|
Grex > Coop12 > #49: Nominations for the Board of Directors | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 332 responses total. |
eeyore
|
|
response 279 of 332:
| 
Dec 20 08:36 UTC 2001 |
The problem isn't that nobody was elected, it's that too many people we
elected to fill the position.
Personally, I'd prefer the voteoff. And Jan is right....if we go a few days
into next year, what difference is it really going to make? So the full 15
days would still really not be an issue, although I'd have no problems with
a shorter time span.
THe thing with the coin toss is that if we did go that route, I'd rather see
both Greg & Sylvia there, along with a couple of people not involved, just
to keep everything kosher. I know that the people that we are talking about
are all trustworthy and all, but it's easier if it's all clean from the
beginning. That's also why I prefer the voting method....it's easier to run
the software than to get the two of them plus whomever else in the same place
at the same time!
|
richard
|
|
response 280 of 332:
|
Dec 20 14:26 UTC 2001 |
The bylaws state that the Board must consist of "seven individual members"
of Grex. It doesnt state, not anywhere, that it must be the same seven at
every single meeting. There is no bylaw restriction which says Flem and
Bhell can't share the seat as I suggested previously. As neither one of
them lost, this seems the fairest thing. Why MUST there be a choice
made to exclude one of them
|
jep
|
|
response 281 of 332:
|
Dec 20 14:30 UTC 2001 |
I do see it as compelling to make a decision about how to proceed, and
then to get on with selecting the 7th Board member. Grex is not a
competitive environment, there's not a lot of prestige or esteem (and
no money) at stake, but I'd still think it would be at least a little
stressful for the candidates not to know if they've been elected. I
also think it will be beneficial for the members, users and the rest of
the Board to know who is on the Board.
If there's going to be another election, then I think it should begin
as soon as possible. If there's going to be a coin toss or paper-slip
drawing, the date and procedure should be set soon.
I don't think it's a difficult decision, about how to proceed. There's
no really bad choice being considered. This isn't something that
requires much more discussion or deliberation. I'd suggest it doesn't
even merit a special meeting, if the by-laws permit an alternative.
Grex just needs to have a way to break a tie, and then it needs to use
that method. This is not a big deal.
|
richard
|
|
response 282 of 332:
|
Dec 20 15:01 UTC 2001 |
Or another way of saying it could be that one of them gets to be
a regular board member, and the other one gets to be "first alternate".
The "first alternate" would get to act as an official board member at any
meeting where this person is present and a regular member is absent. If
there have ben problems in the past making quota, this arrangement could
have helped solve that.
|
gull
|
|
response 283 of 332:
|
Dec 20 17:13 UTC 2001 |
I think it's bending the language of the bylaws quite a bit to suggest that
having 8 board members instead of 7 is okay as long as they don't all show
up at once.
|
richard
|
|
response 284 of 332:
|
Dec 20 18:11 UTC 2001 |
the bylaws were left deliberately vague to be open to interpretation.
both flem and bhell got enough votes to qualify for the fourth open
board position. the bylaws dont *specifically* say they cant both
serve in that spot if they come to a mutual arrangement. and as long
as the bylaws arent the issue, what other problem would there be with it?
I cant believe that solution is so much more objectionable than forcing
one of them to be declared the loser.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 285 of 332:
|
Dec 20 18:48 UTC 2001 |
As near as I can tell, exactly one person is in favor of having eight board
members, while everyone is in favor of having only seven.
The majority wins, Richard. Drop it.
|
keesan
|
|
response 286 of 332:
|
Dec 20 18:58 UTC 2001 |
It was a clever and original suggestion, though. The loser could still always
come to board meetings and participate without voting, if they felt like it.
I don't think either candidate is likely to feel bad about losing, if that
is something Richard is concerned about.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 287 of 332:
|
Dec 20 19:08 UTC 2001 |
I think that the Klingon "right of succession" traditional practice of
the "jaw-chook" should be used, where each candidate states why he/she
is qualified, the battles he/she have one, etc. :-)
|
richard
|
|
response 288 of 332:
|
Dec 20 19:20 UTC 2001 |
The bylaws can even be amended to allow for the election going forward
of the additional "at large" board member, who wouldnt be a regular voting
member but who would have voting priviledges at any meeting where a
regular member doesnt show up. The loser of the coin toss can be the
first "at large" board member, and two years from now and going forward you
have that extra seat filled by election.
This isnt congress or some large corporate board. This is Grex, and there
are two candidates both of whose service on the board would be a benefit.
Why not take advantage of this tie and do something right for a change.
There is no need to force a choice here.
,
/.
|
remmers
|
|
response 289 of 332:
|
Dec 20 21:49 UTC 2001 |
I'm curious what resolution bhelliom and flem would prefer.
|
carson
|
|
response 290 of 332:
|
Dec 20 22:05 UTC 2001 |
Welcome to the club, John. It seems to be rather exclusive, although not
by design.
|
gull
|
|
response 291 of 332:
|
Dec 20 22:17 UTC 2001 |
Re #288:
"...do something right for a change?"
Richard's true feelings about how Grex is run come out, I guess.
|
mdw
|
|
response 292 of 332:
|
Dec 21 01:33 UTC 2001 |
Someone(s?) above asked for my opinion on this. Anything's fine by me
that's fine by flem & bhelliom. If they would prefer to resolve it by a
klingon head-butting ritual, I'll rely on their native good sense not to
cause any permament brain damage.
|
wh
|
|
response 293 of 332:
|
Dec 21 02:25 UTC 2001 |
If people think the board is authorized to decide on a coin toss
vs. runoff election, they can certainly authorize an election ending after
December 31. I would favor a runoff election starting January 1
and going for 10 or 15 days. A coin toss would be acceptable if most
members prefer that. I hope the board will decide soon for the
candidates' sake.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 294 of 332:
|
Dec 21 02:52 UTC 2001 |
(When I checked last night, it didn't look like either had been by in a week,
which probably explains their silence on the matter.)
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 295 of 332:
|
Dec 21 14:35 UTC 2001 |
Wow . . that's strange . . . I could have sworn I'd posted another
response, I certainly wrote long enough . . . or was I silly enough to
post it in the wrong place . . . which would be wild. <Will repost
opinion shortly>
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 296 of 332:
|
Dec 21 14:43 UTC 2001 |
Response is actually in the run-off election posting. And, actually,
the last time I responded before yesterday was Monday; certainly less
than a week.
|
davel
|
|
response 297 of 332:
|
Dec 21 15:21 UTC 2001 |
Actually, I think I'm coming to prefer a duel-to-the-death mechanism, so long
as the candidates themselves don't duel, but are represented by the two
individuals guilty of contributing the largest amount of text to this
discussion. (You can measure that by word count, page count, byte count, or
whatever.)
|
jp2
|
|
response 298 of 332:
|
Dec 21 15:37 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 299 of 332:
|
Dec 21 16:38 UTC 2001 |
OH, c'mon . . . at least let us duel with pistols at dawn! I'd suggest
sword-fighting, but I think I'll stay away from that for the same
reason I declined to arm-wrestle for the seat. That, and the fact that
Greg just happens to spend quality time learning how to sword
fight . . . odds would certainly not be in my favor :)
|
gull
|
|
response 300 of 332:
|
Dec 21 17:14 UTC 2001 |
Core Wars at 1 am would be more appropriately geeky.
|
richard
|
|
response 301 of 332:
|
Dec 21 20:47 UTC 2001 |
actually maybe the fair thing to do would be for both flem and bhell
to withdraw. then it would go to the next highest vote getter. which
would be kaplan and then gelinas. but they both said they conceded and
would decline to be in a runoff. which means it would fall to the next
highest vote getter, which would be...
....jp2 with two votes! maybe its all part of his master plan[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D
|
flem
|
|
response 302 of 332:
|
Dec 21 20:55 UTC 2001 |
I'm surprised it took that long for someone to suggest a duel to the
death. :) Other quality options that have yet to be mentioned include:
- russian roulette.
- Cream pie fight
- drinking contest
- trial by torture
- Quake deathmatch
Personally, I prefer the cream pie fight, but am willing to settle for
either a runoff vote (slightly preferred) or a coin toss.
|
richard
|
|
response 303 of 332:
|
Dec 21 21:17 UTC 2001 |
at the board meeting in january, somebody bring their Twister game. while
the meeting is going on, bhell and flem can be in the back playing twister.
and whoever loses is out!
|