Beginning March 2nd, 2020 the Mailing Lists functionality on RootsWeb will be discontinued. Users will no longer be able to send outgoing emails or accept incoming emails. Additionally, administration tools will no longer be available to list administrators and mailing lists will be put into an archival state.
Administrators may save the emails in their list prior to March 2nd. After that, mailing list archives will remain available and searchable on RootsWeb
In my case, Richard asked me by phone to
volunteer for the committee. I had to decline
because of my eyesight problem.
The main problem with the current guidelines was
that they were being enforced against some people
and not others.
As soon as they were approved, some people
started hunting ways to get around them. (I refer
anyone to the mail list archives.)
Those are some of the issues that need to be
addressed.
Does "links to neighboring counties" mean
individual links or just a link to table again?
If to the table, why have the requirement that we
have a separate link to the table?
Brenda Pierce favored the link to the table
whereas I had individual links. Since she is the
ASC I altered mine to comply with hers. I really
felt that the individual links were more
beneficial.
Brenda Webb, my co-CC is still not listed on the
table although I have requested it many times in
many ways. There have been many CCs and co CCs
come and go during the many months I have asked.
Who has the right to say someone can have a co CC
or that they can't? If this isn't covered in the
bylaws, it should be.
Dawson County is not Forsyth County.
I have not participated by sending input because
I have not been sure there was much value in
staying with the project as it exists today.
Under the current bylaws, I removed much of what
I had submitted and others have too. This was in
direct response to the shabby treatment Brenda
Webb received. The material is online, but no
longer a part of GaGenWeb.
Donna
--- Jacki Jonas <jackij(a)chesapeake.net> wrote:
> Jan, Debra, Vivian and I have all said the same
> thing: Richard selected the
> committee. We don't know what his criteria were
> other than to have
> volunteered in the first place. He did decide
> that there would be 8 members
> (one for each region). As replacements were
> needed, Richard would make a
> recommendation to the committee to be confirmed
> (or not).
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
Let me address Brenda's concerns:
Brenda: <I guess I am confused about what personnel issues are being
conducted on the list. I thought personnel issues were handled by the SC
and the Council, this is exactly the type of information that I am asking
about.>
GAGenWeb personnel issues *are* handled by the SC and the Council. The only
personnel issues discussed on the GRC list concerned the membership of the
GRC, not the GAGenWeb. Even those issues only came up after some people
resigned from the committee and needed to be replaced.
Brenda: <It seems that the GAGen body as a whole was not told what was
being done, how it was being done in re to the selection processes and
whatever else, it seems that even I don't know what the rules are after
reading the differing statements from many ..... but here's what we were
told:
That people could volunteer to serve - (no info was put forth to the
council that stated a whole new criteria was being utilized, nor have I
seen that put forth to the cc list). >
Jan, Debra, Vivian and I have all said the same thing: Richard selected the
committee. We don't know what his criteria were other than to have
volunteered in the first place. He did decide that there would be 8 members
(one for each region). As replacements were needed, Richard would make a
recommendation to the committee to be confirmed (or not).
Update:
The committee is interested in everyone's opinion on the various
guidelines. We've asked for input on certain sections as we look at them.
We've asked for input after we've drafted a revision. We'll ask for more
input after we use that feedback to create a second revision. We are not
interested in keeping our work secret and I think that we've shown that.
We are currently working on incorporating the feedback on the BOR and
Grievance/Mediation procedures as well as looking at the portions of the
Guidelines that deal with the membership and purpose of the GAGenWeb. We
welcome input from any CC on these topics, either here, GALINA, or in an
email to any committee member.
Respectfully,
Jacki
Let me reiterate the concerns that were brought to my attention:
I guess I am confused about what personnel issues are being conducted on the list.
I thought personnel issues were handled by the SC and the Council, this is exactly the
type of information that I am asking about.
Let me reiterate - It seems that the GAGen body as a whole was not told what was being done, how it was being done in re to the selection processes and whatever else, it seems that even I don't know what the rules are after reading the differing statements from many ..... but here's what we were told:
That people could volunteer to serve - (no info was put forth to the council that stated a whole new criteria was being utilized, nor have I seen that put forth to the cc list).
If the GRC is now the controlling body of personnel issues, people would like to know when and how that came to be. If personnel issues are being discussed on this list, what are they, are the guidelines in that respect being followed, that personnel issues are brought forth under .... I don't see anywhere where it states GRC ... etc...
The selection of people for the GRC should include any cc that wanted to participate, or currently wants to particpate to fill a slot that is open. All members of this organization will be asked to abide by the Guidelines if they are voted and passed through, from the information I have received there lies several misconceptions:
1) That the list was for discussion of Guidelines issues.
2) There was no communication that I can find to GaGenWeb that purports any criterias that would not allow a cc to participate.
3) I am somewhat blown away with the comments in regards to personnel issues -- I can't understand how this group came to be handling personnel issues.
I will bring up these matters with the council, again, I am addressing concerns, I am not picking at people, or at the committee, but there are matters here which are of concern to some, and I am attempting to get answers, not create a adverse working environment.
If anyone has something they wish to add to this, I am more than willing to listen.
This has been brought to the council, and I will follow it up there and when something is brought forward to answer these items, I will advise. My reasons for asking these questions are simple, there are concerns here by some in this project.
Thanks to all that have responded, and please understand this is not about a person, this is about concerns that are brought up.
Brenda
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Saffold <msaffold(a)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Dec 8, 2003 7:49 AM
To: GAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [GAGEN] Open GRC list
I, too, am confused as to just what you are getting at.
There is no way for the majority of us to know what stories you are being
told unless you tell us. Aside from personnel issues (always confidential),
there is nothing going on behind the scenes that is not posted on the
website or to GAGEN-L.
Because everything the committee does must be approved by the council
*before* it goes to the CCs for a vote, there has been from the beginning a
feeling on the committee that the committee's work might be an exercise in
futility. Since council approval is required, it is a bit ludicrous to even
hint that the committee is trying to force anything on anyone. The
committee simply does not have the power.
You certainly are entitled (and encouraged) to ask questions. However, as
has been said before, the ground rules (including criteria for membership)
were set by the organizer, not by the members. In order for the rest of us
to try to affect changes we feel are desirable, we had to agree to play by
those rules. I must reiterate, however, that the SC of this project is an
ex-officio member of the committee and has made no objections to membership
criteria or operating procedure. I can assure you that the members of the
committee serve with only one motive: to make the project better for *all.*
You seem to be saying (of course, I could be wrong) that decisions are
being made in secret. There is no attempt on the part of the committee to
keep anything secret. Ideas and proposals have been communicated every step
of the way via the website, GAGen-L and personal emails, as "real time" as
possible within the mandated restraints. The new list will make the process
even more open. What few comments we received on the Bill of Rights (no
*official* response from the council at all) will be considered for a
revised draft.
Brenda wrote:
>There appears to be a problem here with what is and is not true, and I am
>attempting to ask what is the truth. There is a big difference in the way
>the two items were projected.
>
>All I see are items being put here with items that do not correlate with
>what was told to us, and I am speaking as a cc, not as a RC.
Brenda, I will be happy to answer honestly any questions, whenever I know
the answers. I must admit, however, as in the above, that I don't
understand the question. If you could please say exactly what two items you
are talking about and what does not correlate, that might help.
Could the committee do things better? Of course. Could we benefit from the
opinions of everyone it the project? Absolutely.
I, for one, appreciate your interest.
Vivian
At 10:10 PM 12/4/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>I think once again things are getting turned around, it seems that everyone
>wants to "jump" back when questions are asked, why is that? Where are the
>answers to questions. This is not about sanctions, it is about what is and
>was done.
>
>1). I am attempting to explain the differences in the stories that are
>getting told. There seems to be confusion by folks on what is and is not
>the truth.
>
>2) Why the angry tone, I am attempting to get to the bottom of something
>that affects every cc in this project, why am I not allowed to ask
>questions about this committee?
>
>3) I don't understand the spinning of wheels comment, I don't see any
>answers to questions, just rhetoric on what *I* should be doing, the last
>time I checked there were far more members in this group than just me. Is
>it wrong for me to ask questions of a committee that is in charge of the
>items that cc's are going to be asked to vote on and abide by? Where are
>the *criterias*? What makes one cc more eligible than another to work on
>guidelines issues? Again, who, when, how long, etc? How many have not been
>allowed to serve? Is that confidential too?
>
>4) The last time guidelines were implemented the complaints were that
>people were not allowed to know what was being discussed and to have no
>participation in those as they were going on in real time. There was no
>real time discussion of rights for this bill or rights, or if there was, I
>was not privy to it. People should be allowed to view the work that was
>done on this.
>
>There appears to be a problem here with what is and is not true, and I am
>attempting to ask what is the truth. There is a big difference in the way
>the two items were projected.
>
>All I see are items being put here with items that do not correlate with
>what was told to us, and I am speaking as a cc, not as a RC.
>
>Since I don't see any of these questions being answered, only tactics that
>are attempts to throw my questions back at me, then I suppose my fear
>factor shoudl begin to start working. What is going on with this committee
>that the other cc's can't know about?
>
>re open lists:
>Also, I will ask the question again, does Board-L have a "off-line" list
>for board members to discuss items on? That was never answered from my
>previous email. I think that is a fair question since the mention was made
>that Board-L is open to members for review. Where & does Board-L discuss
>other matters off the Board-L list? In states where there is only an SC
>and ASC, do they post all their messages in real time for the rest of the
>project to view?
>
>The loudest are not always the majority! I guess I just don't understand
>why *MY* questions get the responses they get without answers. As far as
>change, I am probably the most versatile person on the council, all of the
>positions that I hold both personal and public, demand that I remain
>versatile, however, I am making sure my blinders are not on!
>
>Brenda
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Jan Cortez <cristian(a)netonecom.net>
> > To: <GAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> > Date: 12/7/03 7:36:19 PM
> > Subject: Re: [GAGEN] Open GRC list
> >
> > Brenda, I would assume that maybe you are a bit confused, in that *we* did
> > not set up this group. We didn't set up the mailing list, we didn't set
>up
> > the rules for use, we did as we were told by an ASC of this project, who
> > started this, with, I would assume some sanction by the SC, as he is also
>a
> > member of this list.
> > Nothing, in all this time has been mentioned by him.
> >
> > If none of this was sanctioned by the Council, then I wonder why the SC
> > didn't tell us to stop. Why didn't you say something before this?
> >
> > A MANDATE by one person? That one person is an ASC here. Are we out of
> > line in following what we were instructed to do? Are you saying that we
> > should have said no, and changed the rules to what we wanted? I'm really
> > confused here.
> >
> > You state:
> > "How many cc's have served on the committee? Who were they? How long did
> > they serve, what were their reasons for leaving? How many total have been
> > turned away from serving? Again, where are the *criteria* - *where has
>the
> > *criteria* been posted? "
> >
> > These questions seem like something that you as a council might be
> > discussing, since four council members are on this list.
> >
> > Confidential - I don't believe we have kept anything that we are working
>on
> > confidential. Items for discussion have been posted on the internet,
>input
> > has been requested on numerous occasions on the GAGEN-L list, as well as
> > private mailings going out from the GRC members asking for input.
> >
> > I don't think anyone on this GRC, went into this, for any other reason
>than
> > to help with some possible changes here. I am getting the distinct
> > impression, that change is not something that you want.
> >
> > Maybe this is something that the members of the council need to discuss,
>get
> > your ducks in a row, and then come back and tell us what the rules are.
> >
> > Maybe the SC and the CC's would like to shed some light on this
>situation.
> > Should we continue, or just give it all up?
> >
> > Personally, I am coming to the conclusion, that we are just spinning our
> > wheels here, and maybe all this work is for naught. Color me very
>confused.
> >
> > Jan Cortez
> > Banks & Decatur Counties
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Brenda Pierce" <ltlbit(a)mindspring.com>
> >
> >
> > > I think there is confusion,.... what I was told was that information
>from
> > > cc's could be kept confidential, NOT what the GRC was discussing.
> > > Again, I just don't understand why the items that you would want US to
> > > abide by are confidential. If they are going to be guidelines, how are
> > > they going to be kept confidential? Let's don't twist the two items
> > > together, the emails to the members are not on the list , so that should
> > > not be an issue. A mandate by one person to keep something secretive
>is
> > > also not the same thing as a confidential list.....
> > >
> > > There was NO STIPULATION made to the council that the GRC list would be
> > one
> > > that nothing would leave the list, and it was never voted by the council
> > or
> > > cc's for that to be the way the list would work. If you want people to
> > > abide by guidelines, then let them at least know what has been discussed
> > so
> > > that they have some idea of what the items are, they just might have
>some
> > > very valid points to add.
> > >
> > > How many cc's have served on the committee? Who were they? How long
>did
> > > they serve, what were their reasons for leaving? How many total have
>been
> > > turned away from serving? Again, where are the *criteria* - *where has
> > the
> > > *criteria* been posted?
> > >
> > > There is a difference, since the items were sent thru email, obviously
>the
> > > past documents should be opened up as those were discussions by the GRC
>,
> > > not the cc's direct input to you. You were NOT told on the list WHO
>MADE
> > > SUGGESTIONS, so this is not a valid argument for not opening up the past
> > > documentation, again I will repeat since this is NOT a *cc* personnel
> > > discussion list, the cc's should be able to review the discussions on
>the
> > > items that they are suppose to vote and abide by.
> > >
> > > Also, in Georgia there is a "Sunday" law, open public records act --
>isn't
> > > this a Georgia project?
> > > Since this list was archived and this was not a list that was set up
>with
> > > the permission of the council to be a confidential list with personnel
> > > issues on it, I believe it may be subject to the open records act.
> > >
> > > Since two of the members have stated they don't mind it being opened up,
> > > what about the rest of you?
> > >
> > > Caps are utilized for emphasis, not for shouting, for all intents and
> > > purposes.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > [Original Message]
> > > > From: Jacki Jonas <jackij(a)chesapeake.net>
> > > > To: <GAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> > > > Date: 12/7/03 2:27:07 PM
> > > > Subject: [GAGEN] Open GRC list
> > > >
> > > > Good afternoon, everyone.
> > > >
> > > > The original GRC mailing list was set up with the stipulation that
> > nothing
> > > > would leave the list. As such, I don't believe that past emails can be
> > > made
> > > > public since they were posted with that stipulation.
> > > >
> > > > However, all email business of the GRC from this point forward will be
> > > > archived in the YahooGroups archive at
> > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gagrc/. The archives are open to all.
> > > Posting
> > > > to that list is restricted to GRC members. However, GRC members will
> > > > continue to request input from CCs and forward it to the GRC list
> > > > anonymously.
> > > >
> > > > Respectfully submitted,
> > > >
> > > > Jacki
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ==== GAGEN Mailing List ====
> > > > Got a problem? Contact your RC or ASC at GAGENWEB-L(a)rootsweb.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ==== GAGEN Mailing List ====
> > > Have you added something signifigant to your website? Advertise it on
> > this
> > > list!
> > >
> >
> >
> > ==== GAGEN Mailing List ====
> > Got a problem? Contact your RC or ASC at GAGENWEB-L(a)rootsweb.com
>
>
>
>==== GAGEN Mailing List ====
>Regional Coordinators are there to help County Coordinators. Don't
> hesitate to contact them should you have any, any question. To find
>info on your region visit http://www.rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/regional.html
3570 Hildon Circle
Chamblee, GA 30341
==== GAGEN Mailing List ====
Confused about Copyrights??? Review USGenWeb's policy on copyrights at:
http://www.usgenweb.org/volunteers/copyright.html
<BOLD> Brenda </Bold>
I, too, am confused as to just what you are getting at.
There is no way for the majority of us to know what stories you are being
told unless you tell us. Aside from personnel issues (always confidential),
there is nothing going on behind the scenes that is not posted on the
website or to GAGEN-L.
Because everything the committee does must be approved by the council
*before* it goes to the CCs for a vote, there has been from the beginning a
feeling on the committee that the committee's work might be an exercise in
futility. Since council approval is required, it is a bit ludicrous to even
hint that the committee is trying to force anything on anyone. The
committee simply does not have the power.
You certainly are entitled (and encouraged) to ask questions. However, as
has been said before, the ground rules (including criteria for membership)
were set by the organizer, not by the members. In order for the rest of us
to try to affect changes we feel are desirable, we had to agree to play by
those rules. I must reiterate, however, that the SC of this project is an
ex-officio member of the committee and has made no objections to membership
criteria or operating procedure. I can assure you that the members of the
committee serve with only one motive: to make the project better for *all.*
You seem to be saying (of course, I could be wrong) that decisions are
being made in secret. There is no attempt on the part of the committee to
keep anything secret. Ideas and proposals have been communicated every step
of the way via the website, GAGen-L and personal emails, as "real time" as
possible within the mandated restraints. The new list will make the process
even more open. What few comments we received on the Bill of Rights (no
*official* response from the council at all) will be considered for a
revised draft.
Brenda wrote:
>There appears to be a problem here with what is and is not true, and I am
>attempting to ask what is the truth. There is a big difference in the way
>the two items were projected.
>
>All I see are items being put here with items that do not correlate with
>what was told to us, and I am speaking as a cc, not as a RC.
Brenda, I will be happy to answer honestly any questions, whenever I know
the answers. I must admit, however, as in the above, that I don't
understand the question. If you could please say exactly what two items you
are talking about and what does not correlate, that might help.
Could the committee do things better? Of course. Could we benefit from the
opinions of everyone it the project? Absolutely.
I, for one, appreciate your interest.
Vivian
At 10:10 PM 12/4/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>I think once again things are getting turned around, it seems that everyone
>wants to "jump" back when questions are asked, why is that? Where are the
>answers to questions. This is not about sanctions, it is about what is and
>was done.
>
>1). I am attempting to explain the differences in the stories that are
>getting told. There seems to be confusion by folks on what is and is not
>the truth.
>
>2) Why the angry tone, I am attempting to get to the bottom of something
>that affects every cc in this project, why am I not allowed to ask
>questions about this committee?
>
>3) I don't understand the spinning of wheels comment, I don't see any
>answers to questions, just rhetoric on what *I* should be doing, the last
>time I checked there were far more members in this group than just me. Is
>it wrong for me to ask questions of a committee that is in charge of the
>items that cc's are going to be asked to vote on and abide by? Where are
>the *criterias*? What makes one cc more eligible than another to work on
>guidelines issues? Again, who, when, how long, etc? How many have not been
>allowed to serve? Is that confidential too?
>
>4) The last time guidelines were implemented the complaints were that
>people were not allowed to know what was being discussed and to have no
>participation in those as they were going on in real time. There was no
>real time discussion of rights for this bill or rights, or if there was, I
>was not privy to it. People should be allowed to view the work that was
>done on this.
>
>There appears to be a problem here with what is and is not true, and I am
>attempting to ask what is the truth. There is a big difference in the way
>the two items were projected.
>
>All I see are items being put here with items that do not correlate with
>what was told to us, and I am speaking as a cc, not as a RC.
>
>Since I don't see any of these questions being answered, only tactics that
>are attempts to throw my questions back at me, then I suppose my fear
>factor shoudl begin to start working. What is going on with this committee
>that the other cc's can't know about?
>
>re open lists:
>Also, I will ask the question again, does Board-L have a "off-line" list
>for board members to discuss items on? That was never answered from my
>previous email. I think that is a fair question since the mention was made
>that Board-L is open to members for review. Where & does Board-L discuss
>other matters off the Board-L list? In states where there is only an SC
>and ASC, do they post all their messages in real time for the rest of the
>project to view?
>
>The loudest are not always the majority! I guess I just don't understand
>why *MY* questions get the responses they get without answers. As far as
>change, I am probably the most versatile person on the council, all of the
>positions that I hold both personal and public, demand that I remain
>versatile, however, I am making sure my blinders are not on!
>
>Brenda
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Jan Cortez <cristian(a)netonecom.net>
> > To: <GAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> > Date: 12/7/03 7:36:19 PM
> > Subject: Re: [GAGEN] Open GRC list
> >
> > Brenda, I would assume that maybe you are a bit confused, in that *we* did
> > not set up this group. We didn't set up the mailing list, we didn't set
>up
> > the rules for use, we did as we were told by an ASC of this project, who
> > started this, with, I would assume some sanction by the SC, as he is also
>a
> > member of this list.
> > Nothing, in all this time has been mentioned by him.
> >
> > If none of this was sanctioned by the Council, then I wonder why the SC
> > didn't tell us to stop. Why didn't you say something before this?
> >
> > A MANDATE by one person? That one person is an ASC here. Are we out of
> > line in following what we were instructed to do? Are you saying that we
> > should have said no, and changed the rules to what we wanted? I'm really
> > confused here.
> >
> > You state:
> > "How many cc's have served on the committee? Who were they? How long did
> > they serve, what were their reasons for leaving? How many total have been
> > turned away from serving? Again, where are the *criteria* - *where has
>the
> > *criteria* been posted? "
> >
> > These questions seem like something that you as a council might be
> > discussing, since four council members are on this list.
> >
> > Confidential - I don't believe we have kept anything that we are working
>on
> > confidential. Items for discussion have been posted on the internet,
>input
> > has been requested on numerous occasions on the GAGEN-L list, as well as
> > private mailings going out from the GRC members asking for input.
> >
> > I don't think anyone on this GRC, went into this, for any other reason
>than
> > to help with some possible changes here. I am getting the distinct
> > impression, that change is not something that you want.
> >
> > Maybe this is something that the members of the council need to discuss,
>get
> > your ducks in a row, and then come back and tell us what the rules are.
> >
> > Maybe the SC and the CC's would like to shed some light on this
>situation.
> > Should we continue, or just give it all up?
> >
> > Personally, I am coming to the conclusion, that we are just spinning our
> > wheels here, and maybe all this work is for naught. Color me very
>confused.
> >
> > Jan Cortez
> > Banks & Decatur Counties
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Brenda Pierce" <ltlbit(a)mindspring.com>
> >
> >
> > > I think there is confusion,.... what I was told was that information
>from
> > > cc's could be kept confidential, NOT what the GRC was discussing.
> > > Again, I just don't understand why the items that you would want US to
> > > abide by are confidential. If they are going to be guidelines, how are
> > > they going to be kept confidential? Let's don't twist the two items
> > > together, the emails to the members are not on the list , so that should
> > > not be an issue. A mandate by one person to keep something secretive
>is
> > > also not the same thing as a confidential list.....
> > >
> > > There was NO STIPULATION made to the council that the GRC list would be
> > one
> > > that nothing would leave the list, and it was never voted by the council
> > or
> > > cc's for that to be the way the list would work. If you want people to
> > > abide by guidelines, then let them at least know what has been discussed
> > so
> > > that they have some idea of what the items are, they just might have
>some
> > > very valid points to add.
> > >
> > > How many cc's have served on the committee? Who were they? How long
>did
> > > they serve, what were their reasons for leaving? How many total have
>been
> > > turned away from serving? Again, where are the *criteria* - *where has
> > the
> > > *criteria* been posted?
> > >
> > > There is a difference, since the items were sent thru email, obviously
>the
> > > past documents should be opened up as those were discussions by the GRC
>,
> > > not the cc's direct input to you. You were NOT told on the list WHO
>MADE
> > > SUGGESTIONS, so this is not a valid argument for not opening up the past
> > > documentation, again I will repeat since this is NOT a *cc* personnel
> > > discussion list, the cc's should be able to review the discussions on
>the
> > > items that they are suppose to vote and abide by.
> > >
> > > Also, in Georgia there is a "Sunday" law, open public records act --
>isn't
> > > this a Georgia project?
> > > Since this list was archived and this was not a list that was set up
>with
> > > the permission of the council to be a confidential list with personnel
> > > issues on it, I believe it may be subject to the open records act.
> > >
> > > Since two of the members have stated they don't mind it being opened up,
> > > what about the rest of you?
> > >
> > > Caps are utilized for emphasis, not for shouting, for all intents and
> > > purposes.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > [Original Message]
> > > > From: Jacki Jonas <jackij(a)chesapeake.net>
> > > > To: <GAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> > > > Date: 12/7/03 2:27:07 PM
> > > > Subject: [GAGEN] Open GRC list
> > > >
> > > > Good afternoon, everyone.
> > > >
> > > > The original GRC mailing list was set up with the stipulation that
> > nothing
> > > > would leave the list. As such, I don't believe that past emails can be
> > > made
> > > > public since they were posted with that stipulation.
> > > >
> > > > However, all email business of the GRC from this point forward will be
> > > > archived in the YahooGroups archive at
> > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gagrc/. The archives are open to all.
> > > Posting
> > > > to that list is restricted to GRC members. However, GRC members will
> > > > continue to request input from CCs and forward it to the GRC list
> > > > anonymously.
> > > >
> > > > Respectfully submitted,
> > > >
> > > > Jacki
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ==== GAGEN Mailing List ====
> > > > Got a problem? Contact your RC or ASC at GAGENWEB-L(a)rootsweb.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ==== GAGEN Mailing List ====
> > > Have you added something signifigant to your website? Advertise it on
> > this
> > > list!
> > >
> >
> >
> > ==== GAGEN Mailing List ====
> > Got a problem? Contact your RC or ASC at GAGENWEB-L(a)rootsweb.com
>
>
>
>==== GAGEN Mailing List ====
>Regional Coordinators are there to help County Coordinators. Don't
> hesitate to contact them should you have any, any question. To find
>info on your region visit http://www.rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/regional.html
3570 Hildon Circle
Chamblee, GA 30341
What are you picking at here? I really don't understand.
From what I have seen we all want the GRC discussions open for viewing whether on
a list or on an archives. It doesn't matter who set it up originally to be private,, the point is
to move on from those errors.
Brenda I am one that was on that committee in the beginning,,
I signed on to that committee, even though it was set up by an ASC without the SC's permission
and even though it was set up as private,, why?? I signed on because I thought it was our ONLY
chance for the CC's in the GAGenWeb to even begin to make a change and at the time I thought to myself
"Tim will shut this down immediately once he gets wind of this committee" but at the same time I thought,,
"Richard is the ASC and he assures us that he can get Tim to agree to this committee" so I signed on
hoping in some small way to have a voice for the CC's.
after a few weeks of bickering and not getting anywhere a vote was actually taken to dissolve the
committee and several of us resigned. I was the only one who was not invited to come back when the vote was taken to
continue with the committee. The other resignee's were promptly invited back. I know several CC's who
volunteered and were not selected. That's not the point now,, the point is
to get over past mistakes, put it out there on the list so that we can all see what is occurring and so
that there is a record of our GRC members opinions & votes on the issues placed before them. You
are there to represent us so we should be able to see exactly how you are working on our behalf.
If you want details of what was set up and originated, check with Richard. He is the one who started
this in his own way and with his stipulations, and that was agreed to by us all because we had no
other options. A group of people desperate to see some good changes signed on because we wanted
any chance we could get to improve and had no other means to do that.
Don't pick it apart,, I've come to have much respect for a few members on that list who I really didn't trust
at all in the beginning.
Please just go from here,, open the list up,, however you choose to do so and don't argue about who/why it
was set up privy in the beginning.
Debra Crosby
----- Original Message -----
From: Brenda Pierce
To: GAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 3:10 AM
Subject: Re: [GAGEN] Open GRC list
I think once again things are getting turned around, it seems that everyone
wants to "jump" back when questions are asked, why is that? Where are the
answers to questions. This is not about sanctions, it is about what is and
was done.
1). I am attempting to explain the differences in the stories that are
getting told. There seems to be confusion by folks on what is and is not
the truth.
2) Why the angry tone, I am attempting to get to the bottom of something
that affects every cc in this project, why am I not allowed to ask
questions about this committee?
3) I don't understand the spinning of wheels comment, I don't see any
answers to questions, just rhetoric on what *I* should be doing, the last
time I checked there were far more members in this group than just me. Is
it wrong for me to ask questions of a committee that is in charge of the
items that cc's are going to be asked to vote on and abide by? Where are
the *criterias*? What makes one cc more eligible than another to work on
guidelines issues? Again, who, when, how long, etc? How many have not been
allowed to serve? Is that confidential too?
4) The last time guidelines were implemented the complaints were that
people were not allowed to know what was being discussed and to have no
participation in those as they were going on in real time. There was no
real time discussion of rights for this bill or rights, or if there was, I
was not privy to it. People should be allowed to view the work that was
done on this.
There appears to be a problem here with what is and is not true, and I am
attempting to ask what is the truth. There is a big difference in the way
the two items were projected.
All I see are items being put here with items that do not correlate with
what was told to us, and I am speaking as a cc, not as a RC.
Since I don't see any of these questions being answered, only tactics that
are attempts to throw my questions back at me, then I suppose my fear
factor shoudl begin to start working. What is going on with this committee
that the other cc's can't know about?
re open lists:
Also, I will ask the question again, does Board-L have a "off-line" list
for board members to discuss items on? That was never answered from my
previous email. I think that is a fair question since the mention was made
that Board-L is open to members for review. Where & does Board-L discuss
other matters off the Board-L list? In states where there is only an SC
and ASC, do they post all their messages in real time for the rest of the
project to view?
The loudest are not always the majority! I guess I just don't understand
why *MY* questions get the responses they get without answers. As far as
change, I am probably the most versatile person on the council, all of the
positions that I hold both personal and public, demand that I remain
versatile, however, I am making sure my blinders are not on!
Brenda
> [Original Message]
> From: Jan Cortez <cristian(a)netonecom.net>
> To: <GAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> Date: 12/7/03 7:36:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [GAGEN] Open GRC list
>
> Brenda, I would assume that maybe you are a bit confused, in that *we* did
> not set up this group. We didn't set up the mailing list, we didn't set
up
> the rules for use, we did as we were told by an ASC of this project, who
> started this, with, I would assume some sanction by the SC, as he is also
a
> member of this list.
> Nothing, in all this time has been mentioned by him.
>
> If none of this was sanctioned by the Council, then I wonder why the SC
> didn't tell us to stop. Why didn't you say something before this?
>
> A MANDATE by one person? That one person is an ASC here. Are we out of
> line in following what we were instructed to do? Are you saying that we
> should have said no, and changed the rules to what we wanted? I'm really
> confused here.
>
> You state:
> "How many cc's have served on the committee? Who were they? How long did
> they serve, what were their reasons for leaving? How many total have been
> turned away from serving? Again, where are the *criteria* - *where has
the
> *criteria* been posted? "
>
> These questions seem like something that you as a council might be
> discussing, since four council members are on this list.
>
> Confidential - I don't believe we have kept anything that we are working
on
> confidential. Items for discussion have been posted on the internet,
input
> has been requested on numerous occasions on the GAGEN-L list, as well as
> private mailings going out from the GRC members asking for input.
>
> I don't think anyone on this GRC, went into this, for any other reason
than
> to help with some possible changes here. I am getting the distinct
> impression, that change is not something that you want.
>
> Maybe this is something that the members of the council need to discuss,
get
> your ducks in a row, and then come back and tell us what the rules are.
>
> Maybe the SC and the CC's would like to shed some light on this
situation.
> Should we continue, or just give it all up?
>
> Personally, I am coming to the conclusion, that we are just spinning our
> wheels here, and maybe all this work is for naught. Color me very
confused.
>
> Jan Cortez
> Banks & Decatur Counties
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brenda Pierce" <ltlbit(a)mindspring.com>
>
>
> > I think there is confusion,.... what I was told was that information
from
> > cc's could be kept confidential, NOT what the GRC was discussing.
> > Again, I just don't understand why the items that you would want US to
> > abide by are confidential. If they are going to be guidelines, how are
> > they going to be kept confidential? Let's don't twist the two items
> > together, the emails to the members are not on the list , so that should
> > not be an issue. A mandate by one person to keep something secretive
is
> > also not the same thing as a confidential list.....
> >
> > There was NO STIPULATION made to the council that the GRC list would be
> one
> > that nothing would leave the list, and it was never voted by the council
> or
> > cc's for that to be the way the list would work. If you want people to
> > abide by guidelines, then let them at least know what has been discussed
> so
> > that they have some idea of what the items are, they just might have
some
> > very valid points to add.
> >
> > How many cc's have served on the committee? Who were they? How long
did
> > they serve, what were their reasons for leaving? How many total have
been
> > turned away from serving? Again, where are the *criteria* - *where has
> the
> > *criteria* been posted?
> >
> > There is a difference, since the items were sent thru email, obviously
the
> > past documents should be opened up as those were discussions by the GRC
,
> > not the cc's direct input to you. You were NOT told on the list WHO
MADE
> > SUGGESTIONS, so this is not a valid argument for not opening up the past
> > documentation, again I will repeat since this is NOT a *cc* personnel
> > discussion list, the cc's should be able to review the discussions on
the
> > items that they are suppose to vote and abide by.
> >
> > Also, in Georgia there is a "Sunday" law, open public records act --
isn't
> > this a Georgia project?
> > Since this list was archived and this was not a list that was set up
with
> > the permission of the council to be a confidential list with personnel
> > issues on it, I believe it may be subject to the open records act.
> >
> > Since two of the members have stated they don't mind it being opened up,
> > what about the rest of you?
> >
> > Caps are utilized for emphasis, not for shouting, for all intents and
> > purposes.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> > > [Original Message]
> > > From: Jacki Jonas <jackij(a)chesapeake.net>
> > > To: <GAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> > > Date: 12/7/03 2:27:07 PM
> > > Subject: [GAGEN] Open GRC list
> > >
> > > Good afternoon, everyone.
> > >
> > > The original GRC mailing list was set up with the stipulation that
> nothing
> > > would leave the list. As such, I don't believe that past emails can be
> > made
> > > public since they were posted with that stipulation.
> > >
> > > However, all email business of the GRC from this point forward will be
> > > archived in the YahooGroups archive at
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gagrc/. The archives are open to all.
> > Posting
> > > to that list is restricted to GRC members. However, GRC members will
> > > continue to request input from CCs and forward it to the GRC list
> > > anonymously.
> > >
> > > Respectfully submitted,
> > >
> > > Jacki
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ==== GAGEN Mailing List ====
> > > Got a problem? Contact your RC or ASC at GAGENWEB-L(a)rootsweb.com
> >
> >
> >
> > ==== GAGEN Mailing List ====
> > Have you added something signifigant to your website? Advertise it on
> this
> > list!
> >
>
>
> ==== GAGEN Mailing List ====
> Got a problem? Contact your RC or ASC at GAGENWEB-L(a)rootsweb.com
==== GAGEN Mailing List ====
Regional Coordinators are there to help County Coordinators. Don't
hesitate to contact them should you have any, any question. To find
info on your region visit http://www.rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/regional.html
Jacki,
Thanks for getting this set up so quickly for GAGenWeb. I believe this
will help us all keep up with the progress of the committee. And, thanks
again to the committee for spending your time on this important issue.
Linda B. Barton
-----Original Message-----
From: Jacki Jonas [mailto:jackij@chesapeake.net]
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 2:31 PM
To: GAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: [GAGEN] Open GRC list
Good afternoon, everyone.
The original GRC mailing list was set up with the stipulation that
nothing
would leave the list. As such, I don't believe that past emails can be
made
public since they were posted with that stipulation.
However, all email business of the GRC from this point forward will be
archived in the YahooGroups archive at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gagrc/. The archives are open to all.
Posting
to that list is restricted to GRC members. However, GRC members will
continue to request input from CCs and forward it to the GRC list
anonymously.
Respectfully submitted,
Jacki
==== GAGEN Mailing List ====
Got a problem? Contact your RC or ASC at GAGENWEB-L(a)rootsweb.com
Comments below.....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brenda Pierce" <ltlbit(a)mindspring.com>
> I think once again things are getting turned around, it seems that
everyone
> wants to "jump" back when questions are asked, why is that? Where are the
answers to questions. This is not about sanctions, it is about what is and
was done.
[I think that you are not understanding what I am saying here. The answers
to the questions should come from the Chairman, Richard Pettys, and also an
ASC of this project. The rest of us are just committee members, doing what
we were told to do in the beginning.]
>
> 1). I am attempting to explain the differences in the stories that are
getting told. There seems to be confusion by folks on what is and is not
> the truth.
[I don't believe that any of us have told unthruths. Can you elaborate on
what you think we have lied about? ]
> 2) Why the angry tone, I am attempting to get to the bottom of something
that affects every cc in this project, why am I not allowed to ask
questions about this committee?
[I was not angry when I wrote the note, but, all I was doing is trying to
explain to you where we are coming from. I am not angry now. The questions
you are asking, should be directed to the proper person. I'm not sure where
he is, and I think that Jacki has done an excellent job of keeping the
committee together in Richard's absence, but, she didn't start this
committee. None of us did. Actually, I feel like you are lashing out at
all of us, when I don't see as we did anything wrong.]
>
> 3) I don't understand the spinning of wheels comment, I don't see any
answers to questions, just rhetoric on what *I* should be doing, the last
time I checked there were far more members in this group than just me. Is
it wrong for me to ask questions of a committee that is in charge of the
items that cc's are going to be asked to vote on and abide by? Where are
> the *criterias*? What makes one cc more eligible than another to work on
guidelines issues? Again, who, when, how long, etc? How many have not been
> allowed to serve? Is that confidential too?
[The spinning of wheels comment means that I am asking if the council thinks
there is any merit here in what we are doing, other than to occupy our time.
You have a right to ask questions, but, they need to be sent to Richard, or
they need to be discussed with the SC or the council, or whatever. As to who
was allowed to serve, I can't answer that. Again that would be Richard, I
didn't select and I don't know the criteria. It's not confidential - we
just don't know.]
>
> 4) The last time guidelines were implemented the complaints were that
> people were not allowed to know what was being discussed and to have no
> participation in those as they were going on in real time. There was no
> real time discussion of rights for this bill or rights, or if there was, I
> was not privy to it. People should be allowed to view the work that was
> done on this.
[The work that was done is on the website for all to view. We have asked
for comment. I am also dumbfounded by why these things were not brought up
long ago. I don't think the committee members would have had a problem with
doing it another way. But, we aren't the council and we can't make those
decisions.]
>
> There appears to be a problem here with what is and is not true, and I am
> attempting to ask what is the truth. There is a big difference in the way
> the two items were projected.
>
> All I see are items being put here with items that do not correlate with
> what was told to us, and I am speaking as a cc, not as a RC.
[I guess I don't understand this either - what untruths have we told? Can
you be more specific? What items don't correlate?]
>
> Since I don't see any of these questions being answered, only tactics that
> are attempts to throw my questions back at me, then I suppose my fear
> factor shoudl begin to start working. What is going on with this
committee
> that the other cc's can't know about?
[Nothing is going on and there shouldn't be any fear factor here. Plain and
simple fact is that we can't do anything ourselves. What ever we do has to
be approved by the council before it can even go to the CC's - so what fear
factor is here? ]
>
> re open lists:
> Also, I will ask the question again, does Board-L have a "off-line" list
> for board members to discuss items on? That was never answered from my
> previous email. I think that is a fair question since the mention was
made
> that Board-L is open to members for review. Where & does Board-L discuss
> other matters off the Board-L list? In states where there is only an SC
> and ASC, do they post all their messages in real time for the rest of the
> project to view?
[My apologies, I must have missed that question. Yes, there is an AB list
called Exec where the AB discusses matters pertaining to personnel,
complaints and grievances. I cannot speak for other states, but, in MI,
where I am the SC, we post to the CC list. The only thing that is handled
off list are complaints. I get complaints from visitors, and I do discuss
those things privately with the CC's. I have two ASC's and I don't believe
I have discussed the complaints with them. I have worked it out with the
complaintant and the CC and its over. I believe it has worked well. We
don't have a council, we just all try to work together.]
>
> The loudest are not always the majority! I guess I just don't understand
why *MY* questions get the responses they get without answers. As far as
> change, I am probably the most versatile person on the council, all of the
positions that I hold both personal and public, demand that I remain
> versatile, however, I am making sure my blinders are not on!
[And you shouldn't have blinders on. I totally agree with that. Each and
everyone of us should keep up to date on matters pertaining to the
GAGenWeb.]
>
> Brenda
Jan
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Jan Cortez <cristian(a)netonecom.net>
> > To: <GAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> > Date: 12/7/03 7:36:19 PM
> > Subject: Re: [GAGEN] Open GRC list
> >
> > Brenda, I would assume that maybe you are a bit confused, in that *we*
did
> > not set up this group. We didn't set up the mailing list, we didn't
set
> up
> > the rules for use, we did as we were told by an ASC of this project, who
> > started this, with, I would assume some sanction by the SC, as he is
also
> a
> > member of this list.
> > Nothing, in all this time has been mentioned by him.
> >
> > If none of this was sanctioned by the Council, then I wonder why the SC
> > didn't tell us to stop. Why didn't you say something before this?
> >
> > A MANDATE by one person? That one person is an ASC here. Are we out of
> > line in following what we were instructed to do? Are you saying that we
> > should have said no, and changed the rules to what we wanted? I'm
really
> > confused here.
> >
> > You state:
> > "How many cc's have served on the committee? Who were they? How long
did
> > they serve, what were their reasons for leaving? How many total have
been
> > turned away from serving? Again, where are the *criteria* - *where has
> the
> > *criteria* been posted? "
> >
> > These questions seem like something that you as a council might be
> > discussing, since four council members are on this list.
> >
> > Confidential - I don't believe we have kept anything that we are working
> on
> > confidential. Items for discussion have been posted on the internet,
> input
> > has been requested on numerous occasions on the GAGEN-L list, as well as
> > private mailings going out from the GRC members asking for input.
> >
> > I don't think anyone on this GRC, went into this, for any other reason
> than
> > to help with some possible changes here. I am getting the distinct
> > impression, that change is not something that you want.
> >
> > Maybe this is something that the members of the council need to discuss,
> get
> > your ducks in a row, and then come back and tell us what the rules are.
> >
> > Maybe the SC and the CC's would like to shed some light on this
> situation.
> > Should we continue, or just give it all up?
> >
> > Personally, I am coming to the conclusion, that we are just spinning our
> > wheels here, and maybe all this work is for naught. Color me very
> confused.
> >
> > Jan Cortez
> > Banks & Decatur Counties
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Brenda Pierce" <ltlbit(a)mindspring.com>
> >
> >
> > > I think there is confusion,.... what I was told was that information
> from
> > > cc's could be kept confidential, NOT what the GRC was discussing.
> > > Again, I just don't understand why the items that you would want US
to
> > > abide by are confidential. If they are going to be guidelines, how
are
> > > they going to be kept confidential? Let's don't twist the two items
> > > together, the emails to the members are not on the list , so that
should
> > > not be an issue. A mandate by one person to keep something
secretive
> is
> > > also not the same thing as a confidential list.....
> > >
> > > There was NO STIPULATION made to the council that the GRC list would
be
> > one
> > > that nothing would leave the list, and it was never voted by the
council
> > or
> > > cc's for that to be the way the list would work. If you want people
to
> > > abide by guidelines, then let them at least know what has been
discussed
> > so
> > > that they have some idea of what the items are, they just might have
> some
> > > very valid points to add.
> > >
> > > How many cc's have served on the committee? Who were they? How long
> did
> > > they serve, what were their reasons for leaving? How many total have
> been
> > > turned away from serving? Again, where are the *criteria* - *where
has
> > the
> > > *criteria* been posted?
> > >
> > > There is a difference, since the items were sent thru email, obviously
> the
> > > past documents should be opened up as those were discussions by the
GRC
> ,
> > > not the cc's direct input to you. You were NOT told on the list WHO
> MADE
> > > SUGGESTIONS, so this is not a valid argument for not opening up the
past
> > > documentation, again I will repeat since this is NOT a *cc* personnel
> > > discussion list, the cc's should be able to review the discussions on
> the
> > > items that they are suppose to vote and abide by.
> > >
> > > Also, in Georgia there is a "Sunday" law, open public records act --
> isn't
> > > this a Georgia project?
> > > Since this list was archived and this was not a list that was set up
> with
> > > the permission of the council to be a confidential list with personnel
> > > issues on it, I believe it may be subject to the open records act.
> > >
> > > Since two of the members have stated they don't mind it being opened
up,
> > > what about the rest of you?
> > >
> > > Caps are utilized for emphasis, not for shouting, for all intents and
> > > purposes.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > [Original Message]
> > > > From: Jacki Jonas <jackij(a)chesapeake.net>
> > > > To: <GAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> > > > Date: 12/7/03 2:27:07 PM
> > > > Subject: [GAGEN] Open GRC list
> > > >
> > > > Good afternoon, everyone.
> > > >
> > > > The original GRC mailing list was set up with the stipulation that
> > nothing
> > > > would leave the list. As such, I don't believe that past emails can
be
> > > made
> > > > public since they were posted with that stipulation.
> > > >
> > > > However, all email business of the GRC from this point forward will
be
> > > > archived in the YahooGroups archive at
> > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gagrc/. The archives are open to all.
> > > Posting
> > > > to that list is restricted to GRC members. However, GRC members
will
> > > > continue to request input from CCs and forward it to the GRC list
> > > > anonymously.
> > > >
> > > > Respectfully submitted,
> > > >
> > > > Jacki
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ==== GAGEN Mailing List ====
> > > > Got a problem? Contact your RC or ASC at GAGENWEB-L(a)rootsweb.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ==== GAGEN Mailing List ====
> > > Have you added something signifigant to your website? Advertise it on
> > this
> > > list!
> > >
> >
> >
> > ==== GAGEN Mailing List ====
> > Got a problem? Contact your RC or ASC at GAGENWEB-L(a)rootsweb.com
>
>
>
> ==== GAGEN Mailing List ====
> Regional Coordinators are there to help County Coordinators. Don't
> hesitate to contact them should you have any, any question. To find
> info on your region visit http://www.rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/regional.html
>
As Chair of the GRC, Richard began the meeting in April by stating the
following:
"I do not have any direction set in stone. I do, however, have a few rules
and procedures that I would like for the Committee to adopt.
1. This list is absolutely confidential. Nothing said on this list and as
part of our deliberations may be disclosed to anyone who is not on this
list. Any private discussions held off list regarding issues on the list
should likewise remain confidential."
and
"6. The Committee shall post information on a website (to be determined) to
be reviewed by the membership of the Project. This shall be limited to the
proposed documents and shall not include emails. The page shall be
maintained by the Secretary and/or myself."
Those rules were agreed to by the original committee: Richard Pettys
(chair), Derek Nichols, Gloria Holback, Margie Daniels, Kathleen Pettys,
Jan Cortez, Wyndell Taylor, Vivian Saffold, Debra Crosby, Tim Stowell (ex
officio), Jacki Jonas (secretary).
The GRC website is http://www.rootsweb.com/~gacolqu2/Guidelines/.
Respectfully,
Jacki
Brenda, I would assume that maybe you are a bit confused, in that *we* did
not set up this group. We didn't set up the mailing list, we didn't set up
the rules for use, we did as we were told by an ASC of this project, who
started this, with, I would assume some sanction by the SC, as he is also a
member of this list.
Nothing, in all this time has been mentioned by him.
If none of this was sanctioned by the Council, then I wonder why the SC
didn't tell us to stop. Why didn't you say something before this?
A MANDATE by one person? That one person is an ASC here. Are we out of
line in following what we were instructed to do? Are you saying that we
should have said no, and changed the rules to what we wanted? I'm really
confused here.
You state:
"How many cc's have served on the committee? Who were they? How long did
they serve, what were their reasons for leaving? How many total have been
turned away from serving? Again, where are the *criteria* - *where has the
*criteria* been posted? "
These questions seem like something that you as a council might be
discussing, since four council members are on this list.
Confidential - I don't believe we have kept anything that we are working on
confidential. Items for discussion have been posted on the internet, input
has been requested on numerous occasions on the GAGEN-L list, as well as
private mailings going out from the GRC members asking for input.
I don't think anyone on this GRC, went into this, for any other reason than
to help with some possible changes here. I am getting the distinct
impression, that change is not something that you want.
Maybe this is something that the members of the council need to discuss, get
your ducks in a row, and then come back and tell us what the rules are.
Maybe the SC and the CC's would like to shed some light on this situation.
Should we continue, or just give it all up?
Personally, I am coming to the conclusion, that we are just spinning our
wheels here, and maybe all this work is for naught. Color me very confused.
Jan Cortez
Banks & Decatur Counties
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brenda Pierce" <ltlbit(a)mindspring.com>
> I think there is confusion,.... what I was told was that information from
> cc's could be kept confidential, NOT what the GRC was discussing.
> Again, I just don't understand why the items that you would want US to
> abide by are confidential. If they are going to be guidelines, how are
> they going to be kept confidential? Let's don't twist the two items
> together, the emails to the members are not on the list , so that should
> not be an issue. A mandate by one person to keep something secretive is
> also not the same thing as a confidential list.....
>
> There was NO STIPULATION made to the council that the GRC list would be
one
> that nothing would leave the list, and it was never voted by the council
or
> cc's for that to be the way the list would work. If you want people to
> abide by guidelines, then let them at least know what has been discussed
so
> that they have some idea of what the items are, they just might have some
> very valid points to add.
>
> How many cc's have served on the committee? Who were they? How long did
> they serve, what were their reasons for leaving? How many total have been
> turned away from serving? Again, where are the *criteria* - *where has
the
> *criteria* been posted?
>
> There is a difference, since the items were sent thru email, obviously the
> past documents should be opened up as those were discussions by the GRC ,
> not the cc's direct input to you. You were NOT told on the list WHO MADE
> SUGGESTIONS, so this is not a valid argument for not opening up the past
> documentation, again I will repeat since this is NOT a *cc* personnel
> discussion list, the cc's should be able to review the discussions on the
> items that they are suppose to vote and abide by.
>
> Also, in Georgia there is a "Sunday" law, open public records act -- isn't
> this a Georgia project?
> Since this list was archived and this was not a list that was set up with
> the permission of the council to be a confidential list with personnel
> issues on it, I believe it may be subject to the open records act.
>
> Since two of the members have stated they don't mind it being opened up,
> what about the rest of you?
>
> Caps are utilized for emphasis, not for shouting, for all intents and
> purposes.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Jacki Jonas <jackij(a)chesapeake.net>
> > To: <GAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> > Date: 12/7/03 2:27:07 PM
> > Subject: [GAGEN] Open GRC list
> >
> > Good afternoon, everyone.
> >
> > The original GRC mailing list was set up with the stipulation that
nothing
> > would leave the list. As such, I don't believe that past emails can be
> made
> > public since they were posted with that stipulation.
> >
> > However, all email business of the GRC from this point forward will be
> > archived in the YahooGroups archive at
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gagrc/. The archives are open to all.
> Posting
> > to that list is restricted to GRC members. However, GRC members will
> > continue to request input from CCs and forward it to the GRC list
> > anonymously.
> >
> > Respectfully submitted,
> >
> > Jacki
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ==== GAGEN Mailing List ====
> > Got a problem? Contact your RC or ASC at GAGENWEB-L(a)rootsweb.com
>
>
>
> ==== GAGEN Mailing List ====
> Have you added something signifigant to your website? Advertise it on
this
> list!
>
Good afternoon, everyone.
The original GRC mailing list was set up with the stipulation that nothing
would leave the list. As such, I don't believe that past emails can be made
public since they were posted with that stipulation.
However, all email business of the GRC from this point forward will be
archived in the YahooGroups archive at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gagrc/. The archives are open to all. Posting
to that list is restricted to GRC members. However, GRC members will
continue to request input from CCs and forward it to the GRC list
anonymously.
Respectfully submitted,
Jacki
Sharon
I think these are nice. The bird is coming through a bit speckled on my
browser.
Thanks for your efforts!
Gaila
----- Original Message -----
From: "shadri" <shadri(a)gtcom.net>
To: <GAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 9:03 AM
Subject: [GAGEN] Logo
> List,
>
> I have been playing with some ideas for a logo. Not for any idea of a
> contest, ain't good enough for a graphics contest. Anyway, figured there
> would have been a flood of submissions before, so didn't bother with
making
> one.
>
> If you are interested in looking at this first idea, and have a few
minutes
> to spare, I'd appreciate some constructive criticism (pleeeeaze be gentle
> ;-) This is really one design in several different ways. Are these waaay
> too big? The ones that are 'flat' are not really transparent, just on a
> white background. I did play around with using just the state outline,
with
> the state symbols on it, which was transparent, but the edges came out too
> messy. If I can get one cleaned up, will share it, it was my favorite.
What
> about the text on this one, is it pleasant and easy to read? Should it be
a
> metallic gold maybe instead? Or something else? Should the logo be flat or
> buttonized? Which of these do you like best, if any? etc. (etc.=
> abbreviation used to make people think we know more than we do)
>
> Here is the link
> http://www.geocities.com/shezzybug/logos_shadri.html
>
>
I don't have a problem with the list being open to anyone.
As Jacki said, *all* comments are posted on the website.
Having an open process and fair guidelines are *the only* driving forces of
the GRC.
I strongly urge all CCs to advise the committee on how they wish the
committee to work and what they want the committee to accomplish. None of
us pretends to know all the answers. The GRC will only know "how people
feel they would be affected by those items," if the people tell us.
Vivian Price Saffold
At 09:38 PM 12/4/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>Is there any reason here why you as cc's feel the GRC discussions and
>suggestions should not be on an open list, the one that is real-time
>discussion on the guidelines, allowing people from this project to be able
>subscribe to at will, or not, depending on whether you want to wait and see
>what you are asked to approve? Would it not be more constructive to have
>discussions about what is really wanted in re to the items as they come up
>individually before a decision is made to incorporate them into the final
>document? The cut and paste onto the website does not include discussions
>of what *everyone* wants in re to that item, no discussions by committee,
>or how people feel they would be affected by those items, isn't that what
>this committee is suppose to be about? Since the list is on an email
>system would it not be appropriate to open that for those that wish to
>review and to join? Perhaps discussions could take place on a list similar
>to this one, or in some manner as a group. Perhaps the list could be
>opened with read only and discussions taking place on an optional list (I
>am sure Tim can provide us with one if asked). If one does not want to
>participate, then that should be optional, as well as the right to
>participate in a discussion of items in real time.
>
>In addition, when the GRC first started was it not first come first serve?
>Since all cc's are required to abide by rules if adopted, should those that
>wish to participate be eliminated? Is there a posted policy that we can
>review for the procedures for this committee of what the exact criteria is
>for participation? I believe originally it was by request. I understand
>the need for a variety of responses, but if there were an open list then
>people could reply to the items as they come across and would be in on the
>processes. I believe that was one of the mistakes with the current
>guidelines that was addressed on this list, not enough participation before
>the guidelines were brought up.
>
>Since the GRC is not about personnel issues, should this not be an open
>list? If we are all about communication, should we not be all about
>communication through the entire project. Since these guidelines are part
>of something that the *entire* group is suppose to abide by, then please
>allow all of the cc's participation in an ongoing manner, not just as a
>"send an email with your input*, there is no coverage in this mechanism for
>additions of items or deletion of items before it comes to a council for
>review as far as a discussion among cc's as a whole, by the cc's, aside
>from the website and singular inputs. Discussion of issues between all of
>you might provide a much better insight to everyone's wants and needs.
>
> If you want others to abide by the guidelines you want, who better than
>you to provide input when an item is being discussed? I don't think
>requests for items for guidelines should be secretive, after all are we not
>asking others to abide by them?
>
>Again, if we are not doing personnel issues on that list, and I can't see
>any reason why that would be the case, then why can't all cc's that are
>expected to abide by said rules have access to at least read the items that
>are being discussed in real-time the same as the committee members?
>
>I guess the thought here is, again taking the project to a level of open
>communication, if we can't do that on guidelines level, I certainly can't
>see it being open in other areas. Thoughts and expressions of needs and
>wants are what should make up the communication for the guidelines, or am I
>incorrect on that and we are relying on a generic input pattern and leaving
>it to a few to decide the guidelines as we did last time? (Before anyone
>asks, yes, I was part of the group that worked on the guidelines, who
>better to tell you a need for an open list of communication in regard to
>the new ones)?
>
>Respectfully,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>==== GAGEN Mailing List ====
>What's new on your site this month?
3570 Hildon Circle
Chamblee, GA 30341
Jacki,
First, I would like to thank you and all of the rest of the Guidelines
Revision Committee for working so hard on this.
I feel like the committee has gone out of their way to solicit input
from the county coordinators and have continued to solicit same as the
process moves along.
I appreciate the updates continuing to be posted to the webpages and
notifying us of the same on the GAGEN List.
I hope that you will get plenty of new volunteers to help work on this!
I know there are lots of members in GAGenWeb with great ideas and
varying perspectives.
Thanks again,
Linda B. Barton
-----Original Message-----
From: Jacki Jonas [mailto:jackij@chesapeake.net]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 5:07 PM
To: GAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: [GAGEN] GRC Report
The Committee feels it has made good progress by presenting the Bill of
Rights and the more recent Mediation Procedure. Thanks to everyone that
replied with comments on the Grievance/Mediation procedure proposal. We
are
looking over those comments now. The work of the Guidelines Committee
(which was formed in April 2003) is continuing. The focus now will be on
the individual guidelines themselves.
In order to do this justice, we would like to expand the present
committee
to include 3 to 4 additional members. We're asking now for volunteers.
Even if you volunteered earlier and were not selected, please volunteer
again.
The Committee wants to be sure the membership is representative, so it
will
be taking into consideration length of time as a CC (we want new CCs
too),
region you are CC in, and your previous participation in GAGenWeb
discussions.
If you are interested in working with us, please send an email to me by
midnight, Sunday, December 7. We will announce the new members on GAGEN
by
Wednesday, December 10th.
Respectfully submitted,
Jacki, GRC Secretary
==== GAGEN Mailing List ====
USGenWeb's motto is - Volunteers dedicated to free, on-line information.
Sharon,
I really like these designs also. I think it is a good idea to have
several options available to people to use, ie, same design, different
color or shading and the option of it being "in a box" or free standing.
I like the text on this and think it reads fine.
Thanks for working on this!
Linda B. Barton
-----Original Message-----
From: shadri [mailto:shadri@gtcom.net]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 5:04 PM
To: GAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: [GAGEN] Logo
List,
I have been playing with some ideas for a logo. Not for any idea of a
contest, ain't good enough for a graphics contest. Anyway, figured there
would have been a flood of submissions before, so didn't bother with
making
one.
If you are interested in looking at this first idea, and have a few
minutes
to spare, I'd appreciate some constructive criticism (pleeeeaze be
gentle
;-) This is really one design in several different ways. Are these
waaay
too big? The ones that are 'flat' are not really transparent, just on a
white background. I did play around with using just the state outline,
with
the state symbols on it, which was transparent, but the edges came out
too
messy. If I can get one cleaned up, will share it, it was my favorite.
What
about the text on this one, is it pleasant and easy to read? Should it
be a
metallic gold maybe instead? Or something else? Should the logo be flat
or
buttonized? Which of these do you like best, if any? etc. (etc.=
abbreviation used to make people think we know more than we do)
Here is the link
http://www.geocities.com/shezzybug/logos_shadri.html
Sharon
==== GAGEN Mailing List ====
Did your county's courthouse ever meet with a disaster??
Check out GAGenWeb's List and Research Tips at:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/cchelp/courthouses.htm
Gaila,
Thank you. Hey, the Brown Thrasher IS speckled! Nah, I know, I told someone
else, that bird has been nothing BUT trouble! Maybe I'll put a Large Mouth
Bass instead (state fish). I'll see what I can do. Thanks again Gaila.
Sharon
Sharon
I think these are nice. The bird is coming through a bit speckled on my
browser.
Thanks for your efforts!
Gaila
The Committee feels it has made good progress by presenting the Bill of
Rights and the more recent Mediation Procedure. Thanks to everyone that
replied with comments on the Grievance/Mediation procedure proposal. We are
looking over those comments now. The work of the Guidelines Committee
(which was formed in April 2003) is continuing. The focus now will be on
the individual guidelines themselves.
In order to do this justice, we would like to expand the present committee
to include 3 to 4 additional members. We're asking now for volunteers.
Even if you volunteered earlier and were not selected, please volunteer
again.
The Committee wants to be sure the membership is representative, so it will
be taking into consideration length of time as a CC (we want new CCs too),
region you are CC in, and your previous participation in GAGenWeb discussions.
If you are interested in working with us, please send an email to me by
midnight, Sunday, December 7. We will announce the new members on GAGEN by
Wednesday, December 10th.
Respectfully submitted,
Jacki, GRC Secretary
List,
I have been playing with some ideas for a logo. Not for any idea of a
contest, ain't good enough for a graphics contest. Anyway, figured there
would have been a flood of submissions before, so didn't bother with making
one.
If you are interested in looking at this first idea, and have a few minutes
to spare, I'd appreciate some constructive criticism (pleeeeaze be gentle
;-) This is really one design in several different ways. Are these waaay
too big? The ones that are 'flat' are not really transparent, just on a
white background. I did play around with using just the state outline, with
the state symbols on it, which was transparent, but the edges came out too
messy. If I can get one cleaned up, will share it, it was my favorite. What
about the text on this one, is it pleasant and easy to read? Should it be a
metallic gold maybe instead? Or something else? Should the logo be flat or
buttonized? Which of these do you like best, if any? etc. (etc.=
abbreviation used to make people think we know more than we do)
Here is the link
http://www.geocities.com/shezzybug/logos_shadri.html
Sharon
Those are really nice!
----- Original Message -----
From: "shadri" <shadri(a)gtcom.net>
To: <GAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 4:03 PM
Subject: [GAGEN] Logo
: List,
:
: I have been playing with some ideas for a logo. Not for any idea of a
: contest, ain't good enough for a graphics contest. Anyway, figured there
: would have been a flood of submissions before, so didn't bother with
making
: one.
:
: If you are interested in looking at this first idea, and have a few
minutes
: to spare, I'd appreciate some constructive criticism (pleeeeaze be gentle
: ;-) This is really one design in several different ways. Are these waaay
: too big? The ones that are 'flat' are not really transparent, just on a
: white background. I did play around with using just the state outline,
with
: the state symbols on it, which was transparent, but the edges came out too
: messy. If I can get one cleaned up, will share it, it was my favorite.
What
: about the text on this one, is it pleasant and easy to read? Should it be
a
: metallic gold maybe instead? Or something else? Should the logo be flat or
: buttonized? Which of these do you like best, if any? etc. (etc.=
: abbreviation used to make people think we know more than we do)
:
: Here is the link
: http://www.geocities.com/shezzybug/logos_shadri.html
:
:
: Sharon
:
:
: ==== GAGEN Mailing List ====
: Did your county's courthouse ever meet with a disaster??
: Check out GAGenWeb's List and Research Tips at:
: http://www.rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/cchelp/courthouses.htm
:
The ONLY issues that need to be handled privately are personnel
complaints! That may well be what you were saying. Just wanted to
clarify my idea on the matter.
Michael Saffold wrote:
>
> One mailing list for all discussions. Issues where privacy is needed
> handled off-list.
>
> Minutes and votes recorded on a web page. No "reporters."
>
> Voters' list on a web page.
>
> Roll calls handled privately between CCs and RCs, with reports from RCs to SC.
>
> Vivian Price Saffold
> Meriwether County
>
> At 08:50 AM 12/2/2003 -0600, you wrote:
> >As Jan clarified, "having a roll call" -- was not the real question. The
> >"secrecy" of having things discussed on the Council List without any idea
> >was what the discussion was -- I think that's what some CCs feel is the
> >real issue.
> >
> >Let's hear some more ideas about how to overcome this "secrecy"
> >obstacle..... (or how you feel about those already made)
> >
> >1)open Council list so anyone can sub
> >
> >2) have only ONE list so there is no secrecy (with personal CCs matters
> >not discussed on any list, but done through private e-mails)
> >
> >3) have several CCs subbed to the Council list as reporters
> >
> >4) have regular minutes of the Council, including votes, published on a
> >web site
> >
> >5) have a web page which lists the "voter" e-mail listing -- so everyone
> >can check to be sure theirs is on there correctly
> >
> >6) have regular Regional Reports
> >
> >***How about some other suggestions?****
> >
> >I agree with David about not needing a roll call on this list. We don't
> >ever want to have unnecessary e-mails!
> >
> >As an RC, I feel that is part of my responsibility -- to be sure that I
> >keep Tim informed of any address changes. I also maintain regular contact
> >with the CCs so I can be aware if there is sickness, exteneded vacations,
> >etc. I keep a current telephone list in case I can't reach them by
> >e-mail (which has rarely happened)....but just so I would not lose
> >contact if their computers suddenly crashed for a period of time.
> >
> >The current e-mail addresses show up on Tim's Table of Counties....and
> >also on the Regional pages....
> >http://www.rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/regional.html
> >
> >This page has a map as well as a county listing for each region.
> >
> >
> >Virginia Crilley
> >
> >
> >==== GAGEN Mailing List ====
> >Confused about Copyrights??? Review USGenWeb's policy on copyrights at:
> > http://www.usgenweb.org/volunteers/copyright.html
>
> 3570 Hildon Circle
> Chamblee, GA 30341
>
> ==== GAGEN Mailing List ====
> Celebrate Georgia!
--
Thomas (Tom) Hammack, Jr.
Gulfport, Mississippi
W4WLF
> No, not forgotten. We've had exactly 1 new logo proposed. Why are
> peaches a problem?
As I remember, one of the RCs said no peaches for the new logo.
I guess we all figured no peaches, cause no one else said anything
different.(that I saw)
I dont' know what I'm worried about--I can't make images anyway. I cant' even
draw worth a flip!!!!! lol
Bettie <><
--
Memories: A gift you can open anytime, anywhere...