|
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?
|