Denys writes, completely missing the point,

> I respectfully disagree with Stan and Judy.  They have concerns that whilst
> valid, are not addressing the situation, rather it appears to be plain
> demagoguery.  Let me explain.
>
> When the special election ballot arrived, I called Jeff Odom who is/was on the
> board and asked him what this was all about.  It is very simple.  Interex right
> now is hurting from an attack of apathy.  The last election had to be cancelled
...

That's nice ... but irrelevant.

The point of Judy, Steve, me, and every ex-board member who weighed in
was that the bylaw had a *MAJOR* flaw: it allows the appointed
directors to be re-appointed ... forever.

That's not just my opinion.  I was right...and I persisted in pointing it
out over and over and over to Interex ... and they finally checked with
their lawyer, and ...hot damn...I was *right*.

So...the bylaw sucked.  It stank.

If you voted *for* it one of the following is true ...

   1) you didn't understand that it had a flaw.

      The only way you could not understand this is if you didn't
      read the HP3000-L postings,
      *INCLUDING THE ONE FROM CHUCK PIERCEY ADMITTING THE PROBLEM*.

      Now, many people didn't read the HP3000-L discussions.  Perhaps
      some of them noticed the flaw and voted "no".  More likely, none
      of them noticed it.  (Many people will simply vote "yes" on
      actions requested by a board of directors.)

   2) you didn't care that it had a flaw.

There just ain't no other alternative, folks!  You either knew it was
flawed, or you didn't.  If you knew, you either cared or you didn't.

Some people knew and didn't care ... perhaps they believed Chuck's
statement that the board would change the bylaw if it was voted in.

My comment was that that's a bad reason to vote for something.
Bad voter, bad!  No no!  You simply do *NOT* vote for bad
legislation and hope to fix it later.  Get the damn lawmakers
to do their job *right*, and present a non-flawed bylaw for voting on!

That said, you can see that Denys' comment is irrelevant to the
discussion.  That doesn't mean it isn't a good comment about Interex and
the board elections and so on ... it's just irrelevant to the discussion
of why people should (or did) vote on the issue

> Judy took it upon herself to find out who would dare vote in favor of the
> amendment, for whatever reason.  Well, include me as one who voted FOR the
> amendment.

So...I'll assume you didn't read HP3000-L much :)

Either that, or, Pollyana-like, you voted for a known flawed bylaw.
(Pollyana-like because you hoped it wouldn't be abused, or because you believed
in "fix-after-vote".)

BTW, did I make it clear that the concept of "fix-after-vote" is a
terrible idea?

> If we must replace the board of directors through appointments, then so be it.

That's a different issue.  I don't think the majority of the "no" voters
were against the concept of appointing *some* directors ... but that
they didn't like the idea that the directors could then get a lifetime
appointment.

Some, like me, were probably also troubled by the concept that there would
be more appointed directors than elected directors.

Denys, and Greg, there's only one reason for that: to dilute the
board away from member control.  Period.  No debate.  Proof?  Simply
appoint the top vote getting candidates. ...  that would retain a measure
of member control.  Or, set the ratio to have more elected (even if less
than a quorum) directors than appointed directors.  You could easily
setup a board election strategy and appointment strategy that would
result in more elected vs. appointed members and still retain the
benefits of appointing "outside" people.

But...that observation (the ease of setting it up so the users would
retain control) is so trivially arrived at, you really have to ask:
why the hell didn't the board do it that way?  Why did they present us
with the (flawed) bylaw?  Even ignoring the flaw, there's only one
rational answer: to dilute member representation and control.

I doubt the board is stupid about big things like this.  Little things,
like the precise wording of the bylaw...sure...I'm willing to believe
that was just a dumb mistake, exacerbated by the paranoia within
Interex".  But the big thing?  Come on...they're smarter than that.
*You're* smarter than that.  Put your thinking cap on.

> After my conversation with Jeff Odom, I voted for the amendment and then made
> up my mind to run for the board of directors myself.  I also reached the
> following decision.

Well, I would have voted for you.

But, I can't in conscience vote for someone who just said "to hell with
the members, let's let the appointed people take over".

And...

that's precisely and exactly what you said by voting Yes.

> Some people have advanced the theory that the reason the vote count was
> insufficient last year was because the slate was not qualified.

Apparently the board agrees with that ... because they didn't simply
announce that they'd be appointing those candidates as the
first appointees.

> So if you are a member of this list, and you are not a member of Interex then
> you need to become one right now.  If you just didn't vote last year, you must
> vote this year.  At least you can vote against me, if you do not like my
> position!

At this point, you really have to ask: why become a member?
The board has shown a reluctance to interact with the members (cf: the
initial debate on the bylaw), has shown a reluctance to appoint directors
who most (including you) people say are qualified, has shown a willingness...
nay...an eagerness to dilute our representation with appointees, and
has shown a desire to have *more appointees than electees*.
(And that's not even taking the flaw into account!)

BTW, I wonder what percentage of HP3000-using Interex members voted? :)

--
Stan Sieler                                          [log in to unmask]
                                         http://www.allegro.com/sieler/