posted in the motd. No date has been finalized for
this, but it should be expected fairly soon.
* Also coming soon, we plan to begin reusing old deleted UIDs when new
accounts are created by newuser or wnu, and these newly created accounts
will be in a different group in order to facilitate this.
90. (Agenda item taken out of order)
At the last staff meeting Staff decided to recommend to the board that
Jeff Kaplan (id = kaplan) be added to the Grex staff. A motion to this
effect was entered.
MOTION: (popcorn,scg) Add Jeff Kaplan to the Grex staff with all of the
rights and responsibilities pertaining thereto.
PASSED: 7-0
60. Discussion of the question of whether a person must be a member in order
to run for election to the board.
This question is not addressed explicitly in the bylaws. Historically, the
vote administrator has always interpreted the rule requiring membership to
serve as a board member to apply to running for election as well.
There was discussion of this question, and both sides of the question were
argued.
Both Valerie Mates and Steve Gibbard, board members who are running for
re-election, announced that they would abstain.
MOTION (scott, aruba) Direct the vote administrator to interpret the bylaws
such that non-members may be nominated for the board of directors, and may
run in the election, with the understanding that they must become members
in order to serve.
PASSES by a vote of 3-1 with 3 abstentions as follows:
In Favor: Mark Conger, Scott Helmke, Rob Henderson
Opposed: Steve Weiss
Abstaining: Misti Anslin Tucker, Steve Gibbard. Valerie Mates
70. Multiple Votes for One Member
This question arose from a long discussion in coop. Steve Weiss argued that
since it was our policy to limit an individual to one vote, we should not
permit the same name to be associated with multiple accounts. He conceded
that he had no desire to see additional ID required in cases involving
family members. There are currently two accounts registered with the same
name, but one is really intended for use as an organization's account, and
not the individual's. This calls in a separate question, because technically
organizational memberships are not provided for by the bylaws.
Mark agreed to change the name of the organizational account to the name of
the organization rather than the individual, and Steve said he would be
satisfied with that, as long as the same individual is not listed on two
voting accounts.
With this understanding, no board action was deemed necessary, but the
question of organizational memberships remains. Valerie agreed to start a
member vote for amending the bylaws to permit organizations to become
members, as soon as the director election is over.
80. Internet Connection
Valerie contacted Paul Southworth of CICnet. The possibility of our getting
a T1 phone connection from them was killed when we found out that this
would require our paying for a $4000 connector at CICnet.
We are continuing to investigate an 128k ISDN connection. There are
up-front equipment charges for this, too, at approximately $1500 for both
ends, but the monthly charges are only a small increment over what we are
paying now.
No action was taken. More investigation is needed. Several people supported
the ISDN connection as a more affordable step up in bandwidth. Originally,
the possibility of using ISDN had been ruled out, but now there appears that
it may be possible to arrange.
The sense of the board was to investigate ISDN.
100. Golden Key Campaign
The "Golden Key" is a campaign against restrictions on the use of encryption
technology on the net. Rob Argy asked if we could put a link to it on our
web site.
Given the nature of our mission, the board agreed that it was appropriate to
support this campaign in this way. This was not put forth formally as a
motion, but no one felt that such action was needed.
110 New Business.
* STeve Andre' asked for a second lock (a dead-bolt) to be added to improve
the pumpkin's security. Staff discretionary budget should cover this.
* The emergency disk purchase had never been approved by the board.
MOTION: (scg, srw) To amend last month's approval of a disk to approve up
to $570 for the purchase of 2 2GB disks.
PASSES: 6-0 (Scott Helmke was not present for this vote)
This was a formality so that Rob Argy could be reimbursed the purchase price
for the new disks, one of which was already in service.
120 Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned shortly after 10 PM. I am afraid I did not note the
exact time.
Respectfully submitted,
Steve Weiss, Secretary
|
| 94 responses total. |
kerouac
|
|
response 1 of 94:
|
Nov 25 19:53 UTC 1996 |
I'm glad the "non-members running" motion was passed but the fact is that
it passed with three members abstaining and one member opposed. This
means that a majority of the seven board members did not vote for this
motion. I wonder if it wouldnt be wiser ot say in the future that for
a motion to pass, it must have the support of a majority of those board
members present.
As things currently stand, a motion could pass with one person
voting for it and everyone else abstaining. I dont think board
members should be encouraged to abstain absent the rightr
circumstances, and I dont think a motion should pass because
half the board abstained from voting.
This motion in question did not have the votes in favor of the
majority of the board. Therefore I'd say the vote shold have been
declared inconclusive and the issue brought up again at the next meeting
or put to a member vote. And I'm saying this even though
I supported the outcome of the vote in question.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 2 of 94:
|
Nov 25 20:18 UTC 1996 |
My interpretation of taking a vote with abstentions is that it be treated as
if the abstaining members were absent. In that case, quorum rules would
apply. In the vote in question, 4 members voted, and that is still quorum
for a 7-member board. If, however, my interpretation is incorrect, and quorum
for a vote is determined by the number of members *present*, then it would
be a little funky if enough members abstained for a vote such that the number
of voting members was less than would be required for quorum...
|
scg
|
|
response 3 of 94:
|
Nov 25 20:21 UTC 1996 |
In that case, Richard, we would have had to delay the election to wait for
the vote. I'm not sure why Misti abstained, but I think even you will agree
that it would be completely inappropriate for Valerie or I to decide who can
run against us. As long as we were going to get this question out of the way
before the election, that conflict of interest would have remained. What
you're arguing for is esssentially a rule that an abstention would count as
a no vote. If that were the case, there would be no way for people to abstain
in cases of conflict of interest.
|
scg
|
|
response 4 of 94:
|
Nov 25 20:27 UTC 1996 |
Kevin slipped in, and I think his interpretation is wrong. An absent person
is treated in effect as a no vote, since since you need a majority of the full
board to pass something, even if the full board isn't there. In other words,
if five people show up for a board meeting, and three people vote in favor
of something while two people vote against it, it will fail due to not having
the required four votes. Abstentions, on the other hand, make it as if the
board is smaller. So if you have all seven people there, but two are
abstaining, you have a five person board that can pass things with three
votes.
In this case, if I remember correctly, three people abstained, leaving a four
person board. In that case, three would be a majority.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 5 of 94:
|
Nov 25 20:33 UTC 1996 |
The need to have a majority of board votes (for grex, 4 out of 7) to pass
something, regardless of the number of people present, sounds like a grex
thing. Most boards are goverened by rules of quorum, which dictate that as
long as you have sufficient board members present (usually at least half the
members), the board can conduct business, which includes voting on things...
|
scg
|
|
response 6 of 94:
|
Nov 25 20:55 UTC 1996 |
Actually, that's something that I took from other boards. I don't remember
specifically what the Grex specific way of handling such things is, but every
other board I've ever been involved with has required a majority of the full
board to pass something. They can conduct business with a quarum, and can
vote with a quarum, but even with only a minimal quarum present they need a
majority of the full board. I remember some big issue with the Ann Arbor
school board a few years ago that failed because four people voted four it
and one voted against it, but they needed five to vote for it to pass.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 7 of 94:
|
Nov 25 21:38 UTC 1996 |
SCG and Popcorn were right to abstain, but what if there were six of the
seven board members running for re-election whoo had to abstain. Then one
member would have been able to unilaterally pass a motion. No motion
should pass unless it represents a true consensus, a true reflection of
the views of the majority of the board. There is no way that if three
members abstain and one has voted against, that one can say consensus has
been reached on this issue. The majority of the board members didnt vote
for it.
Board action can take place if there are enough board members present for
a quorum. But there should be a second type of quorum, a "voting quorum",
where by any motion considered cannot be enacted unless a majority of
board members present at the meeting vote FOR it. In congress, if a law
does not have the votes of a majority of congress, it does not pass. If a
bill falls one vote under the majority (fifty percent plus one) because a
member abstained or missed the vote, the bill is tabled.
The way grex has it set up, an abstention is effectively a vote for a
motion, , because it is not specififically a vote against it. An
abstention can effectively cause a motion to be passed, because it reduces
the number of votes needed to pass.
In this case, SCG and Popcorn abstained beause of conflict of interest.
MTA should have been asekd why she abstained. And sincethe motin did not
presently have the support of the majority of board members present, the
vote should have been tabled. Maybe by the next meeting, MTA would have
made up her mind about how to vote.
This is setting up a higher standard for motions to meet before they can
be passed. No motion should pass unless a majority of the board is
majority of the board is willing to go on record supporting it.
|
dang
|
|
response 8 of 94:
|
Nov 25 21:48 UTC 1996 |
This item is linked to coop9
|
kerouac
|
|
response 9 of 94:
|
Nov 25 22:01 UTC 1996 |
note: An abstention should only occur in the event of either
a conflict of interest or if a member lacks the information
to make a responsible vote at that time. If a member has
any other reservations about a motion, they should vote
against the motion. Using an "abstention" to avoid
simply going on the record at all is irresponsible. It is
the responsibility of any member to be informed and ready to go
on record on any issue that comes up for a vote.
This was clearly the case in the previous board meeting when half the
board abstained in the "fair-witness controlling method of
access" vote simply because they didnt want to upset Selena by
going on -record. It isnt fair to the voting members who
elected the board members to have board members abstaining from any
vote unless it is *absolutely* necessary. Refusing to vote
is a heck of a way to represent your constituents.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 10 of 94:
|
Nov 25 22:41 UTC 1996 |
You see here the questions that arise when an organization has not adopted
any rules of order, but makes them up as they go along. RRO take care of
all these questions without having to reinvent such rules. By RRO, it
requires only a majority of those voting, presuming a quorum is present,
to adopt ordinary motions. However there are special cases requiring 2/3
votes, or majority of the full board, or otherwise, as specified by RRO,
or special rules, or state law. In ordinary cases, any board member can
abstain on any vote without prejudice. Insofar a representing constituents
go - that's for the constituents to decide, when they vote.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 11 of 94:
|
Nov 25 22:59 UTC 1996 |
But doesnt RRO consider an abstention to be a vote, a "vote
of abstention" IN this case the non-members running for the
board vote should have failed, because it didnt have the
votes of a majority. If an abstention is a third category
of vote, then this is clearly the case. All seven board
members voted on this issue, three voted to abstain, one voted
against, and three (less than 50%) voted for.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 12 of 94:
|
Nov 25 23:13 UTC 1996 |
Or to put it simply, since a quorum is required for business to be
transacted, a quorum should be required to transact business. A motion
should not be considered passed unless a quorum has voted for it.
Why should a quorum be required to have an official meeting and less than
a quorum to do business at that meeting? If a motion can be passed with
less than a quorum, what is the point of having a quorum in the first
place?
An abstention should be treated a sa "no" vote. Otherwise it is
by default a yes vote, because it reduces the number of votes needed
to pass a motion, which is what a "yes" vote does.
|
brighn
|
|
response 13 of 94:
|
Nov 25 23:41 UTC 1996 |
Okie dokie, Richard, Misti shouldn't have abstained. Slap her hand, record
a no vote for her, and what do you have?
It passes by 3-2 instead of 3-1.
*pushes a pile of pepper to the DC area and asks kerouac to relieve it of its
flyshit*
My understanding of quorom rules is thatthe *reason* a majority of the board
needs to be present is *because* all absents (without proxy) count as no.
If you have a 7-member boards and there are two absents, for instance, and
there are any votes, *4* of the five present must vote in favor (asuming no
proxies or abstentions. Hence, a majority has to be present, because if not,
it's mathematically impossible to get a majority.
That's the way it's worked on every board I've ever been on or encountered.
Ther e have also been those confused who think a quorum is a majority of the
board, and any votes require a majority of those *present*, and this may in
fact be the way some boards run, but I'm fairly certain grex does it "right".
|
kerouac
|
|
response 14 of 94:
|
Nov 25 23:58 UTC 1996 |
And if all absents count as "no", which is what I've been saying,
then it has to apply to individual votes as well.
Someone being absent from the meeting and someone abstaining
has the same effect. There is no way that an "abstain" should
end up counting as a "yes" vote. In the non-member running vote
three voted for it and four membres either voted against it or
abstained. It should have failed.
|
brighn
|
|
response 15 of 94:
|
Nov 26 01:12 UTC 1996 |
Abstentions don't count as "yes"
Abstentions don't count as "no"
Abstentions DON'T COUNT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Somebody may be absent because of car trouble, illness, any number of reasons.
Their not being present and their not sending a proxy amounts to their saying,
"I am accidentally absent, don't take this opportunity to vote for things you
know I disapprove of!" If an absence counted as a non-yes, non-no, then
that's exactly what could happen... proponents of an unpopular proposal could
wait until a meeting where few people attend to put forward the proposal.
People abstain because they either feel a conflict of interest (the proposal
directly and strongly affects them... it would be in Valerie's and Steve's
best interests to limit the number of candidates, for instance, although
Valerie indicated in another item that she most likely would have voted for
it anyhow) or because they feel their vote somehow compromises their ability
to represent their constiuency (they can not vote in favor of something and
sleep with themselves, but they can't vot e against it and claim to be
representing their "people", because the issue is one where their views and
their constiuency's differ), or because they don't want to alienate somebody
else involved in the vote (this is especially true in small groups: Joe, my
best friend, has put proposal X on the table; I HATE proposal X, but I know
that it will pass regardless of how I vote, and I'd rather not go on record
as having opposed X, because then Joe might be angry with me).
Though I don't know the situation, I'd be inclined to think Misti's abstention
had the flavor of the third situation.... she knew the proposal would pas
whether she voted or not, and she didn't want to go on record as having voted
one way or the other (it's equally possible, of course, that she was in favor
of the proposal and didn't wish to alienate some people who were against it).
Abstentions allow people who honestly and legitimately don't wish to be
involved in a vote to step out of it. Counting abstentions as "no" votes takes
that allowance away from those people. Counting EVERY vote of a seven-member
board as if there were seven voters, regardless of abstentions, FORCES every
board member to vote (since silence is a vote).
By the way, Kerouac, you're wrong in saying that if six people of a
seven-person board abstained, the seventh could put proposals through.
Proposals REQUIRE a second. At minimum two people must vote in favor of a
proposal (even if the second vote is implicit -- someone who abstains could,
theoretically, second a motion: let's say Joe is in favor of Motion X, Chris
and Pat are against it, and Delores and Fred are in a conflict of interest.
Joe moves X, but neither Chris or Pat seconds. This might induce Joe to
rephrase X to make Chris or Pat happy. Instead, Delores seconds, then i
mmediately abstains, because Delores is secretly against X. The motion fails,
and Joe, dejected, and depressed, drops the issue. The likelihood that an
abstainer will second a motion that EVERYONE except Joe is going to abstain
from is nil, unless of course the abstainer secretly supports the motion.)
Important in the freedom of speech, Richard, is the freedom to NOT speak.
Counting abstentions as a reduction in the number of members for the purpose
of the vote, allow the abstainer to not take a stand, on way or the other.
You want t6he freedom to speak so much, you have to allow others the freedom
to not speak.
And, to use a beautiful fallacy, everyone else does it this way, quit telling
Grex to stop. =}
|
chelsea
|
|
response 16 of 94:
|
Nov 26 01:15 UTC 1996 |
I may be wrong here but my recollection of RRO is that an
abstention is simply a blank ballot. It still counts toward
the number of votes cast. So when you are counting votes
toward a majority abstentions do indeed matter.
When I read how the vote was decided I too had questions
about the call. I figured someone would ask about it.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 17 of 94:
|
Nov 26 01:18 UTC 1996 |
Brighn slipped in.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 18 of 94:
|
Nov 26 01:23 UTC 1996 |
I'll correct myself. According to RRO:
Abstentions have no effect on calculation of
votes. When a ballot is marked "abstain",
it is considered a blank.
Robert's Rules then go on to how illegal or spoiled
ballots are handled. They do count toward the total
number of votes cast. That's what I was thinking of.
Sorry.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 19 of 94:
|
Nov 26 16:32 UTC 1996 |
(Mary is quoting RRO at us? Oh my!)
As I understand it, the way board votes work is that you need to have at least
5 board members present at a meeting for a vote to count. If more board
members vote for something than against it, it passes. The number of
abstainers doesn't matter.
If a vote came up where most the board was going to abstain, I'd think the
question needed more discussion.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 20 of 94:
|
Nov 26 16:52 UTC 1996 |
but doesnt it seem logical to say that if you need "x" number
of board members to make quorum andhave a meeting, that you should
also require a quorum of votes to validate a motion?
I'll correctmyself in one thing. Since four people
participated in the questioned vote, a majority of the board
the vote should stand. If however, abstains count as
votes or if there one more abstention, the vote shouldnt count
because those voting in favor would then make up less than the majority.
I think an abstain is a vote. If this was a paper vote,
those abstaining would have had to mark their ballot as "abstain"
It is not the same as ifthey missed the meeting. They were there
and participatedin the vote, simply choosing the
"abstain" option.
This is just practical. the members of the board shouldnt
WANT anything passed unless a majority of them support it.
|
remmers
|
|
response 21 of 94:
|
Nov 26 17:00 UTC 1996 |
Yes, the bylaws define a quorum as 5 board members. I'm no
authority on RRO, but I've served on quite a few committees,
task forces, and other deliberative bodies, and the standard
practice has always been that a motion passes if a quorum is
persent at the meeting and more people vote for the motion than
against it. To require that a majority of those present vote in
favor would, as others have pointed out, make an abstention
equivalent to a no vote, which doesn't make a whole lot of
sense.
So I think the board has officially directed me to put every
nominee on the ballot, regardless of whether they're a voting
member of Grex or not, so I shall do so, even though I'd
personally have preferred it if the vote had gone the other way.
To my mind, permitting someone to be a candidate in an election
who is not even eligible to vote in the election doesn't make
a whole lot of sense either.
|
remmers
|
|
response 22 of 94:
|
Nov 26 17:05 UTC 1996 |
(#20 slipped in)
|
kerouac
|
|
response 23 of 94:
|
Nov 26 17:24 UTC 1996 |
#21..so it is better for an "abstain" to count
as a "yes"vote instead? I dont see how having it be effectively
a "yes" vote is better than having it be a "no" vote. Since an
abstain reduces the number of "yes" votes needed to pass, and does
make it easier. An abstain is a "not voting no"
|
scg
|
|
response 24 of 94:
|
Nov 26 18:02 UTC 1996 |
John, I think most of the board agreed with you that people *should* have to
be members to run for the board. What it came down to, though, is that who
can run is a bylaw question rather than a board question, and the board's only
role in this was to interpret the bylaws.
|