Oh, well I am not interested in continuing the discussion on domain name.
It pales in comparison to my disappointment that you did not allow the
promised continuance of the discussion before you held your self imposed
election.
All matters take backseat to my disappointment in that matter. Yes, I did
object and you said you were doing to do it anyway. I objected to it the
very first instance I heard about it. And yes it was in the process of the
election, because that is how you announce it. There was no discussion on
it. You said this is it, Vote.
It doesn't matter how the folks voted. No one (even Sandy) was allowed to
be heard to completion. One can never know what might have been the opinion
when all was said and done. Because you preempted it.
You must not be hearing or understanding my protest. It hasn't been about
the domain name thing!!!
It is about your refusal to continue the discussion on the new discuss list
before a Vote Was put into process.
You don't have democratic processes, elizabeth. You make all the decisions
even under objections. You point fingers at me when others are even more
guilty about posting upsetting messages. Brigette recognized that I wasn't
alone in that period of discussion that everyone else seems to think I was
talking to myself.
It takes two or more, and I had plenty of help. Or do you think I am not
suppose to respond to accusations.
It happened just today. At least two or more people ignore you about post
to the first list, but I suppose you will only find fault with me.
The light of day never hurt anything. You should have monitored, and
mediated, Not Banned!
You say:
The point of the second referendum was to
establish where we would continue discussion, and to deal with the current
issues on the table>
If that is true, why are you saying in your very message on this page, that
we will now be given another month to discuss a domain name on the Discuss
list and after that a vote-- a vote by whom, who will vote??: the members
subscribed, or
the unsubscribe members.
NO, you are hearing that I am willing to let you continue the
discussion of
the domain name and incorporation issues on this (-DISCUSS) list, for the
next month, despite the fact that most of the people
If the discuss list is for discussion, why are you having votes on what can
be discussed?
Now admittedly, email may not be serving us well. We may really not be
understanding one another.
Why not pull in the fangs, and take one issue at a time. Maybe even
paragraph by paragraph, What ever it
takes, but I honestly do not see where or how my issues have been so hard to
understand.
I wasn't born yesterday and I won't be played. My guess is that you weren't
born yesterday either and your understanding may be different than mine.
But nonetheless, I have been with this project for two years, taking five
counties that had never had a host, while a friend took approx. 12 counties
also which had never had a host. We did this for free, for the cause, and
before there was a board and bylaws. We didn't have problems then. We gave
and gave. Now after two years, I have a voice of perceived injustices and
yet I have to tolerate abuse, after abuse, simply for stating my opinions on
a matter. Do You mean, that people are so closed-minded that they cannot
take one message of opinion different from theirs, that they feel the
need to slaughter the messenger again and again. Maybe I am too old for
this generation that can't tolerate dissension-- that can't tolerate a
non-status quo voice. Nevertheless, it is no excuse for the personal
attacks of hate. I have never done this myself. Issues yes, personalities
NO. Is it that some people have nothing better to do than to send hate and
condemnation by email? What a shame. I am embarrassed for them.
I specifically asked folks to discuss issues, not personalities. But these
particular folks won't do it. They prefer to discuss me. Why do I fight
for the cause? Obviously these folks aren't worth it. You know who you are.
No wonder there is such confusion about what the issues are. When
discussion is banned and only a one sided point of view is presented, no
wonder, that they don't even know what the subject matter is.
Freedom of discussion would have allow folks to understand little by little.
As
it is they understand nothing except that they don't want to hear a
differing opinion.
I have been here two years, I am the same person I was then that I am now.
The difference is that the Project has changed.
diane
-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth Harris <ncgen(a)mindspring.com>
To: NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-L(a)rootsweb.com <NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Cc: skunk(a)coastalnet.com <skunk(a)coastalnet.com>
Date: Thursday, December 17, 1998 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-L] Results of the recent voting
>From Diane's message to this list:
[me]><Since these 24 or 25 people do not however
>constitute a majority of the CCs, in deference to Diane's complaint I am
>willing for discussion of these issues to continue on the NCGENWEB-DISCUSS
>list if she or anyone else feels that more should be said. Shall we say
>until January 15th?. At this time we will reassess whether we are ready
>for a vote.>
>
>
[Diane]>Now what I am hearing is that we have to vote on whether or not we
can
>discuss topics on the discuss list?
NO, you are hearing that I am willing to let you continue the discussion of
the domain name and incorporation issues on this (-DISCUSS) list, for the
next month, despite the fact that most of the people who voted were opposed
to this, and that we will then consider whether we are ready for a vote ON
THESE ISSUES, i.e. whether or not to register the domain name and to
incorporate. This is exactly what YOU wanted to do, and I am making this
offer in order to keep peace in the project.
>Yes I did say that I objected to the vote and ballot to you in writing
more
>than once. You even replied to two of my messages on dec 1 and dec
3.
That was after the vote had begun, in a public complaint to the whole list.
I gave you an opportunity to communicate with me privately prior to
starting the vote, regarding what was going to be on the ballot. You
ignored this.
>As a matter of fact I filed a complaint with Brigette about that very
thing.
>I then I
>filed the same complaint with Yvonne and Holly. I was basically ignored
by
>both.
>I have since written a complaint to the acting NC for the problem with
>having my grievance against this election process ignored.
None of these people has contacted me, nor did you cc: these complaints to
me.
>Of course I didn't discuss the current Vote while it was in process. That
>is the point it was already in process. Discussion was cut short in favor
>of a rushed
>vote.
>I filed my complaint during this times as I said above and it was ignored
>all this time by my Reps.
>
>During that dry spell, you filed a complaint against me. You accuse me of
>misrepresenting you and I believe I proved to all involved that I did Not
>misrepresent you. You were angry that I went to the ALL list with my
local
>issues, however I must point out that you had said to take the
discussion
>there more than once, I recall.
>
>While a grievance against me was in process I did not think it time for me
>to be communicating with you or the list. Therefore I did not post. As a
>matter of fact, I do not consider it settled yet.
I have never filed a grievance against you. I asked for MEDIATION on the
issue of whether you misrepresented me on the -ALL list. I did grant
Bridgett the permission to follow through on this as she saw fit, but her
action was to ask us to try to settle it privately rather than bring it to
the level of a grievance. She also asked us both to refrain from posting
NC business to the -ALL list for the next month, a request that you have
already violated several times.
>I did not undermine my own complaint by not voting, I could not in good
>conscious participate in a
>manipulated and forced election.
>
>Fairness also means allowing discussion for all not just a few. You know
>American would never have gained it independence if discussion and dissent
>had not been allowed. These are the standards we live by in the real
world.
>If you wanted to be fair you would help create a governing body
for No Car
>to set up elections and make decisions that are fair to all.
I'm working toward that, but am getting frustrated at every turn by your
refusal to accept a democratic process. The point of the first referendum
was to establish who can vote. The point of the second referendum was to
establish where we would continue discussion, and to deal with the current
issues on the table. Because you wouldn't believe that most of the CCs
didn't want to discuss the domain name and incorporation on NCGENWEB, I
used that referendum to assess what the majority opinion really was. I got
an answer, by a fair and secret ballot, which you now refuse to accept
because yours appears to be a minority view.
We now have a forum in which to continue discussion of whatever issues need
protracted discussion, and all subscribers are free to post whatever they
like to this list, discussion, dissent, or anything else short of personal
attacks.
We do need by-laws and a formal mechanism by which decisions can be made
for NCGenWeb, but this kind of structure doesn't magically happen
overnight. It's going to require work, more discussion, and probably
several more rounds of voting. As soon as the -DISCUSS list was set up, I
suggested that we begin discussion in this direction. Nobody so far has
taken me up on that offer. I think my next move is going to be creation of
a committee to guide the discussion with the ultimate goal of drafting
by-laws. I am open to suggestions as to who should serve on this
committee.
Elizabeth Harris
ncgen(a)mindspring.com
state coordinator for NCGenWeb:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncgenweb/