|
Grex > Coop8 > #76: Arbornet Board Invites Grex, HVCN Board Members to Meeting | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 229 responses total. |
robh
|
|
response 200 of 229:
| 
Sep 6 01:52 UTC 1996 |
The 29th would be better for me then, as I work on Sunday mornings.
(Depending on how we define "morning", of course, I could easily make
an 11 AM meeting, but 10 would be pushing it, and 9 would be
impossible.)
|
tsty
|
|
response 201 of 229:
|
Sep 10 11:15 UTC 1996 |
re #197 .... if a membership is, by request of the member, restricted
from voting, by request of the member, then the particular identity
(apparently mandated by the state) remains anonymous, which is fine
with me, too.
|
brighn
|
|
response 202 of 229:
|
Sep 10 14:45 UTC 1996 |
Eh? Speak up, TS. Are you saying that if a prospective member VOLUNTARILY
waives the right to vote, the state has no say in whether "verification" of
that member is done? (by "right to vote" I mean having any power whatsoever
in the decision-making or governance system, outside of simple voicing of
opinion) Are you suggesting that certain baff have been bucking the concept
of giving a certain prospective member membership and using the state as a
cheap and invalid excuse? Heretic!
|
rcurl
|
|
response 203 of 229:
|
Sep 10 18:25 UTC 1996 |
Corporate membership classes need to be defined in the bylaws (or articles)
along with their privileges and responsibilities. If a non-voting class
existed, a prospective member could choose that, but a member with
the vote could not change class by not voting - they would have to resign one
class and choose another. [Which I *think* is what is being discussed - but
maybe not...]
|
tsty
|
|
response 204 of 229:
|
Sep 11 17:37 UTC 1996 |
i hereby move that #203 be passed by the grex board ... good thnking
both brighn and rcurl.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 205 of 229:
|
Sep 11 18:13 UTC 1996 |
Instituting different membership classifications would require a
change in Grex's Bylaws. Maybe you'd like to enter an item
and suggest possible wording and see if there is enough interest
to go for a membership vote.
My personal opinion - nothing is broken.
|
davel
|
|
response 206 of 229:
|
Sep 12 13:09 UTC 1996 |
Mine too, FWIW.
|
brighn
|
|
response 207 of 229:
|
Sep 12 20:33 UTC 1996 |
Dave and Mary haven't looked at the finances lately, eh?
At least one person has offered money in exchange for an anonymous non-voting
membership. The money was declined because such a membership doesn't exist.
Sounds like something's broken to *me*.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 208 of 229:
|
Sep 12 21:58 UTC 1996 |
...an anonymous non-voting membership *with telnet privileges*, to be more
accurate.
|
draven
|
|
response 209 of 229:
|
Sep 14 02:56 UTC 1996 |
Then I agree with Grex for declining it. Telnet is among the more
powerful, dangerous Internet protocols. While some, I'm sure, have
legitimate reasons for wanting access to it with absolutly no
identification whatsoever, even when the records are locked up offline, I
think the risks outweigh the benefits in this case.
|
brighn
|
|
response 210 of 229:
|
Sep 14 05:56 UTC 1996 |
Why would the person in question want telnet priveleges when she needs telnet
priveleges to get to Grex in the first place?
Has she said she wanted as much?
|
popcorn
|
|
response 211 of 229:
|
Sep 14 13:31 UTC 1996 |
Yes. I believe so.
|
brighn
|
|
response 212 of 229:
|
Sep 14 20:06 UTC 1996 |
As clarification, in order to use member-based telnet priveleges, one must
first get to Grex, correct? That is to say, MichNet (and other dial-ins)
doesn't recognize the grex accounts as validation, do they?
|
robh
|
|
response 213 of 229:
|
Sep 14 22:04 UTC 1996 |
No, we'd have to be a MichNet member in order to validate.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 214 of 229:
|
Sep 15 03:01 UTC 1996 |
Which costs money, and also limits the number of logins allowed to
the number of tokens purchased by Grex (I think.....).
|
ladyevil
|
|
response 215 of 229:
|
Sep 15 06:47 UTC 1996 |
No, I do not need telnet. I would very much like it, but I don't need it.
It's okay, nothing will be done about this anyway, so don't think you're
dissappointing me any further if still nothing comes of it. I'm used to it.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 216 of 229:
|
Sep 15 13:41 UTC 1996 |
Whew, that's a relief.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 217 of 229:
|
Sep 16 14:32 UTC 1996 |
So, about that Arbornet meeting that Grex and HVCN are invited to.....
|
robh
|
|
response 218 of 229:
|
Sep 16 16:28 UTC 1996 |
Yah, is it this weekend?
|
srw
|
|
response 219 of 229:
|
Sep 17 06:53 UTC 1996 |
i don't remember a date having been chosen yet. Saturday is a football game
-- that's my only potential conflict this coming weekend, though.
|
robh
|
|
response 220 of 229:
|
Sep 17 07:19 UTC 1996 |
I think we'd pretty well agreed to meet on Sunday, whichever weekend
we decided upon.
Of course, since nobody from M-Net seems to be responding any more...
|
pfv
|
|
response 221 of 229:
|
Sep 18 05:08 UTC 1996 |
The Borg do not even bother with Policy or Board conferences with
anything like regularity anymore..
I'd suggest you act w/o M-net (aka Arbornet) - they are currently
so fubar that they may soon have no office in addition to a slump
in patronship..
|
robh
|
|
response 222 of 229:
|
Sep 18 05:19 UTC 1996 |
Ok, we'll have a meeting to decide how Grex can help M-Net, only
we won't invite anyone from M-Net... ???
<robh is very confused now>
Ah well, it'll be good to spend an entire afternoon watching football.
I haven't done that in years. >8)
|
tsty
|
|
response 223 of 229:
|
Sep 19 06:06 UTC 1996 |
can i wath too? <g>
|
dang
|
|
response 224 of 229:
|
Sep 19 18:13 UTC 1996 |
I'm confused. This was started in june, and still hasn't happened? What
stopped it? It seems like a good idea.
|