Tim, Your comments are uncalled for. In light of your recent actions maybe you should review the role of a Chair in a meeting. Your comments about respect for board member are like the pot calling the kettle black, since your recent actions clearly demonstrate that you have no respect for this board or it's function. BTW: Maybe you should read Pam's note again. Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 8:53 PM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] call the question >Jim, > >Did you not see that the others still wished to keep discussion going - ie >Holly, in the note you answered to? Also Pam asked for more time shortly >thereafter. > >Do you not respect fellow Board members wishes to do so? > >However, be that as it may since you have Called the Question and Virginia >has given it a second - > >Board members: > >Please vote Yes, No, or Abstain - to the Call the Question request. > >This vote is only to determine whether or not discussion shall continue >regarding Motion 00-8, it is NOT a vote on Motion 00-8. > >Voting YES means that you wish discussion to cease on the Motion in question >Voting NO means that you wish discussion to continue on the Motion in question >Voting Abstain means that you don't care either way > >2/3 of members voting after the quorum is reached required for the Call the >Question to pass. > >Tim > > >At 06:33 AM 4/11/00 -0400, you wrote: >>Did our esteemed NC ask for a second? I again call the question and ask >for a >>second myself. >> >>Jim >> >>Tim Stowell wrote: >> >>> At 11:03 AM 4/9/00 -0400, you wrote: >>> >I call the question... >>> >Jim >>> > >>> >Holly Timm wrote: >>> > >>> >> At 06:40 AM 4/9/00 -0500, Ginger wrote: >>> >> >Tim, >>> >> >May I ask why there has been no call to vote for a >>> >> >vote on Motion 00-8? The customary 48 hr discussion >>> >> >period ended some time ago. >>> >> >>> >> I don't know how others feel but the volume of email being received and >>> >> needing to be read and digested and some replied to is to me part of the >>> >> discussion. I am no where near ready to vote and frankly, I am less >>> >> concerned about the opinions of my fellow board members at this point >than >>> >> I am about determining (and at times deciphering) the thoughts, feelings >>> >> and questions of my constituency, all of them, not just those who are >>> >> bombarding the lists and the board members. >>> >> >>> >> Holly >>> > >>> >>> Jim your call dies for lack of a second. >>> >>> Section 16, Page 199 >>> EQUAL APPLICATION OF RULES TO COLLOQUIAL FORMS SUCH AS "CALL FOR THE >>> QUESTION." A motion such as "I call for (or"call") the question" or "I >>> move we vote now" is simply a motion for the Previous Question made in >>> nonstandard form and it is subject to all of the rules in this >>> section. Care should be taken that failure to understand this fact does >>> not lead to violation of members' rights of debate. >>> >>> Sometimes the mere making of a motion for the Previous Question or "call >>> for the question" may motivate unanimous consent to ending debate. Before >>> or after such a motion has been seconded, the chair may ask if there is any >>> objection to closing debate. If member(s) object or try to get the floor, >>> he should ask if there is a second to the motion or call; or, if it has >>> already been seconded, he must immediately take a vote on whether to order >>> the Previous Question. But regardless of the wording of a motion or "call" >>> seeking to close debate, it always requires a second and a two-thirds vote, >>> taken separately from and before the vote(s) on the motions(s) to which it >>> is applied, to shut off debate against the will of even one member who >>> wishes to speak and has not exhausted his right to debate (see pp. 42; >>> 382-384). >>> >>> Page 42 states "A member who has spoken twice on a particular question on >>> the same day has exhausted his right to debate that question for that day". >>> >>> Tim >> >> >

Tim, This is becoming absurd. Why not just let us vote? Either the cavalry has arrived or they are not coming. I did read those messages, did you? Only the first one said we needed more discussion on this particular Motion. I vote **YES** to cease discussion on this motion and actually vote on the question on the floor before we forget what that motion was. The discussion and postings to this list haven't kept that motion in mind. Just in case the unwanted commentary clouded my vote, it is ****YES**** Tim Wrote: "Voting YES means that you wish discussion to cease on the Motion in question" Jim Powell Jr Tim Stowell wrote: > Jim, > > Did you not see that the others still wished to keep discussion going - ie > Holly, in the note you answered to? Also Pam asked for more time shortly > thereafter. > > Do you not respect fellow Board members wishes to do so? > > However, be that as it may since you have Called the Question and Virginia > has given it a second - > > Board members: > > Please vote Yes, No, or Abstain - to the Call the Question request. > > This vote is only to determine whether or not discussion shall continue > regarding Motion 00-8, it is NOT a vote on Motion 00-8. > > Voting YES means that you wish discussion to cease on the Motion in question > Voting NO means that you wish discussion to continue on the Motion in question > Voting Abstain means that you don't care either way > > 2/3 of members voting after the quorum is reached required for the Call the > Question to pass. > > Tim > > At 06:33 AM 4/11/00 -0400, you wrote: > >Did our esteemed NC ask for a second? I again call the question and ask > for a > >second myself. > > > >Jim > > > >Tim Stowell wrote: > > > >> At 11:03 AM 4/9/00 -0400, you wrote: > >> >I call the question... > >> >Jim > >> > > >> >Holly Timm wrote: > >> > > >> >> At 06:40 AM 4/9/00 -0500, Ginger wrote: > >> >> >Tim, > >> >> >May I ask why there has been no call to vote for a > >> >> >vote on Motion 00-8? The customary 48 hr discussion > >> >> >period ended some time ago. > >> >> > >> >> I don't know how others feel but the volume of email being received and > >> >> needing to be read and digested and some replied to is to me part of the > >> >> discussion. I am no where near ready to vote and frankly, I am less > >> >> concerned about the opinions of my fellow board members at this point > than > >> >> I am about determining (and at times deciphering) the thoughts, feelings > >> >> and questions of my constituency, all of them, not just those who are > >> >> bombarding the lists and the board members. > >> >> > >> >> Holly > >> > > >> > >> Jim your call dies for lack of a second. > >> > >> Section 16, Page 199 > >> EQUAL APPLICATION OF RULES TO COLLOQUIAL FORMS SUCH AS "CALL FOR THE > >> QUESTION." A motion such as "I call for (or"call") the question" or "I > >> move we vote now" is simply a motion for the Previous Question made in > >> nonstandard form and it is subject to all of the rules in this > >> section. Care should be taken that failure to understand this fact does > >> not lead to violation of members' rights of debate. > >> > >> Sometimes the mere making of a motion for the Previous Question or "call > >> for the question" may motivate unanimous consent to ending debate. Before > >> or after such a motion has been seconded, the chair may ask if there is any > >> objection to closing debate. If member(s) object or try to get the floor, > >> he should ask if there is a second to the motion or call; or, if it has > >> already been seconded, he must immediately take a vote on whether to order > >> the Previous Question. But regardless of the wording of a motion or "call" > >> seeking to close debate, it always requires a second and a two-thirds vote, > >> taken separately from and before the vote(s) on the motions(s) to which it > >> is applied, to shut off debate against the will of even one member who > >> wishes to speak and has not exhausted his right to debate (see pp. 42; > >> 382-384). > >> > >> Page 42 states "A member who has spoken twice on a particular question on > >> the same day has exhausted his right to debate that question for that day". > >> > >> Tim > > > >

Jim, Did you not see that the others still wished to keep discussion going - ie Holly, in the note you answered to? Also Pam asked for more time shortly thereafter. Do you not respect fellow Board members wishes to do so? However, be that as it may since you have Called the Question and Virginia has given it a second - Board members: Please vote Yes, No, or Abstain - to the Call the Question request. This vote is only to determine whether or not discussion shall continue regarding Motion 00-8, it is NOT a vote on Motion 00-8. Voting YES means that you wish discussion to cease on the Motion in question Voting NO means that you wish discussion to continue on the Motion in question Voting Abstain means that you don't care either way 2/3 of members voting after the quorum is reached required for the Call the Question to pass. Tim At 06:33 AM 4/11/00 -0400, you wrote: >Did our esteemed NC ask for a second? I again call the question and ask for a >second myself. > >Jim > >Tim Stowell wrote: > >> At 11:03 AM 4/9/00 -0400, you wrote: >> >I call the question... >> >Jim >> > >> >Holly Timm wrote: >> > >> >> At 06:40 AM 4/9/00 -0500, Ginger wrote: >> >> >Tim, >> >> >May I ask why there has been no call to vote for a >> >> >vote on Motion 00-8? The customary 48 hr discussion >> >> >period ended some time ago. >> >> >> >> I don't know how others feel but the volume of email being received and >> >> needing to be read and digested and some replied to is to me part of the >> >> discussion. I am no where near ready to vote and frankly, I am less >> >> concerned about the opinions of my fellow board members at this point than >> >> I am about determining (and at times deciphering) the thoughts, feelings >> >> and questions of my constituency, all of them, not just those who are >> >> bombarding the lists and the board members. >> >> >> >> Holly >> > >> >> Jim your call dies for lack of a second. >> >> Section 16, Page 199 >> EQUAL APPLICATION OF RULES TO COLLOQUIAL FORMS SUCH AS "CALL FOR THE >> QUESTION." A motion such as "I call for (or"call") the question" or "I >> move we vote now" is simply a motion for the Previous Question made in >> nonstandard form and it is subject to all of the rules in this >> section. Care should be taken that failure to understand this fact does >> not lead to violation of members' rights of debate. >> >> Sometimes the mere making of a motion for the Previous Question or "call >> for the question" may motivate unanimous consent to ending debate. Before >> or after such a motion has been seconded, the chair may ask if there is any >> objection to closing debate. If member(s) object or try to get the floor, >> he should ask if there is a second to the motion or call; or, if it has >> already been seconded, he must immediately take a vote on whether to order >> the Previous Question. But regardless of the wording of a motion or "call" >> seeking to close debate, it always requires a second and a two-thirds vote, >> taken separately from and before the vote(s) on the motions(s) to which it >> is applied, to shut off debate against the will of even one member who >> wishes to speak and has not exhausted his right to debate (see pp. 42; >> 382-384). >> >> Page 42 states "A member who has spoken twice on a particular question on >> the same day has exhausted his right to debate that question for that day". >> >> Tim > >

> "Voting YES means that you wish discussion to cease on the Motion in question" > YES Virginia (Ginger) Cisewski "It takes two to speak the truth: one to talk, another to hear." ----Henry David Thoreau

Tim, At this point the why of your actions is irrelevant. The fact is that you had no authority to act as you did without a full vote of the board. The Bylaws clearly state that the Board is charged with the decision of delinking. No one person has, or should have, the authority to make that kind of decision. Your actions impact every state and special project in USGW. Tomorrow you could decide to delink a couple of states because you perceive them to be in violation of something. Bottom line: This was not your decision to make! Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 3:44 AM Subject: [BOARD-L] Why I delinked the Census Project >Fellow Project members: > >There have been many requests and some demands for a further explanation >regarding my action of delinking the Census Project from the National >website. Below are the issues I considered in making my decision. > >First issue - Copyright violation - When Kay Mason moved the Project last >year and when Ron Eason continued to use those pages without express >permission of the creator of those pages it falls under the category of >copyright violation which is not permissible. Back in the fall of 1999 >when Kay's mail started bouncing I asked Ron to remove Kay's address from >the census pages so that folks would not try to contact an invalid address. > I also asked multiple times that he change the creation dates to the >correct dates - if he was going to continue to use these pages - those >being 1997 and that the project was founded by Linda Lewis. Ron did remove >Kay's email address and name and then added himself as National Coordinator >USGenWeb Census Project. It took several months of emails to get him to >remove National Coordinator to replace it with Coordinator - even though he >was actually only the Acting Coordinator. > >Second issue - failure to answer email in a timely manner - after several >complaints of not getting answers from the CP - I just directed the folks >to the ACP. > >Third issue - failure to negotiate in good faith for a merger of the ACP >and CP. Back in late August 1999 - in another attempt to resolve the issue >that all previous attempts had not settled - I put out feelers to both the >ACP and CP - once the election was over - we started in early September >with those talks. Both projects put up their thoughts on what the issues >where and how to resolve them. Mr Eason at first demanded that the name >remain the same and that the Census project be housed in directories that >the Archives file managers would not be able to access. These items were >agreed upon over the process of time. Having gained that concession he >continued to insist on more and more - ie his way or no way. > >In November - the talks having fallen by the wayside for some time due to >other commitments of most of us - Sue Soden made the initiative to see what >she could do to get the talks resumed. By early to mid-December 1999 the >issues seemed to be working out - the directories where set up for the >census by Rootsweb and the merger was going thru. Connie Burkett, >supposedly on behalf of the CP sent out a letter in late December that >things were proceeding smoothly - so Rootsweb personnel started making the >changes needed to get the files to the proper directory - then suddenly Ron >comes back from his job and blows up the whole merger by saying that the >ACP is taking over. > >Since that time he has continued to demand more and more, refused to >concede anything, says he wants to talk but does not show ANY form of >compromise other than to continually whine that the CP gives up everything >the ACP nothing. > >The fact is Mr Eason's project is NOT the original project but is in fact >the pirated project and pirated name. The ACP IS the Original project but >obviously had to change it's name when it's files / name were stolen. > >Now he's asking the Board to confirm Kay's theft of the files and his >continuance of those actions. > >It's kinda hard to have negotiations when one side refuses to give anything >and complains when asked to do so and then says let's rewind and go through >the same motions again, over and over and over. > >It was time to take the bull by the horns. > >Tim Stowell >National Coordinator USGenWeb Project >

Did our esteemed NC ask for a second? I again call the question and ask for a second myself. Jim Tim Stowell wrote: > At 11:03 AM 4/9/00 -0400, you wrote: > >I call the question... > >Jim > > > >Holly Timm wrote: > > > >> At 06:40 AM 4/9/00 -0500, Ginger wrote: > >> >Tim, > >> >May I ask why there has been no call to vote for a > >> >vote on Motion 00-8? The customary 48 hr discussion > >> >period ended some time ago. > >> > >> I don't know how others feel but the volume of email being received and > >> needing to be read and digested and some replied to is to me part of the > >> discussion. I am no where near ready to vote and frankly, I am less > >> concerned about the opinions of my fellow board members at this point than > >> I am about determining (and at times deciphering) the thoughts, feelings > >> and questions of my constituency, all of them, not just those who are > >> bombarding the lists and the board members. > >> > >> Holly > > > > Jim your call dies for lack of a second. > > Section 16, Page 199 > EQUAL APPLICATION OF RULES TO COLLOQUIAL FORMS SUCH AS "CALL FOR THE > QUESTION." A motion such as "I call for (or"call") the question" or "I > move we vote now" is simply a motion for the Previous Question made in > nonstandard form and it is subject to all of the rules in this > section. Care should be taken that failure to understand this fact does > not lead to violation of members' rights of debate. > > Sometimes the mere making of a motion for the Previous Question or "call > for the question" may motivate unanimous consent to ending debate. Before > or after such a motion has been seconded, the chair may ask if there is any > objection to closing debate. If member(s) object or try to get the floor, > he should ask if there is a second to the motion or call; or, if it has > already been seconded, he must immediately take a vote on whether to order > the Previous Question. But regardless of the wording of a motion or "call" > seeking to close debate, it always requires a second and a two-thirds vote, > taken separately from and before the vote(s) on the motions(s) to which it > is applied, to shut off debate against the will of even one member who > wishes to speak and has not exhausted his right to debate (see pp. 42; > 382-384). > > Page 42 states "A member who has spoken twice on a particular question on > the same day has exhausted his right to debate that question for that day". > > Tim

Fellow Project members: There have been many requests and some demands for a further explanation regarding my action of delinking the Census Project from the National website. Below are the issues I considered in making my decision. First issue - Copyright violation - When Kay Mason moved the Project last year and when Ron Eason continued to use those pages without express permission of the creator of those pages it falls under the category of copyright violation which is not permissible. Back in the fall of 1999 when Kay's mail started bouncing I asked Ron to remove Kay's address from the census pages so that folks would not try to contact an invalid address. I also asked multiple times that he change the creation dates to the correct dates - if he was going to continue to use these pages - those being 1997 and that the project was founded by Linda Lewis. Ron did remove Kay's email address and name and then added himself as National Coordinator USGenWeb Census Project. It took several months of emails to get him to remove National Coordinator to replace it with Coordinator - even though he was actually only the Acting Coordinator. Second issue - failure to answer email in a timely manner - after several complaints of not getting answers from the CP - I just directed the folks to the ACP. Third issue - failure to negotiate in good faith for a merger of the ACP and CP. Back in late August 1999 - in another attempt to resolve the issue that all previous attempts had not settled - I put out feelers to both the ACP and CP - once the election was over - we started in early September with those talks. Both projects put up their thoughts on what the issues where and how to resolve them. Mr Eason at first demanded that the name remain the same and that the Census project be housed in directories that the Archives file managers would not be able to access. These items were agreed upon over the process of time. Having gained that concession he continued to insist on more and more - ie his way or no way. In November - the talks having fallen by the wayside for some time due to other commitments of most of us - Sue Soden made the initiative to see what she could do to get the talks resumed. By early to mid-December 1999 the issues seemed to be working out - the directories where set up for the census by Rootsweb and the merger was going thru. Connie Burkett, supposedly on behalf of the CP sent out a letter in late December that things were proceeding smoothly - so Rootsweb personnel started making the changes needed to get the files to the proper directory - then suddenly Ron comes back from his job and blows up the whole merger by saying that the ACP is taking over. Since that time he has continued to demand more and more, refused to concede anything, says he wants to talk but does not show ANY form of compromise other than to continually whine that the CP gives up everything the ACP nothing. The fact is Mr Eason's project is NOT the original project but is in fact the pirated project and pirated name. The ACP IS the Original project but obviously had to change it's name when it's files / name were stolen. Now he's asking the Board to confirm Kay's theft of the files and his continuance of those actions. It's kinda hard to have negotiations when one side refuses to give anything and complains when asked to do so and then says let's rewind and go through the same motions again, over and over and over. It was time to take the bull by the horns. Tim Stowell National Coordinator USGenWeb Project

>From: "Ron & Kathy" >To: "Tim Stowell" <tstowell@chattanooga.net>, > "Connie Burkett" > "Maggie Stewart" >Cc: <kellyj, "Wayne Duncan" > "Linda Lewis" , "Sue Soden" >Subject: Re: Census Discussion - Finale >Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 17:02:23 +0200 > >Tim, et al, > >I'm sorry to see that you are given, to giving up. We haven't. >I know that I can only speak for Connie, Wayne and myself when I say that we >have never, not been open to discussion. > >In fact, during our primary discussion group it was you who departed and we >didn't hear from you for a very long time. I contacted you on numerous >occasions wanting to know what the problem was. I understand that you also >have a life, but in this most recent post you make it sound as if you have >done everything possible. > >Well, I think that the honor of trying has to go to The USGenWeb Census >Project. We alone have been asked to compromise everything. The famous >speach has always been, "There has to be a spirit of compromise and workign >together". But there has been no compromise on the part of the Archives >Project. > >Observe: > >1. Name Change: We are to compromise >2. Status within Project: We are to compromise >3. File locations: We are to compromise >4. Officers/Staff: We are to compromise > >The list goes on. We were to give up everything and be absorbed by the >Archives Project. For what? To make everything better? I got a letter >from a volunteer just this morning saying she "had a heck of a time getting >her first transcription on-line until Kay Mason took charge and it went up >and has stayed up." She said: "I will NOT submit any more transcriptions >until this thing is cleared up." She ended it by saying: "Please do not >let the Archives Project take control as they seem to be determined to do." >What do I say to people like that? >This is not about ego's. At least not on our part. >It's about Pride in what we are doing. It's about integrity that we try to >uphold. It's about people. Real people with real feelings. People who >work hard for free that just want a good, safe, reliable, honest place to >care about them and their work. >THAT's what we are about. >And no one wants to address the issues that matter to us. No one wants to >see where we fit into all this. >You, Tim, and everyone else want a simple, "turn it over to the Archives so >I don't have to battle with Linda solution", but it isn't that simple. The >Board already got involved last year. I assume you still know the number to >the Motion or Resolution, whatever it was that you refused to enforce. They >recomended that the Archives stop with the duplicate Project, but you >wouldn't touch it for nothing. As if you didn't want to get your hands >dirty. Or maybe you thought Linda might beat you up. She's not that mean, >really. >Here is what we are faced with. >We don't want two Projects because we understand it is a waste of effort. >Especially in the same Project. But we don't want to be forced to >disappear. And for some reason, that's what have of the people on this >mailing want. > >We see ourselves as being required to maintain our Special Project, as just >that. A Special Project. Not a sub-Project. >The argument of all the files being in the same place so that they can be >covered by the Search Engine is old and stupid and anyone that believes it >must be old and stupid too. Those Search Engines can search anywhere >Rootsweb tells them to. Linda chooses for them not to, thus Rootsweb >listens. They could be directed to the current locations of all our files >and be searched just like hers are. And if you doubt that, think of all the >new pages and projects Rootsweb adds all the time. Do you think they will >add new stuff and not have them searchable? Think again. This old tactic >is to get the files inside of the Archives file system so that they can be >under Archives control. Not USGW's control, but under the Archives control. >This is totally not necessary. It will take 1000 times more work and >manhours to move all the files than it would to direct the search engines. >So that idea is full of hot air. >So tell me someone. >Why are these stipulations being made if they are not a logical move? And >why do our pages have to be moved? This is not a merger. This is a >dis-memberment. We have directories, we have pages, we have a name, we have >memberwide and national recognition right where we are. What benefit to us >or to others is gained by us moving everything and changing our name. >Obviously I have been missing something. Actually I don't think so. >Yes, we want something to be done and yes we think a merger is the way to >go, but I don't think taking a Special Project and reducing it to a >sub-project under the Archives control is a very bright and discerning thing >to do. Just call it what it is. A take over. >No Tim, you haven't done all you can do. Agreeing that we shouldn't be the >only ones making compromises would be a great start. Standing up for The >USGenWeb Census Project, as a Special Project of The USGenWeb Project and >wanting to see it flourish and prosper would be a great start. Merely >acting on what the Board already recommended would have been a nice >beginning. But for some reason you seem to also share the ideals of others >who want to reduce The USGenWeb Census Project to The USGW Archives Census >Project. >Unfortunately for the masses you as well as others are entitled to your >opinions. We are also entitled to ours. As many have found that have >spoken out in the past, I may end up being removed but I think it's time >that You, the Board, the Archives and others (unnammed) understand that >without all those volunteers out there that work their tails off every day >to present to the public something of value, that there wouldn't be a >USGenWeb Project. >So when you think that the best thing for all would be for the Census >Project to give up, roll over and get swallowed up without asking why, then >maybe it is time for you to "wash your hands of it all". >But if any of you really want to talk about a sensible merger. About >creating something that makes real sense to all, then lets talk. >If all you are concerned with is getting an Archives sub-project, placing a >feather in someones hat, then I guess there is nothing to talk about. >But please don't say, insinuate, infer or in any other way try to make >anyone think that we have not tried. We have and will always be willing to >try. >But come with logic and intelligence. We want dialogue. But we don't want >arrogance. We want solutions, not roll-over demands. And we certainly >don't want someone hi-jacking our web pages where we have no access to >anything and nothing works. >This can work. It just probably won't work well, Linda's way. She is going >to have to learn to compromise too. >As for the Staff and Volunteers at The USGenWeb Census Project, as long as >they allow me to remain I will do all I can do preserve the standards and >quality of the Project that we know we have. And we will always be willing >to talk. How about the rest of you? > >Thanks, >Ron > >

Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 23:35:55 -0500 To: "Maggie Stewart" "Connie Burkett" "John C. Jacoby" , "Ron Eason" From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> Subject: Census Discussion - Finale Cc: "Sue Soden" , Linda Lewis Wayne Duncan , kellyj On 8/31, I proposed that we create a room where the four principals of this note could speak regarding a resolution of the Census division. Of and on over the last 4 months - things have been discussed, hashed and rehashed. After efforts, by Sue Soden speaking with Linda Lewis around Thanksgiving, to get the ball rolling again and subsequent discussions, it seemed that progress was being made and sounded very positive by mid-December. Apparently either through some miscommunation somewhere along the line, distrust, egos, whatever things fell apart around Christmas. Since then, seeing no movement towards resolution, I'm calling an end to my part in this. I'm washing my hands of this affair and am moving on to areas where I feel I can be more productive. Whether or not the Board becomes involved in this - is for them to say. I'm sorry for the egos that got in the way. If it has been mine, then I apologize to you all. I'm sorry that genuine discussion/resolution did not come about. Most of all, I'm sorry for our users. Had this been resolved it would have ended most folks confusion when trying to find Census records within our project. Tim

From: Wayne To: Maggie Sent: Thursday, December 23, 1999 12:31 PM Subject: Request for ftp authorization and my response..... Maggie: I have never been an individual who has "pulled punches"; so I'm going to say what I believe needs to be said. I have never been one to be concerned with titles and positions or who gets recognition, just that the mission of the organization gets accomplished. What is the mission of this new project? Some are beginning to wonder if it is getting the Archives name "ahead" of the Census project name. Perceptions are reality to those who have the perceptions. What must I do to get someone to notice the fact that many state coordinators are upset and confused over the handling of the webpages? Having taught change management for years, I readily see all phases of acceptance or resistance to change. We have cooridinators from both projects confused as to how to do their job. The transition of the processes that get work accomplished in the project need to undertaken in small steps not one major step. The effect of the one major step approach is confusion without knowledge of reason. Those affected by the change do not know what has happened, only that a change has happened and they do not know why or by whom. People can adapt to change only so fast. I use the example of the boiled frog. If you were to put a frog into a boiling pot of water, the immediate response for the frog is to react and try to remove itself from the boiling water. Another approach is to acclimate the frog to gradual temperature changes, before long the water is boiling and the frog does not react. The "routine" is to stay in the water, so that is what happens. I hope you can see the point I am trying to make. I am trying extremely hard to coordinate the actions of the state coordinators but I do not have the assets at hand to do so. The ftp authorization is a prime example. I don't think there is any need for someone to "relay" information. More people involved in the communication process only allows more opportunities for miscommunicating and adds no value to the end product. It would be easier for folks who want changes to the Archives pages to contact him directly. It is easier and quicker for the project as a whole if a team of individuals get both sets of pages corrected in one motion rather than "passing" requests to the next individual who controls only one small portion. I want you to know that personally I find your response about "security reasons" quite offensive. That's ok, because I've learned to be thick skinned, and I don't believe you intentionally meant to do it. For the sake of the merger, I am trying to keep my personal feelings seperate from those about the project. Who is the "we" you are referring to? The language of our conversations has got to stop referring to the individual projects and the assets associated with them. Are we one organization operating for the common good of all parts or two organizations trying to maintain individual indenties? In my military ocupation, I am responsible for helping administrate a 1200 user LAN which is the backbone for a major repair facility. My organization supports the actions of repair technicans and money management personnel whose decisions affect national security. Our organization's budget exceeded 200 million dollars in the past fiscal year. I can be trusted with passwords controlling that network and not one which has archived information concerning genealogy? Something is amiss here. I think Ron and Connie can state that I have NEVER wandered beyond my scope of responsibility or understanding. That is a cardinal rule of Information Technology professionals! I consider myself a professional in that realm. I will take the time later today and over the Christmas period to write a position description for the liaison coordinator. It will include scope of responsibility as well as the tools and assets required to carry out that responsibility. I will map the processes so that everyone involoved in the project merger can agree to them. In closing, I want to say that I am deeply dedicated to creating a project that intends to help the public through its goals of providing genealogy information at no cost. I remain confident that everyone involved is trying to do the "right things" to make this a reality. Our communication process and coordination need polishing. We need to put forth a plan of action and milestones to be accomplished into writing; agree to it, and execute that plan. It has taken me over ninety minutes to draft this. Hope I've put my feelings into understandable words. Did not want to be rash; but rather wanted to make a level headed approach at discussing my concerns. Feel free to call me. My telephone number is x or y. The "door" is always open! Hope to hear from you soon. Sincerely, Wayne Duncan

Sent: Sunday, December 26, 1999 4:07 PM Connie Burkett wrote: > To all Transcribers of the Census Project, > > In case you have shortcuts, favorites, or bookmarks to mark the different > web page URLs, you may have noticed the web pages have all been redirected > to the "Archives" Census Project. THIS WAS AN UNAUTHORIZED REDIRECTION. > The Census Project was in merger negotiations with the "Archives" Census > Project and since the unauthorized redirection was done we have put the > merger on hold. The "Archives" Census Project's actions were not those of a > planned merger. > > Please continue to send your finished files to me and Ron Eason as you have > been doing, and if you can't find the instructions for submitting, use the > links listed below. > > Our Census Project's "Acting" National Coordinator (Ron Eason) has requested > the redirection be set back to the original setting. Until it is set back, > if you want to get to the familiar "blue" census pages, please use the > following URLs. > > For the State Assignment Status starting web page: > http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgw/census/states.htm > > USGenWeb Census Project "Information" web page: > http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgw/census/info/ > > USGenWeb Census Project Coordinators > http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgw/census/info/coord.htm > > Transcription Completion Instructions > http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgw/census/info/comp.htm > > If you have trouble finding any other of your favorite Census Project web > pages, please email me and I'll tell you where to find them. The following > have not been redirected and if you already have shortcuts to them, they > should still work: > > Transcribing Help pages > http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwcens/help/ > > On-Line Inventory of Transcribed Census Links > http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwcens/help/ceninventory.html > > CART homepages: > http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwcart/ > > Connie Burkett and > Ron Eason

>From: "Ron & Kathy" >To: "Dale 'Doc' Schneider" >Cc: "Dr. Brian Leverich" > "Tim Stowell" > "Tim Pierce" , "Wayne Duncan" > "Connie Burkett" >Subject: Census Pages and Files >Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 19:38:40 +0200 > >Doc, > >I understand that you have set up some directories for putting some of our >files into. >There has been no authorization for the movement and/or copying of any files >from within our directories. >Please do not remove, move, copy or otherwise do anything with the files >within the directories of The USGenWeb Census Project. >Maggie nor Linda, nor anyone else has authorization written or otherwise to >speak for or act in place of myself for this Project. >Also, if you have been involved with the redirection of our pages, I have >already notified Tim Pierce that this is to be removed. > >Thanks, >Ron >The USGenWeb Census Project > >

>From: "Ron & Kathy" >To: "Tim Pierce" >Cc: "Connie Burkett" > "Tim Stowell" > "Wayne Duncan" > "Arch-Cens Maggie" >Subject: The USGenWeb Census Project >Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 08:26:16 +0200 > >Mr Pierce, > >Someone at Rootsweb has made a redirect change of some sort to several of >the pages of The USGenWeb Census Project without my authorization. >I don't know why or when it was done, but can you please change it back the >way it was so that our pages return to normal. >We have been in merger talks with the Archives Census Project, but as of >this date, not Linda, not Maggie, nor anyone else has talked directly with >me regarding making any permanent changes. >No one has been given the permission to change any of our pages in any way. >No one at Rootsweb has contacted me either concerning changes to our pages. >Why would changes be made without the direct authorization of staff of that >Project. If by chance you are going on the authorization of Maggie or >Linda, they are not authorized by me to make any changes or to speak for >The USGenWeb Census Project and at this time I have not authorized them to >add me to their pages or to implement anything on my behalf. >I realize that many people, including Rootsweb is anxious for this deal to >happen and that many don't recognize me as being the acting head of this >Project , but at present The USGenWeb Census Project is acting in accordance >with The USGenWeb Project By-Laws. >If by chance this merger deal is placed into effect, I will personally >contact you to make the necessary changes. >Can you please make the reverse changes as quickly as they were placed. > >Thank You, >Ronald E. Eason >National Coordinator >The USGenWeb Census Project > >cc: Connie Burkett > Tim Stowell > Wayne Duncan > Maggie Stewart > >

>From: "Maggie Stewart" >To: "USGWARCH-CEN-L", > "USGWARCH-CART-L" > "Tim Stowell" > "Ron & Kathy", "Lacey" > "Connie Burkett" > "Betsy Mills" > "Archives-L" , Navyump >Subject: USGenWeb Archives Census Project Merger Update >Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 08:29:49 -0500 > >Hi Everyone, > >I have altered our pages at >http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/census/ >to reflect the changes from the >merger. These are still subject to change but I am anxious >to get this all done and back to meeting our goals. > >Changes of special interest: >1. John Jacoby has resigned due to personal obligations and >has been replaced with Wayne Duncan in the Liason Coordinator >position. Welcome Wayne. >2. In the near future Doc will be creating a directory for the Census >File Managers to upload their files. This will be a directory for only >the Standardized Census Transcriptions and will use >state/county/fedcens/year as it's structure. This directory will >only be accessible to the Census File Managers. The stats >for your states will stay in your states. > >Connie Burkett and Sue Soden will be going through all the >census files and categorizing them as well. There are also >plans for some stricter quality control under Connie's excellent >guidance. > >Maggie for The Archives Census Management Team > > > > > >

> Did our esteemed NC ask for a second? I again call the question and ask for > a > second myself. > > Jim I second the call. Virginia (Ginger) Cisewski "It takes two to speak the truth: one to talk, another to hear." ----Henry David Thoreau

At 11:03 AM 4/9/00 -0400, you wrote: >I call the question... >Jim > >Holly Timm wrote: > >> At 06:40 AM 4/9/00 -0500, Ginger wrote: >> >Tim, >> >May I ask why there has been no call to vote for a >> >vote on Motion 00-8? The customary 48 hr discussion >> >period ended some time ago. >> >> I don't know how others feel but the volume of email being received and >> needing to be read and digested and some replied to is to me part of the >> discussion. I am no where near ready to vote and frankly, I am less >> concerned about the opinions of my fellow board members at this point than >> I am about determining (and at times deciphering) the thoughts, feelings >> and questions of my constituency, all of them, not just those who are >> bombarding the lists and the board members. >> >> Holly > Jim your call dies for lack of a second. Section 16, Page 199 EQUAL APPLICATION OF RULES TO COLLOQUIAL FORMS SUCH AS "CALL FOR THE QUESTION." A motion such as "I call for (or"call") the question" or "I move we vote now" is simply a motion for the Previous Question made in nonstandard form and it is subject to all of the rules in this section. Care should be taken that failure to understand this fact does not lead to violation of members' rights of debate. Sometimes the mere making of a motion for the Previous Question or "call for the question" may motivate unanimous consent to ending debate. Before or after such a motion has been seconded, the chair may ask if there is any objection to closing debate. If member(s) object or try to get the floor, he should ask if there is a second to the motion or call; or, if it has already been seconded, he must immediately take a vote on whether to order the Previous Question. But regardless of the wording of a motion or "call" seeking to close debate, it always requires a second and a two-thirds vote, taken separately from and before the vote(s) on the motions(s) to which it is applied, to shut off debate against the will of even one member who wishes to speak and has not exhausted his right to debate (see pp. 42; 382-384). Page 42 states "A member who has spoken twice on a particular question on the same day has exhausted his right to debate that question for that day". Tim

>From: "Ron & Kathy" >To: "Margaret Steen" > "Connie Burkett" > "Tim Stowell" >Subject: Outline of discussion items >Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 22:24:15 +0200 > > >Merging of the two Census Projects Description Agreement >Where to upload the census files. > > >Account and Passwords for the File Managers > HYPERLINK >"ftp://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/state/county/census/year" >"ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/state/county/census/year" >"ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/state/county/census/fedcens/year" >the miscellaneous Archive census files can remain in the state/county/census >subfolder. > >Name of the Census Project >Which pages to use. >Assignment Status webpages: > HYPERLINK >1. "www.usgenweb.org/census/" >2. www.rootsweb.com/census/ >-------------------------------------------- >Assignment Status Webmaster? (8 CP-SCs currently do their own button >updates) >-------------------------------------------- > Email Lists: > CENSUS-L > CENS_CART-L > CENSUS_CHAT-L > USGWARCH-CEN-L > USGWARCH-CART-L >------------------------------------------- > National Coordinator (election - before or after merger) > Database Manager > File Managers ( CP currently has 7 File Managers ) > Assistant National Coordinators > (how many ANCs and main responsibilities of each) > Coordinator for the State Coordinators > Maintaining the Email Lists > Publishing Weekly Upload Report > Maintaining Master Transcriber by State - Database > Ordering donated CDs/Books > Maintaining various webpages > Miscellaneous Responsibilities: > Lookup Pages > Proofreader's Pages > MAC Coordinator > CART Programmer > > >

Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 19:23:49 -0400 From: "Ron & Kathy Eason" <rkeason@tir.com> To: USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [USGENWEB-ALL-L] Re: A Blessing Betty Sellers, It was nice to hear of good things on this list for a change. The Census Project IS a great project and it was something we can attribute to Linda Lewis who envisioned it as I understand for the Archives. It has been most successful thanks to the tireless efforts of it's leaders Ken Hollingsworth, Kay Mason, the State Coordinators and the many many great volunteers

>From: "Ron & Kathy" >To: "Tim Stowell" <tstowell@chattanooga.net> >Subject: Re: Census Projects >Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 21:59:16 +0200 > >Hi Tim, > ><snip personal stuff> >I presume you received the email that Sue sent out pertaining to the phone >conversation she had with Linda. Of course when they came away from the >phone they both had different ideas about what they agreed upon. But they >weren't too far off. Sue had the outline near as perfect as I think it can >get. Not that we aren't open to discuss a few of the things, but we >certainly want the other side to be in a concessions mode as well. It has >to be give and take. Both sides. > >Thanks, >Ron

>Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 01:31:58 -0500 >From: Linda Lewis <cityslic@ix.netcom.com> >Subject: [Fwd: [ARCHIVES-L] Census Project/S] > >Sue Soden contacted me Sunday, Nov. 21, and asked me to call to discuss >merging the two census projects. She said that even though her name is >not on the census pages, she is still very much involved in the project. >Connie Burkett said she spoke with Sue before and after Sue and I spoke >by phone. > >We agreed on two points: > >1) The name of the project would be The USGenWeb Archives Census Project >(the name we used when it was created in Feb. 1997 - sometimes it was >called The USGenWeb Archives Census Transcription Project) > >2) The census project file managers, who receive, format and prepare the >files for uploading, will have their own account and passwords that will >automagically upload the files to a /state/county/census/fedcens >directory. This will eliminate the census project standardized files >(those using CART and/or standard templates) from getting mixed up with >the miscellaneous census files that are submitted to the Archives - like >surname specific, indexes, incomplete with only names, ages, etc. > >The two items we have not agreed on: > >1) Which pages to use.. the ones originally designed by Holly, being >used at .org/census, or the ones Maggie has created at >~usgenweb/census/. > >2) The URL - whether to use the current one at ~usgenweb/census/ or to >create a completely new URL. > >My thoughts: > >1) - Maggie has put a lot of long, hard hours into rebuilding those >pages, based on Holly's originals, updating and designing, with Kelly's >help. During the past several months, both Maggie and Kelly have >attempted to work together with the other census project. I told Sue any >negotiating or compromising about the html's would have to involve >Maggie. > >2) - The URL needs to be at home.. at ~usgenweb/census/ to identify it >as part of the USGenWeb Archives project.. just as we planned it in >February 1997. > >I also told Sue that I was thinking of requesting that Ron put the >founder's name on the main page of his census project. If he refuses, or >does not recognize the founder, then the date their project started >should be changed, and not claim February 1997. > >Please.. comments.. suggestions.. and your thoughts - to the list. > >I'm cc'ing Sue on this message. > >Thanks, > >Linda > > > >