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
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------3842BBB4CA1FF77D1909E64F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Though t you guys would like tosee a pat on the back for a change -
since it specifically said you guys I thought you'd like to see this
BarbL
--------------3842BBB4CA1FF77D1909E64F
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Received: from mail3.bellatlantic.net ([151.199.0.38])
by immta1.bellatlantic.net (InterMail v03.02.06 118 122)
with ESMTP id <19980929135804.VUGY7599(a)mail3.bellatlantic.net>
for <stevel(a)bellatlantic.net>; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 09:58:04 -0400
Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72])
by mail3.bellatlantic.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP
id IAA14310 for <stevel(a)bellatlantic.net>; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:58:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Thjones001(a)aol.com
Received: from Thjones001(a)aol.com
by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 4LEVa02083
for <stevel(a)bellatlantic.net>; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 09:55:58 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <d23856fc.3610e6ee(a)aol.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 09:55:58 EDT
To: stevel(a)bellatlantic.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Civil War Units
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 214
Ok and thanks, Barb. I will try to get a blurb, or some better organized list
of what I have on "my" Civil War ancestor information sources in the next few
days, and see if that fits with what you are doing. I am acquainted with the
knawing feeling all volunteer "laborers" have: "Is all this work worthwhile?"
I'm also totally convinced that there are many out there who appreciate what
you folks are doing - they're so focused on the search for old bones that they
forget to say so!. Have a nice day.
--------------3842BBB4CA1FF77D1909E64F--
Please keep Linda Lewis (Blair County coordinator), her husband, and her
family in your thoughts and prayers. Her husband, Larry, died today. If
you'd like to send an e-card, her address is cityslic(a)ix.netcom.com -- her
snailmail address for real cards is Linda Lewis, 761 W. La Deney Dr.,
Ontario, CA 91762.
Anthony Kapolka has asked me to let everyone know that the Lancaster County
page is now at
http://getafix.mathcs.wilkes.edu/lancaster
^^^ no tilde
Anthony has encountered problems with the PAGEN-L mailing list. Apparently
the list will not forward e-mail from him. I forget who manages this list
(sorry!), but would the manager please contact Anthony (kapolka(a)wilkes.edu)
to sort out and remedy the problem?
Thanks for the help.
Dave
> Ask the list manager to contact kapolka(a)wilkes.edu to help fix this.
> I have tried resubscribing, but things just aren't working. I receive
> mail from the list just fine.
>
>Thanks.
>A
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
David N. Blauch, Assistant Professor
Department of Chemistry, Davidson College
POB 1719, Davidson NC 28036
Tel. (704) 892-2308 FAX (704) 892-2709
dablauch(a)davidson.edu
home page: http://www.chm.davidson.edu/dablauch/dablauch.html
Crawford Co. is right where its always been. Go to
http://www.ccia.com/~rharvey and choose from the three counties I host.
At 08:47 PM 11/5/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>File does not exist: /users/home/r/rharvey/public_html/
>Where did Crawford County go?
>Sheila
>
Researching:
Harvey, Platt, Lord, and Scudder in New E., NY., Pa., OH., MI.
Paden, Garwood, and Shinn in Burlington N.J., Pa. and Oh.
For Ashtabula Co. Oh, Crawford Co. Pa. and Lawrence Co. Genweb pages:
http://www.ccia.com/~rharvey
My ancestor webpage: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/8754/
Richard J. Harvey
423 Falls Ave.
New Castle, Pa. 16105
Hi Sheila,
This vote has been for interest to see how Pa CC feel about
incorporating and I think there have been some very good answers both
yea and nay. At this point it appears most wish to keep everything as
is.
Vi
Sheila wrote:
>
> I do not understand this voting?
> Is it just for interest?
> There has not been offical word that we should vote by any official.
> And are the people who are voicing their opinions voting? Or are they just
> voicing an opinion?
> I went to the voting site...............
> Sheila
> ******************************************************
> The essence of humanity is in the pursuit of the arts!
> dp
> dp
> || hhelser(a)bright.net
> _||_
> ' || ` ~/
> ) || ( //
> _)::(_ //
> ) || ( //
> ( \/ ) //
> `-..-' /'
> SHEILA'S CORNER
> http://www.bright.net/~hhelser/sheila.html
> Sligo County Ireland Genealogy County Coordinator
> http://www.rootsweb.com/~irlsli/index.html
> Venango County Pennsylvania Genealogy County Coordinator
> http://www.rootsweb.com/~pavenang/
> ******************************************************
>
>
I do not understand this voting?
Is it just for interest?
There has not been offical word that we should vote by any official.
And are the people who are voicing their opinions voting? Or are they just
voicing an opinion?
I went to the voting site...............
Sheila
******************************************************
The essence of humanity is in the pursuit of the arts!
dp
dp
|| hhelser(a)bright.net
_||_
' || ` ~/
) || ( //
_)::(_ //
) || ( //
( \/ ) //
`-..-' /'
SHEILA'S CORNER
http://www.bright.net/~hhelser/sheila.html
Sligo County Ireland Genealogy County Coordinator
http://www.rootsweb.com/~irlsli/index.html
Venango County Pennsylvania Genealogy County Coordinator
http://www.rootsweb.com/~pavenang/
******************************************************
File does not exist: /users/home/r/rharvey/public_html/
Where did Crawford County go?
Sheila
******************************************************
The essence of humanity is in the pursuit of the arts!
dp
dp
|| hhelser(a)bright.net
_||_
' || ` ~/
) || ( //
_)::(_ //
) || ( //
( \/ ) //
`-..-' /'
SHEILA'S CORNER
http://www.bright.net/~hhelser/sheila.html
Sligo County Ireland Genealogy County Coordinator
http://www.rootsweb.com/~irlsli/index.html
Venango County Pennsylvania Genealogy County Coordinator
http://www.rootsweb.com/~pavenang/
******************************************************
Count my vote as a nay. Let's all get involved in this. We jus't had a
national election that resulted in 38.5% of registered voters voting.
That means that 19.76% of the citizens of the US are deciding who our
leaders are.
Scary, huh?
--
Ken Boonie
Coordinator
USGenWeb Project
Huntingdon County PA
http://www.rootsweb.com/~pahuntin/
Hi all,
Ok. I vote no too. I would like to see more formalization of the project -
but I am generally happy with the way PA is run.
Carol Hepburn
Somerset Co.
Yay on the nay. Nay yesterday, nay today, nay tomorrow. No incorporation,
no by-laws, nothing but genealogy. I don't even recognize the national
by-laws ... what a farce.
Mike
At 12:52 PM 11/3/98 EST, you wrote:
>When I joined USGenWeb well over two years ago it was an informally
organized
>structure of independent county coordinators doing their own thing and
>following only minimal instructions to meet USGenWeb guidelines. That's
what I
>joined and that is the way I want it to remain. The more structured and
formal
>this becomes, the less appealing. All I want from USGenWeb is the doorway
that
>brings people to my site which I will continue to do with or without
USGenWeb.
>Joyce M. Tice <A
HREF="http://www.rootsweb.com/~srgp/jmtindex.htm">Tri-County
>Genealogy by Joyce M. Tice</A>
>
>
hi all,
Guess I'll throw my thoughts into this. I think by and large we are doing a
great job in PA. I with many others had voiced our concerns over the
direction the USGenWeb was taking with those by-laws. I'm not on the -all
list, so I don't know what's all happening.
I don't think we need to incorporate. I don't think any of us has the time
or energy to deal with it. We all work well together and don't think we
need to change anything. We've got a great project to be proud of. I don't
know how much each of your browse the other counties, but there's some great
stuff out there!
Alice and I in Jefferson County are about to undertake a major transcription
project with the Jefferson County Historical Society. We're nearing the
completion of a transcription project of a two volume history of Armstrong
county and about to begin another history transcription. The positive
response that we've had has made this all worthwhile and enjoyable. That is
why I got involved. I want nothing to do with those politics.
So you can consider that a nay vote on incorporation.
Nate
Nathan Zipfel
Pa Roots Webmaster
http://www.pa-roots.com/
Armstrong County USGenWeb Project Co-Coordinator
http://www.pa-roots.com/armstrong
Jefferson County USGenWeb Project Co-Coordinator
http://www.pa-roots.com/jefferson
Westmoreland County USGenWeb Project Co-Coordinator
http://www.pa-roots.com/westmoreland
UKGenWeb Coordinator
http://www.rootsweb.com/~ukwgw
ScotlandGenWeb Coordinator
http://www.rootsweb.com/~sctwgw
At 09:20 AM 11/4/98 -0500, Nahodil, Brian <BRIAN.NAHODIL(a)cpmx.saic.com> wrote:
>The only thing bugging me about all this is that I still don't understand
>how one could form a corporation, for us a non-profit and not ever have
>meetings face to face.
I agree 100% on this. And it would be really difficult to get
a "board" in a single room. In fact, even if we could get
a group of people in one room once, I doubt we could do
it quarterly.
>As far as I understand, the recent elections, bi-laws, etc, meetings, were
>all conducted electronically. This is why I believe things are unraveling
>and appear to be more chaotic than organized...it is because people are
>trying to do things that just can not be effectively done in person.
My perception exactly. Plus, most of those people did not appear
to me to even have the expectation of doing things in an organized,
acceptable fashion. That may be our, the "electorate's", fault for
not insisting they act according to Robert's rules, etc. I don't know.
>I think the chances of a Pennsylvania incorporation, or even just
>Organization to create better understanding and teamwork, are excellent
>because it is a concentrated geographic area and people can meet and discuss
>in person, instead of spewing out emails and CC'ing the to upteen other
>discussion lists.
>
>My point is, the only and greatest chances of success for any organizational
>attempt will be if the organizational attempt is done in person, and not
>just on the Internet.
You may be right about that. I think you've hit on the exact, pragmatic
reason why a PAGenWeb organization is not something we should
pursue. While I am optimistic and idealistic about what we _could_
do, it might be that we'd be setting ourselves up for failure.
I could be wrong, but I think Joyce's sentiments were "no more structure than we
already have." (Joyce?) The guidelines we chose to become CC's under are
sufficient. Shall
I add an "undecided" column at <http://www.flealess.org/tally.html>? <grin>
Joyce Gordon (Beaver)
Steve wrote:
> hahahahaha
> I think we all and I know I just did may be acting hastily
> Incorporation in what way??? As a non-profit group with independent thought and
> by-laws?? or as a non-profit group falling under the USGen bylaws??
> If it's the former I vote aye -if the later I vote nay. I don't want such bad
> structure forming over me. We need some struture but not something so ambigious
> and so tedious. We need to decide somethings, such as who will control <yuck
> hate that word> the cc's and how the advisory board <the legislative body> and
> the SC will work together for the good of the whole. we don't need another
> mess like what just happened.
>
> Perhaps we are moving too fast and putting the cart before the horse??
>
> BarbL
>
> Nahodil, Brian wrote:
>
> > I'd rather an incorporation of the State, after thinking about it.
> > Specifically as a Non-Profit 501c
> >
> > This is my opinion which may be different than a lot of you. Simple just
> > isn't simple any more these days.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Linda Lewis [SMTP:cityslic@ix.netcom.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 5:03 PM
> > To: PAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com
> > Subject: Re: [PAGEN-L] Re: Incorporation - Nay
> >
> > As long as we're voting, I vote nay for incorporation of the state.
> >
> > Linda
hahahahaha
I think we all and I know I just did may be acting hastily
Incorporation in what way??? As a non-profit group with independent thought and
by-laws?? or as a non-profit group falling under the USGen bylaws??
If it's the former I vote aye -if the later I vote nay. I don't want such bad
structure forming over me. We need some struture but not something so ambigious
and so tedious. We need to decide somethings, such as who will control <yuck
hate that word> the cc's and how the advisory board <the legislative body> and
the SC will work together for the good of the whole. we don't need another
mess like what just happened.
Perhaps we are moving too fast and putting the cart before the horse??
BarbL
Nahodil, Brian wrote:
> I'd rather an incorporation of the State, after thinking about it.
> Specifically as a Non-Profit 501c
>
> This is my opinion which may be different than a lot of you. Simple just
> isn't simple any more these days.
>
> Brian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Linda Lewis [SMTP:cityslic@ix.netcom.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 5:03 PM
> To: PAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: [PAGEN-L] Re: Incorporation - Nay
>
> As long as we're voting, I vote nay for incorporation of the state.
>
> Linda
and mine
BarbL
J. Gordon wrote:
> Is this a vote? :-) Add mine for the sentiments of Joyce Tice.
>
> Joyce Gordon, Beaver County
>
> > At 12:52 PM 11/3/98 -0500, JTice55557(a)aol.com wrote:
> > >When I joined USGenWeb well over two years ago it was an informally
> organized
> > >structure of independent county coordinators doing their own thing
> and
> > >following only minimal instructions to meet USGenWeb guidelines.
> That's
> > what I
> > >joined and that is the way I want it to remain. The more structured
> and
> > formal
> > >this becomes, the less appealing. All I want from USGenWeb is the
> doorway
> > that
> > >brings people to my site which I will continue to do with or without
> > USGenWeb.
> > >Joyce M. Tice Tri-County
> > >Genealogy by Joyce M. Tice
This may get me into alot of trouble and if it does - so be it
This is a very sad day for USGenWeb. I have heard nothing but bickering on the
US-L list and now those bickerings engrats have caused us to lose our first NC
elected in with the by-laws. What I find so disgusting here is I and several
others got involved with USGenWeb BECAUSE OF OUR LOVE FOR GENEALOGY NOT IN SPITE
OF IT. Why do we keep knocking heads with each other on this and why have some
people become so arrogant as to cause the resignation of our highest elected
official!!!!!!!!!!!?? Any chance we had of a balance between the ones who
wanted by-laws, and the ones who either wanted none or an alteration, have been
drastically changed. This truly bothers me.
Many of you pointed out the flaws in the by-laws and look what the flaws have
done?? Now I have some questions
1. Are we going to wait another10 months before fixing the flaws so people who
desire power can drive out another NC??
2. Are we now going to settle down in Pa and insure dspite what may or may not
come for USGenWeb we survive as a state. Seems to me now more then ever we need
to develop some survival technics. Dispite what at this moment appears as the
slow death for USGenWeb - I will still work on and carry out my duties as the CC
for Schuylkill
I for one will also hope we can work this through ad survive
BarbL
Schuylkill County Coordinator
Billie R. McNamara wrote:
> Now the crap has reached epic proportions. This is the saddest day I've
> seen yet for the USGenWeb project.
>
> Our National Coordinator, Nancy Trice, has "fought the good fight, she has
> finished her course, and she has kept the faith" (II Timothy 4:7). I can't
> blame her, under the circumstances. And we only know what she cares to
> share personally and on lists.
>
> We have talked before of Pennsylvania's lucidity and interest in the midst
> of complacency and "blissful" ignorance among so many of the other 1600 or
> so project volunteers. Perhaps now they will also become concerned and
> take an interest in this project.
>
> Unless the train switches tracks at the next junction, the USGenWeb project
> appears to be headed for derailment.
>
> Having given it my heart and soul for nearly 2.5 years, that makes me sick.
>
> I'm forwarding this with Nancy's permission.
>
> >
> >>Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 13:01:07 -0600
> >>To: Board-L(a)rootsweb.com
> >>From: Nancy Trice <trice(a)vci.net>
> >>Subject: oh well...
> >>Cc: USGWSC
> >>In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981101114245.00a442c0(a)1starnet.com>
> >>
> >>I started to send this privately to the members of the board but after
> >thinking about it for several hours have decided to post it publicly. I ask
> >that all state coordinators forward it to their state lists, but I'm sure
> >that some of you won't. For the benefit of those CCs whose SCs doesn't
> >forward it as requested, it will also be posted at:
> >>http://www.nlt.net/usgenweb/11-2-98.html
> >>
> >>I'll start by reminding all of you that I have been part of this project
> >for longer than any of you, discussing the concept with Jeff Murphy in late
> >Feb and early March 1996 before KyGenWeb even started... before it was ever
> >announced on the KYROOTS list. I have loved it and worked my butt off for
> >over 2 1/2 years to help make it what it is today. I have been SC and
> >archivist, or file manager, for 3 states, handled several hundred orphan
> >counties, put up numerous pages to help the new CCs, and have personally
> >helped many of you. I have attempted to do what I think is best for
> >USGenWeb, as I was elected to do... as I have done for over 2 1/2 years...
> >and have been villafied and maligned for doing so.
> >>
> >>Whether any of you realize it or not, I was put in a very awkward position
> >when the CCs elected me... I was against the bylaws as written...
> >campaigned against them... and am now in a position of having to work
> >within them because the consensus of opinion appeared to be that they are
> >better than no bylaws... vote them in and fix them later. Well, you've all
> >seen now how really bad they are and how they are open to different
> >interpretations. It doesn't matter what the intent was when they were
> >written. They are very poorly written, period!
> >>
> >>The bylaws say that the National Coordinator is the chair of the Advisory
> >Board but gives no direction for the NC to follow except 'these Bylaws and
> >by accepted parliamentary procedure'. What is considered 'day-to-day
> >administration'? What is 'accepted parliamentary procedure'? Who is to
> >decide? This should have all been spelled out in the bylaws instead of
> >leaving it so ambiquous. Since it wasn't I have done my best to try to
> >abide by them anyway as best I could and have been shot down at every step.
> >>
> >>
> >>The bylaws say that the Advisory Board '...shall address any problem
> >issues as they arise'... 'advising and mediating, if necessary, any
> >grievances or appeals...'.
> >>
> >>Websters dictionary gives the definition of Advisory as:
> >> adj. 1. Having power to adivse. 2. Containing or given as advice;
> >> not mandatory.
> >>
> >>To me, and to many other CCs, this says that the board are advisors to the
> >NC and the project volunteers... not the project 'leaders'.
>
> >>
> >>Article VI, Section 2 of the bylaws says that 'the National Coordinator
> >shall preside at all meetings of the Advisory Board'. Article VIII,
> >Section 1 of the bylaws says that 'Nine (9) voting members of the Advisory
> >Board shall constitute a quorum'.
> >>
> >>Nowhere in the bylaws does it say anything about how those meetings are to
> >be held, including that they may be held on a general board discussion list
> >and the quorum established because the board members are subbed to that list.
> >>
> >>I felt strongly (and still do) that board meetings should be held in real
> >time in order to properly establish a quorum according to the bylaws. I
> >also feel that the people who elected the board members expected you to
> >attend those meetings. As a nominee, I would also have thought that you
> >would expect there to be meetings that you would need to attend. It's
> >obvious that the majority of the board doesn't feel the way I do.
> >>
> >>It was discussed on the board list that you needed a secretary to keep up
> >with motions, votes, etc. I placed it on the Oct. 4 agenda where it was
> >promptly tabled.
> >>
> >>Article VI Section 6 of the Bylaws states: The Advisory Board shall also
> >be responsible for administering the domains, usgenweb.com, usgenweb.net
> >and usgenweb.org, over which The USGenWeb Project membership has control
> >and for which the members are the official lessees.
> >>
> >>As the NC I wrote to Dale Schneider shortly after taking office to inquire
> >as to his intentions with the usgenweb.com domain. To this date I have
> >not received a response from him, even tho I sent a 2nd email a few weeks
> >later. I placed this item on the agenda for the board to discuss where it
> >was promptly tabled with a comment that he has said he won't turn it over
> >to the Advisory Board at this time. Because I wrote to him I have now been
> >accused of 'being obsessed with obtaining control of usgenweb.com' by Linda
> >Lewis and Don Spidell, both of whom are positive I plan on getting my
> >grubby little hands on it so I can turn it over to Jerry and Lucy Dill. If
> >anyone on the board that had 'spoken' with Dale had bothered to inform me
> >that they had corresponded or chatted with him and what he had said, I
> >wouldn't have placed it on the agenda. Even after placing it on the
> >agenda, I could have been informed so it could be removed, but in my
> >opinion you deliberately chose not to. Today, the bylaws still say that
> >the board controls that domain, and of course you do not... and further
> >you have not indicated in any way how you intend to reconcile the bylaws to
> >the reality.
> >>
> >>The board needs to begin working on election procedures for next year. I
> >placed this on the agenda for Oct. 4 and a committee chair was elected. If
> >anything has been done about setting up the committee I am unaware of it at
> >this time (4 weeks later).
> >>
> >>It's obvious that the bylaws need to be amended in many places. I put this
> >on the Oct. 4 agenda and a committee chair was elected. If anything has
> >been done about setting up the committee I am unaware of it at this time (4
> >weeks later).
>
> >>
> >>Numerous project members have written me requesting that the board address
> >the question of whether or not a member of Rootsweb staff [namely Karen]
> >should even be on the board-l mail list, suggesting that if the board
> >needed her input on something she could be asked. I put it on the agenda
> >where it was quickly tabled, and has not been addressed yet. I, and
> >others, do not feel that Karen should be on the board list since she was
> >not elected by anyone [no offense meant to Karen].
> >>
> >>On 11-1-98 Betsy wrote:
> >>>And, Nancy, I am at a loss as to why you were offended that Trey and I
> >decided to seek input into who our constituents would like to see as their
> >next representative. It concerns me that you automatically assume that we
> >wouldn't even consider your suggestion. Certainly it is one of the
> >suggestions that we were considering along with suggestions from our
> >constituents.
> >>
> >>
> >>One of the suggestions you were considering? Who was considering? and
> >where? Certainly not on the board list. I was not necessarily offended by
> >the fact that you took it to the CCs, and might even have agreed with you
> >had there been any real discussion on it. What does offend me however is
> >that I made a suggestion, 2 or 3 of you immediately shot it down and with
> >no further discussion it's on the SC list... no discussion at all as to how
> >we should proceed or whether we should take it to the CCs, try to have
> >another election, or whatever... it was just done. When I then commented on
> >it on the SC list, Holly immediately asked why I was discussing it there
> >instead of here. Funny... that's where the discussion was... not here! I
> >think that we should have decided how to proceed as a group and not just by
> >1 or 2 of you. Isn't this what you have all been saying to me for the past
> >2 months? Whether right or wrong, I saw this action as just one more slap
> >in the face to the NC by the Advisory Board.
> >>
> >>Almost every one of you have shot me down in the past 2 months because I
> >tried to lead us, as I was elected to do by the CCs, and the majority of
> >you have all said, in actions if not by words, that you [the AB] are the
> >project leader, and have effectively relegated the position of NC to a
> >motion numberer and vote counter.
> >>
> >>[snip]
> >>
> >>Betsy continued:
> >>>At this point, everything is so public that we can't even discuss
> >anything without being ripped to shreds on other lists. You don't know the
> >reasons I have voted as I have on ANY of the issues as you have not asked.
> >I would LOVE to discuss things with everyone (especially you), hear their
> >views, express my views, maybe even change my views after hearing the
> >discussion, etc.
> >>
> >>Have you one time asked me why I feel as I do? Have you tried to open a
> >dialogue? No... the board members just stated they were against something
> >or for something and immediately pushed for a vote. Maureen questioned the
> >board about this numerous times.
> >>
> >>>But this can not happen as it now stands.
> >>
> >>Not pointing any fingers here, but who did that? I said in Sept. that I
> >did not think the board list should be opened. I said we should have our
>
> >discussions on the list, in private, then hold a meeting to vote. Most of
> >you shot that down. I offered a very workable compromise which all but 1
> >or 2 of you immediately shot down as not workable, and I believe every one
> >of you voted to open the list archives and hold a continuous meeting. I
> >don't know how any of you feel about it now, but I think that was a
> >terrible decision. I think the board has tied it's own hands, and unless
> >you close the board list archives I don't think you'll ever get anything
> >done.
> >>
> >>I also know that as both a CC and a SC I would never bring any problem I
> >might have to the board because there is no privacy anymore. I think by
> >opening the list archives you have done a great injustice to any SC or CC
> >that might want to seek your advise. I believe the board discussions
> >should be private, board meetings either open to the public or at least a
> >log or minutes of the meeting posted.
> >>
> >>[snip]
> >>
> >>>Personally, I would like for us to back up and slow down on this
> >replacement issue. I don't understand the reason behind the rush to
> >immediately appoint someone. The only persons I have heard from in support
> >of Kathy are all from KS which is only one of the states represented in
> >this region. Everyone else I have heard from wishes that we could poll the
> >constituents of our region. The answer might still be to appoint Kathy,
> >but it might not. But at least we would know the wishes of the CC's or our
> >region. Is there anything wrong with this???
> >>
> >>
> >>What have I said that indicated I was in a rush to fill the position
> >Betsy? Again, had there been discussion about it I might have changed my
> >original position on the matter, but I wasn't given that opportunity. I
> >just think the board should have decided as a body how to proceed instead
> >of some of you taking it upon yourselves without a vote, in effect doing
> >what you have all accused me of doing.
> >>
> >>It's quite obvious to me that the AB does not interpret any of the bylaws
> >the same way I do. It's also obvious that none of you have the same
> >concerns that I do. I have stated over and over that I am for a bottom up
> >structure. That means the CCs should control the project. There are 50
> >states, which means 100 people if none of them were SC in more than 1 state
> >and each state has an ASC, and there are 4 SC reps for them, and only 8 to
> >represent in the neighborhood of 2000 CCs. To me that is top down, not
> >bottom up. I am also completely against the special projects all having a
> >voting board member. I think that is an open invitation for more and more
> >special projects to be set up in order to get a board seat and eventually
> >the special projects will control the USGW board. 4 of the 15 board members
> >were elected by less than 100 people, all of whom are SCs, and 3 were
> >supposedly voted on, [but might have been appointed], by special projects,
> >many of whom are not CCs. As a CC I don't like the numbers, and many
> >others I've talked with don't either.
> >>
> >>I'm also concerned by the statements I see now that a CC that received
> >votes in the last election should not be appointed because their views
>
> >'might not be the best for USGW' or words to that effect. Frankly, I think
> >the board should be comprised of people with differing view points and
> >different ideas, not by a group of people all with the same philosophy or
> >agenda. I think for USGW to continue to grow all ideas must be considered.
> > From what I have seen on the lists however, it appears that a certain
> >group of people want only people with their views on the board, and anyone
> >that doesn't share their views is labeled a troublemaker and quickly run
> >off the list.
> >>
> >>I also feel that a process needs to be set up to insure that a 'fired'
> >volunteer gets a fair shake if they file an appeal. Yes, I'm talking about
> >Kenny Thomas. That's over and done with now but it still leaves a very
> >bitter taste in the mouths of many of the CCs, especially those in Ks. This
> >board did nothing to mediate the problem or even try to find out what
> >really happened, automatically assuming that everything that Linda Lewis
> >said was gospel and everything that Kenny Thomas, and Maureen Reed, said
> >was a lie. I think that the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. I
> >tried to set up a board list where it could be discussed by all interested
> >parties but that didn't work either did it? Seems that the board [and
> >RootsWeb staff] apparently thought I wouldn't allow the right people to be
> >subbed or something.
> >>
> >>I've heard from numerous CCs that Linda refused to let them sub to the
> >Archives-L list because they were CCs and not state level. I asked to be
> >subbed to that list when it looked like the Ks situation would be discussed
> >there. Linda subbed me then immediately unsubbed me when I asked everyone
> >to wait until the new list was obtained. Because of some of the
> >accusations I had heard I asked her to resub me. She did so, very
> >grudgingly, then immediately set up a new list for the archive CCs, subbed
> >me to it and unsubbed me from the archives-l without so much as a note.
> >That goes a long way toward giving credence to some of the problems I have
> >heard about, to say nothing about giving the distinct impression that she
> >feels that what goes on in the Archives is of no concern to the NC, or the
> >USGenWeb project. At the very least it was very disrespectful to the NC,
> >regardless of who the NC might be.
> >>
> >>After re-reading this several times, and considering how the board feels,
> >and how I feel about the bylaws, I think it's best if I just go ahead and
> >resign. Maybe you can get someone as NC that holds your views.
> >>
> >>You may consider this my resignation as National Coordinator.
> >>
> >>nt
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
At 05:18 PM 11/3/98 -0500, Nahodil, Brian wrote:
>I'd rather an incorporation of the State, after thinking about it.
>Specifically as a Non-Profit 501c
>
>This is my opinion which may be different than a lot of you. Simple just
>isn't simple any more these days.
I agree.
But before talking about incorporation, it would be good to
understand the reasons and goals of such a move. What
would they be? I'm not sure, but would like to hear other
people's ideas.
I think a reason for incorporating (i.e. organizing) would be
to assure good leadership. This is not a knock against Gary.
Rather, I would see such a move as a call to the PAGenWeb
constituency to install leadership, possibly a group of people
such as a board, that could carry oversee projects, programs,
etc.
What I think I'm hearing from many people writing in is that
they do not wish to be any more organized. And they do
not feel compelled, as integral parts of PAGenWeb, to extend
activities beyond what we already have. I agree that what we
have now works really well.
I'm all for the idea of PAGenWeb being more active in initiating
and carrying out Internet projects. I firmly believe those sorts
of projects can only be effective, innovative, and successful
if be done under a strong, active, organized leadership. I've seen
plenty of such projects fail without the endorsement and support
of their parent projects. (USGenWeb has had share.)
If we ever do decide to organize in some way, I hope we can
articulate a good charter and processes in the spirit of how
other organizations manage. A strong, clear charter, Robert's
Rules, and all that.
Jean Suplick Matuson
webmaster(a)chartiers.com