|
Grex > Coop7 > #116: Serious questions about the bylaws! | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 281 responses total. |
lilmo
|
|
response 25 of 281:
| 
Oct 20 04:34 UTC 1995 |
Re #1: Yeah, defining security would be silly, but tightening up the bylaws
is not necessarily a Bad Thing (tm).
Re #7: Now, now, don't come down on them too hard. They have mostly just
said that kerouac is unfamiliar with the background behind the situation.
That is not in and of itself an insult.
Re #9: "Penny ante" is what you mean, I think. :) Thanks for being a
steadying force.
Re #19: You have asked good question, but some of the answers you have com
up with have been, really, daffy. In Item 106, there was a pretty clear
consensus, I ghink, but staff has not refused to act. I was just there not
too long ago, and I had the distinct feeling that discussion was still alive
on the subject.
Grex is not the fovernmetn (thank goodness). If we were to decide that one
must be "an active participant in coop" to vote, we would either eliminate
90% of the members, or make the difinition so broad newbies could vote.
Re #22: I think you mean that the only thing your *ancestors* all liked were
good beer and good fights.
Staff is a group of (maybe as much as) a dozen ppl. How can they NOT take
your comments personally?
Re #23: Your apparently cavalier attitude toward the law disturbs me, as well
|
srw
|
|
response 26 of 281:
|
Oct 20 06:16 UTC 1995 |
RE 23: Those are STeve's personal opinions. I do not know of any situations
where we deliberately violated a law. I would always vote against such
actions, and I don't know what I would do if the board knowingly passed
an illegal motion. I would strongly encourage STeve to make a list
of any actions we are taking now which he thinks might be illegal, and
present that list to the board, so that we can take the appropriate steps.
I am aware of exactly none.
Zoning violations are handled legally by variances. That's what we did.
Perfectly legal.
Having a minor on the board isn't a crime, it's merely a foolish thing to
allow, since all of his votes could be impugned, if that is indeed the law.
(this is still being researched)
|
scg
|
|
response 27 of 281:
|
Oct 20 07:01 UTC 1995 |
I find kerouac's suggestion that allowing staff and board to not publically
discuss security issues ludicrous. Does he really not see why it would be
a bad thing for staff to go to the general public and say "we've found a way
that any user can crash Grex, or gain access to all the files on the system,
and we're still working on how to fix it. Here's what the way is...?" I
think it's pretty obvious why staff and board don't discuss security issues
publicly.
Note: Before any hackers reading this try to go find the way I alluded to,
that was just an example., and not something I ever remember coming up.
Still, security issues often are not the sort of thing that should be
discussed publicly, and if there were a requirement htat all security issues
had to be discussed in public, that sort of thing could come up.
|
wisdom
|
|
response 28 of 281:
|
Oct 20 18:58 UTC 1995 |
Heh, well, he had a point- a nice little newuser compromise
was drawn up regarding login problems, and it wasn't ever said,
okay, staff will do this, even though it may be awhile. It just got
run over by an idiot who wants to fleece money for the service of keeping
newusers from stepping into trouble.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 29 of 281:
|
Oct 21 02:18 UTC 1995 |
#27, I never said staff should discuss security issues publicly. What
I said is that I dont see why the security language was put into the
bylaws, when "security" was never defined. All Im saying is that it
is safer legally for grex to have bylaws that are bulletproof, and
I cant believe noone sees the logic in this.
Grex can have open voting and it can have a lot of things it doesnt have now,
if
if it has a secure foundation. Its worked well enough up til now
because no outsiders give a shit. But if grex is ever challenged, it needs
to be able to back up its bylaws. Im saying that it is doubtful that
could be done now. Even if not a word of the intent of the bylaws
is changed, they could use revising just to take out potential arguments.
|
steve
|
|
response 30 of 281:
|
Oct 21 18:33 UTC 1995 |
I don't think you can really define security, beyond the vague
english of "having the system worj right". What was needed for
security on Grex four years ago is now laughably different than
today.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 31 of 281:
|
Oct 21 21:36 UTC 1995 |
About questions of age: A person under 18 may not serve as a director
of a nonprofit corporation. A person under 18 may not serve as an officer
of a nonprofit corporation. A person under 18 may not serve as an
incorporator of a nonprofit corporation. All the above relate to Michigan.
I gave a copy of the Attorney General's opinion to Valerie for the
board. There do not appear to be any cases or statutes that modify
the conclusions expressed in the AG opinion since it was rendered in
1981. It is not "law", like a statue or decision of an appellate court,
but is persuasive. You can take your chances, if you wish. CCI should
consult its legal counsel if it decides to allow underage officers or
directors. This does not address the question of owning a membership
and voting rights. That is a more difficult question. Please do not
ask. I hope I can get some assistance from on-line attorneys on that
one.
|
steve
|
|
response 32 of 281:
|
Oct 21 22:59 UTC 1995 |
See?
The more closely you look, the worse it gets.
I rest my case.
|
mdw
|
|
response 33 of 281:
|
Oct 21 23:33 UTC 1995 |
When the by-laws were crafted, we had two conflicting interests: making
the policy decision aparatus as open as possible, and dealing quickly
and efficiently with matters requiring delicacy & privacy, such as
people trying to crash the system. But the intent was never to setup
any sort of secret circle where all the decisions were really made, but
rather to de-couple those few issues that really (we thought) did
require privacy, to ensure that everything else could be out in the
public eye. One of the particular reasons we wanted to do this was in
the hopes that this would maek the board (and the members) feel as
responsible and responsive to the needs of *all* users on this system,
not just staff or members. That's also the reason this very conference
exists, to give anyone who cares a voice in things, and I don't think
we've ever come up with any matter where there has been any special sort
of member/non-member schism (and I hope sincerely such will never happen
here.)
|
adbarr
|
|
response 34 of 281:
|
Oct 21 23:41 UTC 1995 |
STeve. I always knew you were funny. But you are causing me to disturbe
all around me as I laugh out loud at that one. <adbarr hugs selena since
STeve is a guy> I know how you feel! :) Marcus, I concur with your
thoughts and intent, with gusto!
|
rcurl
|
|
response 35 of 281:
|
Oct 22 05:16 UTC 1995 |
Arnold, I would appreciate Chapter and Verse for that AG opinion (and
later opinions on how this applies to the responsibilities of members of a
member-based corporation).
I think there are some very fundamental misapprehensions here. Being a
board member should not be viewed either as a gift or an honor, but as a
request by the organization to contribute one's time and knowledge for the
best management of the corporation. Anyone contributing their time and
energy as "staff", or "editors", or JCC gophers, are exactly on the same
footing as board members as *volunteers for Grex*. They just have
different respopnsibilities and authorities. I see no difference between a
member younger than 16 not being legally entitled to operate a motor
vehicle on behalf of Grex and a member younger than 18 not being able to
serve as a director. There are others to do both, and there is absolutely
no reason to feel deprived because of the fact.
|
selena
|
|
response 36 of 281:
|
Oct 22 12:14 UTC 1995 |
Whther or not you see any difference is moot. What does the
law see it as?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 37 of 281:
|
Oct 22 21:00 UTC 1995 |
The law does not concern itself with "apprehensions". What is important is
that the users understand the nature of a charitable, non-profit
(volunteer) corporation. Apparently some do not.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 38 of 281:
|
Oct 22 22:46 UTC 1995 |
Hey, I lag badly sometimes because of my server but otherwise I'd
volunteer as a helper and I'm often helping newusers when Im killing
time on Party. A couple of weeks back, I spent nearly half an hour
helping a newbie fix his !login file, because he didnt know how to
use the pico editor. Plus I am the fw of the politics conference, which
I think adds as any conf does to the creative value of grex, so I
dont feel I am less worthy to consider myself a member of this place
than joe x. who has been on two days but bought a 3-month membershpi
so he can raise some hell. I am more valuable to grex than $18...I am
a committed user who cares about this system's future. Yet danr
tells me I cant even make a lousy proposal, let alone vote on it. He
tells me by such, that I am less, of lower class than the members.
But I am not and if the only way I can show my value to grex is
through my wallet, then something's wrong. Therefore I say that
is perfectly fine to have 'net access and such as perks of
membership, but that the simple act of donation should not qualify
someone to vote.
Im saying that grex ought to limit voting to those who have actually
participated and used this system for six months. But as it stands,
I could take $1,800, split it among 100 friends and family and
co-workers, and have them buy memberships and I could control that
as a block and take this place over, even if every member currently
voted and voted against me. Wouldnt be that hard. But that would
be wrong. It would be wrong because only those people who have been
around and know a little about how grex came to be could be truly
informed.
So dont tell me the bylaws are perfect. Noone here wants to change
them because in coop the vast majority reading this are members, and
outside here most users could care less about voting as long as they
have their logins. You guys are selfish. They are ignorant. And
neither of you two groups see the big picture!
|
ajax
|
|
response 39 of 281:
|
Oct 22 23:36 UTC 1995 |
That would make you the sole Selfless Enlightened One, Dharma? {:-)
|
scg
|
|
response 40 of 281:
|
Oct 23 00:37 UTC 1995 |
Somebody who sends us $18 is funding one of our phone lines for a month, or
half of the part of our Internet connection that we pay for for a month.
Dharma Bum, on the other hand, is simply using the resources that those people
pay for. Remind me, next time I'm in a restaurant, that they should be paying
me to eat there, because as a customer I am helping provide the atmosphere.
Maybe it would help my case to spend the whole evening yelling loudly about
how unfair the restaurant was being to me, and generally being in the way of
those who are just trying to eat their meals.
|
steve
|
|
response 41 of 281:
|
Oct 23 01:46 UTC 1995 |
Uh, kerouac (I'm sorry, I keep forgetting your real name!), we
run the risk of being overrun no matter what we do, don't we?
As you say, for $1800 you could get nn of your friends to come
on here, vote your way and you'd own the system. But how would
it be any different with a six-month participation rule? It seems
to me that it would be just as easy then, except for the fact that
it would be delayed an extra six months.
|
scg
|
|
response 42 of 281:
|
Oct 23 02:44 UTC 1995 |
Also, why would anybody want to pay 1,800 to take over Grex for hostile
reasons? I'd imagine that for that amount of money somebody could probably
buy their own hardware, and start their own system. OTOH, I can see potential
situations where such a takeover might be useful, kind of like all the
Arbornet memberships that janc bought people. If the board and the members
really did get out of sync from the rest of the users, it is probably a good
thing that it wouldn't cost those who really disagreed to take over the system
and steer it back in the right direction. $1,800 is a lot of money, but if
you spread it out among enough concerned users, it wouldn't be that much.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 43 of 281:
|
Oct 23 04:45 UTC 1995 |
Some membership-based non-profits with lots of assets have choen to convert
to either a director-based or shareholder-based non-profit, just to prevent
hostile takeovers of assets. We've discussed this here before, and most
people thought it was not much of a risk because a) $1800 is thought
too much for a jumble of mostly obsolete hardware, and b) most users
like the system the way it is run.
|
gregc
|
|
response 44 of 281:
|
Oct 23 10:59 UTC 1995 |
Kerouac, you wrote: "You guys are selfish. They are ignorant. And
neither of you two groups see the big picture!"
See the big picture? You are the one that isn't seeing the big picture! Go
out and try to run a system like this day-in, day-out. Get some experience
with all the pain-in-the-ass little details. See what it takes to actually
make something like this work in the real world, and then come back and
talk to us about your high and mighty ideals.
About a hundred years ago a guy named Karl Marx set forth some theories
about how people could construct a new form of government. You know why
those theories didn't work in practice? Because he failed to understand
human nature. He assumed that people were "homo-utopian" and would always
do the right thing for the greater good, when in fact evolution has created
a being that generally looks out for itself first.
There was an excellent item in last month's agora talking about a concept
called "The tragedy of the Commons". Go re-read it. If voting were opened
to every person who could simply log in, they would eventually vote themselves
every privalege they could and vote the system right into non-existance.
This system was orriginally created as an *experiment* in cooperative
management. But for practical reasons, there has to be a limit on just
how copperative that can be. There is no such thing as 100% complete
freedom, no such thing as 100% complete democracy.
To address something you said in another item, people in this country *do*
pay for the right to vote, it's called taxes. Everybody pays them, and our
country gives everyone the right to vote in exchange so the people can decide
what their money gets spent on. Even the poorest person still pays *some*
tax. They have a *stake* in the government.
|
janc
|
|
response 45 of 281:
|
Oct 23 14:48 UTC 1995 |
You suppose if I promised not to vote they would let me stop paying taxes?
|
gregc
|
|
response 46 of 281:
|
Oct 23 22:47 UTC 1995 |
Heh. Probably not. However, one other point I wanted to make concerned
the difference between the "optional" nature of being on Grex, versus
living in this country. I couldn't find the right words. I like what
Scott said on this subject in response #135 of item #112.
|
ajax
|
|
response 47 of 281:
|
Oct 23 23:26 UTC 1995 |
Yep...you were going strong up until your tax-vote linkage, Greg :-).
|
gregc
|
|
response 48 of 281:
|
Oct 24 00:58 UTC 1995 |
Actually, I stand by what I said. The fact that you have to pay taxes, doesn't
invalidate my argument. Everyone payes to support this government, everyone
has a stake in what the government does with those funds. Refuse to pay
your taxes? Go to jail. Lose right to vote.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 49 of 281:
|
Oct 24 01:43 UTC 1995 |
You dont have to pay taxes to vote. Lots of people here in DC,
but not me, refuse to pay federal taxes as "consientious objectors"
because we have no representation in congress and thus no voice in
where the money is going. That is a political opinion, a personal
belief, and you cannot be denied the right vote for exercising your
personal beliefs. This is american for heavens sake. Citizenship is
the only requirement to vote (and being over the age of 18 and
registered of course) Nobody checks your tax record when you go to the
polls.
|