>From: "Ron & Kathy" >To: "Margaret Steen" > "Tim Stowell" >Cc: "Connie Burkett" > "Linda Lewis" >Subject: Census Projects >Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 21:02:37 +0200 > >Hi Ladies and Gentleman, > >Well I must say that the past days events took me a little by surprise, but >I guess it wasn't really unexpected. For the past little while, Connie and >I have been totally in agreement that we would really like to get something >worked out but we also agreed that we wanted it to be in the best interest >of our people and in the Project as a whole. > >I contacted Tim, who is also included herein, a few weeks back and asked him >about the talks and why they hadn't progress and he was going to get back to >us about it and get them started, but I assume he has been a little busy >with the Board, his own states as well as trying to have a personal life, so >I don't blame the stalled talks on him. > >I didn't expect Sue to step in as she did, although it was timely, and I >must admit I was a little miffed at some of the statements she made about >what transpired, pertaining to me, because they were not based on facts, but >never the less, the situation is still in need of resolution and we are >ready to get down to business and talk TURKEY, (haha), so that we can move >on. > >As I told someone yesterday I no longer have the desire nor the inclination >to carry around others old baggage so I would like to preface the >discussions by saying I would appreciate if we could just forget about >yesterdays and not have to rehash any "He said, She said's" and decide what >is most important and what is logical about the task ahead of us. >Yesterdays have done nothing to move us ahead so we need to create a future >where The USGenWeb Census Project can flourish and grow together rather than >this mess that has been created. > >So, with that said, I would like to invite you that are included in this >message, with Tim being involved sort of as a watcher and bridgemaker and >idea creator, and I have CC'd Linda as well, out of courtesy to her. I >would like all the information to be available to our Project Staff as they >desire to know it. Some will and some won't but they need to be able to >have the info. and make suggestions. > >I will follow up this with an attempt to outline the situation as I >understand it and see if we can come to some working model to build on. > >Thanks, >Ron > >

>From: "Connie Burkett" >To: "Maggie Stewart >Cc: "Linda Russell Lewis > "Ron Eason > "Tim Stowell > "Sue Soden >Subject: Negotiations >Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 01:04:10 -0500 > >Maggie, > >I fear for Sue's health in the negotiations that she initiated. Ron Eason >and I talked on the phone this evening for a long time and because of Sue's >health, Ron and I want to take over the negotiations with you either >directly or by getting the "Committee" back together quickly and openly. > >Ron and I, and I'm sure you would also like to get this resolved so we can >go on with the large amount of work that joining the two census projects >will create. > >Connie > > >

At 3:56 PM -0700 4/9/00, Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny wrote: >You are correct, Teri, it would take a separate motion to >delink. Before we begin the actual voting, can we ask Richard to restate his motion? The message from Richard said: Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 01:22:55 -0700 From: "Richard's" <RichPump@wf.net> >Due to the importance of this Executive Order to delink the Census Project! >I believe that it is equally important to confirm this Executive Order. >Therefore I make the Motion to over ride the National Coordinator's delink >of the USGenWeb Census Project. In the past, motions have tended to be opened for voting by quoting the entire email that introduced them, as above. It is often not clear how much of the quoted material is the motion itself, and how much is merely the author's rationale for making the motion. Like the Gingers, I am especially concerned that the presence of the word "confirm" in Rich's second sentence is potentially misleading if it were to appear in the text of the motion. If I were making the motion, it would be something like this: The National Coordinator's delinking of the Census Project not being done according to the procedures laid out in Article VI, Section 5, all links to and mentions of the Census Project from pages of the national web site shall be promptly restored to their state as of 4 April 2000. But, it is Richard's motion, not mine, so I leave it up to him how he wants to phrase it. Just so long as it is clear what will happen if it passes. (Do we also need to specifically mention that any redirection of URL's should be restored to their previous behavior, or is that implicit?) -- Teri

You are correct, Teri, it would take a separate motion to delink. Joe Teri Pettit wrote: > > At 10:31 AM -0700 4/9/00, Pam Reid wrote: > >I agree with Holly that much more disussion on the Census Projects is > >needed, BUT, I do feel we should vote on the delinking issue - Motion > >00-8. The concerns expressed by everyone in the Project, from Census > >Project I and II members, to Board members, to volunteer transcribers, > >to the general constituency, can all be addressed in the discussion of > >Motion 00-6. > > Pam, > > I agree with you that we need to vote on Motion 00-8 and then seat > a Census Rep and then vote on Motion 00-6, in that order, and that > Tim's long sequence of forwarded messages and the email we've been > getting from constituents can be used to inform our discussion and > votes on Motion 00-6. > > The reference to Motion 00-8 as "the delinking issue" raises some > flags, though. I hope that everyone is clear that Motion 00-8 is NOT > a vote on the question "Should the non-Archives Census Project be > delinked from the National Pages?" > > It is specifically a vote on whether the National Coordinator's > unlinking of the Census Project should be reversed because the > proper procedures for the delinking of a project as outlined in > Article VI, Section 5 were not followed. > > It would require a separate motion to actually initiate the process > of Article VI, Section 5. > > -- Teri -- 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

At 10:31 AM -0700 4/9/00, Pam Reid wrote: >I agree with Holly that much more disussion on the Census Projects is >needed, BUT, I do feel we should vote on the delinking issue - Motion >00-8. The concerns expressed by everyone in the Project, from Census >Project I and II members, to Board members, to volunteer transcribers, >to the general constituency, can all be addressed in the discussion of >Motion 00-6. Pam, I agree with you that we need to vote on Motion 00-8 and then seat a Census Rep and then vote on Motion 00-6, in that order, and that Tim's long sequence of forwarded messages and the email we've been getting from constituents can be used to inform our discussion and votes on Motion 00-6. The reference to Motion 00-8 as "the delinking issue" raises some flags, though. I hope that everyone is clear that Motion 00-8 is NOT a vote on the question "Should the non-Archives Census Project be delinked from the National Pages?" It is specifically a vote on whether the National Coordinator's unlinking of the Census Project should be reversed because the proper procedures for the delinking of a project as outlined in Article VI, Section 5 were not followed. It would require a separate motion to actually initiate the process of Article VI, Section 5. -- Teri

The FIRST thing we need to do is to seat a Census Project II rep. Then, we can move on to Motion 00-6, which vitally needs to be addressed. Can we do something about that today? Or, as soon as is humanly possible? Pam

I agree with Holly that much more disussion on the Census Projects is needed, BUT, I do feel we should vote on the delinking issue - Motion 00-8. The concerns expressed by everyone in the Project, from Census Project I and II members, to Board members, to volunteer transcribers, to the general constituency, can all be addressed in the discussion of Motion 00-6. Pam 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

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

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

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. Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com

Round 1's messages have now been sent minus notes from John Jacoby plus one other note that included a note from a CC whose permission has not been obtained to forward here.

>From: "Maggie Stewart" >To: "Connie Burkett" > "John C. Jacoby" , "Ron Eason" > "Tim Stowell" >Subject: Re: (Census-Discus) - Followup >Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 04:37:47 -0400 > >Hi Tim, > >We have not had any appreciable rain here in Ohio since late June. Things >are pretty dry and we lost a willow tree. I was hoping the hurricane would >at least send us some but it didn't. > >Yes I was saying to link to the folder for x county or x >census for x county instead of individual files? > > Maggie > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Tim Stowell >To: Maggie Stewart ; Connie Burkett >; John C. Jacoby; Ron Eason > >Sent: Friday, September 17, 1999 2:54 AM >Subject: (Census-Discus) - Followup > > >At 10:31 PM 9/1/99 -0400, Maggie Stewart wrote: >Hi, > >I'm back and feeling much better. If it ever rains again here - nearly 7 >weeks now with no rain - the particulates in the air will go down and we >can all breathe again. > >First I'm going to ask some questions to clarify, for me at least, some >responses before I finish my recap to you. > >> I also agree with the idea of linking to the folders for the census >year >>unless it is a one file thing such as a slave census. Then it made more >>sense to me to link to that. > >Are you saying here that one would link to the folder for x county or x >census for x county instead of individual files? > > >Tim > >

>From: "Connie Burkett" >To: "'Tim Stowell'" > "'Ron & Kathy' > "'Maggie Stewart' > "'John C. Jacoby'" >Subject: RE: [Census-Discuss] - Followup >Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 16:25:53 -0400 > >Tim, >My suggestion for limiting the transcriptions for the imaged censuses was >aimed at John Jacoby's item 7 (his email dated Sept 1, 1999) which reads: 7. >The stated goal of the Census Projects is unrealistic and needs to be >rethought. If a strategy is not developed geometric progression of >population size alone will destroy it. > >Tim, I agree with you, that the census image files on-line are hard to read, >and in some cases impossible to read. Because of their size, the image >files take very long to load onto your screen. Of course, they are not >searchable, and trying to open each of these files to look for the name you >need takes forever. The "extended" index files contain enough information >on every person in the census file so you would know exactly which image >.gif file(s) to download If you download the file that you know the name >you need is on, you can retrieve that .gif file in a software program such >as MS PhotoEditor and zoom in to read the information. > >We are currently creating an "extended" index file-set with each of our >uploaded censuses by striping away the unneeded columns from the full >transcription, and then sorting by lastname, firstname, page#. Our >pub/census/st/county/year folders (in most cases) contain both the full >transcription and the "extended" index. Doing the "extended" index first >would be a way of making quicker use of the image files. I don't think we >want to stray from our original intent to get the full transcriptions >on-line. If we opt to do the "extended" index files first as a way of >speeding up the use of the image files, the rest of the columns for that >census could be filled in later. > >Connie > > > > -----Original Message----- >From: Tim Stowell >Sent: Friday, September 17, 1999 2:59 AM >To: WVConnie; 'Ron & Kathy'; 'Maggie Stewart'; 'John C. Jacoby' >Subject: (Census-Discus) - Followup > >At 06:42 PM 9/1/99 -0400, Connie Burkett wrote: >>Images: >>* With the increase in the image files being uploaded, we could limit the >>transcriptions for an imaged census to just an "extended" index. >>* For the 1850 and above counties with images - - the extended index would >>contain Name, Page, Line, Age, and Birthplace. Since it takes such a long >>time to open a .gif file, the extended index would contain enough >>information to help the researchers know exactly which .gif file to open. >>* Doing an extended index rather than a full transcription could help speed >>up getting the transcribed information on-line. > >Wouldn't this be a stray from the original intent? Some of the scanned >images are hard to read for me - with halfway decent eyesight. Full >transcriptions with the scanned images as backup for those who wish to >verify our transcriptions, would seem to benefit the public better than a >brief index of a line in the census. > >Of course, if I've misunderstood the intention here, please correct me. > >Tim > > >

>From: "Maggie Stewart" >To: "Connie Burkett" > "John C. Jacoby" , "Ron Eason" > "Tim Stowell" >Subject: Re: (Census-Discus) - Followup >Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 04:37:47 -0400 > >Hi Tim, > >We have not had any appreciable rain here in Ohio since late June. Things >are pretty dry and we lost a willow tree. I was hoping the hurricane would >at least send us some but it didn't. > >Yes I was saying to link to the folder for x county or x >census for x county instead of individual files? > > Maggie > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Tim Stowell >To: Maggie Stewart ; Connie Burkett >; John C. Jacoby; Ron Eason > >Sent: Friday, September 17, 1999 2:54 AM >Subject: (Census-Discus) - Followup > > >At 10:31 PM 9/1/99 -0400, Maggie Stewart wrote: >Hi, > >I'm back and feeling much better. If it ever rains again here - nearly 7 >weeks now with no rain - the particulates in the air will go down and we >can all breathe again. > >First I'm going to ask some questions to clarify, for me at least, some >responses before I finish my recap to you. > >> I also agree with the idea of linking to the folders for the census >year >>unless it is a one file thing such as a slave census. Then it made more >>sense to me to link to that. > >Are you saying here that one would link to the folder for x county or x >census for x county instead of individual files? > > >Tim > >

>Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 02:54:20 -0400 >To: "Maggie Stewart" , "Connie Burkett", "John C. Jacoby", "Ron Eason" >From: Tim Stowell >Subject: (Census-Discus) - Followup > >At 10:31 PM 9/1/99 -0400, Maggie Stewart wrote: >Hi, > >I'm back and feeling much better. If it ever rains again here - nearly 7 weeks now with no rain - the particulates in the air will go down and we can all breathe again. > >First I'm going to ask some questions to clarify, for me at least, some responses before I finish my recap to you. > >> I also agree with the idea of linking to the folders for the census year >>unless it is a one file thing such as a slave census. Then it made more >>sense to me to link to that. > >Are you saying here that one would link to the folder for x county or x census for x county instead of individual files? > > >Tim

>From: "Connie Burkett" >To: "John C. Jacoby > "Maggie Stewart > "Ron Eason > "Tim Stowell >Subject: [Census-Discuss] Followup >Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 19:47:53 -0400 > >John, I'm going to try to comment on the 9 points in your last email. > >1. IMAGES: The images do have a value. I know when you look at most of >them on the Internet they are hard to read. However. if we have a >transcription with an "extended" surname index for the imaged counties, the >researcher will be able to look through the index to find the exact image >file (page) to open. Then after opening the image, it can be saved to your >hard drive and opened in software there where it can be viewed close-up by >zooming. I use MS PhotoEditor to open the saved image .gif files. With >doing these few steps, the researcher has a copy of the actual microfilm and >does not have to depend on someone else's interpretation of the handwriting. > >The image files are extremely large compared to the .TXT files for the >transcribed censuses. One image can take up as much space as three or four >.TXT files with each text file containing 20-25 pages. But I still think >they have a value. > >2. FLOATING COUNTY LINKS: I'm not sure I understand what you mean. > >3. FTP: FTP is quite efficient for our purposes. > >4. CENSUS SUBMISSION: Sometimes the completed files are submitted through >the SC and sometimes they come directly from the transcriber. I suppose >this depends on the relationship that has or has not developed between the >SC and the transcriber. In a lot of cases, it takes so long to transcribe >that the SC has changed and any relationship that was established with the >volunteer when they first volunteered is lost. >YOU GUYS WILL UPLOAD ANYTHING: Please give me specifics here. We do not >upload anything. Our team of File Managers have tried to get a consistent >look and make sure everything that needs to be there is there. Perhaps some >of the older files that were uploaded a long time ago have problems. We are >trying to catch the odd files and redo them. Right now we have 10 >transcriptions we are holding up while we wait for answers from the >individual transcriber. > >5. ARCHIVIST FOR ILLINOIS: Not part of the Census Project. > >6. STATE AND NATIONAL PAGES: What percentage of our customers are you >referring to? The grumbling few, or the majority? > >7. HAND HOLDING: I agree, there is a lot of hand-holding, especially with >the first transcription. This is good, because we get a lot of repeat >transcribers who no longer need hand-holding and in fact, offer their help >on the CENSUS-L list. > >8. ONE SET OF PAGES: I am highly in agreement with one set of pages. In >fact, there should only be ONE Census Project, there is not a need for two. >Two Census Projects are entirely too confusing for our many wonderful >volunteers. > >9. INDEX: ?? RESPONSE DOCUMENT TEMPLATES: You've not tested my three >states. I agree with you that each SC has customized their responses >somewhat. I know I did, since the wording on the example that was sent to >me when I became SC for my first state was not to my liking. I modified it >and continued to modify it until I was satisfied with the wording. > >Connie > > > > >

>From: "Connie Burkett" >To: "Tim Stowell > "Maggie Stewart > "Ron Eason > "John C. Jacoby >Subject: [Census-Discuss] Followup >Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 17:34:46 -0400 > >Hello all, > >John: Where the files are currently uploaded is the crux of this >committee. The Census Project File Managers upload all census files into >the subdirectory structure, ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/CENSUS/ST/COUNTY/YEAR/ > >In some cases the County webpages link to the files in the above >"pub/census" structure, and in other cases, someone copies the census files >to ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/USGENWEB/ST/COUNTY/CENSUS/YEAR/ (therefore we do >have a duplication of those copied files and add to the amount of server >space required for storing the duplicated files). > >Originally the census files were uploaded to the pub/usgenweb structure. >Some of the problems involved were after the census files where uploaded by >the Census Project File Manager, the files would be renamed and/or moved to >another location within the same structure by the State File Managers. In a >few cases, the information inside the census files was changed. When the >amount of problems involved got to the point that Kay felt it was >uncontrollable, Kay had the files moved to the current pub/census structure, >(during the 4th quarter of 1998). > >And there was always the feeling that when the census files were uploaded by >the Census Project File Manager, they were invading the territory of the >State File Managers. Even Maggie attested to that in one of her emails to >this committee when she stated that she does not upload into the counties, >she forwards the formatted files to the State File Manager, and that person >uploads to the state/county area. Before the census files were moved (by >Kay) to their current location, forwarding the census files to the State >File Managers was tried and it simply did not work. > >Sometime during the 2nd quarter of this year, after some head-clashing >between Kay and Linda Lewis, another Census Project was started (named the >USGW "Archives" Census Project). So now we have two separate Census >Projects each with their own State Assignment Coordinators assigning census >transcribers. > >= ~ = ~ = ~ = ~ = ~ = ~= ~ = ~ = ~= ~ = ~ = ~= ~ = ~ = ~= ~ = ~ = ~= ~ = ~ = >~= ~ = ~ = ~ > >As it stands now, we have the census files located in a subdirectory >structure where they are not included in the "Archive" search engine, (with >most of those files being duplicated in the "archives" subdirectory >structure), and we have two separate Census Projects with both assigning >census transcriptions to volunteers. > >Is there an easy solution? Or any solution for that matter? > >Can the search engines be made to include the pub/census structure by >starting the search at the pub/ level? >Or can the census files remain where they are and somehow be made to appear >that they are within the pub/usgenweb structure? > >Connie > > > >

>From: "Connie Burkett" >To: "'Tim Stowell'" > "'Ron & Kathy'" > "'Maggie Stewart'" > "'John C. Jacoby'" >Subject: RE: Census Discussion - Introduction >Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 18:42:01 -0400 > >Tim, >Thanks for the introductions and ground rules. I totally agree on the >civility issue and non-sharing of the contents of our email messages. I >think the blending of the two census projects into one project should be >done as seamlessly as possible to not confuse our many wonderful, dedicated >volunteers. > >Hello everyone else: >My brief overview of how I would like to see the Census Project data being >organized in the future: > >Census File Location: >* The census files should be located where they can be included in the >archives search. >* It does not matter where the census files are stored as long as >write-access is limited to only the File Managers who upload and maintain >the census files. >* If the files are to be lumped in with the Archives files, how do we ensure >that other people who have write-access to the archives structure do not >alter the census information or change the census file names. >* If the census files are linked-to (from the county webpages and other >webpages) by subfolder rather than individual file names, we could update >partial transcriptions and do other file maintenance without having to worry >about creating broken links. > >Text Files On-Line: >* Should be consistent in appearance, with text files which are created from >spreadsheet files being formatted in appearance similar to the CART text >files. >* I would like to see all of the on-line files reviewed and if necessary >updated to make them consistent in appearance. If the links to the census >files would be done by subfolder rather than individual file name, this type >of file maintenance could be done without creating broken links. > >Images: >* With the increase in the image files being uploaded, we could limit the >transcriptions for an imaged census to just an "extended" index. >* For the 1850 and above counties with images - - the extended index would >contain Name, Page, Line, Age, and Birthplace. Since it takes such a long >time to open a .gif file, the extended index would contain enough >information to help the researchers know exactly which .gif file to open. >* Doing an extended index rather than a full transcription could help speed >up getting the transcribed information on-line. > >In the interim until the two census projects are blended, getting the state >assignment buttons as up-to-date as possible and keeping them current is a >must. How do we accomplish this without creating a lot of unneeded concern? >Perhaps we need to speed up the blending. > >Maggie, I joined the mIRC USGenWeb - Census channel several evenings ago >using the nickname "BreakOut". I monitored some of the conversation in the >background while I went through the help menus to try to figure out how to >use mIRC. I did not enter into any conversation because I did not want to >stir any unneeded concern. Seems like a great way of keeping in touch with >a team, and I like what I saw. > >Connie Burkett > > > -----Original Message----- >From: Tim Stowell >Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 10:41 PM >To: Ron & Kathy; WVConnie; Maggie Stewart; John C. Jacoby >Subject: Census Discussion - Introduction > >Dear Fellow Project Members: > >Introductions are in order I suppose for the members of this list: > >Connie Burkett, West Virginia Census volunteer >Ron Eason, National Assistant Census Coordinator >John C. Jacoby, Illinois Census volunteer >Maggie Stewart, National Archives Census Coordinator > >Tim Stowell, National Coordinator USGenWeb Project > , Georgia State Coordinator > , North Dakota State Coordinator > >I don't plan to have many 'rules' for our discussion other than these two: >please be civil and please do not share any of the contents of these emails >with anyone outside of this group. > >I plan to act as moderator, asking a question now and then. > >Let us find common ground where we may and work to resolve the differences. > >I'd like to open the floor by asking each of you to give a brief overview >of how you 'see' the Census project being organized in the future. We all >pretty much know how the Census Project(s) are now and/or have been but I'm >asking each of you to look to the future. > >In your comments please try to leave out personalities and speak to data >organization and to what will best benefit our 'customers' while keeping >the historical integrity of the data. > >Thanks, > >Tim > > >

>From: "Connie Burkett" >To: "'Tim Stowell'" , > "'Ron & Kathy' >Cc: "'John C. Jacoby'" > "Maggie Stewart (E-mail)" >Subject: RE: Fair hearing? >Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 18:32:25 -0400 > >Tim, >You have my permission to release any mail from me regarding the >Census-Discuss matter if you also release this reply to your request. Why >now, Tim? As I recall (and unlike the false impression you gave on one of >your posts where you intimated the First Merger discussions fizzled because >we all had other priorities at the time) - there were still four of us >sitting at the merger committee table waiting for you to recap. > >By mid-September the discussions had reached the point of your recap. And >since we never heard from you by mid-October Ron emailed you and cc'd me >asking where the discussions over and where you going to recap. Here is a >snip of your reply dated the 17th of October. > ><snip> As far as I'm concerned, no. I'll see if I can't resume them later >today. <end snip> > >And that was the last we heard from you on the First Merger. Are the First >Merger discussions resuming now?. Are you going to do your recap now 6 >months later? If not, what's the point of rehashing the discussions? > >Connie > > -----Original Message----- >From: Tim Stowell [mailto:tstowell@chattanooga.net] >Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 3:32 AM >To: Ron & Kathy; Connie Burkett >Cc: John C. Jacoby >Subject: Fair hearing? > >If you want a fair hearing on Board-l - I'm asking your permission to >release the mail from Census-Discuss minus your email addresses and any >personal info that was included. > >Maggie has already given her release and I've started forwarding her mail >BUT I want to keep the messages in concurrent order. > >Tim > > >

>From: "Maggie Stewart" >To: "Tim Stowell" , "Ron Eason" > "Connie Burkett" > "JJ" >Subject: Re: [Census-Discuss] Followup >Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 23:44:02 -0400 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 > >Ron, > > I am not a technical oriented person but I understand that there is a >way that the Census folks could have a directory that they uploaded into and >maintained but the files would "appear" to be in the correct archives >directory. (They would be the only one with access to this and the files) > >Maggie > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Ron & Kathy <rkeason@tir.com> >To: Maggie Stewart <maggieohio@columbus.rr.com>; Tim Stowell ><tstowell@chattanooga.net>; Connie Burkett <WVConnie@email.msn.com>; John C. >Jacoby <callie@anet.com> >Sent: Thursday, September 09, 1999 2:36 PM >Subject: Re: [Census-Discuss] Followup > > >>***The files cannot remain where they are but it could be set up that the >>Census Project Coordinator uploaded it in one place and it appeared in >the >archives in the correct place. >> > >*******What does this statement mean? > >Ron > > >