This is a ridiculous motion. Make it private??? USGenWeb should be open, no secrets. I understand that the motion was from Bill Oliver, who is very used to *PRIVATE* lists and secret goings-on behind everyone's backs. If you're not ashamed of your discussions, keep them open. I will not be part of private discussions that involve the whole of the Project. The USGenWeb Archives is not private. Our volunteer lists are public. The only list that is not searchable is our committee list, which is a management list, and advice list, not a planning list. vagen-l is searchable, and has been since 1996. I vote NO on this list, but if there is one, count me out as VAGenWeb ASC. Linda "David W. Morgan" wrote: > > Forwarded with permission. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 18:53:47 -0500 > From: Linda Haas Davenport <lhaasdav@cox.net> > Reply-To: OK-IT-L@rootsweb.com > To: OK-IT-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [OK-Coordinators] Motion before the AB > Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 18:01:04 -0600 > Resent-From: OK-IT-L@rootsweb.com > > Today Bill Oliver posted a motion on Board-L that can effect the entire Project. > > Motion: "I move that the NC, subscribe all the SCs and ASCs of the > USGenWeb Project and the AB members, to a private email > list, for the purpose of discussing and deciding the future > of the Project. > > The one item on the agenda to be - whether to continue in > the present form, a revised form, or disband the National > Organization. > > Further, that the discussion and decisions be limited to two > weeks, at which time that decision be put to a vote of the > eligible voters of the Project. > > Further, that the EC be instructed to prepare for the said > referendum" > ---- > Although Bill does say that the decision shall be put to the vote of the members - I am strongly opposed to this motion. Something of this magnitude should not be decided by the AB and SC/ASCs and certainly not in private. I am a CC of this Project and I feel that the CCs have the right to some say so in this decision and well before it comes to a Yes/No vote on a decision made in private. > > There has long been an underground movement to have the Project return to its beginnings with only a web master in charge of the National site and each SC in complete control of their State. The recent situation with the states of GA and NC point up the need for a National Organization - although perhaps a bit different than what we have. But none-the-less this is NOT something that should be decided by a tiny percentage of this Project. > > I strongly urge you to not only let your own SC know your thoughts on this but to also write to your AB Representative. If you don't know who they you can find out at: http://www.usgenweb.org/about/whoswho.html > > Linda Haas Davenport > homepage: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas > MarionCoAR: http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion/ > TulsaCoOK: http://www.rootsweb.com/~oktulsa2 > MuskogeeCoOk: http://www.rootsweb.com/~okmuskog > SurnameLists: H.A.A.S/H.A.S.S. L.E.W.A.L.L.E.N > > ==== OK-IT Mailing List ==== > Updating Your E-mail Address at Rootsweb > http://helpdesk.rootsweb.com/addresses/

I agree --- all of the people to be subbed to the new secret list are already subbed here. Whatever discussions Bill thinks should be carried out can be carried out here. I will not be a party to a secret negotiation that affects us all. This list is closed, but it is archived and everyone can read the Archives. Hold you discussion here. There is no need for that AB motion. --- Linda Lewis <cityslic@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > This is a ridiculous motion. Make it private??? > USGenWeb should be open, > no secrets. > > I understand that the motion was from Bill Oliver, > who is very used to > *PRIVATE* lists and secret goings-on behind > everyone's backs. If you're > not ashamed of your discussions, keep them open. I > will not be part of > private discussions that involve the whole of the > Project. > > The USGenWeb Archives is not private. Our volunteer > lists are public. > The only list that is not searchable is our > committee list, which is a > management list, and advice list, not a planning > list. > > vagen-l is searchable, and has been since 1996. > > I vote NO on this list, but if there is one, count > me out as VAGenWeb > ASC. > > Linda > > "David W. Morgan" wrote: > > > > Forwarded with permission. > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 18:53:47 -0500 > > From: Linda Haas Davenport <lhaasdav@cox.net> > > Reply-To: OK-IT-L@rootsweb.com > > To: OK-IT-L@rootsweb.com > > Subject: [OK-Coordinators] Motion before the AB > > Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 18:01:04 -0600 > > Resent-From: OK-IT-L@rootsweb.com > > > > Today Bill Oliver posted a motion on Board-L that > can effect the entire Project. > > > > Motion: "I move that the NC, subscribe all the SCs > and ASCs of the > > USGenWeb Project and the AB members, to a private > email > > list, for the purpose of discussing and deciding > the future > > of the Project. > > > > The one item on the agenda to be - whether to > continue in > > the present form, a revised form, or disband the > National > > Organization. > > > > Further, that the discussion and decisions be > limited to two > > weeks, at which time that decision be put to a > vote of the > > eligible voters of the Project. > > > > Further, that the EC be instructed to prepare for > the said > > referendum" > > ---- > > Although Bill does say that the decision shall be > put to the vote of the members - I am strongly > opposed to this motion. Something of this magnitude > should not be decided by the AB and SC/ASCs and > certainly not in private. I am a CC of this Project > and I feel that the CCs have the right to some say > so in this decision and well before it comes to a > Yes/No vote on a decision made in private. > > > > There has long been an underground movement to > have the Project return to its beginnings with only > a web master in charge of the National site and each > SC in complete control of their State. The recent > situation with the states of GA and NC point up the > need for a National Organization - although perhaps > a bit different than what we have. But none-the-less > this is NOT something that should be decided by a > tiny percentage of this Project. > > > > I strongly urge you to not only let your own SC > know your thoughts on this but to also write to your > AB Representative. If you don't know who they you > can find out at: > http://www.usgenweb.org/about/whoswho.html > > > > Linda Haas Davenport > > homepage: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas > > MarionCoAR: http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion/ > > TulsaCoOK: http://www.rootsweb.com/~oktulsa2 > > MuskogeeCoOk: http://www.rootsweb.com/~okmuskog > > SurnameLists: H.A.A.S/H.A.S.S. L.E.W.A.L.L.E.N > > > > ==== OK-IT Mailing List ==== > > Updating Your E-mail Address at Rootsweb > > http://helpdesk.rootsweb.com/addresses/ > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com

I agree, as well. If there are discussions held here, the CCs can at least follow along, and contact their SC with suggestions. I would look forward to project-wide input. There are a lot of good people in this project, with a lot of good ideas. I also agree there is no need for a motion. Bill, if you would like to see a discussion about the future structure of USGW, among the SCs, then just begin it now. I'll be happy to forward a note to the MS CCs informing them that the discussion is taking place. Ellen Pack SC MSGW At 07:50 AM 4/30/2003 -0700, you wrote: >I agree --- all of the people to be subbed to the new >secret list are already subbed here. Whatever >discussions Bill thinks should be carried out can be >carried out here. I will not be a party to a secret >negotiation that affects us all. > >This list is closed, but it is archived and everyone >can read the Archives. Hold you discussion here. There >is no need for that AB motion. > > >--- Linda Lewis <cityslic@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > This is a ridiculous motion. Make it private??? > > USGenWeb should be open, > > no secrets. > > > > I understand that the motion was from Bill Oliver, > > who is very used to > > *PRIVATE* lists and secret goings-on behind > > everyone's backs. If you're > > not ashamed of your discussions, keep them open. I > > will not be part of > > private discussions that involve the whole of the > > Project. > > > > The USGenWeb Archives is not private. Our volunteer > > lists are public. > > The only list that is not searchable is our > > committee list, which is a > > management list, and advice list, not a planning > > list. > > > > vagen-l is searchable, and has been since 1996. > > > > I vote NO on this list, but if there is one, count > > me out as VAGenWeb > > ASC. > > > > Linda <snip previous>