response 111 of 186:

Nov 19 08:02 UTC 1996

Mark slipped in.

Having acquiesced on the question of trusting the purchaser of multiple
accounts to be buying them for separate individuals, I mostly go along with
all that

The problem I have with calling the "Magic Education Council" the owner of
convocat is that it is not a person. Only people can be members (according
to our bylaws). This is probably bad. But fixing it is a bylaw revision, and
another topic altogether. Definitely not what I'm proposing here.

Am I wrong on this? If we can establish that organization as the owner of
account convocat (using Kami's ID) then we do not have an existing violation
of the 1 person 1 vote convention. that would make me happy.

response 113 of 186:

Nov 19 22:02 UTC 1996

Let's not confuse "person" with "human being."  A "person" includes
a corporation or other association; a "human being" or an "individual"
refers to a biological entity.  Do I want to know what the bylaws
say?  No.
        Both organizations and human beings should be allowed to have
Grex accounts.  Of course organizations can only act through human
beings, but organizations have an existence separate from the human
beings who act for them.

response 115 of 186:

Nov 20 16:22 UTC 1996

If a person wants more votes on a board of some company, he/she
buys more stock/.  I dont think there should be a limit on how
many memberships one person can buy or if they wish to vote with all
or none of thosememberships.

response 117 of 186:

Nov 20 16:34 UTC 1996

Richard, aren't you also the person who insists that everybody should be able
to vote, regardless of whether they have a membership?  How do you reconcile
your two positions?

response 119 of 186:

Nov 20 18:21 UTC 1996

I'm hoping this new thread won't distract Steve from answering Mary's question 
in #112.

response 121 of 186:

Nov 21 10:41 UTC 1996

Um, yes, Rane, I meant memberships.  I followed dpc's wording in #113
slavishly, without thinking.

response 123 of 186:

Nov 25 06:47 UTC 1996

Nothing could possibly stop me from answering Mary's question, although
my answer was delayed because I have not had the time to get back to this item
until now.

The treasurer associates the name of the responsible individual with each
membership account. My idea of enforcement is that if more than one account is
associated with the same individual, then only one should be voting. Since
it is the Treasurer whose job it is to assign accounts to the group "voters",
it is he who must enforce this rule.

When this thread began, both accounts "kami" and "convocat" were associated
with the same individual. "convocat" was not listed as being owned by the
Magic Education Council. There is some question whether an organization can
own a membership account, and I hope to have that resolved. I agree with dpc
and others that it *should* be permitted.

It is my understanding from the board meeting that the name on the convocat
account will be changed to its correct owner, "Magic Education Council". We
accepted their membership fees and made them a voting account, whether that
was correct or not. I am not interested in forcing them to give it up.
Hopefully we will specifically correct any omission that prevents memberships
from going to organizations.

Meanwhile, I am happy with this as we no longer are recognizing a single
individual as having two voting accounts. I would hope we would never do that
again. If we can't agree to make it legit for voting memberships to be owned
by organizations, then future organizational accounts should be of the
non-voting type, including convocat when it next renews.

I have given up any attempt to ask for ID when buying memberships for family.
If one person wants to buy memberships for everyone in his or her family, I
am willing to let them do so without proving the existence of those people,
so long as a separate name is assigned to each account. On the other hand if
the request appears to be suspicious to the Treasurer, I would have no
objection if he asked for confirmation that the people exist.

response 125 of 186:

Nov 25 17:31 UTC 1996

#124...the bylaws say that any member in good standing has voting 
rights.  It does not say "any member in good standing who is an 
individual and not an organization" has voting rights.  To say flat out 
that the bylaws do not allow an organization voting rights is not true. 
The bylaws do not say that an organization cannot itself be a member, 
and they do not say that any paying member for any reason should be 
excluded from voting.

response 127 of 186:

Nov 25 18:29 UTC 1996

I think we need to amend the bylaws to create a separate member-like catagory
for organizations that support Grex.  It's not really worth debating what the
current bylaws mean, since I think we should change them no matter what they
say.

Specifically, I think the rules should go something like this:

  - Members must be individuals, not organizations.

  - We create a new class called "benefactors" or something.

  - Benefactors can be groups corporations or individuals.  They do not
    need to be validated.

  - Being a benefactor does not by itself confer any special access on Grex,
    but all benefactors will be acknowledged on a list of benefactors.
    (Note we leave it open that some benefactors may get more, so the board
    has at least the option of making different kinds of deals with outside
    organization.)

  - Benefactor donations can be in the form of goods and services.  Thus
    IC-Net is probably already a benefactor.  (This opens some cans of
    worms that may not be worth getting into (eg, are all the fairwitnesses
    benefactors because of the time they donate?), so maybe it's a bad idea.
    Maybe the bylaws should just say that you can become a benefactor by
    donating $100 in the current year or by being named so by the board, thus
    leaving non-cash ways of being benefactors undefined.)

response 129 of 186:

Nov 25 18:50 UTC 1996

But would "Benefactors" get the usual member perks (other than 
voting?)

response 131 of 186:

Nov 25 21:00 UTC 1996

This item is linked to coop 9

response 133 of 186:

Nov 26 05:15 UTC 1996

That's a good point.  But we might need to clarify that members must be
individuals.  Though that is pretty clear to me as written.

response 135 of 186:

Nov 29 05:32 UTC 1996

i see no problem with either 123 individuals joining as members who
also happen to be members of the same, but different (i.e., not grex)
organization. well, i guess i *do* see a 'problem.' however that problem
has always existed. 
 
the rest of the 'either' is one ppl joining to represent the views of
122 other ppl who also happen to be members of .......
  
if there is a 'membership with voting rights requested' that loginid votes
and receives whatever other benefits membership includes. 
  
i *am* a bit surprised that teh owner of convocat was given no choice
as tothe attached (chfn) name! at first blush that *appears* to smack
of an un-grexian approach UNLESS (and i do NOT know) aruba is the
owner of   convocat. apologies in advance if convocat is aruba's other
account.
  
since grex welcomes all, (shudder) dominos could be a member with
single, full voting privileges and dominos and the nazis could hvae
their own conference for all that matters as far as grex is concerned.
  
besides, no one has tackeled the question about corporations being
legally classified as "people."