|
Grex > Coop12 > #138: Nominations for the Board of Directors | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 176 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 95 of 176:
| 
Nov 19 16:37 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 96 of 176:
|
Nov 19 17:02 UTC 2002 |
Exactly how is being a membership organization the same thing as selling
a service?
If you give Grex money in exchange for a membership, you have chosen to
accept a measure of responsibility for the management of the
organization, which you effect through your vote. This is hardly what
I'd call a service to the user. It is a service to Grex, and to the
community at large.
As for the Net accesses we only offer to members, as has been explained
over and over again, the combination of validation and low-threshold cost
to users is more than anything else a measure to deter abuse of our
limited resources. It looks like a perk, yes, but if you have a better
way to structure the system to achieve the same goals, then by all means
please present it.
|
other
|
|
response 97 of 176:
|
Nov 19 17:04 UTC 2002 |
And, BTW, *I* wrote #86, and I am NOT inflammatory, motherfucker!
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 98 of 176:
|
Nov 19 17:18 UTC 2002 |
You're both inflammatory motherfuckers.
And if you get extra access for becoming a member, you're blurring the line
between pure donation and sale of a service. That's okay, unless members have
been deducting the entire value of their membership from their taxes, but even
there nobody is going to care about $60.
|
other
|
|
response 99 of 176:
|
Nov 19 17:30 UTC 2002 |
Yes, we are blurring it, but we have yet to come up with a way of providing
the access without some cost which is anywhere nearly as effective at
discouraging opportunistic abusers. And in any case, if you can afford to
operate a computer, much less buy one, then as far as I'm concerned, you're
pushing the limits of credibility to claim that the costs of using Grex are
onerous, especially when compared to other options.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 100 of 176:
|
Nov 19 17:47 UTC 2002 |
I've never claimed that, I've just claimed that you guys (1) don't actually
need the money, you need to reduce expenses, and (2) you're paranoid mofos
(as well as inflammatory ;-) when it comes to providing Internet access given
all the other options out there.
Like a lot of other people on here, I could pay your monthly expenses myself
if I felt like it. Grex and M-Net are very small operations. It isn't about
affordability. (I realize it is for some people, and I've been there myself,
but it isn't for me, now.)
|
jp2
|
|
response 101 of 176:
|
Nov 19 18:03 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 102 of 176:
|
Nov 19 18:20 UTC 2002 |
It isn't just the vote, though. If it were, I'd agree with him. It's the
additional Internet access you get, that's apparently so hard to find
elsewhere that they have to verify your identity to give it to you -- which
means it's worth something.
|
jp2
|
|
response 103 of 176:
|
Nov 19 18:24 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 104 of 176:
|
Nov 19 18:59 UTC 2002 |
You probably could.
|
gull
|
|
response 105 of 176:
|
Nov 19 19:13 UTC 2002 |
If I donate $300 to PBS and get one of their 'premiums' in return, I can
still deduct the $300.
I don't need Grex's outgoing Internet access, I have other Internet
access. So this is even more of a pure donation than giving money to
PBS would be.
As far as #102 goes, I think jmsaul is intentionally missing the point
of Internet user validation. It's not that people couldn't go off
somewhere else and cause mischief. It's that if they cause mischief
using Grex, it's Grex's ass that's on the line, so we need to take steps
to prevent it. If other systems want to give away 'net access and risk
the consequences, that's their business. You'll have a hard time
finding anywhere that lets you use the Internet without *some* kind of
identification, though. Even NetZero logs phone numbers, I hear.
|
slynne
|
|
response 106 of 176:
|
Nov 19 19:27 UTC 2002 |
Actually if you donate $300 to PBS and get one of their premiums in
return, you cannot still deduct the $300. If you get a coffee mug
valued at $5 for instance, you get to deduct $295.
Anyhow, I just would like to see a system where people who choose not
to contribute financially but, instead, contribute in other ways get
valued.
|
other
|
|
response 107 of 176:
|
Nov 19 20:17 UTC 2002 |
slynne, out of curiosity, how would you have non-financial contributors
valued?
I get the feeling that your position is based on a very subjective
perception of the treatment of a class of "outsiders" within which you
define yourself to be, but in what substantive ways can we change our
organizational proactices to alter that perception?
|
aruba
|
|
response 108 of 176:
|
Nov 19 20:20 UTC 2002 |
The value of a service Grex renders is its fair market value, and is not
affected by whether we require ID for it.
As far as deducting memberships, I've talked with people at the IRS about
it, and they agreed that as far as they are concerned, our memberships are
donations and may be deducted in full from income taxes. There are two
reasons why:
1) The extra internet privileges that people get when they become members
are "frequently exercisable rights", and
2) The services which are reserved for members only (ftp, irc, and telnet)
are of only "de minimus" value.
I know that wasn't the point of this argument, but I wanted to clear up
that point. Everyone's free to argue whether membership dues are
donations or not using their own definitions of "donation", but from the
IRS's point of view, Grex membership dues are donations.
|
jp2
|
|
response 109 of 176:
|
Nov 19 20:29 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 110 of 176:
|
Nov 19 20:32 UTC 2002 |
Jamie, it's no wonder the whole world looks brown to you...
|
jp2
|
|
response 111 of 176:
|
Nov 19 20:34 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 112 of 176:
|
Nov 19 20:36 UTC 2002 |
No, it's YOUR ass you've got your head stuck into, not my ass.
|
carson
|
|
response 113 of 176:
|
Nov 20 01:50 UTC 2002 |
(hmm. let the campaigning begin, I guess.) :P
|
remmers
|
|
response 114 of 176:
|
Nov 20 12:27 UTC 2002 |
Hm. A look at the item header tells me that this is the board
nominations item. Think I'll post something on-topic:
There are two board nominees who have not yet either accepted or
declined: krj and myself. We both have until December 1 to make
up our minds.
I'm currently on the fence about running, but perhaps now is a good
time to discuss how the election should be administered in case I do
accept. Normally, as voteadm person, I set up the vote program and
the ballot, and count the votes when the election is over. In the
past when I've been a candidate, an additional person (usually davel)
has also counted the votes. Do people feel comfortable with that?
|
mdw
|
|
response 115 of 176:
|
Nov 20 13:09 UTC 2002 |
I have no problem with that. Other options might include having an
existing board member who is not up for election count votes or run the
election, having somebody on staff do that, or have the board select
somebody to do this. But I don't see any reason to do this unless
people don't feel comfortable with the status quo.
|
jp2
|
|
response 116 of 176:
|
Nov 20 14:16 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 117 of 176:
|
Nov 20 14:28 UTC 2002 |
I'm fine with davel counting, he's a very responsible person.
|
davel
|
|
response 118 of 176:
|
Nov 20 15:11 UTC 2002 |
davel did it once, possibly twice. Others have done it too.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 119 of 176:
|
Nov 20 15:39 UTC 2002 |
I'm fine with davel counting
|