|
Grex > Coop > #335: The jep agenda: Board election 2013 | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 71 responses total. |
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?
|
jep
|
|
response 51 of 71:
|
Jan 12 18:53 UTC 2013 |
re resp:50: That is a question I had to consider before I said I would
run. Yes, i will serve my full term on the Board even if I can't
convince Grexers to pursue a merger.
I intend to pursue the merger idea because I think it will be a benefit.
I can be pretty vigorous about such things. I'll do my best on that.
I haven't thought of any other initiatives to propose, yet, but I will
surely try if that is needed.
Even aside from bold new directions, there is work to be done and I can
help with that. I am strongly bound to the idea of Grex/M-Net style
local community conferencing. M-Net is what brought me into the Ann
Arbor area. It and Grex have been a big chunk of my life. Grex isn't
my #1 priority but it isn't something I want to see go away, either.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 52 of 71:
|
Jan 13 04:32 UTC 2013 |
Re #s 48 & 49: the cited cases are mostly not mergers. They are purchases.
In fact, a lot still keep their identify, although owned by the other. The
purpose in all cases was to make more money. That doesn't apply here, and in
fact the law is very different for profit making businesses and non-profits.
This is not to say that different corporate arrangements are impossible, just
that it is necessary to define exactly what is proposed, before anyone can
vote on doing it.
|
kentn
|
|
response 53 of 71:
|
Jan 14 02:34 UTC 2013 |
Okay, jep, please provide more detail about this so-called "merger" by
dissolving Grex. I just don't see it as working the way you think it
will. You've provided little to nothing to back up your side of it, and
included some misrepresentations, such as there are only 2 staff members
doing anything on Grex, which I find insulting. Or about Grex not being
self-sustaining, when it is. You just don't provide any evidence for
these sort of statements. As a result I don't think you have a good
grasp on the outcome of what you are proposing, unless you came here to
benefit Arbornet and destroy Grex or have a flawed understanding of how
Grex works. So far, about all you are doing is helping make sure we
won't get the support we need, which I don't find helpful at all. It's
very easy to destroy things. The more courageous course would be to make
things better.
|
jep
|
|
response 54 of 71:
|
Jan 14 02:52 UTC 2013 |
I am not running for Grex merging with M-Net. I am running for a seat
on the Board of Directors with the intention of causing that to happen,
which is somewhat different. I haven't run all the changes through a
lawyer, or even written them down. Everything I've done has been to
write about it in this item.
There is much to do, before the merger happens. I will have to convince
the Grex Board. (If I am elected, I will regard this as partly
accomplished.) I will have to convince M-Net. There will be
negotiations. I have mentioned that before. They haven't happened yet.
THEN it will be time to write up the specifics, when we all have a
sense what we want from a merger, and want to make sure everyone gets
what it is they think they agreed to.
A vote for me is the same as a vote for a merger. You'd be nuts to vote
for me if that is not what you want and expect. You might think, "jep's
a great guy and has a lot of energy; I want that for Grex and am willing
to go through a merger for that purpose". You might think, "A merger is
a magnificent idea! We should do it. Jep sucks but it seems the only
way to get a merger." Don't think, "jep's a great guy (or would be
great on the Board, or is better than TS) and is just blowing smoke with
all this merger BS". I am serious about it. I am also very serious
that I don't want anyone saying, "I never would have voted for him if I
knew he'd do THAT."
I'm going to vote for me. I want a merger.
|
jep
|
|
response 55 of 71:
|
Jan 14 03:27 UTC 2013 |
re resp:53:
kentn: Okay, jep, please provide more detail about this so-called merger
by dissolving Grex. I just don't see it as working the way you think it
will.
jep: Honestly I don't want to dissolve Grex. I want Grex to survive. I
want to dissolve Cyberspace Communications, and have Grex be part of
M-Net's conferencing system (or have M-Net be part of Grex's, but I
envisioned it as happening on M-Net). It could be done by merging the
two groups, or by dissolving one and having it's active conferences
become part of the other. I don't see the technical part of migrating
conferences as being much of a challenge.
The legal part may be difficult or it may not. If Cyberspace dissolves,
it can give it's assets to any charity chosen by the Board of Directors.
Arbornet is one option, but others have been mentioned. Arbornet
doesn't need anything, as has been pointed out. If they're to be given
to another organization, I'd want it to be something noncontroversial.
I'd rather have them go to the Red Cross than the NRA, Planned
Parenthood, Irish Republican Army, or something one-sidedly partisan.
If I am missing part of the point of your question, I am sorry, please
let me know what I missed.
kentn said: You've provided little to nothing to back up your side of
it, and included some misrepresentations, such as there are only 2 staff
members doing anything on Grex, which I find insulting.
I sincerely apologize for saying there are only two staff members. I
didn't intend to slight anyone or insult anyone but was not aware of
what others do. I should have been aware of at least some of it.
kentn said: Or about Grex not being self-sustaining, when it is.
Kent, I have said Grex is in decline. I believe that to be true. The
number of users in the conferences has decreased. I don't believe that
to be controversial. There aren't new users -- who's the last new user
who posted on two different days? Also, the system itself has gone down
several times over the last couple of years, for multiple days at a
time, once for *months*. Those things are facts. I'll discuss them
further if you wish to dispute them. They're not very far off and you
know it. What's self-sustaining about Grex right now?
kentn said: You just don't provide any evidence for these sort of
statements. As a result I don't think you have a good grasp on the
outcome of what you are proposing, unless you came here to benefit
Arbornet and destroy Grex or have a flawed understanding of how Grex
works. So far, about all you are doing is helping make sure we won't
get the support we need, which I don't find helpful at all. It's very
easy to destroy things. The more courageous course would be to make
things better.
Well, I provided verifiable facts and cited why they are reasons for my
proposal. Challenge them if you will, I'll join that debate.
I have never had any interest in destroying Grex. Do you really think
that's something I want? I love the agora conference. The only other
active conference -- as far as I am aware -- is this one. I've been a
long time participant here, too, but won't claim it's always a lot of
fun. I've tried to contribute to it for all the time it's been around,
whenever I could.
What have I ever done to stop anyone from supporting Grex? At worst,
the "jep agenda" is a far-out, easily dismissed idea. It doesn't hurt
anyone or any thing. At best, it'll save Grex, and M-Net too, by adding
users to a combined base and bringing together user activity to an
increased and more sustainable level. Maybe that can actually grow,
gain some new users, and be more interesting. That's what I want.
I also said this: for years, you've been asking for ideas on how Grex
can change. Well, I've proposed a change. I sure wish you'd propose
something better, rather than attacking me, as a Republican; as someone
who wants to destroy Grex; as an evil force. It's possible I'll be a
force. If so, I'm an outside force; I've never been involved in running
Cyberspace Communications before, unlike anyone else who's ran for the
Board for many years. I am not evil. I don't want to destroy Grex.
|
kentn
|
|
response 56 of 71:
|
Jan 16 04:02 UTC 2013 |
I think dissolving Cyberspace Communications, Inc. will pretty much be
the end of Grex, for the reasons I've mentioned previously. Mergers
tend to result in reducing unneeded resources, including a "declining"
conferencing system. Something always gets lost in a merger and
especially when the "merger" is a dissolution of one organization.
As to hurting Grex, just talking about dissolving the corporation and
donating its assets gives people the idea we don't want to keep it
going. And that may quite possibly result in even less donations and
use.
When I ask for ideas it is about how to make Grex a better, more useful
place. Conferencing is not the be-all end-all of Grex. So pointing out
it is declining, while it may be true, is not helping.
Grex is used by all sorts of people, many of whom never do any
conferencing. We still get people asking for validation virtually every
day of the year. We still get donations. How long that will continue
if we seriously discuss ending it, I don't know. But right now, due to
our lower costs of operation, we are covering our costs more or less.
It's good that you don't want to destroy Grex. The question then is
what can we do to keep it going rather than shut it down? We have a
very long item full of ideas to pull from. I've tossed out some ideas
already, too. They will be incremental, of course, because that's how
Grex works. We've actually come a long way in the past several years.
We have more work to do.
|
mary
|
|
response 57 of 71:
|
Jan 17 16:04 UTC 2013 |
As of just now jep has not made mention, on M-Net, of his intention to
merge the two systems. Kind of odd, that. So I entered an item there
with John's candidate statement.
|
jep
|
|
response 58 of 71:
|
Jan 17 17:46 UTC 2013 |
Ye[, after saying you would let me bring it up there when I am ready. I
guess I shouldn't be surprised.
You didn't point at this item in your item on M-Net, strangely, so I will
do that.
|