Diana,
I will try and clarify once again . . .
To begin with, your message was addressed
to the Discuss list. I responded to that
post in an effort to clarify the situation.
I only just noticed that your message was
marked as a non-subscriber, and hadn't go
to the Discuss list. If I had realized that,
I would not have posted to the list at that
time.
You didn't use the address to post with that
you are subscribed with and I didn't catch
that right away. It was obvious that you had
seen the earlier Discuss posting I'd made.
On 5/5/01 a question was posed on the
State-Coord list asking how other SCs
handle things when a CC leaves a state
project and sacks the site on the way
out. There was nothing left, including
what contributors and former coordinators
had left online when that CC had taken over.
The subject to that message was "Question".
Over the next three days, there were at least
six more messages branched off that one that
had the same subject, and somewhat discussed
the same sort of problem. On the end of one
of the last ones on May 9, Tim posed the
question I responded to.
Ron Eason wrote a message to the Discuss
list on May 11, asking me about the message
I posted to the State Coord list. The subject
on his message was "Blacklists".
On May 12, I responded to Ron on the Discuss
list, but I changed the subject to "Brainstorming".
Those messages can be read by going to the Discuss
archives, or to the post I did late last night to
the Discuss list.
It seems simple to me that if I was trying to get
a "secret" list of some sort started, I'd hardly
write about it on the lists. It should also be
clear to anyone reading all the messages involved
that I was making suggestions to handle any such
moves in a dignified manner, where there would
not be unnecessary attacks on someone. Not that
we start such a movement, but IF we were to go
that direction, be careful what is said where.
That's not saying to be secreative, but it is
saying I felt we would need to be discrete if
such a move was started. Other than saying that
I thought it would be good to have some sort of
system in place that would identify folks who had
been unusually disruptive in other state projects, and
especially those who deliberately delete GenConnect
boards and/or delete even information that was on
a county site from earlier CCs.
The reason I felt the need to write last night's message
the way I did is because I have been misunderstood both
by some of the SCs on the State-Coord list and also a
very few NCGenWeb CCs on the Discuss list. I believe
that to read last night's message from first to last,
including the messages that were referenced from earlier
posts, it is very clear that I feel my statements have
been misunderstood. It seems that the sentence, "Let's
clear something up." would tend to indicate that I felt
there had been a misunderstanding of some sort.
Diana wrote:
That is what I sent originally. I don't know WHY Sharon felt the need to
editorialize so much about it BEFORE sending it to the list. I was GLAD to
see Sharon raise the question she did; I think it is needed. I didn't
realize it was a rhetorical question, I thought she was sincerely asking for
input, especially since the message title was 'Brainstorming." I thought
that was what we were doing so I took her up on it and put in my 2-cents
worth.
She clearly asked 'what would be your thoughts on' ... this situation.
Debi gave a thoughtful suggestion. Then I did. I am clueless as to why
Sharon felt the need to re-hash and re-post who said what on the state
coordinator's list. I thought we were having a discussion HERE on this list
about the subject. Can't we do that?
The only reason the "brainstorming" message was posted on
the Discuss list at all was because it was in response to
the message "blacklists", that Ron Eason had posted on the
Discuss list. His opinions against me were done in public,
and my reply was done the same way.
Where did I say ANYTHING about publicly humiliating anyone??
Where did I say ANYTHING about making a web page about disagreements??
So just where were you intending that we should write this history? (not
rhetorical) Since this is an online project and since you already have a
NCGenWeb CC history of a sort online, I wouldn't have expected that you were
talking about any other way of housing the information.
As far as humiliating anyone, I would like to think that folks would feel
humiliated by some of the occurrences they have been involved in, if they
were made into a public record and permanently posted. Of course, I won't
count on that.
The bottom line for me is, yes if someone contacts me and asks how so-and-so
was during their time of working with NCGenWeb, I will answer honestly, as I
have seen things from my perspective. But I don't believe there should be a
large amount of time wasted on trying to document specifics. We are not a
court of law, and all those sort of things sap the time and energy that I
personally would rather spend on Genealogy.
I said the same thing Sharon said, basically: that people's actions have
consequences and if we do not keep some record or history of these actions,
then we deserve what or who we get. Using your analogy, Sharon, which I had
not seen when I wrote my thoughts to this list, bad marks on a person's
driving record go with them. My analogy, credit reports go with people.
These are histories. We need to keep histories of people's actions in
USGenWeb.
You are right, credit reports do go with people. The report goes with
someone whether they deserve it or not. We have all heard about folks who
have had their idenity stolen and their credit ruined by strangers, and that
is just my point. We want to be discrete and not overbearing in our attitude
toward CCs, past, present and future.
Keep in mind also that someone's reputation can be ruined by a few well chosen
half-truths.
Thanks,
Sharon
Diana H. F.