|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 184 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 125 of 184:
| 
Dec 16 23:28 UTC 1994 |
Correct, but you have a *vacancy* just the same, and it is the most
applicable bylaw for that. (Of course, we could ask all the outgoing
directors to resign at 11:59 pm, on December 31st... ;->)
|
scg
|
|
response 126 of 184:
|
Dec 16 23:41 UTC 1994 |
I would disagree that that is the most applicable, and argue that we have
as much right to extend it as we do to rerun it. If we made them all
resign a minute before their terms ended, the election would be to elect
somebody to finish out their term, not to serve for the next term as well.
|
jep
|
|
response 127 of 184:
|
Dec 17 01:17 UTC 1994 |
re #101: I apologize, my comment in #100 was out of line and
unreasonable. As long as I wasn't counted as a voter I am satisfied.
|
srw
|
|
response 128 of 184:
|
Dec 17 02:23 UTC 1994 |
OK. Well, I admit that the bylaw I quoted has that defect, but there is no
other bylaw that deals with vacancies besides that one. Further, one might
argue that common sense dictates that there is no reasonable way to
fill a vacancy except by an election.
On the other hand I do see scg's point. If the bylaws are completely
inadequate to cover the situation we are perhaps a little freer to decide
how to handle things. The bylaw that covers elections says that the
quorum must be met for the election to be valid but says nothing,
absolutely nothing, that is helpful in the case the election is not valid.
|
mwarner
|
|
response 129 of 184:
|
Dec 17 02:54 UTC 1994 |
Here's my interpretation of 4c: That it indicates a new election in this
circumstance. How? The current (just concluded) election was
specifically for seats in an upcoming term. The positions will in fact be
"vacated before the expiration of its term". The fact that it was never
filled leaves the term defacto vacated before the end of its term, very
literally (vacated by any means, and not restricted to having been
filled). I think the language is vague, but does fit this exact
circumstance. A new election should be held to fill the obviously
"vacant" positions. The positions *are* (or will be) vacant, therefore
they have to have been *vacated* at some point and that point will have
clearly been before the end of the upcoming term. The quorum failure
leaves the positions vacated.
|
scg
|
|
response 130 of 184:
|
Dec 17 03:09 UTC 1994 |
The bylaws cover two types of vacancies -- those caused by
somebody leaving the board during their term, and those caused by terms
ending. In both cases, the bylaws specify a time period during which the
election has to be held, and neither one covers what happens if the
election is invalid. Neither case covers our current situation, and
neither does the proposed bylaw ammendment, since it still leavs intactthe
exact dates when the election has to be held. Since nothing we can do
will satisfy the bylaws, we are left with a choice of either ammending the
bylaws or coiming up with the best solution possible not straying too far
from them. Even if we ammended the bylaws, however, we would still not be
able to leave board seats vacant while the ammendment was going through,
since the bylaws don't say we can do that. This means that our only
option is to come up with something not quite in the bylaws, and then
ammend the bylaws to either legitimize what we've done or undo it.
Perhaps I should resubmit the proposal I made earlier, with a few
modifications to take bylaw modifications into account. I propose that we
reopen the polls for a set length of time, with any votes that have
already been cast still couting. It is unreasonable to force those who
have already gone out of their ways to vote once to vote again for the
same list of candidates. If anybody decides they don't like how they
voted, they can, as always, change their vote. In the mean time, we could
also start the process for a bylaw ammendment that, in addition to
dumping the quarum, would legitimize the extending of the vote and either
provide for the just elected board members to serve until the terms ended
or end their terms as soon as a succesful election could be held.
|
scg
|
|
response 131 of 184:
|
Dec 17 03:10 UTC 1994 |
129 slipped in.
|
srw
|
|
response 132 of 184:
|
Dec 17 03:19 UTC 1994 |
I have proposed a member proposal to amend the bylaws to remove the quorums
for board elections. If it is passed, board elections can no longer be
invalid and there is no need for a bylaw to cover the case of a vacancy
caused by that event.
Of course it would still make sense to amend the bylaw that covers
vacancies on the board so that it applies to any vacancy regardless
of the reason it occurred.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 133 of 184:
|
Dec 17 08:25 UTC 1994 |
And there should be the almost universal bylaw that directors serve
until their successors are elected.
|
tsty
|
|
response 134 of 184:
|
Dec 20 17:16 UTC 1994 |
However, rcurl also inserted some text (elsewhere) about the
remaining board members havingthe authority to appoint whom they
wish. The M-b0x did exactly that after a deluge of borg resignations
recently. Of course, their appointments were "guided" by an
election, but that mechanism was rather anticipated........
|
robh
|
|
response 135 of 184:
|
Dec 20 23:46 UTC 1994 |
<robh wonders what a Borg election is, and decides he'd rather not know>
|
jep
|
|
response 136 of 184:
|
Dec 21 04:12 UTC 1994 |
(At one time the Arbornet board had the reputation of all voting the
same way on proposals, and came to be known as "the Borg" after the Star
Trek: TNG Borg collective entity.)
|
tsty
|
|
response 137 of 184:
|
Dec 27 22:13 UTC 1994 |
Gee - mention "collective entity" and this item dies, wonder why?
|
pegasus
|
|
response 138 of 184:
|
Jan 3 18:23 UTC 1995 |
TS, I'm sure activity will pick up once the quorum vote is over. :)
Pattie
|
carson
|
|
response 139 of 184:
|
Jan 12 17:20 UTC 1995 |
my question to current candidates: how should Grex manage its connection
to the internet? are you for expansion or limitation?
|
tsty
|
|
response 140 of 184:
|
Jan 13 12:31 UTC 1995 |
POV - neither, stabilize what exists first. As meg pointed out
(and with which I still agree) when the first 2400 bps connection
became available, Internet access *WILL* change the entire
character of Grex. Whether or not that change is for better
or for worse has yet to be decided - there have been "for better"
changes, and there have been "for worse" changes.
Generally, the "for better" changes (imo) outweigh the "for worse"
changes. Staff has learned +a lot+ (I have been informed) about
the entirety of vulnerabilities available from Grex's moral position
on the net. I support that moral position and thank staff for
being willing to "stick Grex's chin" out there.
Still, having the restrictive pipeline such as it is (and it
has grown less restrictive) tends to send the "for worse" logins
elsewhere. That's fine by me.
I'm quite happy to suffer some lag for the sake of keeping net-trash
at bay. Oops, that's a value judgement . . . sorry, I have some.
|
tsty
|
|
response 141 of 184:
|
Jan 17 15:05 UTC 1995 |
Hmmm, this candidate would like to know who is and who isn't
a member. The members command is broken, and the file
with expire dates is not permitted to read.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 142 of 184:
|
Jan 17 15:09 UTC 1995 |
Try "!more /etc/group" and look for the line that starts with the
word "members". All the login IDs on that line and on any following
line that is connected to it by a \ at the end of the line, are members.
However, you *might* want to look at the group that starts with "voters"
and not "members" maybe?
|
kentn
|
|
response 143 of 184:
|
Jan 18 02:54 UTC 1995 |
carson, briefly I'm for expansion in the long run and fair limitation
in the short run. I doubt that we'll ever totally expand system
capacity (link, CPU, etc.) to match all the people that want things
to run blazingly fast, and I'm positive that we won't without support
from users. I'd like to see Grex work harder at getting members,
planning expansion (budgeting, fundraising, etc.), and in becoming
more open to all (as much as reasonably possible). So, managing the
Internet connection is (beyond security reasons) a practical matter of
improving Grex's hardware and link. This is a long-term process...
the better the link, the faster the machine, the more people that can
log in and the more things they'll do to slow things down. We'd like
more people here to keep Grex diverse and interesting, so I think we
need to keep improving what we do and the equipment we use. This isn't
easy, and there will be failures and shortfalls along the way, but I
think we can, with some good thought and planning, work at making Grex
faster, getting a better link, and opening the link up as per the
proposal to do just that which was passed a while back. And keep doing
it for years to come...
|
steve
|
|
response 144 of 184:
|
Jan 18 03:16 UTC 1995 |
I have a members program that does read the list correctly.
I
I'll put that in tomorrow.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 145 of 184:
|
Jan 18 03:39 UTC 1995 |
Thanks!
Re 139: I'd like to stabilize the connection we've got, first.
Beyond that, I'm personally fairly content with the current policy,
but I'd be comfortable with a variety of different possible policies.
I'd be in favor of doing what the majority of users wanted to do.
|
steve
|
|
response 146 of 184:
|
Jan 18 04:07 UTC 1995 |
Since you're a candiate TS, I take it you'll be voting this time?
|
scg
|
|
response 147 of 184:
|
Jan 18 04:46 UTC 1995 |
(This is the candidates' forum from the last election. There is also one
for this election, further down. Or should I move the statement I posted
there to back here?)
|
tsty
|
|
response 148 of 184:
|
Jan 21 17:32 UTC 1995 |
Thank you popcorn for noting the difference between "members" and
"voters."
Actually, steve, no I won't. And if elected anyway, I hope, one
of my projects will be to effect a change in the vote program
so that there is no provable trace between a vote cast and the
voter who cast it.
That principle has served democracy quite well and I believe that
principles of privacy need to be maintained despite the onslaught
of technocracy and technology. I consider that there is no difference
whatsoever between the sanctity of voting for school board or grex board.
thankxx for asking.
|
mdw
|
|
response 149 of 184:
|
Jan 22 02:07 UTC 1995 |
That's very interesting, TS.
So you feel it's important to encourage not voting in a democracy?
You appear to be describing a different staff<-> board relationship than
currently exists. One that would seem to be far more adversarial.
Traditionally, staff & board have worked hard to defuse conflicts, and
to see each other's viewpoints; both have worked to build consensus
where possible, and where controversy has arisen, both have brought
these viewpoints to the attention of the membership to decide
publically. Your response here to Steve, as well as your participation
in past board meetings (which are open to the public) would seem to
suggest you might not feel tradition bound on these points.
You also say "one project" - that suggests you have other specific
projects up your sleeves, that we don't know about. I'm sure many us
would like to know just those projects are, and this would seem to be an
the right time.
|