|
Grex > Coop8 > #76: Arbornet Board Invites Grex, HVCN Board Members to Meeting | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 229 responses total. |
ajax
|
|
response 50 of 229:
| 
Jun 20 15:52 UTC 1996 |
Rane, I think somehow Arbornet and M-Net merged in such a way that they
retained Arbornet's tax-exempt status (maybe it wasn't legally a "merger.")
Arbornet used to run an independent Unix system prior to that, I think.
|
robh
|
|
response 51 of 229:
|
Jun 20 16:07 UTC 1996 |
Yep, I actually had an account on Arbornet back before they
"merged" with M-Net. I preferred M-Net, which shows you how
very little I thought of Arbornet. >8)
|
gregc
|
|
response 52 of 229:
|
Jun 20 17:51 UTC 1996 |
Actually the way it worked was thus:
1.) Arbornet was an organization with tax exempt status.
2.) OAFS Inc. (Once And Future Systems) was an organization without tax
exempt status. OAFS owned the system called Mnet.
3.) The thing defined as "Mnet" was not an organization, it was a piece
of property.
4.) OAFS sold Mnet to Arbornet.
5.) I don't know what happened to OAFS after this. Maybe it dissolved,
or maybe it still exists on paper.
At least, that's howe I think it all happened, from what I've been able
to piece together from the information I've seen. Technically, there
was no merger involved.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 53 of 229:
|
Jun 20 21:23 UTC 1996 |
Arbornet could *buy* Cyberspace Communications Inc, or vica versa (thought
for the day... 8^{), but each would still retain their separate exemption
status.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 54 of 229:
|
Jun 21 00:45 UTC 1996 |
for how long?
|
srw
|
|
response 55 of 229:
|
Jun 21 01:57 UTC 1996 |
This is silly and has nothing to do with getting together. The people who run
Grex do not want to see M-Net fail at all. We *certainly* don't want to merge
the systems. This is a lot of bizarre speculation.
Some users seem to have manufactured a false air of competition between
the systems, but we don't see them as competitive at all.
I don't know yet what we would talk about, but possibly we could talk about
ways to cooperate to reduce our own costs. I see no harm in finding out.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 56 of 229:
|
Jun 21 12:05 UTC 1996 |
You forgot about the "slippery slope"! I don't know about "silly". It
is certainly bizzare.
|
remmers
|
|
response 57 of 229:
|
Jun 21 12:08 UTC 1996 |
Re #55: I see the two systems as competitive, and I see the
competition as healthy.
|
ajax
|
|
response 58 of 229:
|
Jun 21 15:33 UTC 1996 |
The systems do compete in some ways. The local market, from which both
systems derive most of their financial support, is only so large. Users
often switch systems, depending on which they find more attractive. At
the JCC sale, people coming from M-Net's table often ask at the Grex
table what the differences are, and which they should try. (I explain
the pros and cons of each system, as I see them). It's a friendly
competition; the boards certainly aren't plotting ways to steal market
share. But improvements are sometimes spurred by what the other system
has done, and successful ideas are often borrowed.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 59 of 229:
|
Jun 21 17:09 UTC 1996 |
There could be a psuedo-merger where the boards remain separate and the
computers remain separate, but exsist under the same organizational
umbrella. This would allow m-net and grex to remain different in how
they operate, but would allow both staffs to combine into one large staff
and for both groups to share space.
m-net and grex could share living space and staff and still be separate
entities, like morning and evening newspapers that share the same
building and the same presses but are editorially different.
|
robh
|
|
response 60 of 229:
|
Jun 21 18:06 UTC 1996 |
(Has anyone thought to ask the Grex staff whether they WANT
to be shared, kerouac? This one doesn't.)
|
ajax
|
|
response 61 of 229:
|
Jun 21 21:38 UTC 1996 |
(Grex staff is our decision-making body? ;-) (And this member doesn't
want a merger, either!!)
|
rickyb
|
|
response 62 of 229:
|
Jun 21 21:56 UTC 1996 |
I'm not endorsing a merger...but,
Arbornet is the parent corp, which is a 501c3. Mnet is a _project_, but could
be easily incorporated separately, and still be 'owned' by Arbornet. Grex
_could become_ another Arbornet 'property' and teachernet could be revived
as well. All the 'children' corporations would require their own structure,
autonomy, bylaws, directors, etc...but they could benefit from the 501c3
mission of the parent Arbornet (if anyone were interested in running Arbornet
as a charitable group with an educational/community service focus, instead
of trying to have it run a BBS). The 'children' of Arbornet could exist as
they currently are, and each could contribute some to the 501c3 mission which
the parent would pursue on its own...
... never mind ...
|
srw
|
|
response 63 of 229:
|
Jun 22 05:55 UTC 1996 |
The Grex staff does not want to be the arbornet staff. The Grex board does
not want to place grex under control of the arbornet board. So all this seems
silly to me still.
I would like to see Grex get 501(C)(3) status. I think it is warranted and
I know it'll help Grex raise money, but I certainly am not interested in
Arbornet's kind of 501(C)(3).
So I think speculating on how to combine the two systems is a waste of time.
It might be interesting to speculate how the two systems might cooperate.
I know that this area there is much disagreement among the Grex staff.
Some would resign from the staff before participating in cooperation with
M-Net, but I think if we shared rental space somewhere that the staff would
be nearly completely unaffected by the fact, and that could be the extent of
it.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 64 of 229:
|
Jun 22 12:57 UTC 1996 |
And the first month M-net doesn't pay its share of the rent?
Keep it simple. Keep the systems autonomous and separate.
Don't get into a position where Grex is attached to M-net's
policies, administration, or financial health or we'll loose
a whole lot more than gregc.
There must be better solutions out there we should be considering.
A number have already been suggested. Do we need a dedicated committee
to work through them all?
|
chelsea
|
|
response 65 of 229:
|
Jun 22 12:57 UTC 1996 |
s/lose/loose
|
dpc
|
|
response 66 of 229:
|
Jun 23 01:45 UTC 1996 |
I'm thinking of a "Meeting and Eating" at my place, probably at 4:00
or so some Sunday afternoon soon.
Please post preferred dates/ impossible dates here.
Mdw, we *do* have cats, and have no fixed smoking/no smoking
policy. But actually, I can't remember the last time we had a smoker
here. Food? If we had a potluck I'm sure vegetarian stuff would
appear.
Thanx for all the interest!
|
adbarr
|
|
response 67 of 229:
|
Jun 23 03:10 UTC 1996 |
Smokers can go outside. Cats - another problem, but not for me.
|
tsty
|
|
response 68 of 229:
|
Jun 23 07:38 UTC 1996 |
....dpc, not showing those movies anymore? awwwwwwwww ...
|
aaron
|
|
response 69 of 229:
|
Jun 23 13:35 UTC 1996 |
re #64: M-Net has about $9,000 cash. Grex can't afford to move. So whose
rent is the issue?
|
scott
|
|
response 70 of 229:
|
Jun 23 13:47 UTC 1996 |
The issue is what would affect Grex as far as co-location issues. If Grex
couldn't meet the rent, wouldn't matter if there was another tenant or not...
Grex would still be short. If M-Net is short on rent, then Grex has to figure
out what kind of response Grex must make- it's a more complicated situation
from Grex's perspective.
If this arguement was taking place on M-net, then the question would be "what
if Grex can't pay its rent?"
|
chelsea
|
|
response 71 of 229:
|
Jun 23 14:45 UTC 1996 |
Exactly. Along with being roomates we'd be intimately tied to
another systems policies and problems. And they'd be tied to
ours.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 72 of 229:
|
Jun 23 15:23 UTC 1996 |
Why is that inevitable? Maybe it is, but why? Other than some say
it is, and for them it is. But why? I see no reason why you could not
agree, in advance, that if the other system caught fire, you could
and would just ignore the flames and smoke. You would be perfectly
justified. End of story. Blame is avoided. Justice is served. Egos
are preserved.
|
remmers
|
|
response 73 of 229:
|
Jun 23 16:01 UTC 1996 |
Arnold, that's silly.
|
dpc
|
|
response 74 of 229:
|
Jun 23 17:12 UTC 1996 |
<Ahem>
I'd *really* like to have some responses on possible Sunday
4:00 "Meeting and Eating" dates, people.
|