|
Grex > Coop11 > #146: Results of the 1999 Board Election | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 90 responses total. |
aruba
|
|
response 8 of 90:
| 
Dec 16 14:30 UTC 1999 |
Congrats to new board members! I think we've elected a fine board.
(A minor correction - there were 87 members eligible to vote, not 94.)
(We currently have 96 members, but 3 of them are not paid up, 4 of them have
only paid for 1 or two months' membership, and 2 of them are institutional
members.)
|
aruba
|
|
response 9 of 90:
|
Dec 16 14:30 UTC 1999 |
bruin slipped in, and I echo what he said about those who gave a valiant
effort - well put.
|
gypsi
|
|
response 10 of 90:
|
Dec 16 17:44 UTC 1999 |
(Wow, close votes...)
It looks like a fine board to me. It's a great mix of people, and I can't
wait to attend the meetings.
|
richard
|
|
response 11 of 90:
|
Dec 16 22:22 UTC 1999 |
congrats to the winners-- now to the nasty question of who gets to
succeed aruba as treasurer.
maybe marcus should be president next year, since he must possess the
oldest grex login, he obviously has the most grex experience
|
gypsi
|
|
response 12 of 90:
|
Dec 16 22:27 UTC 1999 |
Um, I believe the current president will be president by default. Correct?
|
other
|
|
response 13 of 90:
|
Dec 16 22:44 UTC 1999 |
wow. i wonder what those numbers say about voters. specifically member vs.
non-member voters. i maintain much greater visibility in bbs than in party
and that seems the primary distinction to me...
|
don
|
|
response 14 of 90:
|
Dec 16 23:05 UTC 1999 |
Isn't an incumbent someone who is defending his seat rather than just some
shmuck who already has his seat?
|
richard
|
|
response 15 of 90:
|
Dec 16 23:16 UTC 1999 |
the nonmember vote reflects people who have a regular presence, like
Mooncat, on Party. Many of those might be people who dont conf regularly
and come here just to Party.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 16 of 90:
|
Dec 17 02:18 UTC 1999 |
Re 15: An incumbent can decide not to run again; it merely means the person
who currently holds the seat, not necessarily a candidate who is up for
re-election.
|
remmers
|
|
response 17 of 90:
|
Dec 17 02:33 UTC 1999 |
That's correct.
Re resp:12 - No, the president is elected by the board each year.
Nobody has ever been Grex president for two consecutive years,
although Valerie and I have each served non-consecutive terms as
president. I don't intend to run for president in the coming
year, so that office is up for grabs.
|
mdw
|
|
response 18 of 90:
|
Dec 17 02:35 UTC 1999 |
Actually, I think one of the J's would make a better chair creature,
either the one with a hammer, or the one with a baby.
|
spooked
|
|
response 19 of 90:
|
Dec 17 02:35 UTC 1999 |
Thanks Daniel (dang)
|
janc
|
|
response 20 of 90:
|
Dec 17 03:02 UTC 1999 |
I'm willing to consider Presidenting or Secretaritizing next year. I've
done both jobs before though, so a new face would be nice.
Pre-Arlo I'd have been willing to Treasurify, but post-Arlo I just can't
see where I'm going to find the time. It isn't really all that much
time, but even finding an hour a week is beyond my capacity these days.
I'd encourage Greg, Eric, and John to think about the treasurer's
position.
|
janc
|
|
response 21 of 90:
|
Dec 17 03:04 UTC 1999 |
I think this confirms two of my basic theories about getting elected on
Grex: (1) Post a statement, (2) Don't post a statement saying you don't
want the job.
|
gypsi
|
|
response 22 of 90:
|
Dec 17 05:13 UTC 1999 |
Oh, I apologize. I thought people kept their offices for consecutive terms
unless they wanted to leave it. My mistake... =}
|
keesan
|
|
response 23 of 90:
|
Dec 17 20:49 UTC 1999 |
(3) go to one meeting. Everyone who did, got elected. It demonstrates a
basic interest.
|
scg
|
|
response 24 of 90:
|
Dec 18 00:49 UTC 1999 |
Some who didn't get elected have been to board meetings.
|
jep
|
|
response 25 of 90:
|
Dec 18 03:26 UTC 1999 |
Thanks to everyone who ran, and congratulations to those who won seats
on the Board!
|
mooncat
|
|
response 26 of 90:
|
Dec 21 13:59 UTC 1999 |
(<coughs politely> I went to a meeting... <grins> Course it was the
final night of voting...)
Congrats to those who won. :) I know you'll do well.
|
richard
|
|
response 27 of 90:
|
Dec 21 17:49 UTC 1999 |
why not change the bylaws so one board member position is an "at-
large" position who could be voted on by all grex users, not just
members in a separate election. Wouldnt be unlike a city council where
there are usually one or two council members who dont represent
districts, but are voted on "at-large" by the entire city population.
This would increase the likelihood of diversity on the grex board. And
we are only talking about one position on a seven member board, so
the membership wouldnt be ceding any real power.
|
keesan
|
|
response 28 of 90:
|
Dec 21 21:37 UTC 1999 |
Grex does not have districts, it has people who feel grex is worth supporting
monetarily, and people who do not (or cannot afford it, meaning they live in
poorer countries). I would not be opposed to having one additional board
member elected by non-paying grex users, on the condition that this member
did not vote on grex policy, just attended meetings. The non-voting board
member could be elected from a pool which includes non-paying grex users.
I repeat my offer of six dollars' a month worth of work to any local grex user
who thinks they do not have enough money to become a grex member. Or a
'scholarship' to anyone too ill to work one hour a month for me.
Non-smokers only.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 29 of 90:
|
Dec 21 22:05 UTC 1999 |
(richard forgot to take his grex-tourette's medication again...)
|
gypsi
|
|
response 30 of 90:
|
Dec 21 22:47 UTC 1999 |
<laughs out loud>
|
richard
|
|
response 31 of 90:
|
Dec 21 22:58 UTC 1999 |
but see grex does have users who dont become members for other reasons--
such as international users in places like India where $6 a month is a
lot more money and its difficult to convert their currency into dollars.
Or users who live out of the area and decline to become members because
it isnt physically possible to come to meetings and voice opinions about
how the money is being used.
Having one seat out of seven, just one, as an at-large would not dilute
the paying memberships ability to exclusively make policy.
I guess the underlying question, is that if dues are defined as "donations"
and as being "voluntary", how do you call them "mandatory" for membership
at the same time. There is no such term as "voluntary mandatory" If
grex was really enlightened, membership would be open to anyone who is
willing to provide validation of their identity and has been a user of
grex for six months or more.\
|
don
|
|
response 32 of 90:
|
Dec 21 23:40 UTC 1999 |
That's not it. Membership is a reward for voluntarily giving up your money.
I know I have a really good analogy somewhere in my head, but it's not coming
out right now...
|