At 03:57 PM 1/10/00 -0500, Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny wrote: >I think we should step back and ask by what right does anyone speak for >the members of the Census Project (CP)? Kay Mason, the last person to >legitimately hold the postion of NC for the CP, has walked away from the >Project and her post on this Board. I think the CP members should hold >an election, as outlined in the Bylaws, for a CP coordinator. Then >discussions can be undertaken with at least the knowledge that the >person speaking for the CP has the backing of the people ultimately >affected by their discisions. BTW, my reading of the Bylaws leads me to >believe a separate election would be needed to fill the vacant CP >position on the Board. The CP Coordinator can hold both positions but >two elections are needed in any case. > >Joe > One could read the Bylaws as you state above. That the CP and other Special Project elect their Board Rep there is no question. However as far as the Coordinator of the Special Projects is concerned the Bylaws state that they are appointed by the Advisory Board in Article 13 - Section 1. Section 6 - though does cause difficulty seemingly contradicting Section 1. It seems as if in the writing of the Sections regarding the Special Projects that two positions were being discussed without a clear division regarding which was being talked about where. Tim

I think we should combine 002 and 003. I believe that before we do anything about the vacant Board position, that the two Census projects should come together on their own and create something bigger and better than sum of the two projects as they now exist. They should do this without Board involvement or pressure. They need to realize that they start with a blank slate. Nothing that the Board has said or might say should come into play. There are intelligent, worthy Volunteers on both sides. They know what should be done, ask them nicely to get on with it and then they can elect a new Board Rep. Maybe we could create them a list where the major players were subbed as participants and the those of us that are interested could sub in a read only mode. If it blew up we would be no worse off than we are now. Jim Alachua County Clerk of the Courts Office Http://www.co.alachua.fl.us/~clerk/

I think we should step back and ask by what right does anyone speak for the members of the Census Project (CP)? Kay Mason, the last person to legitimately hold the postion of NC for the CP, has walked away from the Project and her post on this Board. I think the CP members should hold an election, as outlined in the Bylaws, for a CP coordinator. Then discussions can be undertaken with at least the knowledge that the person speaking for the CP has the backing of the people ultimately affected by their discisions. BTW, my reading of the Bylaws leads me to believe a separate election would be needed to fill the vacant CP position on the Board. The CP Coordinator can hold both positions but two elections are needed in any case. Joe -- Zsedeny Genealogy - http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm NDGenWeb Archives - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/nd/ndfiles.htm Pembina County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm Ramsey County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm

At 12:21 AM 1/10/00 -0500, Tim Stowell wrote: >2. The 2 Census Projects and how we should handle that. - Issue - 00-2 Regarding my suggestion for binding arbitration: 1. This option should not be forced on the Census Projects. It can only work if both sides truly want a merger and agree to go into arbitration. 2. The arbitrator needs to be someone outside of USGenWeb -- in fact, preferably someone outside the genealogy community with no stake in the outcome.

With the Board list open for subscription to the members of the USGenWeb Project at large, at the end of the first 24 hours or so we've had 97 members join the list. Some names are familiar but most are not. It seems that some of the silent majority is joining this list to see for themselves. Tim

OOPS, sorry Tim. My little brain was just ticking away and I put several thoughts into one note. I will try to do better in the future (I promise-even if my poor little brain does occasionally turn to onion dip-BG). Tim Stowell wrote: > > At 08:19 PM 1/9/00 -0500, you wrote: > >Hi All, > > > >Now that we are in a new year, maybe it is time to get some old business > >cleaned up. I have several questions I would like to bring up at this > >time and see where the Board Members stand. > > > >1. USGenNet and the sites that are hosted as USGenWeb sites and > >USGenNet sites. > >2. The 2 Census Projects and how we should handle that. > >3. The absence of Kay Mason for so many months. > >4. The possibility of combining the Tombstone Project up with the > >Archives Project, as a subsidiary (which I already consider it to be). > > > >Thanks, Pam > > > > To keep some semblance of order - please do not present more than one issue > at a time. However, since this is now on the floor please refer to these > in the following manner: > > 1. USGenNet and the sites that are hosted as USGenWeb sites and USGenNet > sites. - Issue - 00-1 > 2. The 2 Census Projects and how we should handle that. - Issue - 00-2 > 3. The absence of Kay Mason for so many months. - Issue - 00-3 > 4. The possibility of combining the Tombstone Project up with the Archives > Project, as a subsidiary (which I already consider it to be) - Issue - 00-4 > > Thanks, > > Tim

At 08:19 PM 1/9/00 -0500, you wrote: >Hi All, > >Now that we are in a new year, maybe it is time to get some old business >cleaned up. I have several questions I would like to bring up at this >time and see where the Board Members stand. > >1. USGenNet and the sites that are hosted as USGenWeb sites and >USGenNet sites. >2. The 2 Census Projects and how we should handle that. >3. The absence of Kay Mason for so many months. >4. The possibility of combining the Tombstone Project up with the >Archives Project, as a subsidiary (which I already consider it to be). > >Thanks, Pam > To keep some semblance of order - please do not present more than one issue at a time. However, since this is now on the floor please refer to these in the following manner: 1. USGenNet and the sites that are hosted as USGenWeb sites and USGenNet sites. - Issue - 00-1 2. The 2 Census Projects and how we should handle that. - Issue - 00-2 3. The absence of Kay Mason for so many months. - Issue - 00-3 4. The possibility of combining the Tombstone Project up with the Archives Project, as a subsidiary (which I already consider it to be) - Issue - 00-4 Thanks, Tim

-----Original Message----- From: Pam Reid <pamreid@home.com> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Sunday, January 09, 2000 7:21 PM Subject: [BOARD-L] Year 2000 Clean Ups >Hi All, > >Now that we are in a new year, maybe it is time to get some old business >cleaned up. I have several questions I would like to bring up at this >time and see where the Board Members stand. > >1. USGenNet and the sites that are hosted as USGenWeb sites and >USGenNet sites. This is really not USGenWeb vs USGenNet specific. I would like to see each county have at least a different main page, no matter what other project they were also affiliated with. Those pages could carry the same links on each page, but would be specific to each project. As it stands now some of these dual sites almost have an identity crisis. I've had people comment that they didn't know what project they were actually visiting. >2. The 2 Census Projects and how we should handle that. Being an eternal optimist I'm still hoping they can work it out between them. The ports of communication were open, even if they are closed again now. It was start. I hope the coordinators for both projects will take a deep breath and start again and keep in mind that the good of the USGenWeb Project, as a whole, should be their primary consideration. >3. The absence of Kay Mason for so many months. On the one hand the Census Project volunteers don't seem to be very concerned that they are without representation on the board. On the other hand, I believe we can consider that she has resigned, if not in fact then by her actions. I'll try to take a look at my RRoO and see how it addresses this issue, if at all. >4. The possibility of combining the Tombstone Project up with the >Archives Project, as a subsidiary (which I already consider it to be). Well it basically always has been under the umbrella of the Archives Project hasn't it? Will this affect representation for the Tombstone Project members? I guess what I'm asking is will this change anything? Will the Tombstone volunteers be totally assimilated into the Archives Project so that the Tombstone Project as it is will cease to exist? Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com > >Thanks, Pam >

>Pam Reid wrote: >Now that we are in a new year, maybe it is time to get some old business >cleaned up. I have several questions I would like to bring up at this >time and see where the Board Members stand. >1. USGenNet and the sites that are hosted as USGenWeb sites and >USGenNet sites. 1. My opinion: Although I prefer and keep my sites for different organizations on separate pages, I believe as long as a Volunteer is keeping up their site to our minimum specifications and keeping their visitors more or less happy, we should leave them alone. >2. The 2 Census Projects and how we should handle that. 2. My opinion: Leave them alone. There is nothing productive that we can do. They need to try again and again to work things out. As long as there is a chance that we will approve one or the other as "The" Census Project, they will not work things out. >3. The absence of Kay Mason for so many months. 3. No opinion. But if my Rep was absent, I might be a little upset. Unless of course I didn't think that it mattered. Maybe they are trying to tell us something? >4. The possibility of combining the Tombstone Project up with the >Archives Project, as a subsidiary (which I already consider it to be) 4. If the Volunteers of both projects agree, then by all means combine the Tombstone Project with the Archives Project. I agree that I have always considered it to be a subsidiary of the Archives. Joy does bring up a good point about the Tombstone Representative. Jim Email: Jpowelljr@gru.net Family Homepage: Http://www.afn.org/~afn03098/ Ancient Records Coordinator Alachua County Clerk of the Courts Office Http://www.co.alachua.fl.us/~clerk/ Coordinator of Henderson County KyGenweb Page Http://www.rootsweb.com/~kyhender/ Coordinator of Gilchrist County FLGenWeb Page Http://www.rootsweb.com/~flgilchr/ Coordinator of Alachua County FLGenWeb Page Http://www.rootsweb.com/~flalachu/ Coordinator of Bradford County FLGenWeb Page Http://www.rootsweb.com/~flbradfo/ Assistant State Coordinator FLGenWeb Alachua County ALHN Http://www.usgennet.org/~ahflalac/ Henderson County, Kentucky ALHN Http://www.usgennet.org/~ahkyhend/ Florida Contact American Local History Network Http://www.usgennet.org/~alhnflus/

At 08:19 PM 1/9/00 -0500, you wrote: >Hi All, > >Now that we are in a new year, maybe it is time to get some old business >cleaned up. I have several questions I would like to bring up at this >time and see where the Board Members stand. > >1. USGenNet and the sites that are hosted as USGenWeb sites and >USGenNet sites. In my opinion, there should be separate sites >2. The 2 Census Projects and how we should handle that. Since the merger of the two CP's fell through, I suggest we submit the whole question to binding arbitration. Anyone know where we can find someone with the wisdom of Solomon to take it on?? >3. The absence of Kay Mason for so many months. Can we legally declare that Kay is "unable to fulfill her term"? >4. The possibility of combining the Tombstone Project up with the >Archives Project, as a subsidiary (which I already consider it to be). That would probably mean removing the TP representative on the Board, as well. We will need to prepare this as something to be voted on by the membership this summer.

Hi All, Now that we are in a new year, maybe it is time to get some old business cleaned up. I have several questions I would like to bring up at this time and see where the Board Members stand. 1. USGenNet and the sites that are hosted as USGenWeb sites and USGenNet sites. 2. The 2 Census Projects and how we should handle that. 3. The absence of Kay Mason for so many months. 4. The possibility of combining the Tombstone Project up with the Archives Project, as a subsidiary (which I already consider it to be). Thanks, Pam

Done. Tim At 07:05 PM 1/8/00 -0500, you wrote: >Thanks, Valerie! I'll pass this along. Tim is the list administrator for >BOARD-L, and I'm sure he can change the welcome message. > >Shari > >-----Original Message----- >From: Valerie & Tommy Crook <vfcrook@trellis.net> >To: shari@klondyke.net <shari@klondyke.net> >Date: Saturday, January 08, 2000 4:53 PM >Subject: Re: [USGenWeb-SE] Subscribe to BOARD-L > > >Shari, > >A suggestion. The Welcome message gives directions on how to post. You >all might think about editing the Welcome message for this list. ;-) > >Valerie > >At 04:35 PM 1/8/00 -0500, you wrote: >>It is now possible for all USGenWeb volunteers to subscribe to the BOARD-L >>mailing list, where discussion of USGenWeb business by the AB takes place. >(balance snipped) > >

Thanks, Valerie! I'll pass this along. Tim is the list administrator for BOARD-L, and I'm sure he can change the welcome message. Shari -----Original Message----- From: Valerie & Tommy Crook <vfcrook@trellis.net> To: shari@klondyke.net <shari@klondyke.net> Date: Saturday, January 08, 2000 4:53 PM Subject: Re: [USGenWeb-SE] Subscribe to BOARD-L Shari, A suggestion. The Welcome message gives directions on how to post. You all might think about editing the Welcome message for this list. ;-) Valerie At 04:35 PM 1/8/00 -0500, you wrote: >It is now possible for all USGenWeb volunteers to subscribe to the BOARD-L >mailing list, where discussion of USGenWeb business by the AB takes place. (balance snipped)

In almost record time - the Board vote on Motion 99-34 passes with 15 - yes, 0 - no, 0 - abstain, 1 not voting. I've added all Board members to the accept list. I've changed the permissions on the list to start accepting subscriptions. I've put a bounce limit of 4 in list form and 3 in digest form the list so I won't have to see so many bounce messages - which means that if a person has email problems they'll bounce off quickly. They can sub at their own leisure by sending a message to: List mode: BOARD-L-request@rootsweb.com - with the word subscribe in the body OR Digest: BOARD-D-request@rootsweb.com - with the word subscribe in the body Tim

yes Shari Handley -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Friday, January 07, 2000 6:43 PM Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 99-34 vote Now that discussion seems to have died down regarding Motion 99-34, Please cast your vote on Motion 99-34 - "to open subscription to BOARD-L on a read-only basis" motioned made by Joy and seconded by Shari, by giving your equivalent of yes, no or abstain. Thanks, Tim

Yes Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Friday, January 07, 2000 5:37 PM Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 99-34 vote >Now that discussion seems to have died down regarding Motion 99-34, > >Please cast your vote on Motion 99-34 - "to open subscription to BOARD-L on >a read-only basis" motioned made by Joy and seconded by Shari, by giving >your equivalent of yes, no or abstain. > >Thanks, > >Tim >

Aye. Tim Stowell wrote: > > Now that discussion seems to have died down regarding Motion 99-34, > > Please cast your vote on Motion 99-34 - "to open subscription to BOARD-L on > a read-only basis" motioned made by Joy and seconded by Shari, by giving > your equivalent of yes, no or abstain. > > Thanks, > > Tim

Yes. Maggie ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, January 07, 2000 6:35 PM Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 99-34 vote Now that discussion seems to have died down regarding Motion 99-34, Please cast your vote on Motion 99-34 - "to open subscription to BOARD-L on a read-only basis" motioned made by Joy and seconded by Shari, by giving your equivalent of yes, no or abstain. Thanks, Tim

I wasn't very clear in the forwarding of the TN message. I checked out what the person said and she is correct. Thanks, Pam

This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------973FD77C82617ECBBB6298C7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received this message this evening and I must admit I don't really know what is going on. Maybe I am behind the times since I haven't been keeping up due to the holidays, etc. Pam --------------973FD77C82617ECBBB6298C7 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: <patty@i1.net> Received: from h7.mail.home.com ([24.0.95.42]) by mail.rdc1.md.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP id <20000108013126.KRVF29981.mail.rdc1.md.home.com@h7.mail.home.com> for <pamreid@mail.dlcty1.va.home.com>; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 17:31:26 -0800 Received: from mx2-rwc.mail.home.com (mx2-rwc.mail.home.com [24.0.95.31]) by h7.mail.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id RAA19796 for <pamreid@home.com>; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 17:31:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from c-25.rootsweb.com (www.rootsweb.com [206.169.84.33]) by mx2-rwc.mail.home.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA16974 for <pamreid@home.com>; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 17:31:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail1.cetlink.net (root@mail1.cetlink.net [209.198.7.7]) by c-25.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA29167 for <webmaster@usgenweb.org>; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 17:34:35 -0800 Received: from default (cts2led77.xtraport.net [209.74.184.77]) by mail1.cetlink.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA51920 for <webmaster@usgenweb.org>; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 20:31:11 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200001080131.UAA51920@mail1.cetlink.net> Reply-To: <patty@i1.net> From: "patty" <patty@i1.net> To: <webmaster@usgenweb.org> Subject: Tennessee Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 19:33:16 -0600 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Cannot get to Tennessee gen web it keeps coming up with tngennet or some such thing and it has no way to get to the counties, It starts out with Tngenweb but than changes in the URL box before it connects. Been trying everything for an hour. Thanks Pat --------------973FD77C82617ECBBB6298C7--