|
Grex > Coop12 > #49: Nominations for the Board of Directors | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 332 responses total. |
jep
|
|
response 102 of 332:
| 
Nov 8 20:56 UTC 2001 |
re #96: I appreciate the suggestion, but:
1) I'm not a member of Grex because I don't like Grex's level of
support for the ACLU
2) My life is not at the level of stability which I'd want before I'd
consider running
3) My style of management isn't at all what Grex is used to
4) I have some history which would make me an unpalatable choice for
many Grexers, including bad management for Arbornet and shocking many
Grexers by being the visible point of contact for Arbornet pulling out
of a joint grant project
I do like Grex a lot, and wish it all the best. I think there are many
better choices than me for the board.
I think you are one of them, by the way, especially given your passion
for investment options for Grex, and your ability to take on projects
and commit time to them. I'm not just returning a compliment. I
really would be very happy to see you serve on the Board.
|
keesan
|
|
response 103 of 332:
|
Nov 8 20:58 UTC 2001 |
Thanks for returning the compliment with a compliment but I don't think I am
diplomatic enough to serve on the board. Mark asked me to run once and I
refused. Any other volunteers? I would be happy to do any research which
would save the board time. I also don't know enough about computers.
|
aruba
|
|
response 104 of 332:
|
Nov 9 16:18 UTC 2001 |
I nominate Greg Fleming.
|
mary
|
|
response 105 of 332:
|
Nov 9 23:55 UTC 2001 |
Yes. Please say yes.
Greg has a very nice way of getting to the meat of an
issue and distilling it down to a common sense solution.
|
flem
|
|
response 106 of 332:
|
Nov 12 22:26 UTC 2001 |
Yeah, sure, I'll accept.
|
styles
|
|
response 107 of 332:
|
Nov 13 00:03 UTC 2001 |
#102: what's grex's level of support for the ACLU, and why is support for
the ACLU bad?
|
jp2
|
|
response 108 of 332:
|
Nov 13 00:44 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 109 of 332:
|
Nov 13 03:27 UTC 2001 |
(Both Grex and Arbornet were parties to a suit filed by the ACLU
against Michigan's internet censorship act. The law was struck
down by the courts -- the correct outcome, in my opinion. I
think that our working with the ACLU on this was entirely
appropriate.)
(But this is drift in the board nominations item.)
|
janc
|
|
response 110 of 332:
|
Nov 13 04:15 UTC 2001 |
As far as I can tell, it would be as accurate to say that the ACLU supported
Grex and Arbornet as to say that Grex and Arbornet supported the ACLU. All
three organizations wanted that law struck down. None of them were involved
solely out of love and affection for the others. The ACLU contributed vastly
more time and resources to the job than anyone else. I think they probably
did us a much bigger favor than we did from them. But I suppose that if you
equate the ACLU with satan, taking favors from them isn't very appealing
either.
|
gull
|
|
response 111 of 332:
|
Nov 13 14:52 UTC 2001 |
Yeah, how dare they defeat a law that would have shut us down! Evil
bastards.
|
richard
|
|
response 112 of 332:
|
Nov 13 16:59 UTC 2001 |
Isnt dpc, an mnet board member, also an aclu lawyer? I guess jp2
approves of "aclu commies" as long as they are mnet and not grex?
|
remmers
|
|
response 113 of 332:
|
Nov 13 17:13 UTC 2001 |
Dave Cahill is an attorney but not with the ACLU.
|
pthomas
|
|
response 114 of 332:
|
Nov 13 18:11 UTC 2001 |
As I recall Jamie is a card-carrying member of the ACLU.
|
jep
|
|
response 115 of 332:
|
Nov 13 21:01 UTC 2001 |
I apologize for causing the drift. I only meant to explain that there
are several reasons why I wouldn't be a good Board member for Grex.
If I ever do run, I'm sure I'll have to explain my reasons for opposing
certain Grex policies -- in fact, changing policies would be the only
reason I could see myself running. Grexers don't want the kind of
changes I want, so it would not make much sense for me to run at this
time.
|
remmers
|
|
response 116 of 332:
|
Nov 14 22:00 UTC 2001 |
Reminder: Tomorrow, Thursday November 15, is the last day to place
new names in nomination. Nominees have until the start of balloting
on December 1 to accept and to meet the membership requirement.
|
janc
|
|
response 117 of 332:
|
Nov 14 22:08 UTC 2001 |
I think the current list is:
ACCEPTED
jp2
bhelliom
mary
mdw
orinoco
kaplin
flem
NOMINATED
other
cmcgee
krj
danr
DECLINED
eeyore
janc
davel
scott
arabella
jep
Seven candidates for four positions is pretty good. Today is the last day
for nominations, I think, but people who have been nominated can still ponder
over whether or not to accept for a while longer.
|
janc
|
|
response 118 of 332:
|
Nov 14 22:09 UTC 2001 |
Oops, "kaplan" not "kaplin".
|
other
|
|
response 119 of 332:
|
Nov 14 22:15 UTC 2001 |
I have decided that I like my knees relatively intact.
|
janc
|
|
response 120 of 332:
|
Nov 14 22:23 UTC 2001 |
I'm guessing that that is a acceptance, but I believe the election czar likes
his acceptances to be explicit.
|
other
|
|
response 121 of 332:
|
Nov 14 22:35 UTC 2001 |
I have decided to accept nomination for another term as a Director of
Cyberspace Communications, Incorporated.
|
remmers
|
|
response 122 of 332:
|
Nov 15 02:01 UTC 2001 |
<remmers applauds other's explicitness>
Nominations run through the 15th, so folks still have a day to place
new names in nomination.
|
janc
|
|
response 123 of 332:
|
Nov 15 03:37 UTC 2001 |
In that case, I'd like to nominate dpc, gelinas, i, rcurl, russ, and tpryan.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 124 of 332:
|
Nov 15 04:28 UTC 2001 |
uhh.... watching the school board keeps me plenty busy, especially on
Wednesdays. Sailing Club treasury burns off more time. Nonetheless, I'm
flattered. Since I won't mind losing, I accept the nomination. :)
|
krj
|
|
response 125 of 332:
|
Nov 15 05:27 UTC 2001 |
I am leaning against accepting my nomination, but I shall relish
the opportunity to dither for two more weeks.
|
mary
|
|
response 126 of 332:
|
Nov 15 12:35 UTC 2001 |
mary thanks other.
|