I guess my point is that we already have two avenues for CCs to comment. Do
we need a third?
If we are concerned about overloading mailboxes, there are several ways to
avoid that:
Call for comments on the discussion board.
Ask for CCs to respond privately to Jacki.
Create a new subject indicator so CCs can filter their mail. Although we
have not had much chat recently, I have had several comments that the BIZ
filter is working.
Do we need a poll before the actual bylaws vote, or just input from the CCs
on the proposed list of site requirements?
Updated and links checked quarterly
Surname registry
Individual links to neighboring counties
Link to county mailing list
Link to county archives
Brief history of the county
Connect to "About GenWeb"
Link to The GAGenWeb Project County Table
What's new/Recent updates
Search engine
Which do you think should not be requirements?
Vivian
At 08:08 AM 7/21/2005 -0500, Jacki Jonas wrote:
Polls can call for yes/no or they can ask for a preferred response
from a
list of given responses. My reason for suggesting the poll -- replies can
be more or less anonymous and if set up a certain way, counting the
responses is not a burden, the software would do it. I've almost got a
working poll set up (just wanted to see if I could do it, it's not that hard).
I'm perfectly ameniable to people posting their preferences to GAGEN,
but some might see that as too much traffic. Or people could respond to
me privately, that's ok to -- I can set up a filter on my email so that
it all gets to one location for counting. I just want to present the
site requirements list for final voting as most of the CCs prefer (which
to be required, which to be only suggested). I myself don't think
everything that's currently on the list should be required.
Jacki
----------------------------------------
Generally a poll simply calls for a yes/no answer.
How would this kind of poll be better than the discussion board we already
have or simply calling for comments on the mailing list? I doubt that it
would generate any more CC input.
Setting up a polling form just seems to be a bit overly complicated to me.
Vivian
At 10:05 PM 7/19/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi y'all,
>
>Vivian got a pretty clear ok on the procedure for this SC election and
>term. Since it was basically what we have in Article 4, hopefully that
>will clear nicely too.
>
>I can't remember the exact time frame that Vivian said the EC could help
>us with voting on the bylaws, but I'd like to get things moving again so
>that we can finish up.
>
>We have Article 3 and Article 4 in pretty good shape, I think. The P&P
>looks pretty good although I'd like more CC input on the site
>requirements. I propose that we set up a poll to get the opinion of the
>CCs as to whether each of the items on the list should be required or just
>suggested. What say you?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jacki
>
>