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
Moving forward a bit, we have two required officers for the project: SC and
ASC. For this election, a poll determined that we would elect the SC and
the SC would appoint the ASC. For this particular election, the term is 1
year. The bylaws should address the issue of term length for SC and a
number of people have suggested one or two years. A simple poll should tell
us the majority opinion. For this election, we determined that it would be
decided by a simple majority. We need to determine if that should continue
or if some other majority should be required. It was also determined that
the new SC should be someone who was with the project prior to June 1. What
requirements should there be for a person to be SC? What about ASC? (Just
my personal thought here -- since the ASC would be the one to take over if
for some reason the SC couldn't continue the term, seems reasonable that
similar requirements should be in place for ASC as SC.)
Just looking at the responses to Vivian's current poll on RAs, it appears
that the majority of CCs want them - as long as they are elected and have
no governing power. So we should also consider what the term length for RA
should be and what requirements there should be. If it turns out that after
the poll is over, the CCs do *not* want RAs, then we can just drop those.
So - do we continue on to the officers section, or do you want to tackle
the "loss of membership" portion of Article 3 first? Or should we consider
an article on elections before officers? I think an elections section
would include majority requirements and quorum requirements (if any). Or
would those be better handled in related articles (such as officers and
amendments to bylaws)?
Let me know which way you want to head or if I don't get any responses by
Friday morning, I'll decide.
Thanks,
Jacki
Hi y'all.
Idea 3 got 17 out of 34 votes while idea 2 got 8. We haven't gotten any
more responses so after talking with Vivian today, for the time being let's
go with idea 3 and a combination of the writeups from Jeanne and Barbara.
How's this?
~~~~~~~~~~~
Membership in The GAGenWeb Project is granted to Coordinators of Counties
and/or Special Projects. Each County or Special Project shall have no more
than two (2) Coordinators. A person may be a Coordinator for no more than
three (3) sites. A County or Special Project Coordinator may appoint
additional assistants if desired.
Each County or Special Project Coordinator shall have one vote in GAGenWeb
elections, regardless of the number of counties or special projects they
coordinate. Assistants appointed by a Coordinator are not considered
members and thus shall not vote in GAGenWeb elections.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Note: In the past we've used the title "Co-Coordinator" for those people
where two people are coordinating a county. I would suggest that we discard
that title and simply call both of them Coordinators. Both would be
appointed by the SC.
Jacki
Vivian suggested that I write an outline of what the bylaws might look
like. You'll recall that I sent a suggested list back in June although that
list included things that wouldn't apply to us. This is a modification of
that.
I. Name (done)
II. Object/Purpose (done)
III. Membership (including voting rights, loss of membership)
IV. Officers (what they are, requirements, elected/appointed, length of term)
V. Elections (basic procedure)
VI. Grievance
VII. Amendments (how bylaws will be amended)
There should be either a separate Policies and Procedures Document or they
should be included with the bylaws. I think it would be better as a
separate document. That document would include:
1) CC responsibilities
2) Officer responsibilities (this would include SC and RA/DH/RC/whatever
you call them)
3) Site requirements/restrictions
Have I forgotten anything?
Jacki
Hi all,
I think we can probably move forward even though the membership section
isn't quite complete yet. Both idea 2 and 3 follow similar outlines for the
first paragraph:
~~~~~~~~~~~
Membership in The GAGenWeb Project is granted to Coordinators of Counties
and/or Special Projects. Each County or Special Project shall have no more
than two (2) Coordinators. A County or Special Project Coordinator may
appoint additional assistants if desired.
~~~~~~~~~~~
The difference is in the 2nd paragraph: allowing only one vote per
county/project vs allowing one vote per coordinator with max of one vote
per county/project. I like the way Barbara worded her 2nd paragraph with
designating one of two CCs for the same county/project as the official voter.
Another thing Barbara covered in her write-up: a maximum number of
counties/projects that a person could be coordinator of. Do we want/need
such? Three is the number used previously as well as the number the
transition team was sticking with - is that a good number? Should such
restriction be in the membership section? (Not sure where else I'd put it,
to be honest.) By using specifically only the word coordinator, not co-CC
or asst-CC, I think it makes it clear that a person can be responsible for
only 3 (or whatever number) of counties/projects, either by themselves or
in combination with someone else. It does *not* prevent someone from
contributing to other counties/projects as an assistant.
Where I'd like to go from here is to a section on officers - clearly we
need info on SC requirements as well as ASC requirements. What about
DH/RC/whatever you wanna call them? Do the CCs want such, and if so, do we
need 8 of them? I think Vivian was going to conduct a poll of the CCs on
that issue.
Vivian -- should we organize a vote on membership before continuing on? Do
we need to make that an official vote rather than just a poll? (In other
words, do we need the EC to handle it?) It does make some sense to handle
just the membership section (which would include voting rights) alone, and
then the approved voting situation will be in place for the rest of the
Bylaws process. Or do we want to try to get an officers section in place
before getting the aid of the EC for another vote? I hate to bother them
for each section, but think we'd probably be better off handling the voting
in pieces.
It's a night, y'all!
Jacki
Either sounds fine to me. Anyone else?
Other things to think about --
1) max number of counties/projects a person could be a coordinator for,
2) qualifications to become a CC/SP,
3) residency requirement for voting.
My thoughts on those questions:
1) 3 or 4
2) willingness to work and belief in our purpose! FTP/HTML knowledge a
plus, but not absolutely necessary. ( I didn't know HTML when I took on
Colquitt, and I seem to be doing ok <bg>.)
3) one to three months -- this would allow the person to become somewhat
familiar with the project and the issues, as well as not rushing a voting
list to the EC at the last minute.
FWIW, someone mentioned on the discussion board the idea that membership
wouldn't become effective until the person actually had a live page up.
Thoughts about that?
I would expect those three questions to be answered in the membership
section of the bylaws. Thoughts, anyone?
Let's try to have something worth proposing (not for voting, but for
comment) by the end of the week.
Thanks,
Jacki
I've included Barbara's first draft of membership idea #2 below - she posted it
to the discussion board last night.
My comments -- in the first paragraph, I would simplify it further to:
Membership in The GAGenWeb Project is granted to persons who are County or
Special Project Coordinators.
I don't think we need to list SC, ASC, RC/DWH because one should be a CC in
order to hold one of those offices. Personally, I'd also do away with the title
Co-CC and just call them CCs. That would only require a slight change to the
last sentence in the 2nd paragraph: Where there are two Coordinators for a
county or Special Project, one member is to be designated as the voting member.
Jacki
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here's a first draft for Version No. 2 for Article 3. I tried to keep it pretty
simple and uncomplicated. We may need to add residency requirements to whichever
version is selected.
ARTICLE 3 MEMBERSHIP [version no. 2]
Membership in The GAGenWeb Project is granted to those persons who hold the
following positions within The Project: State Coordinator (SC); Asst. State
Coordinator(s) (ASC); Regional Coordinators (RC); County Coordinators (CC);
Co-County Coordinators* (CCC); and Special Projects Coordinators (SPC).
Each County or Project Coordinator shall have one vote, regardless of the number
of County or Special Project sites maintained. No coordinator shall maintain
more than 3 sites. Each County or Special Project site shall have a maximum of 2
coordinators. There shall be only one vote per County or Special Project. Where
there are Co-County Coordinators, one member is to be designated as the voting
member.
*Co-County Coordinators share equally responsibilities for creating and
uploading county
pages.
------------------------------------------------------------------
This email message was sent using web-based email services provided by Chesapeake.Net
Internet Services.
http://www.chesapeake.net/
'Morning, all,
Since I can never seem to make a decision, here are two options for the wording of Idea 3. I wasn't sure which one (if either) would fit best with the rest of the Membership section. What do you all think?
Wording for Idea 3
(option 1)
Membership in GAGenWeb is granted to Coordinators of Counties and/or Special Projects. Each County or Special Project shall have no more than two (2) Coordinators. A County or Special Project Coordinator may appoint additional assistants if desired.
Each County or Special Project Coordinator shall have one vote in GAGenWeb
elections, regardless of the number of counties or special projects they
coordinate. Assistants appointed by a Coordinator are not considered
members and thus shall not vote in GAGenWeb elections.
-----------------------------
Wording for Idea 3
(option 2)
Membership in GAGenWeb is granted to coordinators of County and/or Special Projects. Each County or Special Project shall have no more than two (2) Coordinators, both of whom are eligible to vote in GAGenWeb elections. A Coordinator may appoint additional assistants if desired. Assistants are not considered members and thus shall not vote in GAGenWeb elections.
Each County or Special Project Coordinator shall have one vote in GAGenWeb
elections, regardless of the number of counties or special projects they
coordinate.
Jeanne
Deb already posted these to GAGEN, but for completeness I'm also posting
the results here:
Article 1:
Approve -- 48
Disapprove -- 1
Return for further work -- 3
No opinion -- 0
Article 2:
Approve -- 49
Disapprove -- 1
Return for further work -- 3
No opinion -- 0
As such, both pass with an overwhelming majority. As I mentioned before,
we'll need to discuss the type of majority needed for the rest of the
articles to pass. I'm sure our new SC (congrats again, Vivian!) will aid us
in polling the CCs as we progress thru the bylaws.
I've created two new web pages linked from the Bylaws Committee page - one
will contain a complete set of the new bylaws as the articles are approved
and one will contain voting results on them.
I'm looking forward to seeing first drafts of ideas 2 and 3 on membership
soon!
Jacki