response 51 of 281:

Oct 24 05:14 UTC 1995

In fact, I think in many states, convicted felons never get to vote again.
 I don't know for sure, but I would imagine that there are probably forms of
tax evasion that are felonies.

response 53 of 281:

Oct 24 22:26 UTC 1995

Well said. Item 115 about tax exemption should be read together with
this item. The bylaws and Articles of Incorporation, bear directly
on your chances to get IRS approval. Aaron points out several important
points about the tax question in 115. <grabbing rickyb's soapbox for a
minute> One thing I feel very strongly: Kerouac is doing a good thing
by raising the question he does. I have grown to feel very good things
about Grex, but a system that does not allow dissent, stonewalls answers to
questions from new voices, and thinks that it can't be improved to meet
changing needs is doomed to extinction. Fortunately (did I spell that
correctly?) Grex, thanks to the quality of the board and staff, and thanks
to the culture of "dissent with honor" here, is resilent enough to survive
and prosper, I believe. Dissent is not a threat. How we deal with the
dissent is the question. <soapbox returned to rightful owner, rickyb>

response 55 of 281:

Oct 25 00:50 UTC 1995

(apologies for the length....)
   RRO isn't needed for a corporation, period.

   It's really bullshit for a set of people who can't stand each
other, such that they won't wind up shooting each other.

   No smiley here.  I'd dead serious.  Ricky, an organization
*can* use them, but they don't have to.  Cyberspace Communications
Inc hasn't used them ever.  Oh, we make motions at board meetings,
second things, vote on things.  At the top most level we probably
conform to most of RRO.

   But we don't let it guide our lives.

   We don't have to.

   I've endured organizations, where time and time and time again
the board meetings were run with a legal exactness, where form was
more important than function.

   You know what?  Without exception, these groups, clubs and
societies wound up with so much politicial *CRAP* that it wasn't
fun to be in the organization anymore.

   Many people left them, and the groups "selected" for the type
of people who LIKE that kind of thing.  I have discovered, much to
my dismay, that there are people who "like making government".
Over time you'll see things like

        4.01 (a) [modified on x.y.zzz]  (text text text text)

   Usually lots of text.  And exacting, legally correct dry text
that gives rise to endless interrpretation, and more rounds of
"fixing" the bylaws over and over again with no real end possible,
because when one faction in the group gets something modified the
way they like it, another one comes along and starts working on
something else.

   It doesn't have to be that way.  Don't get me wrong: I'm not
a anarchist.  Complete loss of control is about as bad as the
other side of the spectrum, but different.  Both are extremely
bad if you want to try to do useful things.

   There does need to be a structure, something to base
everything else on.  Something that provides a framework that
doesn't rear up and nip you in the ass every time you turn
around when you try to do things.

   Back in the days of 1990 - 1991, the people who came to be
known as the "Grex founders" met each week, trying to get
the things needed to build another conferencing system in
town.  We'd seen several models of how to run systems based
on one central person, and saw that that system didn't work
in the long run becuase it destroyed the person attempting
to manage everything.  We wanted to make a system where by
many people worked together for a common goal, namely the
introduction of another conferencing system in Ann Arbor.

   The group of twelve people that did this had lots of
differing ideas about how to do this.  Make no mistake, it
wasn't a case of starry-eyed idealists agreeing on everything
with harps playing in the background.  Far from it.  But
there wasn't much yelling, or people getting so upset with
things that they'd leave a meeting, although both those
things happened a few times.  As a group we talked about
things and came up using something of the model of consensus
building for the things we wanted to accomplish.

   As it turns out, a year and a half later while I was at
the U of M I took a week long course in something called
"Total Quality Management".  This is the system developed
by the late Edwards Demming, used widely in Japan and other
places and nearly totally ignored by America until the early
1980's.

   Essentially, TQM is a way to do things with a bunch of
people.  It was presented to us in this class as a way to
run and manage a business, but it's really a lot more
versatile than that.  It a way to apply the scientific method
towards non-scientific undertakings.  It was undoubtedly
one of the most interesting things I've ever heard or
learned about.  What I thought might be so-so waste of a
weeks time turned out to be the same ideas that the founders
used when creating Grex.

   We might want to start an item about TQM and Demming
someplace more appropriate than this conference; but let
me say that we used a model of dealing and attempting to
understand what each other was saying *that was just about
the opposite of RRO*.

   It worked.  It's been working for four years now.

   And if people don't muck with things it can last forever.
But we have to resist the urge to "improve" things.  Yes,
there are things that need to be changed every once in a
while.  The concept of allowing whatever number of members
who voted to be allowable (instead of a fixed percentage)
was something that we found that needed fixing.  But in
the four years here that is the only change that we've
done, or needed to in my estimation.

   Please let's not become proceduralistic here.
 

response 57 of 281:

Oct 25 07:02 UTC 1995

I am a board member who does not agree with Steve about RRO. RRO ensures
fairness. The way we conduct our meetings today does not. I am not the
only board member who feels this way, either. RRO hits an irrational
fear among the Grex founders, which I have never understood.

STeve expressed that fear. It is that fear which keeps RRO out of all
Grex activities.

Nevertheless, I will not press it. I am not saying that our meetings are
actually unfair, only that we are relying on the fairness of the 
individuals involved to keep them fair. I doubt the wisdom.

You definitely hit a raw nerve on Grex, RickyB, but you aren't the first.

response 59 of 281:

Oct 25 10:59 UTC 1995

The annual board elections provide a corrective to bad boards.

response 61 of 281:

Oct 25 12:23 UTC 1995

STeve, you really must check out the Bizzarro cartoon in yesterday's
Free Press.  You'd like it.

I'm already looking forward to the next renegade system to spin
of off the M-net/Grex concept.  As this one does a gentle slide
into ordinary.

response 63 of 281:

Oct 25 15:56 UTC 1995

   Thanks Mary, I'll have to find it.  What paper is it in?

   I hope the time isn't now for another split.  I've been
having so much fun with this split...

   Lastly, Steve, I understand the concern about using RRO
to help ensure fairness.  But I can state that RRO can be
used just as effectively to deny people the right to speak
in meetings, as I've seen it happen.

   Does anyone think that the Cyberspace board meetings
have been unfair to people at times?  If people do, then
we definately need to work on that.

response 65 of 281:

Oct 25 18:17 UTC 1995

        Alright, way back there, I said that there is nothing to keep
non-members from nominating. There is something to keep them
from voting, and that is fine.

response 67 of 281:

Oct 25 22:58 UTC 1995

  Would anyone have any objection to amending article 3  so that it
says "all  users of grex may make a motion"?  as oo
as opposed to all members.  Therefore is already considerable
question as to the wording as it is, and though I understand why
non-members cant vote, I have heard very little defense of this clause
other than it exsists.  Since any user can discuss any proposal, I dont see
why any user should not be allowed to make one.

response 69 of 281:

Oct 26 05:21 UTC 1995

Kerouac, in #67 you state:
   'Would anyone have any objection to amending article 3  so that it
    says "all  users of grex may make a motion"?  as opposed to all members.'

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether anybody has any objection
or not. The board can't just unilatterally change the wording of the bylaws
whenever it, or somebody else, feels the wording isn't right. There is
a prescribed process for changing them:
1.) Someone who is a member has to make a motion describing the proposed
    change,
2.) the motion is discussed,
3.) and then the members vote on it.

I realize that you are attempting to clarify what "members" means, and it
seems like a catch-22 to you. You want to clarify "members", but you have to
be a "member" before you can make a motion to clarify "members". :-)

Actually, it's not. One of the functions of the board is to *interpret* the
bylaws. The board has already voiced it's opinion on that interpretation.

response 71 of 281:

Oct 26 19:32 UTC 1995

Been there.  Done that.  

But I am looking forward to any new systems started as yet
another off-shoot of M-net or Grex.  The most critical 
thing Grex needs right now, after enough funds to pay
monthly bills, is dynamic competition.  

response 73 of 281:

Oct 26 21:36 UTC 1995

   Heh.  I think Grex has enough dynamic competition on the net...