|
Grex > Coop > #335: The jep agenda: Board election 2013 | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 71 responses total. |
remmers
|
|
response 17 of 71:
| 
Dec 31 21:59 UTC 2012 |
What's your response to the points Kent and Mary raised in resp:13 and
resp:14?
|
jep
|
|
response 18 of 71:
|
Jan 2 02:53 UTC 2013 |
re resp:17: I write more than I post. I wrote responses to those things
but trimmed them out.
re resp:13: Grex was started because the founders didn't think M-Net
would last under Dave Parks' wildly erratic control. Several of the
principal founders were M-Net's staff. They gave up on Dave, and
committed to a new system controlled by a group instead of an
individual. M-Net uses basically the same structure as Grex now.
I've said repeatedly that Grexers can become members of Arbornet and run
M-Net. Control the Board, replace the staff, call the combined system
"Grex" and rename genera to "agora". Break my heart and rename Arbornet
to "Cyberspace Communications". No one is going to tell Grexers what to do.
Name one thing -- ONE -- that hasn't happened because I am running for
the Board of Cyberspace Communications.
I am known to just about everyone here. I've been involved in M-Net for
a long time. Now I'm involved here. I don't think anyone would
consider me an obstacle or deadweight. Grex needs people like me.
re resp:14: I know of only two people on M-Net who say they despise Grex
and Grexers, and one of them does so because of the other one.
The parts of your response that I didn't address previously, state that
I don't appreciate kentn. That may be true; I have not tried to follow
a lot of the hidden operations that keep Grex running. I'm aware of
those things (I did them for a few years for Arbornet) but have not paid
attention to them here.
I am of course glad Grex is still here, and grateful for all of the work
that is done to keep it going.
As a Board member I will expect to participate in that work. I have a
record that you can review on that. I was part of M-Net's Board for a
number of years. I did quite a lot during that time. I didn't just
throw out sweeping revisions and expect others to do the things that
were needed.
IN GENERAL: If anyone has concerns I haven't addressed, please let me
know about them. I don't intend to ignore anyone.
|
jep
|
|
response 19 of 71:
|
Jan 2 02:58 UTC 2013 |
My dues have been received. I am official a member and eligible to run.
|
remmers
|
|
response 20 of 71:
|
Jan 2 12:50 UTC 2013 |
Here's a question for ya. Given the fact (as you note) that Grex led the
way as a group-run organization and Arbornet/M-Net played copycat, why
wouldn't it make at least if not more sense for M-Net to disband and merge
with Grex as it would for Grex to disband and merge with Arbornet?
(The question is largely rhetorical; I think the two organizations should
remain independent.)
|
mary
|
|
response 21 of 71:
|
Jan 2 15:00 UTC 2013 |
Yesterday I looked on M-Net but could not find any mention of your intention
to encourage a merger. Did I miss it somewhere?
|
jep
|
|
response 22 of 71:
|
Jan 2 22:05 UTC 2013 |
re resp:20: Arbornet was a member-run organization before Grex came into
existence. That stuff is a quibble, is it not?
I am not proposing that Grex disband. I am proposing to pursue a merger.
If there's no other way to do it, I've said I am willing for Cyberspace
Communications to disband but that's not my first choice.
re resp:21: I haven't mentioned it on M-Net yet. Feel free to do so any
time if you want. I'm not hiding anything, but just haven't gotten to the
point where I'm ready to bring it up over there.
|
mary
|
|
response 23 of 71:
|
Jan 2 23:45 UTC 2013 |
You go first, please. It's your idea and I wouldn't want to get it wrong.
|
jep
|
|
response 24 of 71:
|
Jan 3 00:07 UTC 2013 |
Okay.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 25 of 71:
|
Jan 3 05:47 UTC 2013 |
Re #22: Both Grex and Arbornet are Michigan corporations. How would you
suggest they "merge"? They could share a system but remain separate
corporations (but then, to who would be members of which, and would they
have separate dues structures, and what would be the responsiblies of
each corporation?). And, if they merge into one corporation, would it be
a new one, or if not, which current one would disband?
|
kentn
|
|
response 26 of 71:
|
Jan 3 13:46 UTC 2013 |
This "merger" is very likely to be more work than just doing a better
job of running each organization. It'll cost money to merge them,
I'm sure, which will hurt the assets needed to pay the bills into the
future. It will take time from staff and Board. It will likely anger
some people enough to never come back.
Managing two organizations on one computer system isn't technically
a problem, but it is a problem for political reasons. As I've noted
before, when organizations merge (or are forcefully combined), one of
the two original cultures tends to be pushed out or marginalized. Which
one depends on who is in control after the "merger."
That, in turn leaves bad feelings (again), so you're less likely to get
participation from users of one of the original systems.
People will still not be motivated to help or participate and in fact
may be less likely to help because they harbor bad feelings about how
their original system has been treated in the "merger."
Nothing prevents a small group of unhappy users from starting another
system. If that happens you're right back where you started.
My advice would be to focus on running each system better, but
separately. Technical collaboration is still possible.
|
jep
|
|
response 27 of 71:
|
Jan 3 22:01 UTC 2013 |
re resp:25: It isn't that hard to merge two corporations. Why would we
need two corporations to manage one system?
re resp:26: I don't think it is hard to merge two organizations. At the
simplest, one simply joins the other, which is what OAFS and Arbornet
did when they merged. Arbornet started to run M-Net. We did then spend
money. We got an office (Grex later took it over, and called it The
Pumpkin), Arbornet assumed responsibility for M-Net's modems, we
collected money for operations and to buy a new computer, and things
like that. Four M-Netters were added to the Board of Arbornet until we
got around to having an election.
There are risks to doing anything, including nothing. We don't have new
users in the conferences. People depart from time to time so that Grex
isn't even static, it is declining. That's not news to anyone here.
We've been pretty complacent about it for a long time. That is the
status quo. I'm running to change it because I think the situation here
is bad enough to require a substantial change.
That's it in a nutshell. I'll be a catalyst for change. I don't mean
that as a buzz phrase. I mean if I am elected to the Board, I will
initiate some visible, noticeable changes that are intended to improve
the Grexer conferencing experience. I will also work on them and follow
through with them so they happen. I can't guarantee every change will
result in smooth, unquestioned joy for everyone at all times, though
that will be the hope.
The only prominent idea I have right now is to merge Grex with M-Net.
If I can't get that to happen, I'll find other things.
If you don't want change, I am not worth your vote. If you like things
the way they are, you would be nuts to want me on the Board.
If you do want change, and think either that my ideas might work or that
I'll come up with others that will, and you believe I will work to make
them happen, then please consider voting for me.
|
kentn
|
|
response 28 of 71:
|
Jan 4 01:38 UTC 2013 |
So, you think the two cultures will merge without problems?
There are plenty of things to work on for Grex that are a lot less
problematic than a merger.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 29 of 71:
|
Jan 4 04:27 UTC 2013 |
Re #25: I didn't say it was hard to erge two corporations. I was just asking
how you proposed to go about it. Tell us.
|
jep
|
|
response 30 of 71:
|
Jan 4 17:17 UTC 2013 |
re resp:28: I do not think they will merge perfectly, without any
perception of problems from any user.
I think they will both vanish smoothly, and that will happen more
quickly if they don't merge.
re resp:29: At the simplest, one simply joins the other.
It may be more complicated than that but I hope it won't be. There will
have to be a conversation that includes both groups, on whether to
proceed, and how to go about it.
I think it's time to give it a try. Both M-Net and Grex are near the
end. I don't want them to end.
|
kentn
|
|
response 31 of 71:
|
Jan 5 21:24 UTC 2013 |
Saying it's simple does not make it so.
I don't think all the issues with this are being recognized. And the
benefits will be less than expected.
If we'd spend more time trying to make Grex a better place, it might
pick up more. We still get new users all the time, but we make it hard
for them to use the system at first, with lots of hoops to run through
before they get an account with more commands. This was set up this way
due to past abuse of the system (to prevent future abuse), and from that
perspective works relatively well. But if we could improve the process
to remove some of the hoops, that might help. Most of the people who
run newuser never request validation, for example.
We also have not done a lot to get more of our text-based services on
the web so that they can be accessed via smartphone and tablet as well
as laptop and desktop. We do offer the MindTerm terminal in a browser
app, but we could do more.
Much of this depends on staff time, which is usually in short supply.
This argues for more staff to help with things like installing and
administering new software when current staff are busy with $work and
family. Merging is not apt to help this situation since two systems
will still need to be managed, and they share staff already.
We have free hosting so no costs will be saved that way.
A merger is not a magic soution for any underlying organizational issues
and I don't see that you are addressing any of these in a meaningful
way. In fact, a merger may exacerbate some issues and leave the rest
as-is, which is not helping anything. It is not wise to assume these
issues won't happen.
|
richard
|
|
response 32 of 71:
|
Jan 5 23:59 UTC 2013 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 33 of 71:
|
Jan 6 00:00 UTC 2013 |
Bear in mind that Arbornet, MNet's parent, doesn't have a sterling
reputation as a non-profit? Did Arbornet not get some large grant from
the government years back on the premise of buying computers for the
school or some such, we're talking thousands of dollars, and noone ever
fully accounted for the money and how it was spent?
I think merging the systems under one company might make sense, but
rather under cyberspace communications than arbornet. Grex makes the
offer to buy mnet
|
kentn
|
|
response 34 of 71:
|
Jan 6 04:32 UTC 2013 |
It will all end badly, Richard. We don't have any clue how much
Arbornet has in the bank and they have no Board to meet to find
out. Wonderful. I sure would not and will not vote for this
(as if a Board vote would be enough--it isn't, by the way).
|
rcurl
|
|
response 35 of 71:
|
Jan 7 05:47 UTC 2013 |
Re #30: "re resp:29: At the simplest, one simply joins the other."
Oh? Do their respective articles of incoporation permit that? Grex does
have a corporate membership, but it has no voting rights for the
corporation that "joins" it.
You can't just propose a "merger" unless you specify how it would work
(legally).
|
richard
|
|
response 36 of 71:
|
Jan 7 20:23 UTC 2013 |
re #34 good point. Such a merger would surely require a member vote. Does
grex have any 'voting members', as defined by the bylaws, at this point?
I'm assuming no dues have been collected or memberships updated/renewed in
quite some time. You can't have an election or a referendum if nobody is
eligible to vote outside of the board members
|
jep
|
|
response 37 of 71:
|
Jan 7 22:04 UTC 2013 |
I didn't provide all of the details on how to go about it. I am not
sure if there's any interest in merging. I am confident it can be done
because it was done once already, when OAFS/M-Net merged with Arbornet.
It wasn't that hard to do then. At the simplest, Grex could dissolve
and donate it's assets. It'd be a little more complicated to make
agreements before that, such as 'keep the agora conference', but there's
no reason it can't be done.
It will not solve all problems. There'll still be a smaller user base
than there was when Grex and M-Net had thousands of users, but there
might be a larger user base for the two than either one separately. Our
combined user base is still going to be small. The next step will
clearly be to work on increasing it.
M-Net still has an open newuser program. The problem of the validation
process *would* be solved. Every user who never requests validation is
someone who is lost as part of this system; someone who had enough
interest to go through 'newuser' but too much dignity or not enough
need, or something, to jump through hoops that occur only here, not on
the rest of the Internet.
re resp:33: TeacherNet was a failure, but no one has ever suggested
dishonesty. Please be careful when throwing accusations around. If you
don't know what you are talking about, then please find out before
saying anything. Loo9sely making baseless accusations is a disgusting
habit.
|
richard
|
|
response 38 of 71:
|
Jan 7 22:29 UTC 2013 |
I believe the bylaws require that if Grex (which is to say Cyberspace
Communications) voted to dissolve, that its assets must be liquidated and
the money donated to charity. Arbornet is not a charity.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 39 of 71:
|
Jan 7 23:14 UTC 2013 |
Arbornet is not a 501(C)3? Didn't know that. I haven't looked, but usually
a 501(C)3 organization if it dissolves is required to distribute its assets
to another 501(C)3, since the assets were obtained without paying taxes.
However Arbornet could donate all its assets to Grex. That wouldn't be a
"merger", just a donation.
|
tonster
|
|
response 40 of 71:
|
Jan 8 12:43 UTC 2013 |
Indeed, Arbornet has always been a 501(c)3, just like Grex.
|
jep
|
|
response 41 of 71:
|
Jan 9 03:22 UTC 2013 |
Arbornet has been a 501(c)(3) since 1986.
The bylaws at:
http://cyberspace.org/cgi-bin/backtalk/pistachio/read?conf=coop&csel=&item=
2&rse
l=all&noskip=1&showforgotten=2
http://tinyurl.com/cci-bylaws
state this in Article 8:
In the event the membership is unable to support Cyberspace
Communications, all property belonging to the club shall be
sold. The remaining cash assets, after paying final bills, shall
be donated to a charitable organization, as determined by the
BOD. All elected officers shall then be released from their
obligations and the corporation dissolved.
What's the definition of "charitable organization" if not a corporation
organized under 501(c0(3)?
I don't think M-Net particularly needs Grex's money but if the Board
wanted to donate it to Arbornet, it could.
|