|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 80 responses total. |
danr
|
|
response 25 of 80:
| 
Dec 15 01:35 UTC 1994 |
I'd have to say no, too. Is it too much to ask 60 people to vote?
I think not.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 26 of 80:
|
Dec 15 01:38 UTC 1994 |
No.
No.
|
srw
|
|
response 27 of 80:
|
Dec 15 02:24 UTC 1994 |
Apparently it is too much to ask these people to vote. Look at jep's
reaction. He doesn't want to vote. Why should we force him to?
What does it accomplish? Nothing. There are plenty of people who care
enough about Grex to vote. Plenty enough to form a cooperative.
The only other choice is to shrink the membership rolls.
That's like turning away donations. I think that's crazy.
That's why I said yes.
|
jep
|
|
response 28 of 80:
|
Dec 15 04:02 UTC 1994 |
I made it clear from the start that I wasn't going to vote. I did
have occasional use for the Internet from here, but since I can't have
that while remaining a non-participant in the election, I gave it up.
I deny that I have no interest in Grex. I have a great deal of
interest. There are many things I'm willing to do for Grex. I've
willingly contributed points to technical discussions. I've even been
solicited for my opinions a couple of times. I've contributed money, and
I'm willing to do so again.
I think there are good reasons for me to not vote, for Grex's
interest as well as my own. Perhaps at some point in the future these
reasons won't apply any more. If that happens, I'll participate.
|
steve
|
|
response 29 of 80:
|
Dec 15 06:17 UTC 1994 |
Let's keep this the straw poll item, can we? Just a say yes or no,
along with commentary after.
I just created item #52 to talk about the problem in general.
Can we use that to talk and just have people vote here?
|
popcorn
|
|
response 30 of 80:
|
Dec 15 15:51 UTC 1994 |
Yes.
I'd prefer to lower quorums to be in line with those for other organizations
rather than eliminate them altogether.
|
nestene
|
|
response 31 of 80:
|
Dec 17 07:37 UTC 1994 |
Yes. I'm also in favor of adopting Robert's Rules.
|
steve
|
|
response 32 of 80:
|
Dec 18 05:13 UTC 1994 |
Ugh.
Why? What board sessions have we had in the 3.4 years we've
been in extistence that needed Roberts Rules?
Having been to all but two of them, I can't think of a time
when it would have helped any. Basically, RRO is for an organization
of people that don't like each other. I sure as hell hope we don't
ever get to that stage!
|
rcurl
|
|
response 33 of 80:
|
Dec 18 08:10 UTC 1994 |
Completely to the contrary. One can't have in one's own bylaws everything
that might be needed to facilitate easy board business, so organizations
adopt RRO as the "catch all" for all those things they have not thought of
(and wouldn't want to write out anyway). What Grex uses are "common law"
assumptions of what technical words, like "move" and "adjourn", and all
the other jargon we use, mean, but without actual agreement upon their
meaning. What are the duties of our presiding officer? RRO give a list.
Can the presiding officer vote? Fair minds will differ, but RRO give an
answer. What do you do if someone offers an incorrect motion (that is "out
of order") - who decides? RRO answers all these without writing it into
the bylaws.
Bylaws may prescribe any requirements for quorums for voting, and
proportions to concur, but what does RRO suggest? (The following is
concerned with voting in a meeting of an organization, but it can be
extended to electronic meetings by counting those participating as
attending):
"A prescribed requirement of a majority of the entire membership
- which in certain instances may be appropriate in permanent
boards, where the members are obligated to attend the meetings -
is generally unsatisfactory in the assembly of an ordinary society,
since it is likely to be impossible to get a majority of the
entire membership even to attend a given meeting."
Sounds prescient.
The usual form of the RRO provision in bylaws is:
"Robert's Rules of Order, as revised, shall be the parliamentary
authority, except as provided otherwise by law, or in these bylaws."
|
nephi
|
|
response 34 of 80:
|
Dec 18 10:51 UTC 1994 |
No. I really like cicero's idea that had that we should just force members
who log on to acknowledge that they know about the election. We can still
keep quorums (and all their positive attributes) if we do this.
Why hasn't this been discussed?
Barring that, I think that we should just let people abstain. Then, if
that doesn't work, we can resort to more drastic measures.
|
mdw
|
|
response 35 of 80:
|
Dec 18 11:49 UTC 1994 |
RRO is a written tradition. So far at least, grex has gotten along
quite well with an un-written tradition that actually, in the main,
evolved from the founders meetings. Although the tradition is not well
documented, that does not mean it's without antecedent; the UofM's
version of tqm teaches some of the same principles in "team leader
training." A lot of that tradition probably straight out of our common
familiarity with computer conferencing, where the rules are inherently
different from RRO, and I think many of us have had experience with both
sides of good and bad situations and, perhaps, a deeper understanding of
group dynamics than RRO engenders.
|
nestene
|
|
response 36 of 80:
|
Dec 18 15:47 UTC 1994 |
Yes, but where is a new member to go to learn this tradition of ours?
I'm reminded of the traffic laws in New Jersey, where the right-of-way
at an intersection is assigned based on the accepted practice at that
particular intersection--fine for the locals, but when you move into
the neighbourhood, you're lost. In Michigan and most of the country,
the rules are uniform and easily found; you can get a driver's manual
at your local Secretary of State's office/License Branch. By adopting
Robert's Rules, we're leveling the plasying field for those of us who
weren't at the founders' meetings, and even for those members who never
conference at all. Rather than having to try to figure out how things
are supposed to work by observing the behaviour of the active members
(who seem to disagree on this as often as not), they could simply grab
a copy of a standard reference work and be up to speed almost immediately.
Rules-lawyers would not necessarily take over the system, and the tone
of the conferences would not have to change.
|
kentn
|
|
response 37 of 80:
|
Dec 18 16:44 UTC 1994 |
Re 34: I don't like that idea at all. Why should we "force" people
to do anything? I thought that was part of the problem with the quorum
requirement: some people felt like they were being forced to vote, so
they didn't. If you remove the quorum requirement, you effectively
allow people who don't vote to abstain, without forcing them to do anything,
and without putting them in some quorum-gaining pigeonhole.
|
nephi
|
|
response 38 of 80:
|
Dec 18 18:33 UTC 1994 |
I don't think you know what I mean by 'force them to acknowledge that they
were aware of the election'. What was stated by cicero (somewhere) was
that when a member first logged on during a given election, he would be
presented with a screen announcing the election and how to vote. He would
then be told that he had to type his login id (or something like that) to
acknowledge that he was aware of the election (and to get to his shell).
This seems like a way to ensure that we have a *real* quorum. (A quorum is
just the appropriate number of people *present* during a vote. If they log
on and we *know* that they are aware of the election, then they are present
for the vote, weather or not they *choose* to vote.)
There is nothing wrong with having a quorum. The only problem we have is
trying to force people to vote who don't want to. The above is the only
way that we can *really* know if we have a quorum. Any other method just
assumes that people who are present during the vote, and choose not to,
are not present. If that last sentence makes no sense, that is because
what we are trying to do makes no sense, either.
|
srw
|
|
response 39 of 80:
|
Dec 18 18:40 UTC 1994 |
This response has been erased.
|
srw
|
|
response 40 of 80:
|
Dec 18 18:56 UTC 1994 |
38 slipped in and invalidated my 39.
Nephi's suggestion makes some sense to me, but what I need to do now is
figure out whether it is a call to modify the wording of my proposal,
or is an alternative approach to the one I have proposed here.
In general, it would certainly be reassuring to know that a majority of our
members were aware that an election was talking place. Not that I actually
doubt it wrt this most recent election.
|
nephi
|
|
response 41 of 80:
|
Dec 18 19:06 UTC 1994 |
I believe that it would be alternate. (I voted no in an earlier response
because I thought that the quorums were a good idea.)
|
kentn
|
|
response 42 of 80:
|
Dec 18 19:53 UTC 1994 |
The day I login to Grex and am forced into a voting program or even a
message-acknowledging program is the day I repeat jep's resignation
from the system. I don't want to forced to enter proof of my knowledge
of anything--Big Brother is watching is NOT what I want from Grex.
|
mdw
|
|
response 43 of 80:
|
Dec 18 23:13 UTC 1994 |
RRO is purely a procedural matter for board meetings; there is no reason
most members need pay any attention unless the board starts letting
procedural matters get in the way of more important matters. 'Course,
RRO can be mis-used just like anything else; the real solution is not to
elect people who would abuse procedure.
|
cicero
|
|
response 44 of 80:
|
Dec 19 08:04 UTC 1994 |
Re:40
When I made the comment that nephi is referring to I meant it as an alternate
plan to the drop the quorum plan. I like both ideas, but I think that drop
the quorum is a bit simpler, and I'm not worried about being taken over by
a tyranicaly oligarchy.
RE 42: Kent, I'm sorry that nephi used the word "forced". I think that may
be what you are reacting to. Does it really seem that big brotherish to you
for grex to note whether you have logged in =at least= once during an election?
I'm not talking how many times you logged in--I'm just talking did you log in
once or not. You cannot expect to be counted as a voting citizen if you are
unwilling to =ANY= information about you recorded at all. For example the US
government will not let you vote unless you register and state where you
reside. This is only reasonable. If you are unwilling to be registered, then
you are not only not permitted to vote, you are not even counted as not voting.
(Turnouts are measured as a percentage of =registered= voters--unregistered
citizens don't count for anything at all). This proposal does the same thing.
By acknowleging that you are aware of the election, you make it possible for
your vote or non-vote to be recorded as part of the collective will of the
members. If you refuse to even be counted as a member who is present and
aware but who may vote or not vote as he sees fit, then you are right, you
might as well resign your membership.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 45 of 80:
|
Dec 19 08:32 UTC 1994 |
Yes, it is not right (call it Big Brotherish if you wish) to assume
making an appearance is the same as agreeing to something. Anyone
can attend meetings of practically any oranization and by not saying
"here!" on the role call, not be counted as "present" for an externally
imposed purpose. I don't see that logging in during an election should
make *any* statement on behalf of that person, except that a login
occurred. (I don't understand the voting registration argument as
whether or not you are registered, just showing up at the polling place
does not change any counts, showing you are aware of the election, has
zero effect on anything.) And I *object strongly* to the suggestion that
a person that does not want to be counted as "present", for personal
reasons, has violated any terms of membership calling for resignation.
A person not "counted as a member who is present" could still lift
their end of the computer when it is moved. What are these new
conditions and limitations of membership that you are suggesting?
|
cicero
|
|
response 46 of 80:
|
Dec 19 09:11 UTC 1994 |
I'm not suggesting anything other than that =I= think that resinging
a membersip because grex presents you with a screen which says
"Greetings member, There will be
an election from date x to date y. Please type ack to acknowlege recipt of
this message" is just plain silly and that such a system is not at all
outside the bounds of responsibility that democracys require.
Ok, so I've stopped being delicate. It's just my opinion. Noone should
feel hurt by it.
|
kentn
|
|
response 47 of 80:
|
Dec 19 11:18 UTC 1994 |
I find having to acknowledge my knowledge of a Grex election to be
an invasion of my privacy. I find that sort of invasiveness non-Grexian,
or at least not part of the reasons I sign on to Grex. I thought Grex
wanted voluntary participation, not enforced participation. And
I don't feel like supporting or participating in a voluntary activity
that enforces participation. If that's "silly" then I'm not being
understood.
|
robh
|
|
response 48 of 80:
|
Dec 19 11:34 UTC 1994 |
cicero, it is an invasive procedure, and damned annoying to boot.
Either dump the quorums or allow people to abstain if they choose.
|
srw
|
|
response 49 of 80:
|
Dec 20 01:59 UTC 1994 |
I picked up on this scheme, for a short while, because I felt that it
addressed the problem that some folks have with the proposal to drop quorums.
Namely that that members could become disenfranchised by not being
aware of the election. This proposal seems to be aimed only at collecting data
to ensure that that does not happen to too large a percentage of the members.
I did not perceive it as an invasion of privacy.
Having seen the reaction, though, I am not interested in pursuing this idea
any further, as it is clear to me that it will lose more votes for my
proposal to drop the quorums than it could possibly save.
|