----- Original Message ----- From: "Linda Haas Davenport" <lhaasdav@cox.net> To: <USGENWEB-SW-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 5:48 PM Subject: [USGenWeb-SW] Opening of Board-L I'm posting this message prior to opening Board-L and calling the first meeting of the 2005-2006 Advisory Board to order. I am doing this because I want to let everyone know that I want to try a new approach to our meetings and I am asking each of you to please read the following with an open mind. The Bylaws of our Project state: (ARTICLE VI: DUTIES/QUALIFICATIONS OF ADVISORY BOARD, Section 1) " The Advisory Board shall perform the duties prescribed by these Bylaws, and by accepted parliamentary procedures". Parliamentary Procedures are designed for face-to-face meetings, meetings of short duration and meetings held at, usually, preset standard intervals. At this time the two most widely accepted standards of parliamentary procedures are: Robert's Rules of Order and Alice Sturgis, however neither of these include substantial guidelines for meetings held on-line, although Robert's Rules of Order Revision 10 does add several additions that address on-line meetings. Since the Advisory Board "meetings" run continuously 24-7, 365 days a year it is impossible to govern our meetings under the same guidelines that are designed for face to face meetings of a defined length of time and not have problems. This is not a failure on the part of any Advisory Board or any individual member it is an inherent problem with the fact that no Parliamentary Procedures are yet available for our way of meeting. I was always taught that an effective meeting is one where the participants feel good about themselves and the group, willingly and openly share their ideas and concerns, work together constructively and positively and leave the meeting feeling fulfilled and glad to be part of the group. It seems to me that not many of our past Advisory Board meetings met that criteria. But there is a possible solution and I want to attempt that solution this year. Many boards hold informal meetings - meetings where members are free to discuss issues (more than one at a time), do brainstorming, throw out ideas, decide something will or will not work, withdraw an idea, and have some fun to relieve the stress. In other words much like a chat room. There are no requirements to be sure that every word, idea or point of discussion is acceptable under parliamentary procedure. Many informal meetings use something called consensus, which is nothing more than the people in an informal meeting arriving at a decision on an issue that everyone can live with and feeling that the decision is the best decision possible. Once an item has been agreed to under consensus a formal meeting will be convened, where parliamentary procedures can be followed. Motions, voting and formal announcements will take place in a formal meeting and since an issue will have been thoroughly discussed and the wording of a motion informally agreed on there should not be a lot of lengthy discussion in a formal meeting. Formal meetings will last no longer than is necessary to take care announcements, motions, etc. I have asked for a list to use for the informal meetings. Open and archived and all members can sub in read-only mode as they now do with Board-L. That will make it easier for people to remember where they are. With the majority of the discussion handled in an informal setting the volume of messages on Board-L will decrease so that being subbed to two lists shouldn't result in many more messages than Board-L by itself. This is a very different approach than the advisory board meetings of the past and I've been told by several people that this approach will not work. I've been told that the members of the AB will refuse to participate in any such "unofficial" activity. I've been told that some of the more vocal members of this project will be quick to ridicule and sneer at ideas that pop up in a brainstorming session so no one will advance an idea. Well, perhaps those people are right, but we will never know if we don't try. I have a lot of faith in the basic good nature of the members of the AB and their sincere desire to make this Project a better place (and a more fun place) to be. I also believe that the majority of the membership that pays any attention to the AB or what goes on at the national level would like to see a group who is trying to work together, trying to arrive at the best possible solution and one where squabbles and in-fighting are left behind. However, I have been proved wrong before - so if the nay sayers are correct and my whole idea of trying to provide a way for our AB members to work together as a team falls flat of its face then we can go back to the "usual" way. All that I'm asking of everyone is to give my idea a try. The last AB closed with hard feelings on many fronts. I want to put that behind us and I most sincerely ask that you please let the 2005-2006 Advisory Board members take their seats, feel their way through these first days and see if my idea will work. Will everyone give this a 60 day trial? Thank you very much. Linda Haas Davenport NC USGenWeb Project homepage: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas MarionCoAR: http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion/ TulsaCoOK: http://www.rootsweb.com/~oktulsa2 ==== USGENWEB-SW Mailing List ==== To unsubscribe, send a message to USGENWEB-SW-L-request@rootsweb.com with the one word, unsubscribe. If you are subbed to the digest, send it to USGENWEB-SW-D-request@rootsweb.com