17 Apr
2014
17 Apr
'14
4:48 a.m.
The website names 3 people that are Boardmembers of ARDC. They are also the only 3
officers. According to the Bylaws these 3 control everything. No one else has any say in
the control of the ARDC. There are no members. Just them. They can allow 2 more people on
the Board, however, since they could remove the new Board members anytime they didn't
like a vote or discussion, it's all illusory anyway. Until the Bylaws are modified to
allow the voice of the users to be heard(via a right to vote) ARDC is just a closed 3
person entity. I too would like to see Bart on the Board. I lean towards his view of
things. Id rather have 4 or 5 dictators than 3(sorry I think I meant
'Directors').
The current Bylaws give 100% of the control of the ARDC to the 3 Directors. I don't
know the history behind it. It is a good way to get things done in a timely manner, but
to have the wishes of the users heard----changes would be needed. The current Bylaws were
written to concentrate power.
Also, Bart, as a Board Member if you wanted to vote at a Regular Board Meeting they would
have to make a Bylaw change so you could attend and vote via electronic communications.
Right now to have your vote counted at a Regular Board Meeting you have to actually be
there or proxy it; but not for Annual or Special Meetings.
An income and expense statement, and a list of transactions would help with transparency.
An Asset Statement only shows so much. My guess is that the existing Board has been
carrying the group financially. The loan on the books suggests that. I thank them for
doing so. Without clear information it's hard to know the needs of the organization.
Publishing the Board minutes and a Budget might open our eyes to the workings of the group
and make more people inclined to donate. We are a large diverse group. There are many
views and ideas amongst us. I'm sure there are some people with deep pockets amongst
us too, if needed.
Hopefully, with more openness, more people will feel inclined to help financially and
with their ideas.
I thank the existing Board members for your dedicated service. You have done a lot.
I hope I haven't offended you. It's just that I have created many nonprofits in
my legal career;but not once have I made one with such a tight concentration of power.
Maybe that's needed with an asset as valuable as the 44 Net, I don't know. It just
seems odd in Amateur Radio.
Anyway, I encourage you to put Bart and another interested person on the Board ASAP.
Sharing the load should make things easier. And you can do it without even having to have
an election;just appoint him/them.
And then just before or at the next Annual Meeting change the Bylaws to allow users to
have a vote in matters via proxy, electronic, or other methods. Heck, a new set of Bylaws
would be good too.
73
Ken
K7ICY
ps I am new to the 44 Net. I don't know your past history. And you might have full
minutes and financials posted somewhere. It's just real late and I'm too lazy to
search them out. Sorry if I'm all wet. Feel free to Flame. All attorneys have thick
skin and the Heat might help get me ready for the Hereafter.
Sent from Samsung tablet
17 Apr
17 Apr
12:07 p.m.
New subject: Running for ARDC director position
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:48 AM, ktolliver <ktolliver(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
The website names 3 people that are Boardmembers of ARDC.
Ah yeah, now I see it... was hidden off the screen on my subnotebook.
The way I read it, there are currently 3 directors out of a max of five
which is bare minimum for a quorum. Elections are held in January. It
could be argued as since all the seats aren't filled, Bart should be
elected. But the process of voting isn't particularly clear except in
management at the director level.
I would probably suggest few things:
1.) The voting membership pool should be increased. A suggested model
would be to use what has worked for the ARRL in that voting members pay
dues.
2.) Brian should be paid back for his loans to ARDC right off the top as
it would take the financial burden off him as well as remove any behoveness
towards any director in lieu of financial contribution.
3.) There probably should be a fee structure put in place for some aspects
of the network just to cover overhead such as AS/BGP additions or any large
network change. Some changes that would benefit everyone could have the
fee waived by the directorship vote.
4.) Basic IP allocation and DNS management should always be free to all
radio amateurs.
5.) We should endeavour to keep our LEGACY status as long as possible
between the RIR's as there are significant differences between the way ARIN
does things and the way RIPE does things. It would also keep commercial
interests in the IP space at bay a while longer as well as
political/regional battles over IP space ownership in limbo (ie: the
government of country xyz wants to control their chunk of 44net).
12:35 p.m.
New subject: Running for ARDC director position
When considering corporate governance, tread carefully. There be dragons
here.
The items noted below are all nice but they do not prevent damage or even
complete elimination of the organization. For example, even with the
additions below, a group of folks interested in getting rid of AMPRnet could
organize a bunch of folks to join, pay the dues to get voting rights, and
then vote as a block to remove the existing directors, install their own
directors, and then destroy the organization. This happened to one repeater
organization I'm aware of and it was attempted at another.
Measures like staggered terms for directors, separation of the operations
group and user-group, and perhaps even having some verified skin in the game
(such as a verified, functioning gateway, or some other measure) in order to
vote are all tools used in many organizations. There are other tools.
I don't want to start a corporate governance debate. But it would be wise
to have one before making changes. Alas, this group already spends far too
much time debating stuff and too little time operating networks.
Now, back to working on a panel to mount POE surge suppressors for some new
5.8G links between our seven BBSs.
Michael
N6MEF
-----Original Message-----
From: 44net-bounces+n6mef=mefox.org(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
[mailto:44net-bounces+n6mef=mefox.org@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Don
Fanning
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 9:07 AM
To: AMPRNet working group
Subject: Re: [44net] Running for ARDC director position
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:48 AM, ktolliver <ktolliver(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
The website names 3 people that are Boardmembers of ARDC.
Ah yeah, now I see it... was hidden off the screen on my subnotebook.
The way I read it, there are currently 3 directors out of a max of five
which is bare minimum for a quorum. Elections are held in January. It
could be argued as since all the seats aren't filled, Bart should be
elected. But the process of voting isn't particularly clear except in
management at the director level.
I would probably suggest few things:
1.) The voting membership pool should be increased. A suggested model
would be to use what has worked for the ARRL in that voting members pay
dues.
2.) Brian should be paid back for his loans to ARDC right off the top as
it would take the financial burden off him as well as remove any behoveness
towards any director in lieu of financial contribution.
3.) There probably should be a fee structure put in place for some aspects
of the network just to cover overhead such as AS/BGP additions or any large
network change. Some changes that would benefit everyone could have the
fee waived by the directorship vote.
4.) Basic IP allocation and DNS management should always be free to all
radio amateurs.
5.) We should endeavour to keep our LEGACY status as long as possible
between the RIR's as there are significant differences between the way ARIN
does things and the way RIPE does things. It would also keep commercial
interests in the IP space at bay a while longer as well as
political/regional battles over IP space ownership in limbo (ie: the
government of country xyz wants to control their chunk of 44net).
12:42 p.m.
New subject: Running for ARDC director position
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Michael E Fox - N6MEF <n6mef(a)mefox.org>wrote;wrote:
Now, back to working on a panel to mount POE surge suppressors for some new
5.8G links between our seven BBSs.
Michael
N6MEF
Aye. Hopefully I'll be able to see Mirrormont from Seatac. I'm right on
the ragged edge.
18 Apr
18 Apr
1:13 p.m.
New subject: Running for ARDC director position
The website names 3 people that are Boardmembers of
ARDC.
I see that here:
http://www.ampr.org/people.html (for the archives).
They are
also the only 3 officers.
Hmmm. That's unfortunate. Usually board/officers should be separate , or
at least majority of the board should be non officers.
According to the Bylaws these 3 control
everything.
Where are the bylaws located?
No one else has any say in the control of the ARDC. There
are no members. Just them. They can allow 2 more
people on the Board,
however, since they could remove the new Board members anytime they
didn't like a vote or discussion, it's all illusory anyway. Until the
Bylaws are modified to allow the voice of the users to be heard(via a
right to vote) ARDC is just a closed 3 person entity. I too would like
to see Bart on the Board. I lean towards his view of things. Id rather
have 4 or 5 dictators than 3(sorry I think I meant 'Directors').
:)
Yes I also agree with Barts technical vision. It's what FNF is heading
towards with the part 15 based FreeNetworks we are facilitating.
An income and expense statement, and a list of transactions would help
with transparency.
I refer folks to the FNF annual reports. They might provide some ideas:
http://staticbits.thefnf.org/FNFAnnualReport2012.pdf
http://staticbits.thefnf.org/fnf2013ar1.pdf
Also our bylaws:
https://commons.thefnf.org/index.php/FNF_Bylaws
An Asset Statement only shows so much. My guess is
that the existing Board has been carrying the group
financially. The
loan on the books suggests that. I thank them for doing so. Without
clear information it's hard to know the needs of the organization.
Publishing the Board minutes and a Budget might open our eyes to the
workings of the group and make more people inclined to donate. We are
a large diverse group. There are many views and ideas amongst us. I'm
sure there are some people with deep pockets amongst us too, if
needed.
Lots of funding available. Though be careful who you take money from.
I hope I haven't offended you. It's just that
I have created many
nonprofits in my legal career;but not once have I made one with such a
tight concentration of power. Maybe that's needed with an asset as
valuable as the 44 Net, I don't know. It just seems odd in Amateur
Radio.
Agreed.
3683
days inactive
3684
days old
4 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
charles＠thefnf.org -
Don Fanning -
ktolliver -
Michael E Fox - N6MEF