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
On 25 Jan 99 at 12:48, PAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com wrote:
> George,
>
> I don't want to miss what I think you said.
>
> SNIP
>
> "The ethics/standards idea which was proposed to the board (and
> recently withdrawn) was a good idea with some bad details."
>
> END SNIP
>
> Has that motion be officially withdrawn?
>
> Nate
Nate,
Yes, the motion was withdrawn because of the negative response. And, I am
happy because although it was a good idea it had some bad details.
The sad part is that another board member (temporary but she was running for
election) has withdrawn because of the remarkably mean-spirited comments that
were thrown at the board over this. Comparing them to Nazis etc.
George
On 25 Jan 99 at 13:08, PAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com wrote:
> Hi, George.
>
> The only problem with the second Tennessee list is, as I understand it,
> that you have to be subscribed by the State Coordinator. You can't come and
> go as you please. And, I heard a rumor that a recent important discussion
> about the elections or some other big deal was posted to that private list,
> rather than to the state list, by the state coordinator.
PACHAT could be open... just because TNCHAT is not open doesn't make that a
rule for PA. Regarding the posting by the SC... I would put that into the
category of a mistake.
> I prefer to keep our list as is. We're nice people, and we have a common
> goal. We know how to comport ourselves. Adding yet another list gets too
> confusing and makes for too much cross-posting.
That is fine so long as other subscribers to PAGEN don't get too upset by
the political talk. I was only offering a suggestion that worked in TN.
There were quite a few CCs in TN who "hated" the political talk.
George
>
> At 12:47 PM 1/25/99 -0500, George Waller wrote:
> >Hi,
> >One good thing about the list -ALL is that it tended to keep politics
> >off the state lists. But sometimes politics hits the state list and many
> >people don't like it.
> >
> >So, what we did in TN was to create a second list called TNCHAT-L
> >which is devoted to politics. Those who are interested in politics
> >hang out there.
> >
> >George
>
I am interested in how many of you are using which boards that are
available for Rootsweb sites?
I am presently using the obits, query, and wills on Venango.
I think they are working well, however I am wondering about the bio boards?
Do you have any difficultly with people knowing what to post.
I have had a few people post qeries on the obits and wills.
But I just delete them.
And by the way...
I am a violin teacher and player; and Midori is one of my favorite violinists!
She has a video in which she is interviewed, as a child of about 9, and she
says she likes music, because she said, to quote,
"Words are the source of much misunderstanding"
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/
******************************************************
Hi, George.
The only problem with the second Tennessee list is, as I understand it,
that you have to be subscribed by the State Coordinator. You can't come
and go as you please. And, I heard a rumor that a recent important
discussion about the elections or some other big deal was posted to that
private list, rather than to the state list, by the state coordinator.
I prefer to keep our list as is. We're nice people, and we have a common
goal. We know how to comport ourselves. Adding yet another list gets too
confusing and makes for too much cross-posting.
At 12:47 PM 1/25/99 -0500, George Waller wrote:
>Hi,
>One good thing about the list -ALL is that it tended to keep politics
>off the state lists. But sometimes politics hits the state list and many
>people don't like it.
>
>So, what we did in TN was to create a second list called TNCHAT-L
>which is devoted to politics. Those who are interested in politics
>hang out there.
>
>George
George,
I don't want to miss what I think you said.
SNIP
"The ethics/standards idea which was proposed to the board (and
recently withdrawn) was a good idea with some bad details."
END SNIP
Has that motion be officially withdrawn?
Nate
Hi,
One good thing about the list -ALL is that it tended to keep politics
off the state lists. But sometimes politics hits the state list and many
people don't like it.
So, what we did in TN was to create a second list called TNCHAT-L
which is devoted to politics. Those who are interested in politics
hang out there.
George
On 25 Jan 99 at 10:53, PAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com wrote:
> Right on Marjorie!!
>
> This is getting tiresome but unfortuneately I don't see a solution any time
> soon. You just cant run a "Corporation" via Cyberspace...and with the
> cluster bumble before us the evidence is getting very clear.
>
> Brian
> Northumberland County CC
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Marjorie Fulmer [SMTP:marj@libertynet.org]
> > Sent: Sunday, January 24, 1999 5:34 PM
> > To: PAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com
> > Subject: [PAGEN-L] politics
> >
> > Am I on the wrong list to keep abreast of tips, tools and techniques to
> > improve county GenWeb pages?
> >
> > It appears so, since for the longest time the bulk of the messages seem
> > to
> > concern political posturing and power struggles. Does anyone out there
> > have
> > an educated guess when this might be over and we can again concentrate on
> > improving genealogy research on the web?
> >
> > Marjorie
> >
> >
> > Marj Fulmer
> > Wyoming County PA GenWeb site: http://www.libertynet.org/wyoming
> > My personal research interests: http://www.libertynet.org/marj
> >
>
Thank you also, George. Your 1/2 southern gentleman occasionally shines
through.
I have to ask, though, how anyone could support a group of people who do
the things I pointed out below. The Iraqis support Saddam Hussein.
Hillary Clinton supports her husband. That doesn't mitigate what the
perpetrators did/do, nor does it make it right with the people they lead.
At 11:06 AM 1/25/99 -0500, George Waller wrote:
>Thanks for your nice reply Billie.
>
>There are two sides to every story, of course. I happen to feel comfortable
>and trust the people on the board to be acting in the best interest of the
>project. They are good people and elected too.
>
>Also, I would point out that over on the STATE-COORDINATOR list which has
about
>100 or so members (the SCs and ASCs), there is overwhelming support for the
>board generally. This is not to say that the board doesn't make
mistakes... of
>course they do. But, they don't need to be whacked up side the head with
a two
>by four every single day of their lives... and anyone who has been on -ALL
can
>see that there are professional board whackers out there. The result of the
>whacking is board members resigning and the rest of them going into hiding.
>
>The ethics/standards idea which was proposed to the board (and recently
>withdrawn) was a good idea with some bad details.
>
>Again, thanks for your reasonable manner Billie, and your point of view is
not
>entirely wrong, but just wanted to say that there are other points of view
in
>favor of the board.
>
>Regards, George
>
>On 25 Jan 99 at 2:19, PAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com wrote:
>
>> Respectfully, George, I strongly support impeachment not just for this
>> action, but for the continued illegal and unethical practices of the
>> "advisory" board. This is just one more example of their wanton
disregard for
>> our interests. How can we determine if they're doing a "good" job when
they
>> continue to meet in secret? How can we assume they are representing our
>> interests when they either fail to submit, or else blatantly ignore,
matters
>> that members bring to their attention (yep, I've got several examples from
>> various individuals)? How can we believe they have the project's
interests at
>> heart when they even consider an action that violates multiple
provisions of
>> the by-laws? How can we believe in them when they turn away from our peers
>> and support Brian Leverich's banning of 4 county coordinators and
preventing
>> them from full participation in this project because of his
interpretation of
>> statements they made on a PROJECT list?
Hi Marjorie,
I totally agree with you on this point. I am really tired of all the
reposts regarding the AVB and the new policies. I wish we could all get
back to sharing genealogical information -- talk about ways to make the PAGW
better and how to increase visitor traffic to our county websites.
With that said, however, I also believe that we must address the issues
being put forth - this may not be the appropriate forum for that discussion
or maybe it is but it needs to be moderated and more formalized???
What we are seeing happening within the USGW is a by-product of rules of
governing. I know many of the ladies on the board -- I served with some of
them on other committees and I can tell you that they do not have a greedy
bone in their bodies. They may be misdirected but I doubt seriously they
are trying to destroy this project on purpose.
In fact, my gut tells me that they are trying very hard to do the right
thing but are just doing it in the wrong way. It reminds me of a story that
I often share with my five year old -- about lying. You know how one little
white lie often turns into a humongous black lie -- once you are done trying
to cover up what you started?? The same thing appears to be happening here.
I have always felt that once you begin to layout rules -- especially rules
written in very technical and legal terminology -- you are forced into
writing more rules to explain or expound upon misunderstood portions of the
existing law. That is why I chose to vote no on the bylaws - not that I am
against rules in any way. In the hands of legal experts - they are fine.
However, in the hands of laymen, they easily turn into that black humongous
giant reminiscent of the lie analogy.
Our board has tried to do something good. They are still trying to do
something good. Everyone values ethics and every believes that we all
should have a modicum of common sense and decency that would prevent us from
doing damage to this project or to another volunteer. The problem is that
now that we have it written down -- it moves from being an internal "right
of conscience" to becoming a law.
Once a law is written -- it is open to public scrutiny. The laws were not
written by a corporate lawyer -- setting out to protect the organization. I
think if they had been - none of this would be happening. None of us would
argue that the organization shouldn't have some "contract" of sorts to
protect the rights of the company and the volunteers. In simple terms,
making sure that the intent of the project is clearly set forth, simple
guidelines on acceptable websites design (no pornographic links, etc.),
required elements, links, etc.
The best choice for the AVB is to do nothing at all. If you are going to
play by the rules then you had better understand how those rules work. I
think our AVB is trying to play by the rules of governing - just like a
major corporation would do - the problem is that they don't know what is
allowed and what is not allowed. That is why you have an AVB with one
member in attendance setting motions in process -- you can't do that and
then publicize what just took place without alot of people taking notice.
I don't think we need to bash the board -- it is not their fault. They are
just misguided - and someone kindly needs to tell them to stop playing the
game this way. It is not working and frankly it is embarrassing to watch it
happen.
I think the very best motion we could have is to elect a lawyer to rewrite
the bylaws -- simple and direct -- without alot of posturing and fancy
words. Then let's all vote on them - piece by piece. Once a majority
agrees the matter is settled.
Will that happen? Who knows? It is really hard to know what tomorrow will
bring.
Should we all keep silent? No. Turning our heads and letting things ride
will only cause more dissension and dissatisfaction. We need to kindly and
gently let the board know that we are dissatisfied with what is happening
and that we support them in their efforts to try and turn things around.
Yelling and posturing almost always turns people off and closes ears -- even
if the truth is being put forth.
Carol
Thanks for your nice reply Billie.
There are two sides to every story, of course. I happen to feel comfortable
and trust the people on the board to be acting in the best interest of the
project. They are good people and elected too.
Also, I would point out that over on the STATE-COORDINATOR list which has about
100 or so members (the SCs and ASCs), there is overwhelming support for the
board generally. This is not to say that the board doesn't make mistakes... of
course they do. But, they don't need to be whacked up side the head with a two
by four every single day of their lives... and anyone who has been on -ALL can
see that there are professional board whackers out there. The result of the
whacking is board members resigning and the rest of them going into hiding.
The ethics/standards idea which was proposed to the board (and recently
withdrawn) was a good idea with some bad details.
Again, thanks for your reasonable manner Billie, and your point of view is not
entirely wrong, but just wanted to say that there are other points of view in
favor of the board.
Regards, George
On 25 Jan 99 at 2:19, PAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com wrote:
> Respectfully, George, I strongly support impeachment not just for this
> action, but for the continued illegal and unethical practices of the
> "advisory" board. This is just one more example of their wanton disregard for
> our interests. How can we determine if they're doing a "good" job when they
> continue to meet in secret? How can we assume they are representing our
> interests when they either fail to submit, or else blatantly ignore, matters
> that members bring to their attention (yep, I've got several examples from
> various individuals)? How can we believe they have the project's interests at
> heart when they even consider an action that violates multiple provisions of
> the by-laws? How can we believe in them when they turn away from our peers
> and support Brian Leverich's banning of 4 county coordinators and preventing
> them from full participation in this project because of his interpretation of
> statements they made on a PROJECT list?
>
> I'm sorry -- this is not "unnecessary politicizing." If they "advisory"
> board were doing its job properly, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
>
>
> At 09:35 PM 1/24/99 -0500, George Waller wrote:
> >Hi,
> >I think that the following post is an example of unnecessary politicizing
> >of our project. IMO the board is trying to do a good job and is asking for
> >input... but not asking to be bashed with a two by four. We have already
> >lost several board members because of this constant bashing.
> >
> >Suggesting that we impeach our board simply because one member made a
> proposal
> >and another seconded it seems like over-kill to me.
> >
> >George
> >p.s. Having said the above, I also think that the motion under
> consideration
> >by the board should be voted down and have said so *nicely* in another forum.
> >
> >On 24 Jan 99 at 13:48, PAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com wrote:
> >
> >> This was forwarded to me. The editorial comments are from the original
> >> sender, not me....although I would agree with her.
>
> <snipped>
>
Right on Marjorie!!
This is getting tiresome but unfortuneately I don't see a solution any time
soon. You just cant run a "Corporation" via Cyberspace...and with the
cluster bumble before us the evidence is getting very clear.
Brian
Northumberland County CC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marjorie Fulmer [SMTP:marj@libertynet.org]
> Sent: Sunday, January 24, 1999 5:34 PM
> To: PAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com
> Subject: [PAGEN-L] politics
>
> Am I on the wrong list to keep abreast of tips, tools and techniques to
> improve county GenWeb pages?
>
> It appears so, since for the longest time the bulk of the messages seem
> to
> concern political posturing and power struggles. Does anyone out there
> have
> an educated guess when this might be over and we can again concentrate on
> improving genealogy research on the web?
>
> Marjorie
>
>
> Marj Fulmer
> Wyoming County PA GenWeb site: http://www.libertynet.org/wyoming
> My personal research interests: http://www.libertynet.org/marj
>
Billie,
The four are not only unable to post on any lists but they are not
receiving email from their state list or rep. NE etc. list as well.
They have been put into a state of isolation. This makes it impossible
for them to complete their duties as USGW CC's.
Vi
Billie R. McNamara wrote:
>
> Respectfully, George, I strongly support impeachment not just for this
> action, but for the continued illegal and unethical practices of the
> "advisory" board. This is just one more example of their wanton disregard
> for our interests. How can we determine if they're doing a "good" job when
> they continue to meet in secret? How can we assume they are representing
> our interests when they either fail to submit, or else blatantly ignore,
> matters that members bring to their attention (yep, I've got several
> examples from various individuals)? How can we believe they have the
> project's interests at heart when they even consider an action that
> violates multiple provisions of the by-laws? How can we believe in them
> when they turn away from our peers and support Brian Leverich's banning of
> 4 county coordinators and preventing them from full participation in this
> project because of his interpretation of statements they made on a PROJECT
> list?
>
> I'm sorry -- this is not "unnecessary politicizing." If they "advisory"
> board were doing its job properly, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
>
> At 09:35 PM 1/24/99 -0500, George Waller wrote:
> >Hi,
> >I think that the following post is an example of unnecessary politicizing
> >of our project. IMO the board is trying to do a good job and is asking for
> >input... but not asking to be bashed with a two by four. We have already
> >lost several board members because of this constant bashing.
> >
> >Suggesting that we impeach our board simply because one member made a
> proposal
> >and another seconded it seems like over-kill to me.
> >
> >George
> >p.s. Having said the above, I also think that the motion under
> consideration
> >by the board should be voted down and have said so *nicely* in another forum.
> >
> >On 24 Jan 99 at 13:48, PAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com wrote:
> >
> >> This was forwarded to me. The editorial comments are from the original
> >> sender, not me....although I would agree with her.
>
> <snipped>
Respectfully, George, I strongly support impeachment not just for this
action, but for the continued illegal and unethical practices of the
"advisory" board. This is just one more example of their wanton disregard
for our interests. How can we determine if they're doing a "good" job when
they continue to meet in secret? How can we assume they are representing
our interests when they either fail to submit, or else blatantly ignore,
matters that members bring to their attention (yep, I've got several
examples from various individuals)? How can we believe they have the
project's interests at heart when they even consider an action that
violates multiple provisions of the by-laws? How can we believe in them
when they turn away from our peers and support Brian Leverich's banning of
4 county coordinators and preventing them from full participation in this
project because of his interpretation of statements they made on a PROJECT
list?
I'm sorry -- this is not "unnecessary politicizing." If they "advisory"
board were doing its job properly, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
At 09:35 PM 1/24/99 -0500, George Waller wrote:
>Hi,
>I think that the following post is an example of unnecessary politicizing
>of our project. IMO the board is trying to do a good job and is asking for
>input... but not asking to be bashed with a two by four. We have already
>lost several board members because of this constant bashing.
>
>Suggesting that we impeach our board simply because one member made a
proposal
>and another seconded it seems like over-kill to me.
>
>George
>p.s. Having said the above, I also think that the motion under
consideration
>by the board should be voted down and have said so *nicely* in another forum.
>
>On 24 Jan 99 at 13:48, PAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com wrote:
>
>> This was forwarded to me. The editorial comments are from the original
>> sender, not me....although I would agree with her.
<snipped>
I got wind of it through the USGenWeb-All list and the Kansas list (I help
out on two counties there).
At 07:03 PM 1/24/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Could everyone who received notification of the Standards and Ethics
>policy please respond to this? Gary, were you notified about the change?
>--
>Ken Boonie
>Coordinator
>USGenWeb Project
>Huntingdon County PA
>http://www.rootsweb.com/~pahuntin/
>
Glad you are on the list George,
While impeachment seems to in these days, not sure that our board has
justified that kind of treatment..... as opposssed to "others"!!
>From a seeming simple motion to let someone/group draft a Standards &
Ethics "Policy" to its publication seems that Adolph Hitler/ Josef
Stalin/ Sadam Hussein had a hand in it...... or was it Kay/ Yvonne and
whomever.....
WHO is responsible for that sorry document??? Think we are all owed an
answer..... It IS an advisory board "approved" statement, from what i
know..... You all asked that one be prepared and it was..... IT SUCKS.
Think this should be important for the upcoming elections..... I would
not vote for anyone REMOTELY connected with the gibberish of this
proposed policy......
If there is not a procedure for the BOARD to review and ratify what you
think should happen then..... maybe you all need to put one in place.
joe
Hi,
I think that the following post is an example of unnecessary politicizing
of our project. IMO the board is trying to do a good job and is asking for
input... but not asking to be bashed with a two by four. We have already
lost several board members because of this constant bashing.
Suggesting that we impeach our board simply because one member made a proposal
and another seconded it seems like over-kill to me.
George
p.s. Having said the above, I also think that the motion under consideration
by the board should be voted down and have said so *nicely* in another forum.
On 24 Jan 99 at 13:48, PAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com wrote:
> This was forwarded to me. The editorial comments are from the original
> sender, not me....although I would agree with her.
>
> It appears our "advisory" board is acting recklessly and without regard for
> the by-laws or the membership. Neighbors, can you say "Impeachment"? I
> thought you could <wink>.
>
> Say -- our own Ed Book is running for a position on this august <hah> body.
> What do you have to say about this current activity, Ed?
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------Begin forwarded
> message----------------------------------
>
> Friday 22 January 1999
>
> The meeting of the Advisory Board is called to order by Current Acting
> Interim National Coordinator Beth Wills. [11:38] One member notes she is
> present. [19:20]
>
> A member moves that a Standard and Ethics Policy be drafted and put into
> the USGW policy [12:21]
>
> The motion is seconded [9:17] [prob PST]
>
> The motion is seconded a second time [12:22]
>
> CAINC Beth Wills post a notice that the motion [which is not yet numbered] is
> made and seconded and posts the Standard 'N Ethics statement posted to -ALL
> two days ago and posted to the web page to give the required 48 hours notice
> to the project. The call for votes will be after 1:30pm EST [13:40]
>
> CAINC Beth Wills also posts another notice indicating that the Board will
> receive input from the project membership on the proposed Standards 'N Ethics
> policy for 48 hours as per the bylaws and will vote Sunday afternoon. [14:06]
>
> [Well, THAT was certainly quick! Two whole hours to reconvene, propose a
> motion, second twice, WRITE THE POLICY, and open it for discussion. And
> all without any discussion. None whatsoever. How very....efficient. But it
> would be nice if they'd have taken the time to put some thought into it.]
>
> [Curiously enough, I'm receiving reports that several states either did
> not receive notice of this policy change from their SCs, or that when CCs
> forwarded it to the state lists, they were chastised for it by their SCs.
> Certainly all SCs would want their CCs to have an opportunity to discuss this
> extensive change in the membership requirements? Wouldn't they?]
>
>
Could everyone who received notification of the Standards and Ethics
policy please respond to this? Gary, were you notified about the change?
--
Ken Boonie
Coordinator
USGenWeb Project
Huntingdon County PA
http://www.rootsweb.com/~pahuntin/
Am I on the wrong list to keep abreast of tips, tools and techniques to
improve county GenWeb pages?
It appears so, since for the longest time the bulk of the messages seem to
concern political posturing and power struggles. Does anyone out there have
an educated guess when this might be over and we can again concentrate on
improving genealogy research on the web?
Marjorie
Marj Fulmer
Wyoming County PA GenWeb site: http://www.libertynet.org/wyoming
My personal research interests: http://www.libertynet.org/marj
This is the latest from Rootsweb about the issue. It seems the banned
women have evolved, in Rootsweb's mind, from malcontents to terrorists.
The first section is my response to Tim Pierce's post.
>Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 13:42:28 -0500
>To: usgenweb-all-l(a)rootsweb.com, Tim Pierce <twp(a)rootsweb.com>
>From: "Billie R. McNamara" <mcnamara(a)usit.net>
>Subject: Tim Pierce's implications about the suspended members
>
>So -- now you're alleging that the four banned individuals are guilty of
heinous threats toward Rootsweb? I have read the message threads, and I
didn't see that....unless the string around her finger was a string of C4
explosive....but, then, it was on her finger and not wrapped around Mt.
Pinos. I don't think even the shock waves would've been felt across the
Mississippi River, much less on that side of the Rockies.
>
>These four ladies didn't hold Rootsweb hostage! What did they do, reroute
your IP address? Come to Frazier Park and set up roadblocks to Brian's and
Karen's house? Toast every router between California and points east of
the San Andreas Fault line?
>
>Get real, Tim. Brian said he acted because their comments allegedly ran
people off from Rootsweb. You've escalated that into threats of physical
harm and hostage-taking.
>
>It's so hilarious that I can't stop laughing........
>
>
>Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 12:08:51 -0500
>From: Tim Pierce <twp(a)rootsweb.com>
>To: USGENWEB-ALL-L(a)rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-ALL-L] Re: Standards and Ethics Statement
>
>Hi, Don -
>
>On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 10:04:58AM -0600, Don Tharp wrote:
>> All of my messages on this subject have been made to emphasize that very
>> point. NO ONE INDIVIDUAL should be allowed to arbitrarily prevent a member
>> of USGW from performing their required duties. That should be and must be
>> the prerogative of the USGW Board or by those so designated by our bylaws.
>
>By the same token, RootsWeb can't possibly agree to hold USGenWeb
>project members to a different standard from other RootsWeb users. To
>take an extreme example, if we find that someone is threatening to
>hack, crack, crash, bomb or spam our servers, we have no reservations
>about immediately locking them out of all RootsWeb resources and
>subsequently contacting their ISP, regardless of whether they're
>USGenWeb members or not.
>
>Indeed, on several occasions in the past we've cut individuals off
>from RootsWeb for threatening such things. Some of these people may
>even have been USGenWeb volunteers. What you're suggesting is that we
>can't act to protect our own systems without first asking USGenWeb's
>permission, and there's no way that we could agree to that.
>
>You're welcome to ask around and find out whether there's any site in
>the world that would agree to let itself be held hostage by its users
>like this. I don't think you're going to find one.
>
>--
>Regards,
>Tim Pierce
>RootsWeb Genealogical Data Cooperative
>system obfuscator and hack-of-all-trades
>
>
>==== USGENWEB-ALL Mailing List ====
>The USGenWeb Project is not a commercial project.
>
This was forwarded to me. The editorial comments are from the original
sender, not me....although I would agree with her.
It appears our "advisory" board is acting recklessly and without regard for
the by-laws or the membership. Neighbors, can you say "Impeachment"? I
thought you could <wink>.
Say -- our own Ed Book is running for a position on this august <hah> body.
What do you have to say about this current activity, Ed?
---------------------------Begin forwarded
message----------------------------------
Friday 22 January 1999
The meeting of the Advisory Board is called to order by Current Acting
Interim National Coordinator Beth Wills. [11:38] One member notes she is
present. [19:20]
A member moves that a Standard and Ethics Policy be drafted and put into
the USGW policy [12:21]
The motion is seconded [9:17] [prob PST]
The motion is seconded a second time [12:22]
CAINC Beth Wills post a notice that the motion [which is not yet numbered]
is made and seconded and posts the Standard 'N Ethics statement posted to
-ALL two days ago and posted to the web page to give the required 48 hours
notice to the project. The call for votes will be after 1:30pm EST [13:40]
CAINC Beth Wills also posts another notice indicating that the Board will
receive input from the project membership on the proposed Standards 'N
Ethics policy for 48 hours as per the bylaws and will vote Sunday
afternoon. [14:06]
[Well, THAT was certainly quick! Two whole hours to reconvene, propose a
motion, second twice, WRITE THE POLICY, and open it for discussion. And
all without any discussion. None whatsoever. How very....efficient. But
it would be nice if they'd have taken the time to put some thought into
it.]
[Curiously enough, I'm receiving reports that several states either did
not receive notice of this policy change from their SCs, or that when CCs
forwarded it to the state lists, they were chastised for it by their SCs.
Certainly all SCs would want their CCs to have an opportunity to discuss
this extensive change in the membership requirements? Wouldn't they?]
It's really beyond pitiful when the actions of our "advisory" board cause
the loss of a volunteer....
I have Lucinda's permission to forward this for your reading displeasure.....
>Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 11:04:35 -0800
>From: Lucinda Wales <lucindaw(a)pe.net>
>To: ksgen-l(a)rootsquest.com
>
>Me thinks this project got too big for its britches.
>
>It sounds like some people lost site of what this was supposed to be all
>about.
>
>This was a great idea when it started. Researchers now have a central
>place to look for data, information, links, to and about any given area.
>I feel sorry for those who raise their hands to help these days.... you
>can help, but instead of just making sure your page has queries,
>surnames and a link to archives... now its, be sure you read our
>multipage rules, and bylaws, and make sure you keep up on which
>procedure you are supposed to follow, or somebody (in charge) will get
>upset with you. Don't forget to vote, but before you do, because you
>don't know anybody personally, be sure you read all about them first....
>and oh my gosh, you voted for that person, he/she has been relieved of
>their duties, now pick somebody else.
>
>Does anybody here remember when it used to be fun to be a volunteer, and
>the posts to this list were, nice page.... here's a link... where can I
>find....
>
>I do, but I don't think, under the present state of this project, that
>we will ever get that back.... our mistake, letting people think they
>are in charge, instead of there to help.
>
>You can now count this project smaller by one.
>T&C, Sedgwick Co. is in good hands. Laura has Harper Co handled, please
>take my name off the county selection list.
>
>Lucinda
>