|
Grex > Coop7 > #112: Nominations for Cyberspace Communications Board of Directors | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 16 new of 190 responses total. |
adbarr
|
|
response 175 of 190:
| 
Nov 5 13:46 UTC 1995 |
robh slipped in apparently. But it is still interesting. Hmm I don't remember
Grex telling me. I guess that happens sometimes? Seems like I saw something
happen before. Or, my eyes need transplants?
|
danr
|
|
response 176 of 190:
|
Nov 5 15:01 UTC 1995 |
A couple of random comments:
1. I would hate to think that people would become members just to vote on a
particular issue. That is not the wayto build a membership interested
in the long-term health of the system.
2. Those that do become members do so for one of two reasons. They are
either Grex and its principles or they want the Internet access. If
they're joining simply for the Internet access, then chances are they're
not going to vote. If they support Grex's principles, then they are
going to vote in the way that they think best supports those principles.
I also think that most members take into acount the opinions of
users when they vote. I know I do.
3. Nothing is preventing users from becoming members. All they have to do
is send me money and identification. It's that simple. I have yet to
hear a good argument for getting rid of the requirement that to
become a voting member one must pay dues.
4. Re: the argument that the constitution does not require citizens to
pay taxes before they can vote. That's true, but voters in the US
do not have the powers that members have here. I cannot, for
example, make a motion in the US House of Representatives that the
US adopt a flat tax. Members can make such motions here.
5. If dues of $6/month are truly a hardship for some people--my
personal opinion is that they are not--then let's reduce them.
If we couild double our membership by cutting the dues in half,
then we would be at the break-even point. If we could more than
double the membership at that rate, then we'd be ahead, both
financially and in getting more people to participate.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 177 of 190:
|
Nov 5 20:41 UTC 1995 |
Re #148: I haven't seen much good, solid, constructive debate here, and even
less from you. I *have* seen an awfull lot of flaming.
Re #149: Asking hime to review his words is censorship ?!?!? Is is
censorship to say to someone, "Engage brain before operating mouth"??? If
he is truly looking for constructive debate, he'll be pretty disappointed if
he continuously fails to do the most basic fact-checking and making sure that
he is not making unwarranted generalizations or assumptions!! (Not that I
am NOT saying that he does this, just listing the probable results for him,
or anyone, if that path is chosen.)
Re #152: I don't see staff wanting to close coop, but trying to draw out
constructive, concrete complaints, and filter out personal flames, to get to
what can actually be done. If that means they filter out a lot of what you
say, then maybe you need to focus more on constructive, concrete posts, with
less flaming.
Re #166, and related responses: mdw's proposal is MUCH more like the
relationship between the British House of Commons and House of Lords, where
the Lords can slow down a bill, but not, in the end, stop it. Similarly, the
users who are not members can slow down a member proposal, but not stop it
by themselves.
Re #171: Actually, the 27th Amendment is a case of exactly what you are
referring to: it was originally proposed as one of the ifrst 12 proposed
amendments, ten of which eventually formed the Bill of Rights. Ratification
was certified by the Sec'y of State just a couple years ago, if I recall
correctly.
Re #159: How do we define those who have "used grex for a while," and who
have "taken the time to find out what grex is all about"?? I'm pretty sure
that I would be among those that would be caught by that net, but what about
wisdom, who has posted a lot in some coop items, but not at all in many? And
what about kerouac, how has posted a lot in many coop items, but seems to have
some trouble with "what grex is all about"? And how about ppl who undertand
"what grex is all about", but do tnot necessarily share those same values?I
hope I have raised sufficient questions to make you realize tht the only way
to implement that would be tohave SUBJECTIVE guidelines for some person or
committee to judge, and then others would be JUSTIFIED in claiming tht we are
a clubby, exclusive, elitist organization !!!
|
kerouac
|
|
response 178 of 190:
|
Nov 5 22:21 UTC 1995 |
I think Marcus's idea in general terms. Put votes on anything other
than board elections before all grex users, and then have a second vote
of just the members to ratify the results. A "yes" vote would accept
the general vote, and unless it was a close vote I think grex "users"
and "members" might come to the same conclusions on things anyway, and a
"no" vote would mean the members could vote again on that issue themselves.
To me that protects the members rights and gives the entire grex
population a voice. How is that unfair.
Right now Grex is peaceful, but I could see down the road some
personal dispute erupting between future board or staff, and you guys
forming groups backing oppoosing ideas. At that point, there might
be some decisive election and you'd see people signing up people to
grex who have no interest in this, just so they can vote. All it
takes is $18. Im saying that those people being signed up wouldnt be
qualified to vote because they would know nothing of what grex is about.
But they paid $18, or somebody paid $18 in their name, and that qualifies
them. And then you might up with the wrong people getting control of
grex.
I have been in groups where such civil wars have occurred, and sometimes
over nothing more than a conflict in personalities. So it is actually
much safer to say you cant vote unless you've used grex for three
months. Most states have residency requirements for voting. Sure it
is going to prevent some good newer users from voting but 90 days is
not that long a time and it is more of a security measure than limiting
to who has paid $$$. Anybody can pay $$$ on the spur of the moment to
take sides in a dispute. But it is the ones who stay around who
are the most qualified to decide.
|
mdw
|
|
response 179 of 190:
|
Nov 6 09:43 UTC 1995 |
I'm not worried about the possibility of a sudden flood of
"single-issue" voters - I think if it were something that important,
that that many people cared about, it would certainly be worth some
serious examination, and if it was something ultimately unwise, I
believe in the end it will be defeated. If there is a danger here, the
best way to minimize it is by an alert, intelligent, and motivated
membership - no amount of extra procedure can make up for a lack of
that, and if such a such a membership exists, the procedures are
unnecessary. Worse than that, to the extent such procedures give
members the *illusion* they don't need to be alert or intelligent, they
are *dangerous*. I also see no reason to make the delay so short no new
members can vote - if such a large block of new members were, in fact,
to materialize, there is nothing to stop them from putting another
nearly identical proposal up for vote - minus the no longer useful
"users & members" provision.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 180 of 190:
|
Nov 9 04:36 UTC 1995 |
Somewhere, way back there.. aruba.. Of course we have a right
to speak up at stupidity, but that does not mean it isn't censorship
on the "peer pressure" level. Excercise of it is by no means
forbidden, merely something that one should be aware of.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 181 of 190:
|
Nov 10 03:39 UTC 1995 |
I think you are WAY to free with the word "censorship," sidhe. To my mind,
censorship is a very well-defined concept, involving coercive efforts by those
in power. I could not possibly censor anyone on Grex, except possibly in the
newsletter cf, b/c I have no POWER to do so. Censorship is either by prior
restraint, (keeping someone from saying something by force, or threat thereof,
implicit or explicit), or by postpublication sanction.
In this ccase, we are advising that thought be put into someone's words, but
are not threatening any sanction against him, except that he will be taken
less seriously, which he would have brought upon himself.
|
scott
|
|
response 182 of 190:
|
Nov 10 12:12 UTC 1995 |
Conference fairwitnesses on Grex cannot censor individual responses. The most
they can do to another's postings is to kill an entire item (I think).
|
carson
|
|
response 183 of 190:
|
Nov 10 12:13 UTC 1995 |
yep. wipe it out. lock, stock, and barrel.
'course, if we powermad types aren't feeling so powermad, we can retire the
item. that'll at least keep it out of sight for the casual browser.
|
remmers
|
|
response 184 of 190:
|
Nov 10 12:46 UTC 1995 |
However, the author of a retired item can always unretire it.
|
carson
|
|
response 185 of 190:
|
Nov 11 06:13 UTC 1995 |
If they're that adept with Picospan. I gather that most newer users aren't,
|
remmers
|
|
response 186 of 190:
|
Nov 16 12:15 UTC 1995 |
November 15 having passed, nominations for the board are now closed.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 187 of 190:
|
Nov 17 04:13 UTC 1995 |
I am glad that your definition suits you, Mark. Mine suits me.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 188 of 190:
|
Nov 17 17:50 UTC 1995 |
So what IS your definition, sidhe?
|
wisdom
|
|
response 189 of 190:
|
Nov 18 01:36 UTC 1995 |
So who's nominated again?
|
popcorn
|
|
response 190 of 190:
|
Nov 18 21:48 UTC 1995 |
Try item 118....
|