yes Holly Timm Rep-At-Large At 02:39 AM 9/17/99 -0400, you wrote: >Seeing no further discussion on Motion 99-25: > >I move that Motion 99-2 be rescinded and that the Board appoint a >secretary for the one year term of Board II or until dismissed by Board >II or a succeeding Board. Further, > >1. That the secretary nominee be selected from among the volunteer >membership of the USGenWeb Project. > >2. That the nominee to this position not be currently serving as a >Board member. > >3. That the nominee be nominated by the National Coordinator and > appointed by a majority vote of a quorum of the Board. Rejection of an > nominee will require the NC to forward another name. > >The appointee must either be knowledgable in parlimentary procedure or >be willing to learn proper procedure using Roberts Rules and be well >versed in the Project Bylaws. Duties of the appointee shall be those >assigned by the Chair (NC). The NC shall insure that the secretary be >subscribed to all appropiate mailing lists. As a minimum these lists >would be the USGENWEB-ALL-L, STATE-COORD-L, ARCHIVES-L, the Board-Exec-L >and the Board-L. >------------------------- >Please vote accordingly by saying - yes, no, abstain or something of >similar nature. > >Thanks, > >Tim

Aye Joe -- email:jzsed@slic.com http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm

Aye

At 11:39 PM -0700 9/16/99, Tim Stowell wrote: >Seeing no further discussion on Motion 99-25: > >Please vote accordingly by saying - yes, no, abstain or something of >similar nature. Yes.

yes Shari Handley -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Friday, September 17, 1999 2:32 AM Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 99-25 vote >Seeing no further discussion on Motion 99-25: > >I move that Motion 99-2 be rescinded and that the Board appoint a >secretary for the one year term of Board II or until dismissed by Board >II or a succeeding Board. Further, > >1. That the secretary nominee be selected from among the volunteer >membership of the USGenWeb Project. > >2. That the nominee to this position not be currently serving as a >Board member. > >3. That the nominee be nominated by the National Coordinator and > appointed by a majority vote of a quorum of the Board. Rejection of an > nominee will require the NC to forward another name. > >The appointee must either be knowledgable in parlimentary procedure or >be willing to learn proper procedure using Roberts Rules and be well >versed in the Project Bylaws. Duties of the appointee shall be those >assigned by the Chair (NC). The NC shall insure that the secretary be >subscribed to all appropiate mailing lists. As a minimum these lists >would be the USGENWEB-ALL-L, STATE-COORD-L, ARCHIVES-L, the Board-Exec-L >and the Board-L. >------------------------- >Please vote accordingly by saying - yes, no, abstain or something of >similar nature. > >Thanks, > >Tim > >

Yes At 02:39 AM 9/17/99 -0400, you wrote: >Seeing no further discussion on Motion 99-25: > >I move that Motion 99-2 be rescinded and that the Board appoint a >secretary for the one year term of Board II or until dismissed by Board >II or a succeeding Board. Further, > >1. That the secretary nominee be selected from among the volunteer >membership of the USGenWeb Project. > >2. That the nominee to this position not be currently serving as a >Board member. > >3. That the nominee be nominated by the National Coordinator and > appointed by a majority vote of a quorum of the Board. Rejection of an > nominee will require the NC to forward another name. > >The appointee must either be knowledgable in parlimentary procedure or >be willing to learn proper procedure using Roberts Rules and be well >versed in the Project Bylaws. Duties of the appointee shall be those >assigned by the Chair (NC). The NC shall insure that the secretary be >subscribed to all appropiate mailing lists. As a minimum these lists >would be the USGENWEB-ALL-L, STATE-COORD-L, ARCHIVES-L, the Board-Exec-L >and the Board-L. >------------------------- >Please vote accordingly by saying - yes, no, abstain or something of >similar nature. > >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, September 17, 1999 1:34 AM Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 99-25 vote >Seeing no further discussion on Motion 99-25: > >I move that Motion 99-2 be rescinded and that the Board appoint a >secretary for the one year term of Board II or until dismissed by Board >II or a succeeding Board. Further, > >1. That the secretary nominee be selected from among the volunteer >membership of the USGenWeb Project. > >2. That the nominee to this position not be currently serving as a >Board member. > >3. That the nominee be nominated by the National Coordinator and > appointed by a majority vote of a quorum of the Board. Rejection of an > nominee will require the NC to forward another name. > >The appointee must either be knowledgable in parlimentary procedure or >be willing to learn proper procedure using Roberts Rules and be well >versed in the Project Bylaws. Duties of the appointee shall be those >assigned by the Chair (NC). The NC shall insure that the secretary be >subscribed to all appropiate mailing lists. As a minimum these lists >would be the USGENWEB-ALL-L, STATE-COORD-L, ARCHIVES-L, the Board-Exec-L >and the Board-L. >------------------------- >Please vote accordingly by saying - yes, no, abstain or something of >similar nature. > >Thanks, > >Tim >

Yes. Tina Vickery NE/NC County Coordinator Representative

Aye. Maggie ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, September 17, 1999 2:39 AM Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 99-25 vote Seeing no further discussion on Motion 99-25: I move that Motion 99-2 be rescinded and that the Board appoint a secretary for the one year term of Board II or until dismissed by Board II or a succeeding Board. Further, 1. That the secretary nominee be selected from among the volunteer membership of the USGenWeb Project. 2. That the nominee to this position not be currently serving as a Board member. 3. That the nominee be nominated by the National Coordinator and appointed by a majority vote of a quorum of the Board. Rejection of an nominee will require the NC to forward another name. The appointee must either be knowledgable in parlimentary procedure or be willing to learn proper procedure using Roberts Rules and be well versed in the Project Bylaws. Duties of the appointee shall be those assigned by the Chair (NC). The NC shall insure that the secretary be subscribed to all appropiate mailing lists. As a minimum these lists would be the USGENWEB-ALL-L, STATE-COORD-L, ARCHIVES-L, the Board-Exec-L and the Board-L. ------------------------- Please vote accordingly by saying - yes, no, abstain or something of similar nature. Thanks, Tim

Seeing no further discussion on Motion 99-25: I move that Motion 99-2 be rescinded and that the Board appoint a secretary for the one year term of Board II or until dismissed by Board II or a succeeding Board. Further, 1. That the secretary nominee be selected from among the volunteer membership of the USGenWeb Project. 2. That the nominee to this position not be currently serving as a Board member. 3. That the nominee be nominated by the National Coordinator and appointed by a majority vote of a quorum of the Board. Rejection of an nominee will require the NC to forward another name. The appointee must either be knowledgable in parlimentary procedure or be willing to learn proper procedure using Roberts Rules and be well versed in the Project Bylaws. Duties of the appointee shall be those assigned by the Chair (NC). The NC shall insure that the secretary be subscribed to all appropiate mailing lists. As a minimum these lists would be the USGENWEB-ALL-L, STATE-COORD-L, ARCHIVES-L, the Board-Exec-L and the Board-L. ------------------------- Please vote accordingly by saying - yes, no, abstain or something of similar nature. Thanks, Tim

>Before you ask, I realize that I was unclear... by results I >meant as each vote was cast it would be sent to 3 places to >be stored rather than one. > >Jim > >jpowelljr wrote: >> >> While we are on this topic. If it was possible to >> simultaneously send the results to 3 separate servers to be >> compared at the end, would this be nearly the same as a >> neutral third party? Jim, Not really. It seemed like the hypothetical situation that Fred was envisioning would be something like this: | Someone with wizard-level access permissions at the server the | software is running on (somebody who can replace files on any | account on the whole server) creates a MODIFIED VERSION of the | program that the votes are being sent to. One that does something | like change every 8th vote for candidate X to a vote for candidate | Y, both in the file that is collecting the votes and in any log | of the email traffic (the email sent back to the voter says that | they voted for candidate X, but the email stored in the system | archives says they voted for candidate Y.) | | Then they write another program that randomly swaps the false | program for the original program for 10 minutes out of every hour | (or redirects mail to the alternative program), and run that | swapper program on their own system administrator account. | | The Election Committee and the person who wrote the real program | have no awareness that this is happening, and the file contents | and the email logs match, so they innocently accept the log of | votes as being what people really voted. Since the election-undermining scheme involves substituting a different program for the committee-approved program, and the hypothetical defrauder has access to the program source, NOTHING that the committee-approved program does will help, since the committee-approved program might not be always running. Since it only alters a small percentage of votes, it is also hard to detect by random cross-checking. (You might catch such a scheme by manually, *not programatically*, emailing back a VERY LARGE sample of voters asking them to confirm that who they voted for was who you have a log of them voting for, with the confirmation messages being sent to an account on a different server. But project members would probably object to this level of confirmation being expected. They want voting to be very easy and take a minimum number of steps.) I agree that it is bordering on impossible that anyone at Rootsweb or any other interested server would really have the time and inclination to do something so convoluted. Every system administrator I know of is so incredibly overworked just doing their job that they aren't going to have any cycles left over for hacking elections. But if a significant block of voters would TRUST software running on a neutral server more than software running on a server with a potential interest in the election outcome, that may be reason enough to try to find a neutral server. Not that it would make any actual difference in the election security, but it would make a difference in the voter confidence level. Having the full confidence of all the people we represent is important. Teri Pettit pettit@adobe.com

I think that Jim's suggestions of sending to three counting places is a great idea. I like the program that we used, it was clear, simple, fast and easy to understand. A neutral party is someone who has no opinion as to the outcome, one way or the other, but if three counts result in the same outcome, then who could argue. Gloria ----- Original Message ----- From: jpowelljr <jpowelljr@worldnet.att.net> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 9:35 PM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Re: Question for you > Before you ask, I realize that I was unclear... by results I > meant as each vote was cast it would be sent to 3 places to > be stored rather than one. > > Jim > > jpowelljr wrote: > > > > While we are on this topic. If it was possible to > > simultaneously send the results to 3 separate servers to be > > compared at the end, would this be nearly the same as a > > neutral third party? > > > > Jim > > > > Shari Handley wrote: > > > > > > For me, this just creates more questions: > > > > > > How does one define a "neutral third party"? For the sake of argument, who > > > is to say whether anyone, *including* RootsWeb, is or is not neutral? How > > > would we go about trying to find another server willing to accomodate us, > > > work closely with the election committee, build and maintain election > > > software, take all the flak that is bound to fly, and all the other things > > > needed - for free? Good luck! Jim indicated that the software used in > > > the runoff worked very well and was easy to administer. Would we be able to > > > use it on another server? > > > > > > Also, was there any evidence at all that RootsWeb acted in anything other > > > than a > > > neutral manner in any of the preceding elections? > > > > > > Shari > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> > > > To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> > > > Date: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 9:21 PM > > > Subject: [BOARD-L] Re: Question for you > > > > > > >In response to the question the Board wanted asked of Fred: > > > > > > > >>Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 05:06:25 -0700 > > > >>From: Fred Smoot <dogtrot@well.com> > > > >>Organization: Dog Trot X Press > > > >>To: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> > > > >>Subject: Re: Question for you > > > >> > > > >>Tim Stowell wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Dear Fred, > > > >>> > > > >>> The Advisory Board respectfully wishes to know: what action you wanted > > > to > > > >>> see taken in response to your protest? > > > >>> > > > >>> Thanks, > > > >>> > > > >>> Tim > > > >> > > > >>Dear Tim, > > > >> > > > >>The most simple way to resolve the issue is this: > > > >> > > > >>If the USGenWeb Project Advisory Board will act in good faith to require > > > >>a neutral third party to conduct our future national elections, I will > > > >>withdraw my protest. ("Run-off Election: Formal Protest," dated 31 Aug > > > >>1999) > > > >> > > > >>Fred Smoot > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- > Jim and Debbie Powell > Family History Surname Connections > Kentucky..POWELL..MADISON..CLAYTON..WINSTEAD..BOURLAND..HIBBS > > UTLEY..EARLE..BUNTIN..MOORE..WILLIAMS..TAPP..WICKLIFFE > North Carolina/South > Carolina..WATKINS..GADDY..NORWOOD..CROUCH > REYNOLDS..BOYD..McGEE..WHITTLE..MADISON..CLAYTON > WINSTEAD..BOURLAND..TAPP..FOWLER > Virginia..OWEN New York/New Jersey..McCLELLAN..LaPAGE > Georgia/Florida..HARRIS..HODGE..FOWLER > Email: Jpowelljr@worldnet.att.net > Family Homepage: Http://www.afn.org/~afn03098/ > 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 > >

But by "neutral third party" I am assuming Mr Smoot wants some one other than USGW people on the election committee and running the election -- much as Price-Waterhouse does for the Oscar nominations and balloting. We are not that big, important, and rich to afford to hire an outside contractor to run our elections. <sigh> Jim's proposal has some merit, if there were 4 people on the election committee, three would set up receiving stations for the ballots on three different servers. At the close of balloting, the three receiving stations would report their tally to the 4th committee member. If they all agreed, the results would be sent by all 4 members to the electorate. If there was a discrepancy, the 4 would meet to resolve it. At 10:35 PM 9/15/99 -0400, you wrote: >Before you ask, I realize that I was unclear... by results I >meant as each vote was cast it would be sent to 3 places to >be stored rather than one. > >Jim > >jpowelljr wrote: >> >> While we are on this topic. If it was possible to >> simultaneously send the results to 3 separate servers to be >> compared at the end, would this be nearly the same as a >> neutral third party? >> >> Jim >> >> Shari Handley wrote: >> > >> > For me, this just creates more questions: >> > >> > How does one define a "neutral third party"? For the sake of argument, who >> > is to say whether anyone, *including* RootsWeb, is or is not neutral? How >> > would we go about trying to find another server willing to accomodate us, >> > work closely with the election committee, build and maintain election >> > software, take all the flak that is bound to fly, and all the other things >> > needed - for free? Good luck! Jim indicated that the software used in >> > the runoff worked very well and was easy to administer. Would we be able to >> > use it on another server? >> > >> > Also, was there any evidence at all that RootsWeb acted in anything other >> > than a >> > neutral manner in any of the preceding elections? >> > >> > Shari >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> >> > To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> >> > Date: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 9:21 PM >> > Subject: [BOARD-L] Re: Question for you >> > >> > >In response to the question the Board wanted asked of Fred: >> > > >> > >>Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 05:06:25 -0700 >> > >>From: Fred Smoot <dogtrot@well.com> >> > >>Organization: Dog Trot X Press >> > >>To: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> >> > >>Subject: Re: Question for you >> > >> >> > >>Tim Stowell wrote: >> > >>> >> > >>> Dear Fred, >> > >>> >> > >>> The Advisory Board respectfully wishes to know: what action you wanted >> > to >> > >>> see taken in response to your protest? >> > >>> >> > >>> Thanks, >> > >>> >> > >>> Tim >> > >> >> > >>Dear Tim, >> > >> >> > >>The most simple way to resolve the issue is this: >> > >> >> > >>If the USGenWeb Project Advisory Board will act in good faith to require >> > >>a neutral third party to conduct our future national elections, I will >> > >>withdraw my protest. ("Run-off Election: Formal Protest," dated 31 Aug >> > >>1999) >> > >> >> > >>Fred Smoot >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> > > > >-- > Jim and Debbie Powell > Family History Surname Connections >Kentucky..POWELL..MADISON..CLAYTON..WINSTEAD..BOURLAND..HIBBS > >UTLEY..EARLE..BUNTIN..MOORE..WILLIAMS..TAPP..WICKLIFFE >North Carolina/South >Carolina..WATKINS..GADDY..NORWOOD..CROUCH > REYNOLDS..BOYD..McGEE..WHITTLE..MADISON..CLAYTON > WINSTEAD..BOURLAND..TAPP..FOWLER >Virginia..OWEN New York/New Jersey..McCLELLAN..LaPAGE >Georgia/Florida..HARRIS..HODGE..FOWLER > Email: Jpowelljr@worldnet.att.net > Family Homepage: Http://www.afn.org/~afn03098/ >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 >

Discussion... At first I opposed the idea of a non Board Member as Secretary, I wasn't sure why, I just didn't like it. It was probably that I thought I might like to be considered for Board Secretary and I wouldn't have that chance with this motion. Once I got past that and really looked at the motion, I find that it is a good idea and worthy of my support. Jim

Before you ask, I realize that I was unclear... by results I meant as each vote was cast it would be sent to 3 places to be stored rather than one. Jim jpowelljr wrote: > > While we are on this topic. If it was possible to > simultaneously send the results to 3 separate servers to be > compared at the end, would this be nearly the same as a > neutral third party? > > Jim > > Shari Handley wrote: > > > > For me, this just creates more questions: > > > > How does one define a "neutral third party"? For the sake of argument, who > > is to say whether anyone, *including* RootsWeb, is or is not neutral? How > > would we go about trying to find another server willing to accomodate us, > > work closely with the election committee, build and maintain election > > software, take all the flak that is bound to fly, and all the other things > > needed - for free? Good luck! Jim indicated that the software used in > > the runoff worked very well and was easy to administer. Would we be able to > > use it on another server? > > > > Also, was there any evidence at all that RootsWeb acted in anything other > > than a > > neutral manner in any of the preceding elections? > > > > Shari > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> > > To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> > > Date: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 9:21 PM > > Subject: [BOARD-L] Re: Question for you > > > > >In response to the question the Board wanted asked of Fred: > > > > > >>Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 05:06:25 -0700 > > >>From: Fred Smoot <dogtrot@well.com> > > >>Organization: Dog Trot X Press > > >>To: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> > > >>Subject: Re: Question for you > > >> > > >>Tim Stowell wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Dear Fred, > > >>> > > >>> The Advisory Board respectfully wishes to know: what action you wanted > > to > > >>> see taken in response to your protest? > > >>> > > >>> Thanks, > > >>> > > >>> Tim > > >> > > >>Dear Tim, > > >> > > >>The most simple way to resolve the issue is this: > > >> > > >>If the USGenWeb Project Advisory Board will act in good faith to require > > >>a neutral third party to conduct our future national elections, I will > > >>withdraw my protest. ("Run-off Election: Formal Protest," dated 31 Aug > > >>1999) > > >> > > >>Fred Smoot > > >> > > >> > > > > > > -- Jim and Debbie Powell Family History Surname Connections Kentucky..POWELL..MADISON..CLAYTON..WINSTEAD..BOURLAND..HIBBS UTLEY..EARLE..BUNTIN..MOORE..WILLIAMS..TAPP..WICKLIFFE North Carolina/South Carolina..WATKINS..GADDY..NORWOOD..CROUCH REYNOLDS..BOYD..McGEE..WHITTLE..MADISON..CLAYTON WINSTEAD..BOURLAND..TAPP..FOWLER Virginia..OWEN New York/New Jersey..McCLELLAN..LaPAGE Georgia/Florida..HARRIS..HODGE..FOWLER Email: Jpowelljr@worldnet.att.net Family Homepage: Http://www.afn.org/~afn03098/ 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

While we are on this topic. If it was possible to simultaneously send the results to 3 separate servers to be compared at the end, would this be nearly the same as a neutral third party? Jim Shari Handley wrote: > > For me, this just creates more questions: > > How does one define a "neutral third party"? For the sake of argument, who > is to say whether anyone, *including* RootsWeb, is or is not neutral? How > would we go about trying to find another server willing to accomodate us, > work closely with the election committee, build and maintain election > software, take all the flak that is bound to fly, and all the other things > needed - for free? Good luck! Jim indicated that the software used in > the runoff worked very well and was easy to administer. Would we be able to > use it on another server? > > Also, was there any evidence at all that RootsWeb acted in anything other > than a > neutral manner in any of the preceding elections? > > Shari > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> > To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> > Date: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 9:21 PM > Subject: [BOARD-L] Re: Question for you > > >In response to the question the Board wanted asked of Fred: > > > >>Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 05:06:25 -0700 > >>From: Fred Smoot <dogtrot@well.com> > >>Organization: Dog Trot X Press > >>To: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> > >>Subject: Re: Question for you > >> > >>Tim Stowell wrote: > >>> > >>> Dear Fred, > >>> > >>> The Advisory Board respectfully wishes to know: what action you wanted > to > >>> see taken in response to your protest? > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> Tim > >> > >>Dear Tim, > >> > >>The most simple way to resolve the issue is this: > >> > >>If the USGenWeb Project Advisory Board will act in good faith to require > >>a neutral third party to conduct our future national elections, I will > >>withdraw my protest. ("Run-off Election: Formal Protest," dated 31 Aug > >>1999) > >> > >>Fred Smoot > >> > >> > > > >

Now that the motion numbered 99-25 has been made by Joe and seconded by Ginger, the floor is open for discussion. At 08:44 AM 9/15/99 -0400, you wrote: >I move that Motion 99-2 be rescinded and that the Board appoint a >secretary for the one year term of Board II or until dismissed by Board >II or a succeeding Board. Further, > >1. That the secretary nominee be selected from among the volunteer >membership of the USGenWeb Project. > >2. That the nominee to this position not be currently serving as a >Board member. > >3. That the nominee be nominated by the National Coordinator and > appointed by a majority vote of a quorum of the Board. Rejection of an > nominee will require the NC to forward another name. > >The appointee must either be knowledgable in parlimentary procedure or >be willing to learn proper procedure using Roberts Rules and be well >versed in the Project Bylaws. Duties of the appointee shall be those >assigned by the Chair (NC). The NC shall insure that the secretary be >subscribed to all appropiate mailing lists. As a minimum these lists >would be the USGENWEB-ALL-L, STATE-COORD-L, ARCHIVES-L, the Board-Exec-L >and the Board-L. > >Joe >-- >email:jzsed@slic.com >http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm >http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm >http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm > >

For me, this just creates more questions: How does one define a "neutral third party"? For the sake of argument, who is to say whether anyone, *including* RootsWeb, is or is not neutral? How would we go about trying to find another server willing to accomodate us, work closely with the election committee, build and maintain election software, take all the flak that is bound to fly, and all the other things needed - for free? Good luck! Jim indicated that the software used in the runoff worked very well and was easy to administer. Would we be able to use it on another server? Also, was there any evidence at all that RootsWeb acted in anything other than a neutral manner in any of the preceding elections? Shari -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 9:21 PM Subject: [BOARD-L] Re: Question for you >In response to the question the Board wanted asked of Fred: > >>Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 05:06:25 -0700 >>From: Fred Smoot <dogtrot@well.com> >>Organization: Dog Trot X Press >>To: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> >>Subject: Re: Question for you >> >>Tim Stowell wrote: >>> >>> Dear Fred, >>> >>> The Advisory Board respectfully wishes to know: what action you wanted to >>> see taken in response to your protest? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Tim >> >>Dear Tim, >> >>The most simple way to resolve the issue is this: >> >>If the USGenWeb Project Advisory Board will act in good faith to require >>a neutral third party to conduct our future national elections, I will >>withdraw my protest. ("Run-off Election: Formal Protest," dated 31 Aug >>1999) >> >>Fred Smoot >> >> > >

In response to the question the Board wanted asked of Fred: >Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 05:06:25 -0700 >From: Fred Smoot <dogtrot@well.com> >Organization: Dog Trot X Press >To: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> >Subject: Re: Question for you > >Tim Stowell wrote: >> >> Dear Fred, >> >> The Advisory Board respectfully wishes to know: what action you wanted to >> see taken in response to your protest? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Tim > >Dear Tim, > >The most simple way to resolve the issue is this: > >If the USGenWeb Project Advisory Board will act in good faith to require >a neutral third party to conduct our future national elections, I will >withdraw my protest. ("Run-off Election: Formal Protest," dated 31 Aug >1999) > >Fred Smoot > >

Motion 99-24 to accept Bonnie McVicar-Briggs' resignation passes with 12 yes, 0 no, 3 not voting. Bonnie we wish you well in your future endeavors. Tim