|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 335 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 19 of 335:
| 
Oct 24 00:04 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
md
|
|
response 20 of 335:
|
Oct 24 02:10 UTC 2001 |
"Hmm, probably varies from state to state. In Maryland, you can't
photocopy anything." Okay, the following is from
http://www.testudo.umd.edu/rco/dependent.html
"DRIVER'S LICENSE
Include a photocopy of your driver's license, with the information
clearly legible, covering the required 12 months. If necessary, obtain
an uncertified copy of your driving record from the MVA verifying the
required 12 months."
Jamie'd better tell someone at the university that they're asking
people to break Maryland law. Also, in dop.state.md.us/tech.htm there
is the text "Maryland Relay Service 800-735-2258. ... that may require
a driver's license, please attach photocopy of license..." which means
Jamie also needs to contact the Maryland Department of Personnel
Services and tell them the same thing.
So, is Jamie a Really Lousy Bluffer, or does he just have is head up
his ass?
|
jp2
|
|
response 21 of 335:
|
Oct 24 03:19 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 22 of 335:
|
Oct 24 03:56 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 23 of 335:
|
Oct 24 04:09 UTC 2001 |
Interesting.. A Twinkie *of*fense?
|
jp2
|
|
response 24 of 335:
|
Oct 24 04:43 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 25 of 335:
|
Oct 24 05:28 UTC 2001 |
I don't know; the bylaws say:
d. The BOD shall hold face-to-face meetings on a regular,
bimonthly basis, and in addition may hold special meetings if
necessary. A quorum consists of five BOD members.
which seems to make it clear that attendance means attendance in person.
But it does seem to me that something could be worked out to allow
out-of-town board members. We might have to change the bylaws to make it
official, though.
|
krj
|
|
response 26 of 335:
|
Oct 24 05:33 UTC 2001 |
As I read Jamie's platform, it sounds like a program for bringing
M-net's management techniques to Grex. Is that a fair assessment?
|
bdh3
|
|
response 27 of 335:
|
Oct 24 07:24 UTC 2001 |
I remember years past when 'lk', 'meg', and I hired a 'theatre' major
from the UM to appear at a 'picofest' as 'brad foster' -an obvious
'psuedo' that persisted for quite some time. It was a 'face to face'
meeting. And meg had the fake ID procured via her contacts in the
Frat-Sor organization, formerly used to procure fake ID for liquor
purchase rather than potentially burn any of 'lk's mossad connections.
It worked rather well and was very low cost at the time.
I hardly think an 'out of state' person should be precluded.
|
danr
|
|
response 28 of 335:
|
Oct 24 10:14 UTC 2001 |
No, they should not be precluded as long as they can make it here for
face-to-face meetings. I think the bylaws are clear that we expect
board members to be available for face-to-face meetings, and there are
good reasons for that.
While it's true that technology has made it possible for people in
remote locations to work together on specific projects, I don't think
the logistics of doing so makes much sense in our situation. For
example, who's going to pay for the conference call or video
conferencing? Maybe because M-Net has so few available candidates it
makes sense for them to do so, but that expense is certainly not in our
budget.
I still haven't heard how Jamie plans to make Grex's management
more "nimble." And from what I've heard about M-Net management, I'm
pretty sure we don't want to adopt those practices here.
|
md
|
|
response 29 of 335:
|
Oct 24 10:44 UTC 2001 |
Re #21, yes I knew you were a student at UMD. That's what makes the
quote from their site so funny. The quote from the State of Maryland's
site is even funnier.
But Jamie, you sounded so...so certain about it: "The only ID I have is
my driver's license. It would be a felony to scann [sic] it . . .
Photocopying it is also a felony." What made you think that? Did
twinkie tell you to say that? C'mon, 'fess up.
|
md
|
|
response 30 of 335:
|
Oct 24 10:51 UTC 2001 |
Btw, I agree that f-t-f meetings are a relic from another age. I've
testified at videoconferenced depositions, and even where one or both
lawyers are nothing more than voices coming out of the phone speaker.
No need for Jamie to come to the meetings in person. Of course, if he
does come in person, he gets to write off the entire trip, including
entertainment. Very nice deal. Now all he needs is any money. ;-)
|
glenda
|
|
response 31 of 335:
|
Oct 24 11:21 UTC 2001 |
Board meetings are open to all Grexers. Having to use conferences calls makes
the choice of meeting place harder and may cause them to be held in places
that would make it hard for a lot of people to attend. If a lot of people
attend it tends to make for a lot of background noise which makes hearing the
remote members harder and harder for the remote member to hear.
And I for one prefer to SEE people during this type of meeting. Body langauge
says almost as much as words if not more.
|
danr
|
|
response 32 of 335:
|
Oct 24 12:47 UTC 2001 |
Glenda said it better than I did. I've also been party to conference
calls and videoconferences. They worked out well because they had a
limited attendance and were held for a specific purpose. Grex board
meetings, on the other hand, are open to all and may cover a wide range
of issues. I don't think electronic meetings would work so well in that
situation.
|
md
|
|
response 33 of 335:
|
Oct 24 13:18 UTC 2001 |
[Clue: Anyone who spends one nanosecond thinking about, much less
discussing jp2 and his "candidacy" is wasting a nansecond. Unless you
just want to have fun with him, in which case be my guest.]
|
jp2
|
|
response 34 of 335:
|
Oct 24 14:49 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
steve
|
|
response 35 of 335:
|
Oct 24 14:56 UTC 2001 |
I'll have to weigh in on objecting to remote board members as well.
I wouldn't mind the concept if we had better communications, but we
don't--not yet. Years ago I didn't think that mattered, 'till I worked
on a project where some of the management was remote, and it just
didn't work out well.
|
other
|
|
response 36 of 335:
|
Oct 24 15:09 UTC 2001 |
I think it is remarkably stupid to promote an idea based on implied
shortcomings of masses of people in general rather than based upon the
realitites of the situation the proposal would affect. The behavior of board
members at meetings will not be improved by introducing a technical handicap
which might also serve to expand management options.
If we are going to make this change, we should do it if and only if it can
be done seamlessly without adversely impacting our budget or our ability to
function in adherence to the philosophical underpinnings upon which our
organization was founded and has operated ever since.
|
jp2
|
|
response 37 of 335:
|
Oct 24 15:36 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
danr
|
|
response 38 of 335:
|
Oct 24 15:44 UTC 2001 |
You've yet to persuade...
And you still haven't answered the question as to how you'd make Grex
managment more nimble.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 39 of 335:
|
Oct 24 15:55 UTC 2001 |
I'm persuaded that the face-to-face requirement is sensible, workable, and
does not unduly limit the field of candidates available to run for the Board.
If Jamie can get himself to the Board meetings there would be no problem.
If Jamie requires Grex to change its bylaws, and then pay for technology we
do not currently support (long distance telephone fees, speaker phones, etc),
all in support of his candidacy, then he is asking for a major change in how
Grex operated. I will not support that.
If Jamie is elected and does not attend meetings, then we have a way to deal
with that. So let's not turn this into a debate on the process. This is
about Jamie as a Board candidate.
If, after the election, Grex members want to consider changing our process,
then fine. But let's not confound the process with a debate on Jamie as a
potential Board member.
|
jp2
|
|
response 40 of 335:
|
Oct 24 16:38 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 41 of 335:
|
Oct 24 17:19 UTC 2001 |
There is a decent amount of history with regard to jp2's management
style available in the M-Net policy conference.
|
jp2
|
|
response 42 of 335:
|
Oct 24 17:30 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 43 of 335:
|
Oct 24 17:40 UTC 2001 |
I've never met you. What you've said on-line is who you are.
|
