response 250 of 299:

Aug 30 21:38 UTC 2002

        When you're proposing an idea, though, there's a way to do it and a
way not to do it.  Accusing someone of being prejudiced, for instance, is more
likely to make them not listen to your proposal, whatever its' merits, and
whether or not they are prejudiced in fact.  There is no ethical compulsion
to state your proposal in a manner that doesn't generate cognitive dissonance,
but if you're proposing a change, you're generally proposing it to a group
that (as mentioned before) is somewhat conservative in keeping the values that
have worked for them before, so it's simply more expedient.

response 254 of 299:

Aug 30 22:18 UTC 2002

fag.

response 256 of 299:

Aug 31 00:17 UTC 2002

(having finally waded through this item...)

(in resp:17, mynxcat asks why Grex has never amended its bylaws 
to "allow" remote board members.  the simple answer is that a proposal 
to do so was never made.  the only time the issue has come up before 
in discussion [that I recall] was last year, when jp2 made a run for 
the board.  IIRC, he wasn't prevented from running.)

(for me, the discussion seemed to fall apart somewhere around resp:18-
30, but I continued to wade through, only to watch it fall apart again 
with resp:154, which IMO didn't at all reflect on the prior 
discussion.  I should note that there are a number of "long-time 
Grexers" [who, frankly, haven't been around as long as I have, if that 
stick must be waved] who, although they speak "loudly", do *not* speak 
for the rest of Grex, any more than you or I do.  I certainly wouldn't 
put much stock in their "historical" perspective, because they don't 
necessarily have it.)

(I'll also add that if you, the reader, are going to base your opinion 
of what the Grex community is or wants on the comments of a vocal 
minority, I suppose I can't stop you.  however, I would encourage you 
to try to give each user's argument the weight it deserves, which 
sometimes is none, regardless of whether they've bought a membership 
or not.  there's 80+ members, and the discussion in coop isn't always 
indicative of how the membership will vote.)

(in resp:184, cross asks why Grex can't have non-local board members.  
well, most of the preceding responses indicate to me that we CAN.  
having re-read the entire thing, I can safely say that there were only 
two responses *total* that expressed opposition to the idea.)

(also, reading the preceding comments as a whole, I notice that there 
are many users [members, even!] who seem sympathetic to a change that 
would allow board members to participate in meetings from remote 
locations.  all it would take is a written proposal by an interested 
party.  heck, there's disagreement over whether THAT'S even needed.)

(the only board member who I can remember stepping down due to not 
being able to attend meetings was mju some eight years ago, and he 
actually should have stepped down for other reasons that didn't become 
obvious until later.  however, I suspect that, had he wanted to stay 
on, accommodations would have been made.)

(FTR, I'm not a xenophobe.)

response 258 of 299:

Aug 31 00:32 UTC 2002

fag.

response 262 of 299:

Aug 31 01:25 UTC 2002

So, are you going to run again, Jamie?

response 266 of 299:

Aug 31 12:54 UTC 2002

resp:263  ("would have" and "would have to" are two different phrases.
          the former suggests a willingness to accommodate, whereas the
          latter suggests an obligation to do so.  I hope that's clearer.)

response 272 of 299:

Sep 1 01:51 UTC 2002

I would like to see a membership vote about whether remote members are 
going to be allowed to serve on the Board.  This is a controversial 
issue and I don't think it should be resolved either way without a 
membership vote.  I'll be happy to sponsor a vote, once the arguments 
settle down into something that can be voted on, if someone else 
doesn't do so.

I'll have to admit my eyes have glazed over upon reading some of the 80 
or so new responses that have appeared in this item over the last 2 
days.  I haven't got much interest in whether there's an old guard or 
not.  It doesn't affect the issue in my mind.  (Hey, if the founders 
are all part of the "old guard", maybe some folks like Brian Dunkle and 
Denise Anderson could come back and be on the Board.)

The basic issue is whether to accept remote Board members who don't 
physically attend meetings.  There are plenty of associated issues, 
such as how many to accept, how far away you have to be to call into 
meetings remotely if there are a limited number, who pays the costs for 
conference calls, how meetings will be run, and so on.

I don't know if this has to be considered a "big change".  I do think 
it's a change.  It's not the way things are working now.  I don't think 
it makes any sense to say that remote Board members aren't different 
than the Board members we have now.