|
Grex > Coop > #337: proposal to open the membership | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 43 responses total. |
jep
|
|
response 8 of 43:
|
Feb 12 02:21 UTC 2013 |
re resp:5: I eventually found the bylaws by going to this site:
https://www.grex.org/faq.xhtml
and searching for "bylaws". I did a fair amount of searching to find
anything. I didn't find a page called "Governance". Our WWW page is a
efficient means of concealing information, though it looks friendly.
Ah, I found "governance" on that page. It contains a link to item:2 in
this conference, which includes this:
ARTICLE 3: BOARD OF DIRECTORS
a. The Board of Directors (BOD) shall consist of seven individual
members of Grex, and shall include a chairperson, a secretary,
and a treasurer.
How can I get the current set of bylaws? I guess I stumbled across a
different "Governance" page than you did. If you can give me a link, or
a universally usable set of steps that will get me directly to the
bylaws, I will probably read them.
|
mary
|
|
response 9 of 43:
|
Feb 12 02:39 UTC 2013 |
https://grex.org
about
Cyberspace Communications
Bylaws
|
kentn
|
|
response 10 of 43:
|
Feb 12 16:29 UTC 2013 |
I've updated the item number in the bylaws link in faq.xhtml.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 11 of 43:
|
Feb 13 01:19 UTC 2013 |
Interesting journey, jep. I looked at the main page:
http://www.cyberspace.org/
I saw a green block, with white text, "Welcome to Grex". Below it, was a
brown box, with text about Services and "Become a Grexer." Along the right
side, another brown box had text about Accesssing, Fress Services, Help
Support, More Info, Frequently Asked Questions, and Also Cool. The section
entitled "More Info About" included Our Web Site, Our Governance, Our
Computers and Staff, and Our History. The link that is "Our Governance" took
me to a blue page that included a link to "Bylaws," which took me to
http://www.cyberspace.org/cyberspace/bylaws.shtml
So I don't know what you were looking at, nor why you could not find what you
wanted.
None of which answers my objections to the proposed change, of course.
Oh. I had a wild thought, which led me on to something interesting. I tried
http://www.grex.org/
This time, the background was blue, and the box that was on the right was
now below the scroll. It still provided the same information I found above.
We should probably make sure that both main pages use the same text and
layout.
Still, I've not seen answers to my objections above.
|
kentn
|
|
response 12 of 43:
|
Feb 13 01:40 UTC 2013 |
It's a width issue in the page I think. If you make the browser window
too narrow, the right hand box goes below the rest of the page. I
changed it to our winter colors. Next will be spring colors, then
summer colors. We don't have autumn colors yet, though.
|
kentn
|
|
response 13 of 43:
|
Feb 13 03:41 UTC 2013 |
See if it is better now. I tweaked some of the widths and other
settings a little (mainly to bring them into line with our summer
pages).
|
jep
|
|
response 14 of 43:
|
Feb 13 18:18 UTC 2013 |
Thanks all. I'll have to review this when I am not at work. If I can get
the current by-laws, I'll post something more specific. If not, I'll ask
again.
I'll go through the item to answer questions, too.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 15 of 43:
|
Feb 14 00:50 UTC 2013 |
Yes, it looks better. Thank you, Kent. :)
|
kentn
|
|
response 16 of 43:
|
Feb 14 00:50 UTC 2013 |
You're welcome.
|
cross
|
|
response 17 of 43:
|
Feb 14 21:50 UTC 2013 |
resp:7 It's the lynchpin only because a few folks say it is; that
doesn't mean it *has* to be. For that matter, that doesn't mean
that it REALLY is. Change any document that makes reference to the
conferencing system to NOT make such references.
Also, regarding non-local board members.... Really? It seemed to
me, when I was on the board, that it actually worked well. I think
that the recent inability to get people to actually meet has been
with all-local board members. If anything has failed, it has been
the Ann Arbor-based board membership.
I see no need to dissolve the organization. I *do* see a need to
combine forces with M-Net (and whoever else wants), but that's
separate.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 18 of 43:
|
Feb 15 04:03 UTC 2013 |
The members are supposed to talk to one another about the governance of the
Corporation. If they aren't communicating here, where are they
communicating? Those folks asking for validation or verification are going
to communicate with the other members how? And where? And, most
importantly, WHY? How are they to even know that they now have membership in
the Corporation, or what that membership means? If you want to influence the
governance of Cyberspace Communications, Inc, this is where you have to act.
We had five board members, only one in Ann Arbor. Somehow, the other four
never managed to meet. Yup, it's a failure of the local board members.
NB. We still only have one local board member: tsty. Everyone else lives
elsewhere. Kent is the closest, but he has to travel to meet in Ann Arbor.
|
cross
|
|
response 19 of 43:
|
Feb 15 15:01 UTC 2013 |
If you are within 30 or 40 miles of Ann Arbor, I'm considering you
local. Who is on the board now for whom that is not true?
It's easy to get people to communicate via some mechanism other
than the BBS. Start a mailing list; put notices on the web page;
perhaps use a web-based forum. It's clear that the traditional
PicoSpan-derived BBS has failed.
|
mary
|
|
response 20 of 43:
|
Feb 15 15:43 UTC 2013 |
Run its course, maybe. But it's had a good long run. And if you'd enjoyed it
for as many years as I have... Well, hardly a failure.
|
cross
|
|
response 21 of 43:
|
Feb 15 16:15 UTC 2013 |
Failed in the same way that a car engine fails if it runs out of gas. But
hey, now we're arguing semantics, in good Grexian fashion.
|
kentn
|
|
response 22 of 43:
|
Feb 15 20:49 UTC 2013 |
I'd like to see a newer, web-based forum if we can get one. We can keep
the old BBS running for those who like that sort of thing (in line with
our previous discussions of running text-based apps in parallel with
web-based or GUI). But more web-based services would help in terms of
getting us onto more devices including tablets, possibly. Perhaps a
forum and blogging might go hand in hand if the application supports
both.
I'm within 30-40 miles and so is TS. I don't think ryan, glitch, and
ball are, though.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 23 of 43:
|
Feb 16 00:39 UTC 2013 |
ball is the one I've not been able to remember for three days. :(
We are on the web, by way of back-talk. I don't see it bringing in new
voices. Am I just deaf?
|
kentn
|
|
response 24 of 43:
|
Feb 16 15:26 UTC 2013 |
It's an old interface. Time to try something newer.
|
jep
|
|
response 25 of 43:
|
Feb 18 02:04 UTC 2013 |
I have noticed a fault in the bylaws as posted at:
http://www.cyberspace.org/cyberspace/bylaws.shtml
ARTICLE 4: ELECTIONS AND TERMS OF OFFICE
a. BOD members shall be elected to two-year terms, that begin
on January 1 of each year. Terms of office shall be
staggered, with 4 board positions being filled beginning in
even-numbered years and 3 in odd-numbered years.
|
kentn
|
|
response 26 of 43:
|
Feb 18 02:23 UTC 2013 |
Yes, and if you paid any attention to the Board's minutes
you'd know we know already and have been trying to get it
fixed.
|
jep
|
|
response 27 of 43:
|
Feb 18 02:24 UTC 2013 |
My proposal should read as follows:
-----
Article 2b.
To be eligible to vote, an individual must be a validated member. No
individual may cast more than one vote per opening in any election, or
vote for any other member.
Validation can be made via a check or Paypal contribution to pay dues;
presenting the original or photocopy of a government issued ID bearing
the individual's name, birthdate and photograph to the treasurer; or by
such means as established by the treasurer.
-----
I'm not really happy with the phrasing for how to validate someone.
Suggestions would be welcome.
|
jep
|
|
response 28 of 43:
|
Feb 18 02:26 UTC 2013 |
re resp:26: Kent, does everyone who proposes a change to the by-laws
have to read all of the minutes for every meeting to see if such things
were mentioned, or is that just for me?
|
kentn
|
|
response 29 of 43:
|
Feb 18 11:48 UTC 2013 |
It's a darn good idea to get some background. Also, fixing that 4:3
wording is not as simple as changing the numbers.
Dan's idea was tomake "verified" users members, not "validated" users.
There is a difference (based on the policies of this organization). Did
you mean "verified"?
|
cross
|
|
response 30 of 43:
|
Feb 18 20:01 UTC 2013 |
resp:23 You don't see the web site bringing in new users because
your definition of the "Grex on the web" seems to be, "backtalk"
and your definition of user seems to be, "someone who uses the BBS."
I don't understand why it's so hard to accept that new users are
coming to Grex regularly, but they are almost uniformly NOT interested
in the BBS. Why would they be? What does the BBS possibly offer
that they would be interested in? Do you really think that a
generation raised on the Internet is going to find anything on
Grex's 1980's era "BBS" that they couldn't find more easily, more
completely, more accurately, etc, elsewhere? Even the "BBS" monicker
is outdated. I mean, we're talking about a program from the early
1980s, and a web interface that hasn't changed fundamentally since
the late 1990s, when "web standards" were a distance fantasy and
HTML 3.2 and Netscape Navigator were cool.
It seems to me that there are two choices here: either force these
new users to play by Grex's existing rules, which clearly isn't
going to happen, and are only cared about by a handful of old timers
anyway. Or change Grex's rules to accommodate the new users, who
are far greater in numbers and actually interested in some of the
things we have to offer.
It further strikes me that there's a group of folks who absolutely
cannot stand to see Grex change, and would rather shut it down than
let it evolve. Personally, I think that's silly and selfish. It's
like someone saying that, because the kids don't like the swings
anymore and prefer the sea-saws, we should shut down the playground
because anyone who doesn't like the swings isn't contributing. The
swings are where all the cool kids hung out and decided who runs
the playground. If you aren't into the swings, you clearly aren't
a cool kid and don't deserve to play in our playground.
Grex started out as a small, regional BBS and despite a few years
of rapid growth in use, stayed that way for far too long; THAT is
why it is stagnating now. That and this imperative to retain the
BBS as the central focus of the system, despite limited use and
relevance to a new generations of users; I'm kind of shocked that
no one has mentioned 'party'. But again, what would a generation
raised on IRC and AOL Instant Messanger and gTalk find compelling
in THAT interface? But some are suggesting that the solution to
this is to ... do what, exactly? Push the BBS on people because
if they aren't posting there, then they're not contributing?
Grex's founders were not the founding fathers of the United States,
and the bylaws are not the Constitution. Why should we continue
to be constrained by the vision of a group of folks who sat around
pot luck dinners in the late 80s and early 90s -- before the Internet
explosion; before the World Wide Web -- and wrote out how they
thought out a computer conferencing system should be run? They did
a fine job, but times have changed.
|
richard
|
|
response 31 of 43:
|
Feb 18 20:12 UTC 2013 |
re #31 I agree. I don't want to see Grex shut down at all. I want to
see changes made and I believe the corporate structure (cyberspace
communications inc) and related member requirements, bylaws and
articles, are an obstacle to that change. The way to affect real
change, like Grex working with the Well or something else, is to
dispense with the corporation, and set up a situation where these things
can be considered *without* respecting old bylaws and old articles.
I believe grex's current caretakers and newer members need not be
permamently constrained by a corporate structure that has long since
served its purpose and become outdated. To reach the future, you need
to let go of the past.
|
jep
|
|
response 32 of 43:
|
Feb 18 22:23 UTC 2013 |
re resp:29: I don't know how to distinguish between "verified" and
"validated" users.
This isn't worth it to me if I have to drag and fight through it against
Kent. You win this one, Kent. I give up. You have successfully
repelled a change.
I had thought Dan wanted to move away from the pay-to-vote model, and I
could see that as a good thing. I now perceive that Dan wants something
else entirely. I don't know what it is, with regard to voting
privileges, anyway. I am not sure he knows, but it surely isn't what I
thought.
|