|
Grex > Coop7 > #119: Nominations for the Cyberspace Board of Directors, Take 2 | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 89 responses total. |
remmers
|
|
response 50 of 89:
| 
Nov 12 08:26 UTC 1995 |
Re #48: The coop conference *is* an online meeting that, except
when the system is down, is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week, 52 weeks a year. In it, board members, grex members, and
non-members discuss issues with each other all the time. It's
not clear to me what an occasional online board meeting would
accomplish by way of getting people involved that coop doesn't
already accomplish.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 51 of 89:
|
Nov 12 20:29 UTC 1995 |
It would allow decisions to be made by the board with more users in
"attendance". I agree, however, that it would be very arduous, because
there would be a tendency for everyone to talk at once.
|
carson
|
|
response 52 of 89:
|
Nov 14 16:07 UTC 1995 |
Perhaps as supplementary rather than complementary meetings? Also,
don't rush into it. It's definitely food for thought further down
the road, after a host (heh) of technical issues resolve themselves.
|
remmers
|
|
response 53 of 89:
|
Nov 14 16:34 UTC 1995 |
Absolutely. I think that before we can move into this, better
low-cost tools are needed for holding online meetings. The ones
I can think of that are available now are too cumbersome.
|
remmers
|
|
response 54 of 89:
|
Nov 16 12:17 UTC 1995 |
November 15 having passed, nominations for the board are now closed.
The election begins December 1.
|
carson
|
|
response 55 of 89:
|
Nov 16 14:30 UTC 1995 |
Gotta wait for that newsletter vote to finish, eh? ;)
|
remmers
|
|
response 56 of 89:
|
Nov 16 15:54 UTC 1995 |
The bylaws specify that the board election starts December 1.
That's the reason for the timing.
|
davel
|
|
response 57 of 89:
|
Nov 16 16:40 UTC 1995 |
Wait, wait, I wanted to make a nomination ...
8-{)]
|
steve
|
|
response 58 of 89:
|
Nov 16 23:51 UTC 1995 |
I'm in favor of trying some form of electronic meeting out,
if we can figure out a seemingly reasonable way to do it, but
as John states, coop is alredy something like a continuous meeting for
Grex.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 59 of 89:
|
Nov 17 18:02 UTC 1995 |
I am curious, kerouac, what do you think would be accomplished by an online
board meeting that cannot be done in coop, if anything, except allow non-a2ers
to be board members? I.e., is that the only remaining reason for it that has
not been addressed already?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 60 of 89:
|
Nov 17 18:45 UTC 1995 |
Any member may be a board member, wherever they live.
|
remmers
|
|
response 61 of 89:
|
Nov 17 19:57 UTC 1995 |
Technically true, but the requirement to attend face-to-face
meetings makes it kind of impractical for most people who don't
live within a certain radius of Ann Arbor. I can see it as
feasible for someone who lives, say, in Grand Rapids or Gaylord,
if they can make a once-a-month trip to Ann Arbor. But if you're
in California, it's hard to do that unless you're a wealthy
eccentric.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 62 of 89:
|
Nov 17 23:18 UTC 1995 |
I have to disagree. I know a number of non-profit organizations that
are run entirely by volunteers, many of whom are *not* wealthy, and
those that serve on the board make it to board meetings across the
country *by hook or by crook*, stay at others' homes (and have a great
time). It is no different than the travel that a number of grexers
are undertaking to go to events in or away from Ann Arbo. If you believe
in it strongly, you do it. It helps if there are not monthly board
meetings. Even the bimonthly meetings called for in the Grex bylaws
are a little too frequent. For a number of reasons, including borader
participation, it would be useful for Grex to evolve to, say, thirdly
board meetings, by giving more responsibilies and authority to staff.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 63 of 89:
|
Nov 18 00:29 UTC 1995 |
Or, you might have an Executive Committee to act on behalf of the Board
on issues not requiring full board attendance in person, such as expenditure
authorization. Email among Board members would serve to authorize actions
of the EC, if needed.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 64 of 89:
|
Nov 18 06:14 UTC 1995 |
Creating an executive committee that need not be board members would
also be an option. I was thinking that if the board met only thirdly,
there would have to be more structure to staff, so it is specified who
is in charge, of what, and how decisions are made. An executive committee
is a logical part of such a structure.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 65 of 89:
|
Nov 18 14:06 UTC 1995 |
The original model was to have Grex run by the members. The
Board was to offer guidance, handle matters where there was a
clear mandate from the members on how things should go, and
see to the boring mechanical issues. Except for issues regarding
system security all business was to be done in view of the users,
allowing for their input.
We seem to be moving away from this concept even though it was
working quite well. Progress?
|
adbarr
|
|
response 66 of 89:
|
Nov 18 15:25 UTC 1995 |
I don't know whether this is progress or not. Is it possible that conditions
have changed somehow, and people are trying to adjust? Outside of Grex, I
hear, there has ben an incredible explosion in the use of telecomputing. Could
this have anything to do with the changes you see? I am not being sarcastic,
just curious about the effects on Grex, and the lessons for HVCN. You know
this history better than almost anyone. Please share.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 67 of 89:
|
Nov 19 00:32 UTC 1995 |
re #65...thats what Ive been trying to point out. I think there
are people here who would much rather that almost anything of
significance be handled offline, because offline and in-person board
meetings mean for all practical purposes "locally handled" The
nonlocal users of this board are in a minority but increasingly we
are coming from outside of Michigan and in some cases from outside of
the United States. Grex is not a local board anymore,
but there are clearly some who want to remain operationally and
"in spirit" local.
Among those I would say probably have that view, are those who
have been against grex having a party conf. The party conf is crucial
for those of us who cant voice our concerns in person. It is the only
way those of us who live out of the area can participate in "live time"
I've seen the past coop items debating the merits of party and I know
some board members and officers are skeptical of its value. I suspect
that they are against party because it has always had the potential of
being used to conduct more business online. They know full well that
without party you'd have far fewer nonlocal users, and there would be far less
of a risk to the original "local" concept of grex.
Most users of grex in A2 have and would get to meet each other in person if
they chose to be involved. The party conf gives those of us outside the
area the closest thing we can have to face to face meetings. I dont
see why it is dangerous if grex's offline community and its on-line
community arent essentially the same. Maybe it is because some believe
you shouldnt be doing business with someone you cant look in the eye.
I suspect that this is a problem in online communities all over the place.
The question then is whether you can trust people you havent met in person,
whether a group's business should be conducted among people many of whom
have never met. Thats an interesting question.....
|
robh
|
|
response 68 of 89:
|
Nov 19 04:10 UTC 1995 |
kerouac, I say this as someone who loves the party program,
and thinks it would be an interesting idea to have a meeting
or a candidates' debate in party. I *really* think you're
reading too much into this. Those folks who don't want to
have an on-line meeting probably don't want it because they
don't *like* chatting in real-time, or they think it would
be awkward. Let's face it, things are a lot less likely to
get misinterpreted in a real-life meeting, and it's a lot
easier to keep track of who's saying what. (I know plenty of
folks who won't do party just because they can't follow
what's going on when everyone talks at once. Imagine trying
to follow the threads in a live board meeting!)
And I have yet to see any evidence that any staffer or
board member is deliberately trying to make it harder for
non-local people to participate, just because they're
non-local. And I've met everyone on the board and staff.
Funny, isn't it? I'm the one who placed only 5 percentage
points short of clinical paranoia on the MMPI test, and I'm
debunking these conspiracy theories...
|
danr
|
|
response 69 of 89:
|
Nov 19 16:01 UTC 1995 |
I don't really think we're moving away from the "member-run" model.
All substantive issues are still brought here to coop and discussed
here. The bulk of the business of any organization are boring
mechanical issues, so by sheer number the board ends up handling the
majority of issues.
What is true is that only a very small percentage of users and members
participate in the coop conference. So from that perspective, I guess
we are moving away from being a memeber-run organization. As Yogi Berra
once said, "If people don't want to come out to the ballpark, there's
nothing you can do to stop 'em."
|
rcurl
|
|
response 70 of 89:
|
Nov 19 18:15 UTC 1995 |
One can take two perspectives: one is that grex is and has always been
"run by the members". The other is that grex has never been run by the
members. The former is true, because the members elect the board and have
referendum power, and can make any change they want in how the system is
run. The latter is true because the system has always been *run* by a
small group with root. You can make arguments across the whole space
between the extreme perspectives.
The fact is - grex is run under state law for non-profit corporations,
with a board elected by members, with all business conducted openly and
subject to member review, and with members having referendum authority
within that framework.
What they members do with this is up to them (as Yogi said...).
|
popcorn
|
|
response 71 of 89:
|
Nov 19 23:43 UTC 1995 |
Actually, before Grex *had* a board there wasn't anybody *but* members to run
the place.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 72 of 89:
|
Nov 20 06:30 UTC 1995 |
Please explain. Are you referring to a pre- Cyberspace Communications Inc
Grex? I didn't know it existed prior to the corporation.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 73 of 89:
|
Nov 20 11:41 UTC 1995 |
The corporation existed before Grex opened to the public. The bylaws
weren't written until well after Grex was open. The first board was
seated about 6 months after Grex opened.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 74 of 89:
|
Nov 20 15:38 UTC 1995 |
Interesting. However before Grex had a board it had the Incorporators,
and state law provides that (a majority of) Incorporators will select a board
and may adopt bylaws. So one can say that, before the board, Grex was
"run" by the Incorporators. In fact, since Grex could not have members
until it had bylaws specifying that it could have members, the
Incorporators constituted, in effect, 100% of the "members". Still, very
interesting.....
|