|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 299 responses total. |
danr
|
|
response 216 of 299:
| 
Aug 30 15:45 UTC 2002 |
What he's saying is that someone who is currently a member needs to
make a formal motion as stated in the bylaw.
|
scott
|
|
response 217 of 299:
|
Aug 30 15:56 UTC 2002 |
To put it more bluntly: If the membership wants it, the board will do it.
Your job is to convince the membership.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 218 of 299:
|
Aug 30 16:00 UTC 2002 |
<hugs scott>
|
jp2
|
|
response 219 of 299:
|
Aug 30 16:02 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 220 of 299:
|
Aug 30 16:41 UTC 2002 |
fag.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 221 of 299:
|
Aug 30 16:49 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 222 of 299:
|
Aug 30 17:07 UTC 2002 |
All eligible members may vote.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 223 of 299:
|
Aug 30 17:15 UTC 2002 |
Isn't this all in the by-laws?
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 224 of 299:
|
Aug 30 17:16 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
cross
|
|
response 225 of 299:
|
Aug 30 17:33 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 226 of 299:
|
Aug 30 17:46 UTC 2002 |
This is getting absolutely ridiculous. And that's supposed to have
gull acknowledge what? "They started it" hardly helps this discussion.
Not only that, but we all have to take responsibility for our own
actions. Person A's dissmissive attitidue doesn't exactly give person
B carte Blanch to be rude and belittling to C.
From the website.
Cyberspace Communications functions as an online democracy, with
policies set by its users. Formally, we are governed by a board of
directors elected by our members, but we have a tradition of operating
very much by a consensus. Topics are always publicly discussed in the
Co-op conference before being voted on by the board, and the board is
very reluctant to decide on anything until a strong consensus has
emerged in the conference. In addition, any member can call a vote by
the membership on any subject, and the board has no power to overrule
the results of such votes. Changes to the bylaws can only be made by
votes of the membership.
I'm not going to say how many people have been trying to bring this
point across.
|
cross
|
|
response 227 of 299:
|
Aug 30 18:13 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 228 of 299:
|
Aug 30 18:17 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 229 of 299:
|
Aug 30 18:58 UTC 2002 |
Whatever it is, and however it functions, the people who support Grex are
generally pleased with the status quo here, and if those people change
their opinions on the matter, then Grex will change to suit. If you wish
to be a part of that process, or to instigate such change, then you must
be willing to support Grex. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.
|
cross
|
|
response 230 of 299:
|
Aug 30 19:31 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 231 of 299:
|
Aug 30 19:48 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 232 of 299:
|
Aug 30 20:10 UTC 2002 |
When has anybody attempted to "stop the discussion", though? Has somebody
put in a response saying "we won't do it, fuck off" or something along those
lines?
|
cross
|
|
response 233 of 299:
|
Aug 30 20:15 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 234 of 299:
|
Aug 30 20:18 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 235 of 299:
|
Aug 30 20:19 UTC 2002 |
Most social organizations are conservative; otherwise they'd
tear themselves apart implementing every idea that came along.
Motivating a change in a political organization requires some
thought and some work, not just a declaration that User X has thought
of this, and clearly it is the superior alternative.
That approach only works if User X is the benevolent dictator
of the group.
|
gull
|
|
response 236 of 299:
|
Aug 30 20:32 UTC 2002 |
Re #233: I think #229 was meant to suggest that if you want this idea to
get anywhere, you need to build consensus, not hit people with verbal sticks
and try to shame them into doing something.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 237 of 299:
|
Aug 30 20:47 UTC 2002 |
Re #205 (re #193): sure - you haven't written a well thought out
(or even any) motion to accomplish what you think should be done.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 238 of 299:
|
Aug 30 20:51 UTC 2002 |
fag.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 239 of 299:
|
Aug 30 21:00 UTC 2002 |
fag.
|
scg
|
|
response 240 of 299:
|
Aug 30 21:01 UTC 2002 |
re 226:
If that's what the website says about the power of membership votes,
the website is not in agreement with the bylaws. The membership and the board
could go back and forth disagreeing on an issue, and if the issue doesn't
become a bylaw ammendment, whoever has voted on it most recently would be the
one whose decision was in force. The membership could put a stop to it either
by ammending the bylaws, or by recalling the board. In practice, teh boards
have tended to be respectful enough of the membership that such a situation
has never happened.
It's certianly not surprising that a lot of people here like the status quo.
People tend to join groups they like, and not stick around long in groups they
don't like, so the people here tend to be the people who like things the way
they are. But, when there are people here who are active members of the
community, who want to get involved, attacking and belittling them certainly
doesn't seem like a constructive way to respond. From my perspective, as a
formerly much more active user (and staff member, and board member), now
glancing in occasionally from more than 2,000 miles away, scott, other, and
now bhelliom seem to be among the worst offenders in this regard. This makes
me sad, since they're all people I've liked and respected for several years.
So, we've got some questions here. There are certainly some benefits to
allowing people not from Ann Arbor to be board members. We'd get a wider pool
of candidates for the voters to choose from. At a point when the Grex staff
is pretty overburdened, it might be a way to draw in people who would be
useful volunteers in other ways. It might bring some new perspectives to the
board, perhaps better representing the vast majority of our users (but
currently a minority of members, I think) who are not local to Ann Arbor.
If nothing else, it looks like it would make a lot of people feel better.
There are probably some benefits I'm missing. What are they? Then again,
there also some drawbacks. Some have to do with technology. A meeting space
would have to be found that would accomodate a speakerphone. The board
members wouldn't all be able to see eachother while meeting, and wouldn't be
able to socialize with eachother on a regular basis. Discussions might slow
down a bit, to make sure those on the phone could understand and be
understood. It would dilute the power of the Ann Arbor locals, and perhaps
cause the Ann Arbor locals to have to give up some control over Grex's day
to day operations. What else am I missing here? Do the benefits of this
outweigh the disadvantages?
|
