On Thursday, August 11, 2005 12:56 PM MDT, Daryl Lytton <dlytton(a)mindspring.com>
wrote:
It was established on April 5 1998, and upheld by consent and
participation
of the CCs, that making guidelines for OHGenWeb shall take place in the
open, on this list. Therefore, I believe that no SC can change our
rule-making process by calling for a committee to devise guidelines,
without first the CCs voting upon if they want to change the established process.
The date Daryl refers to has the following message:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/OHGEN/1998-04/0891820183
which is from Patty Lindsay <plindsay(a)infinet.com> , acting OHGenWeb State
Coordinator. The official vote was called for on April 13, 1998, here:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/OHGEN/1998-04/0892426853
However, there is really nothing here about how guidelines should be made, whether on the
list or in a committee that subsequently makes a proposal to the list. The closest it
comes to Daryl's assertion is the following item:
> 3. Must a person be subscribed to ohgen-l when the vote is
announced
> to be eligible for the vote? I.E., should the person have to be
> willing to listen to the discussion before making the vote? This
> would also help determine who's eligible to vote, particularly for the
> county volunteers. Please note that subscription to the list itself is
> not sufficient to vote, the person must fulfill whatever
> requirement is decided in item 2 above as well.
To put this in parliamentary terms, only those who are present for the motion to consider
a proposal would be eligible to vote on the proposal. The usual process that follows a
motion is discussion, with possibilities for motions for and voting on amendments, before
a final vote occurs. But this does not preclude a committee working to create a proposal
that would then be motioned into discussion.
The vote result is listed here, on April 23, 1998:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/OHGEN/1998-04/0893293117
I'll note that it clearly calls for the voters to be subscribed to this list in order
to vote, and by implication that the vote occur on this list. Again, this doesn't
preclude the development of proposals off-list, only that any official consideration occur
here.
My summary of the other results are:
A small committee of two people was the preferred method to count votes. This implies a
secret ballot rather than a show of hands.
It also calls for a ten-day voting period, though Patty had to use an implied
"instant run-off voting" to come to this conclusion.
The least conclusive result was about who was eligible to vote; as Daryl describes in
another message, the vote was clearly in favor of individual-based rather than
county-based votes, but unclear about which individuals could vote (i.e. CCs or any
volunteer). Patty tried to break this tie with a runoff, but as described here:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/OHGEN/1998-04/0893803666-01
the result was inconclusive.
Scott