Yes Joe > YES - a vote of yes means that the NC overstepped authority and that the > link should be restored for the CP -- Zsedeny Genealogy - http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm NDGenWeb Archives - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/nd/ndfiles.htm Pembina County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm Ramsey County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm

YES Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 6:17 PM Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 00-8 vote >Board members, > >Discussion period is at an end by more or less unanimous consent as two or >three members ignored the statement not to include comments with their vote. > >If you wish to make a statement at this time, even though the discussion >period is over, please do so in a separate email. Votes that contain >additional comments will be tossed out - the member will be asked to vote >again during the time period of the vote. Voting to commence immediately >and to end either after all members have voted or 48 hours whichever comes >first. > >Please vote on Motion 00-8 made by Richard, seconded by Jim - I make the >Motion 'to over ride the National Coordinator's de-link of the USGenWeb >Census Project.' by replying with one of the following options only: > >YES - a vote of yes means that the NC overstepped authority and that the >link should be restored for the CP >NO - a vote of no means that the NC is within bounds and that the CP should >remained de-linked >ABSTAIN - a vote of abstain means that you are ambivalent on this issue > >2/3 vote required to pass after a quorum is reached. > >Thanks, > >Tim > > > > >

Teri I meant to log it but log didn't turn on Sorry. Richard... Teri Pettit wrote: > > At 2:33 PM -0700 4/12/00, Richard's wrote: > >I have opened #USGW-Census on irc.rootsweb.com for any of us that wish to > >discuss any of this. It will allow us to quickly communicate our thoughts. > > Richard, > > Can the discussion be logged and the log posted to BOARD-L? > > I do not have access to irc due to corporate security restrictions. > > Teri -- Richard M. Howland Mailto:RichPump@wf.net ICQ # 898319 NE/NCR CC Representative HOWLAND-L List Co-ordinator WOODWORKING-L list Co-ordinator VARNER-L List Co-ordinator FISHING-L list Co-ordinator ILPIATT-L List Co-ordinator HEDGEHOGS-L List Co-ordinator TXYOUNG-L List Co-ordinator http://www.rootsweb.com/~ilpiatt/piatt.htm http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richpump/YoungCountyCemPage.htm http://www.pets.rootsweb.com/~hedgehogs/index.html http://www.crafts.rootsweb.com/~woodworking/index.html http://www.wf.net/~richpump/HowlandOnLine.html

I vote No Richard... Tim Stowell wrote: > Please vote on Motion 00-8 made by Richard, seconded by Jim - I make the > Motion 'to over ride the National Coordinator's de-link of the USGenWeb > Census Project.' by replying with one of the following options only: > > YES - a vote of yes means that the NC overstepped authority and that the > link should be restored for the CP > NO - a vote of no means that the NC is within bounds and that the CP should > remained de-linked > ABSTAIN - a vote of abstain means that you are ambivalent on this issue > > 2/3 vote required to pass after a quorum is reached. > > Thanks, > > Tim -- Richard M. Howland Mailto:RichPump@wf.net ICQ # 898319 NE/NCR CC Representative HOWLAND-L List Co-ordinator WOODWORKING-L list Co-ordinator VARNER-L List Co-ordinator FISHING-L list Co-ordinator ILPIATT-L List Co-ordinator HEDGEHOGS-L List Co-ordinator TXYOUNG-L List Co-ordinator http://www.rootsweb.com/~ilpiatt/piatt.htm http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richpump/YoungCountyCemPage.htm http://www.pets.rootsweb.com/~hedgehogs/index.html http://www.crafts.rootsweb.com/~woodworking/index.html http://www.wf.net/~richpump/HowlandOnLine.html

NO At 06:06 PM 4/12/00 -0400, you wrote: >YES - a vote of yes means that the NC overstepped authority and that the >link should be restored for the CP >NO - a vote of no means that the NC is within bounds and that the CP should >remained de-linked >ABSTAIN - a vote of abstain means that you are ambivalent on this issue > >2/3 vote required to pass after a quorum is reached. > >Thanks, > >Tim > > >

NO Betsy At 06:06 PM 4/12/00 -0400, you wrote: >Please vote on Motion 00-8 made by Richard, seconded by Jim - I make the >Motion 'to over ride the National Coordinator's de-link of the USGenWeb >Census Project.' by replying with one of the following options only: > >YES - a vote of yes means that the NC overstepped authority and that the >link should be restored for the CP >NO - a vote of no means that the NC is within bounds and that the CP should >remained de-linked >ABSTAIN - a vote of abstain means that you are ambivalent on this issue > >2/3 vote required to pass after a quorum is reached. > >Thanks, > >Tim >

At 3:55 PM -0700 4/12/00, RootsLady wrote: >Boardmembers, >When our National Coordinator delinked the Census Project and gave his >reasons I started checking the reasons he gave. I decided to post some of >what I found. So, I've put together a page addressing some of the causes for >the delinking the Census Project and additional information concerning the >Census Projects themselves. I am still adding to it still. I will continue >to add to it even after we vote. If you have additional information you >think might be helpful to help us all sort these issues out, I would be >happy to consider posting it. > >We are likely to be addressing additional Census issues for some time. >http://lest-we-forget.com/census/ Barbara, Your page, Stacey's mailing list, Shari's forum, Tim's forwarded email, etc., should all be useful resources when we proceed to seating a Census Project board rep and then voting on the merger plans. Thanks for the effort that you put into gathering this. Right now, though, we are voting only on whether the NC has the authority to delink a project. It seems to me that even if, say, the Tombstone Project's front page were to suddenly show up with banner ads proclaiming that the USGenWeb Project supports so-and-so for President and charging your credit card to access the Tombstone index, the ByLaws would *still* require that the Advisory Board vote to notify them that their page was non-compliant and give them 2 weeks to get into compliance. The National Coordinator or the national Webmaster could not do it on their own. (Although if a violation were that egregious, I would hope any subproject's own volunteers would rise up in rebellion against their webmaster long before two weeks went by.) -- Teri

Boardmembers, When our National Coordinator delinked the Census Project and gave his reasons I started checking the reasons he gave. I decided to post some of what I found. So, I've put together a page addressing some of the causes for the delinking the Census Project and additional information concerning the Census Projects themselves. I am still adding to it still. I will continue to add to it even after we vote. If you have additional information you think might be helpful to help us all sort these issues out, I would be happy to consider posting it. We are likely to be addressing additional Census issues for some time. http://lest-we-forget.com/census/ Thank You, RootsLady (aka) Barbara Yancey Dore RootsLady@lest-we-forget.com - RootsLady@email.msn.com HomePage: RootsLady's Home, Home On The Web - http://RootsLady.com The OUTHOUSE - Genealogy Humor http://www.lest-we-forget.com/The_Outhouse CC for 8 TX Counties & 1 GA County "In loving memory of all my ancestors and for the benefit of all their descendants."

At 3:06 PM -0700 4/12/00, Tim Stowell wrote: >Please vote on Motion 00-8 made by Richard, seconded by Jim - I make the >Motion 'to over ride the National Coordinator's de-link of the USGenWeb >Census Project.' by replying with one of the following options only: > >YES - a vote of yes means that the NC overstepped authority and that the >link should be restored for the CP >NO - a vote of no means that the NC is within bounds and that the CP should >remained de-linked Yes.

No. Tina Vickery

YES Jim Tim Stowell wrote: > YES - a vote of yes means that the NC overstepped authority and that the > link should be restored for the CP > Thanks, > Tim

Board members, Discussion period is at an end by more or less unanimous consent as two or three members ignored the statement not to include comments with their vote. If you wish to make a statement at this time, even though the discussion period is over, please do so in a separate email. Votes that contain additional comments will be tossed out - the member will be asked to vote again during the time period of the vote. Voting to commence immediately and to end either after all members have voted or 48 hours whichever comes first. Please vote on Motion 00-8 made by Richard, seconded by Jim - I make the Motion 'to over ride the National Coordinator's de-link of the USGenWeb Census Project.' by replying with one of the following options only: YES - a vote of yes means that the NC overstepped authority and that the link should be restored for the CP NO - a vote of no means that the NC is within bounds and that the CP should remained de-linked ABSTAIN - a vote of abstain means that you are ambivalent on this issue 2/3 vote required to pass after a quorum is reached. Thanks, Tim

I have opened #USGW-Census on irc.rootsweb.com for any of us that wish to discuss any of this. It will allow us to quickly communicate our thoughts. Richard... Richard M. Howland Mailto:RichPump@wf.net ICQ # 898319 NE/NCR CC Representative HOWLAND-L List Co-ordinator WOODWORKING-L list Co-ordinator VARNER-L List Co-ordinator FISHING-L list Co-ordinator ILPIATT-L List Co-ordinator HEDGEHOGS-L List Co-ordinator TXYOUNG-L List Co-ordinator http://www.rootsweb.com/~ilpiatt/piatt.htm http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richpump/YoungCountyCemPage.htm http://www.pets.rootsweb.com/~hedgehogs/index.html http://www.crafts.rootsweb.com/~woodworking/index.html http://www.wf.net/~richpump/HowlandOnLine.html

At 2:33 PM -0700 4/12/00, Richard's wrote: >I have opened #USGW-Census on irc.rootsweb.com for any of us that wish to >discuss any of this. It will allow us to quickly communicate our thoughts. Richard, Can the discussion be logged and the log posted to BOARD-L? I do not have access to irc due to corporate security restrictions. Teri

At 11:10 AM -0700 4/12/00, Pam Reid wrote: >I am afraid that Joe is right, but I hope he isn't. The ONLY reason >that there is Census Special Project in the bylaws is because Kay fought >her way onto to Board and the committee and made sure it was worded that >way. She had a plan LONG before it was put into effect. She is also >probably the reason the Archives is called a special project in the >bylaws. Perhaps in some ways, it is. But, by the definition of SP that >we are using now, it isn't. The USGenWeb Archives is a central >repository for ALL records and the, in my book anyway, is a library! Pam, That is why I think it is very important to make a distinction between The USGenWeb Project Archives and The USGenWeb Archives Project, both terms which are used in the ByLaws. The USGenWeb Project Archives is the "central repository for ALL records" that you speak of. It is defined in the ByLaws as "a Digital Library called the USGenWeb Project Archives." The ByLaws never refer to the USGenWeb Project Archives as a Special Project. They DO refer to The USGenWeb Archives Project as a Special Project. It is necessary that The USGenWeb Archives Project be a Special Project because that is the only way that the Archives File Managers can get an Advisory Board seat or vote in USGenWeb elections. In all ways that count, the USGenWeb Archives Project is a full-fledged Special Project. But, that doesn't mean that the USGenWeb Project Archives are a Special Project. They aren't a project at all, they are a repository. Projects have members, staff and coordinators. Repositories have contents, files, and locations. Libraries don't vote, people do. This is the way I see the organization: USGenWeb Project Archives = USGenWeb Digital Library = files, not people USGenWeb Census Project = a Special Project, composed of volunteers who focus on getting census transcriptions submitted to the USGenWeb Project Archives USGenWeb Tombstone Project = a Special Project, composed of volunteers who focus on getting cemetery transcriptions submitted to the USGenWeb Project Archives USGenWeb Archives Project = a Special Project, composed of volunteers who act as custodians for the USGenWeb Project Archives, and who also coordinate volunteers to gather for submission content of miscellaneous types not covered under any other Special Project (including scanned images, even if they are images of censuses or tombstones.) The three special projects are of equal status under the ByLaws, and none is subordinate to the other. None of them can vote in each other's elections, or have any say in choosing each other's leaders. But the USGenWeb Archives Project does have a special responsibility for the USGenWeb Project Archives that the other Special Projects do not. The other Special Projects focus on providing content, the Archives Project focuses on storing that content and facilitating access to it. I think this was the intent of the ByLaws, and I think that clarifying this distinction was the main intent of Motion 99-4, which we voted to rescind. But in voting to rescind it, I did not mean that I didn't concur with its intent. I just felt that it wasn't very clearly stated, and having caused as much confusion as it was meant to relieve, it would be better replaced with a statement that spelled things out in a more 1-2-3 fashion. One would hope that on any matters requiring a coordination between two special projects, the volunteers of each would work together to come up a solution that worked for everyone. For example, for uniformity, it would be best if the permission notice that is inserted in each file was the same no matter which Special Project's volunteers provided the transcription. So the volunteers of ALL the Special Projects should be consulted in coming up with the wording. But decisions about which columns of the census to transcribe and how to format the tables, or whether to list burials alphabetically or locationally, would be up to the Census and Tombstone volunteers. Since redundancy of file storage is actually highly desirable (as opposed to redundancy of effort), I think Special Projects should even be ENCOURAGED to duplicate files on as many different hosts as possible. The locations and directory organization for those "backup" copies would be entirely up to the Special Project. But maintaining such backup directories or supplementary indexes would not substitute for the primary obligation of the Special Project to submit any plain text files it generates to the USGenWeb Project Archives. -- Teri (See also http://www.best.com/~tpettit/usgenweb/ArchivesQA.html )

In a message dated 04/12/2000 7:11:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, RootsLady@email.msn.com writes: > Boardmembers, > When our National Coordinator delinked the Census Project and gave his > reasons I started checking the reasons he gave. I decided to post some of > what I found. So, I've put together a page addressing some of the causes for > the delinking the Census Project and additional information concerning the > Census Projects themselves. I am still adding to it still. I will continue > to add to it even after we vote. If you have additional information you > think might be helpful to help us all sort these issues out, I would be > happy to consider posting it. > > We are likely to be addressing additional Census issues for some time. > http://lest-we-forget.com/census/ > > Thank You, > RootsLady (aka) Barbara Yancey Dore Barbara, I can appreciate the amount of effort you have put into this. and I don't believe any of the problems are going away overnight. But this vote is simply on whether Tim had the authority to delink anyone since the Bylaws clearly give that authority to the Board alone. Please let's all stick to the simple item being voted on and branch out the discussions once voting is completed. Thanks for listening, Virginia (Ginger) Cisewski "It takes two to speak the truth: one to talk, another to hear." ----Henry David Thoreau

This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------D7CE6E85F41CCD987EAEFD55 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The attached is reposted with permission. This is what I am talking about when I speak of those in the trenches. I have spent much time there myself. They don't know what all the hubbub is about. They just want to transcribe and contribute. This mess is all bound up with the "managers". Remove the top and it all goes away. That is why I say let everyone transcribe, but no duplicates. If the "managers" want to fight let them do it in private. Joe -- Zsedeny Genealogy - http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm NDGenWeb Archives - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/nd/ndfiles.htm Pembina County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm Ramsey County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm --------------D7CE6E85F41CCD987EAEFD55 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: <spcarpenter@ka.net> Delivered-To: jzsed@slic.com Received: (qmail 7425 invoked from network); 12 Apr 2000 18:23:56 -0000 Received: from host.ka.net (root@207.51.78.4) by eagle.slic.com with SMTP; 12 Apr 2000 18:23:56 -0000 Received: from dex52 (198max4.ka.net [207.51.74.198]) by host.ka.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA25140 for <jzsed@slic.com>; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:17:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002f01bfa4c4$09e4d440$068ffea9@dex52> From: "POP3.ka.net" <spcarpenter@ka.net> To: <jzsed@slic.com> References: <38F497D4.2507A714@slic.com> Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] General Comment [Census Mess} Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:14:06 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Thanks. This explains what the argument is. I was wondering exactly. I am doing Grant Co., KY with a book donated by S-K Publishing Co. I am glad to do it. I just want everyone to have access to it and it not be a paid database. Sue : After much reflection I want to share my thoughts with the : Board and the USGW world, I guess, since this is an open : read list. I write this while yawning in disgust. --------------D7CE6E85F41CCD987EAEFD55--

> YES - a vote of yes means that the NC overstepped authority and that the > link should be restored for the CP YES Virginia (Ginger) Cisewski "It takes two to speak the truth: one to talk, another to hear." ----Henry David Thoreau

LOL! Teri Pettit wrote: > > At 8:39 AM -0700 4/12/00, TVick65536@aol.com submitted the 15th vote: > > > >Yes. > >Tina Vickery > > Jim, > > How disrespectful of your fellow Board Members to introduce a motion > that passed unanimously within 11 hours. > > Don't you know it disturbs us all greatly to agree on something? > > -- Teri > > ;-) ;-)

I am afraid that Joe is right, but I hope he isn't. The ONLY reason that there is Census Special Project in the bylaws is because Kay fought her way onto to Board and the committee and made sure it was worded that way. She had a plan LONG before it was put into effect. She is also probably the reason the Archives is called a special project in the bylaws. Perhaps in some ways, it is. But, by the definition of SP that we are using now, it isn't. The USGenWeb Archives is a central repository for ALL records and the, in my book anyway, is a library! Just in case anyone here wants to say, "But what about the Tombstone Project"?, I will answer that now. I started that Project, on my own, and it became an official SP of The USGenWeb Project once it proved to be so successful. I offered it up on a silver platter to the Project because I believed so deeply in the USGenWeb Project and the accomplishments being made and had no interest in be "in charge" or "powerful" (what do those words mean here anyway?). But, from the beginning, ALL transcriptions sent to The Tombstone Project were sent to the appropriate state Archives. Pam "Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny" wrote: > > After much reflection I want to share my thoughts with the > Board and the USGW world, I guess, since this is an open > read list. I write this while yawning in disgust. > > Folks, there just ain't gonna be an agreement between the > parties to solve this mess. If Shari's motion is passed it > will be ignored by both sides. So what you do you do then? > The ACP is a special project of the Archives. The CP was > originally THE Archives Census Project. It was pirated away > by Kay, the privateer. In the meantime, the ByLaws arose out > of the mists to sanction a Census Project. The CP fills that > role now because the ACP is an Archives special project. Are > you still with me or has everyone yawned in disgust also and > fell asleep? > > Solution? None. But a workaround is possible. Let the CP > continued as they are. Let the ACP continue as they are. > Here is where the Board should come in. Insure that both > projects answer email from transcribers and others in a > timely fashion. If they don't answer mail, advertise the > fact to the world causing as much embarassment as possible. > Each can do transcriptions. The first to receive a message > from a transcriber puts that person to work for their > respective project and the other stays the hell out of THAT > particular transcriber's business so that John Schunk > doesn't have to send two CDs. The CP puts up a front page > with only their transcriber information including the > completed transcriptions, as they do now, and furnishes > copies to the Archives, as they do now. The Acp puts up a > front page with ALL transcriptions (but only ACP > transcribers), including indexes...and etc. If anyone is > still with me, read on for awhile longer. > > To sum up, there is enough work for both to do > transcriptions. The Archives must have ALL the information > to fulfill their role as the USGW Digital Library. Each has > a front page to keep their egos happy. I hope that those in > the trenches doing the work for both projects ignore any ego > driven leadership from both projects and work together to > satisfy the goal of getting the census online. > > Now I know there is something wrong with this and probably > the first to answer will enlighten me. > > Joe > -- > Zsedeny Genealogy - http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm > NDGenWeb Archives - > http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/nd/ndfiles.htm > Pembina County, ND - > http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm > Ramsey County, ND - > http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm