>From: "Ron & Kathy" >To: "Maggie Stewart" > "Tim Stowell" > "Connie Burkett" > "John C. Jacoby" >Subject: [Census-Discuss] Followup >Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 05:56:04 +0300 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 > >> 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) >> > > >Okay, I just wanted to clarify what you were thinking about this. >This method, is called Sim-Linking which is what Kay has been trying to >bring about for quite some time. This is what we see as the best >alternative for everyone. ie: > >************************ ********************* >* Archives * * Census * >* Dir. * * Dir. * >************************ ********************* > | | > |--------Sim-Link or Hyper-----| > \ / > \ / > \ / > ***************** > * Users * > ***************** > >The difference between You and I and the end user is, The user of the >information that we upload doesn't care where the final product is located >as long as they can find it. The address of one census over another means >nothing to them. The method of how it is done means nothing to them. Which >ever door they enter through is just a matter of habit. However to the >previous "want-to-be-owners" of the kingdoms, they are more interested in >control of the data. What I want is for the Census Project to be in control >of itself. To remain free and separate forever. That, can be done and I >think that is what we, all, should be concerned about. We just have to >figure the best way for that to happen. If we can do that, it is very >possible it won't matter what anyone else thinks. > >Ron > >

>From: "Ron & Kathy" >To: "Maggie Stewart" > "Tim Stowell" > "Connie Burkett" > "John C. Jacoby" >Subject: Re: [Census-Discuss] Followup >Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 21:36:41 +0300 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 > >>***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 > >

>From: "Maggie Stewart" >To: "Tim Stowell" , "Ron Eason" , > "Connie Burkett" , > "JJ" >Subject: Re: [Census-Discuss] Followup >Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 23:49:55 -0400 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 > >Connie, > >>>Can the search engines be made to include the pub/census structure by >starting the search at the pub/ level?<< >***I have asked and was told this can be done with the current search >engines. > >>>Or can the census files remain where they are and somehow be made to >appear >that they are within the pub/usgenweb structure?<< >***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. > >Maggie > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Connie Burkett >To: Tim Stowell ; Maggie Stewart (E-mail) >; Ron Eason ; John C. Jacoby >Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 1999 5:34 PM >Subject: [Census-Discuss] Followup > > >Hello all, > <snipped> permission not granted by Connie to forward without conditions.

>From: "Ron & Kathy" >To: "Maggie Stewart" , > "Tim Stowell", > "Connie Burkett" , > "JJ" >Subject: [Census-Discuss] - Followup >Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 21:52:11 +0300 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 > >Hi, > >1. Directory control - ie password protected for census FMs >******* It is my opinion that we, as Census People need to be able to >ensure others and know for ourselves that what we do is protected from >anyone else. We need to be able to maintain control over our own files >without anyone else to worry about. Just as the Archives maintains security >and no one touches the Archives Files except the File Managers, so also the >Census Project needs to maintain this strickt control over the handling of >it's files, no matter what Linda or Kay thinks. > >>2. Directory structure - hiearchy of the data >*******I have been thinking about this a lot. And I am of the opinion at >this time that the actual directory structure really makes no difference, >UNLESS the underlying idea is to place or maintain the Census Project under >the control of the Archives. In that case it would have to be changed. But >since that is not the best idea for the Census Project, the way they are >maintained now is also fine. The bottom line is that they be there for >everyone's use. I KNOW that they can be searched no matter what hiearchy >they are in and the only reason it isn't being done yet is because Rootsweb >is waiting for a decision from the Board as to what is going to happen one >way or the other. >***The bottom line for Rootsweb is, that they don't want our directories >where they are, on the USGenWeb.com/net/org server name. They want them >under the Rootsweb server name just as the Archvies are because it is better >business for them. But that is secondary, or should be to us at this point. > >3. Duplicate Personel - >*******I've thought about this too. We are already sending out a weekly >report to everyone including the AC and I haven't yet seen the same thing >happening for us. It may be, to someone else privately, but I haven't seen >it so I am not aware. At this point, I am not sure ALL of the State >Coordinators would be willing to do this. Some may, but I don't know. Some >see the creation of the AC as a slap in their face and we have to be >sensitive to them. But it may be possible for the AC to redirect their >"email.ini" file to have the sign-up requests that come in for those states >without Coordinators to be directed to our Coordinators. This will happen >quietly and as we update our pages, the AC can update their pages as >assigned and On-line, etc, and since they already get notices of uploads >they will still be getting the work completed. Just a thought. > >4. TOCs - possibly one for Scanned Images and one for text? >>Linda and I have had extensive discussions about why we need< >them on the >CP TOCs as well and I lost.< >*******I don't mean to make an example out of things, but this is one of the >very reasons that the USGWCP wanted autonomy. Because we have and will >always have new and maybe better ideas and want to be able to implement them >without interference. But honestly I don't think our glory in this Project >will come from the scanned images. Others will be doing them and already >are. What we have to concentrate on is a very high standard of >transcription. > >5. Restatement of the Goal of the Census Project >*******Goal = work together to get as many of the census records online as >possible, "Without compromising quality and standards and uniting as one >Census Project, a stand alone Project. > >6. Recruitment of Volunteers - >*******Yes, we are encouraging it. It helps. > >7. Handling of partial or surname transcriptions of census records >*******I think this would be best turned over to the County Coordinators >unless it is a "complete township or Village, etc.. > >8. Housing of the Census Project >*******If my history of the Project serves me correctly it wasn't the >original File Managers per se that voted on it, but rather those that were >actually instrumental in bringing the Archives to life, Linda/Brian/and a >few others not in the current picture, although they may have been the >first "known as" FM's. And the directory structure works fine for >miscellaneous information about a particular county. You know you will find >every bit and piece of info. gathered by whoever in the directory under such >and such County. That to me is what the archives should be. But this is >the Census Project and there is no need to put our work in the directory >under some state and county FM. However, there is a way to make it seem >so. In order to get to the census files within the AC, is no different than >it is for the CP. You get through either from the Search engine or through >the front door TOC. And there the TOC has links to every census file, just >like we do. There is no other way to find them, they are linked. >The TOC's for the archives can link to Census Project directories just like >they do their own. There is no reason to move the census files into another >directory and then link to them. They have to be linked to no matter what >and they can be linked to no matter where they are. >And believe me I have heard every argument, and I told Linda personally on >ICQ and in email many times. When all the arguments are over and the truth >has to be heard. The only reason to move the Census Files is CONTROL. This >is not hostility or anger, but fact. >I know, I have been at it for years here and I have imaged every angle I >could think of to come up with a way to compromise between Linda and Kay. >Kay isn't perfect but all she wanted was the freedom to do this Project the >best she could. And to end up with something to pass on to the next person >that was worth having. >I don't want to get on any soap-box, but think about that, all of you and >tell me that what I said is not rational. It makes perfect sense and is >do-able but the files themselves are the value points. Not the links. > >9. Definition of the Digital Library as mentioned in the Bylaws >*******Your recollection of History Maggie is close. The USGW was founded >and envisioned first and was in construction first. The premier inception >of the USGW however did not include the Archives. In fact the founder of >the USGW emphatically did NOT want the archives to be a part of the USGW >because it would in fact take away from the validity and need for each >County Project. Which has basically been true. However the founder was >pushed out of his own project and berated and humiliated by those that >WANTED the Archives to be a part, ie: Linda/Brian/John/etc. and others were >rallied to smear the founder to their later dismay. In fact you may have >seen bit and pieces on it lately as some have come out in repentance for the >things they were fooled into doing and saying against him. SO the Archives >prevailed where it wasn't intended. >But getting back to the By-Laws, if read completely treat the AP and the CP >as equal entities with the same voice and the same recognition, which is as >it should be. The problem with the old idea that Kay didn't have the right >to take the Project away from the AP is that when they voted her in as the >National Coordinator of the Project they, in reality, gave her the right and >the power to do with it as she saw best for the Project. Where is the wrong >in that? We are all members of the Census Project. It is our duty to feed >it and nurture it so that it becomes the best it can be. Not for our own >glory, but for the good of those that use it. Not to make a name for >ourselves or to LORD over others. We do this because we love it and because >we believe in what we are doing. Kay did what she thought was best for the >growth and betterment of the Census Project. It may have been unpopular >with the AP but she was within her rights. > >Thanks, >Ron > >

>From: "Maggie Stewart" >To: "Connie Burkett" , > "John C. Jacoby" , "Ron Eason", > "Tim Stowell" >Subject: Re: Census Discussion - Introduction >Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 22:31:51 -0400 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 > >Connie and all, > > I am going to mix my replies in your comments with *** as that is easier >for me. (grin)I get confused so easy these days. > >>>>Census File Location: >* 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.<<< > ***I am in a unique position here in that I am the OH File Manager for >the archives as well. I can tell you that each state File manager has the >same concerns that you expressed. I have been talking to all of them and >the majority prefer that I format the file as I want it done then send it to >them to upload. This is placed in the states/county/census/year/ folder. >Once those files are placed there they are not moved or changed unless I >send them an update. > While we, the Census Project, are doing the census folders they are in >charge of what goes into their respective states. [FYI, Each state within >the Archives has a separate password so each state has a limited amount of >folks that have those passwords. I am a real bear about giving them all >sorts of tests and such to make sure they know what they are doing before I >hand out passwords. In OH I am the only person that can delete a file. If >I catch one of them in there doing it the passwords get changed.] > 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. > >>>>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.<< >***I assume that you are talking about the complete transcriptions submitted >to the Census Project. There are scads of "one family" census extractions >all throughout the archives. I would like to see this happen as well but >first we have to find someone willing to do this. It would be a massive >undertaking. A more realistic goal might be to do the new files the right >way and then continue onwards until we get on an even keel. > >>>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.<< >***I have been doing this in OH as the State File Manager and having some >really good luck in about 10 of the 88 counties. It's a wonderful idea that >I would gladly welcome being implemented. > >>>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.<< >***As I said in my other letter I would gladly welcome a crossover between >the two projects. If some of the File Managers in your project want to also >be the SC in ours I don't have a problem with it if you all don't. [Many >have expressed concern that there would be a problem with this crossover.] >We are going to have a person that does nothing but put updates on the pages >so that the SCs can concentrate on recruiting, teaching, and doing what we >really want which is getting the information online. Also that way we would >have more continuity and less confusion all around. > >>>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.<< >***You should have said hello. (smile)We worry that we are not being >friendly enough when folks just sit there. We do try to work as a team and >when you toss ideas off several folks you get somewhere. So come back and >visit with us and get to know us. If you have questions about mIRC just >ask. The folks on the channels are friendly. > >I guess I have been long winded enough, >Maggie > > > > > > >

>From: "Ron & Kathy" >To: "Tim Stowell" >Cc: "Connie Burkett", "Arch-Cens Maggie", "John C. Jacoby" >Subject: Re: Census Discussion - Introduction >Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 22:37:56 +0300 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 > >Hi everyone, > >I'm glad that Tim set this up. >I was beginning to wonder if someone still cared. >But alas, we are here. > >I know that most of you are aware of the situation and I also know that some >of you don't know the whole story. I do, I have been here for almost all of >it. And I have been on both sides. As friends and as, sadly, now ; who >knows. > >The Census Project is probably without doubt been the fastest growing >Project of all. Mostly because of the nature of the product, therefore it >is very valuable to anyone that has control over it. > >I, like Tim do not want this discussion to come to character assassinations >or name calling but I would like to see productive conversation. But I >think one thing has to be understood by everyone. My idea for the future, >is not to have The Census Project, UNDER, any other Project, except The USGW >Project. I don't think it's necessary and I don't think it will be >productive for the current staff of either side. > >The process of qualifying transcribers and encouraging them, the process of >turning raw data into a useful tool for all to use is PROJECT 1. We have >refined the process down to where it runs very smoothly and our end product >is very useful and well accepted. >I have fielded many problems as well as accolades to what is being done and >we try to learn from every curve and make straight right away what we can. > >There is much room to grow and expand into the 1900 census' which John was >correct in his assessment of. But I think that if WE can come up with a >workable plan of how to work together and/or combine our efforts. I think >we will be able to all that needs to be done to complete our primary goal of >getting all the census' on-line. > >I know we are going to probably trudge over some rough ground but if we all >adhere to the rules and not share these e-mails with others, not Linda, not >Kay, not ANYONE. I think we may be able to get together on a plan. > >Ron > >

>From: "Maggie Stewart" >To: "Connie Burkett" , > "John C. Jacoby" , "Ron Eason", > "Tim Stowell" >Subject: Fw: Census Discussion - Introduction >Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 14:36:32 -0400 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 > >Afternoon Everyone! > >First I want to thank you all for participating. I really want some >resolution on this issue so that the USGW Archives Census Project can move >into the future working together as one entity. I have some ideas but the >ultimate goal is one unit working together to get all of the US census >transcribed and up on the internet in a timely manner. > >Given the structures of what we have now, I think the first step would be >comparing notes so that we don't inadvertantly have someone do a >transcription twice. What I would love to see is the State Coordinators for >the Census projects doing both projects as John is doing in illinois. This >would give some needed continuity for the volunteers. The wonderful >volunteers of both projects should not be made to pay for internal politics >and disagreements. > >I would like to see the data in the archives in the state/county/census/year >structure but the most important thing now is to promote unity, cooperation, >and team work and start getting rid of this "mine is better than yours" >dissention that is tearing the project apart. The only way you can lead a >project of this sort is to "build it and they will come" and to "lead by >example". > >(grin)I hope that this is what you wanted Tim. > >Maggie > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Tim Stowell >To: Ron & Kathy ; ; Maggie Stewart >; John C. Jacoby >Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 10:41 PM >Subject: Census Discussion - Introduction > > >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. > > > >

At 6:00 PM -0700 4/7/00, FEATHER2s@aol.com wrote: >It's a rare day when Ginger and I agree, but I do agree with this. <g> > >I think maybe a Motion for Sanctions or something similar would be a better >way to handle it and avoid setting dangerous precedents by implication or >inference as Ginger has pointed out. > Ginger H. & Ginger C., If the motion is phrased as a censure or a sanction or anything like that, people who would vote for a simple motion to declare EO-2000 void and without authority might not vote for a motion to censure. I think there are probably two or three people on the Board who disapprove of the Order and would vote to overturn it, but who view it as an innocent misinterpretation of the ByLaws and would not be comfortable voting to rap Tim's knuckles over it. (Joe, for example, has expressed something like that.) Since any motion needs 2/3 majority to pass, I would be *very* cautious about amending Motion 00-8 to be any harsher than it is. It doesn't do much good to put your righteous outrage into a Motion if it results in the Executive Order standing. -- Teri

At 5:20 PM -0700 4/7/00, Ginger <gingerh@shawneelink.com> wrote: >Well would someone please explain to me how we >can have a motion to overrule an action that the >NC had no right to take in the first place. > >He should have been declared out of order, which >he most certainly was! It is my feeling that instead >of declaring him out of order and instructing him to >refrain from any further actions of this nature that >we are setting a precedent for future boards. Moving >to, what basically amounts to a, veto of his actions >implies that he had the right to take those actions in >the first place. Which he clearly did not! Ginger, I don't think there is any such implication. I believe the motion was intended to BE a declaration by the Board that the NC has no authority to take such an action. To declare an NC's action (as opposed to a motion) to be "out of order", something official has to be done. Otherwise anyone such as the Secretary could declare any action "out of order", even simple ones like responding to letters requesting permission to link to the National site, which many of us have mentioned should not require Board permission. I'm not in any way suggesting that Executive Order 2000-E-1 is similar to answering a letter! I agree that it was flagrantly outside the ByLaws. My point is simply that we need to vote to make it official that the NC does not have that authority. And official actions are introduced via motions. There is indeed very much of a problem with the ByLaws requiring that all motions pass by a 2/3 majority. I think that is a terrible provision. If a motion to declare an NC's action to be illegal requires 2/3 approval to pass, then any NC with a 1/3 support on the Board can do anything illegal they want, by issuing one Executive Order after another, and those opposed needing 2/3 approval to override it! The blame for this problem does not lie with using motions to declare an NC's actions to be void and without authority, though. A motion is the proper way to do that. The fault is in the 2/3 majority clause. Traditionally, clauses that certain votes require more than a plurality to pass are reserved for a few specified actions, such as requiring 2/3 majority to pass a new tax or to forcibly unseat an officeholder - or to delink a project! Requiring a 2/3 majority to pass any motion makes the likelihood of change oversensitive as to whether the motion is worded so that change will occur when it passes versus when it fails. Some very good ideas get voted down because 35% of the Board opposes them, even though 65% think we should do it, and some dubious actions get allowed because somebody with web page control or directory access does them, and the Board needs 2/3 agreement to force them to undo whatever they did. Hopefully Motion 00-8 will pass with 2/3 majority, and then we can seat a Census Board rep, and then we can deal with the postponed Motion 00-6, and then maybe we can see about amending some of the ByLaws. I was hoping that getting the ball rolling on some of the worst ByLaws could be the major order of business this year. All of this Census Project hoo-hah has been a real distraction. I don't think there is that much of a problem with the two Census Projects the way they are. A bit confusing, yes, but not nearly as much of a headache as trying to force volunteers to merge when they don't want to, and getting everybody up-in-arms at being coerced. (As for Shari's Motion 00-6, I prefer Holly's proposal of a joint committee made up of volunteers from both Census projects, or Jim Powell's proposal of a fact-finding liason, to ANY solution worked out by the Board and handed down from on high, no matter how sound or fair or even positively inspired the Board's plan is. Volunteers are much likelier to abide by a plan they came up with together than one that was handed to them by decree, even if it turns out to be the same plan in the end.) -- Teri

Well would someone please explain to me how we can have a motion to overrule an action that the NC had no right to take in the first place. He should have been declared out of order, which he most certainly was! It is my feeling that instead of declaring him out of order and instructing him to refrain from any further actions of this nature that we are setting a precedent for future boards. Moving to, what basically amounts to a, veto of his actions implies that he had the right to take those actions in the first place. Which he clearly did not! Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Shari Handley <shari@klondyke.net> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Friday, April 07, 2000 2:46 PM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] 'Tis a sad day for The USGenWeb Project >Please don't assume that silence implies support of anyone else's actions. >We have a motion before the board, #00-8, Richard's motion to override Tim's >executive order. I don't know about anyone else, but I know how *I'm* going >to vote on it. It is clear to me that de-linking is something that can only >come from the AB. This is spelled out quite clearly in the bylaws. >Allowing any NC to make a unilateral decision and pronouncement such as that >sets a perilous precedent. If delinking needs to happen, then it needs to >follow the standard "motion-second-discussion-vote" path. > >If Tim's executive order is overturned, we need to get on the stick and get >someone seated in the CP board seat, so that we can deal with motion 00-6. >It is (was?) my fervent hope that motion 00-6 would bring the sides together >in a fair and equitable way. Sure, neither side was getting all that they >wanted, but isn't that the hallmark of compromise? > >Shari Handley >shari@armada.net > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Ginger <gingerh@shawneelink.com> >To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 10:31 AM >Subject: [BOARD-L] 'Tis a sad day for The USGenWeb Project > > >: Fellow Board Members, >: >: As most of you have gathered, I'm appalled at the recent >: turn of events and at the actions of the NC. I also have no >: doubt that some of you were aware of what was coming. >: >: One thing that really saddens me is that when a previous >: NC made a similar statement about their executive privilege >: some of you, that are still here, went up in arms, with the >: result of the resignation of that NC. ( I agreed with that action >: and supported you because you were right. Those powers >: were not given to the NC position in the Bylaws.) Now, when >: another NC has taken such power upon himself, you appear >: to support his position by your very silence. Where is your >: outrage now? >: >: If, on the other hand, some of you were aware of this action >: and endorsed it then you should have had the fortitude to >: do it publicly, instead of behind closed doors. If you really >: believed it was the right thing to do then why didn't you >: bring it to Board-L in the form of a motion and vote? Don't >: you believe you should have the courage of your convictions? >: >: To my fellow volunteers in The USGenWeb Project I can only >: say that, as a member of the AB, I am deeply ashamed of >: the recent actions. I find it incomprehensible that a group of >: adults is so hung up on the "me" that they are willing to risk >: destroying the very project that the "we" worked so hard to >: build. >: >: I would also like to remind the coordinators in all of the >: special projects that "people who live in glass houses shouldn't >: throw stones". Neither side has a spotless record. You might >: also keep in mind that none of us are indispensable. If I drop >: dead, or drop off the net, tomorrow someone will come along >: and take my counties and go on. That in itself is the beauty of >: this, the continuity. >: >: >: Ginger >: gingerh@shawneelink.com >: >: >

In a message dated 04/07/2000 8:24:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, gingerh@shawneelink.com writes: > Well would someone please explain to me how we > can have a motion to overrule an action that the > NC had no right to take in the first place. > > He should have been declared out of order, which > he most certainly was! It is my feeling that instead > of declaring him out of order and instructing him to > refrain from any further actions of this nature that > we are setting a precedent for future boards. Moving > to, what basically amounts to a, veto of his actions > implies that he had the right to take those actions in > the first place. Which he clearly did not! > > > Ginger It's a rare day when Ginger and I agree, but I do agree with this. <g> I think maybe a Motion for Sanctions or something similar would be a better way to handle it and avoid setting dangerous precedents by implication or inference as Ginger has pointed out. Virginia (Ginger) Cisewski "It takes two to speak the truth: one to talk, another to hear." ----Henry David Thoreau

Please don't assume that silence implies support of anyone else's actions. We have a motion before the board, #00-8, Richard's motion to override Tim's executive order. I don't know about anyone else, but I know how *I'm* going to vote on it. It is clear to me that de-linking is something that can only come from the AB. This is spelled out quite clearly in the bylaws. Allowing any NC to make a unilateral decision and pronouncement such as that sets a perilous precedent. If delinking needs to happen, then it needs to follow the standard "motion-second-discussion-vote" path. If Tim's executive order is overturned, we need to get on the stick and get someone seated in the CP board seat, so that we can deal with motion 00-6. It is (was?) my fervent hope that motion 00-6 would bring the sides together in a fair and equitable way. Sure, neither side was getting all that they wanted, but isn't that the hallmark of compromise? Shari Handley shari@armada.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Ginger <gingerh@shawneelink.com> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 10:31 AM Subject: [BOARD-L] 'Tis a sad day for The USGenWeb Project : Fellow Board Members, : : As most of you have gathered, I'm appalled at the recent : turn of events and at the actions of the NC. I also have no : doubt that some of you were aware of what was coming. : : One thing that really saddens me is that when a previous : NC made a similar statement about their executive privilege : some of you, that are still here, went up in arms, with the : result of the resignation of that NC. ( I agreed with that action : and supported you because you were right. Those powers : were not given to the NC position in the Bylaws.) Now, when : another NC has taken such power upon himself, you appear : to support his position by your very silence. Where is your : outrage now? : : If, on the other hand, some of you were aware of this action : and endorsed it then you should have had the fortitude to : do it publicly, instead of behind closed doors. If you really : believed it was the right thing to do then why didn't you : bring it to Board-L in the form of a motion and vote? Don't : you believe you should have the courage of your convictions? : : To my fellow volunteers in The USGenWeb Project I can only : say that, as a member of the AB, I am deeply ashamed of : the recent actions. I find it incomprehensible that a group of : adults is so hung up on the "me" that they are willing to risk : destroying the very project that the "we" worked so hard to : build. : : I would also like to remind the coordinators in all of the : special projects that "people who live in glass houses shouldn't : throw stones". Neither side has a spotless record. You might : also keep in mind that none of us are indispensable. If I drop : dead, or drop off the net, tomorrow someone will come along : and take my counties and go on. That in itself is the beauty of : this, the continuity. : : : Ginger : gingerh@shawneelink.com : :

Believe it or not I have a life outside the Project here in the beautiful Adirondack Mountains of northern NY which are beginning, just beginning to green up. But, I also have a deep affection for this project and the many volunteers. This Project has consummed many untold hours of my time transcribing, uploading, answering questions, posting queries and all the things that make online genealogy such a fascinating hobby. In times past I resisted all efforts by some to get me involved in the politics of the Project. I finally accepted the nomination to represent the Archives with the belief that I could make a difference. Well, I haven't made a difference, only reaching a level of frustration shared by all members of the Board in one way or the other. But I will tell you this folks. Don't ascribe motives to me that only seem to reflect what you would do in like circumstances because in all likelihood you will be wrong. As long as I am a Board member I will vote my conscience. That may mean that I leave the Board with far fewer friends than when I arrived, on both sides, but so be it. With all that said in my usual wordy fashion let me comment on the subject at hand. I wish everyone would cool it and let Richards' motion work it's way through the discussion and voting process. Then you can pick your targets for whatever invective seems appropriate. If his motion passes the Board says no and the link returns. Tim is a friend of mine. We have worked together on ND and other things, but we don't always agree and I tell him privately what I think, as he does to me. I know in this case the level of frustration he feels after the time he spent trying to effect a compromise only to see it blow up. But, in this case, the way I read the ByLaws, only the Board can vote to delink. We must respect the ByLaws or else we make it up as we go along and the Boards behind us do the same and chaos reigns. So that's the way I see it. Joe Tim Stowell wrote: > > Mr. Eason, > > Executive Order 2000-E-1: Whereas your 'project' continues to be not in > good standing within the USGenWeb Project despite repeated requests to fix > your pages, does not answer mail in a timely manner, and has refused to > negotiate in good faith for a merger of the ACP and the CP, you are hereby > given notice that your project has been delinked from the National web site. > > I regret that this must be done but I believe it to be the best for the > USGenWeb Project as a whole. > > I do this within my rights as National Coordinator - under my day to day > administration duties. > The Webmaster has had no part in this - as I have done this myself. > > Should the Board request further details of the Census Project's actions or > lack thereof as coordinated by Mr. Eason, they will be provided. > > Timothy S Stowell email - tstowell@chattanooga.net > Chattanooga, TN > > National Coordinator USGenWeb Project - http://www.usgenweb.org > -- 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

John Jacoby has declined permission to use any notes from him in this matter therefore any input he may have made will not be included. Tim

Fellow Board Members, As most of you have gathered, I'm appalled at the recent turn of events and at the actions of the NC. I also have no doubt that some of you were aware of what was coming. One thing that really saddens me is that when a previous NC made a similar statement about their executive privilege some of you, that are still here, went up in arms, with the result of the resignation of that NC. ( I agreed with that action and supported you because you were right. Those powers were not given to the NC position in the Bylaws.) Now, when another NC has taken such power upon himself, you appear to support his position by your very silence. Where is your outrage now? If, on the other hand, some of you were aware of this action and endorsed it then you should have had the fortitude to do it publicly, instead of behind closed doors. If you really believed it was the right thing to do then why didn't you bring it to Board-L in the form of a motion and vote? Don't you believe you should have the courage of your convictions? To my fellow volunteers in The USGenWeb Project I can only say that, as a member of the AB, I am deeply ashamed of the recent actions. I find it incomprehensible that a group of adults is so hung up on the "me" that they are willing to risk destroying the very project that the "we" worked so hard to build. I would also like to remind the coordinators in all of the special projects that "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". Neither side has a spotless record. You might also keep in mind that none of us are indispensable. If I drop dead, or drop off the net, tomorrow someone will come along and take my counties and go on. That in itself is the beauty of this, the continuity. Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com

>From: "Maggie Stewart" >To: "Tim Stowell", "Ron Eason", > "Connie Burkett", > "JJ" >Subject: Re: [Census-Discuss] - Followup >Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 10:40:45 -0400 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 > >Morning Everyone! > >1. Directory control - ie password protected for census FMs >***We can discuss this until the cows come home but we have no control over >this as the choice for this belongs to the Linda Lewis and Kay Mason. The >archives File Managers work as a team and none of us would touch someone >else's files unless there was a major problem (copyright violation or the >file manager was unable to do so). There is in the works a move to >"separate" the state CC's folders from the state archives folders and once >that is done the only persons that will even see those folders are the >archives folks. > >2. Directory structure - hiearchy of the data >***This, as John said, is a matter that has to be decided between Linda and >Kay. Each wants it their own way and they have to resolve it. > >3. Duplicate Personel - two folks doing the same census or state FMs >***I think this can be resolved by us by allowing/encouraging the Census >State Coordinators to work for each of the projects. This would promote >continuity and would be a first step toward melding the two projects >together. I personally can't see any problem with two sets of TOCs for the >census records as long as they are updated and current. The less we step >on Linda's or Kay's toes while quietly putting the projects together the >better. If you try to combine anything outright the way things are it would >be like waving a red flag in front of a pair of bulls, they would lock horns >again. Also, I think that the leaders within the project need to get the >personalities out of this. I get a lot of very negative attitudes from some >folks and somehow the negative needs to be replaced with a positive. If we >can merge a united front everyone will be a winner. > >4. TOCs - possibly one for Scanned Images and one for text? >***I have been maintaining a separate TOC for the scanned images since the >first one was put up into the archives. Linda and I have had extensive >discussions about why we need them on the CP TOCs as well and I lost. What >I am planning to do in my spare time (what is that anyway?) is to link from >the button with the census images to the images TOC. > >5. Restatement of the Goal of the Census Project >***Goal = work together to get as many of the census records online as >possible. > >6. Recruitment of Volunteers - should we possibly encourage volunteers to >first transcribe the scanned images versus microfilm? Scanned images >could be done at one's home versus going elsewhere to read microfilm. >***This is already being done by both projects as far as I can see. > >7. Handling of partial or surname transcriptions of census records >***This has always been placed in the state/county/census directories and >was agreeable to both Kay and Linda. One of the few things that I have ever >had them both tell me the same thing. > >8. Housing of the Census Project >***This is another, we can talk forever but Linda and Kay have to come to >some sort of agreement. It's obvious to me from reading the messages that >Folks in the leadership in Kay's project share her beliefs of where they >should be housed and the Archives File Managers want them where they always >have been. I should say on this subject that when the archives were >originally set up the original File Managers voted on the directory >structure of the archives and this is what they choose as a bridge to the >future. The folks that use the archives know that if they want a certain >state/county exactly where to find it. > >9. Definition of the Digital Library as mentioned in the Bylaws >***Somewhere around here I have a collection of history of the USGW Project >and the archives. As I understand it the Archives and the USGW Project were >formed at the same time and Linda Lewis requested that the Archives be >allowed to use the USGenWeb name as a matter of unity. The real name of the >archives is the USGenWeb Archives. I don't really think that a discussion >of the Archives is appropriate here except to say that I did an indepth look >into the history of the Census project that involved talking to all the >folks that were involved at that time (those that would answer my email) and >I do have a problem with Kay saying that the Census Project is hers when she >was not even involved in it for the first year of its inception and >creation. > >Maggie

>Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 00:27:22 -0400 >To: "Ron & Kathy", WVConnie, "Maggie Stewart", John C. Jacoby >From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> >Subject: [Census-Discuss] - Followup > > Dear Fellow Committee Members: > > First of all I've changed John's address to the new one he sent for this discussion. Secondly, I'm going to try to preface my subject lines with [Census-Discuss] and ask that you do the same so that those of us who use filters won't lose any notes from the others in this discussion. > > Ok, a synopsis, if I can on what's been said, hopefully brief! In reading the notes from each of you, I'm going to put down the subjects you've each broached, and some that have occured to me in reading your notes. To keep some semblance of order let's try to discuss these subjects one by one and see where you agree/disagree. These are in no particular order but I am trying to put them in some form of natural progression. > >1. Directory control - ie password protected for census FMs >2. Directory structure - hiearchy of the data >3. Duplicate Personel - two folks doing the same census or state FMs >4. TOCs - possibly one for Scanned Images and one for text? >5. Restatement of the Goal of the Census Project >6. Recruitment of Volunteers - should we possibly encourage volunteers to first transcribe the scanned images versus microfilm? Scanned images could be done at one's home versus going elsewhere to read microfilm. >7. Handling of partial or surname transcriptions of census records >8. Housing of the Census Project >9. Definition of the Digital Library as mentioned in the Bylaws > >These are the 'issues' as I understand them to be either from your notes thus far and/or my own questions. > >Tim > >Methods of Combination >Ultimate Goal - one Census Project! > >

Project Members, What follows are a series of messages that will show where the census talks started and where they ended. Please feel free to forward this and the subsequent notes to other lists and/or individuals. Tim

>From: "Maggie Stewart" <maggieohio@columbus.rr.com> >To: "Tim Stowell" <tstowell@chattanooga.net> >Subject: A message from the USGenWeb Archives Census Project >Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 02:28:09 -0400 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 > >Please forward the following letter to the appropriate lists: > > >We are saddened by the current events, as well as the events of the >past year. > >We wish to extend an invitation to *all* census project volunteers to >continue the hard work and efforts of providing census material on- >line for the visitors of the USGenWeb Project and the USGenWeb >Archives Census Project. > >Each and every one of your contributions benefit researchers around >the world, and will continue to do so for many, many years. > >Join us in the effort of combining our work, energy and resources. We >all have the opportunity to work together to provide this >genealogical resource online. The USGenWeb Archives Census Project >looks forward to working to accomplish this goal. Please join us in >making this goal a reality. > >=================== >Maggie Stewart-Zimmerman, Janyce King, Tina Vickery, >Mary Fullmer, Kelly Jensen-Mullins > >http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/census/ > > > > >

Motion 00-7 was the one Holly made 3/19, Richard seconded. It stated - 'I move that the motion to postpone motion 00-6 be reconsidered.' It was numbered before Ginger asked for a ruling on it. As it was out of order - it was called dead. Tim At 02:14 PM 4/6/00 -0400, you wrote: >What is Motion 00-7? > >Tim Stowell wrote: >> >> Richard's motion - seconded by Jim - is numbered Motion 00-8 and is now >> open for discussion. >> >> "Therefore I make the Motion to over ride the National Coordinator's delink >> of the USGenWeb Census Project." >> >> Tim >> >> At 06:41 AM 4/6/00 -0400, you wrote: >> >I am assuming that Robert's Rules doesn't have another meaning of over >> ride. I >> >am assuming it means repeal, do away with, make null and void, etc. If >> that is >> >the case, although we will probably be ruled out of order, I second Richard's >> >motion to over ride the NC's delink of the Census Project. >> > >> >James Edward (Jim) Powell Jr >> > >> >Richard's wrote: >> > >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> Richard M. Howland >> >> >> >> >> >> 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 >> > >> > > >