response 26 of 89:

Nov 8 16:20 UTC 1995

Well, back to nominations...  Umm, I regret that I have to do this, but
I am going to have to withdraw my name.  There is a possibility, a good
one, that I will be moving to either Washington, or Oregon.  That being
the case, I don't think that I should remain in the running.  I wouldn't
be leaving until fall of 96, but still...  I'm sorry that I have to do
this, I am honored to have been nominated.

response 28 of 89:

Nov 9 00:54 UTC 1995

(this is drift, but why are you moving, Anne?)

response 30 of 89:

Nov 9 02:55 UTC 1995

Board members must be able (& willing) to attend face-to-face board meetings.
This does in fact impose a practical limit; it's not impossible for non-
Michiganders to serve on the board, merely *very* inconvenient.

Um, kerouac, it *is* in the bylaws if you read them.

response 32 of 89:

Nov 9 06:48 UTC 1995

  Sounds discriminatory against those with hearing loss!  :-)

response 34 of 89:

Nov 10 00:28 UTC 1995

   The bylaws were obvoiusly written when Grex was just a local board.
In deference to the increasing number of out of town and out of state  members

shouldnt this be changed to allow for those willing to be in attendance at
meetings at their own expense via confrerence call.?
     I can see saying the officers have to be local, but this clause
effectively excludes a number of paying members from m being able to serve
and that isnt fair.

response 36 of 89:

Nov 10 06:04 UTC 1995

  Until recently, meetings were held in restaurants, where phone lines
weren't easily available, though the current location probably has one.
However, my experience with big groups of people using speaker phones is
not favorable.  Everyone has to speak loudly at the phone, and there's
the constant long-distance white noise from the speaker.  Four hours of
that would be really unpleasant.  I've seen nice $3000 speaker phones
which I'm sure alleviate these problems, but the normal ones are best
suited to small groups of people.

response 38 of 89:

Nov 10 18:51 UTC 1995

I don't see a fundamental reason why an Ann Arbor based group can't offer
a global service.

response 40 of 89:

Nov 11 02:00 UTC 1995

  It seems to me that there is a schism here between those who never
wanted Grex to be anything more than local, and who essentially dislike
non-local involvement, and those who pushed to get Grex on the 'net and
want to see it expand.  Every suggestion that is made to encourage
non-local involvement dramatizes this schism.  A while back I suggested
having some of these meetings on-line in party.  Most had no problem
with this, but a few were adamantly opposed.  The same thing happened
with this item, or is happening.

The question isnt whether an Ann Arbor based group can offer a global
service, as Janc pointed out, of course they can.  The question is 
whether Grex can reach its full potential, and the potential of the
programming and the admirable foresight of its founders, without
continually reaching out to the material and talents that are out there.

It is little things like making board meetings accessible and opening up
voting and debates to the extent possible, that bring people in and make
it possible for Grex to continue to grow.  Thanks to the 'net, people
across the country can come here as easily, or perhaps easier, than those
of you who live in A2 and dialup.  But they cant participate as easily
or as equally when there are obviously people here who still think of the
old Grex and pretty passionately oppose, for the most part, non-local
or at the least, non-regional, operational involvement.

I dont think letting people participate by conference call or having
an occassional meeting online is such a big deal, and it would send the
right message.  The message that Grex is unique and that its founders,
members, and staff truly want others to join them in helping this board
meet its potential.

*** stepping off the lecturn ***  

response 42 of 89:

Nov 11 03:21 UTC 1995

 
    Davel, true enough and I accept the criticism as valid.  But you
are doing the same thing.  You didnt respond to what I was proposing,
merely questioned some conclusions I may have made too fast.  Lilmo
did the same thing.  I could have responded to the point that some
voice conferencing systems are crappy.  I know that they are.  But I
viewed that as irrelevant, because this is just a proposal.  If the
board votes to change that clause in the bylaws, THEN we can have an item
to discuss where to hold meetings that have good conference-calling systems.
So in this case, I viewed the questions raised about conference calling
in the previous items as a way of avoiding the issue.  Lets just have
a "yes" or "no" consensus on the issue, THEN get into specifics.

The issue being, should members be allowed to attend board meetings via
conference call?  This is to see if there is support for the idea
or the concept, NOT to see if there is support for a specific means of
implementation.

so davel, leaving all else aside, do you support the concept?  
  I say this clause could be changed now, and not implemented for years 
if a decent place to have conference calling isnt found.  Fine.  But
the clause should still be changed.  That is what I was suggesting.  Just
change it as a point of fact, so its in the books.

response 44 of 89:

Nov 11 07:08 UTC 1995

The cost of non-local management is high.  It is 1000 times easier to come
to agreements face-to-face than on-line.  Misunderstandings proliferate much
faster on-line.  I think kerouac's #40 is a case in point.  There is no
schism between people who want Grex on the net and people who don't, nor has
their ever been.  This kind of wild misunderstanding of where people are
coming from is easy to arrive at without face-to-face interaction.  If you
look at this conference, you'll find that nearly all of the more heated
controversies are among people who don't meet face-to-face much.

Good communications among board and staff is very valuable.  Our ability
to get things done depends a lot on our ability work together in spite of
great differences in our vision of what Grex should be.  So far we have been
very good at finding a consensus that we can all live with.  It's not because
we all love each other and think alike.  There is no schism over net access,
but I think I could point out about ten issues that are potential schism
material among our current staff and board.  We generally all tip-toe around
them, understanding that if anyone pushed them too hard they could cost us
the system.  Eventually we mostly manage to settle them anyway, though
new ones arise.  

         Every suggestion that is made to encourage
         non-local involvement dramatizes this schism.

I don't see it in this case, but generally, yeah.  On-line discussions is
great for dramatizing schism.  How often have you seen schisms healed in on-
line discussions?

The ability of Grex to make arrive at decisions that most people are
content with is not a minor asset.  It's not a part of our organization
we need to go fiddling with without compelling reasons.

So what are the compelling reasons?  Has the board shown a record of
abusing and neglecting non-local users, so that some direct non-local
representation is needed to ensure that their voice is heard?  What specific
current problems would be solved by having non-local board members?

response 46 of 89:

Nov 11 12:26 UTC 1995

I have much the same reservations about on-line board meetings
that everyone else does, but I'd still love to give it a shot
at some point.

(Actually, it occurs to me that we should have a cluster or
two of several local folks at single computers, or our phone
lines are going to fill up.  The number of local folks we
get at a Board meeting is greater that the number of local
phone lines we have, and I know some of us can't get here
via telnet.  One more technical detail to work out...)

response 48 of 89:

Nov 12 01:53 UTC 1995

  Okay I can see the reasoning that non face-to-face meetings are 
less effective.  Janc has a real point.  Perhaps someting like a
bi-annual online board meeting would work.  Say that twice a year 
these meetings are held online so that nonlocal users can
participate and meet the board members (many new users who dont read coop
wouldnt even know who popcorn or steve or any of the other officers
are)  This would be a community service that might encourage other
folks to become involved.

The conference call thing is just an idea to keep the good members of
Grex who leave A2 involved.  With such a setup, Janc could easily
have remained a member while livingin Texas (or wherever it was he lived)
And longtime members like Anne could still run...she feels that 
she'd be forced to resign when she moves out of state, even though she
will still telnet in in all likelihood and will still be able to keep up with
whats going on.

I guess there isnt an easy way around this though.