|
Grex > Coop > #335: The jep agenda: Board election 2013 | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 71 responses total. |
kentn
|
|
response 26 of 71:
| 
Jan 3 13:46 UTC 2013 |
This "merger" is very likely to be more work than just doing a better
job of running each organization. It'll cost money to merge them,
I'm sure, which will hurt the assets needed to pay the bills into the
future. It will take time from staff and Board. It will likely anger
some people enough to never come back.
Managing two organizations on one computer system isn't technically
a problem, but it is a problem for political reasons. As I've noted
before, when organizations merge (or are forcefully combined), one of
the two original cultures tends to be pushed out or marginalized. Which
one depends on who is in control after the "merger."
That, in turn leaves bad feelings (again), so you're less likely to get
participation from users of one of the original systems.
People will still not be motivated to help or participate and in fact
may be less likely to help because they harbor bad feelings about how
their original system has been treated in the "merger."
Nothing prevents a small group of unhappy users from starting another
system. If that happens you're right back where you started.
My advice would be to focus on running each system better, but
separately. Technical collaboration is still possible.
|
jep
|
|
response 27 of 71:
|
Jan 3 22:01 UTC 2013 |
re resp:25: It isn't that hard to merge two corporations. Why would we
need two corporations to manage one system?
re resp:26: I don't think it is hard to merge two organizations. At the
simplest, one simply joins the other, which is what OAFS and Arbornet
did when they merged. Arbornet started to run M-Net. We did then spend
money. We got an office (Grex later took it over, and called it The
Pumpkin), Arbornet assumed responsibility for M-Net's modems, we
collected money for operations and to buy a new computer, and things
like that. Four M-Netters were added to the Board of Arbornet until we
got around to having an election.
There are risks to doing anything, including nothing. We don't have new
users in the conferences. People depart from time to time so that Grex
isn't even static, it is declining. That's not news to anyone here.
We've been pretty complacent about it for a long time. That is the
status quo. I'm running to change it because I think the situation here
is bad enough to require a substantial change.
That's it in a nutshell. I'll be a catalyst for change. I don't mean
that as a buzz phrase. I mean if I am elected to the Board, I will
initiate some visible, noticeable changes that are intended to improve
the Grexer conferencing experience. I will also work on them and follow
through with them so they happen. I can't guarantee every change will
result in smooth, unquestioned joy for everyone at all times, though
that will be the hope.
The only prominent idea I have right now is to merge Grex with M-Net.
If I can't get that to happen, I'll find other things.
If you don't want change, I am not worth your vote. If you like things
the way they are, you would be nuts to want me on the Board.
If you do want change, and think either that my ideas might work or that
I'll come up with others that will, and you believe I will work to make
them happen, then please consider voting for me.
|
kentn
|
|
response 28 of 71:
|
Jan 4 01:38 UTC 2013 |
So, you think the two cultures will merge without problems?
There are plenty of things to work on for Grex that are a lot less
problematic than a merger.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 29 of 71:
|
Jan 4 04:27 UTC 2013 |
Re #25: I didn't say it was hard to erge two corporations. I was just asking
how you proposed to go about it. Tell us.
|
jep
|
|
response 30 of 71:
|
Jan 4 17:17 UTC 2013 |
re resp:28: I do not think they will merge perfectly, without any
perception of problems from any user.
I think they will both vanish smoothly, and that will happen more
quickly if they don't merge.
re resp:29: At the simplest, one simply joins the other.
It may be more complicated than that but I hope it won't be. There will
have to be a conversation that includes both groups, on whether to
proceed, and how to go about it.
I think it's time to give it a try. Both M-Net and Grex are near the
end. I don't want them to end.
|
kentn
|
|
response 31 of 71:
|
Jan 5 21:24 UTC 2013 |
Saying it's simple does not make it so.
I don't think all the issues with this are being recognized. And the
benefits will be less than expected.
If we'd spend more time trying to make Grex a better place, it might
pick up more. We still get new users all the time, but we make it hard
for them to use the system at first, with lots of hoops to run through
before they get an account with more commands. This was set up this way
due to past abuse of the system (to prevent future abuse), and from that
perspective works relatively well. But if we could improve the process
to remove some of the hoops, that might help. Most of the people who
run newuser never request validation, for example.
We also have not done a lot to get more of our text-based services on
the web so that they can be accessed via smartphone and tablet as well
as laptop and desktop. We do offer the MindTerm terminal in a browser
app, but we could do more.
Much of this depends on staff time, which is usually in short supply.
This argues for more staff to help with things like installing and
administering new software when current staff are busy with $work and
family. Merging is not apt to help this situation since two systems
will still need to be managed, and they share staff already.
We have free hosting so no costs will be saved that way.
A merger is not a magic soution for any underlying organizational issues
and I don't see that you are addressing any of these in a meaningful
way. In fact, a merger may exacerbate some issues and leave the rest
as-is, which is not helping anything. It is not wise to assume these
issues won't happen.
|
richard
|
|
response 32 of 71:
|
Jan 5 23:59 UTC 2013 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 33 of 71:
|
Jan 6 00:00 UTC 2013 |
Bear in mind that Arbornet, MNet's parent, doesn't have a sterling
reputation as a non-profit? Did Arbornet not get some large grant from
the government years back on the premise of buying computers for the
school or some such, we're talking thousands of dollars, and noone ever
fully accounted for the money and how it was spent?
I think merging the systems under one company might make sense, but
rather under cyberspace communications than arbornet. Grex makes the
offer to buy mnet
|
kentn
|
|
response 34 of 71:
|
Jan 6 04:32 UTC 2013 |
It will all end badly, Richard. We don't have any clue how much
Arbornet has in the bank and they have no Board to meet to find
out. Wonderful. I sure would not and will not vote for this
(as if a Board vote would be enough--it isn't, by the way).
|
rcurl
|
|
response 35 of 71:
|
Jan 7 05:47 UTC 2013 |
Re #30: "re resp:29: At the simplest, one simply joins the other."
Oh? Do their respective articles of incoporation permit that? Grex does
have a corporate membership, but it has no voting rights for the
corporation that "joins" it.
You can't just propose a "merger" unless you specify how it would work
(legally).
|
richard
|
|
response 36 of 71:
|
Jan 7 20:23 UTC 2013 |
re #34 good point. Such a merger would surely require a member vote. Does
grex have any 'voting members', as defined by the bylaws, at this point?
I'm assuming no dues have been collected or memberships updated/renewed in
quite some time. You can't have an election or a referendum if nobody is
eligible to vote outside of the board members
|
jep
|
|
response 37 of 71:
|
Jan 7 22:04 UTC 2013 |
I didn't provide all of the details on how to go about it. I am not
sure if there's any interest in merging. I am confident it can be done
because it was done once already, when OAFS/M-Net merged with Arbornet.
It wasn't that hard to do then. At the simplest, Grex could dissolve
and donate it's assets. It'd be a little more complicated to make
agreements before that, such as 'keep the agora conference', but there's
no reason it can't be done.
It will not solve all problems. There'll still be a smaller user base
than there was when Grex and M-Net had thousands of users, but there
might be a larger user base for the two than either one separately. Our
combined user base is still going to be small. The next step will
clearly be to work on increasing it.
M-Net still has an open newuser program. The problem of the validation
process *would* be solved. Every user who never requests validation is
someone who is lost as part of this system; someone who had enough
interest to go through 'newuser' but too much dignity or not enough
need, or something, to jump through hoops that occur only here, not on
the rest of the Internet.
re resp:33: TeacherNet was a failure, but no one has ever suggested
dishonesty. Please be careful when throwing accusations around. If you
don't know what you are talking about, then please find out before
saying anything. Loo9sely making baseless accusations is a disgusting
habit.
|
richard
|
|
response 38 of 71:
|
Jan 7 22:29 UTC 2013 |
I believe the bylaws require that if Grex (which is to say Cyberspace
Communications) voted to dissolve, that its assets must be liquidated and
the money donated to charity. Arbornet is not a charity.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 39 of 71:
|
Jan 7 23:14 UTC 2013 |
Arbornet is not a 501(C)3? Didn't know that. I haven't looked, but usually
a 501(C)3 organization if it dissolves is required to distribute its assets
to another 501(C)3, since the assets were obtained without paying taxes.
However Arbornet could donate all its assets to Grex. That wouldn't be a
"merger", just a donation.
|
tonster
|
|
response 40 of 71:
|
Jan 8 12:43 UTC 2013 |
Indeed, Arbornet has always been a 501(c)3, just like Grex.
|
jep
|
|
response 41 of 71:
|
Jan 9 03:22 UTC 2013 |
Arbornet has been a 501(c)(3) since 1986.
The bylaws at:
http://cyberspace.org/cgi-bin/backtalk/pistachio/read?conf=coop&csel=&item=
2&rse
l=all&noskip=1&showforgotten=2
http://tinyurl.com/cci-bylaws
state this in Article 8:
In the event the membership is unable to support Cyberspace
Communications, all property belonging to the club shall be
sold. The remaining cash assets, after paying final bills, shall
be donated to a charitable organization, as determined by the
BOD. All elected officers shall then be released from their
obligations and the corporation dissolved.
What's the definition of "charitable organization" if not a corporation
organized under 501(c0(3)?
I don't think M-Net particularly needs Grex's money but if the Board
wanted to donate it to Arbornet, it could.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 42 of 71:
|
Jan 9 05:04 UTC 2013 |
So the question remains, how would one execute a "merger" between two
independent 501(C)3 corporations? One could absorb the other, or another
501(C)3 could be formed (or found) to absorb both. Or not merge. That's
four options for two organizations: what's your choice?
|
jep
|
|
response 43 of 71:
|
Jan 9 23:34 UTC 2013 |
re resp:42: I don't know. It doesn't seem difficult to me, and the
method used does not matter. The result is what matters to me.
There are not enough people to be worth keeping two separate
organizations, and two separate computer systems. There are not enough
differences, either. There were in 1992 but that was a long time ago.
I am hoping we can sustain *one* community. I would like to think we
can see growth for that. I don't see either M-Net or Grex growing
separately, not after 10 or more years (I've lost count) of continuous
decline.
|
remmers
|
|
response 44 of 71:
|
Jan 10 12:01 UTC 2013 |
Combine the two systems, and I think the observation "There are not enough
people..." would still apply.
Regarding the Arbornet/M-Net merger: I think it's instructive to look at
the whole history of that, as it underscores one of the points Kent made
earlier regarding the consequences of trying to meld two distinct
cultures. M-Net got 501(c)3 status from the merger, but I'm having a hard
time seeing what benefit Arbornet got from it. If I recall correctly,
something they were *supposed* to get was a home for their conferences,
but that never happened. There was shared governance for a while, but the
M-Net culture predominated, and the core Arbornet folks - I'm thinking of
people like Jeff Spindler, Chuck Rader, Mara Price - lost interest and
drifted away. The Arbornet community ceased to exist.
Back to the present: From observing and participating in both systems, but
I see Grex and M-Net as two very distinct and not particularly compatible
cultures. That, and there's a long-standing hostile attitude towards Grex
on the part of some core M-Netters. There's an Arbornet group on Facebook,
and when a rumor of a merger surfaced a few months ago, the response of
those people was, shall we say, not pretty.
I see some very distinct negatives to a merger and nothing much in the way
of positives. And as far as I can tell, not many people seem to want it.
|
jep
|
|
response 45 of 71:
|
Jan 10 17:13 UTC 2013 |
There were four Arbornet members before the M-Net/Arbornet merger was
proposed; Jeff Spindler, Marae Price, Chuck Rader and Iain O'Cain. None
of them are around any more. Iain is, sadly, deceased. The M-Netters
who were involved in that merger aren't around any more either; Jim
Knight, Dan Byrne, Larry Kestenbaum, and a few others, except myself.
It was always obvious in those days that M-Netters would predominate.
There were thousands of M-Netters, and 4 Arbornetters. I don't think
the results surprised anyone. I also don't think they are very relevant
now.
There were Arbornet conferences on M-Net but they fell into disuse and
were removed or combined with M-Net conferences. Now there are about as
many active M-Net conferences as there are Grex conferences; 2 or 3.
Times are different now.
There are two M-Netters who have been vocally opposed to a merger.
As far as how many Grexers support the idea, we will find that out. No
one has ever explored it seriously before. I've made it my entire
campaign, so if I am voted onto the Board, I intend to pursue it.
|
kentn
|
|
response 46 of 71:
|
Jan 11 01:20 UTC 2013 |
Sorry, jep, but you are short on details. I guess you learned from
Romney about this. Just toss out an idea and say it's easy and
then watch what happens if it passes. I'm not impressed at all.
|
jep
|
|
response 47 of 71:
|
Jan 11 04:00 UTC 2013 |
re resp:46: Ah, this is all about the politics of the presidential
election for you? I tried to treat your comments seriously, Kent, but
that's too far outside of reality for me. If you're trying to get back
at me for something related to that, have at it, but don't expect me to
participate. If you want to talk about Grex, it's is a different
subject, and you should phrase your questions and comments in another way.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 48 of 71:
|
Jan 12 01:18 UTC 2013 |
On what to do with Cyberspace Communications, Inc, assets: Ann Arbor has an
educational foundation; I think Ypsilanti has one as well. There are PTOs
that could use some additional money. The United Way and American Red Cross
aren't like to refuse donations, either. All are eligible to receive our
money, should we need to dispose of it. There are probably other places as
well.
On the general question of merging, three examples come immediately to mind:
Daimler-Benz/Chrysler, Warner-Lambert/Upjohn/Pfizer (okay, that one is
something like a half-dozen by itself), and Sears/K-mart. Chrysler was so
thoroughly mauled that it has been sold off by Daimler. We don't need to
rehash Pfizer. Sears/K-mart has kept both afloat, but not smoothly.
The only thing I see to be gained by merging M-net and Grex/Cyberspace is
some convenience for the staff. I suspect that convenience will be illusory.
The cultural differences will keep the communities apart. Trying to force
them together will hasten the end, not delay it. Note that those who
currently participate in both use different forms in the two places. Those
who don't are shunned.
|
jep
|
|
response 49 of 71:
|
Jan 12 07:18 UTC 2013 |
re resp:48: Joe, I don't agree you have to be different to participate
on both systems. I don't do that. I'm active on both systems on a
daily basis, have never concealed on either that I do that, and have
never felt I was being shunned by anyone on either M-Net or Grex. Both
tsty and tonster are on both systems. The cultural differences you
cited are not large at all.
Were you arguing that mergers can never work? Some other corporate
mergers in recent memory include eBay and Paypal; Wendy's and Tim
Horton's; Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and Burger King as Yum Brands; BP
(British Petroleum) and Amoco; Nestle and Gerber; Google and Motorola
Mobile... there are thousands of these every year, you know. Most of
them are so smooth that few ever notice them. There have been failed
mergers, of course. Pfizer wasn't one, though; neither was Sears/K-Mart.
Sears/K-Mart is a pretty good example of a similar situation to Grex and
M-Net; two related, failing organizations who combined and extended
their life as one company.
|
ball
|
|
response 50 of 71:
|
Jan 12 15:05 UTC 2013 |
jep: If you are elected to the board only to find that our
membership rejects the idea of a merger, will you serve out
your term on the board respecting the members' wishes in
this and other matters?
|