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

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