Kelly, there are no motives here..Geez..we don't need another round of 'speculation' and allegations...let's not even go there. I only wanted to know the thoughts of volunteers, and do agree with Teri and Holly that I could/should have worded it more appropriately. They are trying to help resolve this situation. I am very thankful....They are showing they care for the cc's out here...and are trying to do the right thing. No politics involved here. Debbie -----Original Message----- From: Kelly <Kellygirl3398@mpinet.net> To: Teri Pettit <pettit@Adobe.COM> Cc: Debbie <axtman@premier1.net>; BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Thursday, June 29, 2000 11:30 AM Subject: Re: Poll for USGenWeb Issues >Terri, My point was Debbie said her poll was INFORMAL. This does not sound >very informal to me, it sounds as if there are underlying motives here. >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Teri Pettit" <pettit@Adobe.COM> >To: "Kelly" <Kellygirl3398@mpinet.net> >Cc: "Debbie" <axtman@premier1.net>; <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 1:30 PM >Subject: Poll for USGenWeb Issues > > >> At 6:58 PM -0700 6/28/00, Kelly <Kellygirl3398@mpinet.net> wrote: >> >Debbie, I don't understand the fuss about wording because you say below >that >> >this is an informal poll. If it is indeed an informal poll then there's >no >> >reason to perfect the wording, unless your intentions are to take the >results >> >of this poll and use them for whatever purposes. >> >> Kelly, >> >> There isn't any fuss about the "wording", there is a point being made >> about the basic thrust of the question being asked. >> >> >> >Should Roger Swafford be disqualified as Elections Chairperson due to >> >> >malfeasance? This poll closes 7:00 P. M. Eastern time on 6/29/00. >> >> Suppose for the sake of argument: >> >> 10% of the project members believe that the decisions of the Election >> Committee are discriminatory and should be overturned, and that removing >> Roger Swafford as chairman will accomplish that goal. >> >> 65% of the project members believe that the decisions of the Election >> Committee are discriminatory and should be overturned, but that removing >> Roger Swafford as chairman won't do diddly-squat to accomplish that goal, >> because the decisions were almost certainly made by a majority vote of >> the whole 8 member committee, and Roger just serves as the mouthpiece. >> >> 25% of the project members agree with the decisions of the Election >> Committee to disenfranchise multiple co-CC's, local special project >> coordinators, and new project members. >> >> Then the current poll question would get only 10% "yes", and 90% "no". >> >> When people vote "no" to the original question, there is no way to tell >> whether they are voting no because they agree with the decisions of the >> Election Committee, or they are voting no because they expect that no >> matter who the chair is, the Election Committee is going to be voting >> the same way, so it's pointless to replace the chair. >> >> But if a poll asked outright whether the decisions of the Election >> Committee should be overturned, it would get the much different results >> of 75% "yes" and 25% "no", sending a clear message to the Election >> Committee and the Advisory Board that the members at large disagree >> with recent voter-reduction acts. >> >> So this isn't pickiness about exact wording, it is that the question >> being asked isn't the one that it is most important to get an answer to. >> >> -- Teri >> >> (I am trying to reduce traffic on the discussion lists, and so am not >> CC'ing any lists except BOARD-L. Permission is granted to forward this >> to any individuals that you have reason to believe are interested, but >> please refrain from forwarding it to USGW-CC-L, USGENWEB-ALL-L, or >> USGENWEB-DISCUSS. The subscribers to those lists are getting fed up >> with the message volume.) >> >> >> > >