|
Grex > Coop8 > #120: Regarding a breach of etiquette | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 138 responses total. |
ladyevil
|
|
response 75 of 138:
| 
Oct 12 20:47 UTC 1996 |
I like the title "Enchantress"..
hmm..
How much to buy it?
|
srw
|
|
response 76 of 138:
|
Oct 13 05:35 UTC 1996 |
As a snap answer, I'd say make an offer. Unless someone wanted it
more, I can't imagine why the board would want to turn you down.
The above is my opinion only, however.
"Official Grex Enchantress" has a nice ring to it.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 77 of 138:
|
Oct 13 05:57 UTC 1996 |
"What are we bid for 'Official Grex Enchantress'? Do I hear a hundred,
a hundred, a hundred, eighty...don't be bashful folks, this is a high
quality, one of a kind, not to be duplicated, first come first served,
moniker...let's hear that eighty, eighty, ....."
|
brighn
|
|
response 78 of 138:
|
Oct 13 06:02 UTC 1996 |
Can I be Enchantress, or would I havve to be an Enchanter? I'm confused by
this.
|
robh
|
|
response 79 of 138:
|
Oct 13 07:13 UTC 1996 |
If you really want to be an Enchantress, brighn, that's fine with me.
|
janc
|
|
response 80 of 138:
|
Oct 13 16:54 UTC 1996 |
I suggest we create a handsome web-page/text-file listing "benefactors" or
people who donated some amount of non-membership donation. Maybe, say,
donors over $100 get listed.
People could be listed any way they like, either simply by name, or as "Selena
Barwens, Official Grex Enchantress" or whatever. I would tend to prefer that
the board be allowed some discretion on approving titles. I'm not sure we'd
want to give out the title "Grex President," for example. I think we'd want
to preserve some space around titles too. If Selena were "Official Grex
Enchantress" then we should probably seek her OK before granting anyone the
title of "Official Grex Enchanter". But the idea would be that generally
speaking, people can have anything they want, so long as it doesn't tread on
actual Grex business positions or previously granted titles. If someone
wants to be "Official Grex Penis-Head" enough to pay for the privelege, it's
fine with me.
I'm not sure how long titles should last. Forever? A year for each $100?
A year for each $50?
Probably we wouldn't list the actual dollar amounts donated on the file/
web-page, though there would be a description of what people have to do to
get on the list and our gracious thanks for their invaluable support.
I'd probably put equipment donors on too, based on estimated value of what
they donated, and keep corporate donors in a separate section, maybe a
little more serious-looking. Probably donations to the auction would count,
but auction purchases probably don't (since presumably you are getting some-
thing for your money already).
|
davel
|
|
response 81 of 138:
|
Oct 13 21:26 UTC 1996 |
Of course, to *keep* that title from the hordes of other users who covet it,
you'd have to pay up again next year, right?
Wow.
|
dang
|
|
response 82 of 138:
|
Oct 14 01:05 UTC 1996 |
I like. How do we decide how much people pay? Is it an offer thing? What's
low? Do we auction? (Maybe we have to wait for the next auction for this?)
|
ladyevil
|
|
response 83 of 138:
|
Oct 14 03:37 UTC 1996 |
I hate auctions. I never joined the last one, so I'd rathere not see it there-
as I wouldn't see it!
|
scg
|
|
response 84 of 138:
|
Oct 14 03:54 UTC 1996 |
This is beginning to sound way too bureaucratic. Why don't we just let people
decide how much they want to donate. This is a voluntary donation, after all.
|
dang
|
|
response 85 of 138:
|
Oct 14 17:50 UTC 1996 |
Okay. Fine with me, as I'm not going to do it anyway. :) Member is good
enough for me.
|
ladyevil
|
|
response 86 of 138:
|
Oct 16 01:10 UTC 1996 |
Thank you, Steve.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 87 of 138:
|
Oct 17 16:20 UTC 1996 |
I think a benefeactor/special member status, or whatever you want to
call it, should be treated as a limited member. By that I mean that
theyshould be able to vote on any issue that doesnt directly involve
money changing hands. As long as such special status folks abstain
from any such issue, including moving issues, they should be able to
vote on other things like board elections and whether to habve
anonymous reads in backtalk .etc
This could be accomplished by amending hte bylaws such that
there is a level at which one is a member of "grex" and one in which
one is a member of "Cyberspace Inc." This way, if Selena or I wish
to be grex members but dont wish to be subject to cyberspace inc.
bylaws, we dont have to join Cyberspace Inc.
|
ajax
|
|
response 88 of 138:
|
Oct 17 16:47 UTC 1996 |
While most of that would work, I don't think a "Grex member"
would then be able to vote in "Cyberspace Communciations, Inc."
board elections. Other than that, I dislike the idea because
it would add a fair amount of confusion and complexity about
memberships and voting.
|
e4808mc
|
|
response 89 of 138:
|
Oct 17 17:37 UTC 1996 |
I'm very against two levels of membership. And I don't like the idea of some
members being able to vote on financial issues, but not other members. lets
keep this simple.
|
brighn
|
|
response 90 of 138:
|
Oct 17 21:36 UTC 1996 |
Also, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
I'm not sure that such doubletalk as Richard engages in would do much except
irritate the State of Michigan. Such members would ge giving in money for
the benefit of having a limited vote. That sounds like a violation of the
laws that people are trying not to violate.
|
ajax
|
|
response 91 of 138:
|
Oct 17 22:36 UTC 1996 |
Not entirely, Paul. I don't think the state cares how system
administration decisions are made. The staff, some of whom aren't
members, decide many issues. We could also have popular votes, or
defer to astrologers, on many issues. :-) Not everything must be
decided by members.
|
scg
|
|
response 92 of 138:
|
Oct 18 05:34 UTC 1996 |
I disagree with Richard that voting for the board is not voting on financial
matters. Since the board makes most of the financial decisions, voting for
the board is probably the biggest financial vote Grex has every year.
|
srw
|
|
response 93 of 138:
|
Oct 18 05:37 UTC 1996 |
I agree with what ajax said about it.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 94 of 138:
|
Oct 18 06:43 UTC 1996 |
A membership based non-profit may have any classes of membership it wants,
and the board can specify the privileges of each. They are all members
of the corporation (not of pieces of the corp), but some may be able to vote,
and some may not. Different privileges of voting would be rather unusual,
but ould be defined. I would recommend against it, though.
|
tsty
|
|
response 95 of 138:
|
Oct 18 08:39 UTC 1996 |
choosing whether or not to be a voting member could be the choice of
the membership applicant. no change in donation $$. according that
that state law thingie, if a member applicant want to vote, some sort
of id seems to be theintrusive necessity required over and above the
donation. works for me.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 96 of 138:
|
Oct 18 14:40 UTC 1996 |
Query: Would there be objection to giving "Selena-class" members (I think
it is only right that this new designation be named afterher), member-only
apps (i.e. telnet .etc) ?
Even if such members cant have the right tovote, there seems to be
little reason not to go ahead and throw in the usual other perks so
they are getting something for their money.
|
janc
|
|
response 97 of 138:
|
Oct 18 15:45 UTC 1996 |
When I was talking about the "benefactor" thing, I was talking about something
completely separate from "membership". A person could be one or the other,
both, or neither. Neither is a "superior class". They are different ways
of being involved in Cyberspace communication. One involves actually joining
the organization, the other is supporting it from the outside. It's not a
hierarchy.
|
ajax
|
|
response 98 of 138:
|
Oct 18 16:51 UTC 1996 |
Richard, it's been discussed several times in the past, and there is
indeed significant objection on Grex to granting outbound telnet access
to people unwilling to provide any identification.
|
brighn
|
|
response 99 of 138:
|
Oct 19 00:12 UTC 1996 |
#94 etc.> I'm confused about this member thing again. While 94 seems the
reasoned stance, I've heard others saying the opposite.
What *I* would hypothesize is that:
(a) Groups should have a set of members for whom there are identifying
records.
(b) Groups may also create other member-classes with whatever qualifying
membership characteristics they please, as long as there is a set of members
as in (a).
But I have gotten the distinct impression that that's not the case.
|