|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 299 responses total. |
cmcgee
|
|
response 111 of 299:
| 
Aug 28 13:02 UTC 2002 |
Our corporation elects its board. The founders each have one vote. As far
as I know, being a "friend" of a founder has not appeared in anyone's
campaign statement as an argument for voting for that candidate.
Also, there is no residency restriction on BoD membership. Some
Grexers seem to be concerned that because they, personally, have
financial problems over attending face-to-face meetings in Ann Arbor,
that the bylaws are somehow restricting their candidacy.
I would hate to see us build in technology-based bylaws, when
technology changes so quickly. It does seem to me that, if the
membership elected someone to the BoD who was physically restricted
from reaching the meeting place, that the BoD would apply some
creativity in solving the problem. I don't see any reason for solving
the problem in advance, since we don't know exactly what problem we are
solving.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 112 of 299:
|
Aug 28 13:04 UTC 2002 |
Summer Agora 2002, Item 178 is now linked to Coop as Item 124.
|
scott
|
|
response 113 of 299:
|
Aug 28 13:21 UTC 2002 |
Re way back there about multiple lines and conference calls:
It's possible (for a fee, of course) to have the phone company do multiple
line conference calls. The quality is quite good, probably a bit better than
what you get from a real business phone system (something with a big black
box mounted in a closet) and much better than most standalone multiline
phones.
There are dedicated speakerphone products for $200-300. I've never used them.
I will say that the usual speakerphone function built into regular/business
phones usually sucks.
It's possible that cellphones will do multiline conference calls. Some cell
phones have a built-in speakerphone function which is probably unusably bad.
When somebody (jp2?) said that long distance charges were not an issue, it
probably meant he would call the Grex conference site.
...
We have a conflict in doing this sort of meeting. Grex tries to always have
board meetings in a public place. This causes all sorts of inconveniences
in finding and keeping a good meeting place. The reason we do this is
because we get more casual attendees than we would if it was held at
somebody's house. Casual attendees are desirable because we want the meetings
to be as open as possible. However, it's hard to get access to a phone line
in a public place. Might be possible to tap into a cell phone somehow and
use a dedicated speakerphone.
Here's a whacky idea which just occurred to me: If we were to hold meetings
on cable TV it would allow even more casual observers, and provide a
guaranteed quiet room for speakerphone use.
|
jp2
|
|
response 114 of 299:
|
Aug 28 13:24 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 115 of 299:
|
Aug 28 13:32 UTC 2002 |
It occurs to me that it might be a good idea to try having a board
meeting online, just as an experiment, to see if it works for us. Since
the bylaws only require we meet every other month, we could have our
October meeting online without requiring any change in policy.
Partyadm could configure a channel which would be accessible at will, but
which would not allow changing of names, so that all users in the channel
would be identifiable by their logins.
I expect there to be some resistance to this idea, but can anyone give me
a good reason why we shouldn't try it? (Aside from having to provide our
own food...)
|
gull
|
|
response 116 of 299:
|
Aug 28 13:32 UTC 2002 |
Re #106: They'd probably end up longer than they are now with a phone
connection involved -- discussion just doesn't work nearly as well.
Conference call meetings drag on forever.
Re #113: Having watched some 'cell phone speakerphone' meetings at work, I
suggest you forget about the idea of doing this with a cell phone. Your
intuition about the quality is dead on.
|
jp2
|
|
response 117 of 299:
|
Aug 28 13:34 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 118 of 299:
|
Aug 28 13:34 UTC 2002 |
Re #115: I'm opposed to the idea. Arguments become much more intractable
and nasty online than in any other medium. It's just not a healthy way to
have a serious discussion.
If I had a dollar for every nasty, hours-long argument I've had with someone
online that was sorted out in ten minutes with a phone call...
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 119 of 299:
|
Aug 28 13:41 UTC 2002 |
Thank you. Finally less insults and more discussion.
Just for clafification for those who may be scrolling through. Why
don't people establish what the main questions are that they wish to
have answered (someone can compile them in one post), or the main body
of issues that the group as a whole are trying to get through.
|
other
|
|
response 120 of 299:
|
Aug 28 14:04 UTC 2002 |
Hmm. In meatspace, we have the gavel to bang in the event of intractable
arguing. In a party environment, the noisetab could be disallowed except
for a gavel bang noise permitted to the chair (and the /me noise for
all).
I agree that to some extent communicating fully via text only would be
more of a challenge, but I do not thinnk that the tendency of people to
be less focused and more argumentative online than in person necessarily
means that this will be the case in a board meeting. Keep in mind, we
still have the :ignore command, in case observers attempt to be
disruptive, and the board members have significant motivation to miantain
proper decorum in the meeting. Some of the most vigorous arguments in
board meetings I've attended have been (primarily) between myself and
steve and aruba, and I don't think that conducting them online would have
made them any worse or more difficult.
Again, all I am suggesting is an experiment. Trying this, regardless of
misgivings, would be a significant step in the direction of developing a
prtactical solution to this issue. If if doesn't work, then that is also
useful information which will better focus future discussions on the
topic.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 121 of 299:
|
Aug 28 14:15 UTC 2002 |
And at least this particular experiment could take place with current
members, rather than waiting for a remote member to be elected before
trying it out.
|
other
|
|
response 122 of 299:
|
Aug 28 14:23 UTC 2002 |
True, but that is a shortcoming of the idea rather than an advantage, for
practical purposes...
|
rcurl
|
|
response 123 of 299:
|
Aug 28 15:52 UTC 2002 |
Re #108: what is the relevance of this? Grex is not incorporated as a
cooperative.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 124 of 299:
|
Aug 28 15:55 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 125 of 299:
|
Aug 28 17:56 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 126 of 299:
|
Aug 28 18:41 UTC 2002 |
re #106: Hahahaha! You don't know your M-Net history. I have attended
Arbornet Board meetings lasting over 3 hours.
Arbornet has tried on-line meetings via party, and they didn't work
well. I didn't participate, but as I understand it, there were
intrusive users making discussion hard, there were problems with
getting everyone connected at once, and it just generally didn't work
well. That's not to say it wouldn't work fine for Grex.
I am in favor of resolving this, somehow, now that it's been raised and
discussed as much as it has. I'd like the goal to be to find a
reasonable policy to integrate remote Board members into Grex
operations, and I'd like to see it happen by the next Board meeting.
|
jep
|
|
response 127 of 299:
|
Aug 28 18:42 UTC 2002 |
Erp! I mean by the next election.
|
jp2
|
|
response 128 of 299:
|
Aug 28 18:55 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 129 of 299:
|
Aug 28 19:02 UTC 2002 |
Keep in mind the time of year, John. May not happen that quickly.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 130 of 299:
|
Aug 28 19:14 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
randyc
|
|
response 131 of 299:
|
Aug 28 19:16 UTC 2002 |
Too close to Christman, silly!
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 132 of 299:
|
Aug 28 19:22 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 133 of 299:
|
Aug 28 19:25 UTC 2002 |
It's August. The next election is in December or January, isn't it?
I realize it may not be a lot of time for making a policy change. I
also note I have no standing, other than as a member, and shouldn't be
conveying the impression I am making demands to which I hold the
membership responsible for acting. I just stated what I think is a
reasonable goal. I wanted to answer Colleen's comment that no policy
change is needed. I think it *is* needed.
|
mary
|
|
response 134 of 299:
|
Aug 28 19:28 UTC 2002 |
I'd be happy to try a !party board meeting. I'd like to see
how it goes and even if it's a spectacular failure, we'll have
learned something.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 135 of 299:
|
Aug 28 19:30 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
