response 25 of 90:

Dec 16 05:38 UTC 1994

   I don't think *anything* can be snuck by the voters.  We have this
built-in feature where things have to be talked about.  If something
contraversial comes up, fine!  If the members decide they want it,
then they'll do it.  If only 45 of 80 people actually decide that its
worth voting for, then thats whats happened.
   Where would the presidential elections have been over the last
30 years have been had we had a 2/3 rule?

response 27 of 90:

Dec 16 05:49 UTC 1994

2/3 is too high for an officer election.  Constitutional amendments in
US gov. require 2/3 of congress  (both houses) and 3/4 of state legislatures.
To pass a law, congress has to have a quorum of a majority.
As far as sneaking through goes, Cicero, alot of people are too busy to even
log in, let alone hone up  on the issues and vote during the Christmas season.
Whatever we decide, I feel the the officer elections (and corresponding terms
of office) should be moved on the calender away from Christmas, and possibly
UoM finals and breaks.

response 29 of 90:

Dec 16 06:01 UTC 1994

        If our current trends continue, it looks very doubtful that we
will be able to count on being able to sustain any quarum.  It may be that
a half quarum would have worked in this case, but it would have barely
worked.  Let's not make this any more complicated than it needs to be.  If
people don't bother to vote, despite having adequate notice, that's their
problem.  Things are going to be a lot easier to "sneak by" if people feel
forced to vote on them without first reading the discusion.  To keep the
quarum would just be asking for trouble, no matter how small the quarum
is. 
        I've already said this in a different item, but it looks like I
need to take issue with Bill's suggestion that people don't use Grex as
much during college vcations here too.  I think, if you look at the usage
statistics, you will find that Grex is used more during vacations than at
other times.  People may not be where they usually compute, but they 
generally have a lot more time on their hands.

response 31 of 90:

Dec 16 09:50 UTC 1994

Re 30 - Believe it or not, we have to hold an election...  (ARGH!!!!!)
Hopefully, we can at least get a quorum for an election to
modify the by-laws, instead of electing board members.  If not,
then Grex is paralyzed, unable to do anything, until enough
people get disgusted with Grex that they cancel or don't renew
their memberships, and the remaining ten members can reach
a quorum...

I'm reluctant to change the quorum laws so quickly, I'd just
as soon change the by-laws to allow abstentions, but I don't
even know if that would work at this point.

response 33 of 90:

Dec 16 16:39 UTC 1994

   I agree with Valerie about disagreeing with srw. ;-)  Valerie is
right that we didn't start things up right, legally.  But morally
and spiritually, we are a coop.  All we have to do is say so.  So (at
least I think) we are.

response 35 of 90:

Dec 16 18:28 UTC 1994

I think it would be a mistake for +all+ mention of a quorum to
be eliminated. Seven votes could carry the day in a membership
of 70, the other 63 voters not having been heard from in one
way or other.
  
I'm not going to entertain  you with my conjectures about why
there was such a low turn out - a couple of them have been
stated already. 
  
This item started as a "new member" packet question - just one of
several ideas that have been presented over time - and partially
ignored (or partially unsupported) since the idea's first
appearance. 
  
Since nearly the beginning of Grex, there have been, imo, too
few staff-hours available to keep on top of stuff. And too
much volunteerism has been, frankly, ignored outright. 

response 37 of 90:

Dec 16 20:48 UTC 1994

You can add me to the list of people who would like Grex to
become a legal, honest-to-goodness cooperative.

response 39 of 90:

Dec 16 22:58 UTC 1994

One thing we should definately do is to put a message in the motd right
away explaining why the elections are invalid, so that when we do come up
with a solution people won't hear of the problem for the first time when
they are asked to vote in yet an other election.

response 41 of 90:

Dec 17 01:19 UTC 1994

Co-ops can provide services to non-members.  Food co-ops do it.  The non-
members just don't get the patronage refunds at the end of the year.
As to huge assests, does Grex actually have title to the computer and disk
drives?  They could be held by an individual or separate corp.  I favor
legally becoming a co-op.  For one thing, by Michigan law, only a legal
co-op can call itself a co-op.  Secondly, I think you're dreaming if you
think the IRS considers Grex a "charitable corp."  We are a non-profit, but
not tax deductable corp.  That means Grex doesn't by income taxes, but those
who pay dues cannot get an income tax deduction as a donation, even if it is
free-will.

response 43 of 90:

Dec 17 02:28 UTC 1994

        I haven't done anything admirable.  I've provided a small amount of
financial support for a system I think is wonderful.  I've refused to vote
for reasons which are not generally useful; I don't think many people
share my reasons.  I doubt if anyone else does.
        Other people aren't voting because they don't understand the issues.
They don't understand the issues because they don't need to and don't care
to.  Grex runs well enough without them, and anyway, it's not obvious to a
lot of them how they can do more, or why they should.  Is that a problem?
        Most of those who are real active here think of Grex as an important
part of their lives; they spend time and effort on Grex because it's worth
it to them.  They're the staff, the Board, and the active volunteers who
make the system worthwhile for everyone else.  They are the real members.
There are a lot of others who use Grex as a tool; a stepping stone on the 
Internet or a place to use Usenet News.  They're Grex's customers.  That's 
all they are.  Treat them well enough and they'll keep coming, and maybe
be a real benefit in their own way.  There are others who just like Grex 
and want to drop a check in the mail and who think that's enough.  They're 
supporters.  I am one of them.
        The by-laws assume everyone wants to be like the founders of the
system.  They assume there's only one reason anyone would log on to Grex.
I think the by-laws, or at least the method of counting members, needs to
be changed.  Both should be done, maybe.  There are different types of
users here.  That's a fact, an important one, not just in the short term,
looking only to this one election.  The by-laws will have to deal with that 
fact or be ineffective.

response 45 of 90:

Dec 17 02:33 UTC 1994

Jep slipped in with 43, and said what I have been trying to get across.
The quorums in the bylaws are outdated and we don't need them.

response 47 of 90:

Dec 17 09:15 UTC 1994

Any social organization is a dynamic social balance, and grex is no
exception.  Since it's a dynamic balance, it can adapt to changing
circumstances.  But, by the same token, there are also many ways for it
to change that are not necessarily advantageous - ie, "go sour".  Sooner
or later, that happens to *all* social organisms, so, in a sense, you
can't beat death.  But there are certainly things that can be done to to
greatly retard that process (and there are other things that accellerate
the process).

With a people based social organization, one of the fundemental problems
to solve is the succession problem.  This exists at all levels within
the organization.  In a government, there are plenty of solutions, such
as elections, birthright, or appointment.  If it's handled well, things
can work pretty smoothly, but when it's not handled well, things can
fall apart pretty quickly even if everything else is working fine.

In a small volunteer organization such as grex, there are several ways
that succession process can go wrong: the system can fail to recruit
enough new people to keep things going; not enough people might
volunteer for such critical jobs as donating money, or completing tax
reports; or people might squabble over control over the system, or how
to spend the money.  Very often, those squabbles start over various
divisions within the group, such as the old guard vs. the new guard, or
those "in charge" of the system vs. those not.

That is certainly a good part of the reason for the way grex is
organized.  It is important to make people part of the decision making
process, instead of leaving it up to "somebody else", because that
ensures that many of those "we" vs "they" things don't happen.  The
kinds of things that lead to the sort of situation jep describes are
practically inevitable - human nature.  That's fine as long as those
people are in fact trustworthy and responsible; the trouble begins when
they're not.  That's why it's important for people to be aware of, and
involved in the decision making process--that gives them the ability to
oversee the process process, and the ability to change or at least
influence that process if it's going awry.

A few people who feel like jep are no problem; but it would be an
extremely bad thing if the majority of the users of the system felt that
way.

response 49 of 90:

Dec 17 11:53 UTC 1994

The purpose of a co-operative need not be to do something more
economically.  It can be to do it better.  The People's Food Co-op
does not sell food on the cheap - it sells better food.  Grex
intended to be co-operatively run in order to be a *better* 
conferencing system.

If I could cite one issue on which the Founders failed it was in
not continuing to push our original enthusiasm for trying something
new, a better way.  We quickly fell into being so thrilled with 
a growing membership that little attention was paid to what folks
were buying.  Our policies simply encouraged this along.  We lost
our focus.  Now we are a corporation with members buying in for
self-serving perks and soon we won't even need but a handful of
"members" to decide how the whole ship floats.  Yucko.  I would 
never have invested so much time had I known back then what I know
now.  Sad, but true.