Have fun, Pam! Megan "Piglet" Zurawicz piglet@rootsweb.com RootsWeb Community Mentor and general dogsbody http://communities.rootsweb.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Pam Reid <pamreid@dc.jones.com> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, 26 August, 1999 1:43 Subject: [BOARD-L] Out of Town : Hi All, : : Just wanted to let you know that I am leaving town tomorrow morning to : head down to South Carolina to visit my mother and other family. I hope : that my uncle (who my mother lives with) has solved in internet problems : and that I can keep up with the news here while I am away. If you all : don't hear from me, it is because he didn't straighten out the problems : and I can't get online. Just wanted to let you all know. I will be : back home next Tuesday or Wednesday. : : Pam

Hi All, Just wanted to let you know that I am leaving town tomorrow morning to head down to South Carolina to visit my mother and other family. I hope that my uncle (who my mother lives with) has solved in internet problems and that I can keep up with the news here while I am away. If you all don't hear from me, it is because he didn't straighten out the problems and I can't get online. Just wanted to let you all know. I will be back home next Tuesday or Wednesday. Pam

This grievance has come in to the three Reps for the NWPlains Region, and we hereby submit it to the Board. Bill, Ginger, and Lynn -----Original Message----- From: Jan Phillips <littlerip@proaxis.com> To: shadow13@kmtel.net <shadow13@kmtel.net> Date: Thursday, August 19, 1999 11:01 PM Subject: Help needed, please >Hi Bill, Virginia, and Lynn, > >I need some help, please. As my NW Regional Reps, I'm contacting you first, so that you can take this grievance to the board. > >Below is a copy of what has transpired in the last few days between the >staff of GenConnect (Pam Durstock) and myself. I need your advice as to >what to do next. Because I deleted some of my own obituaries on the Linn >County, Oregon Obits Board, GenConnect has taken away my board and put it >up for adoption. They did this right after telling me they would return my >password and board as soon as it was determined whether or not the messages >"should" have been deleted. > >I have had no response from Pam Carey Durstock since Message #5. I also >wrote Elaine Bukove, at 4:53 p.m. Aug. 18, with no response so far. > >These >tools were provided for our use, and we innocently accepted them. They are >in wide-spread use throughout the project, and I'm sure the majority of >county coordinators have no idea that by deleting your own posts, you have >put yourself in jeopardy of losing them. Their rules clearly state any >posting belongs to the poster, who is the only person who may request a >message to be removed. In my case, I was the poster, and I requested to >have my messages removed. > >I ask you to bring this to the Advisory Board's attention, on behalf of all the CCs for the USGenWeb Project. Is >there anything the Board or the USGenWeb Project can do to intervene to >bring a matter like this to resolution? >I would like to see action taken immediately to resolve this issue. > >Thanks, > >Jan Phillips >littlerip@proaxis.com >Oregon State Coordinator for the USGenWeb Project >Linn County, OR Coordinator >Hartford County, CT Coordinator >Lyme, CT Coordinator > > > >Message #5 (mailed 6:30 a.m., 8/17/99) > >Hi Pam, > >Whoa, hold on a minute - don't "assume"! I never said I wouldn't maintain >the board or use the GenConnect system. All I said was that I wanted to >move my obituaries - just mine, no one elses. I think the GenConnect Boards >are one of many great resources for researchers and have no intention of >not maintaining them for visitors to Linn County pages. I don't think that >moving my own postings constitutes "desertion" of the Obits Board - I've >happily maintained these boards for researchers for quite a long time, and >don't have any intention of changing. I don't see me removing my personal >postings as any different than any other researcher asking to have their >messages removed - the board goes on, with or without those postings. > >Is there no "middle ground" here? If not, then we'll go from there. If so, >then let's see how we can make this a "win-win" situation for all of us. My >primary concern is providing resources for visiting researchers, not >orphaning boards and leaving them unuseable. And while there are many ways >of providing information for researchers, GenConnect is one of the best. I >have a special project in mind for the obits I posted, however, and want to >play with some new ideas. > >Jan > > >Message #4 > >At 12:15 AM 8/17/1999 -0400, you wrote: >>Hi Jan, >> >>Yes, you *are* allowed to delete your own postings, but the problem is that >>it's not clear that these *were* posted by you. They're under the name >>"Linn County Obits", and there's no identifying email address. However, I >>don't doubt you. >> >>I take it that since you mention having another system that you're using, >>you no longer wish to use GenConnect. So what we're prepared to do is to >>remove the balance of the obits posted by "Linn County Obits" for you, and >>once that's done the board will be orphaned so that someone who *does* wish >>to use it .... may. >> >>If you'd like any of your other boards orphaned at this time, please let us >>know. It's unfortunate that you feel the way you do about GenConnect, but >>there are no hard feelings on our part. We wish you the best of luck. >> >>Elaine, I'll take care of removing the balance of the obits and will notify >>you once that's done. At that time, please place this board in the >Orphanage. >> >>Jan, if you *do* wish to give up any other boards, please notify Elaine >>Bukove - our Orphan Coordinator. <elaine@rootsweb.com> >> >>Thanks, >>Pam > > > >Message #3 > >>At 11:58 PM 8/16/99 , Jan Phillips wrote: >>>Hi Pam, >>> >>>Thanks for the explanations. I'm the one who posted the vast majority of >>>obits to the Linn County Obits Board, and not to worry - I'm only deleting >>>the ones I posted. I would never touch anything anyone else has posted to a >>>GenConnect board, unless they posted the wrong message to the wrong board, >>>in which case I'd copy it to the right board first before deleting. >>> >>>Am I not allowed to remove some of my own postings? I don't see it as any >>>different than if another poster had asked me to remove their messages. And >>>yes, I guess deleting my obits would seem like a "mass deletion" - I've got >>>hundreds of them on there. I'm deleting them because I'm moving them - >>>they'll still all be available to researchers from the Linn County USGenWeb >>>site, and yes, if I'm allowed, I'd like to remove the rest of the ones I >>>posted. >>> >>>Jan >>> > >Message #2 > >>>At 11:52 PM 8/16/1999 -0400, you wrote: >>>>hi Jan, >>>> >>>>I'm the sys-admin for GenConnect, and Elaine has forwarded this to me so I >>>>could answer your questions. >>>> >>>>GenConnect has a rule against mass deletions of messages. See our rules >>>page: >>>> >>>> http://cgi.rootsweb.com/~genbbs/HINTS/Orphans/orphanrules.html >>>> >>>>According to our records, you have been mass deleting from the Linn County >>>>Obits board. Your password has been changed until it can be determined >>>>what "type" of messages you're deleting (are they actually obits?), and who >>>>posted the messages. (If we find that these messages *should* have been >>>>deleted, then your password will be restored.) >>>> >>>>Please let us know why you've deleted so many messages, and whether or not >>>>you intend to continue deleting messages. >>>> >>>>Pam Carey Durstock >>>>GenConnect Sys-Admin > > > >Message #1 > >>>>>From: Jan Phillips <littlerip@proaxis.com> >>>>>To: st_rays@hotmail.com >>>>>Subject: Linn County, Oregon Obits Board >>>>>Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 19:39:10 -0700 >>>>> >>>>>Hi, >>>>> >>>>>My password does not seem to be working for the Linn County, Oregon, >>>>>GenConnect Obits Board, located at >> >>>>>http://cgi.rootsweb.com/~genbbs/genbbs.cgi/USA/Or/LinnObits. It's always >>>>>worked before, what's up?? It is the same password I use for the Queries >>>>>and Biographies Boards... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Thanks for looking into it, >>>>> >>>>>Jan Phillips >>>>>littlerip@proaxis.com >>>>>Oregon State Coordinator for the USGenWeb Project > >

Is there any discussion on Trey's motion, seconded by Bill and Joe? The motion: to thank the committee and accept the results.

Dear Board Members and Members-Elect, I was asked to review a site: http://www.rootsweb.com/~gachatha/ It is quite attractive, even if it doesn't contain either the USGWP or the GAGenWeb logos and is copyrighted by Tim Stowell. It is my impression that I was to notice that the NC will suggest others resign if they can't administer their states while his home state has some of the same deficiencies. Sincerely, Bill --

I second Treys' motion. Joe Trey Holt wrote: > I am satisfied that everything in the Regular election of 1999 and the > subsequent runoff has been done properly and the results are correct as > reported. I thank the election committee for their outstanding job. > > I believe that unless there are objections that as one of this boards last > actions we should entertain a motion to thank the committee and accept the > results. > > Trey > > At 11:23 PM 8/23/99 -0400, jpowelljr wrote: > >To the USgenWeb Advisory Board. The Election Committee has > >examined the vote. After our examination we have dropped > >2 duplicate votes that somehow slipped through the machine. > >This makes the final machine total 332 votes for Tim Stowell > >and 320 votes for Fred Smoot. We have also taken a random > >sampling and found those votes to be 100% correct. > >Then there were 4 (1 for Tim and 3 for Fred) emailed votes, > >making the totals 333 for Tim Stowell and 323 for Fred > >Smoot. > > > >I certify the vote to be correct > >Jim Powell Jr > >Election Committee Chair > > > >I certify the vote to be correct > >Debbie Axtman > >Election Committee Member > > > >I certify the vote to be correct > >Betsy Mills > >Election Committee Member > > > >I certify the vote to be correct > >Ellen Pack > >Election Committee Member > > > >I certify the vote to be correct > >Jerimiah Moerke > >Election Committee Member > > > >I certify the vote to be correct > >Richard M. Howland > >Election Committee Member > > > > > > -- 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

Second the motion. Bill -- Trey Holt wrote: > I am satisfied that everything in the Regular election of 1999 and the > subsequent runoff has been done properly and the results are correct as > reported. I thank the election committee for their outstanding job. > > I believe that unless there are objections that as one of this boards last > actions we should entertain a motion to thank the committee and accept the > results. > > Trey > > At 11:23 PM 8/23/99 -0400, jpowelljr wrote: > >To the USgenWeb Advisory Board. The Election Committee has > >examined the vote. After our examination we have dropped > >2 duplicate votes that somehow slipped through the machine. > >This makes the final machine total 332 votes for Tim Stowell > >and 320 votes for Fred Smoot. We have also taken a random > >sampling and found those votes to be 100% correct. > >Then there were 4 (1 for Tim and 3 for Fred) emailed votes, > >making the totals 333 for Tim Stowell and 323 for Fred > >Smoot. > > > >I certify the vote to be correct > >Jim Powell Jr > >Election Committee Chair > > > >I certify the vote to be correct > >Debbie Axtman > >Election Committee Member > > > >I certify the vote to be correct > >Betsy Mills > >Election Committee Member > > > >I certify the vote to be correct > >Ellen Pack > >Election Committee Member > > > >I certify the vote to be correct > >Jerimiah Moerke > >Election Committee Member > > > >I certify the vote to be correct > >Richard M. Howland > >Election Committee Member > > > > > >

I am satisfied that everything in the Regular election of 1999 and the subsequent runoff has been done properly and the results are correct as reported. I thank the election committee for their outstanding job. I believe that unless there are objections that as one of this boards last actions we should entertain a motion to thank the committee and accept the results. Trey At 11:23 PM 8/23/99 -0400, jpowelljr wrote: >To the USgenWeb Advisory Board. The Election Committee has >examined the vote. After our examination we have dropped >2 duplicate votes that somehow slipped through the machine. >This makes the final machine total 332 votes for Tim Stowell >and 320 votes for Fred Smoot. We have also taken a random >sampling and found those votes to be 100% correct. >Then there were 4 (1 for Tim and 3 for Fred) emailed votes, >making the totals 333 for Tim Stowell and 323 for Fred >Smoot. > >I certify the vote to be correct >Jim Powell Jr >Election Committee Chair > >I certify the vote to be correct >Debbie Axtman >Election Committee Member > >I certify the vote to be correct >Betsy Mills >Election Committee Member > >I certify the vote to be correct >Ellen Pack >Election Committee Member > >I certify the vote to be correct >Jerimiah Moerke >Election Committee Member > >I certify the vote to be correct >Richard M. Howland >Election Committee Member > > >

In talking with Jim, he assures me that the subject title was not changed and that this was not a "draft" but rather a final. I believe it should be sent to the distribution list. What is the board's wishes? Bill -- jpowelljr wrote: > Here are the answers to some of Fred's questions: > > On Sat, Aug 21, 1999 at 11:17:38AM -0700, Fred Smoot wrote: > > > > What is the name and version of the voting software that was used in our > > runoff election? > > The software has no name or version number. Tim wrote it > from > scratch > between the first election and the runoff, with three goals > in mind: > accuracy, efficiency and easier voting. > > It is written in Perl and runs on a Unix server. The Perl > scripts are > short (they total about 300 lines of code) and are > straightforward for > a Perl programmer to understand. Tim would not have any > objection to > posting the source code if it would help allay anyone's > concerns about > whether it accurately tracks each vote. > > The `back-end' database software -- the server software that > actually > kept track of each person's e-mail address and how they > voted -- is a > server package called MySQL. MySQL is an industry-strength > open > source SQL database package: more details about it are at > http://www.mysql.org/. > > > Why was the software changed from that which was used in our initial > > election. Who made the decision? Who first suggested that the software > > be changed? > > Quote from Tim > "The reasons were to benefit everyone (not just the > committee > but also > the candidates and the voters). I didn't like having to > make excuses > for not running a single-candidate election, when knew > perfectly > well that better software would make such a thing trivial. > I also didn't like running software that was unforgiving > about the > format of submitted votes, and simply could not process some > of the > votes that were sent to us. These were the most important > reasons (in > my mind) for revising the election process." > > (The Election Committee worked with Tim to debug the > system. We tried hard to break it. When we found something > that we thought could be confusing or that just didn't work, > Tim fixed it. We did this before we announced the new > system. We decided it was the greatest thing going and > asked Tim if it would be ready to use. The rest is history) > > > Who, other than employees of RootsWeb.com Inc, actually monitored the > > entire voting process? Who was your on-scene teller? > > There was no `on-scene teller', just a Perl script that > confirmed votes and put them into a database. The only > things that Tim > monitored along the way were the Web server's error logs, > looking for any sign of malfunctions in the script. > > Tim did not monitor the vote submissions themselves, and > only > looked at > how an individual voted when they asked us to confirm their > vote manually. > > > Can you explain how you personally arrived at the election result > > numbers (copied below in your original message)? > > > > What kind of verification did you have in hand to prove that the > > election result numbers are correct? > Quote from Tim > "To do these things, I ran this SQL command against the vote > database: > > SELECT VOTE, COUNT(*) FROM VOTES ORDER BY VOTE" > > > Who actually holds the all the computer logs of the election? > > Tim does. vote.rootsweb.com is an alias for his personal > workstation. > The Web server logs that record each vote that was submitted > to us are > stored on Tim's machine. > > Each vote is physically stored on RootsWeb's database > server, which is > housed in a network center in Anaheim, California. The vote > database > includes this information about the voter: > > * their e-mail address > * who they voted for > * the confirmation code they were sent > * the date and time they voted > * the Internet host (i.e. ISP) from which they voted > * the date and time they confirmed their vote > * the Internet host from which they confirmed > > (Each of the Election Committee Members now holds a copy of > email address and their respective vote. We could > individually count them. I hope that is not necessary. > Which we have now examined and certified to be correct - > Jim) > > > How many unconfirmed votes (not accepted or otherwise rejected, etc.) > > were cast in the runoff election? > > 33 people submitted 39 votes that were never confirmed. > There are more votes than people because a few of them > submitted two or three unconfirmed votes. During the vote, > we added e-mail addresses to the list of eligible voters > whenever a SC notified us that someone's address had > changed. So some of these unconfirmed votes may have come > from people who subsequently voted successfully using their > new address. > > In any event, we have examined the vote counts for these > 39 votes and confirmed that these votes break down roughly > the same way as the confirmed votes. > (The committee did check the totals. Even though we believe > they can not be added, because they were not confirmed. We > would like to let you know that the percentages are roughly > the same in the favor of the same candidate. Jim) > > The Election Committee

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [BOARD-L] Election Certificate Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 20:22:12 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 23:23:09 -0400 From: jpowelljr <jpowelljr@worldnet.att.net> Reply-To: ELECTIONS-L@rootsweb.com To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com References: <001101beedbf$e5ddb000$874a81ce@infinia><37C1DE8E.3D51452@worldnet.att.net> <4.1.19990823192758.00a52ca0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <37C1ED36.E4317ADB@worldnet.att.net> <37C1EDFF.1E7B690C@wf.net> To the USgenWeb Advisory Board. The Election Committee has examined the vote. After our examination we have dropped 2 duplicate votes that somehow slipped through the machine. This makes the final machine total 332 votes for Tim Stowell and 320 votes for Fred Smoot. We have also taken a random sampling and found those votes to be 100% correct. Then there were 4 (1 for Tim and 3 for Fred) emailed votes, making the totals 333 for Tim Stowell and 323 for Fred Smoot. I certify the vote to be correct Jim Powell Jr Election Committee Chair I certify the vote to be correct Debbie Axtman Election Committee Member I certify the vote to be correct Betsy Mills Election Committee Member I certify the vote to be correct Ellen Pack Election Committee Member I certify the vote to be correct Jerimiah Moerke Election Committee Member I certify the vote to be correct Richard M. Howland Election Committee Member

To the USgenWeb Advisory Board. The Election Committee has examined the vote. After our examination we have dropped 2 duplicate votes that somehow slipped through the machine. This makes the final machine total 332 votes for Tim Stowell and 320 votes for Fred Smoot. We have also taken a random sampling and found those votes to be 100% correct. Then there were 4 (1 for Tim and 3 for Fred) emailed votes, making the totals 333 for Tim Stowell and 323 for Fred Smoot. I certify the vote to be correct Jim Powell Jr Election Committee Chair I certify the vote to be correct Debbie Axtman Election Committee Member I certify the vote to be correct Betsy Mills Election Committee Member I certify the vote to be correct Ellen Pack Election Committee Member I certify the vote to be correct Jerimiah Moerke Election Committee Member I certify the vote to be correct Richard M. Howland Election Committee Member

Here are the answers to some of Fred's questions: On Sat, Aug 21, 1999 at 11:17:38AM -0700, Fred Smoot wrote: > > What is the name and version of the voting software that was used in our > runoff election? The software has no name or version number. Tim wrote it from scratch between the first election and the runoff, with three goals in mind: accuracy, efficiency and easier voting. It is written in Perl and runs on a Unix server. The Perl scripts are short (they total about 300 lines of code) and are straightforward for a Perl programmer to understand. Tim would not have any objection to posting the source code if it would help allay anyone's concerns about whether it accurately tracks each vote. The `back-end' database software -- the server software that actually kept track of each person's e-mail address and how they voted -- is a server package called MySQL. MySQL is an industry-strength open source SQL database package: more details about it are at http://www.mysql.org/. > Why was the software changed from that which was used in our initial > election. Who made the decision? Who first suggested that the software > be changed? Quote from Tim "The reasons were to benefit everyone (not just the committee but also the candidates and the voters). I didn't like having to make excuses for not running a single-candidate election, when knew perfectly well that better software would make such a thing trivial. I also didn't like running software that was unforgiving about the format of submitted votes, and simply could not process some of the votes that were sent to us. These were the most important reasons (in my mind) for revising the election process." (The Election Committee worked with Tim to debug the system. We tried hard to break it. When we found something that we thought could be confusing or that just didn't work, Tim fixed it. We did this before we announced the new system. We decided it was the greatest thing going and asked Tim if it would be ready to use. The rest is history) > Who, other than employees of RootsWeb.com Inc, actually monitored the > entire voting process? Who was your on-scene teller? There was no `on-scene teller', just a Perl script that confirmed votes and put them into a database. The only things that Tim monitored along the way were the Web server's error logs, looking for any sign of malfunctions in the script. Tim did not monitor the vote submissions themselves, and only looked at how an individual voted when they asked us to confirm their vote manually. > Can you explain how you personally arrived at the election result > numbers (copied below in your original message)? > > What kind of verification did you have in hand to prove that the > election result numbers are correct? Quote from Tim "To do these things, I ran this SQL command against the vote database: SELECT VOTE, COUNT(*) FROM VOTES ORDER BY VOTE" > Who actually holds the all the computer logs of the election? Tim does. vote.rootsweb.com is an alias for his personal workstation. The Web server logs that record each vote that was submitted to us are stored on Tim's machine. Each vote is physically stored on RootsWeb's database server, which is housed in a network center in Anaheim, California. The vote database includes this information about the voter: * their e-mail address * who they voted for * the confirmation code they were sent * the date and time they voted * the Internet host (i.e. ISP) from which they voted * the date and time they confirmed their vote * the Internet host from which they confirmed (Each of the Election Committee Members now holds a copy of email address and their respective vote. We could individually count them. I hope that is not necessary. Which we have now examined and certified to be correct - Jim) > How many unconfirmed votes (not accepted or otherwise rejected, etc.) > were cast in the runoff election? 33 people submitted 39 votes that were never confirmed. There are more votes than people because a few of them submitted two or three unconfirmed votes. During the vote, we added e-mail addresses to the list of eligible voters whenever a SC notified us that someone's address had changed. So some of these unconfirmed votes may have come from people who subsequently voted successfully using their new address. In any event, we have examined the vote counts for these 39 votes and confirmed that these votes break down roughly the same way as the confirmed votes. (The committee did check the totals. Even though we believe they can not be added, because they were not confirmed. We would like to let you know that the percentages are roughly the same in the favor of the same candidate. Jim) The Election Committee

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [BOARD-L] Final Election Results Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 18:41:32 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 21:42:26 -0400 From: jpowelljr <jpowelljr@worldnet.att.net> Reply-To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com Hi Fellow Volunteers... We really appreciate your patience and persistence in voting. I thought about making one of my little speeches about working together, but all of you are already planning to do just that and make our Project the best that it can be, right? Short and sweet, it was close, but we have a winner. The Results of the USGenWeb Run Off Election 1999 Tim Stowell 335 Fred Smoot 323 We would appreciate any constructive criticism to pass on to the next Election committee. elections@usgenweb.org Thanks for the memories, The Election Committee

Hi Fellow Volunteers... We really appreciate your patience and persistence in voting. I thought about making one of my little speeches about working together, but all of you are already planning to do just that and make our Project the best that it can be, right? Short and sweet, it was close, but we have a winner. The Results of the USGenWeb Run Off Election 1999 Tim Stowell 335 Fred Smoot 323 We would appreciate any constructive criticism to pass on to the next Election committee. elections@usgenweb.org Thanks for the memories, The Election Committee

Just letting you all know that my cestus3@inetnebr.com addy is no longer functioning. Please unsub that addy. Thanks, Lynn

Hi Fellow Volunteers... This is just to remind everyone that the Run Off Election for USGenWeb National Coordinator will end Wednesday, August 18th at Midnight Pacific Daylight Time. If you haven't voted please proceed to http://vote.rootsweb.com/usgw-nc.html and vote. We will make every effort to announce the results at 10 PM EDT Thursday, August 19. Thanks for voting, The Election Committee

I am not receiving my mail properly today, so was checking to be sure I am getting mail from all areas. Please delete. Lynn

This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------1336F8C7E707895AA31915CE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Notes like this one make it all worthwhile! --------------1336F8C7E707895AA31915CE Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from c-5.rootsweb.com (c-5.rootsweb.com [209.164.27.5]) by dc.jones.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA10614 for <pamreid@dc.jones.com>; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 15:44:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73]) by c-5.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA32243 for <webmaster@usgenweb.org>; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 12:46:46 -0700 Received: from Panthrlick@aol.com by imo29.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id 3RUOa06266 (4563) for <webmaster@usgenweb.org>; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 15:46:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Panthrlick@aol.com Message-ID: <50c10fa2.24dde723@aol.com> Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 15:46:43 EDT Subject: From my heart To: webmaster@usgenweb.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 21 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Thank you for providing information that puts a smile on my face, gratitude in my heart and an ancestors name in my records. Warmest regards, Ginny Gerhardt --------------1336F8C7E707895AA31915CE--

Hi Fellow Volunteers... This is a second notice to make sure that everyone has been informed of the new voting system. Hopefully this new system will make it easier for you as well as easier for the Election Committee. The URL for the page that will accept you vote is http://vote.rootsweb.com/usgw-nc.html . Remember as with the old email system, you can vote as many times as you want, but only your last ballot will count. As always send your questions or comments to elections@usgenweb.org. Thanks, The Election Committee

Hi Fellow Volunteers... We would like to announce the New Archives Representative. We have been informed that it is now official, Joe Zsedeny is the New Board Member from the Archives Project. Thanks, the Election Committee