As in the case with Yvonne and when Holly was the cc Rep, I will be subscribing Jim Powell to our mailing list. Bridgett ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ Bridgett Smith TNGenWeb State Coordinator http://www.tngenweb.org/

Fred, Very nice letter, and you know me and my opinions. I am going to jump in this frey (sp?), where I normally don't. #1 there is no denying that the Johnson County website was very good. I've always said that no matter how I feel about the person(s), I will give credit where credit is due. #2 It is my gut feeling that those two were heading away from us anyways. The only time that they had participated in anything to do with TNGenWeb was in the negative. They always indicated that they were the Johnson County TN Genealogy Hosts, but never acknowledged, unless it was in the negative, that they were part of TNGenWeb. #3 It is a shame that Pam got caught up in the banishment. I have indicated that to several folks, may be not to them, and I was probably remiss in this. I think the main reason I did not send anything to them as that my messages to them seem to be sent everywhere and yonder without my permission, and then it gets quoted out of context, not every time, but enough to make me skiddish. Also, since Mary and I didn't and don't see eye to eye, I felt no matter what I wrote to them, that she would take offense over. In other words, why should I waste bandwidth. #3 It is true that Pam could not use our CC mailing lists, but felt that if anything of importance was sent out over the lists, that the County was represented since Mary was subscribed. I was never asked by Mary if it would be okay to forward a message from Pam to these lists, and I would have agreed to do so -- since I wasn't totally in agreement with her banishment. Did I write a note to those two to that effect? Nope, sure didn't -- as they haven't posted to the CC mailing lists in a long time, and the thought had not occurred to me. Fred said: > None of us really like to hear criticisms of our actions and the voices of > the dissenter can be very annoying. Yet one synonym for the word > dissenter is "protestant." All of us genealogists know what that > means. Dissidence is in our blood. It is our right! Our forefathers > earned that right for us. I agree. However, there is a way of voicing your opinion and the taking of responsibility for your actions. You can voice your concerns without critisizing a person directly; you can voice your concerns without calling others names and you can voice your concerns as you would want someone to voice their concerns about you and or your ideas. None of the 3 ways of voicing concerns were used by three of the banished folks, and sometimes Pam (but not always). This time Pam was guilty by association, if not by deed. Mary Katzman and Pam Cresswell have contributed an awful lot to the internet genealogy world, if not to TNGenWeb, then to the county that they hosted. It is a shame that both of them let the politics get in the way in what our main reason for being here was originally. It didn't need to be, it was their choice, and they are where they are today because of it. I wish them well in their future endeavors. I wrote this note, as a person, as a county host with the TNGenWeb project, and how I feel about the situation. I am not writing this as the State Coordinator nor as a member of the USGenWeb advisory board. Bridgett On 1 Feb 99, at 12:59, Fred Smoot wrote: > Political! > > The Delete Button is your option. > > Mary and Pam, > > You have done it now. However, I rather expected it - if for no other > reason than you need to devote your efforts to ALHN. >

Hi all, I agree with Fred in many ways (surprise :-))) But, there are some aspects that need further discussion. As much as we revere our founding fathers, we ought to also look at how *they* felt about dissenters. They used tar and feathers and the stocks !! The early founders of this nation wrote the Alien and Sedition acts. I happen to think that open discussion is a very good thing... and I have gotten kicked in the britches on TNGEN-L from time to time for doing so... I'm not complaining (too much :-)) because we did agree to keep politics here on TNCHAT. As moderator of -ALL (where the Rootsweb 4 did most of their posting), I obviously believed in open communications and freedom of speech. I received many, many requests to "ban" people from -ALL and never did consider doing so. The closest I came was to consider having a vote on -ALL as to whether a certain person should be "banned." I dropped that idea because I really didn't want anyone "banned." So, part of the problem was me... I wouldn't do what most listowners would do... kick people off for bad behavior. And, I don't mean freedom of speech, I mean really vile stuff... vicious name calling, personal attacks, etc. In fact, when Brian suspended one -ALL member around November, I went begging him to let her back because I wanted to deal with the problem and try to resolve it. (She is the leader of the Rootsweb 4 by the way) This left Brian in a pickle when people started spreading mistruths about Rootsweb... and saying things so hurtful and mean-spirited that Rootsweb volunteers started unvolunteering. One thing I try to remember is that Brian has the right and even the duty to protect Rootsweb staff. So one question is this... do we think that a listowner should ever kick someone off a list? And if so, for what reasons? Is freedom of speech really unlimited? And, let's try an analogy about the Rootsweb action. Suppose we, here on TNCHAT, for example, started bashing the good folks at USIT? Spreading mistruths or bad-mouthing their management? Isn't it likely that 1) the Bridgett would "ban" them from this list (Bridgett, you might want to comment on this) or 2) USIT might take some action... and, ultimately "ban" the person or persons from using their server. How about another analogy (BTW I'm terrible at analogies).... suppose I invited a local genealogy society (which I didn't belong to) to meet at my house every Friday and I served them tea and cookies, kept the house warm, greeted them cheerfully at the door. And then let's suppose that one of the members decided that my tea was lousy, my cookies were stale, and didn't like my smile. This member loudly and repeatedly criticized me... and, perhaps she was right!!! Well, right or wrong I just might suggest that she was no longer welcome in my house. Whew! Sorry for that last one :-))) George of Lincoln Co. p.s. Mary and Pam got "banned" from TNGEN-L last summer... sometimes people need to have a "time out." On 1 Feb 99 at 12:59, TNCHAT-L@rootsweb.com wrote: > Political! > > The Delete Button is your option. > > Mary and Pam, > > You have done it now. However, I rather expected it - if for no other > reason than you need to devote your efforts to ALHN. > > Still the reasons for your leaving the TNGenWeb Project are obviously > deeply involved in Dr B's actions regarding the banishment of the > "four." It is also sad to note that the banishment occurred during a > USGenWeb Project election period. > > Because the action involved an open, not required, mailing list use by > the USGenWeb Project and is not any in any sense an official organ of > our state project, the banishment should not have reached into our state > unit. In fact, very few of our TGW volunteers subscribe to that list. > > With that being said, Pam was also blocked from posting to our closed > state CC list - a list that she was required to use. Now that does > involve our state project! And your removal of your outstanding Johnson > Co. TN page certainly is great loss for our state unit. > > It has been suggested to me that Dr. B has made great contributions to > the USGenWeb Project and I make no claims otherwise. I have been told > that the last event that caused the banishment may have been "the straw > that broke the camel's back," and that may be so. But that is not the > point here. > > The point really is, the banishment is censorship. To stifle the voice > of dissent is to stifle the voice of freedom, the voice of America. > > None of us really like to hear criticisms of our actions and the voices > of the dissenter can be very annoying. Yet one synonym for the word > dissenter is "protestant." All of us genealogists know what that means. > Dissidence is in our blood. It is our right! Our forefathers earned that > right for us. > > Fred Smoot >

Political! The Delete Button is your option. Mary and Pam, You have done it now. However, I rather expected it - if for no other reason than you need to devote your efforts to ALHN. Still the reasons for your leaving the TNGenWeb Project are obviously deeply involved in Dr B’s actions regarding the banishment of the "four." It is also sad to note that the banishment occurred during a USGenWeb Project election period. Because the action involved an open, not required, mailing list use by the USGenWeb Project and is not any in any sense an official organ of our state project, the banishment should not have reached into our state unit. In fact, very few of our TGW volunteers subscribe to that list. With that being said, Pam was also blocked from posting to our closed state CC list - a list that she was required to use. Now that does involve our state project! And your removal of your outstanding Johnson Co. TN page certainly is great loss for our state unit. It has been suggested to me that Dr. B has made great contributions to the USGenWeb Project and I make no claims otherwise. I have been told that the last event that caused the banishment may have been "the straw that broke the camel’s back," and that may be so. But that is not the point here. The point really is, the banishment is censorship. To stifle the voice of dissent is to stifle the voice of freedom, the voice of America. None of us really like to hear criticisms of our actions and the voices of the dissenter can be very annoying. Yet one synonym for the word dissenter is "protestant." All of us genealogists know what that means. Dissidence is in our blood. It is our right! Our forefathers earned that right for us. Fred Smoot

On 30 Jan 99 at 10:38, TNCHAT-L@rootsweb.com wrote: > Greetings all, > > This is a full answer to George Waller's "Political" missive of last > night (29 Jan 1999) which had been posted to our CC list. Fred, A big hug to you :-)) > Please delete this now if you are bothered by politics. > The question of whether we are technically separate from the USGenWeb > Project is answered in our TNGenNet Bylaws, Article 5. We are > "affiliated" with the USGenWeb and under extreme conditions, we could > sever our connection. Any state can sever its connection to USGenWeb. Then USGenWeb would either by request or by decision remove our state page from the list of USGenWeb states and remove our state coordinator from the SC list. The state would have to remove all mention of USGenWeb and TNGenWeb from the state pages and all CCs (who wanted to belong to to this new state page) would have to remove all mention of USGenWeb and TNGenWeb from the county pages. So, you are right... but TN is not especially different than any other state in this regard. > The visibility of our separateness is amplified by the use of the > TNGenNet Inc. name on our main page. In the statement at the bottom of > that page which defines TGN Inc, we state "we are the Tennessee > volunteers to the USGenWeb Project." This definition was suggested by > Megan Zurawicz, then National USGWP Coordinator. In the same paragraph, > you will see this: "The name TNGenWeb is a service mark of the USGenWeb > Project." This reflects the national project's Bylaws. Here, we do not > claim ownership of the name TNGenWeb, but rather we acquiesced to wishes > of the paranoid* nationally oriented folks by voting in the TNGenNet > name. We were the peace keepers! > As some know, the only two XXGenWebs that did (non-profit) incorporate > are the Kansas and Tennessee unit. > > Those two actions have made some of the nationally oriented folks very > displeased. Below I will share with you part of an e-mail that shows the > attitude of "separateness" demonstrated by two USGWP members. It is > directed to the other XXGenWeb, Kansas, but could apply to us as well. > BTW, "B" is the expurgator of the USGENWEB-ALL mailing list. > > >>>> > > > One important point here is that the USGENWEB Project wuld not be able to > > field another KSGENWEB site in the future if the "board" decided to boot > > each and everyone of them for some infraction of those bylaws we keep > > hearing about.... well that is not without a fight in a Kansas court. How > > many board members would be willing to pay legal fees ourt of their own > > pocket to test the theory? Not many I would surmise. > > The Board would have no trouble fielding another KSGenWeb. With as > many users as USGenWeb has, it could raise a $20k defense fund in a > week if need be. Folks don't seem to clearly understand just how > much potential power the Board has but chooses not to use -- this is > sort of a Godzilla meets Bambi thing. -B > > >>>> > > It is important to note here that a great many of our CCs are fiercely > loyal to the principles of the USGenWeb Project - principles that are > also written into our state Charter. But this is not a question of > loyality, it is a question legality. > > ------ > > * George Waller has determined that the word "paranoid" has become part > of our modern lexicon and does necessarily qualify as a medical > diagnosis. According to George, it is not insulting to refer to a person > as "paranoid." I suppose it now means "great angst" or something like > that. > Fred Smoot Fred, I truly wish that you and I could discuss this in a civil manner. I happen to believe that there is great value in having a USGenWeb Project that is solid at the national level. I wish the USGenWeb Project would incorporate as a non-profit and start drawing in funds to help make us both independent and more productive. It is hurtful to me to see what you wrote about me above. I don't think it is accurate nor was it necessary. Respectfully, George

Greetings all, This is a full answer to George Waller’s "Political" missive of last night (29 Jan 1999) which had been posted to our CC list. Please delete this now if you are bothered by politics. The question of whether we are technically separate from the USGenWeb Project is answered in our TNGenNet Bylaws, Article 5. We are "affiliated" with the USGenWeb and under extreme conditions, we could sever our connection. The visibility of our separateness is amplified by the use of the TNGenNet Inc. name on our main page. In the statement at the bottom of that page which defines TGN Inc, we state "we are the Tennessee volunteers to the USGenWeb Project." This definition was suggested by Megan Zurawicz, then National USGWP Coordinator. In the same paragraph, you will see this: "The name TNGenWeb is a service mark of the USGenWeb Project." This reflects the national project’s Bylaws. Here, we do not claim ownership of the name TNGenWeb, but rather we acquiesced to wishes of the paranoid* nationally oriented folks by voting in the TNGenNet name. We were the peace keepers! As some know, the only two XXGenWebs that did (non-profit) incorporate are the Kansas and Tennessee units. Those two actions have made some of the nationally oriented folks very displeased. Below I will share with you part of an e-mail that shows the attitude of "separateness" demonstrated by two USGWP members. It is directed to the other XXGenWeb, Kansas, but could apply to us as well. BTW, "B" is the expurgator of the USGENWEB-ALL mailing list. >>>> > One important point here is that the USGENWEB Project wuld not be able to > field another KSGENWEB site in the future if the "board" decided to boot > each and everyone of them for some infraction of those bylaws we keep > hearing about.... well that is not without a fight in a Kansas court. How > many board members would be willing to pay legal fees ourt of their own > pocket to test the theory? Not many I would surmise. The Board would have no trouble fielding another KSGenWeb. With as many users as USGenWeb has, it could raise a $20k defense fund in a week if need be. Folks don't seem to clearly understand just how much potential power the Board has but chooses not to use -- this is sort of a Godzilla meets Bambi thing. -B >>>> It is important to note here that a great many of our CCs are fiercely loyal to the principles of the USGenWeb Project - principles that are also written into our state Charter. But this is not a question of loyality, it is a question legality. ------ * George Waller has determined that the word "paranoid" has become part of our modern lexicon and does necessarily qualify as a medical diagnosis. According to George, it is not insulting to refer to a person as "paranoid." I suppose it now means "great angst" or something like that. ------ Fred Smoot

Good morning, all! I know you've been wondering why big mouth here hasn't spoken yet -- haven't had a chance to read through the posts with the attention they deserve until this morning. So, ta-da! Here I am! Basically, I think this is a good plan. I do have a couple of comments, though, and questions. I'm not sure I've correctly followed the Special Projects stuff all the way to the end, so I'm going to say what I think y'all are meaning by the various posts, and y'all can either affirm my conclusions, or fall sobbing on the floor at the thought you've got such a ninny for a CC and probably co-host for special project. OK. Here's the way it looks to me. For Special Projects Coordinator, since there is interaction with the USGenWeb on a level not seen at the county level over all, the people who fill these positions will need to be able to communicate effectively with the national coordinators for these projects, and should therefore be chosen by us (TNGenNet ---- yea!!!) with those capabilities, attitudes, etc., in mind as well as the ability to handle the internal workings of same. Right? While I don't think that the national folks should have the final say in appointing an internal coordinator, if that internal coordinator is to also be the liaison, it only makes sense that the people appointed don't go apoplectic or reach for shoulder mount missile launchers at the mention of "national board" and at whose name the national coordinator doesn't begin to mutter about arsenic or make the "back you vile vampire" finger cross doohickey. These positions, while hardly unimportant, aren't to be (as currently) proposed, voting members of the Board, but involved with the Board, since the special projects perspective needs to be kept in mind when the Board makes decisions. Have I got that? Assuming so, I'd like to ask why the SPCs *aren't* voting members. Not disagreeing -- just want a clear understanding of the reasoning behind it. SC -- Though I absolutely despise the viciousness and back-stabbing underhanded politics that have gone on at the national level with the current election, I cannot help but think the SC should be elected by the CCs. If the nominee cannot muster enough support to carry an election, how would he/she muster the support to *do* anything? That said, there is some virtue to having at least the *first* SC appointed by the Board, and possibly *from* the Board, simply because that might be simpler. It could even be an interim position or pro tem. I'm thinking of the need for transitioning from the current structure to the new one and the need for carry-over. Or perhaps the elected first SC could take office slightly before or after the Board? Hmmmmmm. Yup, you're right, I'm thinking at the end of my fingers here. (Well, it's hardly "out loud" when I'm typing it all, is it?) I'll hush. I'm probably adding to confusion, or creating it out of thin air. ASC -- I think a compromise is in order on this one. I can see the need for appointment by the SC -- it would be a real bummer to have to work that closely with someone who continually smacked his or her virtual gum -- but I also see the need for input from the CCs. How about we do something similar to the process by which federal appointees are made? A person could be appointed by the SC, with a yea or nay vote by the CCs, no long drawn out process, just a simple yea/nay to confirm. Yes? No? Maybe? K, that's it. I've *got* to get Marshall County finished and uploaded! Let me know whether or not I'm a total idiot, please. Su Wilson County Coordinator, Chester County SC USGenWeb Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~scchest2/scchester.htm County Coordinator, Marshall County TN USGenWeb Project awaiting account set up at Rootsweb I'd rather be looking for dead people than have them looking for me!

Fred and all, My thoughts, for what they are worth. See comments below. Athol At 11:26 AM 7/29/98 -0700, you wrote: >Greetings all, > >(All the postings of my questions will be numbered.) > >Current basic structure. > >The current structure of our organization is three tiered. > >1. State Coordinator and Assistant State Coordinator. > Bridgett Smith – Nancy Cole > >2. Regional Coordinators. (Now unofficially the "Board.") > Nancy Cole, Mitzi Freeman, Athol Foster, Anne Hood, Jane Powell, > Charles Reeves, and Tim Stowell. (7 RCs) > > Special Projects Coordinator, Fred Smoot > Hi-tech Coordinator, Jim Cole > Archives Coordinator, Michael DeLoach > Tombstone Project Coordinator, Mitzi Freeman > >3. County Coordinators: All of us except Jim Cole. > >Basic assumptions: > >We should maintain this three tiered structure. ................I agree....... >Why? It works and is not over complicated. > >The CC. The position of County Coordinator must always be position >filled by the SC, and for simply practical reasons, but once a person is >accepted as a CC, they should have an equal vote as the "old-timers" >have. ..............I agree....... >The RC. The position of Regional Coordinator is based on willingness and >technical skills to help fledgling CCs. Also, because of the way our >arrangement works with USIT, they need to contribute their efforts doing >uploads (also requiring technical skills). Trustworthiness is a must >with this position because of the common password situation at USIT. ..............I agree........ >For simplicity’s sake, it would seem that the RCs should be the "Board" >and the official body to whom the SC or ASC should turn to when >direction is needed. ..................I agree...... The only problem I see here is that some people might want a change on the board................. >There is this consideration: if the RC position is an elected position, >then the main prerequisite to run for that office should be technical >skills. The questions of trustworthiness and the personal politics of >the candidates should left to the electorate, the CCs. > >(Below, the term "nonvoting" is used. This means only that the various >special coordinators will not vote on Board matters. We now have seven >RCs and that would give us a seven person Board, which is large enough >by any standards.) ...............I agree........... >The SPC. The Special Projects Coordinator >The HTC. The Hi-tech Coordinator >The AC. The Archives Coordinator >The TPC. The Tombstone Project Coordinator >These positions should be a non-voting positions. Therefore they could >be appointed positions where the SC appoints these Coordinators with >advice and consent of the Board. ...............I agree.......... >The SC. The State Coordinator should be considered the CEO and would >actually run the organization on a day to day basis. The SC will be >required to devote large amounts of time. The State Coordinator position >should be an elective position. ...............I agree.......... >The ASC. The position of Assistant State Coordinator should be the >Assistant CEO and would actually help run the organization on a day to >day basis. The ASC will also be required to devote large amounts of >time. ..............I agree.......... >QUESTIONS. > >1. In electing the SC, who should the electorate be; all CCs in a >general election, or elected by the board? .................ALL CC's.............. >(Note: often City Councils, Boards of Supervisors, etc., elect Mayors or >Board Presidents without general elections. It is a smooth way to do >things.) > >2. Should the Assistant State Coordinator be an elective position? ...................YES........... >(Because the ASC needs to work closely with the SC, it might be better >that the SC appoints the ASC with advice and consent of the Board.) ..................I disagree.. Should also be elected by the CC's........... **************************************************************************** ******** Athol K. Foster Coordinator for Dekalb Co., Tn. TNGenWeb <http://www.tngenweb.org/dekalb/> My Home Page: "Fosters in DeKalb County, Tennessee" <http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ranch/3627>

Hi Everyone, The issues with the Johnson County hosts have been resolved amicably and they are now relinked to TNGenWeb. Nancy ncole@coffey.com Assistant TNGenweb Coordinator

Marceline Beem et al, (All the postings of my questions will be numbered. If you find you are missing a number, or joined the list late, ask me privately for a copy.) First, I am not necessarily suggesting that the special non-voting TNGenWeb Coordinators be Board members at all. I see them as either as heads of TNGenWeb projects or as liaisons to USGenWeb Projects. I see them as reporting to our SC and/or the Board. If you go to our TGW home page, you will see: TNGenWeb State Coordinator is Bridgett Smith TNGenWeb Asst. State Coordinator is Nancy Cole TNGenWeb Special Projects Coordinator is Fred Smoot TNGenWeb Archives Coordinator is Michael DeLoach TNGenWeb Tombstone Project Coordinator is Mitzi Freeman (Note that Jim Cole is not listed – yet.) Any person from the USGenWeb Project who represents them could be simply be USGenWeb’s Tennessee file manager and representative to the TNGenWeb. On the other hand, the SC and the Board might name that very person as TNGenWeb Xxxxxx Coordinator. It almost goes with out saying that there is no way we will tell the USGenWeb who will be in their special projects. And the USGenWeb will not name our special Coordinators. I believe we should consider this as a non-issue. The duties of the various Coordinator positions will be tailored to the needs of the position. The SC and the Board will need the flexibility that is required to deal with the various requirements. They should not be restricted by harsh rules. They should be given the authority to deal with these situations as they occur. I assume that in the future, we will need more special Coordinators to head up new TNGenWeb special projects or to be the liaisons to the new special projects of the USGenWeb. As for the "Census Project Coordinator for TN," currently, this is a consideration for the SC and the RCs. Talk to Bridgett. Sounds reasonable to me, but then, I am out of the loop on this. All my special projects involve TNGenWeb only. Sort of an in-house product development thing. Thanks for the message. This what make it all work. Fred >>> Marceline Beem wrote: > > Fred and all, > > I realize I'm the newbie on board, and I'm still trying to learn my way > around TNGW, so to speak, but I do have one concern with the section on who > appoints whom as coordinators of the various projects: > > <snip> > > The SPC. The Special Projects Coordinator > The HTC. The Hi-tech Coordinator > The AC. The Archives Coordinator > The TPC. The Tombstone Project Coordinator > These positions should be a non-voting positions. Therefore they could > be appointed positions where the SC appoints these Coordinators with > advice and consent of the Board. > > <snip> > > By the AC (archives coordinator) am I correct in assuming that you mean the > USGW Archives Project? If so, we need to keep in mind that the file > manager/archivist/archive manager/whatever-we-call-the-person would need to > be approved not only by someone within TNGW but also the national Archives > Project Manager. I know that as File Manager for Pennsylvania and New > Mexico, I had to contact Linda Lewis. I don't think there would be a > problem with the setup you are proposing, it might be wise to ask for input > from the project itself so we don't wind up stepping on any toes, so to > speak.j > > Ok, I lied. I have another question <G>... > > What about the Census Project Coordinator for TN? This is a special project > of the USGW Archives Project, as is the Tombstone Project. Should they be > included as a non-voting member of the board? (Just throwing this out as > food for thought) > > Marceline

This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --part0_901755287_boundary Content-ID: <0_901755287@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII . --part0_901755287_boundary Content-ID: <0_901755287@inet_out.mail.aol.com.2> Content-type: message/rfc822 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline From: Bearacuda1@aol.com Return-path: <Bearacuda1@aol.com> To: dogtrot@well.com Subject: Re: [TNCHAT-L] Bylaws. Post #1 Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 18:18:09 EDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Dear Fred and fellow CCs So far, it sounds very good to me. I like the idea of the Asst. SC being appointed (with consent of the board). After watching how the Republicans and Democrats act in the nation's best interest (ho, ho...think they forgot all about us) think a friendly Asst. SC is the ticket. Now...usually in an organization, it has been the custom (maybe too many times) for the VP to be bumped up to SC automatically. I feel that there would be some Asst. SC who could manage the SC job very well and with the support of the Board/CCs. But, if they are going to be appointed, think we should not have it in the by laws that they will automatically become SC. My thoughts for the day. It's too hot to think any more. Helen Hewitt Meigs Co. --part0_901755287_boundary--

Fred and all, I realize I'm the newbie on board, and I'm still trying to learn my way around TNGW, so to speak, but I do have one concern with the section on who appoints whom as coordinators of the various projects: <snip> The SPC. The Special Projects Coordinator The HTC. The Hi-tech Coordinator The AC. The Archives Coordinator The TPC. The Tombstone Project Coordinator These positions should be a non-voting positions. Therefore they could be appointed positions where the SC appoints these Coordinators with advice and consent of the Board. <snip> By the AC (archives coordinator) am I correct in assuming that you mean the USGW Archives Project? If so, we need to keep in mind that the file manager/archivist/archive manager/whatever-we-call-the-person would need to be approved not only by someone within TNGW but also the national Archives Project Manager. I know that as File Manager for Pennsylvania and New Mexico, I had to contact Linda Lewis. I don't think there would be a problem with the setup you are proposing, it might be wise to ask for input from the project itself so we don't wind up stepping on any toes, so to speak.j Ok, I lied. I have another question <G>... What about the Census Project Coordinator for TN? This is a special project of the USGW Archives Project, as is the Tombstone Project. Should they be included as a non-voting member of the board? (Just throwing this out as food for thought) Marceline

Greetings all, (All the postings of my questions will be numbered.) Current basic structure. The current structure of our organization is three tiered. 1. State Coordinator and Assistant State Coordinator. Bridgett Smith – Nancy Cole 2. Regional Coordinators. (Now unofficially the "Board.") Nancy Cole, Mitzi Freeman, Athol Foster, Anne Hood, Jane Powell, Charles Reeves, and Tim Stowell. (7 RCs) Special Projects Coordinator, Fred Smoot Hi-tech Coordinator, Jim Cole Archives Coordinator, Michael DeLoach Tombstone Project Coordinator, Mitzi Freeman 3. County Coordinators: All of us except Jim Cole. Basic assumptions: We should maintain this three tiered structure. Why? It works and is not over complicated. The CC. The position of County Coordinator must always be position filled by the SC, and for simply practical reasons, but once a person is accepted as a CC, they should have an equal vote as the "old-timers" have. The RC. The position of Regional Coordinator is based on willingness and technical skills to help fledgling CCs. Also, because of the way our arrangement works with USIT, they need to contribute their efforts doing uploads (also requiring technical skills). Trustworthiness is a must with this position because of the common password situation at USIT. For simplicity’s sake, it would seem that the RCs should be the "Board" and the official body to whom the SC or ASC should turn to when direction is needed. There is this consideration: if the RC position is an elected position, then the main prerequisite to run for that office should be technical skills. The questions of trustworthiness and the personal politics of the candidates should left to the electorate, the CCs. (Below, the term "nonvoting" is used. This means only that the various special coordinators will not vote on Board matters. We now have seven RCs and that would give us a seven person Board, which is large enough by any standards.) The SPC. The Special Projects Coordinator The HTC. The Hi-tech Coordinator The AC. The Archives Coordinator The TPC. The Tombstone Project Coordinator These positions should be a non-voting positions. Therefore they could be appointed positions where the SC appoints these Coordinators with advice and consent of the Board. The SC. The State Coordinator should be considered the CEO and would actually run the organization on a day to day basis. The SC will be required to devote large amounts of time. The State Coordinator position should be an elective position. The ASC. The position of Assistant State Coordinator should be the Assistant CEO and would actually help run the organization on a day to day basis. The ASC will also be required to devote large amounts of time. QUESTIONS. 1. In electing the SC, who should the electorate be; all CCs in a general election, or elected by the board? (Note: often City Councils, Boards of Supervisors, etc., elect Mayors or Board Presidents without general elections. It is a smooth way to do things.) 2. Should the Assistant State Coordinator be an elective position? (Because the ASC needs to work closely with the SC, it might be better that the SC appoints the ASC with advice and consent of the Board.) CONCLUSION. Please give me some input. I need to know you views. Once we are past the basic structural questions, I will deal with elections and the "how and how often" considerations. Thanks for your time, Fred Smoot

The project coordinators that Fred listed are also cc's with the TNGenWeb project. We do not have a representative for the Census Project that is also a CC for TGW. Although Whitney McLaughlin is our Census Project representative, she isn't a cc within TNGeWeb, and have not listed her on the main page, which is where I believe Fred gathered that information. Bridgett On 29 Jul 98 at 14:50, Marceline Beem wrote: > What about the Census Project Coordinator for TN? This is a special > project of the USGW Archives Project, as is the Tombstone Project. > Should they be included as a non-voting member of the board? (Just > throwing this out as food for thought) > ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ Bridgett Smith TNGenWeb State Coordinator http://www.tngenweb.org/

I just added a dab more to the History section of Dickson. 180+ students...... Thought you may want to ck this out.. Edgewood Normal School, in Dickson County. *Several students from other counties of Tenn and KY* Cheryl

Greetings all. On our "TNGenWeb County Host Guidelines" page we will find the requirements of page county and page identification. http://www.tngenweb.org/adoptco/ "Your main page will display the USGenWeb logo, and optionally a TNGenWeb logo. If you do not wish to display a TNGenWeb logo, the word TNGenWeb must be used, along with the name of your county. (For example: Greene County Genealogy, a TNGenWeb project)" We do not have a specific TNGenWeb logo that is the one and only official absolutely must be used or the page police will get you logo. We do have three logos that may be used and they can be found on this page. http://www.tngenweb.org/graphics/page9.htm If you do your own graphics, you may create your own graphic. If you would like, we could put it our graphics directory for others to use I have a very large (in Ks) graphic on my Warren County page. http://www.tngenweb.org/warren/ The text is: "Warren County Tennessee A TNGenWeb Genealogy Home Page" It was created from the "corner card" (return address design) of an old southern envelope from the Civil War era. If you have an interest in this, I could make a custom version for your page. I could perhaps reduce the size so the download time is also reduced. Other custom TNGenWeb logos could be made, the only limit is the imgination. Please ask. There is no cost for TNGenWeb logos. Such a deal. Fred -- <-> <-> <-> <-> <-> <-> <-> <-> <-> <-> <-> <-> <-> <-> <-> <-> <-> <-> Fred Smoot, a States Rights Advocate who loves the principles and goals of the USGenWeb Project. USGenWeb, good people doing Good work for others. ~^~^~^~^~^~^~ Fred's Projects ~^~^~^~^~^~^~ TNGenWeb; Special Projects Coordinator Middle Tennessee Genealogical Society, WebMaster: http://www.dogtrot.com/mtgs/ TNGenWeb; Letters from Forgotten Ancestors: http://www.tngenweb.org/tnletters/ TNGenWeb; First People of Tennessee: Cherokee & Chickasaw Nations http://www.tngenweb.org/tnfirst/ TNGenWeb; People of Color in Old Tennessee http://www.tngenweb.org/tncolor/ TNGenWeb; The Maps Our Ancestors Followed: http://www.tngenweb.org/maps/ TNGenWeb; The Land of Our Ancestors: http://www.tngenweb.org/tnland/ Warren County Genealogical Association, WebMaster http://www.dogtrot.com/wcga/ TNGenWeb; Warren County Tennessee Homepage: http://www.tngenweb.org/warren/

Hiya, I’m back, aren't you just so pleased? Below is the original message of the "unlinking" of Johnson County. It is a situation that needs to be addressed. It would seem that we have "Mexican Standoff" here and if we do not address the issue, we might find ourselves in the extremely unpopular position of having the national board interfering again with TNGenWeb business. We have no "due process," no working rules and regulations, no guide lines, simply no formalized way of resolving this issue, therefore I call for an ad hoc arbitrator to resolve the situation. I am sure that many regular Johnson County Page visitors have the site bookmarked, but some new visitors attempting to access that page certainly will be disserved. Please consider this; the larger picture here is that we do not have a reasonable set of rules to cover situations like this. We have not given the SC and ASC the tools to handle situations and we has not established standards that the CCs could use as guidelines. The future Bylaws would be a fine place to have these standards and the current situation is a prime example why we need establish well thought out Bylaws. Let’s not turn a small situation into a Johnson County war. Fred Smoot >>>> Nancy Cole wrote: > > Dear Mary and Pam. > > Johnson County has been temporarily unlinked from TNGenWeb. Your > queries, which are the property of the poster have been rerouted to USIT > since I just discovered that you moved them without notifying me, thus > making them inaccessable to TNGenWeb visitors. They will be maintained. > > This message is being cc'd to Megan and the TN-Chat list since it will, no > doubt engender discussion and that list is the proper place for such > discussion. > > The reasons for this temporary action are: > > 1. Refusal to identify Johnson County as part of the TNGenWeb project as > is required and this despite numerous requests that you do so. > > 2. The forwarding of project mail to parties not participating in > TNGenWeb. > > 3, Lack of team spirit, as evidenced by posting to the national list on > matters which affect only participants in the TNGenWeb project, with > the purpose of sowing dissention within the project as a whole. > > 4. Purposeful denigration of USGenWeb, TNGenWeb, and its volunteers in a > manner that goes beyond your right of free speech and becomes > destructive to both organizations. > > Johnson County is a wonderful site and we would hate to lose it, but > until you can bring yourselves to behave as members of this team, your > pages will remain unlinked. If you have a change of heart and decide to > become responsible, accountable members of TNGenWeb, we will be happy to > re-link your pages. > > Nancy L. Cole > ncole@coffey.com > > Assistant TNGenweb Coordinator -- <-> <-> <-> <-> <-> <-> <-> <-> <-> <-> <-> <-> <-> <-> <-> <-> <-> <-> Fred Smoot, Patty Sokolecki Smoot; Dog Trot X Press Art, Graphics, Maps, Panoramic Photography. ~^~^~^~^~^~^~ Fred's Projects ~^~^~^~^~^~^~ TNGenWeb; Special Projects Coordinator. Middle Tennessee Genealogical Society, WebMaster: http://www.dogtrot.com/mtgs/ TNGenWeb; Letters from Forgotten Ancestors: http://www.tngenweb.org/tnletters/ TNGenWeb; First People of Tennessee: Cherokee & Chickasaw Nations http://www.tngenweb.org/tnfirst/ TNGenWeb; People of Color in Old Tennessee http://www.tngenweb.org/tncolor/ TNGenWeb; The Maps Our Ancestors Followed: http://www.tngenweb.org/maps/ TNGenWeb; The Land of Our Ancestors: http://www.tngenweb.org/tnland/ Warren County Genealogical Association, WebMaster http://www.dogtrot.com/wcga/ TNGenWeb; Warren County Tennessee Homepage: http://www.tngenweb.org/warren/

Response #2 Question: "How long do you think it's going to take? What are the first steps?" Answer: As soon as the name issue is resolved, the Charter could be submitted. The ongoing vote of the CCs will resolve the issue. I suspect the TNGenWeb will be the selected name. This will not make all "nationally oriented" folks very pleased, but we can’t please everyone, can we? The Charter would need to be signed by at least one "incorporator" and I will do that whatever the outcome of the name vote. However I would not ask any other person to sign the Charter with me if they were somehow morally opposed to any part of the Charter, such as the choice of name. It will take the Tennessee Department of State a while (two - three months maybe) to process the Charter. In the interim, we should construct a set of Bylaws for us that will cover ALL our needs. Therefore, I believe that Bridgett Smith should appoint a Bylaw committee as soon as the Charter is submitted. I will challenge CCs Tim Stowell and George Waller to offer to serve on the Bylaw Committee. They are the most "nationally oriented" CCs I know, and their input will create a fair balance to the committee. The Charter requires an approval of the Bylaws within six months, but we could probable have a really well done set finished in three months and ready for vote. Fred Smoot Susan Wilson wrote: > > Well, Fred, as usual, you've helped a lot. Given the need to incorporate, > which I'm generously willing to grant :-), doing it this way, with this kind > of thing in the Bylaws would get my approval. You see, I'm one of the > "nationally oriented" people you speak of, in a way. I believe there should > be a national organization with oversight (*not* control!) over the project > as a whole and the individual state projects which make it up. Now, don't > *you* go ballistic! What I mean is *not* "interfering in internal affairs" > or ruling with an iron hand. I do think it's good to have a Board which > will keep the national perspective on things, and look at each state's > project with an eye to seeing that it all fits together smoothly, so that we > don't have one state requiring CCs to follow stringent guidelines and > another with none at all, even on internal matters. I do believe that > keeping the larger perspective is necessary to prevent us from unknowingly > re-inventing the wheel. To use the analogy of church organization, one with > which I am familiar, it would be, as I see it, not at all like having a pope > (I'm 96% Catholic, that' not a slam), but more like the Baptists run > things -- each church pretty much decides it's own internal affairs, but if > they run into trouble or need help, the larger organization is there to turn > to. This does require an organization at the national level, and I'm a full > supporter of such. > > OK, let's talk about incorporation. Give me an overview of the process, as > you invision it. How long do you think it's going to take? What are the > first steps? Since not everyone is on this list, how will issues be hashed > out? Who's going to cook supper while I do email on this? :-) > > Thanks for replying and I'm sorry I missed the details in the first read > through. > > Su Wilson > County Coordinator, Chester County SC USGenWeb Project > http://www.rootsweb.com/~scchest2/scchester.htm > > I'd rather be looking for dead people than have them looking for me!

Response #1 They Question: "Since not everyone is on this list, how will issues be hashed out?" The Answer. The TNCHAT-L list was established by Bridgett Smith so every CC could participate in discussions about "political" issues. A number of messages were sent to the CCs reminding them that they can subscribe to the list. The list was also established because there were some CCs who did not want to receive "political" e-mail. Each CC has the right to join this list. They also have the right NOT to join the list. The choice is there's. We should never assume that they are unconcerned or ignorant of the situation. On the contrary, many who have chosen NOT to subscribe are our "old guard" CCs who have been with TNGenWeb from the "git go" and who are extremely knowledgeable about every aspect of TNGenWeb. So not to worry about the non-subscribers. They can take care of themselves. Fred Smoot >>> Susan Wilson wrote: > > Well, Fred, as usual, you've helped a lot. Given the need to incorporate, > which I'm generously willing to grant :-), doing it this way, with this kind > of thing in the Bylaws would get my approval. You see, I'm one of the > "nationally oriented" people you speak of, in a way. I believe there should > be a national organization with oversight (*not* control!) over the project > as a whole and the individual state projects which make it up. Now, don't > *you* go ballistic! What I mean is *not* "interfering in internal affairs" > or ruling with an iron hand. I do think it's good to have a Board which > will keep the national perspective on things, and look at each state's > project with an eye to seeing that it all fits together smoothly, so that we > don't have one state requiring CCs to follow stringent guidelines and > another with none at all, even on internal matters. I do believe that > keeping the larger perspective is necessary to prevent us from unknowingly > re-inventing the wheel. To use the analogy of church organization, one with > which I am familiar, it would be, as I see it, not at all like having a pope > (I'm 96% Catholic, that' not a slam), but more like the Baptists run > things -- each church pretty much decides it's own internal affairs, but if > they run into trouble or need help, the larger organization is there to turn > to. This does require an organization at the national level, and I'm a full > supporter of such. > > OK, let's talk about incorporation. Give me an overview of the process, as > you invision it. How long do you think it's going to take? What are the > first steps? Since not everyone is on this list, how will issues be hashed > out? Who's going to cook supper while I do email on this? :-) > > Thanks for replying and I'm sorry I missed the details in the first read > through. > > Su Wilson > County Coordinator, Chester County SC USGenWeb Project > http://www.rootsweb.com/~scchest2/scchester.htm > > I'd rather be looking for dead people than have them looking for me!

Well, Fred, as usual, you've helped a lot. Given the need to incorporate, which I'm generously willing to grant :-), doing it this way, with this kind of thing in the Bylaws would get my approval. You see, I'm one of the "nationally oriented" people you speak of, in a way. I believe there should be a national organization with oversight (*not* control!) over the project as a whole and the individual state projects which make it up. Now, don't *you* go ballistic! What I mean is *not* "interfering in internal affairs" or ruling with an iron hand. I do think it's good to have a Board which will keep the national perspective on things, and look at each state's project with an eye to seeing that it all fits together smoothly, so that we don't have one state requiring CCs to follow stringent guidelines and another with none at all, even on internal matters. I do believe that keeping the larger perspective is necessary to prevent us from unknowingly re-inventing the wheel. To use the analogy of church organization, one with which I am familiar, it would be, as I see it, not at all like having a pope (I'm 96% Catholic, that' not a slam), but more like the Baptists run things -- each church pretty much decides it's own internal affairs, but if they run into trouble or need help, the larger organization is there to turn to. This does require an organization at the national level, and I'm a full supporter of such. OK, let's talk about incorporation. Give me an overview of the process, as you invision it. How long do you think it's going to take? What are the first steps? Since not everyone is on this list, how will issues be hashed out? Who's going to cook supper while I do email on this? :-) Thanks for replying and I'm sorry I missed the details in the first read through. Su Wilson County Coordinator, Chester County SC USGenWeb Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~scchest2/scchester.htm I'd rather be looking for dead people than have them looking for me!