I would like to see the grievances. I have not seen them since I am not subbed to any list except for the two Board lists and the SC list. If they appeared on the SC list, I must have deleted them in my sleep. At any rate, please do forward them to the list. Thank you, Pam Teri Pettit wrote: > > I would like to propose the following as a procedure for mediating > the 5 grievances that Carole Hammett submitted on Tuesday, May 30, > to myself and Jim Powell as CC Reps for her region. > > #1, against Tim Stowell & Pam Reid, > regarding Rootsweb endorsement on USGenWeb national website > #2, against Tim Stowell, > regarding policy on use of the USGenWeb logo as a link button > #3, against Tim Stowell & Pam Reid, > regarding non-listing of USGenNet as an available host > #4, against Linda Lewis & Tim Stowell, > regarding the Archives contract with Rootsweb > #5, against Linda Lewis, > regarding request for removal of a file from the USGenWeb Archives > > (The grievances have been posted on several email lists; I will forward > them to BOARD-L if anyone wants me to, but I imagine we've all seen them.) > > The mediation committee to be composed of 4 CC's, none of whom > > 1. Are an employee, staff member or board member of either Rootsweb, > Rootsquest, USGenNet, or the USGenWeb Archives, nor a member of > the USGenWeb Advisory Board. > > 2. Have a USGenWeb site or other web space located on either Rootsweb, > USGenNet or Rootsquest servers. > > STEP 1. By noon Thursday, June 8, 2000, Central DST > > Pam, Tim & Linda to submit via email to Carole <CarHammett@mindspring.com> > a list of 4 to 6 proposed committee members fitting the above two criteria > who have agreed to serve on the committee if chosen. > > Carole Hammett to submit via email to Pam Reid <pamreid@home.com>, Tim Stowell > <tstowell@chattanooga.net> and Linda Lewis <cityslic@ix.netcom.com>, with a Cc > to Jim Powell <jpowelljr@gru.net> and Teri Pettit <pettit@adobe.com>, a list of > 4 to 6 proposed committee members fitting the above two criteria, who have > agreed to serve on the committee if chosen. > > All parties in composing their lists are requested to make their choices > with an eye to CC's who have demonstrated an ability to work well with > people of differing opinions and to avoid inflammatory or confrontational > remarks. Try to pick people that you not only trust to be fair to you, > but that you expect the other party to trust as well. > > One of the Board members to forward both lists to BOARD-L. > > (If a list is not submitted by that date, or if it contains fewer than 4 > persons, the opposing party may substitute a person from their own list. It > is hoped that this clause will not be called upon; it is only to serve as > a deterrent to one party delaying the process or submitting a short list > in order to give less choice to the other party.) > > STEP 2. By 6 pm, Friday, June 9, 2000, Central DST > > Pam, Tim & Linda to choose 2 persons (total among them) from Carole's list > > Carole to choose 2 persons from Pam, Tim & Linda's list > > The choices to be sent by email to the same recipients as step 1, plus > to the chosen mediation committee members. > > STEP 3. By midnight, Friday, June 23, 2000, Central DST > > The committee to consider each grievance separately, and for each, make > a recommendation as to what should be done, with their reasoning. If the > committee cannot come to a consensus on a grievance, the recommendation > may contain a split opinion. The recommendations of the committee to > be posted to USGENWEB-ALL-L, USGW-CC-L, STATE-COORD-L, ARCHIVES-L, > USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L, and BOARD-L, and at some URL that they determine. > If the mediation process resulted in some action being taken by a > party named in a grievance (e.g., a web page being modified), that > action to also be recorded in the committee's report. > > The recommendations to be non-binding, but compliance or non-compliance > to them can serve to inform voters in the upcoming USGenWEb elections. > > My goal in this is to get a committee that, even before it starts > deliberation, is recognized by both sides as reasonably impartial. > There is no point in going to all the trouble of hearing a grievance > if the process is going to be perceived as biased by one party or > the other. > > This is not yet a formal motion, but I will make one to this effect > by tomorrow if the parties named in the grievances agree that this > sounds like a sufficiently impartial procedure. If it does not, please > make a suggestion as to how the process can be made more impartial. > > Thanks, > > Teri Pettit