I vote NO, but would reconsider if the list were open and archived for all to read.

Abstain Gloria -- Southwest/South Central CC Representative, USGenWeb Advisory Board

I vote "no." I would reconsider my vote on a new motion if this list changes its rules and allows all CCs to sub. Betsy At 12:21 AM 12/20/1999 -0500, you wrote: >Please cast your vote on Motion 99-33 - "to add the discussion list >USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org be added to the Info for Volunteers - page". > >by saying your equivalent of yes, no or abstain. > >Thanks, > >Tim > > > > >

>From Ginger: At 10:34 AM 12/21/99 -0600, you wrote: >If you decide to go on with the vote on USGWCC-L then I vote no. > > >Ginger >gingerh@shawneelink.com > > >

Discussion has taken place on this motion and notes from CCs have been posted here. The motion has been called and voting is proceeding. After a motion has been called and after voting has started, discussion should cease. If the members wish to change the rules on how motions are discussed and voted upon they can of course do so but not during the voting process of a motion. Voting time on this motion will be extended until 1 AM EST - 12/23 - approximately 46 hours at which time the results will be announced. Also at that time, I'm calling for a recess of the Board until 1/3/2000 as several members are going to be away for the holidays or have other personal issues that have come up for them. If any Board member has an objection to the recess time frame, please let us know. Please continue to vote on motion 99-33 and let's get this out of the way before the holidays. Tim

Yes Jim Tim Stowell wrote: > Please cast your vote on Motion 99-33 - "to add the discussion list > USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org be added to the Info for Volunteers - page". > > by saying your equivalent of yes, no or abstain. > > Thanks, > > Tim > >

No Richard... Tim Stowell writes: > Please cast your vote on Motion 99-33 - "to add the discussion list > USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org be added to the Info for Volunteers - page". > > by saying your equivalent of yes, no or abstain. > > Thanks, > > Tim > > > > >

Teri, Thanks for the information. I do think it would be good if he transferred the duties temporarily to a person of his choice. And somehow this information needs to get out to the general population of USGW CCs. Maggie ----- Original Message ----- From: Teri Pettit <pettit@Adobe.COM> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 1999 4:34 PM Subject: [BOARD-L] Delays in subscribing to USGW-CC-L Maggie Stewart wrote: > >I have not really made up my opinion but after 10 repeated >attempts I still cannot get subscribed to the -CC list. >I have had two similar comments from folks in the NW/Plains >Region with the same comments. > >However if I saw some evidence to the positive that >the list would be made available to all persons who >are County Coordinators then it might sway my vote. > >Maggie Maggie, It is difficult getting subscribed to USGW-CC-L at this time because Don Tharp has to manually add people to the list (in order to limit it to current CC's), and his wife is critically ill and he is devoting so much time to her care that he has a VERY heavy email backlog. (I first asked in October and made it onto the list just a few weeks ago.) In order to subscribe someone, Don requires the name of your county and the URL of your USGenWeb county page. In the message below he says he is not reading any mail except those addressed to him personally, so I would recommend a Subject line something like "Attn DON THARP - New Subscriber request for USGW-CC". Also include nothing else in the message body except the subscription request and your county info, to avoid getting bumped by the "this message looks too long to read" filter. (I think that was what did in my first subscription request.) I do think it would be worthwhile asking Don if he could transfer the subscription duties to someone else. It would help ease his load as well as giving more timely response to new subscribers. (There might be a Catch-22 if he is too busy to read and respond to the suggestion to transfer the duties.) - ---------------------------------------------------------- To: USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org From: John Schunk <john@skpub.com> Subject: USGW-CC-L: Answers to questions about USGW-CC Sender: owner-usgw-cc-l@rootsquest.com Reply-To: USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org With Don Tharp's permission, I'm forwarding his response to questions that I (and others) have asked about this list. >From Don Tharp: >Starting last June my wife became critically ill. She has been in and out of >the hospitals via the emergency room and intensive care four times since. >As of now she is in hospice, hopefully she will recover enough to be >removed. However, I am her care taker which requires most of my time. > >I have just recently, in the last week, become organized enough to read my >mail. I have been downloading it, but not reading any but those addressed to >me personally. > >I must have 150-200 requests for research on my Chautauqua County web site >alone, hopefully I can now start paring that to a reasonable backlog. > >I just finished reading the todo on CC-L about including it as a list for >volunteers to subscribe to. Some good points were made and some needed >questions asked. > >You probably have more time than I so if you care to answer some of the >questions you may quote me. > >1.) I know of no one subscribed to this list that was not a CC when they >subscribed. If they have since left the project I have been uninformed. If >anyone cares to name those that might no longer qualify for membership I >would be glad to check it out. > >2.) The list is archived, however I am the only one that can access them. I >do this just in case of legal action, I see no reason to have archives >available to all members. Kind of senseless, if they are a member they have >already seen it. If they are a johnny come lately they can ask a question >and there will be plenty to answer. > >3.) John, I think two have been banned. I don't really remember. The only >reason I have banned anyone, or written them a caution note, is when they >dealt in personalities or stated opinions as facts that were derogative of >other members. After asking them to be more factual in the future or note it >as opinion, and not to let personalities enter into their messages I banned >them only if they said words to the affect, go to hell, I'll do as I please >on your list. > >4.) One thing has been over looked, I asked the board to establish a list >just for CCs since all other entities of USGW had their own lists, AB, SC, >special projects, etc. I also asked that it be on another server. They >didn't take any action. Therefore CC-L was started. > >John, this is all the time I have so I'll close. If they include it or not >isn't really relevant. The list will exist and people will subscribe to it. > >One thing I have discovered, compared to a life and death struggle any list, >or USGW, or genealogy, etc., is just not that great in the scheme of things. > >And happy holidays to you and yours, John. > > >Don >mailto:det@fn.net

At 12:06 AM -0800 12/21/99, Tim Stowell wrote: > >Back on 12/13 in response to Teri's question on discussion of motions I >answered - >"The policy has been for most motions - at least 48 hours. If it is a >major motion - it is for a longer period of time. As the end of the 48 >hours may come at a time when I'm not available - I call for the vote as >quick as I can once the 48 hours has ended." Yes, but I also asked for some discussion as to how this past policy was decided upon, and whether it could be reconsidered. 48 hours does not allow time for any give-and-take. Most people do not hang on their keyboards all day, especially during busy times like this holiday season. I think the typical discussion time should be about five or six days, but that it should not be a strict deadline. Instead, when you gauge that discussion has died down, why not ask if anyone wants discussion to continue? Simple, non-controversial motions would get voted on fast because there would be nothing to discuss; anything with a range of opinion would be slower. It is not bad to take our time with something that is complex enough that doing a good job requires gathering feedback from the CC's and SC's whom we represent. // Teri

Maggie Stewart wrote: > >I have not really made up my opinion but after 10 repeated >attempts I still cannot get subscribed to the -CC list. >I have had two similar comments from folks in the NW/Plains >Region with the same comments. > >However if I saw some evidence to the positive that >the list would be made available to all persons who >are County Coordinators then it might sway my vote. > >Maggie Maggie, It is difficult getting subscribed to USGW-CC-L at this time because Don Tharp has to manually add people to the list (in order to limit it to current CC's), and his wife is critically ill and he is devoting so much time to her care that he has a VERY heavy email backlog. (I first asked in October and made it onto the list just a few weeks ago.) In order to subscribe someone, Don requires the name of your county and the URL of your USGenWeb county page. In the message below he says he is not reading any mail except those addressed to him personally, so I would recommend a Subject line something like "Attn DON THARP - New Subscriber request for USGW-CC". Also include nothing else in the message body except the subscription request and your county info, to avoid getting bumped by the "this message looks too long to read" filter. (I think that was what did in my first subscription request.) I do think it would be worthwhile asking Don if he could transfer the subscription duties to someone else. It would help ease his load as well as giving more timely response to new subscribers. (There might be a Catch-22 if he is too busy to read and respond to the suggestion to transfer the duties.) - ---------------------------------------------------------- To: USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org From: John Schunk <john@skpub.com> Subject: USGW-CC-L: Answers to questions about USGW-CC Sender: owner-usgw-cc-l@rootsquest.com Reply-To: USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org With Don Tharp's permission, I'm forwarding his response to questions that I (and others) have asked about this list. >From Don Tharp: >Starting last June my wife became critically ill. She has been in and out of >the hospitals via the emergency room and intensive care four times since. >As of now she is in hospice, hopefully she will recover enough to be >removed. However, I am her care taker which requires most of my time. > >I have just recently, in the last week, become organized enough to read my >mail. I have been downloading it, but not reading any but those addressed to >me personally. > >I must have 150-200 requests for research on my Chautauqua County web site >alone, hopefully I can now start paring that to a reasonable backlog. > >I just finished reading the todo on CC-L about including it as a list for >volunteers to subscribe to. Some good points were made and some needed >questions asked. > >You probably have more time than I so if you care to answer some of the >questions you may quote me. > >1.) I know of no one subscribed to this list that was not a CC when they >subscribed. If they have since left the project I have been uninformed. If >anyone cares to name those that might no longer qualify for membership I >would be glad to check it out. > >2.) The list is archived, however I am the only one that can access them. I >do this just in case of legal action, I see no reason to have archives >available to all members. Kind of senseless, if they are a member they have >already seen it. If they are a johnny come lately they can ask a question >and there will be plenty to answer. > >3.) John, I think two have been banned. I don't really remember. The only >reason I have banned anyone, or written them a caution note, is when they >dealt in personalities or stated opinions as facts that were derogative of >other members. After asking them to be more factual in the future or note it >as opinion, and not to let personalities enter into their messages I banned >them only if they said words to the affect, go to hell, I'll do as I please >on your list. > >4.) One thing has been over looked, I asked the board to establish a list >just for CCs since all other entities of USGW had their own lists, AB, SC, >special projects, etc. I also asked that it be on another server. They >didn't take any action. Therefore CC-L was started. > >John, this is all the time I have so I'll close. If they include it or not >isn't really relevant. The list will exist and people will subscribe to it. > >One thing I have discovered, compared to a life and death struggle any list, >or USGW, or genealogy, etc., is just not that great in the scheme of things. > >And happy holidays to you and yours, John. > > >Don >mailto:det@fn.net

Tim, I have not really made up my opinion but after 10 repeated attempts I still cannot get subscribed to the -CC list. I have had two similar comments from folks in the NW/Plains Region with the same comments. However if I saw some evidence to the positive the the list would be made available to all persons who are County Coordinators then it might sway my vote. Maggie ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 1999 3:06 AM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Motion 99-33 Voting At 12:35 PM 12/20/99 -0800, you wrote: >>Please cast your vote on Motion 99-33 - "to add the discussion list >>USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org be added to the Info for Volunteers - page". >> >>by saying your equivalent of yes, no or abstain. >> >>Thanks, >> >>Tim > >Tim, > >Can we wait a while longer? I got a number of responses sent directly >to me (on both sides of the question) with no indication of whether >they could be forwarded to the rest of the Advisory Board or not, >and I'm awaiting replies from the senders of those messages. > >// Teri Back on 12/13 in response to Teri's question on discussion of motions I answered - "The policy has been for most motions - at least 48 hours. If it is a major motion - it is for a longer period of time. As the end of the 48 hours may come at a time when I'm not available - I call for the vote as quick as I can once the 48 hours has ended." The vote for Motion 99-33 was called for 72 hours after the discussion period was announced. At 84 hours, Teri asks for a further time extension. Now at 99 hours, my question to the rest of the Board members then is - do you wish for a further time extension - should we hold up this vote already called for? Will further discussion sway your vote one way or the other or are you ready to vote? In the past - policy has been that once a vote is called - discussion ceases. Thanks, Tim

At 12:35 PM 12/20/99 -0800, you wrote: >>Please cast your vote on Motion 99-33 - "to add the discussion list >>USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org be added to the Info for Volunteers - page". >> >>by saying your equivalent of yes, no or abstain. >> >>Thanks, >> >>Tim > >Tim, > >Can we wait a while longer? I got a number of responses sent directly >to me (on both sides of the question) with no indication of whether >they could be forwarded to the rest of the Advisory Board or not, >and I'm awaiting replies from the senders of those messages. > >// Teri Back on 12/13 in response to Teri's question on discussion of motions I answered - "The policy has been for most motions - at least 48 hours. If it is a major motion - it is for a longer period of time. As the end of the 48 hours may come at a time when I'm not available - I call for the vote as quick as I can once the 48 hours has ended." The vote for Motion 99-33 was called for 72 hours after the discussion period was announced. At 84 hours, Teri asks for a further time extension. Now at 99 hours, my question to the rest of the Board members then is - do you wish for a further time extension - should we hold up this vote already called for? Will further discussion sway your vote one way or the other or are you ready to vote? In the past - policy has been that once a vote is called - discussion ceases. Thanks, Tim

Fellow Advisory Board Members, Below are all the feedback messages I got which were sent to my personal email address, except for one (a "no" vote) which the sender has not extended permission to forward to BOARD-L. (He may yet, I just haven't heard back from him.) I am also including one feedback message that was sent to USGenWeb-SE-L but not to the other lists. To limit duplication, I will refrain from forwarding any mail sent to USGenWeb-ALL-L or USGW-CC-L to the entire board, under the assumption that most of you will have seen those messages already. If anyone is not on one of those lists and would like to see the relevant messages that were sent to that list only, please let me know and I will forward them to your email address. ========================================================== Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 07:58:35 -0500 From: "Alice J. Gayley" <agayley@dgs.dgsys.com> To: Teri Pettit <pettit> Subject: USCG-CC-L Teri, Like you I believe that new volunteers should be aware of all tools and sources of information available to them. Thank you for making this motion. I certainly hope your fellow board members agree with you. Alice -- Alice J. Gayley Cooordinator, Clearfield County USGenWeb Project http://www.pa-roots.com/clearfield/ Co-Coordinator, Armstrong County USGenWeb Project http://www.pa-roots.com/armstrong/ Co-Coordinator, Jefferson County USGenWeb Project http://www.pa-roots.com/jefferson/ Pennsylvania in the Civil War http://www.pa-roots.com/PACW/ ========================================================== From: PipL7x3@aol.com Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 22:23:33 EST Subject: A yes vote for USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org To: pettit Terri: I am not very vocal about things and probably wouldn't have written you except for your statement that your email was running 4 to one against USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org. I'm not going to go into why I think it should be added to the USGenWeb information pages because you and others have done it better than I could say. I just felt I needed to let you know that some of the silent and quiet feel that it should be added. By the way, I'm a member of both lists. Lela Evans agayley@dgs.dgsys.com ========================================================== Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 09:40:58 -0500 (EST) To: Teri Pettit <pettit> From: ncgen@mindspring.com (Elizabeth Harris) Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-ALL-L] Discussion of Motion to list USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org I'm coming in late to this whole discussion, but would like to add one more name in favor of your motion to list USGW-CC on the Volunteers page. While I am a strong supporter of RootsWeb, as you know, I also subscribe to USGW-CC (or did until I left for vacation on December 5th, and will be resubbing soon), and I fully agree with your reasons for making this motion. Elizabeth Harris state coordinator, NCGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncgenweb/ ========================================================== The following reply was sent to USGenWeb-SE-L, but not to any other lists: From: ClayHrtg@aol.com Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 08:58:38 EST Subject: Re: [USGenWeb-SE] Re: USGW-CC-L: Re: Discussion of Motion to list USGW-CC-L@... To: USGenWeb-SE-L@rootsweb.com Hello Terry, I was also on the All-List in the 1998 mess, and I unsubed because of it. I have avoided list ever since. I do not see why there should be an objection to listing any of the list that might be of benefit to a GenWeb Member on the National pages. Just listing them does not mean anyone has to subscribe or not subscribe. But it does give us choices. I have also noticed that usually the same disruptive elements pop up on all the different list from time to time. Thanks for listing to my opinion. Lois Pittman Clay County, FlGenWeb Project Volunteer ========================================================== ========================================================== (In addition, Sandra Johnson <ladyd@dnaco.net> sent three messages only to USGenWeb-SE-L, but I am not enclosing them because I could not tell what her point was. She did not express any opinion with respect to whether or not USGW-CC-L should or should not be listed. She appeared hostile towards me, but not to the proposal, just perhaps skeptical that coming from a Board member it could be sincere??)

>Please cast your vote on Motion 99-33 - "to add the discussion list >USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org be added to the Info for Volunteers - page". > >by saying your equivalent of yes, no or abstain. > >Thanks, > >Tim Tim, Can we wait a while longer? I got a number of responses sent directly to me (on both sides of the question) with no indication of whether they could be forwarded to the rest of the Advisory Board or not, and I'm awaiting replies from the senders of those messages. // Teri

Please cast your vote on Motion 99-33 - "to add the discussion list USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org be added to the Info for Volunteers - page". by saying your equivalent of yes, no or abstain. Thanks, Tim

Motion 99-32 - the nomination of Ken Short for the postition of Secretary of the Advisory Board to replace the retiring Ed Book. is declared passed with the following vote totals - yes - 10; no - 0; abstain - 2; not voting 4. Tim

At 04:28 PM 12/10/99 -0800, Teri wrote: >And, completing the set (!), > >In the interests of helping new volunteers know what venues are >available for discussing matters of common interest, I move >that subscription directions for the discussion list > > USGenWeb-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > >be added to the Info for Volunteers - Mailing Lists page currently >located at: > > http://www.usgenweb.org/volunteers/mail.html > >along with the information that subscription to this list is >voluntary. > >----------------------------------------------------------- Do I hear a second on this? Tim

Now that Teri's motion "to add the discussion list USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org be added to the Info for Volunteers - page" has received a second from Virginia - the Motion numbered 99-33 is now open for discussion. Tim

>I move that we allow open subscription to BOARD-L on a read-only basis, >based on the suggestion of John Schunk. I like John's suggestion. As a supplement, if the new Board secretary has the time, I think it would also be a good idea to have a subscription list for a hand-compiled "Digest" version of the BOARD-L traffic. This would differ from simply subscribing to BOARD-L in digest form in that it would be minimally edited to remove such things as inclusions of entire messages being responded to (computer generated digests can be hard to read because you often have to separate out the new text from the half-dozen copies nested inside of replies), collate all votes on the same motion together instead of interspersing them with other mail, and truncate the individual message headers to just Date, Subject and From. (The BOARD-L message headers I get are 14 or more lines long, and all that X-Mailing-List, X-Loop, Precedence, Resent-Sender, X-Sender, Mime-Version, Old-To, X-Priority, X-MimeOLE, etc. stuff would make a digest hard to read.)

>At 02:21 AM 12/15/1999 -0500, Tim Stowell wrote: >>Please cast your vote on Motion 99-32 - the nomination of Ken Short for the >>postition of Secretary of the Advisory Board to replace the retiring Ed Book. >> >>by saying your equivalent of yes, no or abstain. Abstain. I haven't had time to investigate whether or not Ken Short meets what I consider to be the two most important qualifications for a Board Secretary - (1) the ability to write concise, clear, accurate summaries of other people's messages, and (2) a schedule which permits reading and responding to email at least once per day, preferably more often. (Ed Book fulfilled qualification #1, but unfortunately not #2 at this time in his life.) I prefer not to make an uninformed vote.