response 175 of 299:

Aug 29 19:03 UTC 2002

resp:167 - Now *that* is a useless potshot, not to mention plain 
wrong.  One is "rejected" based upon lack of votes.  Inability to 
attend board meetings is a legitimate reason not to vote for someone, 
even when the [currently hypothetical] "remote rep" option is 
available.  Attendence is kept to make sure the current reps, all 
locals currently, attend meetings.  People can look at those stats and 
see just how active a Board Member is, and use that as a basis for 
voting for or against them, should they choose to run for another term 
or later on down the road.

If remote rep seats are added, there will always be an assured 
representation of users outside the reasonable travelling radius.

I believe that remote candidates are a good idea, but not because of 
your rhetoric.  Now, personally, I think you *are* trying to make this 
more controversial than it is, and an "us versus them" issue.  Maybe 
I'm cranky, but it's as if you are trying to perpetuate this "outside 
looking in" air, and it gets old.  Last I'm I checked, you were apart 
of this community, too. Of course, that's entirely up to you.  

response 177 of 299:

Aug 29 19:33 UTC 2002

Is that a threat or a treat, the M-Net policy conf.?  I'm tempted to 
ring the doorbell and run.

FWIW you *did* cut of the beginning of my last post.  It does change 
the meeting slightly.

response 183 of 299:

Aug 29 21:36 UTC 2002

Basically, anyone who suggests a change around here gets extremely heavy
resistance.  While there are some open-minded people on Grex, the sheer mass
of negative response to any suggestion that things aren't perfect does give
the impression that there's a Grex "old guard" and that suggestions from
outside the "elite" will be pissed on.  I'm willing to concede that they might
piss on suggestions for change from within their ranks, too, though.

I've run into this twice -- once on the "Grex owns all your text, forever,
because you're too immature to be trusted with a working censor command"
topic, and once when I dared to suggest that the falloff in revenues might
be a hint that Grex should think about changing its approach both to
fundraising and to maintaining the system.  I'm done.  Fuck 'em.

Jamie, on the other hand, may well be playing.

response 185 of 299:

Aug 29 21:38 UTC 2002

"Shut up.  You aren't a member."

(C) 1999 Scott Helmke

response 191 of 299:

Aug 30 01:02 UTC 2002

fag.

response 193 of 299:

Aug 30 04:50 UTC 2002

The board doesn't seem to consider itself a source of new ideas (except
sometimes in regard to hardware). New *concepts* have to be implemented
by the members. There is a procedure. No one has any grounds for complaint
about new ideas not being implemented. It does take some effort, however.
You have to familiarize yourself with the current procedures and the
bylaws (and MI nonprofit law), and write reasonable and accurate motions.
This is usually too much for most people (as illustrated by jmsaul).

response 195 of 299:

Aug 30 05:19 UTC 2002

Sometimes, it's more productive to try to figure out where the other people
in a debate are coming from and address their concerns, rather than ridiculing
them or making accusations.

It seems pretty easy to see why this would be seen as an "us vs. them" issue.
Grex members in Ann Arbor have historically been able to choose to run for
the board, and to serve if elected.  Many of us have decided, for whatever
reason, that we wanted to do so.  Whether that's a rational desire or not,
I don't know.  By the end of my four years on the board, I was pretty glad
to be off it, but I did enjoy it for a while.  For those who are currently
on the board, and who therefore presumably at one point wanted to be on the
board, to be telling other who may not be allowed to be on the board that they
are still full fledged members of the community and to stop complaining seems
to display a very basic lack of understanding of the other person's position.
How is somebody a full fledged member of the community if they're being denied
rights and privliges other members of the community can take for granted?

On the other side, there seem to be some legitimate concerns about the ability
of a remote person to participate in board meetings on the same level as a
remote person, and we've got people belittling eachother over that issue. 
I don't think anybody would deny that having somebody joining by phone changes
the dynamics of a meeting a bit.  The person on the phone can't be seen, so
jestures, facial expressions, and so forth can't be seen.  They can't raise
their hand to be called on, so they just have to jump in when they have
something to say, but I'm not sure anybody ever raises their hand to be called
on at a Grex board meeting.  Until the people on the phone get familiar with
the voices of the people in the room or on other phones (which usually happens
pretty quickly) people may need to identify themselves before speaking. 
Occasionally something doesn't get heard correctly, and needs to be repeated.
As has been pointed out, it's a lot harder to hug somebody over the phone
(although I'm not sure I remember anybody being hugged at the Grex board
meetings I was at).  When it's easy to walk over and see somebody, I'll almost
always choose that over phoning them.  But as one of my former bosses used
to say a lot, "better is the enemy of good enough."  It's great if everybody
can be together in person, but my feeling is that having people be able to
join by phone is probably good enough to be able to discuss issues and make
decisions, which is the actual purpose of the board.  If there are reasons
why it isn't good enough, that's what we should be discussing here.

response 197 of 299:

Aug 30 08:32 UTC 2002

fag.