At 12:32 PM 2/19/2015, Laverne H. Tornow wrote: >Maybe that should have been conveyed to the members BEFORE we voted. >Our instructions were to send an e-mail to each of the three of >you! It did not instruct as to addressed to one and cc'd to the >other two, or 3 separate e-mails. I sent three separate >e-mails........ Hopefully all three of you received it. I agree >some sort of confirmation that our votes have been received would be great! Laverne, While EC procedures (which we try to follow as closely as is possible for local elections) is that they don't reveal whether someone has voted or not, since you have yourself revealed that you have voted in the MN SC Election, the headers for the email containing your vote reveal that you did not send separate emails, but one email to the three members of the committee -- just as we had requested. Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 01:30:45 -0500 From: "Laverne H. Tornow" <[email protected]> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Subject: SC VOTE MNGENWEB Pat Asher

What I think we all can agree on is that at best, the English language is an imperfect method of communication :-) Pat Asher At 01:35 PM 2/19/2015, Mike \(Dino\) Peterson wrote: >I disagree. >The guidance I quote: >“ >To be counted, your vote must be time stamped during this period and >be copied to all three members of the election committee: > >Patrice Green - <[email protected]> >Mike Sweeney <[email protected]> >Pat Asher <[email protected]> >“ >The “and be ‘copied’ to all three” is pretty clear. >Mike >Clay Co

Maybe that should have been conveyed to the members BEFORE we voted. Our instructions were to send an e-mail to each of the three of you! It did not instruct as to addressed to one and cc'd to the other two, or 3 separate e-mails. I sent three separate e-mails........ Hopefully all three of you received it. I agree some sort of confirmation that our votes have been received would be great! Laverne On 2/19/2015 12:06 PM, Pat Asher via wrote: > At 10:06 AM 2/19/2015, Lynn Brandvold via wrote: >> I agree with Karen about a vote confirmation. It was unclear to me >> exactly how to respond so I sent one email addressed to all three >> committee members. Karen says she sent 3 individual emails to the three >> committee members. Did our emails arrive? Should I have sent 3 >> individual emails? > Lynn, We prefer you send one email that is addressed/copied to the > three committee members. Otherwise, we have to email each other to > confirm that everyone received a copy of the vote. > > In the last year, I have been involved in perhaps a half a dozen > in-house elections and all of the rest of them have been comfortable > with the 3 person system as sufficient insurance that a vote was > received. If your carrier accepts the mail you send, and you don't > receive a bounce notice from the carrier(s) of one or more of the 3 > committee members, the chances of every copy of your email being > "lost" is extremely remote. National elections use a script that > delivers a "success" page when your vote is completed. The three of > us have to do everything manually. > > If you, or anyone, would like a confirmation email, write to me privately. > > > Pat Asher > Election Committee > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

At 10:06 AM 2/19/2015, Lynn Brandvold via wrote: >I agree with Karen about a vote confirmation. It was unclear to me >exactly how to respond so I sent one email addressed to all three >committee members. Karen says she sent 3 individual emails to the three >committee members. Did our emails arrive? Should I have sent 3 >individual emails? Lynn, We prefer you send one email that is addressed/copied to the three committee members. Otherwise, we have to email each other to confirm that everyone received a copy of the vote. In the last year, I have been involved in perhaps a half a dozen in-house elections and all of the rest of them have been comfortable with the 3 person system as sufficient insurance that a vote was received. If your carrier accepts the mail you send, and you don't receive a bounce notice from the carrier(s) of one or more of the 3 committee members, the chances of every copy of your email being "lost" is extremely remote. National elections use a script that delivers a "success" page when your vote is completed. The three of us have to do everything manually. If you, or anyone, would like a confirmation email, write to me privately. Pat Asher Election Committee

Agree on the confirmation - just because and email says it was sent, doesn't mean it was received. While most emails are sent and received quickly, sometimes they sit on a side track somewhere due to other traffic with a higher priority. Tim On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Karen De Groote via <[email protected]> wrote: > Lynn, I sent one email with all three addresses cut and pasted. I did not > say I sent three emails however I see how you can construe that from my "I > did copy and paste the three emails" which actually should have been three > email addresses. I looked in my sent folder and it went out. > Karen > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Lynn Brandvold via <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I agree with Karen about a vote confirmation. It was unclear to me > > exactly how to respond so I sent one email addressed to all three > > committee members. Karen says she sent 3 individual emails to the three > > committee members. Did our emails arrive? Should I have sent 3 > > individual emails? > > > > Lynn Brandvold > > Pennington and Red Lake Counties > > > > On 2/19/2015 7:25 AM, Karen De Groote via wrote: > > > Thanks Pat, > > > I realize that but I was thinking about how we vote in National and how > > we > > > get a vote confirmation there. I am going to look at my sent mail to > > make > > > sure it isn't sitting there as a draft. I did copy and paste the three > > > emails so hopefully you have my vote. > > > Thanks much, > > > Karen > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Pat Asher <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> At 07:11 PM 2/18/2015, Karen De Groote via wrote: > > >> > > >>> Would it be possible to get a "Voted" confirmation from the MNGenWeb > EC > > >>> group? Then we will know if our vote went awry or not. > > >>> > > >> Karen, > > >> > > >> The reason we insist your email vote be sent to all three members of > the > > >> committee is so votes do not go astray. One email might, or even two > -- > > >> but the chances of three different carriers all losing the same email > > are > > >> extremely remote. The three of us verify each vote as it is received, > > and > > >> cross check our individual counts at the close of the voting period. > > >> > > >> > > >> Pat Asher > > >> > > >> > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes > > in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes > > in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >

Pat, Thank you for the clarification. And I can safely assume that my vote will be counted. Lynn On 2/19/2015 10:06 AM, Pat Asher via wrote: > At 10:06 AM 2/19/2015, Lynn Brandvold via wrote: >> I agree with Karen about a vote confirmation. It was unclear to me >> exactly how to respond so I sent one email addressed to all three >> committee members. Karen says she sent 3 individual emails to the three >> committee members. Did our emails arrive? Should I have sent 3 >> individual emails? > Lynn, We prefer you send one email that is addressed/copied to the > three committee members. Otherwise, we have to email each other to > confirm that everyone received a copy of the vote. > > In the last year, I have been involved in perhaps a half a dozen > in-house elections and all of the rest of them have been comfortable > with the 3 person system as sufficient insurance that a vote was > received. If your carrier accepts the mail you send, and you don't > receive a bounce notice from the carrier(s) of one or more of the 3 > committee members, the chances of every copy of your email being > "lost" is extremely remote. National elections use a script that > delivers a "success" page when your vote is completed. The three of > us have to do everything manually. > > If you, or anyone, would like a confirmation email, write to me privately. > > > Pat Asher > Election Committee > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I disagree. The guidance I quote: “ To be counted, your vote must be time stamped during this period and be copied to all three members of the election committee: Patrice Green - <[email protected]> Mike Sweeney <[email protected]> Pat Asher <[email protected]> “ The “and be ‘copied’ to all three” is pretty clear. Mike Clay Co From: Laverne H. Tornow via Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 9:32 AM To: Pat Asher ; [email protected] Subject: Re: [MNGEN] Reminder to VOTE for SC Maybe that should have been conveyed to the members BEFORE we voted. Our instructions were to send an e-mail to each of the three of you! It did not instruct as to addressed to one and cc'd to the other two, or 3 separate e-mails. I sent three separate e-mails........ Hopefully all three of you received it. I agree some sort of confirmation that our votes have been received would be great! Laverne On 2/19/2015 12:06 PM, Pat Asher via wrote: > At 10:06 AM 2/19/2015, Lynn Brandvold via wrote: >> I agree with Karen about a vote confirmation. It was unclear to me >> exactly how to respond so I sent one email addressed to all three >> committee members. Karen says she sent 3 individual emails to the three >> committee members. Did our emails arrive? Should I have sent 3 >> individual emails? > Lynn, We prefer you send one email that is addressed/copied to the > three committee members. Otherwise, we have to email each other to > confirm that everyone received a copy of the vote. > > In the last year, I have been involved in perhaps a half a dozen > in-house elections and all of the rest of them have been comfortable > with the 3 person system as sufficient insurance that a vote was > received. If your carrier accepts the mail you send, and you don't > receive a bounce notice from the carrier(s) of one or more of the 3 > committee members, the chances of every copy of your email being > "lost" is extremely remote. National elections use a script that > delivers a "success" page when your vote is completed. The three of > us have to do everything manually. > > If you, or anyone, would like a confirmation email, write to me privately. > > > Pat Asher > Election Committee > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Lynn, I sent one email with all three addresses cut and pasted. I did not say I sent three emails however I see how you can construe that from my "I did copy and paste the three emails" which actually should have been three email addresses. I looked in my sent folder and it went out. Karen On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Lynn Brandvold via <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with Karen about a vote confirmation. It was unclear to me > exactly how to respond so I sent one email addressed to all three > committee members. Karen says she sent 3 individual emails to the three > committee members. Did our emails arrive? Should I have sent 3 > individual emails? > > Lynn Brandvold > Pennington and Red Lake Counties > > On 2/19/2015 7:25 AM, Karen De Groote via wrote: > > Thanks Pat, > > I realize that but I was thinking about how we vote in National and how > we > > get a vote confirmation there. I am going to look at my sent mail to > make > > sure it isn't sitting there as a draft. I did copy and paste the three > > emails so hopefully you have my vote. > > Thanks much, > > Karen > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Pat Asher <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> At 07:11 PM 2/18/2015, Karen De Groote via wrote: > >> > >>> Would it be possible to get a "Voted" confirmation from the MNGenWeb EC > >>> group? Then we will know if our vote went awry or not. > >>> > >> Karen, > >> > >> The reason we insist your email vote be sent to all three members of the > >> committee is so votes do not go astray. One email might, or even two -- > >> but the chances of three different carriers all losing the same email > are > >> extremely remote. The three of us verify each vote as it is received, > and > >> cross check our individual counts at the close of the voting period. > >> > >> > >> Pat Asher > >> > >> > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >

At 07:11 PM 2/18/2015, Karen De Groote via wrote: >Would it be possible to get a "Voted" confirmation from the MNGenWeb EC >group? Then we will know if our vote went awry or not. Karen, The reason we insist your email vote be sent to all three members of the committee is so votes do not go astray. One email might, or even two -- but the chances of three different carriers all losing the same email are extremely remote. The three of us verify each vote as it is received, and cross check our individual counts at the close of the voting period. Pat Asher

Thanks Pat, I realize that but I was thinking about how we vote in National and how we get a vote confirmation there. I am going to look at my sent mail to make sure it isn't sitting there as a draft. I did copy and paste the three emails so hopefully you have my vote. Thanks much, Karen On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Pat Asher <[email protected]> wrote: > At 07:11 PM 2/18/2015, Karen De Groote via wrote: > >> Would it be possible to get a "Voted" confirmation from the MNGenWeb EC >> group? Then we will know if our vote went awry or not. >> > > Karen, > > The reason we insist your email vote be sent to all three members of the > committee is so votes do not go astray. One email might, or even two -- > but the chances of three different carriers all losing the same email are > extremely remote. The three of us verify each vote as it is received, and > cross check our individual counts at the close of the voting period. > > > Pat Asher > >

I agree with Karen about a vote confirmation. It was unclear to me exactly how to respond so I sent one email addressed to all three committee members. Karen says she sent 3 individual emails to the three committee members. Did our emails arrive? Should I have sent 3 individual emails? Lynn Brandvold Pennington and Red Lake Counties On 2/19/2015 7:25 AM, Karen De Groote via wrote: > Thanks Pat, > I realize that but I was thinking about how we vote in National and how we > get a vote confirmation there. I am going to look at my sent mail to make > sure it isn't sitting there as a draft. I did copy and paste the three > emails so hopefully you have my vote. > Thanks much, > Karen > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Pat Asher <[email protected]> wrote: > >> At 07:11 PM 2/18/2015, Karen De Groote via wrote: >> >>> Would it be possible to get a "Voted" confirmation from the MNGenWeb EC >>> group? Then we will know if our vote went awry or not. >>> >> Karen, >> >> The reason we insist your email vote be sent to all three members of the >> committee is so votes do not go astray. One email might, or even two -- >> but the chances of three different carriers all losing the same email are >> extremely remote. The three of us verify each vote as it is received, and >> cross check our individual counts at the close of the voting period. >> >> >> Pat Asher >> >> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

To date, 58% of the CCs have cast their vote for the new SC of MNGenWeb. Honestly, I am surprised that 100% of you have not already voted on such an important issue to each and every one of you. If you are one of those who haven't voted yet, you still have time to vote for the candidate you prefer. You have until Saturday, 2/21 at 11:59pm CST to cast your vote for your new SC. Remember, to be counted, your vote must be copied to all three members of the election committee: Patrice Green - <[email protected]> Mike Sweeney <[email protected]> Pat Asher <[email protected]> Your candidates are: Shirley Cullum Martha Crosley Graham Tim Stowell Linda Zieman Pat Asher MN Election Committee

Would it be possible to get a "Voted" confirmation from the MNGenWeb EC group? Then we will know if our vote went awry or not. Thanks much, Karen Becker, Todd and Stearns On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Pat Asher via <[email protected]> wrote: > To date, 58% of the CCs have cast their vote for the new SC of > MNGenWeb. Honestly, I am surprised that 100% of you have not already > voted on such an important issue to each and every one of you. > > If you are one of those who haven't voted yet, you still have time to > vote for the candidate you prefer. You have until Saturday, 2/21 at > 11:59pm CST to cast your vote for your new SC. > > Remember, to be counted, your vote must be copied to all three > members of the election committee: > > Patrice Green - <[email protected]> > Mike Sweeney <[email protected]> > Pat Asher <[email protected]> > > Your candidates are: > > Shirley Cullum > Martha Crosley Graham > Tim Stowell > Linda Zieman > > > > Pat Asher > MN Election Committee > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >

Posted yesterday afternoon to Facebook and ending this discussion from me: "Pride will bite you in the hindquarters. I fell on mine a few minutes ago. Walking down a hill gingerly, or so I thought, I hit the slimy mud just so and a sudden thud of the wet and slimy mud, my backside flatish, my coat and pants came together in a jarring occurrence of uncomfortableness and my neck jerked in a sudden resistance so I'm sure soreness will shortly ensue. Aren't we having a lovely day?" IE - I have injuries to nurse, data to put on line, the day off due to ice. Tim On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Karen De Groote via <[email protected]> wrote: > USGW bylaws are merely a framework of the national organization. Further > basic rules beyond the framework as decided upon by states are still basic > rules. States are free and in fact, encouraged to make rules that apply to > their own state. Rules for MNGenWeb are part of getting this state up to > snuff as quite obviously the USGenWeb bylaws did not help keep this state > from going under. > > I realize the "old timers" here are uncomfortable with the activity but you > have a choice to make, enjoy the silence because the state is a shambles or > join the newcomers and set the state on the right path. I personally have > complained to the two previous NCs about several MN counties in the past > 3-7 years. I provided the last couple of emails to Denise to demonstrate > it was not just one person complaining one time. I complained when the > prior leadership team never responded to my emails which then sent my > complaints to the two NCs. So I guess you will have to excuse my > irritation with the way things "used" to be. Tim, you may have done well > with limited rules and emails in your counties but there were lots of dead > counties that had had nothing added in 10 years or more. Allowing that to > evolve was a mistake but we can make sure it doesn't happen again. > > Verbose means using more words than are needed. I am pretty sure Tim and > myself are the verbose ones here with our long emails and I me being the > longer winded of the two of us. LOL As far as the issue of "new > management", this not only pertains to new leadership people but the > management framework of this organization. The USGenWeb now requires that > leaders be elected which is a change from an SC being SC for an > indeterminate number of years. The direction of the USGW project has > changed over the years, moving on to providing online data rather than just > links. I think the lack of previous list mail has not only kept CCs in the > dark but they have not been provided with national news for a good long > time. > > I will forgive the "oldtimers" for thinking this list is verbose and ask > the "oldtimers" to forgive the newcomers for their perhaps excess energy in > getting this project on it's feet. We don't all have to agree to work > together, but we definitely all need to work together to meet the goal of > resurrecting MNGenWeb. > > Good discussion, > Karen > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Timothy Stowell via <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >From 1997 or thereabouts until the early 2000s, this was a quiet list. > The > > SCs did their things, the CCs theirs. Perhaps we weren't as curious or > > chatty as others would have had us be. People who wanted information > > usually just wrote the SC privately and asked. > > > > Long after MNGenWeb lost its leadership, apparently USGenWeb was asleep > and > > not only for Minnesota but for several other states as well. At least > the > > current NC is doing something to rectify that. > > > > While I know who the NC was before the current one, I rather gather this > > has been an issue for more than one NC prior to the current one. > > > > Of course any member can post what they want regarding the project, what > > additions they've made to their site, share methods, URLs and the like. > > > > Yes to basic rules, but as members of USGenWeb basic rules already exist. > > Thus any rules created by this group would be beyond the basics. > > > > As for 'lots of business' would generate lots of email, such is true. > > However, as I recall, that business to date is exactly two things, > > selection of a new logo and selection of new management. So forgive me > if > > us old timers in MNGenWeb find the list a bit verbose. Not as verbose > mind > > you as some other states but still verbose. > > > > TIC, > > > > Tim > > > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Karen De Groote via <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > > > Long before MNGenWeb lost their leadership team, there were many > counties > > > that were stagnant and missing. During this time it was peace and > quiet > > as > > > Tim has mentioned. Perhaps if there was no peace and quiet those > > counties > > > would be updated or not missing? I LOVE talking to other CCs and get > > loads > > > of ideas from others and what they are doing on their sites. We don't > > need > > > to hide our candles under the bushel basket and it is truly sad to me > > that > > > any fellow CC does not want basic rules or talking on this list. Yes I > > can > > > understand inappropriate posts like someone's grandbaby or spouse doing > > > something noteworthy. I would be the first to complain about that but > > > these posts are project business and CCs need a voice. > > > > > > I know that this profuse amount of email right now is a temporary thing > > and > > > it will calm down eventually but I do not want ANYONE thinking they > > cannot > > > ask a question of their fellow CCs on this list or share something they > > > have discovered. It will not go back to the years of no emails ever > > again > > > and that is a good thing. This list is for official project business > and > > > with lots of business comes lots of emails. > > > > > > Karen > > > Becker, Todd and Stearns > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes > > in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >

>From 1997 or thereabouts until the early 2000s, this was a quiet list. The SCs did their things, the CCs theirs. Perhaps we weren't as curious or chatty as others would have had us be. People who wanted information usually just wrote the SC privately and asked. Long after MNGenWeb lost its leadership, apparently USGenWeb was asleep and not only for Minnesota but for several other states as well. At least the current NC is doing something to rectify that. While I know who the NC was before the current one, I rather gather this has been an issue for more than one NC prior to the current one. Of course any member can post what they want regarding the project, what additions they've made to their site, share methods, URLs and the like. Yes to basic rules, but as members of USGenWeb basic rules already exist. Thus any rules created by this group would be beyond the basics. As for 'lots of business' would generate lots of email, such is true. However, as I recall, that business to date is exactly two things, selection of a new logo and selection of new management. So forgive me if us old timers in MNGenWeb find the list a bit verbose. Not as verbose mind you as some other states but still verbose. TIC, Tim On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Karen De Groote via <[email protected]> wrote: > Long before MNGenWeb lost their leadership team, there were many counties > that were stagnant and missing. During this time it was peace and quiet as > Tim has mentioned. Perhaps if there was no peace and quiet those counties > would be updated or not missing? I LOVE talking to other CCs and get loads > of ideas from others and what they are doing on their sites. We don't need > to hide our candles under the bushel basket and it is truly sad to me that > any fellow CC does not want basic rules or talking on this list. Yes I can > understand inappropriate posts like someone's grandbaby or spouse doing > something noteworthy. I would be the first to complain about that but > these posts are project business and CCs need a voice. > > I know that this profuse amount of email right now is a temporary thing and > it will calm down eventually but I do not want ANYONE thinking they cannot > ask a question of their fellow CCs on this list or share something they > have discovered. It will not go back to the years of no emails ever again > and that is a good thing. This list is for official project business and > with lots of business comes lots of emails. > > Karen > Becker, Todd and Stearns

USGW bylaws are merely a framework of the national organization. Further basic rules beyond the framework as decided upon by states are still basic rules. States are free and in fact, encouraged to make rules that apply to their own state. Rules for MNGenWeb are part of getting this state up to snuff as quite obviously the USGenWeb bylaws did not help keep this state from going under. I realize the "old timers" here are uncomfortable with the activity but you have a choice to make, enjoy the silence because the state is a shambles or join the newcomers and set the state on the right path. I personally have complained to the two previous NCs about several MN counties in the past 3-7 years. I provided the last couple of emails to Denise to demonstrate it was not just one person complaining one time. I complained when the prior leadership team never responded to my emails which then sent my complaints to the two NCs. So I guess you will have to excuse my irritation with the way things "used" to be. Tim, you may have done well with limited rules and emails in your counties but there were lots of dead counties that had had nothing added in 10 years or more. Allowing that to evolve was a mistake but we can make sure it doesn't happen again. Verbose means using more words than are needed. I am pretty sure Tim and myself are the verbose ones here with our long emails and I me being the longer winded of the two of us. LOL As far as the issue of "new management", this not only pertains to new leadership people but the management framework of this organization. The USGenWeb now requires that leaders be elected which is a change from an SC being SC for an indeterminate number of years. The direction of the USGW project has changed over the years, moving on to providing online data rather than just links. I think the lack of previous list mail has not only kept CCs in the dark but they have not been provided with national news for a good long time. I will forgive the "oldtimers" for thinking this list is verbose and ask the "oldtimers" to forgive the newcomers for their perhaps excess energy in getting this project on it's feet. We don't all have to agree to work together, but we definitely all need to work together to meet the goal of resurrecting MNGenWeb. Good discussion, Karen On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Timothy Stowell via <[email protected]> wrote: > >From 1997 or thereabouts until the early 2000s, this was a quiet list. The > SCs did their things, the CCs theirs. Perhaps we weren't as curious or > chatty as others would have had us be. People who wanted information > usually just wrote the SC privately and asked. > > Long after MNGenWeb lost its leadership, apparently USGenWeb was asleep and > not only for Minnesota but for several other states as well. At least the > current NC is doing something to rectify that. > > While I know who the NC was before the current one, I rather gather this > has been an issue for more than one NC prior to the current one. > > Of course any member can post what they want regarding the project, what > additions they've made to their site, share methods, URLs and the like. > > Yes to basic rules, but as members of USGenWeb basic rules already exist. > Thus any rules created by this group would be beyond the basics. > > As for 'lots of business' would generate lots of email, such is true. > However, as I recall, that business to date is exactly two things, > selection of a new logo and selection of new management. So forgive me if > us old timers in MNGenWeb find the list a bit verbose. Not as verbose mind > you as some other states but still verbose. > > TIC, > > Tim > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Karen De Groote via <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Long before MNGenWeb lost their leadership team, there were many counties > > that were stagnant and missing. During this time it was peace and quiet > as > > Tim has mentioned. Perhaps if there was no peace and quiet those > counties > > would be updated or not missing? I LOVE talking to other CCs and get > loads > > of ideas from others and what they are doing on their sites. We don't > need > > to hide our candles under the bushel basket and it is truly sad to me > that > > any fellow CC does not want basic rules or talking on this list. Yes I > can > > understand inappropriate posts like someone's grandbaby or spouse doing > > something noteworthy. I would be the first to complain about that but > > these posts are project business and CCs need a voice. > > > > I know that this profuse amount of email right now is a temporary thing > and > > it will calm down eventually but I do not want ANYONE thinking they > cannot > > ask a question of their fellow CCs on this list or share something they > > have discovered. It will not go back to the years of no emails ever > again > > and that is a good thing. This list is for official project business and > > with lots of business comes lots of emails. > > > > Karen > > Becker, Todd and Stearns > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >

Karen, You and I agree on this subject 100%. Communication is the key to a successful project. and during the regeneration of the Project there are going to be, by necessity quite a bit of discussion involved! Laverne On 2/16/2015 2:33 PM, Karen De Groote via wrote: > Long before MNGenWeb lost their leadership team, there were many counties > that were stagnant and missing. During this time it was peace and quiet as > Tim has mentioned. Perhaps if there was no peace and quiet those counties > would be updated or not missing? I LOVE talking to other CCs and get loads > of ideas from others and what they are doing on their sites. We don't need > to hide our candles under the bushel basket and it is truly sad to me that > any fellow CC does not want basic rules or talking on this list. Yes I can > understand inappropriate posts like someone's grandbaby or spouse doing > something noteworthy. I would be the first to complain about that but > these posts are project business and CCs need a voice. > > I know that this profuse amount of email right now is a temporary thing and > it will calm down eventually but I do not want ANYONE thinking they cannot > ask a question of their fellow CCs on this list or share something they > have discovered. It will not go back to the years of no emails ever again > and that is a good thing. This list is for official project business and > with lots of business comes lots of emails. > > Karen > Becker, Todd and Stearns > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Timothy Stowell via <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> In other states I host counties in we have occasional roll calls, nearly >> zero messages on the state list other than announcements about national >> events that we mostly ignore. Why? Because it bears no relevance to our >> hosting a county. Occasionally someone finds something to share, then the >> list goes silent. We like it that way. >> >> I counted one state's emails for 2014 there were approximately 190 emails >> for the year. I read three because the rest were not pertinent to the >> counties I host or the subject matter was of no interest to me. In the >> other less than 30 of which I wrote several. I continue with my counties >> and rarely look at the surrounding counties because I have enough material >> for my sites. If I come across material for other counties, I inform the >> host of said county who is free to either accept or reject the data. >> >> All of the past history is moot except to say that over the number of years >> before the SC/ASC ceased to participate, we were a very quiet group. We >> either felt no need to communicate or there was nothing to be said. We >> just did our county sites, which is what we volunteered to do. >> >> Tim >> >> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Laverne H. Tornow <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Clearly until the National Coordinator stepped in, this project did not >>> communicate. >>> >>> Arpril 2014- 1 message that was a spam, and not another until October >> when >>> the NC took over. >>> October 2013 - 1 message, request for help from Keith Gulsvig to which >> NO >>> ONE replied! and none between October 2013 and April 2014 >>> October 2011 there were 21 messages relating to a temp ASC being >> appointed >>> by the NC, there wre no other messages for that year. >>> from Nov 2011 to October 2013 there were no messages >>> December 2010 there were 4 messages and none between that time and >> October >>> 2011 >>> >>> There are maybe 1 or 2 messages per year....... That is a project that >>> does not communicate! >>> >>> Laverne >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >> in the subject and the body of the message >> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

State mail lists are for communication. Sharing ideas, asking questions about a problem with a website or program and in the case of the MNGenWeb, deciding how to move forward and improve the project. Right now, the majority of emails are complaints. Let's focus on positive communication to help the MNGenWeb get back on track. As Karen stated, once the project is fully functional again, the amount of emails will decrease substantially. Shirley On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Karen De Groote via <[email protected]> wrote: > Long before MNGenWeb lost their leadership team, there were many counties > that were stagnant and missing. During this time it was peace and quiet as > Tim has mentioned. Perhaps if there was no peace and quiet those counties > would be updated or not missing? I LOVE talking to other CCs and get loads > of ideas from others and what they are doing on their sites. We don't need > to hide our candles under the bushel basket and it is truly sad to me that > any fellow CC does not want basic rules or talking on this list. Yes I can > understand inappropriate posts like someone's grandbaby or spouse doing > something noteworthy. I would be the first to complain about that but > these posts are project business and CCs need a voice. > > I know that this profuse amount of email right now is a temporary thing and > it will calm down eventually but I do not want ANYONE thinking they cannot > ask a question of their fellow CCs on this list or share something they > have discovered. It will not go back to the years of no emails ever again > and that is a good thing. This list is for official project business and > with lots of business comes lots of emails. > > Karen > Becker, Todd and Stearns > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Timothy Stowell via <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > In other states I host counties in we have occasional roll calls, nearly > > zero messages on the state list other than announcements about national > > events that we mostly ignore. Why? Because it bears no relevance to our > > hosting a county. Occasionally someone finds something to share, then > the > > list goes silent. We like it that way. > > > > I counted one state's emails for 2014 there were approximately 190 emails > > for the year. I read three because the rest were not pertinent to the > > counties I host or the subject matter was of no interest to me. In the > > other less than 30 of which I wrote several. I continue with my counties > > and rarely look at the surrounding counties because I have enough > material > > for my sites. If I come across material for other counties, I inform the > > host of said county who is free to either accept or reject the data. > > > > All of the past history is moot except to say that over the number of > years > > before the SC/ASC ceased to participate, we were a very quiet group. We > > either felt no need to communicate or there was nothing to be said. We > > just did our county sites, which is what we volunteered to do. > > > > Tim > > > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Laverne H. Tornow <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Clearly until the National Coordinator stepped in, this project did not > > > communicate. > > > > > > Arpril 2014- 1 message that was a spam, and not another until October > > when > > > the NC took over. > > > October 2013 - 1 message, request for help from Keith Gulsvig to which > > NO > > > ONE replied! and none between October 2013 and April 2014 > > > October 2011 there were 21 messages relating to a temp ASC being > > appointed > > > by the NC, there wre no other messages for that year. > > > from Nov 2011 to October 2013 there were no messages > > > December 2010 there were 4 messages and none between that time and > > October > > > 2011 > > > > > > There are maybe 1 or 2 messages per year....... That is a project that > > > does not communicate! > > > > > > Laverne > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes > > in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >

In other states I host counties in we have occasional roll calls, nearly zero messages on the state list other than announcements about national events that we mostly ignore. Why? Because it bears no relevance to our hosting a county. Occasionally someone finds something to share, then the list goes silent. We like it that way. I counted one state's emails for 2014 there were approximately 190 emails for the year. I read three because the rest were not pertinent to the counties I host or the subject matter was of no interest to me. In the other less than 30 of which I wrote several. I continue with my counties and rarely look at the surrounding counties because I have enough material for my sites. If I come across material for other counties, I inform the host of said county who is free to either accept or reject the data. All of the past history is moot except to say that over the number of years before the SC/ASC ceased to participate, we were a very quiet group. We either felt no need to communicate or there was nothing to be said. We just did our county sites, which is what we volunteered to do. Tim On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Laverne H. Tornow <[email protected]> wrote: > Clearly until the National Coordinator stepped in, this project did not > communicate. > > Arpril 2014- 1 message that was a spam, and not another until October when > the NC took over. > October 2013 - 1 message, request for help from Keith Gulsvig to which NO > ONE replied! and none between October 2013 and April 2014 > October 2011 there were 21 messages relating to a temp ASC being appointed > by the NC, there wre no other messages for that year. > from Nov 2011 to October 2013 there were no messages > December 2010 there were 4 messages and none between that time and October > 2011 > > There are maybe 1 or 2 messages per year....... That is a project that > does not communicate! > > Laverne

Long before MNGenWeb lost their leadership team, there were many counties that were stagnant and missing. During this time it was peace and quiet as Tim has mentioned. Perhaps if there was no peace and quiet those counties would be updated or not missing? I LOVE talking to other CCs and get loads of ideas from others and what they are doing on their sites. We don't need to hide our candles under the bushel basket and it is truly sad to me that any fellow CC does not want basic rules or talking on this list. Yes I can understand inappropriate posts like someone's grandbaby or spouse doing something noteworthy. I would be the first to complain about that but these posts are project business and CCs need a voice. I know that this profuse amount of email right now is a temporary thing and it will calm down eventually but I do not want ANYONE thinking they cannot ask a question of their fellow CCs on this list or share something they have discovered. It will not go back to the years of no emails ever again and that is a good thing. This list is for official project business and with lots of business comes lots of emails. Karen Becker, Todd and Stearns On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Timothy Stowell via <[email protected]> wrote: > In other states I host counties in we have occasional roll calls, nearly > zero messages on the state list other than announcements about national > events that we mostly ignore. Why? Because it bears no relevance to our > hosting a county. Occasionally someone finds something to share, then the > list goes silent. We like it that way. > > I counted one state's emails for 2014 there were approximately 190 emails > for the year. I read three because the rest were not pertinent to the > counties I host or the subject matter was of no interest to me. In the > other less than 30 of which I wrote several. I continue with my counties > and rarely look at the surrounding counties because I have enough material > for my sites. If I come across material for other counties, I inform the > host of said county who is free to either accept or reject the data. > > All of the past history is moot except to say that over the number of years > before the SC/ASC ceased to participate, we were a very quiet group. We > either felt no need to communicate or there was nothing to be said. We > just did our county sites, which is what we volunteered to do. > > Tim > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Laverne H. Tornow <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Clearly until the National Coordinator stepped in, this project did not > > communicate. > > > > Arpril 2014- 1 message that was a spam, and not another until October > when > > the NC took over. > > October 2013 - 1 message, request for help from Keith Gulsvig to which > NO > > ONE replied! and none between October 2013 and April 2014 > > October 2011 there were 21 messages relating to a temp ASC being > appointed > > by the NC, there wre no other messages for that year. > > from Nov 2011 to October 2013 there were no messages > > December 2010 there were 4 messages and none between that time and > October > > 2011 > > > > There are maybe 1 or 2 messages per year....... That is a project that > > does not communicate! > > > > Laverne > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >