I for one, have not had much occasion to consider the effectiveness of one vote per person, until recently. In the back of my mind, I felt that every county needs a representative vote on some issues. But if a person is a rep for more than one county, that means things can snowball. If we are going to rock the boat, and re-do some guidelines, then we need to visit the issue of whether someone can effectively handle more than one county, AND the people who actually research in the county, need to have a say in whether their co-ordinator is doing an adequate job. I have always felt that residents of a county should have first choice on who their co-ordinator should be. It's much more effective if the co-ordinator resides in their county, and I hear that from my county visitors all the time. I don't think anyone can reside in more than one county at a time. Also, past experience has shown us that someone with more than one county, can suddenly remove those pages, and the end result is to have more than one county site 'disappear' overnight in a huff. (and when a county 'disappears', shouldn't that person responsible for the disappearance be banned from being a county co-ordinator????) There are pros and cons to one vote per person/one vote per county, and we need to address these issues slowly and carefully, with more thought than what I have time for, at this season of the year. We also need to identify ALL issues, before we change anything. And I hope that no one wants to insist on decisions being finalized any time soon, during the holiday season. tracy reinhardt

>It's much more effective if the co-ordinator resides in their county, and >I hear that from my county visitors all the time. I don't think anyone can >reside in more than one county at a time. -------- Residence in the county or an area can be an advantage IF the cc is willing to devote the time to transcribing material for their county website(s). In the case of one of the counties I now coordinate, the former coordinator lived in the county but did very little with the site nor respond to a number of would-be volunteer contributors for several years. From the beginning of WiGenWeb to June 2000 they managed only 15-18 pages, and they lived in the county and worked in the county seat. Some cc's live far away from their county of responsibility but manage to have growing websites anyway, while some cc's will only put up what volunteers send them. Few of us can afford to be 'professional volunteers' and paying jobs, our living families, etc should take precedence. But yes, in selecting a coordinator there needs to be some thought given to whether the person will spend time working on their site *along with* putting up the contributions sent to them by volunteers. The greater the geographic proximity to the county, the greater the opportunity for more website content, but only if the coordinator is willing to put forth the time & effort. I think in making the decision in who gets a website when there is a vacancy, it should be considered whether the person has the motivation to work on it, as evidenced by prior and current activity in contributing material and volunteer involvement in their local genealogy or historical society, FHC, etc. On a related vein, since we cc's are putting forth so much of our time and pocket change paying for copies, driving to the FHC's/courthouses/libraries to do look-ups and obtain content for our sites--shouldn't ancestry.com at least provide us a reward of a subscription at free or greatly reduced price? We are after all an advertising venue for them in drawing traffic and each page and county mailing list message is an ad for them. Is this an idea Tina or other leaders might 'push' for the benefit of our website building? For all the work we do and hours we spend, it would be nice if there were some reward other than "free webspace"... My twenty five cents worth--and no I am not trying to offend anyone with my opinion <smile>--and thanks for considering my thoughts! Joan Adams and Marquette CC

I wish to commend Tracy for addressing some good issues here. One of the main problems we have now is that we (as a list) are trying to cover more than one issue at a time. I believe we should start out by defining - fully and acceptably - what a CC (or Co-CC) is and the duties of that position. I agree with Tracy that the holiday season is a poor time to start. From there we can work up to voting issues, term limits for the SC, etc. Lori in Rock Tracy Reinhardt wrote: > I for one, have not had much occasion to consider the effectiveness of > one vote per person, until recently. > In the back of my mind, I felt that every county needs a > representative vote on some issues. But if a person is a rep for > more than one county, that means things can snowball. > > If we are going to rock the boat, and re-do some guidelines, then we > need to visit the issue of whether someone can effectively handle more > than one county, AND the people who actually research in the county, > need to have a say in whether their co-ordinator is doing an adequate > job. > I have always felt that residents of a county should have first choice > on who their co-ordinator should be. It's much more effective if the > co-ordinator resides in their county, and I hear that from my county > visitors all the time. I don't think anyone can reside in more than > one county at a time. > Also, past experience has shown us that someone with more than one > county, can suddenly remove those pages, and the end result is to have > more than one county site 'disappear' overnight in a huff. (and when a > county 'disappears', shouldn't that person responsible for the > disappearance be banned from being a county co-ordinator????) > > There are pros and cons to one vote per person/one vote per county, > and we need to address these issues slowly and carefully, with more > thought than what I have time for, at this season of the year. > > We also need to identify ALL issues, before we change anything. > And I hope that no one wants to insist on decisions being finalized > any time soon, during the holiday season. > > tracy reinhardt

Hi all, First of all, I think these discussion is terrific! Thank you all for sharing your ideas and suggestions. Please know that no decisions will be made without a majority vote of all of you. We all be a team, working together to make WIGenWeb Project the very best that it can be! <g> I perhaps did get carried away in presenting to much at once. For now, keep discussing, and I will attempt to incorporate your suggestions into the appropriate section(s) of what I have presented, and re-present it for second round discussion one section at a time. I agree that the holidays are upon us, and I assure you that this discussion is not one I will rush .. so don't worry about that please. Keep on discussing, I have really appreciated your thoughtfulness of the issues, and the wonderful ideas many of you have contributed. Tina ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lori Niemuth" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 5:07 PM Subject: Re: [WIGEN-L] votes > I wish to commend Tracy for addressing some good issues here. One of > the main problems we have now is that we (as a list) are trying to cover > more than one issue at a time. I believe we should start out by > defining - fully and acceptably - what a CC (or Co-CC) is and the duties > of that position. I agree with Tracy that the holiday season is a poor > time to start. From there we can work up to voting issues, term limits > for the SC, etc. > > Lori in Rock > > Tracy Reinhardt wrote: > > > I for one, have not had much occasion to consider the effectiveness of > > one vote per person, until recently. > > In the back of my mind, I felt that every county needs a > > representative vote on some issues. But if a person is a rep for > > more than one county, that means things can snowball. > > > > If we are going to rock the boat, and re-do some guidelines, then we > > need to visit the issue of whether someone can effectively handle more > > than one county, AND the people who actually research in the county, > > need to have a say in whether their co-ordinator is doing an adequate > > job. > > I have always felt that residents of a county should have first choice > > on who their co-ordinator should be. It's much more effective if the > > co-ordinator resides in their county, and I hear that from my county > > visitors all the time. I don't think anyone can reside in more than > > one county at a time. > > Also, past experience has shown us that someone with more than one > > county, can suddenly remove those pages, and the end result is to have > > more than one county site 'disappear' overnight in a huff. (and when a > > county 'disappears', shouldn't that person responsible for the > > disappearance be banned from being a county co-ordinator????) > > > > There are pros and cons to one vote per person/one vote per county, > > and we need to address these issues slowly and carefully, with more > > thought than what I have time for, at this season of the year. > > > > We also need to identify ALL issues, before we change anything. > > And I hope that no one wants to insist on decisions being finalized > > any time soon, during the holiday season. > > > > tracy reinhardt > > > > ==== WIGEN Mailing List ==== > Celebrate Wisconsin! > Visit the Trempealeau County WIGenWeb Project Pages > http://www.rootsweb.com/~witrempe/ > >