response 35 of 43:

Feb 23 04:14 UTC 2013

resp:33 I am, Joe.  I read item 256, in which you revived the
discussion of dissolving the corporation, and item 338, in which
you suggest that those who login to Grex and not participate in the
conferences are not contributing.  You also said something along
the lines of shutting down Grex if the membership "barely" outnumbers
the number of board members.  (Something along the lines of, "We
know WHAT to do, even if we don't WANT to do it.")

I don't know if they want to vote.  I don't much care.  The grex
community shot itself in the foot on that over the popcorn incident,
when Jamie Howard and others kept proposing member votes to restore
the items that Valerie Mates deleted, and finally the Grex community
got tired of it and passed a resolution that any proposal had to
be endorsed by 10% of the user population before it could be brought
to a vote.  Now, no one cares enough to bother endorsing anything,
so essentially nothing can be brought to a vote.  Whoops.  But I
don't see any reason to go to the administrative burden of tracking
membership expiration and all the rest of it.  It's soooo much easier
to just declare that a person is a member forever after becoming a
member once.  It makes bookkeeping easier.

You want to know where to go to communicate with these folks?  I
don't know; it's TBD.  But it ain't the conferences.  It hasn't
been for years, and never ever will be again.

response 37 of 43:

Feb 23 23:43 UTC 2013

The current discussion in 256 is about how to accomplish the dissolution of the
Corporation.  If it must be done, how it should be done.

The discussion in 338 is about eligibility for a Directorship.

As for the conferences, I guess I really wasn't clear: the only conference of
interest is coop.  

If Proctor & Gambles' stockholders want to affect the governance of Proctor &
Gamble, they have to attend the stockholders' meeting.  Sure, the
stockholders can meet in bars and at one anothers homes.  They can write
letters to each other, to the Directors and Officers, and to newspapers like
the Wall Street Journal.  But when push comes to shove, they have to show up
at the stockholders' meeting.

coop is the stockholders' meeting of Cyberspace Communications.  If people
want to affect the governance of the Corporation, they have to participate in
coop.

If you don't know whether they care about the governance, why suggest making
them members?  What does granting a franchise they don't want and won't use
accomplish?

My memory of the change to bylaws on proposals does not match yours.  I
remember the approved proposal specifying ten percent of the membership, not
ten percent of the "user population."  In fact, Article 5, Section b, says,
in part, "In order for the motion to be voted on, at least 10% of the
eligible voting membership must endorse bringing the proposal to a vote."

Making the bookkeeping easier at the expense of actually being able to
accomplish anything is a misplaced priority.

I'm looking forward to seeing John's proposal.  'Twould be nice to have a way
to continue.

response 39 of 43:

Feb 24 00:15 UTC 2013

Only because the change would have to be approved in coop. :)

response 41 of 43:

Feb 24 05:00 UTC 2013

"They could change their minds and say, 'A mailing list is the 
stockholders' meeting of Cyberspace Communications.'  Why should that be 
a problem?"

Because then the whole membership would have to be indivudally informed 
of all CC business since they would be "at the meeting" when decisions 
are considered.

response 43 of 43:

Feb 24 16:38 UTC 2013

re resp:37: I dropped this proposal.