|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 299 responses total. |
mynxcat
|
|
response 57 of 299:
| 
Aug 26 20:09 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 58 of 299:
|
Aug 26 20:19 UTC 2002 |
I *do* agree that something should be in place before this happens,
instead of crossing bridge when the BOD comes to it, as there are
several issues that, ideally, should be addresse. This would likely
cause serious churn if the issue isn't resolved until an "out-of-
towner" gets elected. Look how long it takes to get quarum every month.
|
md
|
|
response 59 of 299:
|
Aug 26 20:31 UTC 2002 |
57: I was thinking the same thing. What's the point of even allowing
an out-of-towner to run if you don't even know whether he or she will
be allowed to teleconference in? The decision has to be made first.
If you think it's a good idea that someone 500 miles away should run
for BoD, then you should think teleconferencing is a good idea, too.
Personally, I think it's a very good sign that people from out of the
area want to get involved.
Fwiw, you can pick up one of those conference call thingies that you
set in the middle of the table very cheap at Office Max.
|
other
|
|
response 60 of 299:
|
Aug 26 20:36 UTC 2002 |
The factors which weigh on the decision are primarily the current state
of technology which would allow a nonlocal board member to have a
functional presence at a meeting, and the cost of implementation. Since
these factors are impossible to determine in advance, any effort to
decide a course of implementation in advance is a waste of time, in my
considered opinion.
I do not believe there is significant opposition, in principle, to the
election of nonlocal board members, all other things being equal. So,
the process of dealing with such a situation would not be ideological,
but practical. Which technology to employ, and how to handle the cost,
not whether to do something. I do not believe there is any reasonable
basis for fears that an elected board member would be left out in the
cold because of either action or inaction on the part of either the rest
of the board or of the membership.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 61 of 299:
|
Aug 26 20:43 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
polygon
|
|
response 62 of 299:
|
Aug 26 21:28 UTC 2002 |
Speaker phones and phone calls are cheap. I don't think cost is an issue.
I used to be a member of the Arbornet (M-Net) board. One of the things we
noticed was that online interaction among the board members had all the
pitfalls of, well, online interaction. Face-to-face meetings brought out
the best in people, and disputes which seemed intractable online were
worked out easily in person. Thus, I would be opposed to using "party" or
similar text mode for board meetings. I suppose that voice conferencing
is better, even if not quite as good as face-to-face.
Grex's community is far more geographically dispersed than ever before,
and it makes sense that its leadership (at least the board) reflect that.
|
other
|
|
response 63 of 299:
|
Aug 26 21:54 UTC 2002 |
If you wish me to keep repeating myself, reread my previous posts and
pretend I reentered them.
|
jp2
|
|
response 64 of 299:
|
Aug 26 22:49 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 65 of 299:
|
Aug 27 00:26 UTC 2002 |
What of the things I said are you claiming is wrong? And if it is wrong,
what then is right?
|
mary
|
|
response 66 of 299:
|
Aug 27 00:28 UTC 2002 |
Could a conference call thingie work for multiple board members
participating at the same time? Would these same remote board
members be able to carry out the duties of president, secretary and
treasurer? And how expensive would it be to have a multiple remote
site conference call for 2 hours?
The concept is interesting but I'd really like to see the details
of how it would come together, be fair to all, and affordable.
|
jp2
|
|
response 67 of 299:
|
Aug 27 00:44 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 68 of 299:
|
Aug 27 00:48 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 69 of 299:
|
Aug 27 00:51 UTC 2002 |
So the connection should be good enough for the secretary to take
accurate minutes. I've never been part of a conference call but
it must be better than what you'd get out of a standard speaker
phone and certainly a cell phone.
The President makes arrangements for reserving the room we
meet in, signing documents, and following up with contacts both
local and remote. The president also draws up the agenda, posts
it online, and keeps the meetings as on topic as possible.
After watching how difficult this last bit is I really wonder
if someone on the end of a telephone line could handle that one.
The treasurer's job would be difficult unless they could make it
to town for the mail and banking.
But I so like the idea of opening up the board to more candidates
that I'd love to have someone show me this could all work, well.
|
jp2
|
|
response 70 of 299:
|
Aug 27 00:52 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 71 of 299:
|
Aug 27 00:55 UTC 2002 |
Propose it be changed.
|
jp2
|
|
response 72 of 299:
|
Aug 27 01:02 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 73 of 299:
|
Aug 27 01:03 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
md
|
|
response 74 of 299:
|
Aug 27 02:22 UTC 2002 |
Nobody's "afraid" of electing you, Jamie. Bravery isn't the quality
that comes to mind when I try to imagine what it would take to make
anyone vote for you. The reason nobody voted for you is that you're,
you know, *you*.
I don't think it's fear of change, either, or any kind of fear. They
don't know how, is all. Nobody here's ever done a teleconference, I
guess, at least ever *managed* one, so they don't know how. That is
perfectly obvious from all the comments I've read. There is fear here,
but it seems to be coming from you. Why is that?
|
mdw
|
|
response 75 of 299:
|
Aug 27 03:19 UTC 2002 |
The members who are voting for members of the board are (we hope) voting
for the people who will best serve the needs of grex. This is not a
popularity contest, and it shouldn't be a matter of anyone's ego. It
doesn't hurt to be well known, but this is only because there's no other
way other people who know who would be best suited for the job. It's
definitely not sufficient to be well known, although I don't think
anyone has any objective measure of what is required past that. I can't
speak for anyone else, but when I vote for a board member, I'm certainly
looking for people who are capable of working well with others,
non-confrontational, effective at solving problems, and who are familiar
with grex and sympathetic with its aims and culture. I believe other
people must have something of the same theory, judging by past election
results.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 76 of 299:
|
Aug 27 04:52 UTC 2002 |
Re #35: The Michigan Nonprofit Corporation Act is all of 89 pages (in
the copy I have), and it is also on the web. You can read that after
dinner. I will admit, however, that the plot is lousy, not to mention
the characters.
|
other
|
|
response 77 of 299:
|
Aug 27 05:08 UTC 2002 |
re #76: Please provide a link to the MNCA.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 78 of 299:
|
Aug 27 09:55 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 79 of 299:
|
Aug 27 10:50 UTC 2002 |
You guys are looking for controversy where non exists. Questions are
being raised that need to be answered. How much would it cost to buy the
needed equipment? What would a 2 hour conference call cost? Would we
need to rent meeting space to make a connection?
Or don't worry about the questions and instead just walk around
stamping your feet and complaining how the game is fixed.
|
md
|
|
response 80 of 299:
|
Aug 27 11:27 UTC 2002 |
78: I've never seen Jamie espouse a radical idea about Grex. E.g., the
censored log issue was a very old bandwagon when he decided to jump on
it. I guess what turned voters off is not his obnoxiousness but his
combination of stupidity and self-confidence. He's like a loveable
sitcom character, fun to watch but certainly not electable to
anything. *I* think he's so much fun that I would've voted for him
myself, but a) I'm not a paying member and b) there are limits to fun,
like not inflicting someone like Jamie on the Grex BoD. It's not a
John Hughes movie.
79: You know, in the volunteer organizations I've been involved with
there's always been the lawyer, the CPA, the experienced business
person, the detail-oriented organizer, the computer genius, the guy
with the pickup who's always happy to cart stuff places, the guy with
the big house where everyone can meet, the guy who brings the food, and
so on. (I use "guy" in the approved gender-neutral sense, of course.)
Are you saying that there is no one on the Grex board who can answer
your questions or who even knows where to get the answers?
|
gull
|
|
response 81 of 299:
|
Aug 27 13:32 UTC 2002 |
Re #57: I thought it had been established that an amendment wasn't
needed for a non-local member to be on the board?
Re #59: Ever used one of those for a meeting? I haven't used the
particular model they sell, but my experience is any cheap speakerphone
isn't worth the trouble. In my office I have a $300 Toshiba desktop
phone with a speakerphone function, and just the ambient noise from the
computers in here renders it useless. The slightest noise mutes the
speaker.
Re #79: Exactly. I think the costs should be worked out ahead of time,
because it could be an issue in whether people want to vote for a
non-local board member. If I knew it was going to cost Grex an extra $x
per month if I elected someone, I might have second thoughts about
voting for them. I also think the onus is on the people who are
suggesting this to work out realistically what the costs would be, and
not to just hand-wave and say they're trivial.
|
