|
Grex > Coop7 > #116: Serious questions about the bylaws! | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 281 responses total. |
ajax
|
|
response 150 of 281:
| 
Nov 30 10:36 UTC 1995 |
Isn't that what the Grexbat is for? A measly gavel is no defense!
|
steve
|
|
response 151 of 281:
|
Nov 30 15:33 UTC 1995 |
Uh Rob, can you further explain "if Grex grows into a richer
organization then we'll want them"?
I know I must be sounding like a broken record by now. But I keep
hearing comments like this with no supporting logic that I can see.
Why, if Grex gets richer, would we want to change?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 152 of 281:
|
Nov 30 16:20 UTC 1995 |
Well, we really want to adopt RRO now (that does not mean "change").
But, in answer to your question, it *always* occurs that when a
corporation gets more money, there is much more interest among members
of getting involved and on the board, and there is a great increase
in arguments over how the money will be used. This is not a matter
of logic - it is experience. I gather you have never seen a corporate
board get into contention (or maybe you have, but blame it on RRO??).
Having orderly procedures for fairly addressing each persons concerns
and arriving at a decision point such that no one can claim that they
were not treated fairly or given a full opportunity to have their
views considered - is the very essence of RRO. STeve - I accept your
expertise with computer hardware and software, without asking for
"supporting logic". Do you accept my expertise in corporate organization
and management?
|
aruba
|
|
response 153 of 281:
|
Nov 30 19:53 UTC 1995 |
I think rickyb's original comment in #52 is quite telling; he argued that
parlimentary procedures were "_VERY_ important for longevity of an
organization". Maybe so. If what's really important is that an organization
survive at all costs, then it has different priorities from an organization
which exists because its members think it's fun.
Let's get one thing straight: Grex is not a government, nor a major
corporation, nor a professional organization. It's a club, created and
maintained by people who enjoy it. That is its raison d'etre, and that
separates it from the preceeding organizations, in which power and money and
prestige are at stake.
I agree with STeve and Marcus and davel. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
|
ajax
|
|
response 154 of 281:
|
Nov 30 20:37 UTC 1995 |
STeve, I just think that if Grex gets to the point where it's giving out
$20,000 hardware contracts, it will probably want to be run more formally
in general. Maybe not RRO, but it does seem like there are loopholes that
could be made harder to exploit. Of course, evil-doers can exploit a formal
system, too; the best strategy is to keep electing nice board members!
|
adbarr
|
|
response 155 of 281:
|
Nov 30 21:57 UTC 1995 |
If Grex is a club, I hope the members enjoy their potential liability as
clubmembers. I thought Grex was a fictitious name employed by a Michigan
Corporation, providing a service, and handling other people's money. You
learn as you go, I guess.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 156 of 281:
|
Nov 30 22:43 UTC 1995 |
If Grex lied in its application for incorporation as a non-profit Michigan
corportion, and in the statements in its Articles, as aruba suggests, then
it is dishonest, if not criminal, and every person of good conscience
should better quit.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 157 of 281:
|
Dec 1 00:22 UTC 1995 |
Reminds me of that great line, "What we have here is a failure
to communicate."
Rane, and Co., want Grex to look and feel like every other organization
they've been involved with because that's the right way to do things.
They know. They've been there.
STeve, and Co., including me, want Grex to be run differently from other
organizations we've been involved with because we want Grex to do it
better. We know. We've been there.
From time to time I simply shake my head in wonder over how different Grex
would be had some of today's users been founders. This whole show was
predicated on the belief users would, for the most part, feel protective
and supportive of Grex, and we wouldn't need to build in administrative
layers and policies to make sure the system thrived. We'd trust the
users, it was, after all, their system. And through this trust, *through
this trust*, the system would, indeed, be special.
I see no reason to stop trusting users to take care of their system. It
works. Grex is probably nothing like what Rane and others are used to. I
consider that a plus.
|
rickyb
|
|
response 158 of 281:
|
Dec 1 02:19 UTC 1995 |
Wow. I've been away from this discussion for a l-o-n-g time, I guess.
From the strength of anti-RRO response, I'm not certain this is a good move
for GREX right now (in that, I defer to janc. I have very limited experience
on GREX). On the other hand, arnold hit the nail squarely on the head and
made a point I think I tried to make.
GREX is run by a _corporation_, which is a legal entity. It's officers have
certain _legal responsibilities_ as well as _legal liabilities_. Having
some kind of rules to conduct the _legal_ business of the corp and settle
any potential disputes which might have _legal ramifications_ is my message.
It doesn't have to take any fun away from GREX. It doesn't have to take over
all of the meetings or all of the business. It doesn't have to be RRO, just
_some_ pre-ordained rules which can be pulled out and dusted off when they
might be needed. If you wait until they _are_ needed there will be a real
issue on whose rules you choose, since interested parties will have personal
preferences and might be able to sway _legal actions_ according to their own
"agenda" if they get their rules 'in the nick of time', before the 'other
side' can learn to use them.
Marcus described some meeting valerie attended which was run by RRO and she
felt shut out. This was an "organization of similar scope and nature...",
supposedly, but from what I can see (and I was at that meeting, btw),
nothing could be further from the truth! Arbornet is _NOT_ similar in
nature to grex! The people here are much more friendly and cooperative, imo.
I have no reason to think that RRO designation (or its use) would change
that at all. Rather than a step toward fossilization, the longevity of the
organization can be rooted in it's current values and RRO can help _protect_
those values.
Mark. Perhaps you feel my comment was telling. But if you have given birth
to a wonderful and fun system, and take great joy in helping/watching it
grow, you'll also take great pride in knowing it will continue beyond your
own existence (as a legacy to future grexers). RRO won't kill the baby,
it'll be able to help protect it.
Still, most importantly, and getting back to the real world...we live in a
world of legal responsibilities and liabilities. RRO (or any rules) can
serve to protect those in control of grex/cyberspace, inc, from undue
liability exposure as they keep this a fun place for everyone.
I won't push it if it is not something desired by the group as a whole, but
I think some kind of authoritative citation should be readily available, and
pre-determined _before_ it is required, to avoid something akin to act-of-god
damage/destruction of all which has been built here.
|
scg
|
|
response 159 of 281:
|
Dec 1 05:14 UTC 1995 |
I've been fairly quiet on this issue, because I really don't know that much
about Roberts Rules, but I have some things to say about proceduralism in
general. I've been on lots of decision making committees over the years,
which have run the gamut from being very proceduralistic to the Grex board
and other groups that have pretty much let the discussion flow. Throughout
all that, my experience has been that even the very proceduralistic groups
have had big disagreements get in the way of getting stuff done, just as
happens on Grex occasionally. The difference has been that with the Grex
model of open discussion, disagreements tend to get resolved, and a consensus
is often reached, or at least people feel like they've been heard, and been
able to participate in the discussion. With the more rule bound groups
decisions also often managed to get made, but at least as much attention got
paid to procedure as did to the issue, and it allowed a lot more hard feelings
to build up. Grex's board is one of the very few committees that I've been
on where we have actually been able to have an open discussion on things and
resolve issues to the point where, even if the decisions aren't what everybody
really wanted, people do generally find them acceptable, and everybody really
does have input. I would really hate to see that change.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 160 of 281:
|
Dec 1 08:19 UTC 1995 |
I would too, and adopting or not adopting RRO has nothing to do with it.
Mary in #157 completely misses the point of what has been said by those
that think RRO (or equivalent) should be built into Grex bylaws. Having
RRO on the books now would not be the cause of any change in the way Grex
addresses issues now, nor would it make any change in the procedural
atmosphere to which scg alludes. RRO always stay in the background so long
as things are going smoothly and indeed, most things now go smoothly.
But there are legal and personality swamps out there. We have some nice
dry land with our Articles and Bylaws, but haven't really stepped into
those swamps. What rules of order provide is stepping stones for
negotiating those swamps. Since we don't need to negotiate the swamps now,
RRO would not be noticed. But boy, when you find yourself tossed into that
swamp, you will really like having places to step, instead of being up to
your neck in alligators.
As rickyb said, "RRO won't kill the baby, it'll be able to help protect
it."
|
mdw
|
|
response 161 of 281:
|
Dec 1 10:52 UTC 1995 |
I am quite convinced rules cannot replace people in protecting the
longevity of the organization. So long as we have people who are
concerned about making the group decision process work, there is no need
to invent rules. As soon as we have people involved who don't care, or
actively don't wish the group decision process to work, the best rules
in the world will not thwart these people. All else is subsidiary to
this.
People above talked about "legal responsibilites" etc., as if it were
some sort of God or holy icon. Legal smeagle. The purpose of grex is
not to be a good corporation, or a textbook legal fortress. The purpose
of Grex is to run a public access computer conferencing system, and the
purpose of the bylaws & everything else is purely to further that
purpose. Many people feel a good corporation has bureaucracy up the
wazoo, but bureaucracy to that extent will only get in the way of our
mission. Therefore, we should be prepared to disapointing those people.
Let's be a corporation without bureaucracy instead. To be a legal
fortress, you avoid all risk. That means no public access, really,
certainly none without elaborate precautions. That would not further
our mission. We should instead be proud and cherish our risk taking
here. It's a noble mission, we all know it's far safer than people
suppose, and I hope we all know it needs to be done, and should be done.
The law is out our master, but our slave, it exists not to thwart
projects such as ours, but to further them, and the question should
never be "Can we do this", but "How do we do this".
People here have said "but once grex gets more money...". Personally, I
hope Grex is *never* rich. I *want* us to be always poor and scratching
at the door. To me, the purpose of Grex is not to have a fancy walnut
boardroom table, or a big bank account, but to promote public access
computer conferencing. This is NOT a for-profit corporation; and that
big bank account & sexy status symbol would be a most flagrant misuse of
our members money, and incidently also a moral if not legal violation of
the trust entrusted to us as a not for profit. There are 3 uses for
money - current expenses, capital expansion, and self-insurance.
Anything else is waste. Self-insurance means mostly things like being
able to buy another modem if one goes up in smoke, and such - not the
ability to goldplate all the telephone wires in 16 gauge sheet gold.
Extra money beyond these 3 uses is more than just a waste. It's also a
liability - it will attract people who want to subvert the corporation
and "steal" that money, either for their own charitable purposes, or
worse yet, for personal gain. It's not possible to design rules that
are powerful enough to detect and repell these people. The only way to
stop those people is to (a) not have the $, and (b) watch out for those
kinds of people. Fortunately, we have a wonderful excuse to spend money
- capital expansion, because it's clear there's enough demand out there
that we could have 10 times the hardware, and still not have nearly
enough.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 162 of 281:
|
Dec 1 17:52 UTC 1995 |
It's time to drop this for now. RRO is not going to be adopted anytime soon.
I am, cautiously, in favor of it, but RRO needs to have broad acceptance
before it can become useful, and it doens't have it here.
It's time to move on. Feel free to try to build support for your position,
but it's not going to happen for a while. Let's accept that and MOVE ON.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 163 of 281:
|
Dec 1 18:12 UTC 1995 |
I think lilmo is correct. I believe organizations are better, in general, with
structure available (not enslaving structure, and not blindly followed) to
deal with future problems. I think Rane is correct also, but this seems like
a threatening subject and I see little advantage in continuing it now. No one
wants to break a good system. Perhaps we need a little education on what,
exactly, is in RRO before we get all worked up. I vote to talk about something
else for a while.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 164 of 281:
|
Dec 1 18:25 UTC 1995 |
Further to #157, and sequelia: I object to the divisiveness implied in
"What Rane, and Co want" and "What Steve, and Co want." Certainly the
characterization of what "Rane, and Co want" is totally false. Haven't I
been as Grexian as the best here (that is, if a grexer is "permitted" to
not like party)?. Sometimes I feel even Grexier.
If there had been an item in the bylaws from the beginning naming RRO as
the parliamentary authority, Grex today would be exactly what it is now,
as it is a result of attitudes, and not rules. Not even the Articles and
Bylaws make Grex Grexian. (In addition, we wouldn't even be having this
discussion now!)
What I do believe is that business should be conducted in a business-like
manner, for which written rules are needed, and the purposes of Grex
should be conducted in a Grexian manner, for which there are no written
rules. These are both possible and desirable.
lilmo is probably right, that we have (again) exhausted the subject. But I
will continue to *think* that the corporation would be better off if it
had RRO named in its bylaws, and I will continue to act in a manner
prescribed by RRO, as I have been doing. (I have no apologies if "Steve,
and Co" have thereby found me insufferable ;-> "If this be treason, make
the most of it.")
|
rcurl
|
|
response 165 of 281:
|
Dec 1 18:54 UTC 1995 |
#163 slipped in. What about them Julliards?
|
janc
|
|
response 166 of 281:
|
Dec 1 20:05 UTC 1995 |
Hmmm...maybe Rane and Arnold have convinced me.
I agree with them that among a unfriendly group of people, it is *much* better
to operate by RRO. If you have someone trying to control the meeting, talk
down other people, you want RRO in place. It even helps if that person is
the chair.
Right now, we obviously don't need it. So far we've gotten along just fine
just by all being good people. But suppose the composition of the board
changes, or a really divisive issue comes up with the current board, and
things stop working so well? Are you going to try to institute RRO at that
point? Good luck.
I've been in lots of groups that technically have policies saying they run
by RRO, but held meetings pretty much identical to Grex's. The rules were
on the books, and if anyone insisted they could be invoked, but normally they
were only casually followed.
I don't think we need to make any serious changes in the way meetings are now
run, but it might be good to have RRO on the books (while tacitly agreeing
to be casual about the occasional person speaking out of turn and such unless
it starts to be a problem).
|
adbarr
|
|
response 167 of 281:
|
Dec 1 21:03 UTC 1995 |
Janc has explained accurately how HVCN is run. We adopted RRO, but have never
needed them. The new board, elected from the county at wide will need them.
Grex could be different, and it is in many ways attractive because of how
things are done (from what I can observe). Rane is, however, being very
"Grexy".
|
rickyb
|
|
response 168 of 281:
|
Dec 1 22:10 UTC 1995 |
Remember too, RRO only come into play when they are not in conflict with any
rules or Bylaws specifically adopted by grex. There's no reason a simple
statement of the open nature of grex meetings and concensus nature of grex
decision making couldn't also be adopted to protect that athmospere marcus
is fervently defending (and with great reason) and so RRO wouldn't infringe
on the nature of grex.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 169 of 281:
|
Dec 2 07:37 UTC 1995 |
Now lets see, what would that rule be? "Everyone may speak at once." ;->
|
adbarr
|
|
response 170 of 281:
|
Dec 2 08:34 UTC 1995 |
The rule must provide that when Grex Board meetings are in multi-speak mode,
no two speakers can occupy the same subject at the same time.
|
rickyb
|
|
response 171 of 281:
|
Dec 2 15:47 UTC 1995 |
That sounds good arnold...what I had in mind was a period for public discussion
as the first phase of any discussion item (as opposed to what many orgs use
as a "public forum" agenda item, usually at the _end_ of a meeting...like
over at arbornet. that is not very hospitable to visitors input.).
Perhaps people should just raise their hand and the chairperson could call
on them in the order they were recognized?
|
adbarr
|
|
response 172 of 281:
|
Dec 2 16:02 UTC 1995 |
Sounds like a workable idea. The League of Women Voters has a
simplified/condensed version of the basic principles of RRO. I'll try to get
permission to post that on HVCN and Grex, for evaluation.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 173 of 281:
|
Dec 3 17:24 UTC 1995 |
Re way-back-there: Rane, or any other board member, if you're planning to miss
a meeting and you want something read in your absence, feel free to let me
know and I'll make sure it's read. I'm only the chair for one more meeting,
but I'll make sure that this happens at that meeting.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 174 of 281:
|
Dec 3 22:42 UTC 1995 |
There are several ways to handle public discussion. First, when reports
are presented, they are usually discussed then for clarification, but no
motions are considered (although suggested motions may be in the report).
Those (or revised) motions are then put forward when business is in order.
The chair can recognize members or guests to ask questions or comment on
the reports.
Second, when there are items to discuss, but no motions ready to present,
the board should go into a (quasi) committee of the whole. Usually all the
topics to be discussed are mentioned in advance, but other things can be
brought up. This is a great time to formulate motions informally, with
public input. The QCW can do things with motions and all, but these don't
commit the *board*.
Finally, when the board is back in "business", and a motion is being
discussed, the chair can still recognize members from the "floor" (or
wherever they are hanging out....). The discussion at the time of reports,
or in committee of the whole, usually lessens the amount of information
exchange needed when the motion is being considered.
|