|
Grex > Coop12 > #138: Nominations for the Board of Directors | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 176 responses total. |
jmsaul
|
|
response 100 of 176:
| 
Nov 19 17:47 UTC 2002 |
I've never claimed that, I've just claimed that you guys (1) don't actually
need the money, you need to reduce expenses, and (2) you're paranoid mofos
(as well as inflammatory ;-) when it comes to providing Internet access given
all the other options out there.
Like a lot of other people on here, I could pay your monthly expenses myself
if I felt like it. Grex and M-Net are very small operations. It isn't about
affordability. (I realize it is for some people, and I've been there myself,
but it isn't for me, now.)
|
jp2
|
|
response 101 of 176:
|
Nov 19 18:03 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 102 of 176:
|
Nov 19 18:20 UTC 2002 |
It isn't just the vote, though. If it were, I'd agree with him. It's the
additional Internet access you get, that's apparently so hard to find
elsewhere that they have to verify your identity to give it to you -- which
means it's worth something.
|
jp2
|
|
response 103 of 176:
|
Nov 19 18:24 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 104 of 176:
|
Nov 19 18:59 UTC 2002 |
You probably could.
|
gull
|
|
response 105 of 176:
|
Nov 19 19:13 UTC 2002 |
If I donate $300 to PBS and get one of their 'premiums' in return, I can
still deduct the $300.
I don't need Grex's outgoing Internet access, I have other Internet
access. So this is even more of a pure donation than giving money to
PBS would be.
As far as #102 goes, I think jmsaul is intentionally missing the point
of Internet user validation. It's not that people couldn't go off
somewhere else and cause mischief. It's that if they cause mischief
using Grex, it's Grex's ass that's on the line, so we need to take steps
to prevent it. If other systems want to give away 'net access and risk
the consequences, that's their business. You'll have a hard time
finding anywhere that lets you use the Internet without *some* kind of
identification, though. Even NetZero logs phone numbers, I hear.
|
slynne
|
|
response 106 of 176:
|
Nov 19 19:27 UTC 2002 |
Actually if you donate $300 to PBS and get one of their premiums in
return, you cannot still deduct the $300. If you get a coffee mug
valued at $5 for instance, you get to deduct $295.
Anyhow, I just would like to see a system where people who choose not
to contribute financially but, instead, contribute in other ways get
valued.
|
other
|
|
response 107 of 176:
|
Nov 19 20:17 UTC 2002 |
slynne, out of curiosity, how would you have non-financial contributors
valued?
I get the feeling that your position is based on a very subjective
perception of the treatment of a class of "outsiders" within which you
define yourself to be, but in what substantive ways can we change our
organizational proactices to alter that perception?
|
aruba
|
|
response 108 of 176:
|
Nov 19 20:20 UTC 2002 |
The value of a service Grex renders is its fair market value, and is not
affected by whether we require ID for it.
As far as deducting memberships, I've talked with people at the IRS about
it, and they agreed that as far as they are concerned, our memberships are
donations and may be deducted in full from income taxes. There are two
reasons why:
1) The extra internet privileges that people get when they become members
are "frequently exercisable rights", and
2) The services which are reserved for members only (ftp, irc, and telnet)
are of only "de minimus" value.
I know that wasn't the point of this argument, but I wanted to clear up
that point. Everyone's free to argue whether membership dues are
donations or not using their own definitions of "donation", but from the
IRS's point of view, Grex membership dues are donations.
|
jp2
|
|
response 109 of 176:
|
Nov 19 20:29 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 110 of 176:
|
Nov 19 20:32 UTC 2002 |
Jamie, it's no wonder the whole world looks brown to you...
|
jp2
|
|
response 111 of 176:
|
Nov 19 20:34 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 112 of 176:
|
Nov 19 20:36 UTC 2002 |
No, it's YOUR ass you've got your head stuck into, not my ass.
|
carson
|
|
response 113 of 176:
|
Nov 20 01:50 UTC 2002 |
(hmm. let the campaigning begin, I guess.) :P
|
remmers
|
|
response 114 of 176:
|
Nov 20 12:27 UTC 2002 |
Hm. A look at the item header tells me that this is the board
nominations item. Think I'll post something on-topic:
There are two board nominees who have not yet either accepted or
declined: krj and myself. We both have until December 1 to make
up our minds.
I'm currently on the fence about running, but perhaps now is a good
time to discuss how the election should be administered in case I do
accept. Normally, as voteadm person, I set up the vote program and
the ballot, and count the votes when the election is over. In the
past when I've been a candidate, an additional person (usually davel)
has also counted the votes. Do people feel comfortable with that?
|
mdw
|
|
response 115 of 176:
|
Nov 20 13:09 UTC 2002 |
I have no problem with that. Other options might include having an
existing board member who is not up for election count votes or run the
election, having somebody on staff do that, or have the board select
somebody to do this. But I don't see any reason to do this unless
people don't feel comfortable with the status quo.
|
jp2
|
|
response 116 of 176:
|
Nov 20 14:16 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 117 of 176:
|
Nov 20 14:28 UTC 2002 |
I'm fine with davel counting, he's a very responsible person.
|
davel
|
|
response 118 of 176:
|
Nov 20 15:11 UTC 2002 |
davel did it once, possibly twice. Others have done it too.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 119 of 176:
|
Nov 20 15:39 UTC 2002 |
I'm fine with davel counting
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 120 of 176:
|
Nov 20 15:49 UTC 2002 |
me too
|
other
|
|
response 121 of 176:
|
Nov 20 15:56 UTC 2002 |
Likewise, and I'll volunteer as a backup.
|
jep
|
|
response 122 of 176:
|
Nov 20 17:00 UTC 2002 |
Sounds very good to me.
|
richard
|
|
response 123 of 176:
|
Nov 21 03:38 UTC 2002 |
Just one more thing in regards to mdw's response about allowing non-dues
paying members. I believe, though this could be researched, that in the time
that grex has been allowing non-members, non paying, to vote in straw polls
running concurrently to the actual elections, that the non-members results
and the members results-- at least as regards issues and not board elections--
have run very similar to the member results. Which, if true, would run
counter to mdw's argument that non-paying members may vote differently,
more recklessly say, than paying members on monetary issues since their
money isn't involved or as involved. I think the straw polls taken in the
post will indicate that isn't true.
And such thinking as mdw expressed, is similar to aristocrats who feel as
though because they pay large amounts in taxes due to their income level,
that somehow they deserve more of a voice in government than those on
welfare. As if those on welfare, or low income, who don't pay much or any
taxes, somehow would vote more recklessly on monetary issues. I don't
believe that, and I don't believe that Grex should base its rules on such
like minded short sightedness.
Grex ought to believe that anyone who is willing to be validated, and is
willing to participate in its functions, and has demonstrated that by use
over time, is perfectly capable of being a responsible member. Regardless
of whether monetary transactions do or do not take place.
|
other
|
|
response 124 of 176:
|
Nov 21 04:48 UTC 2002 |
Richard, you should have gone into politics. If the shrub is any
indication, you could have been President by now.
|