I do not get queries or emails from visitors for all my sites combined with the volume this list is producing or for that matter on all the county / surname lists I manage. Comparing the two seems off base. What constitutes a successful state project? In my book we are not in a competition with other states. We are here only to provide resources for this state and its counties. Tim On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Laverne H. Tornow <[email protected]> wrote: > And my question still stands: How does the project "rebuild" without > communication? What alternative method to e-mail is there, that is > available to everyone? > Another question and I feel it IS legitimate: Would you still object to > receiving e-mail if it was coming from site visitors? > > Correct NO set of rules can cover every possibility, BUT if MNGenWeb had > had rules set up governing what to do in the event of the SC and the ASC > disappearing for WHATEVER reason, and if they had conducted a roll call > occasionally I still say they would not have ended up in this situation! Of > course that is just my opinion, BUT if you look at the most successful > State Projects in USGenWeb, they have rules and rollcalls.......... > > Laverne

This all makes perfect sense to me Tim. Thank you. --Ann Mensch -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Timothy Stowell via Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 10:32 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MNGEN] By-Laws In the beginning of USGenWeb there were basically three rules for county hosts - links to state, national; provide for queries; provide information and as an aside have fun creating to one's heart's desire. That lasted for three years or thereabouts. USGenWeb didn't die, it continued to grow. People with all sorts of abilities joined, learned how to do HTML, FTP and many other things. The Bylaws were coming into being and the fighting started. The Bylaws went into effect and the what's wrong with the Bylaws started and best I know continues to this day. The counties continue to be adopted, built, abandoned, readopted. In the early days of USGenWeb county sites depended on the state site to attract visitors and the states on national. Once search engines became a standard of the Internet, that necessity began to fade, so if one has a site with keyed meta tags in the heading one can get traffic whether or not the state site is active. County mailing lists help as well if the coordinator is a member and announces major updates to the site and/or participates in the list. So while the MN state page was dormant for some time, counties continued to get traffic. The downside for the state project was / is that without a team watching over the state site, counties that are abandoned do not get readopted. Perhaps one should not underestimate the annoyance caused by a myriad of emails delivered to those who in the end it has no effect on. It begins to have the characteristics of spam - unwanted. Since we are all individuals, with individual tastes as to likes / dislikes may we not cut some slack for those with whom we disagree? Tim On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Laverne H. Tornow via <[email protected]> wrote: > Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it a lack of "rules" in MNGenWeb > that put you in the position of having the AB take over the project to > revive it? > > Every organization from the lowliest to the largest has to have rules > or procedures by which to operate or it stagnates and dies, also those > rules must be reviewed periodically and updated to reflect changes not > only in the organization, but changes within society. > > As for the amount of e-mail that is being generated during this > resuscitation process, had you had rules or procedures to begin with > non of this would be happening. and since we ARE an internet based > organization what alternative method would you suggest we use to > communicate Lynn? Are you subbed in digest mode or regualr. if it is > regular then you might want to switch to digest, that way you get 2 or > 3 e-mails a day that have all the emails lumped into them! > > Laverne > On 2/14/2015 9:46 PM, Lynn Brandvold via wrote: > > Tim, > > > > You've got my vote! I don't want to deal with more by-Laws, rules, > > regulations or guidelines. I am rapidly becoming burned out with all > > these emails as it is. > > > > Lynn Brandvold > > Pennington and Red Lake Counties > > On 2/14/2015 9:40 AM, Timothy Stowell via wrote: > >> Linda, > >> > >> Actually I am not in favor of creating more rules for coordinators > >> to follow. The national bylaws are sufficient and have been for the > >> nearly > 19 > >> years of our existence. Some would say, what would we do if the > leadership > >> disappears again? We could do just as was done this time, ask > >> national > for > >> assistance. > >> > >> Perhaps more regular roll calls than our previous yearly roll call > >> would alert the members to a problem sooner - ie a roll call > >> instituted by the SC/ASC team rather than everyone posting on list 'here' or 'present'. > >> > >> Since it seems most coordinators are adults, saying to them, that > >> our > state > >> logo needs to be at the top of the main page of a county site and > >> if linked, linked to the state page - there is really no reason to > >> make a > rule > >> that says do this or else. > >> > >> Most people are pleasant to work with, so why complicate their > >> lives > with > >> more rules unless those who want the rules seek to control other > people's > >> creativity? > >> > >> That said, I would not stand in the way of those who like to have > >> more rules, to serve some purpose that eludes me. > >> > >> Tim > >> > >> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Linda Ziemann via > >> <[email protected] > > > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Good morning. Without restating everything regarding this, I agree > >>> with what Martha has stated in her response. (In fact, based on > >>> what I have > read, > >>> the candidates for SC are in favor of establishing MN state > >>> bylaws, > with > >>> accompanying rules.) Any bylaws approved by the members, should > "enhance" > >>> the Project-not detract from it (to quote Martha.) YES! Right on! > >>> > >>> My approach would be to ask for volunteers from the members, > establishing a > >>> "committee" to put together a group of bylaws. These in turn > >>> would be presented to the membership for discussion and a vote. > >>> The rules also > would > >>> be formulated and presented in much the same manner. "Together" > >>> the > MEMBERS > >>> would establish & vote to set the bylaws and the rules. > >>> > >>> Most importantly it is essential that the CCs be proactive in > >>> finding & transcribing data, recruiting others to help, uploading > >>> the free data > to > >>> the > >>> county, presenting the ancestor data for the MN visiting > >>> researchers to find. > >>> > >>> Everyone have a great weekend! Happy Hearts Day! > >>> Linda Ziemann > >>> Candidate for SC > >>> Rock County Coordinator > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2/13/15, 10:21 PM, "Kermit Kittleson via" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> I just want to "second" what Martha just said. > >>>> > >>>> Kermit Kittleson > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Martha A Crosley Graham via < > >>>> [email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Shirley, > >>>>> Thank you for the concise information on the difference between > >>>>> Guidelines and By-Laws. > >>>>> One of the things that is bothersome to me is the tendency to > re-invent > >>>>> some of the basic [and common sense] items that have been > >>>>> spelled out over time in the USGW. > >>>>> > >>>>> I am not a 'micro-manager' type of SC here in CA. Blatant > >>>>> disregard > for > >>>>> the By-laws set up by the USGW are obvious items of concern and > should > >>>>> be addressed as they come up or are found. By-laws at the local > [State] > >>>>> level should enhance the Project, not detract from it. > >>>>> > >>>>> As an entity that promotes 'Free Genealogical and Historical > >>>>> Data', > the > >>>>> whole idea is to make resources available to visiting Researchers. > If we > >>>>> are so caught up in compliance issues, we are not giving > >>>>> ourselves > time > >>>>> to get the data located, formatted and uploaded. > >>>>> > >>>>> Martha > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ------------------------------- > >>>>> 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 > >>> > >> > >> ------------------------------- > >> 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 > ------------------------------- 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

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 On 2/15/2015 10:32 AM, Timothy Stowell via wrote: > In the beginning of USGenWeb there were basically three rules for county > hosts - links to state, national; provide for queries; provide information > and as an aside have fun creating to one's heart's desire. > > That lasted for three years or thereabouts. USGenWeb didn't die, it > continued to grow. People with all sorts of abilities joined, learned how > to do HTML, FTP and many other things. The Bylaws were coming into being > and the fighting started. The Bylaws went into effect and the what's wrong > with the Bylaws started and best I know continues to this day. > > The counties continue to be adopted, built, abandoned, readopted. In the > early days of USGenWeb county sites depended on the state site to attract > visitors and the states on national. Once search engines became a standard > of the Internet, that necessity began to fade, so if one has a site with > keyed meta tags in the heading one can get traffic whether or not the state > site is active. County mailing lists help as well if the coordinator is a > member and announces major updates to the site and/or participates in the > list. > > So while the MN state page was dormant for some time, counties continued to > get traffic. The downside for the state project was / is that without a > team watching over the state site, counties that are abandoned do not get > readopted. > > Perhaps one should not underestimate the annoyance caused by a myriad of > emails delivered to those who in the end it has no effect on. It begins to > have the characteristics of spam - unwanted. > > Since we are all individuals, with individual tastes as to likes / dislikes > may we not cut some slack for those with whom we disagree? > > Tim > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Laverne H. Tornow via <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it a lack of "rules" in MNGenWeb >> that put you in the position of having the AB take over the project to >> revive it? >> >> Every organization from the lowliest to the largest has to have rules or >> procedures by which to operate or it stagnates and dies, also those >> rules must be reviewed periodically and updated to reflect changes not >> only in the organization, but changes within society. >> >> As for the amount of e-mail that is being generated during this >> resuscitation process, had you had rules or procedures to begin with non >> of this would be happening. and since we ARE an internet based >> organization what alternative method would you suggest we use to >> communicate Lynn? Are you subbed in digest mode or regualr. if it is >> regular then you might want to switch to digest, that way you get 2 or 3 >> e-mails a day that have all the emails lumped into them! >> >> Laverne >> On 2/14/2015 9:46 PM, Lynn Brandvold via wrote: >>> Tim, >>> >>> You've got my vote! I don't want to deal with more by-Laws, rules, >>> regulations or guidelines. I am rapidly becoming burned out with all >>> these emails as it is. >>> >>> Lynn Brandvold >>> Pennington and Red Lake Counties >>> On 2/14/2015 9:40 AM, Timothy Stowell via wrote: >>>> Linda, >>>> >>>> Actually I am not in favor of creating more rules for coordinators to >>>> follow. The national bylaws are sufficient and have been for the nearly >> 19 >>>> years of our existence. Some would say, what would we do if the >> leadership >>>> disappears again? We could do just as was done this time, ask national >> for >>>> assistance. >>>> >>>> Perhaps more regular roll calls than our previous yearly roll call would >>>> alert the members to a problem sooner - ie a roll call instituted by the >>>> SC/ASC team rather than everyone posting on list 'here' or 'present'. >>>> >>>> Since it seems most coordinators are adults, saying to them, that our >> state >>>> logo needs to be at the top of the main page of a county site and if >>>> linked, linked to the state page - there is really no reason to make a >> rule >>>> that says do this or else. >>>> >>>> Most people are pleasant to work with, so why complicate their lives >> with >>>> more rules unless those who want the rules seek to control other >> people's >>>> creativity? >>>> >>>> That said, I would not stand in the way of those who like to have more >>>> rules, to serve some purpose that eludes me. >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Linda Ziemann via <[email protected] >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Good morning. Without restating everything regarding this, I agree with >>>>> what >>>>> Martha has stated in her response. (In fact, based on what I have >> read, >>>>> the candidates for SC are in favor of establishing MN state bylaws, >> with >>>>> accompanying rules.) Any bylaws approved by the members, should >> "enhance" >>>>> the Project-not detract from it (to quote Martha.) YES! Right on! >>>>> >>>>> My approach would be to ask for volunteers from the members, >> establishing a >>>>> "committee" to put together a group of bylaws. These in turn would be >>>>> presented to the membership for discussion and a vote. The rules also >> would >>>>> be formulated and presented in much the same manner. "Together" the >> MEMBERS >>>>> would establish & vote to set the bylaws and the rules. >>>>> >>>>> Most importantly it is essential that the CCs be proactive in finding & >>>>> transcribing data, recruiting others to help, uploading the free data >> to >>>>> the >>>>> county, presenting the ancestor data for the MN visiting researchers to >>>>> find. >>>>> >>>>> Everyone have a great weekend! Happy Hearts Day! >>>>> Linda Ziemann >>>>> Candidate for SC >>>>> Rock County Coordinator >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2/13/15, 10:21 PM, "Kermit Kittleson via" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>>>> I just want to "second" what Martha just said. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kermit Kittleson >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Martha A Crosley Graham via < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Shirley, >>>>>>> Thank you for the concise information on the difference between >>>>>>> Guidelines and By-Laws. >>>>>>> One of the things that is bothersome to me is the tendency to >> re-invent >>>>>>> some of the basic [and common sense] items that have been spelled out >>>>>>> over time in the USGW. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am not a 'micro-manager' type of SC here in CA. Blatant disregard >> for >>>>>>> the By-laws set up by the USGW are obvious items of concern and >> should >>>>>>> be addressed as they come up or are found. By-laws at the local >> [State] >>>>>>> level should enhance the Project, not detract from it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As an entity that promotes 'Free Genealogical and Historical Data', >> the >>>>>>> whole idea is to make resources available to visiting Researchers. >> If we >>>>>>> are so caught up in compliance issues, we are not giving ourselves >> time >>>>>>> to get the data located, formatted and uploaded. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Martha >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------- >>>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> ------------------------------- >>>> 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 >> > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

And my question still stands: How does the project "rebuild" without communication? What alternative method to e-mail is there, that is available to everyone? Another question and I feel it IS legitimate: Would you still object to receiving e-mail if it was coming from site visitors? Correct NO set of rules can cover every possibility, BUT if MNGenWeb had had rules set up governing what to do in the event of the SC and the ASC disappearing for WHATEVER reason, and if they had conducted a roll call occasionally I still say they would not have ended up in this situation! Of course that is just my opinion, BUT if you look at the most successful State Projects in USGenWeb, they have rules and rollcalls.......... Laverne On 2/15/2015 10:32 AM, Timothy Stowell via wrote: > In the beginning of USGenWeb there were basically three rules for county > hosts - links to state, national; provide for queries; provide information > and as an aside have fun creating to one's heart's desire. > > That lasted for three years or thereabouts. USGenWeb didn't die, it > continued to grow. People with all sorts of abilities joined, learned how > to do HTML, FTP and many other things. The Bylaws were coming into being > and the fighting started. The Bylaws went into effect and the what's wrong > with the Bylaws started and best I know continues to this day. > > The counties continue to be adopted, built, abandoned, readopted. In the > early days of USGenWeb county sites depended on the state site to attract > visitors and the states on national. Once search engines became a standard > of the Internet, that necessity began to fade, so if one has a site with > keyed meta tags in the heading one can get traffic whether or not the state > site is active. County mailing lists help as well if the coordinator is a > member and announces major updates to the site and/or participates in the > list. > > So while the MN state page was dormant for some time, counties continued to > get traffic. The downside for the state project was / is that without a > team watching over the state site, counties that are abandoned do not get > readopted. > > Perhaps one should not underestimate the annoyance caused by a myriad of > emails delivered to those who in the end it has no effect on. It begins to > have the characteristics of spam - unwanted. > > Since we are all individuals, with individual tastes as to likes / dislikes > may we not cut some slack for those with whom we disagree? > > Tim > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Laverne H. Tornow via <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it a lack of "rules" in MNGenWeb >> that put you in the position of having the AB take over the project to >> revive it? >> >> Every organization from the lowliest to the largest has to have rules or >> procedures by which to operate or it stagnates and dies, also those >> rules must be reviewed periodically and updated to reflect changes not >> only in the organization, but changes within society. >> >> As for the amount of e-mail that is being generated during this >> resuscitation process, had you had rules or procedures to begin with non >> of this would be happening. and since we ARE an internet based >> organization what alternative method would you suggest we use to >> communicate Lynn? Are you subbed in digest mode or regualr. if it is >> regular then you might want to switch to digest, that way you get 2 or 3 >> e-mails a day that have all the emails lumped into them! >> >> Laverne >> On 2/14/2015 9:46 PM, Lynn Brandvold via wrote: >>> Tim, >>> >>> You've got my vote! I don't want to deal with more by-Laws, rules, >>> regulations or guidelines. I am rapidly becoming burned out with all >>> these emails as it is. >>> >>> Lynn Brandvold >>> Pennington and Red Lake Counties >>> On 2/14/2015 9:40 AM, Timothy Stowell via wrote: >>>> Linda, >>>> >>>> Actually I am not in favor of creating more rules for coordinators to >>>> follow. The national bylaws are sufficient and have been for the nearly >> 19 >>>> years of our existence. Some would say, what would we do if the >> leadership >>>> disappears again? We could do just as was done this time, ask national >> for >>>> assistance. >>>> >>>> Perhaps more regular roll calls than our previous yearly roll call would >>>> alert the members to a problem sooner - ie a roll call instituted by the >>>> SC/ASC team rather than everyone posting on list 'here' or 'present'. >>>> >>>> Since it seems most coordinators are adults, saying to them, that our >> state >>>> logo needs to be at the top of the main page of a county site and if >>>> linked, linked to the state page - there is really no reason to make a >> rule >>>> that says do this or else. >>>> >>>> Most people are pleasant to work with, so why complicate their lives >> with >>>> more rules unless those who want the rules seek to control other >> people's >>>> creativity? >>>> >>>> That said, I would not stand in the way of those who like to have more >>>> rules, to serve some purpose that eludes me. >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Linda Ziemann via <[email protected] >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Good morning. Without restating everything regarding this, I agree with >>>>> what >>>>> Martha has stated in her response. (In fact, based on what I have >> read, >>>>> the candidates for SC are in favor of establishing MN state bylaws, >> with >>>>> accompanying rules.) Any bylaws approved by the members, should >> "enhance" >>>>> the Project-not detract from it (to quote Martha.) YES! Right on! >>>>> >>>>> My approach would be to ask for volunteers from the members, >> establishing a >>>>> "committee" to put together a group of bylaws. These in turn would be >>>>> presented to the membership for discussion and a vote. The rules also >> would >>>>> be formulated and presented in much the same manner. "Together" the >> MEMBERS >>>>> would establish & vote to set the bylaws and the rules. >>>>> >>>>> Most importantly it is essential that the CCs be proactive in finding & >>>>> transcribing data, recruiting others to help, uploading the free data >> to >>>>> the >>>>> county, presenting the ancestor data for the MN visiting researchers to >>>>> find. >>>>> >>>>> Everyone have a great weekend! Happy Hearts Day! >>>>> Linda Ziemann >>>>> Candidate for SC >>>>> Rock County Coordinator >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2/13/15, 10:21 PM, "Kermit Kittleson via" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>>>> I just want to "second" what Martha just said. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kermit Kittleson >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Martha A Crosley Graham via < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Shirley, >>>>>>> Thank you for the concise information on the difference between >>>>>>> Guidelines and By-Laws. >>>>>>> One of the things that is bothersome to me is the tendency to >> re-invent >>>>>>> some of the basic [and common sense] items that have been spelled out >>>>>>> over time in the USGW. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am not a 'micro-manager' type of SC here in CA. Blatant disregard >> for >>>>>>> the By-laws set up by the USGW are obvious items of concern and >> should >>>>>>> be addressed as they come up or are found. By-laws at the local >> [State] >>>>>>> level should enhance the Project, not detract from it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As an entity that promotes 'Free Genealogical and Historical Data', >> the >>>>>>> whole idea is to make resources available to visiting Researchers. >> If we >>>>>>> are so caught up in compliance issues, we are not giving ourselves >> time >>>>>>> to get the data located, formatted and uploaded. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Martha >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------- >>>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> ------------------------------- >>>> 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 >> > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Martha's "Regroup, Recruit, & Relax." statement is spot on. Everyone take a deep breathe and let's stay focused on the issue at hand: voting for an SC. Shirley On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Martha A Crosley Graham via < [email protected]> wrote: > Thank you Kathy & Tim, > > I was going to let Ms Tornow's comment ride, but States and Counties > become stagnant, are abandoned or abused for various reasons. No one set > of rules, guidelines, policies, etc will cover everything. Certain > situations call for immediate remedial measures, others take time and > consideration. > > Trying to cover all the bases when there is a multitude of personalities > and ideas is an exercise in frustration. > So, if we are to continue to be productive and progressive, we need to > concentrate on the most important aspect of revitalizing the MNGenWeb > Project: Regroup, Recruit & Relax! > > Enjoy being part a re-energized MNGenWeb and go forward with a sense of > purpose. > > Martha > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 the beginning of USGenWeb there were basically three rules for county hosts - links to state, national; provide for queries; provide information and as an aside have fun creating to one's heart's desire. That lasted for three years or thereabouts. USGenWeb didn't die, it continued to grow. People with all sorts of abilities joined, learned how to do HTML, FTP and many other things. The Bylaws were coming into being and the fighting started. The Bylaws went into effect and the what's wrong with the Bylaws started and best I know continues to this day. The counties continue to be adopted, built, abandoned, readopted. In the early days of USGenWeb county sites depended on the state site to attract visitors and the states on national. Once search engines became a standard of the Internet, that necessity began to fade, so if one has a site with keyed meta tags in the heading one can get traffic whether or not the state site is active. County mailing lists help as well if the coordinator is a member and announces major updates to the site and/or participates in the list. So while the MN state page was dormant for some time, counties continued to get traffic. The downside for the state project was / is that without a team watching over the state site, counties that are abandoned do not get readopted. Perhaps one should not underestimate the annoyance caused by a myriad of emails delivered to those who in the end it has no effect on. It begins to have the characteristics of spam - unwanted. Since we are all individuals, with individual tastes as to likes / dislikes may we not cut some slack for those with whom we disagree? Tim On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Laverne H. Tornow via <[email protected]> wrote: > Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it a lack of "rules" in MNGenWeb > that put you in the position of having the AB take over the project to > revive it? > > Every organization from the lowliest to the largest has to have rules or > procedures by which to operate or it stagnates and dies, also those > rules must be reviewed periodically and updated to reflect changes not > only in the organization, but changes within society. > > As for the amount of e-mail that is being generated during this > resuscitation process, had you had rules or procedures to begin with non > of this would be happening. and since we ARE an internet based > organization what alternative method would you suggest we use to > communicate Lynn? Are you subbed in digest mode or regualr. if it is > regular then you might want to switch to digest, that way you get 2 or 3 > e-mails a day that have all the emails lumped into them! > > Laverne > On 2/14/2015 9:46 PM, Lynn Brandvold via wrote: > > Tim, > > > > You've got my vote! I don't want to deal with more by-Laws, rules, > > regulations or guidelines. I am rapidly becoming burned out with all > > these emails as it is. > > > > Lynn Brandvold > > Pennington and Red Lake Counties > > On 2/14/2015 9:40 AM, Timothy Stowell via wrote: > >> Linda, > >> > >> Actually I am not in favor of creating more rules for coordinators to > >> follow. The national bylaws are sufficient and have been for the nearly > 19 > >> years of our existence. Some would say, what would we do if the > leadership > >> disappears again? We could do just as was done this time, ask national > for > >> assistance. > >> > >> Perhaps more regular roll calls than our previous yearly roll call would > >> alert the members to a problem sooner - ie a roll call instituted by the > >> SC/ASC team rather than everyone posting on list 'here' or 'present'. > >> > >> Since it seems most coordinators are adults, saying to them, that our > state > >> logo needs to be at the top of the main page of a county site and if > >> linked, linked to the state page - there is really no reason to make a > rule > >> that says do this or else. > >> > >> Most people are pleasant to work with, so why complicate their lives > with > >> more rules unless those who want the rules seek to control other > people's > >> creativity? > >> > >> That said, I would not stand in the way of those who like to have more > >> rules, to serve some purpose that eludes me. > >> > >> Tim > >> > >> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Linda Ziemann via <[email protected] > > > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Good morning. Without restating everything regarding this, I agree with > >>> what > >>> Martha has stated in her response. (In fact, based on what I have > read, > >>> the candidates for SC are in favor of establishing MN state bylaws, > with > >>> accompanying rules.) Any bylaws approved by the members, should > "enhance" > >>> the Project-not detract from it (to quote Martha.) YES! Right on! > >>> > >>> My approach would be to ask for volunteers from the members, > establishing a > >>> "committee" to put together a group of bylaws. These in turn would be > >>> presented to the membership for discussion and a vote. The rules also > would > >>> be formulated and presented in much the same manner. "Together" the > MEMBERS > >>> would establish & vote to set the bylaws and the rules. > >>> > >>> Most importantly it is essential that the CCs be proactive in finding & > >>> transcribing data, recruiting others to help, uploading the free data > to > >>> the > >>> county, presenting the ancestor data for the MN visiting researchers to > >>> find. > >>> > >>> Everyone have a great weekend! Happy Hearts Day! > >>> Linda Ziemann > >>> Candidate for SC > >>> Rock County Coordinator > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2/13/15, 10:21 PM, "Kermit Kittleson via" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> I just want to "second" what Martha just said. > >>>> > >>>> Kermit Kittleson > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Martha A Crosley Graham via < > >>>> [email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Shirley, > >>>>> Thank you for the concise information on the difference between > >>>>> Guidelines and By-Laws. > >>>>> One of the things that is bothersome to me is the tendency to > re-invent > >>>>> some of the basic [and common sense] items that have been spelled out > >>>>> over time in the USGW. > >>>>> > >>>>> I am not a 'micro-manager' type of SC here in CA. Blatant disregard > for > >>>>> the By-laws set up by the USGW are obvious items of concern and > should > >>>>> be addressed as they come up or are found. By-laws at the local > [State] > >>>>> level should enhance the Project, not detract from it. > >>>>> > >>>>> As an entity that promotes 'Free Genealogical and Historical Data', > the > >>>>> whole idea is to make resources available to visiting Researchers. > If we > >>>>> are so caught up in compliance issues, we are not giving ourselves > time > >>>>> to get the data located, formatted and uploaded. > >>>>> > >>>>> Martha > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ------------------------------- > >>>>> 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 > >>> > >> > >> ------------------------------- > >> 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 >

Lynn gets to feel however she wants to feel about the excessive email and bantering. And she should be able to state her feelings without public harassment. Be nice. Kathy > On Feb 15, 2015, at 8:13 AM, Laverne H. Tornow via <[email protected]> wrote: > > Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it a lack of "rules" in MNGenWeb > that put you in the position of having the AB take over the project to > revive it? > > Every organization from the lowliest to the largest has to have rules or > procedures by which to operate or it stagnates and dies, also those > rules must be reviewed periodically and updated to reflect changes not > only in the organization, but changes within society. > > As for the amount of e-mail that is being generated during this > resuscitation process, had you had rules or procedures to begin with non > of this would be happening. and since we ARE an internet based > organization what alternative method would you suggest we use to > communicate Lynn? Are you subbed in digest mode or regualr. if it is > regular then you might want to switch to digest, that way you get 2 or 3 > e-mails a day that have all the emails lumped into them! > > Laverne >> On 2/14/2015 9:46 PM, Lynn Brandvold via wrote: >> Tim, >> >> You've got my vote! I don't want to deal with more by-Laws, rules, >> regulations or guidelines. I am rapidly becoming burned out with all >> these emails as it is. >> >> Lynn Brandvold >> Pennington and Red Lake Counties >>> On 2/14/2015 9:40 AM, Timothy Stowell via wrote: >>> Linda, >>> >>> Actually I am not in favor of creating more rules for coordinators to >>> follow. The national bylaws are sufficient and have been for the nearly 19 >>> years of our existence. Some would say, what would we do if the leadership >>> disappears again? We could do just as was done this time, ask national for >>> assistance. >>> >>> Perhaps more regular roll calls than our previous yearly roll call would >>> alert the members to a problem sooner - ie a roll call instituted by the >>> SC/ASC team rather than everyone posting on list 'here' or 'present'. >>>

Tim, Well stated! - Linda Simpson -----Original Message----- From: Timothy Stowell via Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 9:32 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MNGEN] By-Laws In the beginning of USGenWeb there were basically three rules for county hosts - links to state, national; provide for queries; provide information and as an aside have fun creating to one's heart's desire. That lasted for three years or thereabouts. USGenWeb didn't die, it continued to grow. People with all sorts of abilities joined, learned how to do HTML, FTP and many other things. The Bylaws were coming into being and the fighting started. The Bylaws went into effect and the what's wrong with the Bylaws started and best I know continues to this day. The counties continue to be adopted, built, abandoned, readopted. In the early days of USGenWeb county sites depended on the state site to attract visitors and the states on national. Once search engines became a standard of the Internet, that necessity began to fade, so if one has a site with keyed meta tags in the heading one can get traffic whether or not the state site is active. County mailing lists help as well if the coordinator is a member and announces major updates to the site and/or participates in the list. So while the MN state page was dormant for some time, counties continued to get traffic. The downside for the state project was / is that without a team watching over the state site, counties that are abandoned do not get readopted. Perhaps one should not underestimate the annoyance caused by a myriad of emails delivered to those who in the end it has no effect on. It begins to have the characteristics of spam - unwanted. Since we are all individuals, with individual tastes as to likes / dislikes may we not cut some slack for those with whom we disagree? Tim On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Laverne H. Tornow via <[email protected]> wrote: > Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it a lack of "rules" in MNGenWeb > that put you in the position of having the AB take over the project to > revive it? > > Every organization from the lowliest to the largest has to have rules or > procedures by which to operate or it stagnates and dies, also those > rules must be reviewed periodically and updated to reflect changes not > only in the organization, but changes within society. > > As for the amount of e-mail that is being generated during this > resuscitation process, had you had rules or procedures to begin with non > of this would be happening. and since we ARE an internet based > organization what alternative method would you suggest we use to > communicate Lynn? Are you subbed in digest mode or regualr. if it is > regular then you might want to switch to digest, that way you get 2 or 3 > e-mails a day that have all the emails lumped into them! > > Laverne > On 2/14/2015 9:46 PM, Lynn Brandvold via wrote: > > Tim, > > > > You've got my vote! I don't want to deal with more by-Laws, rules, > > regulations or guidelines. I am rapidly becoming burned out with all > > these emails as it is. > > > > Lynn Brandvold > > Pennington and Red Lake Counties > > On 2/14/2015 9:40 AM, Timothy Stowell via wrote: > >> Linda, > >> > >> Actually I am not in favor of creating more rules for coordinators to > >> follow. The national bylaws are sufficient and have been for the nearly > 19 > >> years of our existence. Some would say, what would we do if the > leadership > >> disappears again? We could do just as was done this time, ask national > for > >> assistance. > >> > >> Perhaps more regular roll calls than our previous yearly roll call > >> would > >> alert the members to a problem sooner - ie a roll call instituted by > >> the > >> SC/ASC team rather than everyone posting on list 'here' or 'present'. > >> > >> Since it seems most coordinators are adults, saying to them, that our > state > >> logo needs to be at the top of the main page of a county site and if > >> linked, linked to the state page - there is really no reason to make a > rule > >> that says do this or else. > >> > >> Most people are pleasant to work with, so why complicate their lives > with > >> more rules unless those who want the rules seek to control other > people's > >> creativity? > >> > >> That said, I would not stand in the way of those who like to have more > >> rules, to serve some purpose that eludes me. > >> > >> Tim > >> > >> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Linda Ziemann via <[email protected] > > > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Good morning. Without restating everything regarding this, I agree > >>> with > >>> what > >>> Martha has stated in her response. (In fact, based on what I have > read, > >>> the candidates for SC are in favor of establishing MN state bylaws, > with > >>> accompanying rules.) Any bylaws approved by the members, should > "enhance" > >>> the Project-not detract from it (to quote Martha.) YES! Right on! > >>> > >>> My approach would be to ask for volunteers from the members, > establishing a > >>> "committee" to put together a group of bylaws. These in turn would be > >>> presented to the membership for discussion and a vote. The rules also > would > >>> be formulated and presented in much the same manner. "Together" the > MEMBERS > >>> would establish & vote to set the bylaws and the rules. > >>> > >>> Most importantly it is essential that the CCs be proactive in finding > >>> & > >>> transcribing data, recruiting others to help, uploading the free data > to > >>> the > >>> county, presenting the ancestor data for the MN visiting researchers > >>> to > >>> find. > >>> > >>> Everyone have a great weekend! Happy Hearts Day! > >>> Linda Ziemann > >>> Candidate for SC > >>> Rock County Coordinator > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2/13/15, 10:21 PM, "Kermit Kittleson via" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> I just want to "second" what Martha just said. > >>>> > >>>> Kermit Kittleson > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Martha A Crosley Graham via < > >>>> [email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Shirley, > >>>>> Thank you for the concise information on the difference between > >>>>> Guidelines and By-Laws. > >>>>> One of the things that is bothersome to me is the tendency to > re-invent > >>>>> some of the basic [and common sense] items that have been spelled > >>>>> out > >>>>> over time in the USGW. > >>>>> > >>>>> I am not a 'micro-manager' type of SC here in CA. Blatant disregard > for > >>>>> the By-laws set up by the USGW are obvious items of concern and > should > >>>>> be addressed as they come up or are found. By-laws at the local > [State] > >>>>> level should enhance the Project, not detract from it. > >>>>> > >>>>> As an entity that promotes 'Free Genealogical and Historical Data', > the > >>>>> whole idea is to make resources available to visiting Researchers. > If we > >>>>> are so caught up in compliance issues, we are not giving ourselves > time > >>>>> to get the data located, formatted and uploaded. > >>>>> > >>>>> Martha > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ------------------------------- > >>>>> 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 > >>> > >> > >> ------------------------------- > >> 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 > ------------------------------- 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

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it a lack of "rules" in MNGenWeb that put you in the position of having the AB take over the project to revive it? Every organization from the lowliest to the largest has to have rules or procedures by which to operate or it stagnates and dies, also those rules must be reviewed periodically and updated to reflect changes not only in the organization, but changes within society. As for the amount of e-mail that is being generated during this resuscitation process, had you had rules or procedures to begin with non of this would be happening. and since we ARE an internet based organization what alternative method would you suggest we use to communicate Lynn? Are you subbed in digest mode or regualr. if it is regular then you might want to switch to digest, that way you get 2 or 3 e-mails a day that have all the emails lumped into them! Laverne On 2/14/2015 9:46 PM, Lynn Brandvold via wrote: > Tim, > > You've got my vote! I don't want to deal with more by-Laws, rules, > regulations or guidelines. I am rapidly becoming burned out with all > these emails as it is. > > Lynn Brandvold > Pennington and Red Lake Counties > On 2/14/2015 9:40 AM, Timothy Stowell via wrote: >> Linda, >> >> Actually I am not in favor of creating more rules for coordinators to >> follow. The national bylaws are sufficient and have been for the nearly 19 >> years of our existence. Some would say, what would we do if the leadership >> disappears again? We could do just as was done this time, ask national for >> assistance. >> >> Perhaps more regular roll calls than our previous yearly roll call would >> alert the members to a problem sooner - ie a roll call instituted by the >> SC/ASC team rather than everyone posting on list 'here' or 'present'. >> >> Since it seems most coordinators are adults, saying to them, that our state >> logo needs to be at the top of the main page of a county site and if >> linked, linked to the state page - there is really no reason to make a rule >> that says do this or else. >> >> Most people are pleasant to work with, so why complicate their lives with >> more rules unless those who want the rules seek to control other people's >> creativity? >> >> That said, I would not stand in the way of those who like to have more >> rules, to serve some purpose that eludes me. >> >> Tim >> >> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Linda Ziemann via <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Good morning. Without restating everything regarding this, I agree with >>> what >>> Martha has stated in her response. (In fact, based on what I have read, >>> the candidates for SC are in favor of establishing MN state bylaws, with >>> accompanying rules.) Any bylaws approved by the members, should "enhance" >>> the Project-not detract from it (to quote Martha.) YES! Right on! >>> >>> My approach would be to ask for volunteers from the members, establishing a >>> "committee" to put together a group of bylaws. These in turn would be >>> presented to the membership for discussion and a vote. The rules also would >>> be formulated and presented in much the same manner. "Together" the MEMBERS >>> would establish & vote to set the bylaws and the rules. >>> >>> Most importantly it is essential that the CCs be proactive in finding & >>> transcribing data, recruiting others to help, uploading the free data to >>> the >>> county, presenting the ancestor data for the MN visiting researchers to >>> find. >>> >>> Everyone have a great weekend! Happy Hearts Day! >>> Linda Ziemann >>> Candidate for SC >>> Rock County Coordinator >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2/13/15, 10:21 PM, "Kermit Kittleson via" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I just want to "second" what Martha just said. >>>> >>>> Kermit Kittleson >>>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Martha A Crosley Graham via < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Shirley, >>>>> Thank you for the concise information on the difference between >>>>> Guidelines and By-Laws. >>>>> One of the things that is bothersome to me is the tendency to re-invent >>>>> some of the basic [and common sense] items that have been spelled out >>>>> over time in the USGW. >>>>> >>>>> I am not a 'micro-manager' type of SC here in CA. Blatant disregard for >>>>> the By-laws set up by the USGW are obvious items of concern and should >>>>> be addressed as they come up or are found. By-laws at the local [State] >>>>> level should enhance the Project, not detract from it. >>>>> >>>>> As an entity that promotes 'Free Genealogical and Historical Data', the >>>>> whole idea is to make resources available to visiting Researchers. If we >>>>> are so caught up in compliance issues, we are not giving ourselves time >>>>> to get the data located, formatted and uploaded. >>>>> >>>>> Martha >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------- >>>>> 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 >>> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 >

Thank you Kathy & Tim, I was going to let Ms Tornow's comment ride, but States and Counties become stagnant, are abandoned or abused for various reasons. No one set of rules, guidelines, policies, etc will cover everything. Certain situations call for immediate remedial measures, others take time and consideration. Trying to cover all the bases when there is a multitude of personalities and ideas is an exercise in frustration. So, if we are to continue to be productive and progressive, we need to concentrate on the most important aspect of revitalizing the MNGenWeb Project: Regroup, Recruit & Relax! Enjoy being part a re-energized MNGenWeb and go forward with a sense of purpose. Martha

Too old? I pictured you as a 30 something person. On the flip side I made the acquaintance of a 91 yr old researcher in the last week or so, who seems as lively as any of the rest of us. Tim On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Mike Peterson via <[email protected]> wrote: > Oh Kathy, been there, done that (ral), got beat up every week ! No thanks. > Also too old for it now. I do want to say that I appreciate your kind words > very much. Thank you. > Sincerely, > Mike > > From: Kathy Hines > Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 12:33 PM > To: Mike (Dino) Peterson ; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MNGEN] By-Laws > > Mike, I think you may be an excellent candidate for the National elections > when they roll back around. Even though Parliamentary Procedures are not > my personal cup of tea, I can certainly appreciate those skills and > interests in someone else. I also appreciated your emails on 12/27 > regarding, "I’m in favor of organized expediency.” :) > > Additionally, I have a deep appreciation for someone who sticks to the > issue at hand and refrains from negativity about folks that may not fully > agree with your point of view. All things considered, since you have some > ideas about national rules, etc, I think you’d be a really great candidate > for the National level. > > Kathy > > > On Feb 14, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Mike (Dino) Peterson via < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Bryant makes some excellent points. Some of us might not like it and > some of us think it is good but the national USGenWeb is under a > Parliamentary Authority (a bylaw) and the Board has currently chosen “The > Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure by Alice Sturgis” (a special > rule). The USGenWeb currently breaks down “rules” by (for the national) > “Bylaws,” “Standard Rules,” and “Special Rules.” They’ve also generated a > “Guidelines” which in my opinion is an excellent document that cuts through > all the formal language and places many of the rules and recommendations > into one document. > > The intent of my question to the candidates was not to generate a big > discussion on the value of state rules and how to proceed but to find out > IF the candidates wanted to proceed (which would play a part on my vote), > and if so, how high was their priority on getting some rules set. And I > asked the question because I believe some minimal rules are required in the > state. I do not believe the national rules cover all issues that arise in > states. I do not believe that the state doesn’t need some sort of rules. It > is apparent to me that if we had some minimal rules then discussions on > this list would be greatly reduced. This list has been loaded with > discussions on logos, voting, replacing SC’s, roll calls, state web site > content, CC site requirements, ASC(s), and the list goes on. So, I think > each of the candidates have made their positions very clear at least to me. > How we go about it or if we go about it will depend on the SC voted in. > > Mike > > Clay Co > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Well, bummer. I had to try. ;) Kathy > On Feb 14, 2015, at 10:53 PM, Mike (Dino) Peterson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Oh Kathy, been there, done that (ral), got beat up every week ! No thanks. Also too old for it now. I do want to say that I appreciate your kind words very much. Thank you. > Sincerely, > Mike > > From: Kathy Hines <mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 12:33 PM > To: Mike (Dino) Peterson <mailto:[email protected]> ; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [MNGEN] By-Laws > > Mike, I think you may be an excellent candidate for the National elections when they roll back around. Even though Parliamentary Procedures are not my personal cup of tea, I can certainly appreciate those skills and interests in someone else. I also appreciated your emails on 12/27 regarding, "I’m in favor of organized expediency.” :) > > Additionally, I have a deep appreciation for someone who sticks to the issue at hand and refrains from negativity about folks that may not fully agree with your point of view. All things considered, since you have some ideas about national rules, etc, I think you’d be a really great candidate for the National level. > > Kathy > > > On Feb 14, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Mike (Dino) Peterson via <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Bryant makes some excellent points. Some of us might not like it and some of us think it is good but the national USGenWeb is under a Parliamentary Authority (a bylaw) and the Board has currently chosen “The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure by Alice Sturgis” (a special rule). The USGenWeb currently breaks down “rules” by (for the national) “Bylaws,” “Standard Rules,” and “Special Rules.” They’ve also generated a “Guidelines” which in my opinion is an excellent document that cuts through all the formal language and places many of the rules and recommendations into one document. > > The intent of my question to the candidates was not to generate a big discussion on the value of state rules and how to proceed but to find out IF the candidates wanted to proceed (which would play a part on my vote), and if so, how high was their priority on getting some rules set. And I asked the question because I believe some minimal rules are required in the state. I do not believe the national rules cover all issues that arise in states. I do not believe that the state doesn’t need some sort of rules. It is apparent to me that if we had some minimal rules then discussions on this list would be greatly reduced. This list has been loaded with discussions on logos, voting, replacing SC’s, roll calls, state web site content, CC site requirements, ASC(s), and the list goes on. So, I think each of the candidates have made their positions very clear at least to me. How we go about it or if we go about it will depend on the SC voted in. > > Mike > > Clay Co > >

Not only are names confusing but relationships - which started my quest 38 years ago, how are these people related to me and/or to each other. Ancestors with multiple wives, my own grandfather had a nephew the same age as him and the complicated ones like this: Mother - Father have son. Son grows up and marries and has children. Mother dies. Son dies. Father marries daughter in law and has children. So we end up with a head spinning figure out who is related to others as half siblings, grandchildren or children and if Son had siblings their children would be related somehow to the second set of children from Son's wife by his father. That made my head hurt. I do like the family members with names that strike one funny and the ones that make one wonder, what were their parents thinking to call them that? My mother had four aunts named for states - Georgia, Missouri, California and Nebraska. The odd or funny ones - Pledger Franklin, Claude Butt (who had to go in the army with that name, in WWI but died in camp), Fanny Butt. The unforgettable ones - Prudence, Thankful and Remember. But not only does one learn about family, one learns a lot of history we never heard of much less learned in school; the twists and turns of history where people show up together as friends in one place, enemies in the next scene. Through this course I've learned about history yes, but also botany, Native Americans, geology, anthropology, mining, various animals, canals, forts, fur trapping, archaeology, religious history and denominational beliefs, agriculture and on and on. For that alone, it has been an amazing education. And yet, to top that off, to have met the people still alive and willing to help others in their research, from all walks of life, that has been icing on the cake. Tim On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Linda Ziemann <[email protected]> wrote: > To add to the levity.....my family tree also gives me "fits" or it did > UNTIL > I realized that the men in the SAME FAMILY spelled the surname > differently....What? > > How about twin brothers, one spelling the surname Lathrop....and the other > twin spelling his surname as Lothrop. Really? And on the other side of > the > tree, other men spelled the surname (and this spelling goes WAY BACK) as > EWING. Ok, so my great grandfather's generation spelled it 2 ways....some > of the prominent men in the same family dropping the last G. Oh, > me....Explain that to future generations! My maiden name was EWIN. (NO G) > And on Mom's side....JENSEN married JENSEN.....not only once, but two > sisters did the same thing. And no relation between the two JENSEN men to > one another and neither of them related to the JENSEN sister until they > married one of the sisters. <smile> > > No problem about the dates in that initial message from Pat. I agree, it > does need to be corrected for the sake of correctness. But....mistakes are > made.....no need to hang anyone out to dry for that! <smile again> > > You all are a great bunch to serve with on this project.......looking > forward to being a part of this in the days and weeks, months ahead. > > Linda Ziemann, Rock CC > > > > On 2/14/15, 2:41 PM, "Timothy Stowell via" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Blame it on the spell checker or the tiny keys one must type on these > > days. When you find that time machine for going back would you please > rent > > out flights? I need some answers in my tree, that defy research. :) > > > > Like Jones marrying Jones and Smiths marrying Smiths that they weren't > > related to or all siblings naming all their children the same... > > > > Tim > > > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Pat Asher via <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> It has just been pointed out to me that my original message said the > >> voting period was from 12/14 thru 12/21. Obviously, December is long > >> gone and the dates should read from 2/14 thru 2/21. > >> > >> Anyone know what causes one part of the brain to decide to go AWOL? LOL > >> > >> Pat Asher > >> > >> > >> At 03:19 PM 2/13/2015, you wrote: > >>> Voting for MNGenWeb State Coordinator starts tonight, 12/14 at > >>> 12:01am CST, and runs through Saturday, 12/21 at 11:59pm CST. > >>> > >>> 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]> > >>> > >>> > >>> Your candidates are: > >>> > >>> Shirley Cullum > >>> Martha Crosley Graham > >>> Tim Stowell > >>> Linda Zieman > >>> > >>> > >>> The winner must receive a majority of the votes cast, i.e. 50% + 1 > >>> > >>> If no candidate achieves a majority, there will be a run-off election > >>> between the two candidates receiving the most votes. > >>> > >>> It only takes a minute. Please vote! > >>> > >>> > >>> 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 > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------- > >> 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 > > >

Just a thought here, but shouldn't this discussion have been initiated before voting began? Laverne On 2/14/2015 4:36 PM, Mike (Dino) Peterson via wrote: > I absolutely agree with you Tim that no candidate has said they would flat out refuse to go about it; however, that is not what I said. My last statement was not referring to any candidate’s plans or positions but to what the project will get after a candidate is elected. So, a voter must decide on voting for the best possible chance of getting what they think would be best for the project. For many of us, the decision can only come through the expressed attitudes as well as the words of the candidates. > Mike > > > From: Timothy Stowell via > Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 12:32 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MNGEN] By-Laws > > Mike, > > While we had excellent participation on the logo vote, the same may not > hold true for every subsequent matter. Then one is faced with the very > real possibility of the few telling the majority what the rules are. > > As to your final statement, I don't believe any candidate has said they > would flat out refuse to go about it. > > Tim > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Mike Peterson via <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Bryant makes some excellent points. Some of us might not like it and some >> of us think it is good but the national USGenWeb is under a Parliamentary >> Authority (a bylaw) and the Board has currently chosen “The Standard Code >> of Parliamentary Procedure by Alice Sturgis” (a special rule). The USGenWeb >> currently breaks down “rules” by (for the national) “Bylaws,” “Standard >> Rules,” and “Special Rules.” They’ve also generated a “Guidelines” which in >> my opinion is an excellent document that cuts through all the formal >> language and places many of the rules and recommendations into one document. >> The intent of my question to the candidates was not to generate a big >> discussion on the value of state rules and how to proceed but to find out >> IF the candidates wanted to proceed (which would play a part on my vote), >> and if so, how high was their priority on getting some rules set. And I >> asked the question because I believe some minimal rules are required in the >> state. I do not believe the national rules cover all issues that arise in >> states. I do not believe that the state doesn’t need some sort of rules. It >> is apparent to me that if we had some minimal rules then discussions on >> this list would be greatly reduced. This list has been loaded with >> discussions on logos, voting, replacing SC’s, roll calls, state web site >> content, CC site requirements, ASC(s), and the list goes on. So, I think >> each of the candidates have made their positions very clear at least to me. >> How we go about it or if we go about it will depend on the SC voted in. >> Mike >> Clay Co >> >> >> From: Genealogy via >> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 9:04 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [MNGEN] By-Laws >> >> My 2 cents. >> I am confused. By-Laws, Standing Rules and SOPs (Standing Operating >> Procedures) are synonymous and apply specific requirements for the >> objective. I would think that a set of By-Laws would be the target for >> establishing requirements that we must follow. Standing Rules or SOPs >> should be incorporated into the By-Laws under an appropriate section that >> would apply to the objective of the rule or SOP. Then you would have only >> one set of requirements that members could refer to in their need to meet >> MNGenWeb requirements. >> >> Guidelines are a separate issue since they are not requirements, but only >> suggestions that may enhance the process for various reasons. They should >> be a separate document and not incorporated into the document of >> requirements, i.e., By-Laws. >> >> As to establishing a By-Laws document, it may be best to establish a >> committee (already proposed) to draft the document before open discussion >> occurs. I base this on the many, many discussions that occur on this >> list. This approach, which has been suggested by several people, should >> reduce the amount of dissention and possibly speed up the process. After >> the document has been drafted, each article or section should be discussed >> one at a time (already proposed) to again reduce the overload on my daily >> reading. >> >> That said, any By-Laws for the state should be designed to enhance the >> USGenWeb By-Laws and not conflict with them. Granted, the USGenWeb By-Laws >> could use a good cleaning, but they already establish basic requirements >> for state and counties. Any By-Laws established for the state should only >> cover issues that are not covered at the national level, making our >> document a much shorter list of requirements. >> >> Bryant >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >> Behalf Of Laverne H. Tornow via >> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 1:30 AM >> To: Timothy Stowell; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [MNGEN] Marc Pennau Logo, >> >> There are 3 things many people are confused about: >> >> ByLaws >> Standing Rules >> Guidelines >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 > > ------------------------------- > 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

Oh Kathy, been there, done that (ral), got beat up every week ! No thanks. Also too old for it now. I do want to say that I appreciate your kind words very much. Thank you. Sincerely, Mike From: Kathy Hines Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 12:33 PM To: Mike (Dino) Peterson ; [email protected] Subject: Re: [MNGEN] By-Laws Mike, I think you may be an excellent candidate for the National elections when they roll back around. Even though Parliamentary Procedures are not my personal cup of tea, I can certainly appreciate those skills and interests in someone else. I also appreciated your emails on 12/27 regarding, "I’m in favor of organized expediency.” :) Additionally, I have a deep appreciation for someone who sticks to the issue at hand and refrains from negativity about folks that may not fully agree with your point of view. All things considered, since you have some ideas about national rules, etc, I think you’d be a really great candidate for the National level. Kathy > On Feb 14, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Mike (Dino) Peterson via <[email protected]> wrote: > > Bryant makes some excellent points. Some of us might not like it and some of us think it is good but the national USGenWeb is under a Parliamentary Authority (a bylaw) and the Board has currently chosen “The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure by Alice Sturgis” (a special rule). The USGenWeb currently breaks down “rules” by (for the national) “Bylaws,” “Standard Rules,” and “Special Rules.” They’ve also generated a “Guidelines” which in my opinion is an excellent document that cuts through all the formal language and places many of the rules and recommendations into one document. > The intent of my question to the candidates was not to generate a big discussion on the value of state rules and how to proceed but to find out IF the candidates wanted to proceed (which would play a part on my vote), and if so, how high was their priority on getting some rules set. And I asked the question because I believe some minimal rules are required in the state. I do not believe the national rules cover all issues that arise in states. I do not believe that the state doesn’t need some sort of rules. It is apparent to me that if we had some minimal rules then discussions on this list would be greatly reduced. This list has been loaded with discussions on logos, voting, replacing SC’s, roll calls, state web site content, CC site requirements, ASC(s), and the list goes on. So, I think each of the candidates have made their positions very clear at least to me. How we go about it or if we go about it will depend on the SC voted in. > Mike > Clay Co >

Tim, You've got my vote! I don't want to deal with more by-Laws, rules, regulations or guidelines. I am rapidly becoming burned out with all these emails as it is. Lynn Brandvold Pennington and Red Lake Counties On 2/14/2015 9:40 AM, Timothy Stowell via wrote: > Linda, > > Actually I am not in favor of creating more rules for coordinators to > follow. The national bylaws are sufficient and have been for the nearly 19 > years of our existence. Some would say, what would we do if the leadership > disappears again? We could do just as was done this time, ask national for > assistance. > > Perhaps more regular roll calls than our previous yearly roll call would > alert the members to a problem sooner - ie a roll call instituted by the > SC/ASC team rather than everyone posting on list 'here' or 'present'. > > Since it seems most coordinators are adults, saying to them, that our state > logo needs to be at the top of the main page of a county site and if > linked, linked to the state page - there is really no reason to make a rule > that says do this or else. > > Most people are pleasant to work with, so why complicate their lives with > more rules unless those who want the rules seek to control other people's > creativity? > > That said, I would not stand in the way of those who like to have more > rules, to serve some purpose that eludes me. > > Tim > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Linda Ziemann via <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Good morning. Without restating everything regarding this, I agree with >> what >> Martha has stated in her response. (In fact, based on what I have read, >> the candidates for SC are in favor of establishing MN state bylaws, with >> accompanying rules.) Any bylaws approved by the members, should "enhance" >> the Project-not detract from it (to quote Martha.) YES! Right on! >> >> My approach would be to ask for volunteers from the members, establishing a >> "committee" to put together a group of bylaws. These in turn would be >> presented to the membership for discussion and a vote. The rules also would >> be formulated and presented in much the same manner. "Together" the MEMBERS >> would establish & vote to set the bylaws and the rules. >> >> Most importantly it is essential that the CCs be proactive in finding & >> transcribing data, recruiting others to help, uploading the free data to >> the >> county, presenting the ancestor data for the MN visiting researchers to >> find. >> >> Everyone have a great weekend! Happy Hearts Day! >> Linda Ziemann >> Candidate for SC >> Rock County Coordinator >> >> >> >> On 2/13/15, 10:21 PM, "Kermit Kittleson via" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I just want to "second" what Martha just said. >>> >>> Kermit Kittleson >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Martha A Crosley Graham via < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Shirley, >>>> Thank you for the concise information on the difference between >>>> Guidelines and By-Laws. >>>> One of the things that is bothersome to me is the tendency to re-invent >>>> some of the basic [and common sense] items that have been spelled out >>>> over time in the USGW. >>>> >>>> I am not a 'micro-manager' type of SC here in CA. Blatant disregard for >>>> the By-laws set up by the USGW are obvious items of concern and should >>>> be addressed as they come up or are found. By-laws at the local [State] >>>> level should enhance the Project, not detract from it. >>>> >>>> As an entity that promotes 'Free Genealogical and Historical Data', the >>>> whole idea is to make resources available to visiting Researchers. If we >>>> are so caught up in compliance issues, we are not giving ourselves time >>>> to get the data located, formatted and uploaded. >>>> >>>> Martha >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------- >>>> 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 >> > > ------------------------------- > 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 did not say that. What I said is that all members should have an input in the rules that will possibly govern the project. Yes, SC's and ASC's are members of the project but sometimes they forget that the rules apply to them. That does not mean that it will happen in MN but just that it has happened in other projects. Shirley On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 11:42 PM, Timothy Stowell via <[email protected]> wrote: > Do you see no use for committees? > > Are you saying that every subject should be "discussed" without process so > that ideas are tossed in willy nilly and confusion reigns or people are > seconding items like a meeting was occurring and then feelings get hurt > because someone misspeaks? > > It seems redundant to say that all members including the SC/ASC, since the > SC/ASC are members. > > There are bylaws that state what happens in the case of a vacancy and give > guidance. Often bylaws seek to control the actions of others rather than > freeing their creativity. > > In the beginning of USGenWeb, the founder wanted a group of volunteers to > put up web sites that would freely give information to the public for > genealogical research. That included offering a space for people's > queries. A national logo was created and most states created one as well. > Even early on a power struggle began and at some point the founder was > sidelined. > > It was a simple time back then (1996). Ideas of data and sources poured > in. People shared, cared, helped. There was gentle teasing. > > Some folks wanted more requirements of coordinators - beyond a logo, links, > queries. By 1999, some thought we needed national bylaws to codify rules > for everyone. A committee was formed to take suggestions and wrote, > revised over and over and over. Then the tempo rose, the yelling began and > much like a church split, a political party split or implosion, people > started taking sides. Of course there were many who were either > intentionally clueless or willingly clueless and finally just tuned out > national and turned back to their web sites. > > I just don't want to see the same thing happen here. > > Tim > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Shirley Cullum via <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Bylaws are the rules that every volunteer in the project must adhere to > and > > must be voted on by the membership. I think all members should have input > > into the rules and the opportunity to discuss the issues. An important > > issue for bylaws is that all members, including the SC & ASC, are > required > > to follow them. > > > > Guidelines are merely suggestions and should include items to enhance the > > county websites. > > > > Shirley > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 7:16 PM, Chuck Dosh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > SC candidates: > > > > > > Recommend a clear distinction between guidelines & bylaws. > > > > > > Bylaws: Rules that CCs are obliged to follow. These should be voted on > > > before enacting. > > > > > > Guidelines: Advice that CCs are *not* obliged to follow. SC and ASC > can > > > amend state guidelines these at will. > > > > > > Chuck Dosh > > > Dakota County, MN > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:47:49 -0600, Shirley via <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > Establishing guidelines/bylaws is a high priority issue for me and > would > > >> be one of the first things I would like to accomplish. > > >> > > >> Shirley > > >> > > >> Sent from my iPhone > > >> > > >> On Feb 13, 2015, at 3:25 PM, Mike (Dino) Peterson via < > > >>> [email protected]> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> OK, but if elected how high on your list of things to do will > > generating > > >>> some bylaws for us to vote on be. > > >>> Mike > > >>> > > >>> From: Shirley > > >>> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 12:18 PM > > >>> To: Mike (Dino) Peterson ; [email protected] > > >>> Subject: Re: [MNGEN] Marc Pennau Logo, > > >>> > > >>> cont. - but should not be so restrictive as to stifle creativity. > > Simple > > >>> guidelines help everyone in the long run. > > >>> > > >>> Shirley > > >>> > > >>> Sent from my iPhone > > >>> > > >>> On Feb 13, 2015, at 2:04 PM, Shirley <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> I believe that state bylaws should be a standard set of rules that > > help > > >>>> CC' > > >>>> > > >>>> Sent from my iPhone > > >>>> > > >>>> On Feb 13, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Mike (Dino) Peterson via < > > >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> For those of you, especially those running for SC, who are not > > >>>>> enthused about bylaws; I know of “no” bylaw or rule which provides > > for the > > >>>>> proper/improper display of the MNGenWeb state logo. There are > > requirements > > >>>>> for displaying the USGenWeb logo but none for our state. If I am > > missing > > >>>>> it, I would appreciate someone letting me know. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> USGenWeb Bylaw > > >>>>> > > >>>>> “IX. GUIDELINES/STANDARDS FOR WEBSITES/MEMBERS > > >>>>> > > >>>>> A. All websites shall include prominent display of The USGenWeb > > >>>>> Project logo on the home page. A state project logo may be required > > >>>>> depending on the guidelines/standards in effect for that state. > > >>>>> IX. A was amended as follows by a vote of the membership in July > > 2010: > > >>>>> A. All websites shall include prominent display of The USGenWeb > > >>>>> Project logo on the home page. If linked, this logo may only be > > linked to > > >>>>> the USGenWeb National site. A state project logo may be required > > depending > > >>>>> on the guidelines/standards in effect for that state. If linked, a > > state > > >>>>> project logo may only be linked to the appropriate state site.” > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Bylaws and rules can be a pain but there are some issues that keep > > >>>>> popping up periodically that would be much easier to handle if the > > state > > >>>>> had a minimal set of bylaws, etc. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> In the current SC election I saw only two candidates mention bylaws > > >>>>> with one of them having it as a goal near the top of their list. We > > can > > >>>>> have minimal rules which people can rely on or we can continue to > > spend a > > >>>>> lot of time discussing issues like logos time and again on this > list > > >>>>> because there are no rules. > > >>>>> Mike > > >>>>> Clay Co > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> From: Karen De Groote via > > >>>>> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 10:04 AM > > >>>>> To: List MNGenWeb > > >>>>> Subject: Re: [MNGEN] Marc Pennau Logo > > >>>>> > > >>>>> It is my understanding the the approved logo must be on the index > > page > > >>>>> and > > >>>>> the banner can be on all other pages. > > >>>>> Karen > > >>>>> Becker, Todd and Stearns > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Martha A Crosley Graham via < > > >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Tim, > > >>>>>> Thank you for the update on the Banner. > > >>>>>> Now, my question. > > >>>>>> Can the approved banners be used in place of a logo? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> ------------------------------- > > >>>>> 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 > > >> > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 >

Blame it on the spell checker or the tiny keys one must type on these days. When you find that time machine for going back would you please rent out flights? I need some answers in my tree, that defy research. :) Like Jones marrying Jones and Smiths marrying Smiths that they weren't related to or all siblings naming all their children the same... Tim On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Pat Asher via <[email protected]> wrote: > It has just been pointed out to me that my original message said the > voting period was from 12/14 thru 12/21. Obviously, December is long > gone and the dates should read from 2/14 thru 2/21. > > Anyone know what causes one part of the brain to decide to go AWOL? LOL > > Pat Asher > > > At 03:19 PM 2/13/2015, you wrote: > >Voting for MNGenWeb State Coordinator starts tonight, 12/14 at > >12:01am CST, and runs through Saturday, 12/21 at 11:59pm CST. > > > >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]> > > > > > >Your candidates are: > > > >Shirley Cullum > >Martha Crosley Graham > >Tim Stowell > >Linda Zieman > > > > > >The winner must receive a majority of the votes cast, i.e. 50% + 1 > > > >If no candidate achieves a majority, there will be a run-off election > >between the two candidates receiving the most votes. > > > >It only takes a minute. Please vote! > > > > > >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 > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Am I correct in my memory that the national EC is not vetting this election, that it is in fact a committee of volunteers who agreed upon request of the NC and/or temp ASC to serve in such a capacity? If so, perhaps not using the term EC, which implies the national EC, should not be used but rather some other term. That is for the accuracy folks. :) Tim On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Karen De Groote via <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes I know we know the dates and it is a typo but the EC needs to have all > their Ts crossed and i's dotted which they have done. Typos have no place > in official situations. > Karen > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Linda Simpson via <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Karen, > > > > I think we all understand the voting period is 2/14 to 2/21 > > It's just a typo, no biggie. :-) > > - > > Linda Simpson > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Karen De Groote via > > Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 10:30 AM > > To: Pat Asher ; List MNGenWeb > > Subject: Re: [MNGEN] Time to Vote for SC > > > > You might want to re post the voting period. It is February, not > > December. LOL > > > > Karen > > Becker, Todd and Stearns > > > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Pat Asher via <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Voting for MNGenWeb State Coordinator starts tonight, 12/14 at > > > 12:01am CST, and runs through Saturday, 12/21 at 11:59pm CST. > > > > > > 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]> > > > > > > > > > Your candidates are: > > > > > > Shirley Cullum > > > Martha Crosley Graham > > > Tim Stowell > > > Linda Zieman > > > > > > > > > The winner must receive a majority of the votes cast, i.e. 50% + 1 > > > > > > If no candidate achieves a majority, there will be a run-off election > > > between the two candidates receiving the most votes. > > > > > > It only takes a minute. Please vote! > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 >

Mike, While we had excellent participation on the logo vote, the same may not hold true for every subsequent matter. Then one is faced with the very real possibility of the few telling the majority what the rules are. As to your final statement, I don't believe any candidate has said they would flat out refuse to go about it. Tim On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Mike Peterson via <[email protected]> wrote: > Bryant makes some excellent points. Some of us might not like it and some > of us think it is good but the national USGenWeb is under a Parliamentary > Authority (a bylaw) and the Board has currently chosen “The Standard Code > of Parliamentary Procedure by Alice Sturgis” (a special rule). The USGenWeb > currently breaks down “rules” by (for the national) “Bylaws,” “Standard > Rules,” and “Special Rules.” They’ve also generated a “Guidelines” which in > my opinion is an excellent document that cuts through all the formal > language and places many of the rules and recommendations into one document. > The intent of my question to the candidates was not to generate a big > discussion on the value of state rules and how to proceed but to find out > IF the candidates wanted to proceed (which would play a part on my vote), > and if so, how high was their priority on getting some rules set. And I > asked the question because I believe some minimal rules are required in the > state. I do not believe the national rules cover all issues that arise in > states. I do not believe that the state doesn’t need some sort of rules. It > is apparent to me that if we had some minimal rules then discussions on > this list would be greatly reduced. This list has been loaded with > discussions on logos, voting, replacing SC’s, roll calls, state web site > content, CC site requirements, ASC(s), and the list goes on. So, I think > each of the candidates have made their positions very clear at least to me. > How we go about it or if we go about it will depend on the SC voted in. > Mike > Clay Co > > > From: Genealogy via > Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 9:04 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MNGEN] By-Laws > > My 2 cents. > I am confused. By-Laws, Standing Rules and SOPs (Standing Operating > Procedures) are synonymous and apply specific requirements for the > objective. I would think that a set of By-Laws would be the target for > establishing requirements that we must follow. Standing Rules or SOPs > should be incorporated into the By-Laws under an appropriate section that > would apply to the objective of the rule or SOP. Then you would have only > one set of requirements that members could refer to in their need to meet > MNGenWeb requirements. > > Guidelines are a separate issue since they are not requirements, but only > suggestions that may enhance the process for various reasons. They should > be a separate document and not incorporated into the document of > requirements, i.e., By-Laws. > > As to establishing a By-Laws document, it may be best to establish a > committee (already proposed) to draft the document before open discussion > occurs. I base this on the many, many discussions that occur on this > list. This approach, which has been suggested by several people, should > reduce the amount of dissention and possibly speed up the process. After > the document has been drafted, each article or section should be discussed > one at a time (already proposed) to again reduce the overload on my daily > reading. > > That said, any By-Laws for the state should be designed to enhance the > USGenWeb By-Laws and not conflict with them. Granted, the USGenWeb By-Laws > could use a good cleaning, but they already establish basic requirements > for state and counties. Any By-Laws established for the state should only > cover issues that are not covered at the national level, making our > document a much shorter list of requirements. > > Bryant > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Laverne H. Tornow via > Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 1:30 AM > To: Timothy Stowell; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MNGEN] Marc Pennau Logo, > > There are 3 things many people are confused about: > > ByLaws > Standing Rules > Guidelines > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >