|
Grex > Coop > #292: Nominations Open for 2011 Board of Directors | |
|
| Author |
Message |
remmers
|
|
Nominations Open for 2011 Board of Directors
| 
Nov 3 20:07 UTC 2010 |
Nominations are open now through the end of the day (EST) on
November 15 for the Cyberspace Communications Board of Directors.
The following current board members were elected in December 2009;
their terms have one more year to run:
STeve Andre (steve)
Denise Anderson (denise)
Chuck Martin (unicorn)
Kent Nassen (kentn)
Under the bylaw amendment just passed, the Board is to have five
members (reduced from seven). Therefore, there is one open position
to be filled at this time.
Board members whose terms are expiring are Dan Cross, Joe Gelinas,
and TS Taylor. Dan has served two consecutive terms and is
therefore ineligible to run this time; the other two are eligible
for re-election if they choose to run.
Nominations close on November 15; voting takes place via the online
vote program beginning on December 1 and ending December 15. In
order for a nominee to appear on the ballot, they must have entered
a statement in this item accepting the nomination and be a member
in good standing at the time voting begins.
Nominate somebody by doing so in this item. Nominations do not
require seconds. Self-nomination is allowed. Terms run for two
years.
|
| 123 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 1 of 123:
|
Nov 3 22:45 UTC 2010 |
I nominate anne/jadecat. She has now moved back to A2 and hasn't been on
the board in some years. Maybe she'd even brimg Kyle to the meetings :)
|
mary
|
|
response 2 of 123:
|
Nov 4 12:18 UTC 2010 |
I really hope Joe decides to run again. He is thoughtful and ends up with
helpful and sound suggestions. He also plays well with others.
Ann would be a wonderful board member - I hope she jumps in.
|
denise
|
|
response 3 of 123:
|
Nov 4 13:32 UTC 2010 |
I nominate tsty and gelinas. And I agree that jadecat would be good,
too. :-)
|
mary
|
|
response 4 of 123:
|
Nov 4 23:09 UTC 2010 |
TS was willing to pick up the treasurer's job. I don't suspect he had to
fight anyone for that responsibility. I hope he runs again as well.
And thanks for that, TS.
|
cross
|
|
response 5 of 123:
|
Nov 5 12:08 UTC 2010 |
I nominate Joe Gelinas. Or, rather, second Denise's nomination.
|
tsty
|
|
response 6 of 123:
|
Nov 12 06:37 UTC 2010 |
i accept the nomination, tnx.
|
remmers
|
|
response 7 of 123:
|
Nov 12 15:23 UTC 2010 |
Reminder: Nominations close in three days, on November 15.
Nominees have through November 30 to accept. Voting starts on
December 1.
|
remmers
|
|
response 8 of 123:
|
Nov 15 15:13 UTC 2010 |
Final reminder: Nominations close at midnight tonight (EST). Nominees
have until the end of the month to accept, and voting begins December 1.
|
jgelinas
|
|
response 9 of 123:
|
Nov 16 14:27 UTC 2010 |
So the nominees are tsty, gelinas and jadecat? And, so far, only tsty
has accepted?
|
remmers
|
|
response 10 of 123:
|
Nov 16 14:38 UTC 2010 |
That's correct.
|
richard
|
|
response 11 of 123:
|
Nov 16 18:13 UTC 2010 |
why not extend the nomination period and postpone the election date in
an attempt to gain some more interest?
|
jgelinas
|
|
response 12 of 123:
|
Nov 17 15:42 UTC 2010 |
We have what, ten, members right now? I'd guess we have all the
interest we are going to get.
|
slynne
|
|
response 13 of 123:
|
Nov 17 16:16 UTC 2010 |
Perhaps it is time to go to annual meetings?
|
mary
|
|
response 14 of 123:
|
Nov 17 18:23 UTC 2010 |
I give everyone willing to run for the board this time around a huge vote
of thanks. We're going to have to be making some pretty big decisions
over the next 12 months. And they won't be easy decisions.
I don't think fewer meeting would help. The board needs to be looking
ahead and planning 8-12 months out.
|
jep
|
|
response 15 of 123:
|
Nov 17 20:22 UTC 2010 |
A couple of years ago, Arbornet had the same problem and moved to a
single annual meeting, with no requirement for physical attendance by
the Board members. Conference call meetings worked fine as a
replacement, in my opinion.
Arbornet also streamlined the by-laws, and trimmed the Board to 5
directors. It just plain didn't need all the structure that had built
up over the years.
|
slynne
|
|
response 16 of 123:
|
Nov 17 21:06 UTC 2010 |
I was thinking of Arbornet's choice to go that way when I made the
suggestion. I think it can work and special meetings can be called if
needed.
|
cross
|
|
response 17 of 123:
|
Nov 17 23:16 UTC 2010 |
Maybe it's time for a *serious* overall and simplification of bylaws.
|
cross
|
|
response 18 of 123:
|
Nov 17 23:18 UTC 2010 |
resp:12 Also, I feel compelled to point out that Grex has done, as far as I
can tell, essentially no advertising...
|
jep
|
|
response 19 of 123:
|
Nov 17 23:19 UTC 2010 |
There are 10 members. Is it worth all that? You can probably
streamline the by-laws enough to make them workable for the current
Board without much effort, but revising them completely might be a lot
of work.
|
cross
|
|
response 20 of 123:
|
Nov 17 23:23 UTC 2010 |
I'd say it's worth it in the sense of making the organization more nimble,
which in turn would hopefully make it more viable, which in turn would
hopefully inspire people to join, which would make it worthwhile.
|
tsty
|
|
response 21 of 123:
|
Nov 18 04:33 UTC 2010 |
11 members ... jadecat joined on 14nov.
and re 20 ... i like bootsgtrapping.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 22 of 123:
|
Nov 18 04:40 UTC 2010 |
A single annual meeting doesn't encourage keeping up with technology (or
socialology, for that matter).
|
jep
|
|
response 23 of 123:
|
Nov 18 14:46 UTC 2010 |
Arbornet went to on-line meetings because we didn't have enough members
to fill the Board from the Ann Arbor area. Having them on-line, we were
able to have Board members from Canada, North Carolina, and even
England. The current president of Arbornet lives in Montreal.
|
jgelinas
|
|
response 24 of 123:
|
Nov 18 17:04 UTC 2010 |
We amended the bylaws to facilitate out-of-town Directors several years
ago. We have had Directors living in Japan and other parts of Asia. I
don't know that we have had Directors living in other parts of the US.
One of the two most recent amendments to the bylaws allows online
meetings.
The problem is NOT the Board of Directors, how many or how often or even
how they meet. The problem is that the membership can no longer support
the organisation. I don't like it, but nothing I've seen in the past
year has given me any reason to question the conclusion.
I'm still considering whether to accept my nomination to the Board.
|