|
Grex > Coop9 > #7: Members with more than one vote |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 186 responses total. |
aruba
|
|
response 130 of 186:
| 
Nov 25 20:11 UTC 1996 |
I have indeed changed the name on the account "convocat" to be The Magical
Education Council of Ann Arbor.
|
dang
|
|
response 131 of 186:
|
Nov 25 21:00 UTC 1996 |
This item is linked to coop 9
|
rcurl
|
|
response 132 of 186:
|
Nov 25 22:18 UTC 1996 |
You don't need to amend the bylaws to create a non-member designation like
Benefactors (I'd start with Supporters, however). "Member like" does not
count. Only classes of membership belong in the bylaws. While anyone (or
anything) could be a Supporter (Benefactor, starting at $10,000/a...), there
is some attraction for corporate users to be considered members. The
Institutional Membership that I have suggested would serve this purpose,
even without the right to vote. Non-member Supporters give only money;
Members, of whatever stripe, give more than money - a degree of belief in
the purposes of the organization.
|
janc
|
|
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.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 134 of 186:
|
Nov 26 22:55 UTC 1996 |
A non-member group or organization donor catagory would
be quite nice. As long as we don't get into the business
of selecting which groups we approve of and which we don't.
Would folks have a problem with the Nazi party donating
and becoming sponsoring group? I wouldn't. Either we
should allow any group or no groups.
|
tsty
|
|
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."
|
dang
|
|
response 136 of 186:
|
Nov 29 18:15 UTC 1996 |
Tsty, you were confusing the "Real name" attached to a account, the
"Conference Name" attached to an account, and the "Who owns the account" name
that is maintained purely by and for the treasurer, and is based on the id
given with the account. It was this last, which only the treasurer controls,
that was set to the person who registered the convocat account.
|
aruba
|
|
response 137 of 186:
|
Nov 30 03:46 UTC 1996 |
dang is correct.
|
tsty
|
|
response 138 of 186:
|
Nov 30 07:05 UTC 1996 |
oh?
grep convo /etc/passwd
convocat:x:6287:50:Magical Education Council of Ann
Arbor:/home/convocat:/usr/local/bin/tcsh
i guess i am confused - !really confused.
|
scg
|
|
response 139 of 186:
|
Nov 30 07:34 UTC 1996 |
I think the name in /etc/passwd was there before, put there by some user of
the convocat account. What aruba did was to change his records to agree with
that.
|
robh
|
|
response 140 of 186:
|
Nov 30 07:49 UTC 1996 |
Right. aruba (wrongly) assumed that the account was owned by Kami,
since she'd sent the check. The account's full name was always
MECAA.
|
janc
|
|
response 141 of 186:
|
Nov 30 16:16 UTC 1996 |
I think that record dates from danr.
|
tsty
|
|
response 142 of 186:
|
Dec 1 06:43 UTC 1996 |
aruba?
|
robh
|
|
response 143 of 186:
|
Dec 1 17:24 UTC 1996 |
#141 is probably true; if so, my apologies to aruba for implicating him.
|
srw
|
|
response 144 of 186:
|
Dec 4 18:08 UTC 1996 |
Yes, Mark explained back at the beginning of this whole issue that the
"situation" of having two voting accounts belonging to the same person
is a situation that he inherited.
|
tsty
|
|
response 145 of 186:
|
Dec 7 07:51 UTC 1996 |
aruba?
|
srw
|
|
response 146 of 186:
|
Dec 7 16:23 UTC 1996 |
Yes, Mark (aruba) Conger
|
ladyevil
|
|
response 147 of 186:
|
Dec 9 03:39 UTC 1996 |
I think Tsty is calling for Mark to come out and say something..
|
davel
|
|
response 148 of 186:
|
Dec 9 11:48 UTC 1996 |
Ok, but why?
|
popcorn
|
|
response 149 of 186:
|
Dec 10 21:29 UTC 1996 |
For verification, I guess.
|
tsty
|
|
response 150 of 186:
|
Dec 29 07:59 UTC 1996 |
not a bad guess, really. a guess though.
|
tsty
|
|
response 151 of 186:
|
Jan 30 06:43 UTC 1997 |
well, after all this time, at least a curiosity.
|
aruba
|
|
response 152 of 186:
|
May 12 19:10 UTC 1997 |
Sorry, didn't mean to leave you hanging TS - yes, the situation with convocat
was one I inherited from danr (i.e., Dan had recorded "Kami Landy" as the name
associated with the convocat account, and I assumed that meant that convocat
was Kami's pseudo. (I think I heard someone else refer to it as such, too.))
What I did last fall was change the name in the treasurer's records from
"Kami Landy" to "Magical Education Council of Ann Arbor". I certainly didn't
run chfn on the account (I don't even have the system privileges to do that).
I hope I haven't reopened this can of worms by responding to this item. :)
|
tsty
|
|
response 153 of 186:
|
May 13 06:20 UTC 1997 |
no , quite teh opposite ... you canned shut the potential for worms <g>
thankxxx
|
rcurl
|
|
response 154 of 186:
|
May 13 06:34 UTC 1997 |
A MIchigan non-profit, charitable (501(c)3) is about to apply for
CCI membership. I am on their board and maintain their web page here,
and will likely serve as their "agent" toward CCI. Since as a member
they would get a vote, I am faced with possibly having more than one
effective vote (the other as a private member). I know this is not
desired. Therefore I have been thinking of proposing a bylaw amendment
to create a "non-profit organizational membership", and provide for
them to have a vote *by action of their board of directors*. Any
worms here?
|