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
I disagree.
The guidance I quote:
“
To be counted, your vote must be time stamped during this period and
be copied to all three members of the election committee:
Patrice Green - <genealogy(a)cfl.rr.com>
Mike Sweeney <sweeney2(a)wolfenet.com>
Pat Asher <pjroots(a)att.net>
“
The “and be ‘copied’ to all three” is pretty clear.
Mike
Clay Co
From: Laverne H. Tornow via
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 9:32 AM
To: Pat Asher ; mngen(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [MNGEN] Reminder to VOTE for SC
Maybe that should have been conveyed to the members BEFORE we voted.
Our instructions were to send an e-mail to each of the three of you! It
did not instruct as to addressed to one and cc'd to the other two, or 3
separate e-mails. I sent three separate e-mails........ Hopefully all
three of you received it. I agree some sort of confirmation that our
votes have been received would be great!
Laverne
On 2/19/2015 12:06 PM, Pat Asher via wrote:
> At 10:06 AM 2/19/2015, Lynn Brandvold via wrote:
>> I agree with Karen about a vote confirmation. It was unclear to me
>> exactly how to respond so I sent one email addressed to all three
>> committee members. Karen says she sent 3 individual emails to the three
>> committee members. Did our emails arrive? Should I have sent 3
>> individual emails?
> Lynn, We prefer you send one email that is addressed/copied to the
> three committee members. Otherwise, we have to email each other to
> confirm that everyone received a copy of the vote.
>
> In the last year, I have been involved in perhaps a half a dozen
> in-house elections and all of the rest of them have been comfortable
> with the 3 person system as sufficient insurance that a vote was
> received. If your carrier accepts the mail you send, and you don't
> receive a bounce notice from the carrier(s) of one or more of the 3
> committee members, the chances of every copy of your email being
> "lost" is extremely remote. National elections use a script that
> delivers a "success" page when your vote is completed. The three of
> us have to do everything manually.
>
> If you, or anyone, would like a confirmation email, write to me privately.
>
>
> Pat Asher
> Election Committee
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
At 07:11 PM 2/18/2015, Karen De Groote via wrote:
>Would it be possible to get a "Voted" confirmation from the MNGenWeb EC
>group? Then we will know if our vote went awry or not.
Karen,
The reason we insist your email vote be sent to all three members of
the committee is so votes do not go astray. One email might, or even
two -- but the chances of three different carriers all losing the
same email are extremely remote. The three of us verify each vote as
it is received, and cross check our individual counts at the close of
the voting period.
Pat Asher
I agree with Karen about a vote confirmation. It was unclear to me
exactly how to respond so I sent one email addressed to all three
committee members. Karen says she sent 3 individual emails to the three
committee members. Did our emails arrive? Should I have sent 3
individual emails?
Lynn Brandvold
Pennington and Red Lake Counties
On 2/19/2015 7:25 AM, Karen De Groote via wrote:
> Thanks Pat,
> I realize that but I was thinking about how we vote in National and how we
> get a vote confirmation there. I am going to look at my sent mail to make
> sure it isn't sitting there as a draft. I did copy and paste the three
> emails so hopefully you have my vote.
> Thanks much,
> Karen
>
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Pat Asher <pjroots(a)att.net> wrote:
>
>> At 07:11 PM 2/18/2015, Karen De Groote via wrote:
>>
>>> Would it be possible to get a "Voted" confirmation from the MNGenWeb EC
>>> group? Then we will know if our vote went awry or not.
>>>
>> Karen,
>>
>> The reason we insist your email vote be sent to all three members of the
>> committee is so votes do not go astray. One email might, or even two --
>> but the chances of three different carriers all losing the same email are
>> extremely remote. The three of us verify each vote as it is received, and
>> cross check our individual counts at the close of the voting period.
>>
>>
>> Pat Asher
>>
>>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
To date, 58% of the CCs have cast their vote for the new SC of
MNGenWeb. Honestly, I am surprised that 100% of you have not already
voted on such an important issue to each and every one of you.
If you are one of those who haven't voted yet, you still have time to
vote for the candidate you prefer. You have until Saturday, 2/21 at
11:59pm CST to cast your vote for your new SC.
Remember, to be counted, your vote must be copied to all three
members of the election committee:
Patrice Green - <genealogy(a)cfl.rr.com>
Mike Sweeney <sweeney2(a)wolfenet.com>
Pat Asher <pjroots(a)att.net>
Your candidates are:
Shirley Cullum
Martha Crosley Graham
Tim Stowell
Linda Zieman
Pat Asher
MN Election Committee
Would it be possible to get a "Voted" confirmation from the MNGenWeb EC
group? Then we will know if our vote went awry or not.
Thanks much,
Karen
Becker, Todd and Stearns
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Pat Asher via <mngen(a)rootsweb.com> wrote:
> To date, 58% of the CCs have cast their vote for the new SC of
> MNGenWeb. Honestly, I am surprised that 100% of you have not already
> voted on such an important issue to each and every one of you.
>
> If you are one of those who haven't voted yet, you still have time to
> vote for the candidate you prefer. You have until Saturday, 2/21 at
> 11:59pm CST to cast your vote for your new SC.
>
> Remember, to be counted, your vote must be copied to all three
> members of the election committee:
>
> Patrice Green - <genealogy(a)cfl.rr.com>
> Mike Sweeney <sweeney2(a)wolfenet.com>
> Pat Asher <pjroots(a)att.net>
>
> Your candidates are:
>
> Shirley Cullum
> Martha Crosley Graham
> Tim Stowell
> Linda Zieman
>
>
>
> Pat Asher
> MN Election Committee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
> in the subject and the body of the message
>
Posted yesterday afternoon to Facebook and ending this discussion from me:
"Pride will bite you in the hindquarters. I fell on mine a few minutes ago.
Walking down a hill gingerly, or so I thought, I hit the slimy mud just so
and a sudden thud of the wet and slimy mud, my backside flatish, my coat
and pants came together in a jarring occurrence of uncomfortableness and my
neck jerked in a sudden resistance so I'm sure soreness will shortly ensue.
Aren't we having a lovely day?"
IE - I have injuries to nurse, data to put on line, the day off due to ice.
Tim
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Karen De Groote via <mngen(a)rootsweb.com>
wrote:
> USGW bylaws are merely a framework of the national organization. Further
> basic rules beyond the framework as decided upon by states are still basic
> rules. States are free and in fact, encouraged to make rules that apply to
> their own state. Rules for MNGenWeb are part of getting this state up to
> snuff as quite obviously the USGenWeb bylaws did not help keep this state
> from going under.
>
> I realize the "old timers" here are uncomfortable with the activity but you
> have a choice to make, enjoy the silence because the state is a shambles or
> join the newcomers and set the state on the right path. I personally have
> complained to the two previous NCs about several MN counties in the past
> 3-7 years. I provided the last couple of emails to Denise to demonstrate
> it was not just one person complaining one time. I complained when the
> prior leadership team never responded to my emails which then sent my
> complaints to the two NCs. So I guess you will have to excuse my
> irritation with the way things "used" to be. Tim, you may have done well
> with limited rules and emails in your counties but there were lots of dead
> counties that had had nothing added in 10 years or more. Allowing that to
> evolve was a mistake but we can make sure it doesn't happen again.
>
> Verbose means using more words than are needed. I am pretty sure Tim and
> myself are the verbose ones here with our long emails and I me being the
> longer winded of the two of us. LOL As far as the issue of "new
> management", this not only pertains to new leadership people but the
> management framework of this organization. The USGenWeb now requires that
> leaders be elected which is a change from an SC being SC for an
> indeterminate number of years. The direction of the USGW project has
> changed over the years, moving on to providing online data rather than just
> links. I think the lack of previous list mail has not only kept CCs in the
> dark but they have not been provided with national news for a good long
> time.
>
> I will forgive the "oldtimers" for thinking this list is verbose and ask
> the "oldtimers" to forgive the newcomers for their perhaps excess energy in
> getting this project on it's feet. We don't all have to agree to work
> together, but we definitely all need to work together to meet the goal of
> resurrecting MNGenWeb.
>
> Good discussion,
> Karen
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Timothy Stowell via <mngen(a)rootsweb.com>
> wrote:
>
> > >From 1997 or thereabouts until the early 2000s, this was a quiet list.
> The
> > SCs did their things, the CCs theirs. Perhaps we weren't as curious or
> > chatty as others would have had us be. People who wanted information
> > usually just wrote the SC privately and asked.
> >
> > Long after MNGenWeb lost its leadership, apparently USGenWeb was asleep
> and
> > not only for Minnesota but for several other states as well. At least
> the
> > current NC is doing something to rectify that.
> >
> > While I know who the NC was before the current one, I rather gather this
> > has been an issue for more than one NC prior to the current one.
> >
> > Of course any member can post what they want regarding the project, what
> > additions they've made to their site, share methods, URLs and the like.
> >
> > Yes to basic rules, but as members of USGenWeb basic rules already exist.
> > Thus any rules created by this group would be beyond the basics.
> >
> > As for 'lots of business' would generate lots of email, such is true.
> > However, as I recall, that business to date is exactly two things,
> > selection of a new logo and selection of new management. So forgive me
> if
> > us old timers in MNGenWeb find the list a bit verbose. Not as verbose
> mind
> > you as some other states but still verbose.
> >
> > TIC,
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Karen De Groote via <mngen(a)rootsweb.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Long before MNGenWeb lost their leadership team, there were many
> counties
> > > that were stagnant and missing. During this time it was peace and
> quiet
> > as
> > > Tim has mentioned. Perhaps if there was no peace and quiet those
> > counties
> > > would be updated or not missing? I LOVE talking to other CCs and get
> > loads
> > > of ideas from others and what they are doing on their sites. We don't
> > need
> > > to hide our candles under the bushel basket and it is truly sad to me
> > that
> > > any fellow CC does not want basic rules or talking on this list. Yes I
> > can
> > > understand inappropriate posts like someone's grandbaby or spouse doing
> > > something noteworthy. I would be the first to complain about that but
> > > these posts are project business and CCs need a voice.
> > >
> > > I know that this profuse amount of email right now is a temporary thing
> > and
> > > it will calm down eventually but I do not want ANYONE thinking they
> > cannot
> > > ask a question of their fellow CCs on this list or share something they
> > > have discovered. It will not go back to the years of no emails ever
> > again
> > > and that is a good thing. This list is for official project business
> and
> > > with lots of business comes lots of emails.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > > Becker, Todd and Stearns
> >
> > -------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> > MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes
> > in the subject and the body of the message
> >
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
> in the subject and the body of the message
>
USGW bylaws are merely a framework of the national organization. Further
basic rules beyond the framework as decided upon by states are still basic
rules. States are free and in fact, encouraged to make rules that apply to
their own state. Rules for MNGenWeb are part of getting this state up to
snuff as quite obviously the USGenWeb bylaws did not help keep this state
from going under.
I realize the "old timers" here are uncomfortable with the activity but you
have a choice to make, enjoy the silence because the state is a shambles or
join the newcomers and set the state on the right path. I personally have
complained to the two previous NCs about several MN counties in the past
3-7 years. I provided the last couple of emails to Denise to demonstrate
it was not just one person complaining one time. I complained when the
prior leadership team never responded to my emails which then sent my
complaints to the two NCs. So I guess you will have to excuse my
irritation with the way things "used" to be. Tim, you may have done well
with limited rules and emails in your counties but there were lots of dead
counties that had had nothing added in 10 years or more. Allowing that to
evolve was a mistake but we can make sure it doesn't happen again.
Verbose means using more words than are needed. I am pretty sure Tim and
myself are the verbose ones here with our long emails and I me being the
longer winded of the two of us. LOL As far as the issue of "new
management", this not only pertains to new leadership people but the
management framework of this organization. The USGenWeb now requires that
leaders be elected which is a change from an SC being SC for an
indeterminate number of years. The direction of the USGW project has
changed over the years, moving on to providing online data rather than just
links. I think the lack of previous list mail has not only kept CCs in the
dark but they have not been provided with national news for a good long
time.
I will forgive the "oldtimers" for thinking this list is verbose and ask
the "oldtimers" to forgive the newcomers for their perhaps excess energy in
getting this project on it's feet. We don't all have to agree to work
together, but we definitely all need to work together to meet the goal of
resurrecting MNGenWeb.
Good discussion,
Karen
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Timothy Stowell via <mngen(a)rootsweb.com>
wrote:
> >From 1997 or thereabouts until the early 2000s, this was a quiet list. The
> SCs did their things, the CCs theirs. Perhaps we weren't as curious or
> chatty as others would have had us be. People who wanted information
> usually just wrote the SC privately and asked.
>
> Long after MNGenWeb lost its leadership, apparently USGenWeb was asleep and
> not only for Minnesota but for several other states as well. At least the
> current NC is doing something to rectify that.
>
> While I know who the NC was before the current one, I rather gather this
> has been an issue for more than one NC prior to the current one.
>
> Of course any member can post what they want regarding the project, what
> additions they've made to their site, share methods, URLs and the like.
>
> Yes to basic rules, but as members of USGenWeb basic rules already exist.
> Thus any rules created by this group would be beyond the basics.
>
> As for 'lots of business' would generate lots of email, such is true.
> However, as I recall, that business to date is exactly two things,
> selection of a new logo and selection of new management. So forgive me if
> us old timers in MNGenWeb find the list a bit verbose. Not as verbose mind
> you as some other states but still verbose.
>
> TIC,
>
> Tim
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Karen De Groote via <mngen(a)rootsweb.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Long before MNGenWeb lost their leadership team, there were many counties
> > that were stagnant and missing. During this time it was peace and quiet
> as
> > Tim has mentioned. Perhaps if there was no peace and quiet those
> counties
> > would be updated or not missing? I LOVE talking to other CCs and get
> loads
> > of ideas from others and what they are doing on their sites. We don't
> need
> > to hide our candles under the bushel basket and it is truly sad to me
> that
> > any fellow CC does not want basic rules or talking on this list. Yes I
> can
> > understand inappropriate posts like someone's grandbaby or spouse doing
> > something noteworthy. I would be the first to complain about that but
> > these posts are project business and CCs need a voice.
> >
> > I know that this profuse amount of email right now is a temporary thing
> and
> > it will calm down eventually but I do not want ANYONE thinking they
> cannot
> > ask a question of their fellow CCs on this list or share something they
> > have discovered. It will not go back to the years of no emails ever
> again
> > and that is a good thing. This list is for official project business and
> > with lots of business comes lots of emails.
> >
> > Karen
> > Becker, Todd and Stearns
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
> in the subject and the body of the message
>
Karen,
You and I agree on this subject 100%. Communication is the key to a
successful project. and during the regeneration of the Project there are
going to be, by necessity quite a bit of discussion involved!
Laverne
On 2/16/2015 2:33 PM, Karen De Groote via wrote:
> Long before MNGenWeb lost their leadership team, there were many counties
> that were stagnant and missing. During this time it was peace and quiet as
> Tim has mentioned. Perhaps if there was no peace and quiet those counties
> would be updated or not missing? I LOVE talking to other CCs and get loads
> of ideas from others and what they are doing on their sites. We don't need
> to hide our candles under the bushel basket and it is truly sad to me that
> any fellow CC does not want basic rules or talking on this list. Yes I can
> understand inappropriate posts like someone's grandbaby or spouse doing
> something noteworthy. I would be the first to complain about that but
> these posts are project business and CCs need a voice.
>
> I know that this profuse amount of email right now is a temporary thing and
> it will calm down eventually but I do not want ANYONE thinking they cannot
> ask a question of their fellow CCs on this list or share something they
> have discovered. It will not go back to the years of no emails ever again
> and that is a good thing. This list is for official project business and
> with lots of business comes lots of emails.
>
> Karen
> Becker, Todd and Stearns
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Timothy Stowell via <mngen(a)rootsweb.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In other states I host counties in we have occasional roll calls, nearly
>> zero messages on the state list other than announcements about national
>> events that we mostly ignore. Why? Because it bears no relevance to our
>> hosting a county. Occasionally someone finds something to share, then the
>> list goes silent. We like it that way.
>>
>> I counted one state's emails for 2014 there were approximately 190 emails
>> for the year. I read three because the rest were not pertinent to the
>> counties I host or the subject matter was of no interest to me. In the
>> other less than 30 of which I wrote several. I continue with my counties
>> and rarely look at the surrounding counties because I have enough material
>> for my sites. If I come across material for other counties, I inform the
>> host of said county who is free to either accept or reject the data.
>>
>> All of the past history is moot except to say that over the number of years
>> before the SC/ASC ceased to participate, we were a very quiet group. We
>> either felt no need to communicate or there was nothing to be said. We
>> just did our county sites, which is what we volunteered to do.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Laverne H. Tornow <lhtornow(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Clearly until the National Coordinator stepped in, this project did not
>>> communicate.
>>>
>>> Arpril 2014- 1 message that was a spam, and not another until October
>> when
>>> the NC took over.
>>> October 2013 - 1 message, request for help from Keith Gulsvig to which
>> NO
>>> ONE replied! and none between October 2013 and April 2014
>>> October 2011 there were 21 messages relating to a temp ASC being
>> appointed
>>> by the NC, there wre no other messages for that year.
>>> from Nov 2011 to October 2013 there were no messages
>>> December 2010 there were 4 messages and none between that time and
>> October
>>> 2011
>>>
>>> There are maybe 1 or 2 messages per year....... That is a project that
>>> does not communicate!
>>>
>>> Laverne
>> -------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>> MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
>> in the subject and the body of the message
>>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
State mail lists are for communication. Sharing ideas, asking questions
about a problem with a website or program and in the case of the MNGenWeb,
deciding how to move forward and improve the project. Right now, the
majority of emails are complaints. Let's focus on positive communication to
help the MNGenWeb get back on track. As Karen stated, once the project is
fully functional again, the amount of emails will decrease substantially.
Shirley
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Karen De Groote via <mngen(a)rootsweb.com>
wrote:
> Long before MNGenWeb lost their leadership team, there were many counties
> that were stagnant and missing. During this time it was peace and quiet as
> Tim has mentioned. Perhaps if there was no peace and quiet those counties
> would be updated or not missing? I LOVE talking to other CCs and get loads
> of ideas from others and what they are doing on their sites. We don't need
> to hide our candles under the bushel basket and it is truly sad to me that
> any fellow CC does not want basic rules or talking on this list. Yes I can
> understand inappropriate posts like someone's grandbaby or spouse doing
> something noteworthy. I would be the first to complain about that but
> these posts are project business and CCs need a voice.
>
> I know that this profuse amount of email right now is a temporary thing and
> it will calm down eventually but I do not want ANYONE thinking they cannot
> ask a question of their fellow CCs on this list or share something they
> have discovered. It will not go back to the years of no emails ever again
> and that is a good thing. This list is for official project business and
> with lots of business comes lots of emails.
>
> Karen
> Becker, Todd and Stearns
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Timothy Stowell via <mngen(a)rootsweb.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In other states I host counties in we have occasional roll calls, nearly
> > zero messages on the state list other than announcements about national
> > events that we mostly ignore. Why? Because it bears no relevance to our
> > hosting a county. Occasionally someone finds something to share, then
> the
> > list goes silent. We like it that way.
> >
> > I counted one state's emails for 2014 there were approximately 190 emails
> > for the year. I read three because the rest were not pertinent to the
> > counties I host or the subject matter was of no interest to me. In the
> > other less than 30 of which I wrote several. I continue with my counties
> > and rarely look at the surrounding counties because I have enough
> material
> > for my sites. If I come across material for other counties, I inform the
> > host of said county who is free to either accept or reject the data.
> >
> > All of the past history is moot except to say that over the number of
> years
> > before the SC/ASC ceased to participate, we were a very quiet group. We
> > either felt no need to communicate or there was nothing to be said. We
> > just did our county sites, which is what we volunteered to do.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Laverne H. Tornow <lhtornow(a)gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Clearly until the National Coordinator stepped in, this project did not
> > > communicate.
> > >
> > > Arpril 2014- 1 message that was a spam, and not another until October
> > when
> > > the NC took over.
> > > October 2013 - 1 message, request for help from Keith Gulsvig to which
> > NO
> > > ONE replied! and none between October 2013 and April 2014
> > > October 2011 there were 21 messages relating to a temp ASC being
> > appointed
> > > by the NC, there wre no other messages for that year.
> > > from Nov 2011 to October 2013 there were no messages
> > > December 2010 there were 4 messages and none between that time and
> > October
> > > 2011
> > >
> > > There are maybe 1 or 2 messages per year....... That is a project that
> > > does not communicate!
> > >
> > > Laverne
> >
> > -------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> > MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes
> > in the subject and the body of the message
> >
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
> in the subject and the body of the message
>
In the beginning of USGenWeb there were basically three rules for county
hosts - links to state, national; provide for queries; provide information
and as an aside have fun creating to one's heart's desire.
That lasted for three years or thereabouts. USGenWeb didn't die, it
continued to grow. People with all sorts of abilities joined, learned how
to do HTML, FTP and many other things. The Bylaws were coming into being
and the fighting started. The Bylaws went into effect and the what's wrong
with the Bylaws started and best I know continues to this day.
The counties continue to be adopted, built, abandoned, readopted. In the
early days of USGenWeb county sites depended on the state site to attract
visitors and the states on national. Once search engines became a standard
of the Internet, that necessity began to fade, so if one has a site with
keyed meta tags in the heading one can get traffic whether or not the state
site is active. County mailing lists help as well if the coordinator is a
member and announces major updates to the site and/or participates in the
list.
So while the MN state page was dormant for some time, counties continued to
get traffic. The downside for the state project was / is that without a
team watching over the state site, counties that are abandoned do not get
readopted.
Perhaps one should not underestimate the annoyance caused by a myriad of
emails delivered to those who in the end it has no effect on. It begins to
have the characteristics of spam - unwanted.
Since we are all individuals, with individual tastes as to likes / dislikes
may we not cut some slack for those with whom we disagree?
Tim
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Laverne H. Tornow via <mngen(a)rootsweb.com>
wrote:
> Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it a lack of "rules" in MNGenWeb
> that put you in the position of having the AB take over the project to
> revive it?
>
> Every organization from the lowliest to the largest has to have rules or
> procedures by which to operate or it stagnates and dies, also those
> rules must be reviewed periodically and updated to reflect changes not
> only in the organization, but changes within society.
>
> As for the amount of e-mail that is being generated during this
> resuscitation process, had you had rules or procedures to begin with non
> of this would be happening. and since we ARE an internet based
> organization what alternative method would you suggest we use to
> communicate Lynn? Are you subbed in digest mode or regualr. if it is
> regular then you might want to switch to digest, that way you get 2 or 3
> e-mails a day that have all the emails lumped into them!
>
> Laverne
> On 2/14/2015 9:46 PM, Lynn Brandvold via wrote:
> > Tim,
> >
> > You've got my vote! I don't want to deal with more by-Laws, rules,
> > regulations or guidelines. I am rapidly becoming burned out with all
> > these emails as it is.
> >
> > Lynn Brandvold
> > Pennington and Red Lake Counties
> > On 2/14/2015 9:40 AM, Timothy Stowell via wrote:
> >> Linda,
> >>
> >> Actually I am not in favor of creating more rules for coordinators to
> >> follow. The national bylaws are sufficient and have been for the nearly
> 19
> >> years of our existence. Some would say, what would we do if the
> leadership
> >> disappears again? We could do just as was done this time, ask national
> for
> >> assistance.
> >>
> >> Perhaps more regular roll calls than our previous yearly roll call would
> >> alert the members to a problem sooner - ie a roll call instituted by the
> >> SC/ASC team rather than everyone posting on list 'here' or 'present'.
> >>
> >> Since it seems most coordinators are adults, saying to them, that our
> state
> >> logo needs to be at the top of the main page of a county site and if
> >> linked, linked to the state page - there is really no reason to make a
> rule
> >> that says do this or else.
> >>
> >> Most people are pleasant to work with, so why complicate their lives
> with
> >> more rules unless those who want the rules seek to control other
> people's
> >> creativity?
> >>
> >> That said, I would not stand in the way of those who like to have more
> >> rules, to serve some purpose that eludes me.
> >>
> >> Tim
> >>
> >> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Linda Ziemann via <mngen(a)rootsweb.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Good morning. Without restating everything regarding this, I agree with
> >>> what
> >>> Martha has stated in her response. (In fact, based on what I have
> read,
> >>> the candidates for SC are in favor of establishing MN state bylaws,
> with
> >>> accompanying rules.) Any bylaws approved by the members, should
> "enhance"
> >>> the Project-not detract from it (to quote Martha.) YES! Right on!
> >>>
> >>> My approach would be to ask for volunteers from the members,
> establishing a
> >>> "committee" to put together a group of bylaws. These in turn would be
> >>> presented to the membership for discussion and a vote. The rules also
> would
> >>> be formulated and presented in much the same manner. "Together" the
> MEMBERS
> >>> would establish & vote to set the bylaws and the rules.
> >>>
> >>> Most importantly it is essential that the CCs be proactive in finding &
> >>> transcribing data, recruiting others to help, uploading the free data
> to
> >>> the
> >>> county, presenting the ancestor data for the MN visiting researchers to
> >>> find.
> >>>
> >>> Everyone have a great weekend! Happy Hearts Day!
> >>> Linda Ziemann
> >>> Candidate for SC
> >>> Rock County Coordinator
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 2/13/15, 10:21 PM, "Kermit Kittleson via" <mngen(a)rootsweb.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I just want to "second" what Martha just said.
> >>>>
> >>>> Kermit Kittleson
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Martha A Crosley Graham via <
> >>>> mngen(a)rootsweb.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Shirley,
> >>>>> Thank you for the concise information on the difference between
> >>>>> Guidelines and By-Laws.
> >>>>> One of the things that is bothersome to me is the tendency to
> re-invent
> >>>>> some of the basic [and common sense] items that have been spelled out
> >>>>> over time in the USGW.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am not a 'micro-manager' type of SC here in CA. Blatant disregard
> for
> >>>>> the By-laws set up by the USGW are obvious items of concern and
> should
> >>>>> be addressed as they come up or are found. By-laws at the local
> [State]
> >>>>> level should enhance the Project, not detract from it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As an entity that promotes 'Free Genealogical and Historical Data',
> the
> >>>>> whole idea is to make resources available to visiting Researchers.
> If we
> >>>>> are so caught up in compliance issues, we are not giving ourselves
> time
> >>>>> to get the data located, formatted and uploaded.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Martha
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -------------------------------
> >>>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> >>>>> MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> >>> quotes
> >>>>> in the subject and the body of the message
> >>>>>
> >>>> -------------------------------
> >>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> >>>> MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> >>> quotes in
> >>>> the subject and the body of the message
> >>>
> >>> -------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> >>> MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes
> >>> in the subject and the body of the message
> >>>
> >>
> >> -------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
> in the subject and the body of the message
> >>
> >
> > -------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
> in the subject and the body of the message
> >
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
> in the subject and the body of the message
>
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it a lack of "rules" in MNGenWeb
that put you in the position of having the AB take over the project to
revive it?
Every organization from the lowliest to the largest has to have rules or
procedures by which to operate or it stagnates and dies, also those
rules must be reviewed periodically and updated to reflect changes not
only in the organization, but changes within society.
As for the amount of e-mail that is being generated during this
resuscitation process, had you had rules or procedures to begin with non
of this would be happening. and since we ARE an internet based
organization what alternative method would you suggest we use to
communicate Lynn? Are you subbed in digest mode or regualr. if it is
regular then you might want to switch to digest, that way you get 2 or 3
e-mails a day that have all the emails lumped into them!
Laverne
On 2/14/2015 9:46 PM, Lynn Brandvold via wrote:
> Tim,
>
> You've got my vote! I don't want to deal with more by-Laws, rules,
> regulations or guidelines. I am rapidly becoming burned out with all
> these emails as it is.
>
> Lynn Brandvold
> Pennington and Red Lake Counties
> On 2/14/2015 9:40 AM, Timothy Stowell via wrote:
>> Linda,
>>
>> Actually I am not in favor of creating more rules for coordinators to
>> follow. The national bylaws are sufficient and have been for the nearly 19
>> years of our existence. Some would say, what would we do if the leadership
>> disappears again? We could do just as was done this time, ask national for
>> assistance.
>>
>> Perhaps more regular roll calls than our previous yearly roll call would
>> alert the members to a problem sooner - ie a roll call instituted by the
>> SC/ASC team rather than everyone posting on list 'here' or 'present'.
>>
>> Since it seems most coordinators are adults, saying to them, that our state
>> logo needs to be at the top of the main page of a county site and if
>> linked, linked to the state page - there is really no reason to make a rule
>> that says do this or else.
>>
>> Most people are pleasant to work with, so why complicate their lives with
>> more rules unless those who want the rules seek to control other people's
>> creativity?
>>
>> That said, I would not stand in the way of those who like to have more
>> rules, to serve some purpose that eludes me.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Linda Ziemann via <mngen(a)rootsweb.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Good morning. Without restating everything regarding this, I agree with
>>> what
>>> Martha has stated in her response. (In fact, based on what I have read,
>>> the candidates for SC are in favor of establishing MN state bylaws, with
>>> accompanying rules.) Any bylaws approved by the members, should "enhance"
>>> the Project-not detract from it (to quote Martha.) YES! Right on!
>>>
>>> My approach would be to ask for volunteers from the members, establishing a
>>> "committee" to put together a group of bylaws. These in turn would be
>>> presented to the membership for discussion and a vote. The rules also would
>>> be formulated and presented in much the same manner. "Together" the MEMBERS
>>> would establish & vote to set the bylaws and the rules.
>>>
>>> Most importantly it is essential that the CCs be proactive in finding &
>>> transcribing data, recruiting others to help, uploading the free data to
>>> the
>>> county, presenting the ancestor data for the MN visiting researchers to
>>> find.
>>>
>>> Everyone have a great weekend! Happy Hearts Day!
>>> Linda Ziemann
>>> Candidate for SC
>>> Rock County Coordinator
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/13/15, 10:21 PM, "Kermit Kittleson via" <mngen(a)rootsweb.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I just want to "second" what Martha just said.
>>>>
>>>> Kermit Kittleson
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Martha A Crosley Graham via <
>>>> mngen(a)rootsweb.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Shirley,
>>>>> Thank you for the concise information on the difference between
>>>>> Guidelines and By-Laws.
>>>>> One of the things that is bothersome to me is the tendency to re-invent
>>>>> some of the basic [and common sense] items that have been spelled out
>>>>> over time in the USGW.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not a 'micro-manager' type of SC here in CA. Blatant disregard for
>>>>> the By-laws set up by the USGW are obvious items of concern and should
>>>>> be addressed as they come up or are found. By-laws at the local [State]
>>>>> level should enhance the Project, not detract from it.
>>>>>
>>>>> As an entity that promotes 'Free Genealogical and Historical Data', the
>>>>> whole idea is to make resources available to visiting Researchers. If we
>>>>> are so caught up in compliance issues, we are not giving ourselves time
>>>>> to get the data located, formatted and uploaded.
>>>>>
>>>>> Martha
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>>>>> MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
>>> quotes
>>>>> in the subject and the body of the message
>>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>>>> MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
>>> quotes in
>>>> the subject and the body of the message
>>>
>>> -------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>>> MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
>>> in the subject and the body of the message
>>>
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
Thank you Kathy & Tim,
I was going to let Ms Tornow's comment ride, but States and Counties
become stagnant, are abandoned or abused for various reasons. No one set
of rules, guidelines, policies, etc will cover everything. Certain
situations call for immediate remedial measures, others take time and
consideration.
Trying to cover all the bases when there is a multitude of personalities
and ideas is an exercise in frustration.
So, if we are to continue to be productive and progressive, we need to
concentrate on the most important aspect of revitalizing the MNGenWeb
Project: Regroup, Recruit & Relax!
Enjoy being part a re-energized MNGenWeb and go forward with a sense of
purpose.
Martha
Well, bummer. I had to try. ;)
Kathy
> On Feb 14, 2015, at 10:53 PM, Mike (Dino) Peterson <geanie(a)cox.net> wrote:
>
> Oh Kathy, been there, done that (ral), got beat up every week ! No thanks. Also too old for it now. I do want to say that I appreciate your kind words very much. Thank you.
> Sincerely,
> Mike
>
> From: Kathy Hines <mailto:khines1@qwest.net>
> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 12:33 PM
> To: Mike (Dino) Peterson <mailto:geanie@cox.net> ; mngen(a)rootsweb.com <mailto:mngen@rootsweb.com>
> Subject: Re: [MNGEN] By-Laws
>
> Mike, I think you may be an excellent candidate for the National elections when they roll back around. Even though Parliamentary Procedures are not my personal cup of tea, I can certainly appreciate those skills and interests in someone else. I also appreciated your emails on 12/27 regarding, "I’m in favor of organized expediency.” :)
>
> Additionally, I have a deep appreciation for someone who sticks to the issue at hand and refrains from negativity about folks that may not fully agree with your point of view. All things considered, since you have some ideas about national rules, etc, I think you’d be a really great candidate for the National level.
>
> Kathy
>
> > On Feb 14, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Mike (Dino) Peterson via <mngen(a)rootsweb.com> wrote:
> >
> > Bryant makes some excellent points. Some of us might not like it and some of us think it is good but the national USGenWeb is under a Parliamentary Authority (a bylaw) and the Board has currently chosen “The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure by Alice Sturgis” (a special rule). The USGenWeb currently breaks down “rules” by (for the national) “Bylaws,” “Standard Rules,” and “Special Rules.” They’ve also generated a “Guidelines” which in my opinion is an excellent document that cuts through all the formal language and places many of the rules and recommendations into one document.
> > The intent of my question to the candidates was not to generate a big discussion on the value of state rules and how to proceed but to find out IF the candidates wanted to proceed (which would play a part on my vote), and if so, how high was their priority on getting some rules set. And I asked the question because I believe some minimal rules are required in the state. I do not believe the national rules cover all issues that arise in states. I do not believe that the state doesn’t need some sort of rules. It is apparent to me that if we had some minimal rules then discussions on this list would be greatly reduced. This list has been loaded with discussions on logos, voting, replacing SC’s, roll calls, state web site content, CC site requirements, ASC(s), and the list goes on. So, I think each of the candidates have made their positions very clear at least to me. How we go about it or if we go about it will depend on the SC voted in.
> > Mike
> > Clay Co
> >
Not only are names confusing but relationships - which started my quest 38
years ago, how are these people related to me and/or to each other.
Ancestors with multiple wives, my own grandfather had a nephew the same age
as him and the complicated ones like this:
Mother - Father have son. Son grows up and marries and has children.
Mother dies. Son dies. Father marries daughter in law and has children.
So we end up with a head spinning figure out who is related to others as
half siblings, grandchildren or children and if Son had siblings their
children would be related somehow to the second set of children from Son's
wife by his father. That made my head hurt.
I do like the family members with names that strike one funny and the ones
that make one wonder, what were their parents thinking to call them that?
My mother had four aunts named for states - Georgia, Missouri, California
and Nebraska. The odd or funny ones - Pledger Franklin, Claude Butt (who
had to go in the army with that name, in WWI but died in camp), Fanny
Butt. The unforgettable ones - Prudence, Thankful and Remember.
But not only does one learn about family, one learns a lot of history we
never heard of much less learned in school; the twists and turns of history
where people show up together as friends in one place, enemies in the next
scene. Through this course I've learned about history yes, but also
botany, Native Americans, geology, anthropology, mining, various animals,
canals, forts, fur trapping, archaeology, religious history and
denominational beliefs, agriculture and on and on. For that alone, it has
been an amazing education.
And yet, to top that off, to have met the people still alive and willing to
help others in their research, from all walks of life, that has been icing
on the cake.
Tim
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Linda Ziemann <lin.ziemann(a)verizon.net>
wrote:
> To add to the levity.....my family tree also gives me "fits" or it did
> UNTIL
> I realized that the men in the SAME FAMILY spelled the surname
> differently....What?
>
> How about twin brothers, one spelling the surname Lathrop....and the other
> twin spelling his surname as Lothrop. Really? And on the other side of
> the
> tree, other men spelled the surname (and this spelling goes WAY BACK) as
> EWING. Ok, so my great grandfather's generation spelled it 2 ways....some
> of the prominent men in the same family dropping the last G. Oh,
> me....Explain that to future generations! My maiden name was EWIN. (NO G)
> And on Mom's side....JENSEN married JENSEN.....not only once, but two
> sisters did the same thing. And no relation between the two JENSEN men to
> one another and neither of them related to the JENSEN sister until they
> married one of the sisters. <smile>
>
> No problem about the dates in that initial message from Pat. I agree, it
> does need to be corrected for the sake of correctness. But....mistakes are
> made.....no need to hang anyone out to dry for that! <smile again>
>
> You all are a great bunch to serve with on this project.......looking
> forward to being a part of this in the days and weeks, months ahead.
>
> Linda Ziemann, Rock CC
>
>
>
> On 2/14/15, 2:41 PM, "Timothy Stowell via" <mngen(a)rootsweb.com> wrote:
>
> > Blame it on the spell checker or the tiny keys one must type on these
> > days. When you find that time machine for going back would you please
> rent
> > out flights? I need some answers in my tree, that defy research. :)
> >
> > Like Jones marrying Jones and Smiths marrying Smiths that they weren't
> > related to or all siblings naming all their children the same...
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Pat Asher via <mngen(a)rootsweb.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> It has just been pointed out to me that my original message said the
> >> voting period was from 12/14 thru 12/21. Obviously, December is long
> >> gone and the dates should read from 2/14 thru 2/21.
> >>
> >> Anyone know what causes one part of the brain to decide to go AWOL? LOL
> >>
> >> Pat Asher
> >>
> >>
> >> At 03:19 PM 2/13/2015, you wrote:
> >>> Voting for MNGenWeb State Coordinator starts tonight, 12/14 at
> >>> 12:01am CST, and runs through Saturday, 12/21 at 11:59pm CST.
> >>>
> >>> To be counted, your vote must be time stamped during this period and
> >>> be copied to all three members of the election committee:
> >>>
> >>> Patrice Green - <genealogy(a)cfl.rr.com>
> >>> Mike Sweeney <sweeney2(a)wolfenet.com>
> >>> Pat Asher <pjroots(a)att.net>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Your candidates are:
> >>>
> >>> Shirley Cullum
> >>> Martha Crosley Graham
> >>> Tim Stowell
> >>> Linda Zieman
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The winner must receive a majority of the votes cast, i.e. 50% + 1
> >>>
> >>> If no candidate achieves a majority, there will be a run-off election
> >>> between the two candidates receiving the most votes.
> >>>
> >>> It only takes a minute. Please vote!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Pat Asher
> >>> MN Election Committee
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> >>> MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> >>> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
> >>
> >>
> >> -------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> >> MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes
> >> in the subject and the body of the message
> >>
> >
> > -------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> > MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in
> > the subject and the body of the message
>
>
>
Oh Kathy, been there, done that (ral), got beat up every week ! No thanks. Also too old for it now. I do want to say that I appreciate your kind words very much. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mike
From: Kathy Hines
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 12:33 PM
To: Mike (Dino) Peterson ; mngen(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [MNGEN] By-Laws
Mike, I think you may be an excellent candidate for the National elections when they roll back around. Even though Parliamentary Procedures are not my personal cup of tea, I can certainly appreciate those skills and interests in someone else. I also appreciated your emails on 12/27 regarding, "I’m in favor of organized expediency.” :)
Additionally, I have a deep appreciation for someone who sticks to the issue at hand and refrains from negativity about folks that may not fully agree with your point of view. All things considered, since you have some ideas about national rules, etc, I think you’d be a really great candidate for the National level.
Kathy
> On Feb 14, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Mike (Dino) Peterson via <mngen(a)rootsweb.com> wrote:
>
> Bryant makes some excellent points. Some of us might not like it and some of us think it is good but the national USGenWeb is under a Parliamentary Authority (a bylaw) and the Board has currently chosen “The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure by Alice Sturgis” (a special rule). The USGenWeb currently breaks down “rules” by (for the national) “Bylaws,” “Standard Rules,” and “Special Rules.” They’ve also generated a “Guidelines” which in my opinion is an excellent document that cuts through all the formal language and places many of the rules and recommendations into one document.
> The intent of my question to the candidates was not to generate a big discussion on the value of state rules and how to proceed but to find out IF the candidates wanted to proceed (which would play a part on my vote), and if so, how high was their priority on getting some rules set. And I asked the question because I believe some minimal rules are required in the state. I do not believe the national rules cover all issues that arise in states. I do not believe that the state doesn’t need some sort of rules. It is apparent to me that if we had some minimal rules then discussions on this list would be greatly reduced. This list has been loaded with discussions on logos, voting, replacing SC’s, roll calls, state web site content, CC site requirements, ASC(s), and the list goes on. So, I think each of the candidates have made their positions very clear at least to me. How we go about it or if we go about it will depend on the SC voted in.
> Mike
> Clay Co
>
Blame it on the spell checker or the tiny keys one must type on these
days. When you find that time machine for going back would you please rent
out flights? I need some answers in my tree, that defy research. :)
Like Jones marrying Jones and Smiths marrying Smiths that they weren't
related to or all siblings naming all their children the same...
Tim
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Pat Asher via <mngen(a)rootsweb.com> wrote:
> It has just been pointed out to me that my original message said the
> voting period was from 12/14 thru 12/21. Obviously, December is long
> gone and the dates should read from 2/14 thru 2/21.
>
> Anyone know what causes one part of the brain to decide to go AWOL? LOL
>
> Pat Asher
>
>
> At 03:19 PM 2/13/2015, you wrote:
> >Voting for MNGenWeb State Coordinator starts tonight, 12/14 at
> >12:01am CST, and runs through Saturday, 12/21 at 11:59pm CST.
> >
> >To be counted, your vote must be time stamped during this period and
> >be copied to all three members of the election committee:
> >
> >Patrice Green - <genealogy(a)cfl.rr.com>
> >Mike Sweeney <sweeney2(a)wolfenet.com>
> >Pat Asher <pjroots(a)att.net>
> >
> >
> >Your candidates are:
> >
> >Shirley Cullum
> >Martha Crosley Graham
> >Tim Stowell
> >Linda Zieman
> >
> >
> >The winner must receive a majority of the votes cast, i.e. 50% + 1
> >
> >If no candidate achieves a majority, there will be a run-off election
> >between the two candidates receiving the most votes.
> >
> >It only takes a minute. Please vote!
> >
> >
> >Pat Asher
> >MN Election Committee
> >
> >
> >-------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> >MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> >quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
> in the subject and the body of the message
>
Am I correct in my memory that the national EC is not vetting this
election, that it is in fact a committee of volunteers who agreed upon
request of the NC and/or temp ASC to serve in such a capacity?
If so, perhaps not using the term EC, which implies the national EC, should
not be used but rather some other term. That is for the accuracy folks. :)
Tim
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Karen De Groote via <mngen(a)rootsweb.com>
wrote:
> Yes I know we know the dates and it is a typo but the EC needs to have all
> their Ts crossed and i's dotted which they have done. Typos have no place
> in official situations.
> Karen
>
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Linda Simpson via <mngen(a)rootsweb.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Karen,
> >
> > I think we all understand the voting period is 2/14 to 2/21
> > It's just a typo, no biggie. :-)
> > -
> > Linda Simpson
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Karen De Groote via
> > Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 10:30 AM
> > To: Pat Asher ; List MNGenWeb
> > Subject: Re: [MNGEN] Time to Vote for SC
> >
> > You might want to re post the voting period. It is February, not
> > December. LOL
> >
> > Karen
> > Becker, Todd and Stearns
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Pat Asher via <mngen(a)rootsweb.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Voting for MNGenWeb State Coordinator starts tonight, 12/14 at
> > > 12:01am CST, and runs through Saturday, 12/21 at 11:59pm CST.
> > >
> > > To be counted, your vote must be time stamped during this period and
> > > be copied to all three members of the election committee:
> > >
> > > Patrice Green - <genealogy(a)cfl.rr.com>
> > > Mike Sweeney <sweeney2(a)wolfenet.com>
> > > Pat Asher <pjroots(a)att.net>
> > >
> > >
> > > Your candidates are:
> > >
> > > Shirley Cullum
> > > Martha Crosley Graham
> > > Tim Stowell
> > > Linda Zieman
> > >
> > >
> > > The winner must receive a majority of the votes cast, i.e. 50% + 1
> > >
> > > If no candidate achieves a majority, there will be a run-off election
> > > between the two candidates receiving the most votes.
> > >
> > > It only takes a minute. Please vote!
> > >
> > >
> > > Pat Asher
> > > MN Election Committee
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> > > MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> > quotes
> > > in the subject and the body of the message
> > >
> >
> > -------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> > MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes
> > in
> > the subject and the body of the message
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> > MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes
> > in the subject and the body of the message
> >
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
> in the subject and the body of the message
>
Mike,
While we had excellent participation on the logo vote, the same may not
hold true for every subsequent matter. Then one is faced with the very
real possibility of the few telling the majority what the rules are.
As to your final statement, I don't believe any candidate has said they
would flat out refuse to go about it.
Tim
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Mike Peterson via <mngen(a)rootsweb.com>
wrote:
> Bryant makes some excellent points. Some of us might not like it and some
> of us think it is good but the national USGenWeb is under a Parliamentary
> Authority (a bylaw) and the Board has currently chosen “The Standard Code
> of Parliamentary Procedure by Alice Sturgis” (a special rule). The USGenWeb
> currently breaks down “rules” by (for the national) “Bylaws,” “Standard
> Rules,” and “Special Rules.” They’ve also generated a “Guidelines” which in
> my opinion is an excellent document that cuts through all the formal
> language and places many of the rules and recommendations into one document.
> The intent of my question to the candidates was not to generate a big
> discussion on the value of state rules and how to proceed but to find out
> IF the candidates wanted to proceed (which would play a part on my vote),
> and if so, how high was their priority on getting some rules set. And I
> asked the question because I believe some minimal rules are required in the
> state. I do not believe the national rules cover all issues that arise in
> states. I do not believe that the state doesn’t need some sort of rules. It
> is apparent to me that if we had some minimal rules then discussions on
> this list would be greatly reduced. This list has been loaded with
> discussions on logos, voting, replacing SC’s, roll calls, state web site
> content, CC site requirements, ASC(s), and the list goes on. So, I think
> each of the candidates have made their positions very clear at least to me.
> How we go about it or if we go about it will depend on the SC voted in.
> Mike
> Clay Co
>
>
> From: Genealogy via
> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 9:04 AM
> To: mngen(a)rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: [MNGEN] By-Laws
>
> My 2 cents.
> I am confused. By-Laws, Standing Rules and SOPs (Standing Operating
> Procedures) are synonymous and apply specific requirements for the
> objective. I would think that a set of By-Laws would be the target for
> establishing requirements that we must follow. Standing Rules or SOPs
> should be incorporated into the By-Laws under an appropriate section that
> would apply to the objective of the rule or SOP. Then you would have only
> one set of requirements that members could refer to in their need to meet
> MNGenWeb requirements.
>
> Guidelines are a separate issue since they are not requirements, but only
> suggestions that may enhance the process for various reasons. They should
> be a separate document and not incorporated into the document of
> requirements, i.e., By-Laws.
>
> As to establishing a By-Laws document, it may be best to establish a
> committee (already proposed) to draft the document before open discussion
> occurs. I base this on the many, many discussions that occur on this
> list. This approach, which has been suggested by several people, should
> reduce the amount of dissention and possibly speed up the process. After
> the document has been drafted, each article or section should be discussed
> one at a time (already proposed) to again reduce the overload on my daily
> reading.
>
> That said, any By-Laws for the state should be designed to enhance the
> USGenWeb By-Laws and not conflict with them. Granted, the USGenWeb By-Laws
> could use a good cleaning, but they already establish basic requirements
> for state and counties. Any By-Laws established for the state should only
> cover issues that are not covered at the national level, making our
> document a much shorter list of requirements.
>
> Bryant
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mngen-bounces(a)rootsweb.com [mailto:mngen-bounces@rootsweb.com] On
> Behalf Of Laverne H. Tornow via
> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 1:30 AM
> To: Timothy Stowell; mngen(a)rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: [MNGEN] Marc Pennau Logo,
>
> There are 3 things many people are confused about:
>
> ByLaws
> Standing Rules
> Guidelines
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
> in the subject and the body of the message
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
> in the subject and the body of the message
>
Mike, I think you may be an excellent candidate for the National elections when they roll back around. Even though Parliamentary Procedures are not my personal cup of tea, I can certainly appreciate those skills and interests in someone else. I also appreciated your emails on 12/27 regarding, "I’m in favor of organized expediency.” :)
Additionally, I have a deep appreciation for someone who sticks to the issue at hand and refrains from negativity about folks that may not fully agree with your point of view. All things considered, since you have some ideas about national rules, etc, I think you’d be a really great candidate for the National level.
Kathy
> On Feb 14, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Mike (Dino) Peterson via <mngen(a)rootsweb.com> wrote:
>
> Bryant makes some excellent points. Some of us might not like it and some of us think it is good but the national USGenWeb is under a Parliamentary Authority (a bylaw) and the Board has currently chosen “The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure by Alice Sturgis” (a special rule). The USGenWeb currently breaks down “rules” by (for the national) “Bylaws,” “Standard Rules,” and “Special Rules.” They’ve also generated a “Guidelines” which in my opinion is an excellent document that cuts through all the formal language and places many of the rules and recommendations into one document.
> The intent of my question to the candidates was not to generate a big discussion on the value of state rules and how to proceed but to find out IF the candidates wanted to proceed (which would play a part on my vote), and if so, how high was their priority on getting some rules set. And I asked the question because I believe some minimal rules are required in the state. I do not believe the national rules cover all issues that arise in states. I do not believe that the state doesn’t need some sort of rules. It is apparent to me that if we had some minimal rules then discussions on this list would be greatly reduced. This list has been loaded with discussions on logos, voting, replacing SC’s, roll calls, state web site content, CC site requirements, ASC(s), and the list goes on. So, I think each of the candidates have made their positions very clear at least to me. How we go about it or if we go about it will depend on the SC voted in.
> Mike
> Clay Co
>
Karen,
Don't spend your time clarifying anything for me.
I understand accuracy all too well whether you believe that or not is of no
importance.
I have no problem with how many e-mails this list generates. Discussions are
an absolute must
and a great way to get everyone's opinion on among other things, how this
state should be run
smoothly and efficiently. I hope discussion continues on this list for a
good long time.
My e-mail was to Kathy, I agreed with her sentiments. Period. End of
discussion.
-
Linda Simpson
-----Original Message-----
From: Karen De Groote via
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 1:32 PM
Cc: List MNGenWeb
Subject: Re: [MNGEN] Time to Vote for SC
Linda,
I will try to clarify since it seems you are not understanding the
importance of accuracy in this organization. This is an official vote for
our new leader. It should be handled in the utmost accuracy. Having the
month that vote ends incorrectly can conceivably give a disgruntled member
the opportunity to invalidate the election and I am sure that none of us
want that. Like Kathy pointed out, I mentioned loopholes. I also gave a
little humor via a "LOL" when I called the typo to the attention of the
EC. If I was the editing police I would not have chuckled when pointing
this out. It was simply dealt with by Pat as was proper.
None of us expect such accuracy in what we are doing and yes good humor
makes everything much better. That is why I was confused at your
statements, they were not humorous.
Any of us who don't appreciate all the emails currently on this list need
to think of two things.
1. If MNGenWeb had rules in place, all these emails would not be necessary.
2. If MNGenWeb had an SC and ASC and they were taking care of the state,
then hundreds of emails in the past few months would have been unnecessary.
Once the state gets a Leadership team in place and working rules for the
project, there will be a lot less email on this list. Then we can relax
and do what we do best. In the mean time discussions and decisions will be
our way of life for a bit longer.
Karen
Becker, Todd and Stearns
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Linda Simpson <greyoaks(a)brightok.net>
wrote:
> Kathy,
>
> I agree with you whole-heartedly! When it gets to a point that if I forget
> to dot an i people will be in jeopardy I think it's time to pack it in.
> This is the USGenWeb, not national security. It should be run like a
> business, yes, but let's remember why we are here in the first place, to
> help researchers and enjoy the time spent. A little humor goes a long way
> and is quite beneficial to all.
> -
> Linda Simpson
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Kathy Hines
> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 11:45 AM
> To: Linda Simpson ; mngen(a)rootsweb.com
> Cc: Karen De Groote
>
> Subject: Re: [MNGEN] Time to Vote for SC
>
> Hear! Hear! ;) I also give the EC a little more credit than that.
>
> Maybe what Karen said is the crux of my little personal dilemma here. She
> mentioned:
>
>> Typos have no place
>> in official situations.
>>
>
>
> I think of “official situations” as the 911 system, where somebody lives…
> or dies… if you don’t get it right. In my view, this project is supposed
> to be my escape from my daily work and the trials of the current state of
> world unrest. I want to have fun doing genealogy, help people in their
> research, and putz around with my *volunteer* pages. I don’t want to get
> sucked into rules and politics and lengthy discussions that I don’t enjoy.
>
> I’m an altruistic volunteer, with an interest in history & genealogy, and
> I happen to have a few HTML skills.
>
> Happy Valentines Day!
> Kathy
>
> On Feb 14, 2015, at 11:29 AM, Linda Simpson via <mngen(a)rootsweb.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I give the EC a little more credit than that.
>> Carry on.
>> -
>> Linda Simpson
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Karen De Groote
>> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 11:22 AM
>> To: Linda Simpson ; List MNGenWeb
>> Subject: Re: [MNGEN] Time to Vote for SC
>>
>> Yes I know we know the dates and it is a typo but the EC needs to have
>> all their Ts crossed and i's dotted which they have done. Typos have no
>> place in official situations.
>>
>> Karen
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Linda Simpson via <mngen(a)rootsweb.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Karen,
>>
>> I think we all understand the voting period is 2/14 to 2/21
>> It's just a typo, no biggie. :-)
>> -
>> Linda Simpson
>>
>>
>
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
MNGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in
the subject and the body of the message