10. AGM Modernatization Subcommittee Report

[Christopher Mallon]

Actually, my website doesn't even (properly) work in Internet Explorer, except for the latest version.

Believe me I'm a pretty big anti-Microsoft person (Back in the day, I argued strongly against the GLs being sent out in Word format) but I use their products when and where it makes sense. Barring an affordable solution that will work cross-platform, this one seems to make sense for the CFC.

[Francisco Cabanas]

I also own a website unrelated to IT and I can tell you that 85% of my hits are from Windows - and the remaining 15% includes people on their smartphones!

I also have studies to back me up. http://www.netmarketshare.com/os-mar...sp=120&qpnp=25

Finally... You keep talking about licensing costs. Most people already have computers with Windows on it - no additional cost. So unless you can show an option for the same or less price (one of your "non-exclusive, non-proprietary, and non-expensive 21st century solutions") that does what you ask... then really your point is not contributing anything to the discussion.

First I must say I misread this post in my rush to get to work this morning. 15% for GNU / Linux, Mac OS X and smartphones combine is what was posted as opposed to15% for smartphones only. My apologies.

Those numbers are not that different from mine at 23% for for GNU / Linux, Mac OS X and smartphones. There can be many reasons why different websites may see different numbers. What is far more important is the trend away from Microsoft Windows on the same website. Furthermore it makes no difference if someone is using GNU / Linux on a desktop or Android also Linux on a tablet or a smartphone if they cannot participate. The issue remains the same they were excluded. It is also no different from sending the GL in Microsoft Word format at a time when many of the competing products on the market could not read .doc files. By the way my 77% figure for Microsoft Windows includes Microsoft Windows 2000, NT 4 and 3.xx, 95, 98, ME and yes even Microsoft Windows 3.xx non of which work with the proposed software adding to even more exclusions. The thing to keep in mind here is all it takes is to exclude one governor who is legally entitled to vote in a meeting and the results of the meeting can be legally challenged.

On the other hand this online meeting is a model of inclusivity. It works on an Android smartphone, it also works on Windows NT Workstation 4.0 with IE 6. an OS from the mid 1990's. One can throw virtually any OS and browser combination at this online meeting and it will work! The technology is also simple to use. The result is already apparent. A level of participation unheard of in the history of the CFC. This one works. Let us build on it.

The proposed hybrid in person and webinar AGM raises all sorts of other problems starting with the uneven access by different participants in the meeting (big problem) and including time zones, technical support for the users, such as what happens if a client computer BSODs, in the middle of a critical vote, long distance costs if the audio does not work and the list is endless.

My suggestion here is to leave the AGM structure alone for now and instead focus of refining the online meetings as the primary way for the assembly to do business, including shifting business away from the AGM onto the online meetings. I am also strongly opposed to replacing one of the online meetings with a hybrid in person and webinar meeting.