--Boundary_(ID_iHrWLsIbEPoJ4RuIGcMRlQ)
Content-type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-74B3943; charset=us-ascii;
format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
At 10:28 PM 8/23/2002 -0400, Daryl Lytton wrote:
> I don't recall it saying anywhere that every
> move made by everyone involved in the project --
> whether SC or CC -- is required to be put up
> for majority vote, either.
oh, no...not *every* move :) Just the moves covered by the USGenWeb
bylaws...such as state bylaws, guidelines, rules...in short, anything the CC's
are to accept as such, should be voted upon by the CC's.
OK, this seems to be the area that's the sticking point for people. You
may find this an odd statement, but I agree that bylaws and/or rules should
be at the very least discussed with the CC's before adopting, and most
things of this nature should be voted on (I can't off the top of my head
think of a rule or by-law that *shouldn't* be voted on, but I won't rule
out the possibility. Kind of a "never say never.") I have a little
different view on guidelines, since to me, guidelines are a matter of "This
is really the way that I would like to see it done, but you don't have to
do it this way." I don't see that as being something that should require a
vote -- can't vote on someone's opinion of how it should be done, after all
<g>.
What I don't see is how the organizational plan is rules or by-laws. Or
even guidelines, for that matter. I don't see anything there that
requires, demands, or even suggests that CCs do *anything*. Derick has
listed a number of functions that have to be taken care of, and a division
of labor for handling them.
> Perhaps you misunderstood the nature and purpose
> of Derick's organizational plan....Derick went
> back and clarified the temporary nature.
Temporary or permanent, not only were the CC's not given any chance for input,
not to mention voting on it...there are things in there that are against the
USGenWeb bylaws, and the USGenWeb bylaws say that a states bylaws/guidelines
cannot exceed those of the USGenWeb.
Actually, the CC's were invited to comment, etc. after the plan was posted
(you can hardly ask for comments before it's created). Two specific
changes were made shortly after Derick put up this page, both directly as a
result of CC input. (Yes, CC input.) One was the specification that this
organization is temporary, the second clarifying that the people Derick
referred to as the "board" act in an advisory capacity only. Aside from
those two points, no one else has ever raised a specific question or issue
with the content -- the only complaint has been about the sheer existence
of the 'plan.'
I've read both this plan and the USGW by-laws more times than I care to
count, and don't see the conflict. What specifically is in violation of
USGW bylaws?
Lets give that org plan a test run though! It says "It shall be
the duty of
the SC to ensure NCGW adherence to the By-laws of the USGenWeb Project" One
bylaw says "All members of The USGenWeb Project shall be responsible for
adhering to The USGenWeb Project's Official Copyright Policy" The (c) Policy
says "The USGenWeb Project will not tolerate any copyright violations."
I sent Derick a private message, which he posted to this list. The same day,
Derick posted another message to the list saying 'You own your posts'. He
clearly knows his action was a (c) violation, and a USGenWeb bylaw violation.
And of course, no apology. So...the first person to violate the org plan, was
the person who wrote it. That certainly does not inspire much trust or faith,
it inspires just the opposit!
My opinion, Derick shouldn't have posted to a private message to the list
without permission. I have no argument with you there. But I don't think
that's relevant to a discussion of the organizational plan. I'll get
nit-picky <G>. By-laws are specific rules of conduct that must be followed,
and failure to do so is a violation of those by-laws. But you can't
violate the organizational plan, because there is nothing to violate --
it's a division of labor.
I've had people seriously misunderstand my opinions along the way
(sometimes misunderstand, sometimes flat out distort, actually), but my
thoughts on the matter are pretty simple. Some state projects have no need
of by-laws, they chug along just fine with everyone doing their own thing
and getting along just famously. NCGW is not one of those states, and we
need by-laws. And those by-laws will have to be voted on by the CCs.
But I don't see an organizational plan as being the same as, or
interchangeable with, by-laws. The by-laws should go no further than to
require that the SC should choose 1 or more ASCs. Why? Because what works
for one person doesn't work for another. Derick is comfortable with 3
ASCs, a roughly geographic 'set up', and a detailed division of labor. The
next SC may prefer to choose 1 ASC who would provide backup as needed and
be able to take over if the SC is incapacitated for a period. I think that
EVERY SC should put their *own* organizational plan into place, in writing,
for all project members to see. It puts everything out in the open, so
there should be no question or confusion about who does what, or when, or
where.
I definitely think that the SC should have the right (and responsibility)
to choose their ASC(s) as he/she sees fit, the same way that a CC can
choose their own Co-CC. (I prefer ACC, or Assistant County Coordinator,
actually.) And for the same reasons. I don't think you can tell people
*who* they work well with, or who they get along with, or who can help them
make a productive team. Each person has to decide that on their own.
btw...Sorry that I forgot to tell you how pretty I think your county
page
is...Nice Job :)
Thank you kindly, sir. I'm vastly looking forward to having our computer
project at work finished up so that I can get back to having some *real*
time to work on it! None of this 10 minutes here and half hour there stuff...
Angie
--Boundary_(ID_iHrWLsIbEPoJ4RuIGcMRlQ)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert;
x-avg-checked=avg-ok-74B3943
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (
http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002
--Boundary_(ID_iHrWLsIbEPoJ4RuIGcMRlQ)--