|
Grex > Coop > #338: proposal to eliminate restriction for Board members | |
|
| Author |
Message |
jep
|
|
proposal to eliminate restriction for Board members
| 
Feb 10 19:33 UTC 2013 |
Proposal: Eliminate bylaw 4b, and make such other changes to the bylaws
as are needed to reflect the intention of that change.
Current bylaw 4b:
b. Upon serving two consecutive terms on the BOD, a person must
vacate the BOD for one year before being eligible to serve
again.
Discussion: This was good in 1992, to prevent cliques from controlling
the new organization. It's an obstacle now. Most elections are not
contested any more. There wouldn't have been an election at all this
January if I had not run and offered a controversial proposal. Other
members said they would have run if not for being restricted by limited
terms.
|
| 91 responses total. |
other
|
|
response 1 of 91:
|
Feb 11 06:37 UTC 2013 |
I'd suggest merely altering the bylaw to allow exemptions to term limits
if no other options are available. Term limited board members could be
nominated and participate in the process all the way through the
election, except that votes for them would only count if otherwise a
seat would be left open.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 2 of 91:
|
Feb 11 20:44 UTC 2013 |
Or just choose longer limited terms, like 6 or 8 years.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 3 of 91:
|
Feb 12 00:38 UTC 2013 |
Welcome back, Eric. :)
|
jep
|
|
response 4 of 91:
|
Feb 12 02:29 UTC 2013 |
I'd prefer to remove the term limits entirely. It is simpler. I do not
see the need for term limits any more, not when the membership barely
outnumbers the Board.
There apparently wouldn't have been an election -- 0 nominees -- in the
most recent election if I hadn't run. TS wasn't a candidate until he
found out I was running and that I was pushing for a merger. Denise
said she couldn't run. No one else expressed any interest at all. I
don't know who else was eligible to run but TS, and me once I paid for a
membership. That seems bad to me.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 5 of 91:
|
Feb 13 01:22 UTC 2013 |
Oh, we've several who could serve but choose not to, for reasons that seem
good and sufficient to them. I'll neither name names nor repeat what I've
read elsewhere.
If the membership barely outnumbers the Board, and today it's about 3:1, we
are left with the basic question I've been banging out for the past several
years, and which a merger doesn't answer: Does the membership still support
the organisation? If not, we know WHAT to do, even if we don't WANT to do
it.
|
kentn
|
|
response 6 of 91:
|
Feb 13 03:40 UTC 2013 |
And remember, Arbornet's members don't support their organization,
either (as evidenced by lack of a Board for one thing). Dissolving
Grex won't solve that, either. Grex is still in good financial
shape and with some effort, we can still find people to run for the
Board. That said, the next Board election will be a real test and
if term limits were removed, well, there won't be many that would
allow to run again. So, we need to do more to encourage people
to run for the Board (and not only from our current list of
members, but from anyone with an interest--they can become members
to meet that requirement).
|
cross
|
|
response 7 of 91:
|
Feb 14 21:51 UTC 2013 |
resp:5 No, we don't. What do we do, shut off Grex just because the
conference users are the minority now? That's silly; there are
plenty of people using it in other, far more productive ways. Why
deprive them of that because they don't want to play in the Ann
Arbor sandbox?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 8 of 91:
|
Feb 15 04:09 UTC 2013 |
See my recent comments in the older item on dissolving the Corporation. But
the bottom line is: Yup. The membership, the folks who sit on the Board of
Directors and tell them what to do, are in the conferences. Those others
don't contribute. I don't mind them doing what they are doing. I'm even
glad that they are doing it, and doing it here. But they don't help keep the
system going. And I don't believe that making them 'members' will suddenly
inspire them to start helping.
Remember, please: It ain't about the money.
|
cross
|
|
response 9 of 91:
|
Feb 15 15:10 UTC 2013 |
resp:8 You are making a lot of unstated assumptions, and I have
some serious definitional problems with what you're saying:
1. What does it mean to contribute?
2. What does it mean to help?
3. What is needed to keep Grex running?
If I'm to hazzard a guess, I would imagine that, for you, almost
all of these things imply contributing to the BBS community and/or
existing governance structure. I reject that as being simply untrue.
Users, donations, and word-of-mouth advertising amongst people who
are interested in Unix, programming and network stuff are all
contributions and help keep Grex alive and vital in ways that matter
outside of backtalk.
I am interpreting what you are saying, essentially, as meaning that
unless Grex continues the way it was in 1991 (a userbase centered
around the BBS community), then it is not viable. I reject that
out of hand: the BBS community has whithered to the point of
irrelevance and Grex has fundamentally changed. The issue here is
that some folks are having a hard time wrapping their heads around
that fact. No one outside of a handful of long time users cares
about the BBS. Oh well, get over it: it had a good run, now it's
time to start devoting energy to other aspects fo the system. But
some folks would rather just shut things off than hand them over
to the next generation. Wow; what for? Why?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 10 of 91:
|
Feb 16 01:00 UTC 2013 |
Dan, can you participate in the governance of the U.S. if you don't talk to
your representative and senators? Sure, you can vote, but if you want to
influence <reaches into the air and grabs something> abortion policy, how do
you do it?
Similarly, if you want to influence the direction of Grex, you have to talk
to the members and the Directors. Where, and how, do you do that? Right
now, not some distant day in the future?
Backtalk has been up and running for how many years, now? But I'm repeating
myself.
"Contribute" means "offer opinions, advice and suggestions." Also "effort in
accomplishing things suggested and requested."
"Help" is much the same. Especially the "time and energy" part.
What is needed to keep Grex running? As long as it is part of Cyberspace
Communications, Inc: Directors who don't have to be yanked from unwilling
jaws. Directors who can, and will, act and work as Officers of the
Corporation. People who are willing to TALK to the Directors, to provide
guidance and advice.
Logging in to compile program.c doesn't help. It doesn't hurt, mind you, but
it doesn't help. Any more than running a dry-cleaning business helps run the
country. It doesn't hurt, but it doesn't help.
Here is my bottom line: What is going to inspire all those users to take an
interest in continuing the system?
|
richard
|
|
response 11 of 91:
|
Feb 16 18:03 UTC 2013 |
Under Article 8 of the bylaws, it says in the event the membership is no
longer able to support, all properties of Cyberspace Communications are
to be sold.
I'd suggest that the membership is no longer able to support the
corporate structure. That cyberspace communications could be dissolved
and its assets sold to one of the members, who is willing to keep the
box and grex going. Prior to voting to dissolve, the board votes to
have the treasurer cut a check to the member volunteering to be the new
'custodian' for 'services rendered' and they get whatever money's left.
The corporation is a shell now, there is no point in keeping it going,
or in having further bylaw amendments to remove previous rules. What
you'd have left is bylaws where most of the rules have been rescinded
and whats the point?
|
kentn
|
|
response 12 of 91:
|
Feb 16 19:30 UTC 2013 |
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of problem. Welcome
to being part of the problem, Richard.
|
mary
|
|
response 13 of 91:
|
Feb 16 21:42 UTC 2013 |
Yeah, I don't really get all this cheerleading to end Grex conferencing,
Unless you are a board member with fiduciary responsibility, just walk away.
There, it's over for you! Why rally to shut it down if even two people are
enjoying the conversations? It's almost like,"I'm not enjoying Grex but I
can't leave and risk missing something, so close it down!".
|
richard
|
|
response 14 of 91:
|
Feb 16 22:23 UTC 2013 |
Who said anything about grex shutting down. I was simply saying Grex
could exist without the corporate structure, without cyberspace
communications.
|
tonster
|
|
response 15 of 91:
|
Feb 16 23:16 UTC 2013 |
I'll give ya $10.
|
richard
|
|
response 16 of 91:
|
Feb 17 01:57 UTC 2013 |
$10 and you sign an agreement to keep running grex for the next five
years, with the box at your house, just as it is. Done deal. The Board
agrees to dissolve and sell its assets to Tonster who becomes its
caretaker. Why not. Better than going through the motions of maintaining
a company that stopped being what it was long ago. Its a joke to talk of
amending the bylaws to do this or that when there aren't enough members
left who'd care enough to amend the bylaws.
|
mary
|
|
response 17 of 91:
|
Feb 17 02:07 UTC 2013 |
Richard needs to read our Articles of Incorporation. Or not and continue to
amuse.
|
kentn
|
|
response 18 of 91:
|
Feb 17 03:03 UTC 2013 |
Well, let's see, Richard, without our corporation in place we lose our
501C3 status. As to keeping everything running it doesn't take all that
much in terms of money right now (the overhead due to state and federal
requirements is about $20/year), but that is mostly due to the donation
of space, electricity and internet connection by tonster. Mostly, I
think at least some users would not like to go back to a particular
era where one person owns the system. That didn't work too well back
in the day according to some so let's leave it in the past. We'd like
to get into A2Hosting and on the basis of our 501C3 status we can do
that for little or no cost. That won't be the case if we dissolve our
corporation and lose our 501C3 status.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 19 of 91:
|
Feb 17 03:38 UTC 2013 |
Hmmm. . . I'm not so sure our "users" would care who owns the system. If I
understand what's being said, the vast majority don't use the conferencing
system and so would not notice if it were shut off. The ones who would
notice, again if I understand what is being said, don't matter.
I want to say, "But that's neither here nor there," and then I realise it is
the crux of the matter: How is grex going to continue? Will it be a
membership-based organisation, with all that means, or will it be a
user-based organisation? (Note: it is my, perhaps biased, opinion that the
latter would be better categorised as a "non-organisation.")
To the point of this particular item: we started out as a democracy. Are we
going to continue as a democracy, or as a tyranny? Removing the term-limits
restriction is, in my view, the penultimate step towards tyranny.
(Note to Richard: look up 'tyranny' before you respond, please.)
|
richard
|
|
response 20 of 91:
|
Feb 17 20:10 UTC 2013 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 21 of 91:
|
Feb 17 20:12 UTC 2013 |
Mary, Article 8 of the bylaws says
***************
DISSOLVEMENT
In the event the membership is unable to support Cyberspace
Communications, all property belonging to the club shall be
sold. The remaining cash assets, after paying final bills, shall
be donated to a charitable organization, as determined by the
BOD. All elected officers shall then be released from their
obligations and the corporation dissolved.
**************
That says all property must be sold, it does *not* say all property must
be sold to charity.
The articles of incorporation says the 'remaining cash assets must
be donated to charity'
The way I read it is simple. The board can vote to sell the equipment
to Tonster for a nominal fee and an agreement to keep it running and
keep soliciting their input when issues come up. The cash fee they get
from Tonster, or whomever, that and any funds left in the bank have to
be donated to charity.
Seems doable to me
|
lkjh
|
|
response 22 of 91:
|
Feb 18 01:04 UTC 2013 |
umm, riechard ... what 'event' demonstrates ANY inability of the memberhsip
"to support cyberspace communicatons?"
|
jep
|
|
response 23 of 91:
|
Feb 18 02:34 UTC 2013 |
TS, the next election will determine a lot, as gelinas said. If there
aren't enough people to run and fill the Board seats, then haven't we
reached the end?
I don't want that to happen. I think it will be easier to do that if we
remove the Board member restrictions preventing people from being off
the Board for a year if they've been on it for 2 terms. It is the point
of this proposal.
|
richard
|
|
response 24 of 91:
|
Feb 18 03:21 UTC 2013 |
re #22 the fact that there haven't been any treasurer's reports, few in
person board meetings, and so little interest among members in running for
the board that #0 proposes eliminating term limits just to keep live
bodies on the board, are good indications of an inability of the
membership to support the corporate structure. The proposal in #0 would
have been unthinkable a few years ago. Now nobody cares.
Put simply, why keep a corporation going when its not needed to keep grex
going and nobody cares about the corporation much any more?
|