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
Those of you who apparently have the time, zeal and knowledge and have kept
us on track with respect to following Sturgis could perform a **valuable
task** for the rest of us.
Instead of directing your energy, efforts and email writing to what is wrong
with the parliamentary process we have been following, that is, the errors
made by the Chair and others, why not now take that same energy and spend it
in developing a proposed set of rules for us to follow once we resume
discussion.
Form an adhoc albeit unacknowledged "skunker" committee and come up with
ideas amongst yourselves.
Spend the time you are now exerting on researching Sturgis and writing long
procedural emails explaining what is wrong and use that time to accomplish a
task that will benefit our ability to work in a simpler governance
environment.
I might say, instead of being a source of hindrance you will become a force
of progress.
Appoint a leader and go at it.
Keep the process as simple as follows. Give yourself a goal to **have only
10 rules**. Stick to that goal. I'm sure it can be done.
When discussion resumes, offer your work to Dale. Then Dale can present
them for discussion and presumably a vote.
I am sure we can "vote out" the rules we've already passed.
The vast majority of us who are tired about all the procedural debates will
certainly appreciate and acknowledge your work as we want to expend our
mental energy on the **product** not the **process**.
So who will take the lead?
Remember this is an adhoc, unacknowledged "skunker" work effort. Such
efforts go on in large corporations all the time. It's the way people make
themselves get noticed and appreciated. They are the one's who become the
future leaders.
Those votes were invalid. This is a new vote.
Joan
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Sheila Helser <opus30(a)sheilascorner.com> wrote:
>
> I thought people already were voting on this. I saw a lot of votes come
> across my email about a week ago. Is this a continuation of the votes
> already cast? or is this a new vote?
Yes
Danice Ryan
cc Jefferson County
"A yes vote will sustain the State Coordinator's decision to end the
discussion of the motion to form a committee to draft bylaws for OHGenWeb
and open the list to CC's input. Volunteers and input will then be accepted."
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom000...)
Many members have stated that their access during the holidays will be
limited. I don't want anyone to be left out due to family commitments.
Dale
-----Original Message-----
From: ohgen-bounces(a)rootsweb.com [mailto:ohgen-bounces@rootsweb.com] On
Behalf Of Bill
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 7:13 AM
To: ohgen(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [OHGENWEB] Motion To Appeal The Decision Of The Chair
'siyo,
Yes, I will "kindly keep the official vote tally". Voting ends midnight, 10
Jan 09?? And, why so long a period to vote? This is more than 30 days.
Sgti,
Bill
-=-
Dale Grimm wrote:
> = = = cut o o o o>
> Unless there are objections, voting will continue through January 10,
2009.
> Bill Oliver, would you kindly keep the official vote tally?
>
> Voting period begins now.
>
> Dale
>
>
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
OHGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in
the subject and the body of the message
Yes
Kathy Gies, Lorain CC
Dale Grimm wrote:
> Now we must vote on the Motion to Appeal the Decision of the Chair. Votes
> like this are usually voice votes, so a Yes or No vote by replying to this
> list will suffice.
>
> A yes vote will sustain the State Coordinator's decision to end the
> discussion of the motion to form a committee to draft bylaws for OHGenWeb
> and open the list to CC's input. Volunteers and input will then be accepted.
>
> A no vote will overrule the State Coordinator's decision to end the
> discussion of the motion to form a committee to draft bylaws for OHGenWeb
> and to open the list to CC's input. Then the list will be open to motions to
> end said discussion and we will vote on that motion.
>
> A majority no vote is required to overrule the decision. A "tie" vote will
> sustain the decision.
>
> Unless there are objections, voting will continue through January 10, 2009.
> Bill Oliver, would you kindly keep the official vote tally?
>
> Voting period begins now.
>
>
>
>
>
> Dale
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to OHGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
'siyo,
Yes, I will "kindly keep the official vote tally". Voting ends
midnight, 10 Jan 09?? And, why so long a period to vote? This is more
than 30 days.
Sgti,
Bill
-=-
Dale Grimm wrote:
> = = = cut o o o o>
> Unless there are objections, voting will continue through January 10, 2009.
> Bill Oliver, would you kindly keep the official vote tally?
>
> Voting period begins now.
>
> Dale
>
>
Yes.
Joan Asche
Clermont, Scioto, Lawrence Counties.
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 5:59 AM, Dale Grimm <input(a)kbanet.com> wrote:
> Now we must vote on the Motion to Appeal the Decision of the Chair. Votes
> like this are usually voice votes, so a Yes or No vote by replying to this
> list will suffice.
>
> A yes vote will sustain the State Coordinator's decision to end the
> discussion of the motion to form a committee to draft bylaws for OHGenWeb
> and open the list to CC's input. Volunteers and input will then be accepted.
>
> A no vote will overrule the State Coordinator's decision to end the
> discussion of the motion to form a committee to draft bylaws for OHGenWeb
> and to open the list to CC's input. Then the list will be open to motions to
> end said discussion and we will vote on that motion.
>
> A majority no vote is required to overrule the decision. A "tie" vote will
> sustain the decision.
>
> Unless there are objections, voting will continue through January 10, 2009.
> Bill Oliver, would you kindly keep the official vote tally?
>
> Voting period begins now.
>
>
>
>
>
> Dale
>
Now we must vote on the Motion to Appeal the Decision of the Chair. Votes
like this are usually voice votes, so a Yes or No vote by replying to this
list will suffice.
A yes vote will sustain the State Coordinator's decision to end the
discussion of the motion to form a committee to draft bylaws for OHGenWeb
and open the list to CC's input. Volunteers and input will then be accepted.
A no vote will overrule the State Coordinator's decision to end the
discussion of the motion to form a committee to draft bylaws for OHGenWeb
and to open the list to CC's input. Then the list will be open to motions to
end said discussion and we will vote on that motion.
A majority no vote is required to overrule the decision. A "tie" vote will
sustain the decision.
Unless there are objections, voting will continue through January 10, 2009.
Bill Oliver, would you kindly keep the official vote tally?
Voting period begins now.
Dale
I would like to remind EVERYONE that you really have to trim your post
before sending. The mailing list will dump any email into a pending
file that gets too big. That email will then sit in that pending file
for at least one day. The system generates a notice daily to the
list admin and asst admins that there is something that needs
attention.
I would not want to see anyone's post get hung up because the system
dumped it into the pending file because of size.
If you trim your posts you will never need to worry about mail getting
stuck in pending.
Thanks,
Joan
On Sunday, December 7, 2008 3:51 PM MT, Dale Grimm <input(a)kbanet.com> wrote:
> Chryl's motion to postpone all motions and discussions, which was objected
> to, has been withdrawn.
As I noted earlier today, she cannot simply withdraw it as it belongs to the assembly now.
> Since there is question as to whether that motion was appropriate, I will accept that withdrawl.
> This makes Bill's objection a moot point now.
Sorry, but you can't simply accept the withdrawal. Instead, you need to address Bill's objection (which I agree with). Responding affirmatively to it is the quickest way to dispense with Chyrl's motion. If you respond negatively, then we'll need to dispense with Chyrl's motion like any other. Given her request, I expect that general consent would be the quickest way to deal with it.
Scott
Darn spelling checker, meant it to state alleviate, not elevate.
Duh
Linda
----- Original Message -----
From: "Linda Boorom" <lboorom(a)fuse.net>
To: <ohgen(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: [OHGENWEB] Speaking my mind
> Mike,
>
> I don't mean to be disrespectful, and am truly very sorry for what you are having to deal with
> right
> now. I know it would be rough for me if I were in your shoes.
>
> Unfortunately, there are rules in place and an order that should/needs to be followed before we
> can
> recess until after the holidays. I am not partial to the politics, and think/hope once we have a
> committee in place, they can deal with some of the issues we are currently facing BEFORE an
> amendment is brought to the group for discussion, thus elevate some of the confusion we're facing
> now.
>
> I can't/won't comment on who might BE on the committee, the "main" motion as presented, doesn't
> address that issue. I guess we'll figure that out later, after the current motion is resolved?
>
> Meanwhile, just hang on a few more days, perhaps things can be resolved enough in that time so we
> can all try to get into the holiday spirit, despite whatever we're facing in our everyday lives.
>
> Linda
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <GenealogyLookUp(a)aol.com>
> To: <ohgen(a)rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 12:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [OHGENWEB] Speaking my mind
>
>
>>
>> Linda,
>>
>> I have to disagree with you on a few things. I think it is disrespectful for
>> us to continue with OHGENWEB politics at this time when the majority of us
>> wishes to postpone this until after the 1st of the year.
>>
>> Right now I can not focus on these issues for several reasons. My father is
>> very ill and has 2 operations coming up, one before Christmas and one is on
>> Jan 5th.
>>
>> My sister's 7 month old son is having some medical problems and is
>> undergoing extensive medical testing.
>>
>> Then there is the upcoming holiday that there is a lot that has to be done
>> before the 25th.
>>
>> I myself prefer to postpone all of this until everyone or at least the
>> majority of us can focus on these issues at a better time. If we continue to
>> proceed with the OHGENWEB politics as you prefer to do, then I will have to be
>> forced to give up my 4 counties because I feel it will be unfair that I will not
>> have a fair chance to be involved in helping set up the OHGENWEB Bylaws. I
>> want my voice to be heard if needed.
>>
>> There are a couple people I feel should not be on the committee and I feel I
>> should have the right to voice my opinion if I disagree if someone should be
>> on it. But at this time I "can not" focus on OHGENWEB politics and it will
>> be unfair to me if we proceed with these motions when I can not be a part of
>> it.
>>
>> Mike
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to OHGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word
> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
"Anyone can offer a motion at any time" is true in general but I think doesn't really answer Alice's question. If there is a motion on the floor, only certain other motions may be introduced, such as amendments (Sturgis, p. 22). A brand new motion on a different topic is out of order, unless it's a privileged or incidental motion (appeal is the latter).
So there can be a "stack" of motions under consideration at one time, but only the most recent one of them is under active consideration.
Currently, we have the following stack of motions:
Point of Order that postponement doesn't have the necessary precedence to be applied to the Appeal.
Postpone the current set of motions until January 2.
Appeal from the decision of the Chair.
Create bylaws committee.
Scott
On Sunday, December 7, 2008 2:41 PM MT, Dale Grimm <input(a)kbanet.com> wrote:
>Alice,
>
>According to Sturgis, anyone can offer a motion any time. The most recent
>motions are acted upon first, working through to the oldest
>motion.
>
>
>Dale
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ohgen-bounces(a)rootsweb.com [mailto:ohgen-bounces@rootsweb.com] On
>Behalf Of DC & Alice Allen
>Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 12:11 PM
>To: ohgen(a)rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: [OHGENWEB] All OHGenWeb official activity is
>tabled
>
>I lost the thread long ago, so color me REALLY confused. Comes of not being
>home long enough to read through all the emails, for me,
>anyway.
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you can have more than one motion
>on the floor at a time. At least, that's how the AB operates. The next
>topic on the Agenda is brought up for discussion on AB Chat, but no further
>motions are brought forward until the one on the floor is completed. I lost
>my copy of Sturgis a long time ago--I am sure it's buried here
>somewhere.
>
>Alice Allen
>
>US GenWeb Project County Coordinator for Geauga Co., OH Seneca
>Co., OH
>
>NENC CC Rep
>Co-Moderator, DISCUSS List
>
We have several issues here.
Many members have publicly stated that their availability until the end of
the year will be limited.
Those who were complaining that I was trying to keep members from being
heard are now pressing to have voting completed before Christmas. Since
they have also received the messages from members stating their limited
availability, they are trying to limit those members ability to participate.
This would be akin to calling a physical meeting at a time when it is known
that many members would be unable to attend.
We also have to look at who we are. We are just a group of people who run
genealogy websites. We're not the U.S. House of Representatives, or the
board of General Motors. Strict formality has its place, and more informal
procedures have their place. This is a place for more informal procedures.
Sturgis was written for physical meetings. It is inappropriate for our
types of meetings. The procedures that would take minutes in a physical
meeting would take weeks in our situation. And in that time, many of the
members will have forgotten the subjects at hand. Therefore it is necessary
that we accept that we will have to make adaptations and take advantage of
many of the time-saving procedures allowed for in Sturgis.
We are in a position where discontent is starting to rear its head, and I
will not allow that to happen. Most of the issues that we have discussed
and all of the motions before this body over the past month have been
unimportant issues - mostly procedural. There is no reason to have this
much discussion and arguing over inconsequential matters. If there is going
to be this much heated discussion over minor issues, what does that bode for
us when we get to serious issues - like discussing proposed bylaws? We are
to the point where members of this assembly are starting to lose interest in
its proceedings. It is now my obligation to get the mindset of the assembly
to the matters at hand.
Chryl's motion to postpone all motions and discussions, which was objected
to, has been withdrawn. Since there is question as to whether that motion
was appropriate, I will accept that withdrawl. This makes Bill's objection
a moot point now.
Mike's similar motion to postpone is also a questionable motion, so if you
would like to withdraw your motion, Mike, the withdrawl will be accepted. I
will not recognize a second to this motion.
That brings us to Scott's motion to object to the ruling of the chair. We
have had ample time to discuss this matter and to reach our individual
decisions. I have informed the assembly that, unless there were
objections, the voting on this matter would start Monday. It will proceed
as planned. Since many members have expressed their limited availability,
voting will continue until January 10, 2009 to allow the maximum number of
members the opportunity to participate in the proceedings. All previous
votes are void. Unless there are objections based on reason, not on
procedural issues, voting will begin tomorrow. This will be a voting
period, not a period to discuss the motion.
Dale
Alice,
According to Sturgis, anyone can offer a motion any time. The most recent
motions are acted upon first, working through to the oldest motion.
Dale
-----Original Message-----
From: ohgen-bounces(a)rootsweb.com [mailto:ohgen-bounces@rootsweb.com] On
Behalf Of DC & Alice Allen
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 12:11 PM
To: ohgen(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [OHGENWEB] All OHGenWeb official activity is tabled
I lost the thread long ago, so color me REALLY confused. Comes of not being
home long enough to read through all the emails, for me, anyway.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you can have more than one motion
on the floor at a time. At least, that's how the AB operates. The next
topic on the Agenda is brought up for discussion on AB Chat, but no further
motions are brought forward until the one on the floor is completed. I lost
my copy of Sturgis a long time ago--I am sure it's buried here somewhere.
Alice Allen
US GenWeb Project County Coordinator for Geauga Co., OH Seneca Co., OH
NENC CC Rep
Co-Moderator, DISCUSS List
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 12/6/2008 at 11:20 AM wnoliver(a)sbcglobal.net wrote:
>'siyo Dale,
>
>I support Scott's idea of giving the gavel to someone else temporarily
>if you feel you can't effectively get us through these two pending
>motions timely, then recessing until the new year.
>
>I've lost the thread myself, so if it has not been done I call the
>question of whether to "sustain the decision of the presiding officer
>that the Chair can set the timing of a/the vote."
>
>Sgi,
>
>Bill
>-=-
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
OHGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in
the subject and the body of the message
I make a Motion to Postpone temporarily all motion(s) and make them a
general order for a meeting to begin January 2, 2009.
I feel this should all be postponed and sorted out because there is so much
confusion within our group. How can we proceed when everything seems to be
unorganized.
Before we begin working on setting up Bylaws for OHGENWEB, we need to set up
the committee. This all can be done after January 1, 2009.
Respectfully,
Mike
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom000...)
I'm sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself here. I should have looked up "withdraw" first in Sturgis (p. 94). It says "Any motion can be withdrawn. Before a motion has been stated by the presiding officer, the proposer may change it or withdraw it without the assembly's permission.... after ... it becomes the property of that body, and the proposer may withdraw it only if no objection is raised."
The Chair stated Chyrl's motion yesterday at 5:21 PM MT, so she can no longer withdraw it. As such, my motion to close debate is out of order, so I withdraw it.
We now await the decision of the Chair on Bill's point of order that Chyrl's motion to postpone cannot be applied to my appeal.
Scott
On Sunday, December 7, 2008 10:25 PM MT, Bill <wnoliver(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 'siyo,
>
> Second the motionto close debate on my appeal from the
>decision of the Chair
>
> Sgi,
>
> Bill
> -=-
>
> Scott R. C. Anderson wrote:
>I believe that Bill's motion to close debate on my appeal was
>discarded because Chyrl soon thereafter offered her motion to
>postpone and it was seconded before Bill's was. Now Chyrl has
>withdrawn her motion, which also discards the point of order
>about whether it can apply to my appeal.
>
>So we are back to the state of debating my appeal. I do believe
>we're all finished with this and want to get it out of the way.
>So I move to close debate on my appeal from the decision of the
>Chair and bring to vote whether or not to sustain the decision
>of the Chair.
>
>Now is a good time to use "general consent" for a few days to
>see if anyone is opposed to this.
>
>If you want to review my arguments for voting no on sustaining
>the decision of the Chair, here they are:
>
>http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/OHGEN/2008-11/1228064695
>http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/OHGEN/2008-12/1228540309
>
>Scott
>
>On Saturday, December 6, 2008 9:20 AM MT, Bill <wnoliver(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>'siyo Dale,
>
>I support Scott's idea of giving the gavel to someone else temporarily
>if you feel you can't effectively get us through these two pending
>motions timely, then recessing until the new year.
>
>I've lost the thread myself, so if it has not been done I call the
>question of whether to "sustain the decision of the presiding officer
>that the Chair can set the timing of a/the vote."
>
>Sgi,
>
>Bill
>
>
>
>
>-------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>OHGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
>the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
>
On Sunday, December 7, 2008 10:04 AM MT, Chyrl Lawrence-Bulger <myancestry(a)msn.com> wrote:
> The correct way to bring a matter to
> an immediate vote is to obtain the floor and make a motion to
> "move to close debate". A common practice, however, is to call
> out “Question!” or “I call for the question!” without obtaining
> the floor. The member who calls the question is "out of
> order";
They are only "out of order" if they interrupt another speaker (Sturgis, p. 67). However, in our e-mail environment that is impossible because each "speech" is in an individual e-mail, and all mail is automatically sequenced.
> but at the "discretion of the chair", this may be
> treated as an informal way of closing the debate. A member
> cannot "second" a "call the question" which is considered out
> of order.
I disagree with this statement, which is not in Sturgis. In fact, Sturgis notes that the Chair may ask for a second. So, as Sturgis notes, "Calling the question" is an "informal way of moving to close debate", and because it is understood as such it would be nit-picky to treat it as anything but its equivalent.
It would be similarly nit picky to complain about the use of "table" rather than "postpone" (p. 70).
Scott