From tstowell@chattanooga.net Tue Oct 9 07:41:00 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA03854 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 07:40:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.highertech.net (mail.highertech.net [66.129.1.5]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA13378 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 07:41:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tim (dyn-hts-43.chatt.net [66.129.14.43]) by mail.highertech.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id f99Bexj30579; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 07:40:59 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011009073953.0188ca30@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 07:39:53 -0400 To: merope , Phyllis Rippee , nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com, tngibson@att.net, ky.quest@gte.net, Ron Eason , nate@gte.net From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: Bylaws "starter" committee Cc: hollyft@bright.net, tstowell@mccallie.org In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Status: RO X-Status: A At 10:18 PM 10/8/01 -0400, merope wrote: > >Hi everyone, > >You are receiving this because you indicated an interest in working on the >bylaws "starter" committee suggested by Holly. I'm taking the initiative >and sending this mail so we can start batting ideas around for the future >Bylaws Revision Committee (or whatever it ends up being called). > >I will get the ball rolling by saying that the BRC should have a structure >similar to that of the ESC. That committee worked remarkably well and had >a good range of representation on it. The only thing I would change is >that of ensuring that the Special Projects are represented. When the ESC >was chartered, the only members specifically included were CCs from the >various regions. Since there has been a lot of talk about the Special >Projects lately and revising the portions of the bylaws that deal with >them it will be important to make sure they are represented. > >In the same vein, the BRC should make every effort to involve the general >membership at every step in the process, whether this is via a weekly >update, an read-only mail list, scheduled chats, a message board, or all >of the above. Not everyone can be on the committee, but lots of people >may have good ideas to contribute. > >IMO the BRC should have a goal of thoroughly examining the bylaws and >having revisions in place to be submitted to the states for sponsorship by >May 2002. This gives it about 6 months to work these up and gives time >for the necessary 5 sponsors to be acquired. They they should go on the >ballot in the July 2002 election. > >Ideas? Suggestions? The sooner we get a motion on the floor, the sooner >the committee can begin its work. > >-Teresa >merope@radix.net Teresa, First thanks for taking the initative to get the ball rolling. In looking at the names above, from the Board, the SPs seem to be already represented by either former or current SP members ie Ron and Vicki. If one gets too big of a committee it could become unwieldy. Perhaps a committee of less than 12 voting members? Committee could be composed of AB members and SC/CC/SP reps making sure each area is represented. Another thought though is to have Bylaws committees within a larger structure. I mean by that that we would have a large Bylaws working committee in the form of sub-committees working on the various sections but then a smaller committee to vote on the final outcome. Each sub-committee could vote on the issues in the section with final approval and or working out any possible conflicts with other sections by the smaller committee. The other thing, I'd strongly suggest is that when the revisions are put up for a vote by the general membership is that each section be voted on seperately instead of all or none. A provision could made to have the AB work out problems that might occur if there were some sections passed while others sections that aren't passed. Again, Teresa, thanks for taking the bull by the horns. Tim From tstowell@mccallie.org Tue Oct 9 13:46:00 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA11100 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 13:45:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.mccallie.org (wan-mccallie-7.chatt.net [66.129.5.7]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA07725 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 13:46:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tstowell [10.116.2.10] by mail.mccallie.org (SMTPD32-6.06) id A7C086EA01EA; Tue, 09 Oct 2001 13:45:36 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011009134710.008d3310@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 13:47:10 -0400 To: merope , Tim Stowell From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: Bylaws "starter" committee Cc: Phyllis Rippee , nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com, tngibson@att.net, ky.quest@gte.net, Ron Eason , nate@gte.net, hollyft@bright.net In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.20011009073953.0188ca30@mail.chattanooga.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Status: RO X-Status: A At 12:18 PM 10/9/01 -0400, merope wrote: > >There is no guarantee that all of us will end up on the BRC. We would >also need a Tombstone rep and someone from Maggie's CP. Ah, I was under the impression you were speaking of the SPs in general. In other words there would be someone to represent the SPs, just as there would be a person(s) to represent the SCs, the AB, the CCs but not each specific SP. >> The other thing, I'd strongly suggest is that when the revisions are put up >> for a vote by the general membership is that each section be voted on >> seperately >> instead of all or none. A provision could made to have the AB work out >> problems >> that might occur if there were some sections passed while others sections that >> aren't passed. > >I think that if the revisions are extensive and affect many inter-related >sections voting on them should be an all or none proposition. If sections >fail to pass and this results in conflicts between sections, the AB cannot >"work out" the disagreements, new amendments need to be proposed, >sponsored and voted on by the membership, leaving us with conflicted and >unworkable bylaws for as much as another year. It seems to me that some of the current sections have a domino effect that if A does or doesn't happen then B in another section kicks in or conflicts. Perhaps instead it would be best if the Bylaws were written so that no one section would conflict with another? Tim From wchs@getgoin.net Tue Oct 9 14:34:53 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA16869 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 14:34:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.getgoin.net (mail.getgoin.net [65.193.40.8]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA15932 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 14:34:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wchs [63.122.150.169] by mail.getgoin.net (SMTPD32-6.06) id A3442E9B0136; Tue, 09 Oct 2001 13:34:44 -0500 Message-ID: <013801c150f0$91e101a0$d5967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" To: "merope" , "Tim Stowell" , , , , "Ron Eason" , Cc: Subject: Re: Bylaws "starter" committee Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 13:30:28 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Status: RO X-Status: IMHO: The actual makeup of the BRC should be two AB members and two members from each of the regions. If one of the two AB members is not a representative from one of the Special Projects, then one of the general members should be and the remaining number would include SCs and CCs. (Numbers suggested optional, but we need to be very careful to not over-balance it with AB members, or we're going to be faced with the same criticism the EC avoided.) As for voting on each individual Article separately, that would require getting 5 states to sponsor each one and while it could be a situation where 5 states would sponsor all the Articles, it would not be a good idea to vote on them separately. As Teresa said, if one Article was rejected, it could very well effect provisions in other Articles. This would mean that the membership would be called upon to approve a very lengthy document.....but if a website could be set up to compare the old with the new (and there are some portions that IMHO do not need changing) it would reduce the amount of time they might otherwise NEED to spend to make an intelligent decision. I also do not believe in subdividing the work among several committees based on the same reason as above. Phyllis -----Original Message----- From: merope To: Tim Stowell ; Phyllis Rippee ; nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com ; tngibson@att.net ; ky.quest@gte.net ; Ron Eason ; nate@gte.net Cc: hollyft@bright.net Date: 08 October, 2001 9:19 PM Subject: Bylaws "starter" committee > >Hi everyone, > >You are receiving this because you indicated an interest in working on the >bylaws "starter" committee suggested by Holly. I'm taking the initiative >and sending this mail so we can start batting ideas around for the future >Bylaws Revision Committee (or whatever it ends up being called). > >I will get the ball rolling by saying that the BRC should have a structure >similar to that of the ESC. That committee worked remarkably well and had >a good range of representation on it. The only thing I would change is >that of ensuring that the Special Projects are represented. When the ESC >was chartered, the only members specifically included were CCs from the >various regions. Since there has been a lot of talk about the Special >Projects lately and revising the portions of the bylaws that deal with >them it will be important to make sure they are represented. > >In the same vein, the BRC should make every effort to involve the general >membership at every step in the process, whether this is via a weekly >update, an read-only mail list, scheduled chats, a message board, or all >of the above. Not everyone can be on the committee, but lots of people >may have good ideas to contribute. > >IMO the BRC should have a goal of thoroughly examining the bylaws and >having revisions in place to be submitted to the states for sponsorship by >May 2002. This gives it about 6 months to work these up and gives time >for the necessary 5 sponsors to be acquired. They they should go on the >ballot in the July 2002 election. > >Ideas? Suggestions? The sooner we get a motion on the floor, the sooner >the committee can begin its work. > >-Teresa >merope@radix.net > > > > From wchs@getgoin.net Tue Oct 9 14:54:20 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA19195 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 14:54:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.getgoin.net (mail.getgoin.net [65.193.40.8]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA18952 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 14:54:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wchs [63.122.150.169] by mail.getgoin.net (SMTPD32-6.06) id A7CAD920124; Tue, 09 Oct 2001 13:54:02 -0500 Message-ID: <014301c150f3$44077920$d5967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" To: "merope" , "Tim Stowell" , "Tim Stowell" Cc: , , , "Ron Eason" , , Subject: Re: Bylaws "starter" committee Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 13:50:25 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Status: RO X-Status: I don't believe that it can be written so there is no over-lapping. But, wouldn't subdividing be something that the BRC would have to decide on once they started? IMHO: Right now, our task is to decide what we would recommend for the make-up of the committee; the scope is obvious "revise the bylaws"; the basic procedures would be to keep it open, accept input of the general membership as to things considered to be lacking in the existing set; suggested things to eliminate from the existing set; require regular progress reports to the AB. Phyllis -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell To: merope ; Tim Stowell Cc: Phyllis Rippee ; nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com ; tngibson@att.net ; ky.quest@gte.net ; Ron Eason ; nate@gte.net ; hollyft@bright.net Date: 09 October, 2001 12:45 PM Subject: Re: Bylaws "starter" committee >At 12:18 PM 10/9/01 -0400, merope wrote: >> >>There is no guarantee that all of us will end up on the BRC. We would >>also need a Tombstone rep and someone from Maggie's CP. > >Ah, I was under the impression you were speaking of the SPs in general. > >In other words there would be someone to represent the SPs, just as there >would be a person(s) to represent the SCs, the AB, the CCs but not each >specific SP. > > >>> The other thing, I'd strongly suggest is that when the revisions are put up >>> for a vote by the general membership is that each section be voted on >>> seperately >>> instead of all or none. A provision could made to have the AB work out >>> problems >>> that might occur if there were some sections passed while others >sections that >>> aren't passed. >> >>I think that if the revisions are extensive and affect many inter-related >>sections voting on them should be an all or none proposition. If sections >>fail to pass and this results in conflicts between sections, the AB cannot >>"work out" the disagreements, new amendments need to be proposed, >>sponsored and voted on by the membership, leaving us with conflicted and >>unworkable bylaws for as much as another year. > >It seems to me that some of the current sections have a domino effect that >if A does or doesn't happen then B in another section kicks in or conflicts. >Perhaps instead it would be best if the Bylaws were written so that no one >section >would conflict with another? > >Tim > From tstowell@mccallie.org Tue Oct 9 15:46:20 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA25228 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 15:46:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.mccallie.org (wan-mccallie-7.chatt.net [66.129.5.7]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA28271 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 15:46:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tstowell [10.116.2.10] by mail.mccallie.org (SMTPD32-6.06) id A3FD1E890274; Tue, 09 Oct 2001 15:46:05 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011009154455.008c8b00@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 15:44:55 -0400 To: "Phyllis Rippee" , "merope" , "Tim Stowell" From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: Bylaws "starter" committee Cc: , , , "Ron Eason" , , In-Reply-To: <014301c150f3$44077920$d5967a3f@wchs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Status: RO X-Status: At 01:50 PM 10/9/01 -0500, Phyllis Rippee wrote: >I don't believe that it can be written so there is no over-lapping. Then I suppose that that would be the challenge for the committee. >But, wouldn't subdividing be something that the BRC would have to decide on once >they started? Agreed, but I added it to show that one might consider that when thinking of committee size below. >IMHO: Right now, our task is to decide what we would recommend for the >make-up of the committee; the scope is obvious "revise the bylaws"; the >basic procedures would be to keep it open, accept input of the general >membership as to things considered to be lacking in the existing set; >suggested things to eliminate from the existing set; require regular >progress reports to the AB. Agreed. Tim From rkeason@tir.com Tue Oct 9 17:26:53 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA07214 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 17:26:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sire.mail.pas.earthlink.net (sire.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.182]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA15482 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 17:26:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hppav (port160178.tnt1fnt.tir.com [216.40.160.178]) by sire.mail.pas.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA06780; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 14:26:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00da01c15108$f9f11880$b2a028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" To: "merope" , "Tim Stowell" Cc: "Phyllis Rippee" , , , , , , References: Subject: Re: Bylaws "starter" committee Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 17:25:49 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Status: RO X-Status: I think that in order to ensure that every area of the Project is covered and to ensure that the members do not see any partiality displayed, that there should an individual member, from each recognized SP, (ie: Archives, Tombstone, Census) I don't think they should be advisory Board Members, but that I would leave up to the group as a whole. When we wrote the Bylaws for the Census Project, we found that we had quite a few area within the document that overlapped and we took very close care to go back and ensure that each section complimented the other. Also, I think that it would not be out of line to suggest that a Board Rep from each Region be allowed to participate as well as members from each region. I will tell you thins, when it gets down to brainstorming the best way to phrase something, it is best to have as many people there to pick it apart as possible because when you do get it right, the numbers voting on it will show that it was done well. Ron From nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com Wed Oct 10 08:58:54 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA01530 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 08:58:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f144.pav2.hotmail.com [64.4.37.144]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA05312 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 08:58:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 05:58:51 -0700 Received: from 205.188.200.27 by pv2fd.pav2.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 12:58:51 GMT X-Originating-IP: [205.188.200.27] From: "Mary Ann Hetrick" To: merope@Radix.Net, tstowell@chattanooga.net, wchs@getgoin.net, tngibson@att.net, ky.quest@gte.net, rkeason@tir.com, nate@gte.net Cc: hollyft@bright.net Subject: Re: Bylaws "starter" committee Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 08:58:51 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Oct 2001 12:58:51.0641 (UTC) FILETIME=[4F55C690:01C1518B] Status: RO X-Status: Ok, after reading all the comments that have been made so far(I am the type of person who likes to see what others opinons are first). I have looked at what representation we have from the board already, and came up with this. My suggested committee structure: with 4 regons 2 members per (1 board, 2 other) 8 total from here 4 SP's 2 each from these (1/1) 8 total from these 16 committee members 1 non voting (except in case of tye vote) 17 total committee members This is just a rough draft. The numbers can be adjusted up or down. Mary Ann Hetrick SC for COGenWeb Project NW/Plains SC Rep. >From: merope >To: Tim Stowell , Phyllis Rippee >, nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com, tngibson@att.net, >ky.quest@gte.net, Ron Eason , nate@gte.net >CC: hollyft@bright.net >Subject: Bylaws "starter" committee >Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 22:18:58 -0400 (EDT) > > >Hi everyone, > >You are receiving this because you indicated an interest in working on the >bylaws "starter" committee suggested by Holly. I'm taking the initiative >and sending this mail so we can start batting ideas around for the future >Bylaws Revision Committee (or whatever it ends up being called). > >I will get the ball rolling by saying that the BRC should have a structure >similar to that of the ESC. That committee worked remarkably well and had >a good range of representation on it. IMO the BRC should have a goal of thoroughly examining the bylaws and >having revisions in place to be submitted to the states for sponsorship by >May 2002. This gives it about 6 months to work these up and gives time >for the necessary 5 sponsors to be acquired. They they should go on the >ballot in the July 2002 election. > >Ideas? Suggestions? The sooner we get a motion on the floor, the sooner >the committee can begin its work. > >-Teresa >merope@radix.net > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From tstowell@mccallie.org Wed Oct 10 09:06:51 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA02220 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:06:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.mccallie.org (wan-mccallie-7.chatt.net [66.129.5.7]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA06506 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:06:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tstowell [10.116.2.10] by mail.mccallie.org (SMTPD32-6.06) id A6E129430250; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:02:25 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011010085719.007e2410@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 08:57:19 -0400 To: "Ron Eason" , "merope" , "Tim Stowell" From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: Bylaws "starter" committee Cc: "Phyllis Rippee" , , , , , In-Reply-To: <00da01c15108$f9f11880$b2a028d8@hppav> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Status: RO X-Status: At 05:25 PM 10/9/01 -0400, Ron Eason wrote: >I think that in order to ensure that every area of the Project >is covered and to ensure that the members do not see any >partiality displayed, that there should an individual member, >from each recognized SP, (ie: Archives, Tombstone, Census) > >I don't think they should be advisory Board Members, but that >I would leave up to the group as a whole. I don't think any specific area of the Bylaws Committee needs to be reserved for any AB member save the NC as an ex-offico member. >When we wrote the Bylaws for the Census Project, we found >that we had quite a few area within the document that overlapped >and we took very close care to go back and ensure that each >section complimented the other. I think you are saying that while each section compliments the other they don't necessarily depend on each other? >Also, I think that it would not be out of line to suggest that a >Board Rep from each Region be allowed to participate as well >as members from each region. I will tell you thins, when it gets >down to brainstorming the best way to phrase something, it is >best to have as many people there to pick it apart as possible >because when you do get it right, the numbers voting on it will >show that it was done well. Agreed. If the committee only took to the final stage what they saw as what the wording should be, someone outside is bound to find where all the wording didn't flow or conflicted with something else. Being so close to the wording as committee members would be often has the effect of not being able to see any flaws that might be there for while they might think they know what they are saying someone from outside the committee might catch the fact that the wording was not as intended. I think though that, unless I missed Teresa's point, the main reason for this discussion is not to iron out all the issues at this point but rather to come up with a formula of committee composition as in how many of each section of the Project to include while not making the committee unwieldy. There are 8 AB members here at present. I would think no more than 3 should be on the committee but that a couple of alternative could be selected in case one or more of the originals had to leave the committee. Not going back and reading previous mail, I think someone said something about having representatives from each of the four Regions. Perhaps a committee could be formed of say - 3 AB members, 8 CCs (2 from each region), 2 SCs, 3 SP members. Criteria for selection would be that folks are members of each of those areas, and willing to serve for the long haul. One might also consider selection of alternatives for the other areas well. Would some of the rest of you please speak up? Tim From wchs@getgoin.net Wed Oct 10 10:29:07 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA11049 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 10:29:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.getgoin.net (mail.getgoin.net [65.193.40.8]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA20017 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 10:29:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wchs [63.122.150.143] by mail.getgoin.net (SMTPD32-6.06) id AB23178D0032; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:28:51 -0500 Message-ID: <009901c15197$6056d720$8f967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" To: "Ron Eason" , "merope" , "Tim Stowell" , "Tim Stowell" Cc: , , , , Subject: Re: Bylaws "starter" committee Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:25:10 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Status: RO X-Status: Tim, what specific projects would the three SP members come from? Ron, as far as having many people involved, if this is kept in the open, anyone who is interested will have input. As each part is completed, it could be posted on a website where CCs can look at and spot language flaws. Other comments that might be made, could also be taken into consideration.....but only if it was something new that the committee hadn't already hashed out. Phyllis -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell To: Ron Eason ; merope ; Tim Stowell Cc: Phyllis Rippee ; nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com ; tngibson@att.net ; ky.quest@gte.net ; nate@gte.net ; hollyft@bright.net Date: 10 October, 2001 8:02 AM Subject: Re: Bylaws "starter" committee >At 05:25 PM 10/9/01 -0400, Ron Eason wrote: >>I think that in order to ensure that every area of the Project >>is covered and to ensure that the members do not see any >>partiality displayed, that there should an individual member, >>from each recognized SP, (ie: Archives, Tombstone, Census) >> >>I don't think they should be advisory Board Members, but that >>I would leave up to the group as a whole. > >I don't think any specific area of the Bylaws Committee needs >to be reserved for any AB member save the NC as an ex-offico member. > >>When we wrote the Bylaws for the Census Project, we found >>that we had quite a few area within the document that overlapped >>and we took very close care to go back and ensure that each >>section complimented the other. > >I think you are saying that while each section compliments the other >they don't necessarily depend on each other? > >>Also, I think that it would not be out of line to suggest that a >>Board Rep from each Region be allowed to participate as well >>as members from each region. I will tell you thins, when it gets >>down to brainstorming the best way to phrase something, it is >>best to have as many people there to pick it apart as possible >>because when you do get it right, the numbers voting on it will >>show that it was done well. > >Agreed. If the committee only took to the final stage what they saw >as what the wording should be, someone outside is bound to find where >all the wording didn't flow or conflicted with something else. Being >so close to the wording as committee members would be often has the >effect of not being able to see any flaws that might be there for while >they might think they know what they are saying someone from outside the >committee might catch the fact that the wording was not as intended. > >I think though that, unless I missed Teresa's point, the main reason >for this discussion is not to iron out all the issues at this point >but rather to come up with a formula of committee composition as in how >many of each section of the Project to include while not making the >committee unwieldy. > >There are 8 AB members here at present. I would think no more than 3 >should be on the committee but that a couple of alternative could be selected >in case one or more of the originals had to leave the committee. > >Not going back and reading previous mail, I think someone said something about >having representatives from each of the four Regions. > >Perhaps a committee could be formed of say - 3 AB members, 8 CCs (2 from >each region), >2 SCs, 3 SP members. Criteria for selection would be that folks are >members of each >of those areas, and willing to serve for the long haul. One might also >consider >selection of alternatives for the other areas well. > >Would some of the rest of you please speak up? > >Tim > From tstowell@mccallie.org Wed Oct 10 11:39:16 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA18792 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 11:39:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.mccallie.org (wan-mccallie-7.chatt.net [66.129.5.7]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA01828 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 11:39:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tstowell [10.116.2.10] by mail.mccallie.org (SMTPD32-6.06) id AB922EFE0234; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 11:38:58 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011010113349.008d75b0@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 11:33:49 -0400 To: "Phyllis Rippee" , "Ron Eason" , "merope" , "Tim Stowell" From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: Bylaws "starter" committee Cc: , , , , In-Reply-To: <009901c15197$6056d720$8f967a3f@wchs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Status: RO X-Status: At 09:25 AM 10/10/01 -0500, Phyllis Rippee wrote: >Tim, what specific projects would the three SP members come from? I'm guessing that this is a trick question. Be that as it may - the three SP members would come from the SP projects mentioned in the Bylaws as having representation on the Board, the ones the AB currently recognize as being part of the Project. The 'trick' part of course is the census person. However, IF, the Bylaws committee, perhaps at the direction of the AB?, decides to write out the representation of the SPs or limit them to one representative for all SPs in general then it would be silly to have representation of seats that may cease to exist being represented on a committee that will be eliminating said representation. If that is going to be the case then the only rep for the SPs would be a rep from our digital library which in effect is the umbrella organization of all the SPs. >Ron, as far as having many people involved, if this is kept in the open, >anyone who is interested will have input. As each part is completed, it >could be posted on a website where CCs can look at and spot language flaws. >Other comments that might be made, could also be taken into >consideration.....but only if it was something new that the committee hadn't >already hashed out. The one thing we wouldn't want is a repeat of when the Bylaws were first formed with someone complaining if a change they suggested wasn't implemented 5 minutes later on the website. Folks will have to realize that any suggestions would be weighed by the committee and included if it had merit or didn't conflict with other parts of the Bylaws. Perhaps some sort of Feedback device, message border or address could be setup by the Committee to receive such comments or suggestions as the members read and digest the proposed changes. Tim From tstowell@chattanooga.net Wed Oct 10 11:54:07 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA20440 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 11:54:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.highertech.net (mail.highertech.net [66.129.1.5]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA04138 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 11:54:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from chattanooga.net (orca.highertech.net [66.129.1.8]) by mail.highertech.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id f9AFrL605797; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 11:53:21 -0400 Received: from 66.129.5.5 (SquirrelMail authenticated user tstowell) by control.chattanooga.net with HTTP; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 11:53:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <22982.66.129.5.5.1002729202.squirrel@control.chattanooga.net> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 11:53:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Bylaws From: "Tim Stowell" To: wchs@getgoin.net, tstowell@mccallie.org In-Reply-To: <00c801c1519f$f5b033e0$8f967a3f@wchs> References: <00c801c1519f$f5b033e0$8f967a3f@wchs> Cc: nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com, tngibson@att.net, ky.quest@gte.net, nate@gte.net, hollyft@bright.net, rkeason@tir.com, merope@radix.net, tstowell@chattanooga.net Reply-To: tstowell@chattanooga.net X-Mailer: SquirrelMail (version 1.0.6) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Status: RO X-Status: > I also think that 3 AB members is also one more than there should be. Three AB members give a fair chance for the members here to sit on the committee. The members will have their work cut out for them, perhaps 3 was a too low figure? > I would suggest that in the place of the two I would eliminate, we > increase the number of SCs to 4. I limited it to 2 to keep the SCs from being over represented as some may feel that that is too high for them. > But, what if there aren't enough volunteers from each "division"? AB > members is no problem, obviously. I doubt that that will be a problem but that can be dealt with at the time it occurs. I suppose the At-large rep could sit in for any CC area not covered. Please include my work address in your replies so I can keep this as real time as possible - tstowell@mccallie.org ------------------------------------------------------via webmail---- Tim Stowell tstowell@chattanooga.net From wchs@getgoin.net Wed Oct 10 11:30:38 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA17796 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 11:30:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.getgoin.net (mail.getgoin.net [65.193.40.8]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA00432 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 11:30:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wchs [63.122.150.131] by mail.getgoin.net (SMTPD32-6.06) id A989212C0040; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 10:30:17 -0500 Message-ID: <00c801c1519f$f5b033e0$8f967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" To: "Phyllis Rippee" , , , , , , , , Subject: Bylaws Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 10:25:08 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Status: RO X-Status: Sorry to not wait for Tim's reply....but I will point out that there is no "recognized" census project. Therefore, no committee member can come from it. And, we should not assume that we have the authority to say which one of the CPs that are linked to, is the one that would supply the member. Not only that, but I feel that 3 SP members would be over-representation of the special projects. That is part of the controversy now. I also think that 3 AB members is also one more than there should be. I would suggest that in the place of the two I would eliminate, we increase the number of SCs to 4. But, what if there aren't enough volunteers from each "division"? AB members is no problem, obviously. Phyllis From nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com Wed Oct 10 17:10:01 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA00477 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 17:09:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f184.pav2.hotmail.com [64.4.37.184]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA29169 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 17:09:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:09:54 -0700 Received: from 152.163.197.63 by pv2fd.pav2.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 21:09:54 GMT X-Originating-IP: [152.163.197.63] From: "Mary Ann Hetrick" To: tstowell@chattanooga.net, wchs@getgoin.net, tstowell@mccallie.org Cc: tngibson@att.net, ky.quest@gte.net, nate@gte.net, hollyft@bright.net, rkeason@tir.com, merope@radix.net Subject: Re: Bylaws Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 17:09:54 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Oct 2001 21:09:54.0859 (UTC) FILETIME=[E8C80FB0:01C151CF] Status: RO X-Status: A Tried to send out my idea of a committee this morning. I guess it got trashed. So I am trying again. I don't think 2 Board members is enough. I think even 3 is low. I don't see why we can't have 1 board member per region. We could balance that out with having 2 CC's per region as well. So it would work out with 12 members 4 Board members, and 8 CC members. We could then add 1 Chair person (nonvoting), and also 2 members to represent the SP's. This would make a total of 14 plus the chair. We could adjust the number for the SP members up or adjust the CC's from the Main project as needed to form an equitable group. I think the key is trying to find a balance that all will accept. Mary Ann Hetrick SC for COGenWeb Project NW/Plains SC Rep. >From: "Tim Stowell" >Reply-To: tstowell@chattanooga.net >To: wchs@getgoin.net, tstowell@mccallie.org >CC: nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com, tngibson@att.net, ky.quest@gte.net, >nate@gte.net, hollyft@bright.net, rkeason@tir.com, merope@radix.net, >tstowell@chattanooga.net >Subject: Re: Bylaws >Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 11:53:22 -0400 (EDT) > > > I also think that 3 AB members is also one more than there should be. > >Three AB members give a fair chance for the members here to sit on the >committee. The members will have their work cut out for them, perhaps 3 >was a too low figure? > > > I would suggest that in the place of the two I would eliminate, we > > increase the number of SCs to 4. > >I limited it to 2 to keep the SCs from being over represented as some may >feel that that is too high for them. > > > But, what if there aren't enough volunteers from each "division"? AB > > members is no problem, obviously. > >I doubt that that will be a problem but that can be dealt with at the time >it occurs. I suppose the At-large rep could sit in for any CC area not >covered. > > >Please include my work address in your replies so I can keep this as real >time as possible - tstowell@mccallie.org > > >------------------------------------------------------via webmail---- >Tim Stowell >tstowell@chattanooga.net > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From rkeason@tir.com Wed Oct 10 18:37:27 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA09024 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 18:37:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net (epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.181]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA13307 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 18:37:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hppav (port16088.tnt1fnt.tir.com [216.40.160.88]) by epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA27832; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:37:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <011801c151db$fe773f00$58a028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" To: "Phyllis Rippee" , "merope" , "Tim Stowell" , "Tim Stowell" Cc: , , , , References: <3.0.5.32.20011010113349.008d75b0@mail.mccallie.org> Subject: Re: Bylaws "starter" committee Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 18:36:18 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Status: RO X-Status: > >Tim, what specific projects would the three SP members come from? > > I'm guessing that this is a trick question. Be that as it may - the > three SP members would come from the SP projects mentioned in the Bylaws as > having representation on the Board, the ones the AB currently recognize as > being part of the Project. > This is where the trick will come in, since I as well as most others, understand that there is no Census Project currently recognized by this AB as being THE Census Project of the Bylaws. It will have to be an all or nothing proposition concerning the Census Projects. I tend to lean toward inclusion rather than exclusion and that in every thing we do as a Project we need to figure out that a solution has to be forthcoming to include everyone. If anyone on this committee, when it is formed, has a mentality of exclusion, then I would suggest you may want to excuse yourself from participation because you will most likely feel very much alone when it comes time to creating the real Bylaws. The members in this Project are tired of the old ideas and are expecting better to come out of this. Ron From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Oct 11 10:25:31 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA23454 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 10:25:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA10258 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 10:25:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9BEPEU01220; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 08:25:14 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 08:25:14 -0600 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Thu Oct 11 08:25:14 2001 Message-ID: <000701c1525f$f31b2de0$90967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 09:20:58 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] "Trick" Question Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I replied privately to Tim. But, I will now go on record to the whole "starter" committee. This is a serious endeavor.....to formulate recommendations to be presented to Holly, or the AB, and I will not be asking "trick" questions. There are several special projects listed on the main page. This committee does not have the authority to make a decision in regard to a representative from a CP because there is no recognized official one. Also, to suggest that anyone on this committee withdraw because of a preconceived idea of exclusion.....is just as ridiculous as someone suggesting that anyone on this committee withdraw because of a preconceived idea of inclusion. This committee is to formulate a recommendation of the make-up of THE committee that will revise the bylaws. Not to set specifics of inclusion, exclusion or delusion. One more statement: In the past, the main complaint of CCs is that the AB is exclusionary to the point of "stacking the deck" of all committees in order to promote personal agendas. That is why I think, and will continue to think, that 2 AB members are enough on the revision committee. When I asked why 3, the answer I was given was so that more of us on this "starter" committee would have a chance to get on the final committee. Our purpose is to serve the Project by doing the task at hand, not in trying to figure our ways to enhance our chances of being on the final committee. Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Oct 11 11:55:09 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA03357 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:55:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA25944 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:55:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9BFsqa11945; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 09:54:52 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 09:54:52 -0600 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Thu Oct 11 09:54:52 2001 Message-ID: <015901c1526c$8cb1e960$90967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 10:50:41 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Question Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I have sent a question to Holly, asking her to please tell us exactly what we are supposed to be doing. Specifically, if we are supposed to be forming the actual committee that will be doing the work of revising the bylaws. Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Oct 11 11:42:17 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA01615 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:42:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA23132 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:42:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9BFcUq10338; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 09:38:30 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 09:38:30 -0600 X-Original-Sender: ky.quest@gte.net Thu Oct 11 09:38:29 2001 Message-ID: <001a01c15283$c7810780$0301a8c0@vz.dsl.genuity.net> From: "Diane Parsons" Old-To: "USGW-BYLAWS" Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:37:19 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] IMHO Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: FiestaGreetings, I have been sitting back and reading each message, trying to understand WHAT we are trying to accomplish here.Keeping pretty quiet up to now. A lot of great ideas are being bounced around from some very intelligent people. Seems to me, from what I have read so far, our first step is to form this committee. I have to agree with Teresa and Tim on the number and people we need included in this committee to best represent every area and group. (SNIP) AB - 4 or 5 members; CCs - 10; SCs - 4 or 5; At large Rep; NC - Ex-Officio. I'm using the 'or' - because I think 5 may be too high. I think though that some contingency for alternates needs to be included in the call for volunteers. (SNIP) This amount sounds fairly equal, although, I think (IMHO) that 4 AB and 4 SC's would be enough. I do not think 2 AB would be enough. This is a huge undertaking here and we need as much input as we can get ! As far as the 4 AB selected, I know that there are AB on here with a lot more experience than I, and I will not be offended in the least if I am not "chosen". What matters most is the end result...which is creating a better By-Laws for the good of all. Diane Montgomery Parsons From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Oct 11 11:12:12 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA28307 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:12:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA17491 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:12:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9BFBsp18542; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 09:11:54 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 09:11:54 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@mccallie.org Thu Oct 11 09:11:54 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011011111319.008d4650@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:13:19 -0400 Old-To: From: Tim Stowell Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Answer to Teresa's note Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: From: merope Subject: Re: Bylaws I think we want to avoid the perception of this being a "Board-driven" committee, but here's the list of who was on the EC: SC Members: Nathan Zipfel PA NE Region Linda Mason MS SE Region Carol Haagensen WY NW Region Patrick Hays IN NE Region Mary Ann Hetrick CO NW Region CC Members: Robert Sullivan NY NE Region Connie Bates connie_bates@att.net IL NE Region Jerimiah Moerke MN, SD NW Region John McCoy NE NW Region Esther Frye IA NW Region Chip Brown TN SE Region Carol Carwile-Head GA SE Region Teresa Lindquist KS SW Region Bob Chada OK SW Region Linda Hotchkiss CA SW Region Board Members: Ellen Pack - Southeast / Mid-Atlantic CC Rep Betsy Mills, Southwest / South Central SC Rep Tina Vickery, Northeast / North Central CC Rep Shari Handley, Southeast/Mid-Atlantic SC Rep Holly Timm, Representative-At-Large and Chair of the Committee Ex-Officio, National Coordinator Tim Stowell There were 1 for each region and the At-Large and NC. So five Board members. Then 2 CCs for each region (n=8), 1 SC for each Region (n=4), and 1 for each SP (official or not, n=4). This would be 21 members. Would this be too unwieldy? Now here's another thought to bandy about. Is regional representation that important? I have a hard time thinking that my interests as a SW/SC CC are that different from those of a NW/P CC. I think differences of interest are more likely to arise between SCs and CCs, or between state/county people and the Special Projects. So if we wanted a smaller committee, we could base it more on proportional representation based on how many SCs, CCs, and SP members there are. This is probably more complicated and may result in some parts of the project feel that they are under-represented. Now, just because I'm feeling puckish...what I'd really rather see on the committee than just people who qualify because they are in some particular region is those people with actual experience doing this. The folks from the CP and USGenNet and TNGenNet and local genealogical societies and homeowners associations who have actual real world experience writing bylaws that can pass muster with state and federal governments [not that we are planning for this, but if they are good enough for that purpose they should be pretty darn tight.] Obviously these people will be project members too but I'd hate to see the committee turn away someone with valuable experience because we need another SE/MA member and he's in NE/NC. [snip] -Teresa merope@radix.net ******************* There have in the past been at least 2 possibly 3 efforts to revise the Bylaws by groups of CCs. I believe the reason most of them failed was because of ego centric rather than Project centric personalities. Hopefully with AB participation and thus some accountability, this effort would not devolve into that arena. In looking at the list above, it appears that the EC was divided 1/4 each of SCs, AB members and 2/4 CCs. That a similiar model could work for this committee is likely true. I agree with Teresa along the aspects of not necessarily using the regions with such rigid focus to the exclusion of qualified members elsewhere. Since some of the volunteers are likely going to be involved in one or more of the SPs why not let that stipulation drop and go with the above catergories? AB - 4 or 5 members; CCs - 10; SCs - 4 or 5; At large Rep; NC - Ex-Officio. I'm using the 'or' - because I think 5 may be too high. I think though that some contingency for alternates needs to be included in the call for volunteers. Tim From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Oct 11 13:42:37 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA17192 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 13:42:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA18147 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 13:42:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9BHgHJ22609; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:42:17 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:42:17 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@mccallie.org Thu Oct 11 11:42:17 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011011133945.008bc100@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 13:39:45 -0400 Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Question In-Reply-To: <015901c1526c$8cb1e960$90967a3f@wchs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <1j5Mc.A.IhF.5ndx7@lists5.rootsweb.com> To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/5 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:50 AM 10/11/01 -0500, Phyllis Rippee wrote: >I have sent a question to Holly, asking her to please tell us exactly what >we are supposed to be doing. Specifically, if we are supposed to be forming >the actual committee that will be doing the work of revising the bylaws. > >Phyllis I was under the impression that the reason we were talking here, was to formulate a motion to be made on Board-l regarding the makeup of a Bylaws Revision Committee. Tim From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Oct 11 13:48:00 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA17898 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 13:47:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA19347 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 13:47:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9BHlda07294; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:47:39 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:47:39 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tngibson@att.net Thu Oct 11 11:47:39 2001 Message-ID: <008501c1527c$c94be0a0$745bfea9@vaio> Reply-To: "Vicki" From: "Vicki" Old-To: References: <3.0.5.32.20011011133945.008bc100@mail.mccallie.org> Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Question Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 12:46:34 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/6 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: No matter where the volunteers on this committee come from I think we should take into consideration who would have the most time to devote to the bylaws revisions. Vicki ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Stowell" To: Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 12:39 PM Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Question > At 10:50 AM 10/11/01 -0500, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > >I have sent a question to Holly, asking her to please tell us exactly what > >we are supposed to be doing. Specifically, if we are supposed to be forming > >the actual committee that will be doing the work of revising the bylaws. > > > >Phyllis > > I was under the impression that the reason we were talking here, was to > formulate a motion to be made on Board-l regarding the makeup of a Bylaws > Revision Committee. > > Tim > > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Oct 11 17:42:02 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA16859 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 17:42:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA00950 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 17:42:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9BLffY29927; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 15:41:41 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 15:41:41 -0600 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Thu Oct 11 15:41:40 2001 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011011172552.03a7e260@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 17:41:43 -0400 Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] IMHO In-Reply-To: <001a01c15283$c7810780$0301a8c0@vz.dsl.genuity.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Approximately 20 seems to be a good workable number. You will always have some who say little and some who say a lot. With a small number this can end up with one or two people doing all the talking and pretty much having it their way. With a larger number it is also more likely to get some varying viewpoints.You might consider not tying the regional and position quantities into absolutes as if you are working from a volunteer pool it can get tough to follow such number/position descriptions closely. Holly At 11:37 AM 10/11/01 -0700, Diane Parsons wrote: >FiestaGreetings, > >I have been sitting back and reading each message, >trying to understand WHAT we are trying to accomplish here.Keeping pretty >quiet up to now. > >A lot of great ideas are being bounced around from >some very intelligent people. Seems to me, from what I have read so far, >our first step is to form this committee. >I have to agree with Teresa and Tim on the number >and people we need included in this committee to best >represent every area and group. > >(SNIP) >AB - 4 or 5 members; CCs - 10; SCs - 4 or 5; At large Rep; NC - Ex-Officio. > >I'm using the 'or' - because I think 5 may be too high. I think though >that some contingency for alternates needs to be included in the call for >volunteers. >(SNIP) > >This amount sounds fairly equal, although, I think >(IMHO) that 4 AB and 4 SC's would be enough. > >I do not think 2 AB would be enough. This is a >huge undertaking here and we need as much input >as we can get ! > >As far as the 4 AB selected, I know that there are AB >on here with a lot more experience than I, and I will >not be offended in the least if I am not "chosen". What >matters most is the end result...which is creating a >better By-Laws for the good of all. > >Diane Montgomery Parsons From nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com Fri Oct 12 19:15:54 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA01751 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 19:15:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f164.pav2.hotmail.com [64.4.37.164]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA17350 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 19:15:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:15:51 -0700 Received: from 205.188.192.173 by pv2fd.pav2.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 23:15:50 GMT X-Originating-IP: [205.188.192.173] From: "Mary Ann Hetrick" To: merope@Radix.Net Cc: tstowell@mccallie.org, ky.quest@gte.net, hollyft@bright.net, nate@gte.net, rkeason@tir.com, tngibson@att.net, tstowell@chattanooga.net, wchs@getgoin.net Subject: Re: Bylaws Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 19:15:50 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Oct 2001 23:15:51.0231 (UTC) FILETIME=[D58E6CF0:01C15373] Status: RO X-Status: >From: merope >To: Mary Ann Hetrick >CC: tstowell@chattanooga.net, wchs@getgoin.net, tstowell@mccallie.org, > tngibson@att.net, ky.quest@gte.net, nate@gte.net, hollyft@bright.net, > rkeason@tir.com >Subject: Re: Bylaws >Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 20:59:38 -0400 (EDT) > > >On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Mary Ann Hetrick wrote: > > > I don't think 2 Board members is enough. I think even 3 is low. I don't >see > > why we can't have 1 board member per region. We could balance that out >with > > having 2 CC's per region as well. > >I think we want to avoid the perception of this being a "Board-driven" >committee, but here's the list of who was on the EC: > ***** I don't think it will be "Board-driven" if we have just 4 board members on the committee. I was thinking of the EC but didn't remember how many we had on that committee. Some had mentioned that they didn't want the commitee to get to big. (that was why I proposed what I did) I have no problem with it being larger, as I said it was just a rough draft to get things moving. >There were 1 for each region and the At-Large and NC. So five Board >members. Then 2 CCs for each region (n=8), 1 SC for each Region (n=4), >and 1 for each SP (official or not, n=4). This would be 21 members. Would >this be too unwieldy? > >Now here's another thought to bandy about. Is regional representation >that important? I have a hard time thinking that my interests as a SW/SC >CC are that different from those of a NW/P CC. I think differences of >interest are more likely to arise between SCs and CCs, or between >state/county people and the Special Projects. > ***** The only reason for setting it up that was was to make sure that all of the members have some kind of representation. I don't think we will have many that we have to turn away. I think we will have a hard time getting enough volunteers to fill the committee. However, I could be wrong, as this topic is one most CC's know needs to be worked on. >So if we wanted a smaller committee, we could base it more on proportional >representation based on how many SCs, CCs, and SP members there are. This >is probably more complicated and may result in some parts of the project >feel that they are under-represented. > >Now, just because I'm feeling puckish...what I'd really rather see on the >committee than just people who qualify because they are in some particular >region is those people with actual experience doing this. The folks from >the CP and USGenNet and TNGenNet and local genealogical societies and >homeowners associations who have actual real world experience writing >bylaws that can pass muster with state and federal governments [not that >we are planning for this, but if they are good enough for that purpose >they should be pretty darn tight.] > >Obviously these people will be project members too but I'd hate to see the >committee turn away someone with valuable experience because we need >another SE/MA member and he's in NE/NC. > >[snip] > >-Teresa >merope@radix.net > ****** I think the best way to make sure all areas have someone representing them fairly, is to divide up the areas. I think that is the only way to make sure not all of the representation is from one area. What about the situation where we have a large number of committee members from the NE area, but none from the NW/Plains or SE/South? Sure we may have to turn a few away, but I think giving equial representation is more important. Just my 2 cents. ;) Mary Ann Hetrick SC for COGenWeb Project NW/Plains SC Rep. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Oct 11 22:04:17 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA11520 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 22:04:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA07402 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 22:04:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9C23vf05583; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 20:03:57 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 20:03:57 -0600 X-Original-Sender: nate@gte.net Thu Oct 11 20:03:57 2001 From: "Nathan Zipfel" Old-To: Subject: RE: [USGW-ByLaws] IMHO Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 22:00:01 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20011011172552.03a7e260@mail.bright.net> Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Seems to be a workable number. It is a hard balancing act to do. One of my CC's made a good suggestion. Any proposed changes to the bylaws should be worked along side establishing clear policies and procedures. What we may discover is that there may be things currently in the by-laws that would be better placed in a Policy or Procedure document. The WorldGenWeb doesn't have by-laws, but we do have Polices that govern how the project is managed. If to much stuff is put into the by-laws it makes it extremely difficult if not impossible to change them as the project grows. A big suggestion is that the actual discussions of proposed changes be placed on a threaded discussion board. I have used this method in the past when we revamped the WorldGenWeb Polices. Each section was posted as a topic and then the members who were working on them could post comments for that particular topic. It makes it much easier to follow. Additionally the tool we used, we could close the discussion on a given topic once it was agreed upon. Then we had a "permanent" record of the discussion and the voting. Utilization of a mailing list for the discussion is fruitless as it is hard to follow the discussion. I would propose the same thing (threaded discussion) for motions and voting. I can re-install the software on my server to give you an example of what can be done. It is password protected so that you have to have specific rights to post or even view information. Nate -----Original Message----- From: Holly Timm [mailto:hollyft@bright.net] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 5:42 PM To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] IMHO Approximately 20 seems to be a good workable number. You will always have some who say little and some who say a lot. With a small number this can end up with one or two people doing all the talking and pretty much having it their way. With a larger number it is also more likely to get some varying viewpoints.You might consider not tying the regional and position quantities into absolutes as if you are working from a volunteer pool it can get tough to follow such number/position descriptions closely. Holly At 11:37 AM 10/11/01 -0700, Diane Parsons wrote: >FiestaGreetings, > >I have been sitting back and reading each message, >trying to understand WHAT we are trying to accomplish here.Keeping pretty >quiet up to now. > >A lot of great ideas are being bounced around from >some very intelligent people. Seems to me, from what I have read so far, >our first step is to form this committee. >I have to agree with Teresa and Tim on the number >and people we need included in this committee to best >represent every area and group. > >(SNIP) >AB - 4 or 5 members; CCs - 10; SCs - 4 or 5; At large Rep; NC - Ex-Officio. > >I'm using the 'or' - because I think 5 may be too high. I think though >that some contingency for alternates needs to be included in the call for >volunteers. >(SNIP) > >This amount sounds fairly equal, although, I think >(IMHO) that 4 AB and 4 SC's would be enough. > >I do not think 2 AB would be enough. This is a >huge undertaking here and we need as much input >as we can get ! > >As far as the 4 AB selected, I know that there are AB >on here with a lot more experience than I, and I will >not be offended in the least if I am not "chosen". What >matters most is the end result...which is creating a >better By-Laws for the good of all. > >Diane Montgomery Parsons From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 15 11:07:03 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA08051 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:07:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA05638 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:07:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9FF6Ns15604; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 09:06:23 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 09:06:23 -0600 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Mon Oct 15 09:06:22 2001 Message-ID: <008301c1558a$67a1f680$b4967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:01:46 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Scope & Numbers Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A Proposal: Scope: To study the bylaws; leave alone those portions that can stand as are; delete those which are not needed; revise those portions that need clarification or strengthening; add what may be determined to be lacking. Procedure: To take suggestions from the general membership. To post work in progress, so that the general membership is kept informed. To present both majority and minority opinions where there is lack of compromised agreement. To post "final copy" for review of general membership and to have the complete set of bylaws in time to go through the process of being placed on the ballot in July 2002. Committee: X-AB members; X-SP; X-SCs, ASCs and CCs. Question: After we fill in the X's, are we supposed to supply the names of the committee members, or ask Holly to do that? Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 15 19:34:39 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA03760 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 19:34:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA27909 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 19:34:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9FNUTu03834; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 17:30:29 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 17:30:29 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tngibson@att.net Mon Oct 15 17:30:29 2001 Message-ID: <009b01c155d1$54d42680$745bfea9@vaio> Reply-To: "Vicki" From: "Vicki" Old-To: References: <001601c1559c$2c5df9e0$df967a3f@wchs> Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Committee Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 18:29:06 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Is this all we are supposed to be doing? That is, deciding on the make up of the bylaws committee or are we going to decide how these committee members are going to be selected, too? Vicki ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phyllis Rippee" To: Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 12:09 PM Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Committee > Thanks, Teresa, I didn't know how selection worked. I'd rather let the AB > select the committee. If we present a slate of candidates, we'll have > another "all or none" situation. > > Anything to add to the "scope?" > > IMHO: The committee should decide its methods of procedure. > > Shall we determine what numbers we recommend and get this "kicked upstairs"? > This project will take awhile and time is fleeting. > > Please, let's vote. These numbers are taken from what you've posted and > what Holly suggested as a final number of 20. Vote for the numbers you > want, we'll all count and get the final report ready. > > 3, 4, or 5 AB; 2 or 3 SP; balance from general membership to include 3, 4, > or 5 SCs or ASCs....if possible. > > I'm not trying to take over. I just want to get this part over with. > > Phyllis > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 15 13:13:58 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA22280 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:13:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA26834 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:13:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9FHDYw12772; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:13:34 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:13:34 -0600 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Mon Oct 15 11:13:34 2001 Message-ID: <001601c1559c$2c5df9e0$df967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 12:09:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Committee Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A Thanks, Teresa, I didn't know how selection worked. I'd rather let the AB select the committee. If we present a slate of candidates, we'll have another "all or none" situation. Anything to add to the "scope?" IMHO: The committee should decide its methods of procedure. Shall we determine what numbers we recommend and get this "kicked upstairs"? This project will take awhile and time is fleeting. Please, let's vote. These numbers are taken from what you've posted and what Holly suggested as a final number of 20. Vote for the numbers you want, we'll all count and get the final report ready. 3, 4, or 5 AB; 2 or 3 SP; balance from general membership to include 3, 4, or 5 SCs or ASCs....if possible. I'm not trying to take over. I just want to get this part over with. Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 15 14:27:21 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA29615 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:27:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA08330 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:27:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9FILlh08983; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 12:21:47 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 12:21:47 -0600 X-Original-Sender: ky.quest@gte.net Mon Oct 15 12:21:47 2001 Message-ID: <000901c155bf$3e4e06e0$0301a8c0@vz.dsl.genuity.net> From: "Diane Parsons" Old-To: "USGW-BYLAWS" Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:20:38 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] MY Vote Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Ok, Here is my vote.... 4 AB 3 SP 5 SC or ASC 8 CC's making a total of 20 Diane Montgomery Parsons (SNIP) > Please, let's vote. These numbers are taken from what you've posted and > what Holly suggested as a final number of 20. Vote for the numbers you > want, we'll all count and get the final report ready. > > 3, 4, or 5 AB; 2 or 3 SP; balance from general membership to include 3, 4, > or 5 SCs or ASCs....if possible. > > I'm not trying to take over. I just want to get this part over with. > > Phyllis > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Oct 16 21:22:24 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA29115 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 21:22:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA02012 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 21:22:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9H1JHq15949; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 19:19:17 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 19:19:17 -0600 X-Original-Sender: rkeason@tir.com Tue Oct 16 19:19:17 2001 Message-ID: <019401c156a9$96ca8100$91a028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: <001601c1559c$2c5df9e0$df967a3f@wchs> <009b01c155d1$54d42680$745bfea9@vaio> Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Committee Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 21:18:10 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: <5SXqlC.A.E5D.VyNz7@lists5.rootsweb.com> To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: It would be my idea that we still have a little work to do. Deciding what numbers will serve is one part, but as per the working model of the EC motion, there are still parts of the equation missing. How they will be voted on, what they will be charged with doing when they get the committee set up, what procedures they will need to go through in order to have a final product and how it should be processed for being placed on the ballot. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vicki" To: Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 7:29 PM Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Committee > Is this all we are supposed to be doing? > > That is, deciding on the make up of the bylaws committee or are we going to > decide how these committee members are going to be selected, too? > > Vicki > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Phyllis Rippee" > To: > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 12:09 PM > Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Committee > > > > Thanks, Teresa, I didn't know how selection worked. I'd rather let the AB > > select the committee. If we present a slate of candidates, we'll have > > another "all or none" situation. > > > > Anything to add to the "scope?" > > > > IMHO: The committee should decide its methods of procedure. > > > > Shall we determine what numbers we recommend and get this "kicked > upstairs"? > > This project will take awhile and time is fleeting. > > > > Please, let's vote. These numbers are taken from what you've posted and > > what Holly suggested as a final number of 20. Vote for the numbers you > > want, we'll all count and get the final report ready. > > > > 3, 4, or 5 AB; 2 or 3 SP; balance from general membership to include 3, > 4, > > or 5 SCs or ASCs....if possible. > > > > I'm not trying to take over. I just want to get this part over with. > > > > Phyllis > > > > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Oct 17 17:16:12 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA26806 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:16:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA00225 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:16:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9HLDqc01978; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 15:13:52 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 15:13:52 -0600 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Wed Oct 17 15:13:52 2001 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011017171039.024804b0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:14:05 -0400 Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com, USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm In-Reply-To: <001701c15717$0fac50e0$92967a3f@wchs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Getting Going Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/15 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Why don't we try this by asking and answering questions.... Starting at the beginning.... 1) What is the function/goal of the ByLaws committee to be? 2) How many people would be a viable functioning number and yet allow for some breadth of perspective and opinion? Holly From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Oct 17 10:28:12 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA11639 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:28:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA18720 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:28:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9HEPrH30488; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 08:25:53 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 08:25:53 -0600 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Wed Oct 17 08:25:52 2001 Message-ID: <001701c15717$0fac50e0$92967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 09:21:48 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Missing One Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/14 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: In going through my mailboxes to clean them out, I found some messages I had overlooked. One is that Tim is out of the country. Shouldn't we wait until he returns? And, if we are going to continue.....someone else needs to take the lead. Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Oct 18 11:57:02 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA24353 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:57:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA26203 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:57:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9IFuiX03484; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 09:56:44 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 09:56:44 -0600 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Thu Oct 18 09:56:44 2001 Message-ID: <003f01c157ec$e9c6c1e0$8a967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 10:52:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Scope Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/16 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Does anyone have anything to add or delete from the scope statement I suggested a few days ago? It appears from what Holly posted on the ALL list in reply to Roger, that she wants the numbers for the makeup of the committee. And, that will also include recommendations for qualifying divisions...such as AB members. Let's do that and then see what she wants us to do next. Diane: 20 members 4 AB, 3 SP, 5 SC or ASC, 8 CC Teresa: 17 voting members 3 AB, 2 SP, 2 SC, 10 CCs plus 2 "ex officio" AB (non-voting) Phyllis: 19 members 4 AB, 2 SP, 4 SC or ASC, 9 CCs and of course Holly will be "ex officio" in compliance with the current bylaws. If anyone else has posted there numbers, I've missed them. Please repost. Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Oct 18 13:18:36 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA03163 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 13:18:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA10901 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 13:18:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9IHII210833; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:18:18 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:18:18 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tngibson@att.net Thu Oct 18 11:18:18 2001 Message-ID: <00cd01c157f8$d38fb100$745bfea9@vaio> Reply-To: "Vicki" From: "Vicki" Old-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20011017171039.024804b0@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Getting Going Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 12:17:52 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/17 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: > 2) How many people would be a viable functioning number and yet allow for > some breadth of perspective and opinion? 2 AB, 2 SC or ASC, 2 SP, 12 CC plus the NC as ex-officio This would provide a balance to support a bottom up leadership policy. That is what the CC's want, so I think it's the way to go. Also, to not appear to be exerting undue influence the chair of committee should be one of the CC's. Vicki ----- Original Message ----- From: "Holly Timm" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 4:14 PM Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Getting Going > Why don't we try this by asking and answering questions.... > > Starting at the beginning.... > > > 1) What is the function/goal of the ByLaws committee to be? > > 2) How many people would be a viable functioning number and yet allow for > some breadth of perspective and opinion? > > Holly > > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Oct 18 13:54:20 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA06947 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 13:54:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA16761 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 13:54:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9IHs0l01103; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:54:00 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:54:00 -0600 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Thu Oct 18 11:54:00 2001 Message-ID: <001401c157fd$4aad5360$b1967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 12:49:51 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Committee Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/18 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: When the "real" committee is selected, it should be allowed to elect its own chairperson. I do not think that we should stipulate as to which category this person would come from. Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Oct 21 16:56:53 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA01001 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 16:56:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA15656 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 16:56:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9LKuWb26148; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 14:56:32 -0600 Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 14:56:32 -0600 X-Original-Sender: nate@gte.net Sun Oct 21 14:56:31 2001 From: "Nathan Zipfel" Old-To: Subject: RE: [USGW-ByLaws] Getting Going Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 16:52:36 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20011017171039.024804b0@mail.bright.net> Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/19 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: 1) goal - draft a revision to the bylaws that corrects the current problems with them. 2) how many? I agree with Vicki's suggestion 2 AB, 2 SC or ASC, 2 SP, 12 CC plus the NC as ex-officio Can we move forward now? Is appropriate to make a motion on this and move ahead? Nate -----Original Message----- From: Holly Timm [mailto:hollyft@bright.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 5:14 PM To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Getting Going Why don't we try this by asking and answering questions.... Starting at the beginning.... 1) What is the function/goal of the ByLaws committee to be? 2) How many people would be a viable functioning number and yet allow for some breadth of perspective and opinion? Holly From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 22 11:08:28 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA27728 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:08:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA18546 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:08:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9MF8Bn04247; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 09:08:11 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 09:08:11 -0600 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Mon Oct 22 09:08:11 2001 Message-ID: <001f01c15b0b$82b8c6c0$d5967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 10:09:11 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Suggested Number Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/20 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Tim....welcome back. This is the count so far on suggestions for numbers to make up the bylaws committee. We have yet to hear from everybody....or I've missed them. Diane: 20 members 4 AB, 3 SP, 5 SC or ASC, 8 CC Teresa: 17 voting members 3 AB, 2 SP, 2 SC, 10 CCs plus 2 "ex officio" AB (non-voting) Phyllis: 19 members 4 AB, 2 SP, 4 SC or ASC, 9 CCs and of course Holly will be "ex officio" in compliance with the current bylaws. Nate: 18 members 2 AB, 2 SC or ASC, 2 SP, 12 CC plus the NC as ex-officio From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 22 16:04:07 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA01418 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:04:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA09119 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:04:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9MJwPn03473; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:58:25 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:58:25 -0600 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Mon Oct 22 13:58:24 2001 Message-ID: <005c01c15b34$0e941fa0$bc967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:59:27 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Committee Numbers Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Vicki...neglect was unintentional. Who else is to be heard from?...Phyllis Diane: 20 members 4 AB, 3 SP, 5 SC or ASC, 8 CC Teresa: 17 voting members 3 AB, 2 SP, 2 SC, 10 CCs plus 2 "ex officio" AB (non-voting) Phyllis: 19 members 4 AB, 2 SP, 4 SC or ASC, 9 CCs and of course Holly will be "ex officio" in compliance with the current bylaws. Nate & Vicki: 18 members 2 AB, 2 SC or ASC, 2 SP, 12 CC plus the NC as ex-officio From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 22 16:13:28 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA02425 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:13:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA10745 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:13:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9MKCOu15281; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:12:24 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:12:24 -0600 X-Original-Sender: rkeason@tir.com Mon Oct 22 14:12:23 2001 Message-ID: <007801c15b35$b0683c20$39a028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: <005c01c15b34$0e941fa0$bc967a3f@wchs> Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Committee Numbers Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:11:06 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Either everyone is not using this list or I have missed a few as well. You welcomed Tim, but I didn't see a message that he was here, and I didn't get a response from Vicki?? Here is mine, since I didn't see them either. 20 members 4 AB, 4SC or ASC, 12CC or Co-CC Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phyllis Rippee" To: Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 3:59 PM Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Committee Numbers > Vicki...neglect was unintentional. Who else is to be heard from?...Phyllis > > Diane: 20 members 4 AB, 3 SP, 5 SC or ASC, 8 CC > > Teresa: 17 voting members 3 AB, 2 SP, 2 SC, 10 CCs > plus 2 "ex officio" AB (non-voting) > > Phyllis: 19 members 4 AB, 2 SP, 4 SC or ASC, 9 CCs and of > course Holly will be "ex officio" in compliance with the > current bylaws. > > Nate & Vicki: 18 members 2 AB, 2 SC or ASC, 2 SP, 12 CC plus > the NC as ex-officio > > > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 22 16:19:01 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA02993 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:19:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA11608 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:18:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9MKIgk27105; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:18:42 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:18:42 -0600 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Mon Oct 22 14:18:42 2001 Message-ID: <001501c15b36$e3809160$97967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:19:43 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] More Numbers Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/23 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I didn't see Vicki's...but may have just missed it. And, I welcomed Tim back....assuming that he is still subbed, but based on his announcement on Board-Exec. Ron: 20 members 4 AB, 4SC or ASC, 12CC or Co-CC Diane: 20 members 4 AB, 3 SP, 5 SC or ASC, 8 CC Teresa: 17 voting members 3 AB, 2 SP, 2 SC, 10 CCs plus 2 "ex officio" AB (non-voting) Phyllis: 19 members 4 AB, 2 SP, 4 SC or ASC, 9 CCs and of course Holly will be "ex officio" in compliance with the current bylaws. Nate & Vicki: 18 members 2 AB, 2 SC or ASC, 2 SP, 12 CC plus the NC as ex-officio From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 22 20:44:37 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA29997 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:44:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA23776 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:44:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9N0hqp17337; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 18:43:52 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 18:43:52 -0600 X-Original-Sender: nate@gte.net Mon Oct 22 18:43:52 2001 From: "Nathan Zipfel" Old-To: Subject: RE: [USGW-ByLaws] Committee Numbers Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:40:31 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <007801c15b35$b0683c20$39a028d8@hppav> Resent-Message-ID: <35NuhB.A.wOE.I1L17@lists5.rootsweb.com> To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/24 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Ok... now can we reach a consensus on this? I don't want to see us playing with numbers for a long time... Nate -----Original Message----- From: Ron Eason [mailto:rkeason@tir.com] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 4:11 PM To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Committee Numbers Either everyone is not using this list or I have missed a few as well. You welcomed Tim, but I didn't see a message that he was here, and I didn't get a response from Vicki?? Here is mine, since I didn't see them either. 20 members 4 AB, 4SC or ASC, 12CC or Co-CC Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phyllis Rippee" To: Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 3:59 PM Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Committee Numbers > Vicki...neglect was unintentional. Who else is to be heard from?...Phyllis > > Diane: 20 members 4 AB, 3 SP, 5 SC or ASC, 8 CC > > Teresa: 17 voting members 3 AB, 2 SP, 2 SC, 10 CCs > plus 2 "ex officio" AB (non-voting) > > Phyllis: 19 members 4 AB, 2 SP, 4 SC or ASC, 9 CCs and of > course Holly will be "ex officio" in compliance with the > current bylaws. > > Nate & Vicki: 18 members 2 AB, 2 SC or ASC, 2 SP, 12 CC plus > the NC as ex-officio > > > From USGW-GUIDELINES-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 22 20:45:00 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA00017 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:44:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA23809 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:44:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9N0il718058; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 18:44:47 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 18:44:47 -0600 X-Original-Sender: nate@gte.net Mon Oct 22 18:44:47 2001 From: "Nathan Zipfel" Old-To: Subject: RE: [USGW-Guidelines] Getting Started Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:41:26 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Resent-Message-ID: <4CIDvC.A.pZE._1L17@lists5.rootsweb.com> To: USGW-GUIDELINES-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-GUIDELINES-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-GUIDELINES-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10 X-Loop: USGW-GUIDELINES-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-GUIDELINES-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: works for me.... let's move forward.... who else is on the list?? Nate -----Original Message----- From: Jana Black [mailto:janab@websweweave.net] Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 6:09 PM To: USGW-GUIDELINES-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [USGW-Guidelines] Getting Started Hi Nate, Glad to see you here. Good points about guidelines vs bylaws, it is extremely important we differentiate. I also think your point regarding SC/ASC buy in is well taken. I am concerned that the size of the committee is too large. How about using the elected Regional SC Reps here and cutting that number to 4, then asking for CC volunteers from each region as well? Then committee composition would be: 2/3 AB, 4 SC Reps and 4 CC Reps? Jana -----Original Message----- From: Nathan Zipfel [mailto:nate@gte.net] Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 2:01 PM To: USGW-GUIDELINES-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [USGW-Guidelines] Getting Started 1 - review/revise the current guidelines. The existing ones have been in place since the beginning and should be updated. This group will need to work with the By-laws group to ensure consistency. Also we want to ensure that stuff doesn't get put into the bylaws that rightfully belongs in the Guidelines. 2 - 2/3 AB, 8 SC/ASCs, 8 CCs With this committee I believe there should be equal representation of SC/ASCs since they will have to (and I hate to use the word) "enforce" the guidelines so they need to have buyin.. Nate From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Oct 23 01:18:54 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA22558 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 01:18:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA29460 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 01:18:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9N5IWm29060; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 23:18:32 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 23:18:32 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Mon Oct 22 23:18:32 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011022214111.015c9100@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 21:41:11 -0400 Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Scope & Numbers In-Reply-To: <008301c1558a$67a1f680$b4967a3f@wchs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/25 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:01 AM 10/15/01 -0500, Phyllis Rippee wrote: >Proposal: > >Scope: To study the bylaws; leave alone those portions that can stand as >are; delete those which are not needed; revise those portions that need >clarification or strengthening; add what may be determined to be lacking. To review the Bylaws; to suggest specific modifications whether they be deletions, revisions or additions. >Procedure: To take suggestions from the general membership. To post work >in progress, so that the general membership is kept informed. To present >both majority and minority opinions where there is lack of compromised >agreement. To post "final copy" for review of general membership and to >have the complete set of bylaws in time to go through the process of being >placed on the ballot in July 2002. Once the 'work' is finished seek 5 states to co-sponsor the revisions. >Committee: X-AB members; X-SP; X-SCs, ASCs and CCs. 5 AB; 0 SP; 4 - SC/ASC; 12 - CCs; NC - ex-officio. Hopefully the SC and CC positions would be spread from around the country so as no one state has over representation. Tim From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Oct 23 11:14:21 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA09806 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:14:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA10997 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:14:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9NFDxV04743; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 09:13:59 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 09:13:59 -0600 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Tue Oct 23 09:13:59 2001 Message-ID: <009d01c15bd5$6dab7780$ca967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:06:51 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] More Numbers Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/26 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: There is at least one other member not heard from: Do we want to go ahead and "crunch" these to make a final decision?...Phyllis Tim: 21 members 5 AB; 0 SP; 4 - SC/ASC; 12 - CCs; NC - ex-officio Ron: 20 members 4 AB, 4SC or ASC, 12CC or Co-CC Diane: 20 members 4 AB, 3 SP, 5 SC or ASC, 8 CC Teresa: 17 voting members 3 AB, 2 SP, 2 SC, 10 CCs plus 2 "ex officio" AB (non-voting) Phyllis: 19 members 4 AB, 2 SP, 4 SC or ASC, 9 CCs and of course Holly will be "ex officio" in compliance with the current bylaws. Nate & Vicki: 18 members 2 AB, 2 SC or ASC, 2 SP, 12 CC plus the NC as ex-officio From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Oct 23 13:47:20 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA26695 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:47:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA07581 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:47:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9NHkaq23593; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:46:36 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:46:36 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@mccallie.org Tue Oct 23 11:46:36 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011023134451.007e5100@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:44:51 -0400 Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] More Numbers In-Reply-To: <009d01c15bd5$6dab7780$ca967a3f@wchs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <3ysYBC.A.gwF.8za17@lists5.rootsweb.com> To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/27 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:06 AM 10/23/01 -0500, you wrote: >There is at least one other member not heard from: Do we want to go ahead >and "crunch" these to make a final decision?...Phyllis > >Tim: 21 members 5 AB; 0 SP; 4 - SC/ASC; 12 - CCs; NC - ex-officio > >Ron: 20 members 4 AB, 4SC or ASC, 12CC or Co-CC > >Diane: 20 members 4 AB, 3 SP, 5 SC or ASC, 8 CC > >Teresa: 17 voting members 3 AB, 2 SP, 2 SC, 10 CCs > plus 2 "ex officio" AB (non-voting) > >Phyllis: 19 members 4 AB, 2 SP, 4 SC or ASC, 9 CCs and of > course Holly will be "ex officio" in compliance with the > current bylaws. > >Nate & Vicki: 18 members 2 AB, 2 SC or ASC, 2 SP, 12 CC plus > the NC as ex-officio The common numbers (average) appear to be as rounded upwards: AB - (5-4-4-3-4-2-2)[24/7] - 4 SP - (0-0-3-2-2-2-2)[11/7] - 2 SC - (4-4-5-2-4-2-2)[23/7] - 4 CC - (12-12-8-10-9-12-12) - [75/7] - 11 Since the majority of 4 in all cases except the CC slot voted for the average or above perhaps the CC part could be rounded upwards to 12. Since most Board members have interests in one or more of the SPs and since more than likely they would still be represented by one or more of the CCs that volunteer would the members who requested SP representation reconsider SP representation on the committee? Please note that Ron and I have dropped the SPs from our recommendations. Tim From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Oct 23 13:51:11 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA27113 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:51:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA08071 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:51:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9NHnGv27527; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:49:16 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:49:16 -0600 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Tue Oct 23 11:49:16 2001 Message-ID: <001501c15beb$28139a20$5028c141@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:50:08 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Number Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/28 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Thanks Tim for doing the figuring. No, I will not drop the SP reps. Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Oct 23 14:17:33 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA00380 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 14:17:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA12787 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 14:17:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9NIHEB01436; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:17:14 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:17:14 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@mccallie.org Tue Oct 23 12:17:13 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011023141534.0088d760@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 14:15:34 -0400 Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Number In-Reply-To: <001501c15beb$28139a20$5028c141@wchs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/29 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:50 PM 10/23/01 -0500, you wrote: >Thanks Tim for doing the figuring. > >No, I will not drop the SP reps. > >Phyllis Then if not, which SPs will be represented? Will you further explain why they should be doubly represented? Tim From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Oct 23 15:41:08 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA10231 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 15:41:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA28541 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 15:41:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9NJdEl11788; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:39:14 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:39:14 -0600 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Tue Oct 23 13:39:13 2001 Message-ID: <000901c15bfa$82e9da40$c3967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 14:40:02 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Committee Numbers Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/30 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Tim....These numbers are guideline numbers to be presented to the AB. Since the possibility exists that members could be selected who have nothing to do with SPs, a suggested number of reps. from the SPs should be included in our numbers. Should the AB decide that some "double" up, they can put in more "plain ol' CCs." Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Oct 23 17:10:28 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA20915 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 17:10:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA13952 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 17:10:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9NL9JD20052; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 15:09:19 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 15:09:19 -0600 X-Original-Sender: rkeason@tir.com Tue Oct 23 15:09:18 2001 Message-ID: <00ff01c15c06$cdf48d80$8aa028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: <3.0.5.32.20011023134451.007e5100@mail.mccallie.org> Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] More Numbers Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 17:08:01 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/31 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: > > Please note that Ron and I have dropped the SPs from our recommendations. > Wow, we agreed on something.. Pun intended. The reason I dropped the SP, is that, 1. there is no way to concede one Census Project over the other. That leaves just the Archives and the Tombstone Projects. The Tombstone, though separate, does most everything through the Archives. In a basic sense. By removing the SP, you are not removing the SP except from naming a specific person from a specific project. But just like in the EC, there are far more Archives, related members than any other affiliation. No matter how you shake the dice, you will always have those that will favor one over another. By creating a position specific for SP, you will force the AB to choose from that pool. More than likely they will go with what is submitted without change. By not including SP, we will still get SP representation via CC's who are also related in one form or fashion to SP's That's sort of a wild explanation, but I think it is far more likely to happen as I have stated. Ron From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Oct 24 00:04:13 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA01996 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 00:04:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA15647 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 00:04:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9O43VJ14508; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 22:03:31 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 22:03:31 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Tue Oct 23 22:03:31 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011023184537.009d48b0@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 18:45:37 -0400 Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] More Numbers In-Reply-To: <00ff01c15c06$cdf48d80$8aa028d8@hppav> References: <3.0.5.32.20011023134451.007e5100@mail.mccallie.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <4Pqh5B.A.jiD.T2j17@lists5.rootsweb.com> To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/32 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 05:08 PM 10/23/01 -0400, you wrote: >> >> Please note that Ron and I have dropped the SPs from our recommendations. >> > >Wow, we agreed on something.. Pun intended. >The reason I dropped the SP, is that, 1. there is no way to concede >one Census Project over the other. That leaves just the Archives and >the Tombstone Projects. The Tombstone, though separate, does >most everything through the Archives. In a basic sense. By removing >the SP, you are not removing the SP except from naming a specific >person from a specific project. But just like in the EC, there are >far more Archives, related members than any other affiliation. No >matter how you shake the dice, you will always have those that will >favor one over another. >By creating a position specific for SP, you will force the AB to choose >from that pool. More than likely they will go with what is submitted >without change. By not including SP, we will still get SP representation >via CC's who are also related in one form or fashion to SP's >That's sort of a wild explanation, but I think it is far more likely to >happen as I have stated. >Ron Egads! I agree with Ron on this as well! Tim From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Oct 24 11:39:21 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA28228 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 11:39:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA15718 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 11:39:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9OFbT227203; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 09:37:29 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 09:37:29 -0600 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Wed Oct 24 09:37:28 2001 Message-ID: <00d901c15ca1$e5e71020$d4967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:37:43 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Strange Bedfellows Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/33 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I will not withdraw my statement that I want two reps. from SPs on the bylaws committee, but I will try to explain myself further. My opinion is that an AB member cannot qualify in any other of the "slots." For example: If I am not selected as an AB member of the committee, I cannot qualify to serve in one of the CC slots. But, suppose that Pam Reid is willing to serve on the bylaws committee. She would be an AB member....that is a definite category. But, she is also with the Tombstone Project....so one SP category slot would be filled and an additional CC slot scould be added. Just like: If we don't get the number of SCs or ASCs that we have suggested in these guidelines....additional CCs would be needed. If somewhere in these categories there are two people who are closely involved with SPs, then the SPs will be represented. I just do not want to set up a committee that writes something in the bylaws in regard to SPs, and have a big outrage develop because they had no representation. With so many connected to the recognized SPs, it's possible that we'll have more than 2 associated with them. But, it's also possible to form a committee without having any. I simply do not consider that fair. Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Oct 24 20:05:19 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA24929 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 20:05:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA13233 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 20:05:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9P04q813740; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:04:52 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:04:52 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Wed Oct 24 18:04:52 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011024200405.01574100@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 20:04:05 -0400 Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Strange Bedfellows In-Reply-To: <00d901c15ca1$e5e71020$d4967a3f@wchs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/34 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A At 10:37 AM 10/24/01 -0500, you wrote: >I just do not want to set up a committee that writes something in the bylaws >in regard to SPs, and have a big outrage develop because they had no >representation. Fair enough. Then looking again at the numbers from yesterday: AB - (5-4-4-3-4-2-2)[24/7] - 4 SP - (0-0-3-2-2-2-2)[11/7] - 2 SC - (4-4-5-2-4-2-2)[23/7] - 4 CC - (12-12-8-10-9-12-12) - [75/7] - 11 Would composition of AB - 4; SP - 2; SC - 4; CC - 12 members be acceptable, with of course the NC ex-officio? Tim From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Oct 25 10:22:42 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA05566 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:22:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA29113 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:22:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9PEM8u26059; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 08:22:08 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 08:22:08 -0600 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Thu Oct 25 08:22:08 2001 Message-ID: <003601c15d60$840a5dc0$9b967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: References: <3.0.5.32.20011024200405.01574100@mail.chattanooga.net> Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Strange Bedfellows Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 09:22:44 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Okay with me.....Phyllis ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Stowell To: Sent: 24 October, 2001 7:04 PM Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Strange Bedfellows > At 10:37 AM 10/24/01 -0500, you wrote: > >I just do not want to set up a committee that writes something in the bylaws > >in regard to SPs, and have a big outrage develop because they had no > >representation. > > Fair enough. > > Then looking again at the numbers from yesterday: > > AB - (5-4-4-3-4-2-2)[24/7] - 4 > SP - (0-0-3-2-2-2-2)[11/7] - 2 > SC - (4-4-5-2-4-2-2)[23/7] - 4 > CC - (12-12-8-10-9-12-12) - [75/7] - 11 > > > Would composition of > > AB - 4; SP - 2; SC - 4; CC - 12 members > > be acceptable, with of course the NC ex-officio? > > Tim > > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Oct 26 09:11:12 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA21136 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:11:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA05298 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:11:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9QDB1V19680; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 07:11:01 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 07:11:01 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@mccallie.org Fri Oct 26 07:11:01 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011026090508.008c18d0@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:05:08 -0400 Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Strange Bedfellows In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.20011024200405.01574100@mail.chattanooga.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <8RToWD.A.WzE.lDW27@lists5.rootsweb.com> To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/37 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A Why did you not respond when Phyllis was asking for numbers? Anyway what would your suggested size be? Tim At 08:33 AM 10/26/01 -0400, you wrote: > >On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Tim Stowell wrote: > >> >> Would composition of >> >> AB - 4; SP - 2; SC - 4; CC - 12 members >> >> be acceptable, with of course the NC ex-officio? > >This seems like an awfull small committee for such a big and far-reaching >job. > >-Teresa > >> >> Tim >> > > > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Oct 26 10:13:29 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA27972 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 10:13:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA15035 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 10:13:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9QEBiH29555; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 08:11:44 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 08:11:44 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@mccallie.org Fri Oct 26 08:11:44 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011026100440.008c47a0@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 10:04:40 -0400 Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Strange Bedfellows In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.20011026090508.008c18d0@mail.mccallie.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/39 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A Then I don't understand why a committee that is bigger than 17; now at 23 you now say seems to be too small. Will you please explain? Tim At 09:19 AM 10/26/01 -0400, you wrote: > >I did respond. My total committee came to 17, with two ex-officio Board >members. > >-Teresa > >On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Tim Stowell wrote: > >> Why did you not respond when Phyllis was asking for numbers? >> >> Anyway what would your suggested size be? >> >> Tim >> >> At 08:33 AM 10/26/01 -0400, you wrote: >> > >> >On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Tim Stowell wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> Would composition of >> >> >> >> AB - 4; SP - 2; SC - 4; CC - 12 members >> >> >> >> be acceptable, with of course the NC ex-officio? >> > >> >This seems like an awfull small committee for such a big and far-reaching >> >job. >> > >> >-Teresa >> > >> >> >> >> Tim >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > > > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Oct 26 10:23:52 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA29181 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 10:23:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA16812 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 10:23:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9QENHn08072; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 08:23:17 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 08:23:17 -0600 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Fri Oct 26 08:23:17 2001 Message-ID: <006401c15e29$d5833360$4b28c141@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:23:50 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Numbers Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/40 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Teresa....if Tim's number of 22 is too small to suit you.....why do you think that your number of 17 is any greater? When I went to school, admittedly I was taught "old math", but 17 was fewer than 22. NO! To two ex-officio members. As a matter of fact, if the bylaws didn't require it, I would be opposed to the NC "observing." Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Oct 26 15:30:41 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA03523 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 15:30:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA09136 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 15:30:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9QJTch03075; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 13:29:38 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 13:29:38 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@mccallie.org Fri Oct 26 13:29:38 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011026152305.007b6a30@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 15:23:05 -0400 Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Strange Bedfellows In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.20011026100440.008c47a0@mail.mccallie.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/42 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 03:08 PM 10/26/01 -0400, Teresa wrote: > >On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Tim Stowell wrote: > >> Then I don't understand why a committee that is bigger than 17; now at 23 >> you now say seems to be too small. >> >> Will you please explain? > >Bleh, old eyes. I saw the 12 at the end and read that as the number for >the total committee. Ah ha! Old eyes but a young heart? So the size of the committe is ok then as proposed? Tim From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Sat Oct 27 10:42:27 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA25970 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 10:42:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA23194 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 10:42:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9REeak09837; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 08:40:36 -0600 Resent-Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 08:40:36 -0600 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Sat Oct 27 08:40:36 2001 Message-ID: <005a01c15ef5$6ad61ce0$9b967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 09:41:08 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Numbers Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/44 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I am opposed to trying to get representatives from "potential" SPs. That makes us make a judgement call that we are not entitled to make. Besides which, there could be any number of "potentials". Ideas that are currently in the minds of CCs who want to specialize on a particular "category" of records. Having said that.....on the main page, there are something like 9 SPs listed. While in reality most of them may actually be subdivisions of the Archives, if we go with one each from EXISTING SPs....the numbers have to change to 9(?) SPs and adjustments made accordingly. I'm in favor of leaving them the way Tim crunched them.....with an explanation attached that the 2 SP slots can be met by anyone from the other slots being closely connected to/(participant in) a recognized SP. And, it can even be added that they cannot come from the same recognized SP. Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Sat Oct 27 10:55:26 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA26940 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 10:55:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA24572 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 10:55:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9RErbj31581; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 08:53:37 -0600 Resent-Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 08:53:37 -0600 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Sat Oct 27 08:53:37 2001 Message-ID: <007f01c15ef7$3c80eda0$9b967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 09:54:09 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Let's See Resent-Message-ID: <8lWQW.A.RtH.xps27@lists5.rootsweb.com> To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/45 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A Let's see where we stand on this. How many are satisfied with the way these numbers? Please reply "yes" or "no". 4 AB 2 SP...with an explanation that these slots may be filled by qualifying in other slots with resulting increase in number of CCs 4 SC (or ASC) 12 CC Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Sat Oct 27 10:57:16 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA27007 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 10:57:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA24744 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 10:57:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9REuFB06425; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 08:56:15 -0600 Resent-Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 08:56:15 -0600 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Sat Oct 27 08:56:15 2001 Message-ID: <008901c15ef7$9ac1a6c0$9b967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 09:56:47 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Ooops! Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: That first question in the previous message should be Are you satisfied with these numbers? I think I'm sober . Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Sat Oct 27 11:37:55 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA29966 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 11:37:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA28879 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 11:37:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9RFass00813; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 09:36:54 -0600 Resent-Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 09:36:54 -0600 X-Original-Sender: ky.quest@gte.net Sat Oct 27 09:36:54 2001 Message-ID: <001b01c15efd$007e5260$0301a8c0@vz.dsl.genuity.net> From: "Diane Parsons" Old-To: "USGW-BYLAWS" Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 11:35:25 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] RE; Let's See (YES) Resent-Message-ID: <24e8YB.A.kM.WSt27@lists5.rootsweb.com> To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/47 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I am satisfied...I vote YES Diane Montgomery Parsons > Let's see where we stand on this. > > How many are satisfied with the way these numbers? Please reply "yes" or > "no". From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 29 09:58:35 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA17154 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:58:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA16811 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:58:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9TEwJO06089; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 07:58:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 07:58:19 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Mon Oct 29 07:58:18 2001 Message-ID: <004d01c1608a$34c58dc0$4e28c141@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 08:58:43 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Let's See Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Forgot to give my vote.....Yes Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 29 09:56:39 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA16835 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:56:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA16383 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:56:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9TEuMc04603; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 07:56:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 07:56:22 -0700 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@mccallie.org Mon Oct 29 07:56:21 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011029095119.0085a180@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:51:19 -0500 Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Let's See In-Reply-To: <007f01c15ef7$3c80eda0$9b967a3f@wchs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <9_wm1B.A.yHB.W4W37@lists5.rootsweb.com> To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/49 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Yes. Tim At 09:54 AM 10/27/01 -0500, you wrote: >Let's see where we stand on this. > >How many are satisfied with the way these numbers? Please reply "yes" or >"no". > >4 AB > >2 SP...with an explanation that these slots may be filled by qualifying in > other slots with resulting increase in number of CCs > >4 SC (or ASC) > >12 CC > >Phyllis > > > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 29 20:40:28 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA28130 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 20:40:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA06305 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 20:40:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9U1drC02136; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 18:39:53 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 18:39:53 -0700 X-Original-Sender: rkeason@tir.com Mon Oct 29 18:39:52 2001 X-Originating-IP: 209.179.80.205 X-URL: http://www.mail2web.com/ Subject: RE: [USGW-ByLaws] Let's See Sender: "rkeason@tir.com" From: "rkeason@tir.com" Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 20:39:56 -0500 Old-To: "USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com" Reply-To: rkeason@tir.com X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Mailer: JMail 3.7.0 by Dimac (www.dimac.net) Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Oct 2001 01:40:06.0552 (UTC) FILETIME=[CD8D5980:01C160E3] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from Quoted-Printable to 8bit by lists5.rootsweb.com id f9U1dqn02113 Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/51 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: YES.. Ron Original Message: ----------------- From: Phyllis Rippee wchs@getgoin.net Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 08:58:43 -0600 To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Let's See Forgot to give my vote.....Yes Phyllis -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Oct 30 10:13:59 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA03758 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:13:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA17135 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:13:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9UFDdm00782; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:13:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:13:39 -0700 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@mccallie.org Tue Oct 30 08:13:38 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011030101413.008cb280@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:14:13 -0500 Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Let's See In-Reply-To: <007f01c15ef7$3c80eda0$9b967a3f@wchs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:54 AM 10/27/01 -0500, you wrote: >Let's see where we stand on this. > >How many are satisfied with the way these numbers? Please reply "yes" or >"no". > >4 AB > >2 SP...with an explanation that these slots may be filled by qualifying in > other slots with resulting increase in number of CCs > >4 SC (or ASC) > >12 CC > >Phyllis Comment by the NC on our actions here: Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:15:34 -0500 From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ALL-L] Observation on the new AB To: USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com At 08:08 AM 10/29/01 -0600, Kathy Heidel wrote: > Early on it seemed as though a fire had been lit and we would really out >do ourselves. I was really excited about a Newsletter, Silly perhaps but >something I had wanted to do, informative for both members and outsiders. So >I signed up for one of the Study Committees. We do have 3 groups and from >what I hear 2 are extremely active, the Bylaws and the Guidelines. You are misinformed, the ByLaws group is piddling along futzing over numbers ------------------- Phyllis - how many members are on this list? How many have yet to be heard from regarding the numbers? Tim From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Oct 30 13:18:27 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA20237 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 13:18:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA19552 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 13:18:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9UIHL609249; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:17:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:17:21 -0700 X-Original-Sender: ky.quest@gte.net Tue Oct 30 11:17:20 2001 Message-ID: <001c01c1616e$e3dd1be0$0301a8c0@vz.dsl.genuity.net> From: "Diane Parsons" Old-To: "USGW-BYLAWS" Subject: Fw: [USGW-ByLaws] Let's See Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 13:15:40 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I agree with Tom, Phyllis has done a great job here and I believe we are ready to make a motion and move on here as well. The committe outline & size works for me. Diane M. Parsons ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Stowell" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 1:04 PM Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Let's See > Phyllis, > > Since you posted this on the Board list, how about making the part below > the motion to create the Bylaws committee? The details regarding the > selection of the committee would I think not be needed in the wording > of the motion. > > > Scope: To study the bylaws; leave alone those portions that can stand as > are; delete those which are not needed; revise those portions that need > clarification or strengthening; add what may be determined to be lacking. > > Procedure: To take suggestions from the general membership. To post work > in progress, so that the general membership is kept informed. To present > both majority and minority opinions where there is lack of compromised > agreement. To post a "final copy" for review of the general membership and to > have the complete set of bylaws ready in time to go through the process of > being > placed on the ballot in July 2002. > > Committee: 4-AB members; > 2-SP > 4-SC/ ASC > 12-CC > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Oct 30 14:18:09 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA26672 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:18:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA29653 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:18:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9UJHaJ30865; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:17:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:17:36 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Tue Oct 30 12:17:34 2001 Message-ID: <006801c16177$93070d80$4828c141@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 13:17:52 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Okay Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/55 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Tim, Officially.....Go For It! Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Oct 30 14:18:09 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA26672 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:18:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA29653 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:18:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9UJHaJ30865; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:17:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:17:36 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Tue Oct 30 12:17:34 2001 Message-ID: <006801c16177$93070d80$4828c141@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 13:17:52 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Okay Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/55 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Tim, Officially.....Go For It! Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Nov 2 18:39:54 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA14504 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 18:39:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA24005 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 18:39:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fA2NdYG02519; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 16:39:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 16:39:34 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Fri Nov 2 16:39:34 2001 Message-ID: <004801c163f7$a8412c80$ae967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 17:39:45 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Motion Resent-Message-ID: <4votJC.A.On.26y47@lists5.rootsweb.com> To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/56 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A Holly wants to know if the motion is okay with the committee. Please make your opinion known. There are 8 of us. My opinion is: YES Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Nov 2 18:46:51 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA15223 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 18:46:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA24806 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 18:46:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fA2NkKt24197; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 16:46:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 16:46:20 -0700 X-Original-Sender: tngibson@att.net Fri Nov 2 16:46:20 2001 Message-ID: <00bb01c163f8$ac10b5a0$745bfea9@vaio> Reply-To: "Vicki" From: "Vicki" Old-To: References: <004801c163f7$a8412c80$ae967a3f@wchs> Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Motion Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 17:45:33 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/57 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Not my choice, but won't argue. Vic ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phyllis Rippee" To: Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 5:39 PM Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Motion > Holly wants to know if the motion is okay with the committee. > > Please make your opinion known. There are 8 of us. > > My opinion is: YES > > Phyllis > > From maplecreek_99@yahoo.com Fri Nov 2 19:42:18 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA21113 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 19:42:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp013.mail.yahoo.com (smtp013.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.173.57]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA01523 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 19:42:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from port160133.tnt1fnt.tir.com (HELO hppav) (216.40.160.133) by smtp.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Nov 2001 00:42:15 -0000 X-Apparently-From: Message-ID: <06bf01c16400$1b734000$85a028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" To: "Teresa Lindquist - R.A.L." References: Subject: Bylaws Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 19:40:11 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Status: RO X-Status: A Privately Hi Teresa, What are the issues you don't like about their motion? They were a little hasty for some reason. Ron _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Nov 2 19:54:43 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA22272 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 19:54:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA03108 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 19:54:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fA30sM614267; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 17:54:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 17:54:22 -0700 X-Original-Sender: ky.quest@gte.net Fri Nov 2 17:54:21 2001 Message-ID: <006901c16401$db471c20$0301a8c0@vz.dsl.genuity.net> From: "Diane Parsons" Old-To: "USGW-BYLAWS" Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 19:51:20 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] RE: Motion Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/60 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: "merope" To: Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 7:36 PM Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Motion > > Nope. > > -T > > > On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > > > Holly wants to know if the motion is okay with the committee. > > > > Please make your opinion known. There are 8 of us. > > > > My opinion is: YES > > > > Phyllis > > > > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Nov 2 19:54:47 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA22281 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 19:54:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA03116 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 19:54:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fA30sNf14346; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 17:54:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 17:54:23 -0700 X-Original-Sender: ky.quest@gte.net Fri Nov 2 17:54:23 2001 Message-ID: <006a01c16401$dbe5cd20$0301a8c0@vz.dsl.genuity.net> From: "Diane Parsons" Old-To: "USGW-BYLAWS" Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 19:52:43 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] RE: Motion Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/61 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I think I will ABSTAIN on this one. Diane M. Parsons > On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > > > Holly wants to know if the motion is okay with the committee. > > > > Please make your opinion known. There are 8 of us. > > > > My opinion is: YES > > > > Phyllis > > > > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Nov 2 21:16:59 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA28909 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 21:16:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA13382 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 21:16:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fA32GXG01478; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 19:16:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 19:16:33 -0700 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Fri Nov 2 19:16:32 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011102211417.018bca20@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 21:14:17 -0500 Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Motion In-Reply-To: <00bb01c163f8$ac10b5a0$745bfea9@vaio> References: <004801c163f7$a8412c80$ae967a3f@wchs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/62 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 05:45 PM 11/2/01 -0600, Vicki wrote: >Not my choice, but won't argue. > >Vic Would you please elaborate? Tim >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Phyllis Rippee" >To: >Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 5:39 PM >Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Motion > > >> Holly wants to know if the motion is okay with the committee. >> >> Please make your opinion known. There are 8 of us. >> >> My opinion is: YES >> >> Phyllis >> >> > > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Nov 2 21:19:18 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA29051 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 21:19:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA13653 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 21:19:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fA32Irh05234; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 19:18:53 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 19:18:53 -0700 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Fri Nov 2 19:18:53 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011102211739.018a9910@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 21:17:39 -0500 Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Motion In-Reply-To: <06d901c16401$331a6fc0$85a028d8@hppav> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/63 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 07:48 PM 11/2/01 -0500, Ron Eason wrote: >I can work with the concept of the numbers, >by allowing them to be filled by someone >who already has an affiliation, then increasing >the number of CC. But I am a little insecure >about not saying something about it. That is a >sure fire way to loose the whole concept when >it comes to creating the actual committee. >And it feels like there may be something else >missing from the motion. It is my assumption >that the motion itself forms the guidelines of the >actual committee, or am I wrong there? >I don't want to miss something now, then have >to kick myself later because we were in too much >of a hurry to please others. >I agreed previously to the numbers, based on >the idea put form with the implementation, but >there was no consensus for going forward with >a motion. The motion contains the numbers that 1/2 of this group said was ok and briefly explains the purpose/scope of the committee to be formed. It gets the ball rolling. This is not to say the motion can't be amended, since it can when presented to the full Board but it does put something in the hopper for discussion. So if you wish to kick yourself wait and see what the remainder of the Board has to offer. Tim From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Nov 2 19:50:22 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA21932 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 19:50:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA02581 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 19:50:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fA30o1k10710; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 17:50:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 17:50:01 -0700 X-Original-Sender: rkeason@tir.com Fri Nov 2 17:50:00 2001 Message-ID: <06d901c16401$331a6fc0$85a028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Motion Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 19:48:04 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/59 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I can work with the concept of the numbers, by allowing them to be filled by someone who already has an affiliation, then increasing the number of CC. But I am a little insecure about not saying something about it. That is a sure fire way to loose the whole concept when it comes to creating the actual committee. And it feels like there may be something else missing from the motion. It is my assumption that the motion itself forms the guidelines of the actual committee, or am I wrong there? I don't want to miss something now, then have to kick myself later because we were in too much of a hurry to please others. I agreed previously to the numbers, based on the idea put form with the implementation, but there was no consensus for going forward with a motion. Ron From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Sat Nov 3 16:17:50 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA28483 for ; Sat, 3 Nov 2001 16:17:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA04779 for ; Sat, 3 Nov 2001 16:17:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fA3LHV104341; Sat, 3 Nov 2001 14:17:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 14:17:31 -0700 X-Original-Sender: nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com Sat Nov 3 14:17:30 2001 X-Originating-IP: [205.188.192.47] From: "Mary Ann Hetrick" Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Motion Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 16:17:28 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Nov 2001 21:17:28.0486 (UTC) FILETIME=[F1140C60:01C164AC] Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/64 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I will have to say No. >Procedure: To take suggestions from the general membership. To post work >in progress, so that the general membership is kept informed. To present >both majority and minority opinions < >where there is lack of compromised agreement.< I don't see why there can't be minority opinions without a compromised agreement. I think all opinions need to be posted. the members deserve to see what all points of view were. Can we reword this part? Without that one sort line? We had many members of the ESC that appreciated having their minority opinions added. My little 2 cents worth. Mary Ann Hetrick SC for COGenWeb Project NW/Plains SC Rep. >From: "Phyllis Rippee" >Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com >To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Motion >Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 17:39:45 -0600 > >Holly wants to know if the motion is okay with the committee. > >Please make your opinion known. There are 8 of us. > >My opinion is: YES > >Phyllis > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Nov 8 11:02:20 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA09719 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:02:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA19757 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:02:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fA8G1wQ09310; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 09:01:58 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 09:01:58 -0700 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@mccallie.org Thu Nov 8 09:01:58 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011108105200.007e8390@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 10:52:00 -0500 Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] motion revisited Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/65 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Then I stand corrected. Here is the motion I made revised: Scope: To study the bylaws; leave alone those portions that can stand as are; delete those which are not needed; revise those portions that need clarification or strengthening; add what may be determined to be lacking. Procedure: To take suggestions from the general membership. To post work in progress, so that the general membership is kept informed. To post a "final copy" for review of the general membership and to have the complete set of bylaws ready in time to go through the process of being placed on the ballot in July 2002. Committee: 4-AB members 2-SP 4-SC/ ASC 12-CC Removed at Mary Ann's request: To present both majority and minority opinions where there is lack of compromised agreement. I would ask that Phyllis please explain in further detail her thoughts on the SP member, AB member - CC substitution scenario you posted earlier. Tim From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Nov 8 12:01:42 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA16433 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 12:01:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA00460 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 12:01:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fA8H1KE16711; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:01:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:01:20 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Thu Nov 8 10:01:19 2001 Message-ID: <006a01c16876$f6e02980$a6967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:01:08 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Comments Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/66 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A Some of the general membership are under the impression that the purpose of the bylaws rewrite committee is to do away with the CP seat on the AB. Some of the general membership are under the impression that the purpose of the bylaws rewrite committee is to do away with the Special Projects. The following are hypothetical scenarios and not to be interpreted as what I would like to see done: Suppose that the rewrite committee proposes to eliminate AB representatives from specified (as is currently done) SPs and have one representative selected by members of all officially recognized SPs. Or Suppose that the rewrite committee proposes to eliminate recognizing any Project as Special; have only States and Counties as the core USGW P; have AB representation from the core group only; establish links (on USGW P main page) to what were formerly SPs as being "other groups that might be of interest to the researcher." Or Suppose that the bylaws rewrite committee proposes any changes in regard to SPs...whatsoever. AND, Suppose that the starter committee has not made provisions for any SP representation on the rewrite committee and no one on the rewrite committee is connected in any way with any SP......... I do not think this would be considered "fair" by anyone and doubt that the SPs would "go quietly into the good night." Now, Tim and Ron did not include an SP category in their suggested numbers. Tim explained that there were so many CCs (which I use because we all are...regardless of whatever else we might be) connected with the SPs, that if we specify representation from them, we could very well be doubling up their representation. Therefore: Since it would be unfair to the SPs to suggest a rewrite committee where it is possible there would be no representatives connected to any SP, we should insure that there will be. Without getting into numbers, it could work this way: An AB member would qualify to serve only as an AB member. However, an AB member might be a member of an SP. If that were the case, then one (or the) SP category could be considered as filled and one could be added to the CC category. It could also be that an AB member might be an SC or ASC, in which case one SC/ASC category could be considered as filled and one could be added to the CC category. An AB member who was not chosen as such, could not be chosen to fill any of the other categories. Example: If I weren't chosen to be one of the AB members of the rewrite committee, I could not be chosen to serve as one of the CCs. If Ron is selected to serve as one of the AB members, he would not be considered to also be filling an SP category......because his CP is not officially recognized. If Maggie were chosen to fill one of the categories where she might qualify, it wouldn't count as an SP for the same reason. If an SC, ASC or CC is associated with an SP.....then the SP category loses one and CC gains one. And, there is always the possibility that everyone selected could be associated with an SP.......it depends on the volunteer pool. And, I have no idea as to what to do if this scenario develops....unless there is a limit placed on the number of SP "associates" that can be on it. _______ I know this is lengthy and I apologize for it. However, there is another point that I would like for you to consider. I believe that the whole AB should at least select the AB members who will serve on the rewrite committee. If it is decided that those members will be the ones who select the rest of the committee, that is fine with me. IMHO we should not report out who the AB members will be. Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Nov 8 12:55:52 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA22603 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 12:55:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA09411 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 12:55:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fA8HtV421413; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:55:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:55:31 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Thu Nov 8 10:55:31 2001 Message-ID: <007c01c1687e$88e8a300$a6967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:54:32 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Question Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/67 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A Am I getting all the mail that comes to this list? I did not see anything from Mary Ann in regard to majority and minority opinions. Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Nov 8 13:06:41 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA23703 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 13:06:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA11164 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 13:06:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fA8I6NF20735; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:06:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:06:23 -0700 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@mccallie.org Thu Nov 8 11:06:22 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011108130903.008c6300@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 13:09:03 -0500 Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Comments In-Reply-To: <006a01c16876$f6e02980$a6967a3f@wchs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/68 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:01 AM 11/8/01 -0600, you wrote: >I do not think this would be considered "fair" by anyone and doubt that the >SPs would "go quietly into the good night." I'm not arguing now that some sort of SP representation be withheld. I conceded that point earlier. >Now, Tim and Ron did not include an SP category in their suggested numbers. >Tim explained that there were so many CCs (which I use because we all >are...regardless of whatever else we might be) connected with the SPs, that >if we specify representation from them, we could very well be doubling up >their representation. > >Therefore: Since it would be unfair to the SPs to suggest a rewrite >committee where it is possible there would be no representatives connected >to any SP, we should insure that there will be. > >Without getting into numbers, it could work this way: > >An AB member would qualify to serve only as an AB member. However, an AB >member might be a member of an SP. If that were the case, then one (or the) >SP category could be considered as filled and one could be added to the CC >category. It could also be that an AB member might be an SC or ASC, in >which case one SC/ASC category could be considered as filled and one could >be added to the CC category. I'm sorry but I don't understand your math here. If we say that there will be x SP members (and by that I mean a File manager or administrator, not just someone who contributes material) then there should be x SP members. I don't understand the logic of taking one slot from one catergory and adding it to another. >An AB member who was not chosen as such, could not be chosen to fill any of >the other categories. Example: If I weren't chosen to be one of the AB >members of the rewrite committee, I could not be chosen to serve as one of >the CCs. Unless I misread it, you said earlier if you don't get on the committee as an AB rep, then you don't get on. But it sounds like you were saying above that an AB member not chosen as an AB member could be a SC/ASC or SP member. >If Ron is selected to serve as one of the AB members, he would not be >considered to also be filling an SP category......because his CP is not >officially recognized. If Maggie were chosen to fill one of the categories >where she might qualify, it wouldn't count as an SP for the same reason. > >If an SC, ASC or CC is associated with an SP.....then the SP category loses >one and CC gains one. Again, I don't 'see' the math here. >And, there is always the possibility that everyone selected could be >associated with an SP.......it depends on the volunteer pool. And, I have >no idea as to what to do if this scenario develops....unless there is a >limit placed on the number of SP "associates" that can be on it. >_______ >I know this is lengthy and I apologize for it. However, there is another >point that I would like for you to consider. > >I believe that the whole AB should at least select the AB members who will >serve on the rewrite committee. If it is decided that those members will be >the ones who select the rest of the committee, that is fine with me. IMHO >we should not report out who the AB members will be. I imagine this would work much the same way the Mediation choices worked - first find out which AB members are even willing to serve, then have the whole AB decide who of the AB will be on the Bylaws revision committee. Tim From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Nov 8 13:21:41 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA25209 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 13:21:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA13641 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 13:21:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fA8ILM909973; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:21:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:21:22 -0700 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@mccallie.org Thu Nov 8 11:21:22 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011108131759.007efb00@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 13:17:59 -0500 Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Question In-Reply-To: <007c01c1687e$88e8a300$a6967a3f@wchs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/69 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A At 11:54 AM 11/8/01 -0600, you wrote: >Am I getting all the mail that comes to this list? I did not see anything >from Mary Ann in regard to majority and minority opinions. > >Phyllis I've sent you a copy of the note dated 11/3 under seperate cover. Regarding Teresa's question about this list being archived - that same message had this in the headers: >X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/64 which certainly looks like it is being archived. Tim From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Nov 8 14:12:37 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA01058 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 14:12:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA23362 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 14:12:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fA8JCHD00845; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 12:12:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 12:12:17 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Thu Nov 8 12:12:16 2001 Message-ID: <009201c16889$423bad20$a6967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 13:12:05 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Elaborate Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/70 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A Tim, You asked for me to elaborate. I did. I also used the word "could". There COULD be switching of numbers if this committee wants to stipulate that. If this committee wants to settle on numbers that stay firm, that is fine. I was just trying to think of a way to meet your comment about doubling up representation. If Pam Reid wanted to serve on the rewrite committee, she would have to serve as an AB rep. If the number "firmed" for SP reps was 2. Then, there would be a minimum of 3 closely associated with SPs. That seems to me would amount to the doubling up you mentioned before. And, IF an AB member were also an SC or ASC, that number could be adjusted accordingly. And, since this could get to be rather confusing, I don't really care how it is figured, just as long as the current officially recognized SPs are represented. And, unless we want to wait about getting the rewrite committee started working until such a time as the AB can be called upon to make a decision about the two CPs....we either establish that a representative from each will be on the committee, or we don't take a representative from either......unless they qualify in one of the other categories. However, IMHO an AB member should only be allowed to qualify as an AB member. Otherwise, we're going to hear how the AB has "loaded" the committee because we all would quality to serve due to our fitting into more than just the AB category. I might also point out that some of my constituents are opposed to the committee being larger than 7 people. Stating that any number above 7 makes the committee unwieldy and no agreement as to wording can ever be reached without a very small group doing the actual writing. So, would you want to stipulate that the committee be composed of the 19-23 members suggested, but that once they are named, they will divide into smaller composing groups to work on different subjects, OR is this something that is best left to the final chosen committee to decide? Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Nov 8 15:01:08 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA06532 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 15:01:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA01934 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 15:01:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fA8K0jv02614; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 13:00:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 13:00:45 -0700 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@mccallie.org Thu Nov 8 13:00:45 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011108150322.008c8100@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 15:03:22 -0500 Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Elaborate In-Reply-To: <009201c16889$423bad20$a6967a3f@wchs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/71 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A At 01:12 PM 11/8/01 -0600, you wrote: >I might also point out that some of my constituents are opposed to the >committee being larger than 7 people. Stating that any number above 7 makes >the committee unwieldy and no agreement as to wording can ever be reached >without a very small group doing the actual writing. > >So, would you want to stipulate that the committee be composed of the 19-23 >members suggested, but that once they are named, they will divide into >smaller composing groups to work on different subjects, OR is this something >that is best left to the final chosen committee to decide? I agree that a large number of folks on one committee trying to agree on much of anything is a longshot. It would seem that once a committee is setup that they would under the direction of the committee chair break into smaller groups. I believe the EC has done just that. In other words while they are all the members of the same committee they each have specific tasks that they do to provide for the work of the whole. I don't think the motion should stipulate how the committee decides to break into smaller groups or just what those groups should do. I believe the motion should set the goals / reasons the committee exists, charge them with that responsibility, give them whatever tools they need to accomplish it, provide any information requested by the committee and let them go and do their work. We should encourage them to provide a forum where members of the Project can comment as to changes they envision and for the committee to keep that path open between them and the membership at large. On the other side, the membership of the Project, should be made aware that changes suggested will be considered but not necessarily implemented. Also that once a change is suggested that the committee have time to consider it before posting a proposed change. In other words they should request a change and then complain an hour later that a change hadn't been made - for as we are not all in the same time zone, the committee most likely won't be either and will have to have time to review and consider. I strongly suggest that whatever comes out of that committee be voted on as individual sections to be approved by the members as individual sections rather than the all or nothing approach we had when the Bylaws were adopted. Tim From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Nov 8 15:47:13 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA12020 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 15:47:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA10995 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 15:47:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fA8KkpJ24500; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 13:46:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 13:46:51 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Thu Nov 8 13:46:51 2001 Message-ID: <002101c16896$797cf520$a6967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 14:46:42 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Agree Resent-Message-ID: <1Ap0Z.A.r-F.78u67@lists5.rootsweb.com> To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/72 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Tim...I agree with what you said. I just wanted to share the suggestion that had been made to me by some constituents. Can we hear from some of the other members of this committee? Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Nov 8 21:32:47 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA18942 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 21:32:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA08938 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 21:32:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fA92WIX19349; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 19:32:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 19:32:18 -0700 X-Original-Sender: nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com Thu Nov 8 19:32:18 2001 X-Originating-IP: [205.188.198.32] From: "Mary Ann Hetrick" Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] motion revisited Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 21:32:18 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Nov 2001 02:32:18.0752 (UTC) FILETIME=[C09EA400:01C168C6] Resent-Message-ID: <2tAUK.A.MuE.yA067@lists5.rootsweb.com> To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/73 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A >From: Tim Stowell >Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com >To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] motion revisited >Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 10:52:00 -0500 > >Then I stand corrected. > >Here is the motion I made revised: > >Scope: To study the bylaws; leave alone those portions that can stand as >are; delete those which are not needed; revise those portions that need >clarification or strengthening; add what may be determined to be lacking. > >Procedure: To take suggestions from the general membership. To post work >in progress, so that the general membership is kept informed. To post a >"final >copy" for review of the general membership and to have the complete set of >bylaws >ready in time to go through the process of being placed on the ballot in >July 2002. > >Committee: 4-AB members > 2-SP > 4-SC/ ASC > 12-CC > >Removed at Mary Ann's request: To present both majority and minority >opinions where >there is lack of compromised agreement. > *** Tim Can this be restated to say... "To Present all opninons wether majority or minoraty." I actualy stoped and thought over the wording. What I was trying to convay was, I would like to see all sides represented. I know I didn't do that good of a job. Sorry. >I would ask that Phyllis please explain in further detail her thoughts on >the SP >member, AB member - CC substitution scenario you posted earlier. > >Tim > Thank you for your patience. Mary Ann _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Nov 8 22:00:05 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA21251 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 22:00:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA13022 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 22:00:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fA92xdQ01173; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 19:59:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 19:59:39 -0700 X-Original-Sender: nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com Thu Nov 8 19:59:39 2001 X-Originating-IP: [205.188.198.32] From: "Mary Ann Hetrick" Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Comments Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 21:59:39 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Nov 2001 02:59:39.0866 (UTC) FILETIME=[92CCC3A0:01C168CA] Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/74 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: >From: "Phyllis Rippee" >Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com >To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Comments >Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:01:08 -0600 > >Now, Tim and Ron did not include an SP category in their suggested numbers. >Tim explained that there were so many CCs (which I use because we all >are...regardless of whatever else we might be) connected with the SPs, that >if we specify representation from them, we could very well be doubling up >their representation. > >Therefore: Since it would be unfair to the SPs to suggest a rewrite >committee where it is possible there would be no representatives connected >to any SP, we should insure that there will be. **** I think it is important to provide them with some representation on the committee. It will be hard to balance this, but I think it is necessary. > >Without getting into numbers, it could work this way: > >An AB member would qualify to serve only as an AB member. However, an AB >member might be a member of an SP. If that were the case, then one (or >the) >SP category could be considered as filled and one could be added to the CC >category. It could also be that an AB member might be an SC or ASC, in >which case one SC/ASC category could be considered as filled and one could >be added to the CC category. > >An AB member who was not chosen as such, could not be chosen to fill any of >the other categories. Example: If I weren't chosen to be one of the AB >members of the rewrite committee, I could not be chosen to serve as one of >the CCs. > >If Ron is selected to serve as one of the AB members, he would not be >considered to also be filling an SP category......because his CP is not >officially recognized. If Maggie were chosen to fill one of the categories >where she might qualify, it wouldn't count as an SP for the same reason. > >If an SC, ASC or CC is associated with an SP.....then the SP category loses >one and CC gains one. > >And, there is always the possibility that everyone selected could be >associated with an SP.......it depends on the volunteer pool. And, I have >no idea as to what to do if this scenario develops....unless there is a >limit placed on the number of SP "associates" that can be on it. I don't think we should limit anyone from being a member of the Committee (except for the AB Members). I think we may have a time finding members to fill the SC/ASC slots. I could be wrong however. >_______ >I know this is lengthy and I apologize for it. However, there is another >point that I would like for you to consider. > >I believe that the whole AB should at least select the AB members who will >serve on the rewrite committee. If it is decided that those members will >be >the ones who select the rest of the committee, that is fine with me. IMHO >we should not report out who the AB members will be. > >Phyllis > No, I think we should allow the CC's to present interested members, and SC/ASC's to do the same. The Board as a whole could then vote on them as we did for the mediation panel, picking the ones with the highest vote. Mary Ann _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Nov 9 06:47:30 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA00403 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 06:47:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA14386 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 06:47:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fA9Bl9709454; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 04:47:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 04:47:09 -0700 X-Original-Sender: merope@Radix.Net Fri Nov 9 04:47:08 2001 Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 06:47:07 -0500 (EST) From: merope Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Comments In-Reply-To: <006a01c16876$f6e02980$a6967a3f@wchs> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/75 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Phyllis Rippee wrote: [complicated discussion of committee membership snipped] Eek! I read this several times and I'm still not sure I understand it. We need to keep it simple.... Four and _only_ four Board members may serve on the committee. The Board should select those four, IMO, perhaps using the same system of public voting that is used for the mediation panel. Holly is of course ex-officio (and that should be specifically stated in the motion). Once those four Board members are chosen, they and Holly should choose a chair and then solicit calls for volunteers, specifying that volunteers should list all their various affiliations and positions, and it will then be the duty of these four members and Holly to fill out the remaining committee slots appropriately. It might also be appropriate to ask volunteers who the _want_ to represent in the call for volunteers and for the committee to then make an effort to assign them accordingly if it is possible to do so. Again, I will state that I think the SPs are grossly underrepresented on the proposed committee. Even without the two census projects considered, there are more of them than there are SCs, yet they have half as many proposed representatives on the committee. Their representation should be -at least- that of the SCs. Can we perhaps split the difference and have 3 SP reps and 3 SC reps? -Teresa I would have responded last night, but I had ISP trouble... From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Nov 9 06:50:18 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA00492 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 06:50:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA14616 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 06:50:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fA9Bo1n11444; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 04:50:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 04:50:01 -0700 X-Original-Sender: merope@Radix.Net Fri Nov 9 04:49:57 2001 Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 06:49:55 -0500 (EST) From: merope Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Question In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20011108131759.007efb00@mail.mccallie.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/76 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Tim Stowell wrote: > Regarding Teresa's question about this list being archived - that same message > had this in the headers: > > >X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/64 > > which certainly looks like it is being archived. No archives are available for this list. -Teresa > > Tim > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Nov 9 06:58:25 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA01092 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 06:58:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA15615 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 06:58:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fA9Bw1f28416; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 04:58:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 04:58:01 -0700 X-Original-Sender: merope@Radix.Net Fri Nov 9 04:58:00 2001 Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 06:57:59 -0500 (EST) From: merope Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Elaborate In-Reply-To: <009201c16889$423bad20$a6967a3f@wchs> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/77 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > I might also point out that some of my constituents are opposed to the > committee being larger than 7 people. Stating that any number above 7 makes > the committee unwieldy and no agreement as to wording can ever be reached > without a very small group doing the actual writing. My experience with the ESC, which was 21 members, was that there was very little problem with unwieldiness or with basic agreement on wording on the draft document. After we discussed stuff for a several weeks and voted on areas where there were different options, I wrote a draft and submitted it to the group. We then voted again where needed and redid some wording and added minority opinions where the vote was close enough to warrant it. It worked pretty well and the size of the committee did not hinder our work. > > So, would you want to stipulate that the committee be composed of the 19-23 > members suggested, but that once they are named, they will divide into > smaller composing groups to work on different subjects, OR is this something > that is best left to the final chosen committee to decide? I think the committee should perhaps spend its first month examining the bylaws and the history of controversy around them [in terms of disputed interpretations], and soliciting comment from the membership and determine what should be amended and can remain as is. A report should be submitted to the Board and the membership at that point, and from then on however the committee wants to handle things should be left to it to decide. Some parts of the bylaws may require far more work than others and the committee may want to split off working groups to handle those, while dealing with more trivial amendments as a whole. Or they may wish to handle things as a whole sequentially. But that should be up to it to decide, once the scope of the job is determined. -Teresa > Phyllis > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Nov 9 07:01:48 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA01328 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 07:01:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA15930 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 07:01:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fA9C1WO08619; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 05:01:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 05:01:32 -0700 X-Original-Sender: merope@Radix.Net Fri Nov 9 05:01:31 2001 Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 07:01:31 -0500 (EST) From: merope Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Elaborate In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20011108150322.008c8100@mail.mccallie.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/78 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Tim Stowell wrote: > I strongly suggest that whatever comes out of that committee be voted on as > individual sections to be approved by the members as individual sections > rather > than the all or nothing approach we had when the Bylaws were adopted. I think this will be a mistake, for reasons already discussed. We run the risk of having unresolvable contradictions in our bylaws if sections refer to each other and one amended section is approved and one is not. The Board _cannot_ just "fix" these contradictions as someone suggested before; all amendments have to be approved following a very specific and long-term process. However, this might best be decided once we see what the committee develops. -Teresa > > Tim > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Nov 9 07:09:07 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA01739 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 07:09:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA16679 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 07:09:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fA9C8kZ23399; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 05:08:46 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 05:08:46 -0700 X-Original-Sender: merope@Radix.Net Fri Nov 9 05:08:43 2001 Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 07:08:43 -0500 (EST) From: merope Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] motion revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/79 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Mary Ann Hetrick wrote: > "To Present all opninons wether majority or minoraty." > > I actualy stoped and thought over the wording. What I was trying to convay > was, I would like to see all sides represented. With 23 people on a committee you will likely get 23 opinions on some things. This will get very unwieldy, and as we found on the ESC it might be used by some Board members to try and derail whatever consensus the Bylaws Committee obtains. In the ESC we included minority opinions in our final report if the vote on those topics was close enough to warrant it. Since there were only 21 of us, we felt that in circumstances where approximately half of us wanted it one way and half wanted it another, it was fair to present both opinions. But the majority opinion was the one submitted as our final decision. I think we did have one tie, and we presented it to the Board as such, but it was not further addressed by them. To avoid some of the confusion associated with minority opinions, however, I would suggest the BRC either submit them as a separate document or append them at the end of its official reports; even clearly labeling them as "minority opinions" in the ESC's report confused some Board members. -Teresa merope@radix.net From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Nov 9 12:58:26 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA06274 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 12:58:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA15301 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 12:58:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fA9Hw0w02122; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 10:58:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 10:58:00 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Fri Nov 9 10:57:59 2001 Message-ID: <008f01c16948$0afe8a20$b1967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 11:56:47 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Elaborate Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/80 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A Teresa, If you think you were confused by the explanation, quite frankly, I was dizzy by the time I got it written. The question seems to be how to be sure there is SP representation without doubling up. And, I was trying to figure out how to keep that from happening. I think that we ought to hold to 4 SC/ASC. One SC may represent fewer people than on SP....but: We need SP representatives on the committee to insure fairness to the SPs. I believe that two are enough to do this. We need the approval of 5 SCs to place the final product on the ballot. I can see Tim's point of voting on each Article as it is ready to be reported out of committee (put aside to work on another one) and I tend to agree with him. But, I'm wondering if it should be a "final approval" vote each time. I know there are "spill overs" and if one subject is approved, the real committee will have to be sure that when working on another subject any previously approved "spill over" is compatible. I'm really not trying to talk in circles. I hope I'm making sense. Let me try to give you an example and once again...just an example not an opinion: Suppose we have approved: Article I, Section 1....in the event that the NC cannot complete his/her term, the AB shall select a replacement from its own group. Then, the committee starts dealing with a recall procedure: Article X, Section 3....in the event that the NC is recalled, the Representative At Large will serve out the remainder of the term and a new RAL shall be appointed by the AB. Do you see where these two are not compatible? If the first one has been approved, the second one would have to read the same as it does. Hopefully, as has been suggested, the real committee will study the bylaws; see where there is "spill over"; and determine if there is any way to bring it under one Article. Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Nov 9 13:43:06 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA11721 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 13:43:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA24922 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 13:43:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fA9Igk128955; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 11:42:46 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 11:42:46 -0700 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@mccallie.org Fri Nov 9 11:42:46 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011109133526.00896e10@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 13:35:26 -0500 Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Elaborate In-Reply-To: <008f01c16948$0afe8a20$b1967a3f@wchs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/81 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:56 AM 11/9/01 -0600, you wrote: >I can see Tim's point of voting on each Article as it is ready to be >reported out of committee (put aside to work on another one) and I tend to >agree with him. But, I'm wondering if it should be a "final approval" vote >each time. I know there are "spill overs" and if one subject is approved, >the real committee will have to be sure that when working on another subject >any previously approved "spill over" is compatible. No that wasn't my point. My point was that when the members of the Project are asked to vote on the Bylaws that that be done by section not all or nothing. How the committee decides to bring items to the membership for a look see I don't believe is the scope we should decide with the motion. >I'm really not trying to talk in circles. I hope I'm making sense. Let me >try to give you an example and once again...just an example not an opinion: > >Suppose we have approved: Article I, Section 1....in the event that the NC >cannot complete his/her term, the AB shall select a replacement from its own >group. > >Then, the committee starts dealing with a recall procedure: Article X, >Section 3....in the event that the NC is recalled, the Representative At >Large will serve out the remainder of the term and a new RAL shall be >appointed by the AB. > >Do you see where these two are not compatible? If the first one has been >approved, the second one would have to read the same as it does. > >Hopefully, as has been suggested, the real committee will study the bylaws; >see where there is "spill over"; and determine if there is any way to bring >it under one Article. I do believe however, that if one carefully constructs the Bylaws that there won't be spill over sections. Tim From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Nov 9 15:13:19 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA21071 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 15:13:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA11518 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 15:13:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fA9KCWP04499; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 13:12:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 13:12:32 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Fri Nov 9 13:12:31 2001 Message-ID: <00af01c1695a$d6c82aa0$b1967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 14:12:19 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Elaborate Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/82 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A Tim wrote: No that wasn't my point. My point was that when the members of the Project are asked to vote on the Bylaws that that be done by section not all or nothing. Sorry, I guess that I'm having a "senior moment", but I don't understand what you mean. Please explain and Please excuse...lack of sleep...my sister-in-law called at 11:00 last night to tell me that my brother had just gotten out of heart surgery for a quadruple bypass. (He's all I've got.) Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Nov 9 15:16:15 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA21456 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 15:16:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA12175 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 15:16:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fA9KFta13742; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 13:15:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 13:15:55 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Fri Nov 9 13:15:55 2001 Message-ID: <00bb01c1695b$4faf1820$b1967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 14:15:42 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Forgot Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/83 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I agree that the rewrite committee should strive to not have any "spill over", but it may not be possible. Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Nov 9 16:13:14 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA27705 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 16:13:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA22282 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 16:13:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fA9LCjk31745; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 14:12:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 14:12:45 -0700 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@mccallie.org Fri Nov 9 14:12:45 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011109160413.008d7760@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 16:04:13 -0500 Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Elaborate In-Reply-To: <00af01c1695a$d6c82aa0$b1967a3f@wchs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <5ZsmZD.A.4vH.NbE77@lists5.rootsweb.com> To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/84 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 02:12 PM 11/9/01 -0600, you wrote: >Tim wrote: No that wasn't my point. My point was that when the members of >the Project are asked to vote on the Bylaws that that be done by section not >all or nothing. If the committee gets going and if they produce a product of Bylaws reform and if 5 states will sponsor/co-sponsor that product and that product is made up of different sections - then each section should be voted on. While perhaps all sections the majority will agree with there may be one or more sections the majority doesn't agree with. If that is the case then they would either have to swallow the whole product and see if they can stand living with a section they disagree with OR they would have to reject the whole effort. I'm saying that if the reform product is crafted so that sections don't overlap, then each section could be approved or disapproved by the USGenWeb membership. Let's say we have Section whatever now. It will be replaced by Section y. If section Y fails the Section whatever would still remain in effect. >Sorry, I guess that I'm having a "senior moment", but I don't understand >what you mean. Please explain and Please excuse...lack of sleep...my >sister-in-law called at 11:00 last night to tell me that my brother had just >gotten out of heart surgery for a quadruple bypass. (He's all I've got.) Our prayers go with you and your brother. Tim From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Nov 9 17:34:46 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA06661 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 17:34:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA05802 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 17:34:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fA9MYNc32478; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 15:34:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 15:34:23 -0700 X-Original-Sender: rkeason@tir.com Fri Nov 9 15:34:22 2001 Message-ID: <00b301c1696e$62c3c240$cfa028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] motion revisited Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 17:32:14 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/86 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: When we wrote the Census Bylaws there were 7 of us. It was an easy number to work with, but there were many times when everyone did not show and we used the same system of a Quorum, to be in session and do the work. Even voting on things. Having 21 people will be 21 ideas to bounce back and forth and 21 people to come to agreement or accept the majority. It is necessary to have an odd number of people voting on something to keep from being stalled. There is a problem with SP's because we want to be fair. If that is the case, then there should be a member from each of the recognized Sp's. Since we do not know what is to become of the Census position in the grand scheme of things, we have to go with what we know, which means there will be no representation for them in the committee. When we worked on the Census Bylaws we took each section in turn. We worked out the details as to what we knew was needed and what we could think of may come up in the future, even if we couldn;t imagine it. As we went through each section, there were many times when we had to return to a previous section and make additions, subtractions, etc. in order to make the various sections agree. We went through them numerous times to be sure that each section was properly worded and that all sections agreed as a whole and that no section contradicted another. I don't see how it could have been done differently. We would vote on each section and agree to constantly compare so that if anyone noticed something that they thought was strange they brought it up and we would go over it again. It took time, but the end result is a very firm and concrete document that not only takes into account state and local law, but also meshes with the USGW and should last for many years to come without need of amending. But we did not break into groups. Not saying that is a bad thing, but everyone was concentrating on the same thing at the same time. More eyes and more opinions trying to anticipate the future and trying to catch errors and conflicts. Just a couple of thoughts. Ron From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Nov 9 17:36:40 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA06823 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 17:36:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA06157 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 17:36:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fA9MYGQ31055; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 15:34:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 15:34:16 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Fri Nov 9 15:34:15 2001 Message-ID: <002501c1696e$a344d200$4c28c141@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 16:34:03 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Elaborate Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/85 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Okay, I understand what you're saying. One problem that I can see might develop would be: Section Y is the replacement section. Crafted so that nothing in it overlaps any of the other replacement sections. But, then Section Y is voted down and the original section remains in place. What if that original section is such that it overlaps and contradicts something in another replacement section that is approved? Could there be a statement crafted that one would take precedence over the other? Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Nov 9 17:40:53 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA07279 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 17:40:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA06789 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 17:40:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fA9MeUW22280; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 15:40:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 15:40:30 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Fri Nov 9 15:40:30 2001 Message-ID: <003501c1696f$82724de0$4c28c141@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 16:40:18 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] SPs Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/87 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A Ron, When you say a representative from each of the recognized SPs, do you mean one from each of the 9 (?) that are listed on the main page, or do you mean one from the Archives and one from Tombstone.....as in number filling AB seats? Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Nov 9 17:53:18 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA08415 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 17:53:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA08659 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 17:53:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fA9MqnD11983; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 15:52:49 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 15:52:49 -0700 X-Original-Sender: rkeason@tir.com Fri Nov 9 15:52:49 2001 Message-ID: <011001c16970$f691f9e0$cfa028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: <003501c1696f$82724de0$4c28c141@wchs> Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] SPs Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 17:50:41 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/88 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Phyllis, That would be only those that are currently recognized with Board seats. The rest of them are Sub-Projects of the Archives and are therefore covered by their representative. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phyllis Rippee" To: Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 5:40 PM Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] SPs > Ron, > > When you say a representative from each of the recognized SPs, do you mean > one from each of the 9 (?) that are listed on the main page, or do you mean > one from the Archives and one from Tombstone.....as in number filling AB > seats? > > Phyllis > > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Sat Nov 10 10:10:06 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA13935 for ; Sat, 10 Nov 2001 10:10:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA25324 for ; Sat, 10 Nov 2001 10:10:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAAF9mi11309; Sat, 10 Nov 2001 08:09:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 08:09:48 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Sat Nov 10 08:09:48 2001 Message-ID: <001301c169f9$b372c160$a8967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 09:09:30 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] SPs Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/89 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A Thanks Ron. Just wanted to be sure. How about this idea? Since we don't know who will volunteer to serve on the real committee, how about something like this: Assuming that there will be more than 4 AB members willing to serve on the committee, they are to be selected by the whole AB in the same manner as the mediation panel. Then, the remaining 17 (?) will be selected from a pool of volunteers from the general membership....being sure to include 4 SC/ASC volunteers and 2 SP volunteers IF available. Reasoning: There isn't much use in trying to "draft" people who do not indicate an interest in being on the committee. If there aren't any/enough SC, ASC or SP volunteers, then the remaining number will come from those who do. Next question: What contingency plan if there aren't 17 volunteers? I don't think that this is a problem that will arise, but what if it does? Just go with those who do? Next question: If there are more than enough, will they be taken in first come, first chosen, order? Personal: Please continue your prayers and good thoughts for my brother. He was taken off the respirator and heart pump yesterday, is talking and making sense. Many Thanks. Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Nov 11 07:01:36 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA04520 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 07:01:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA01604 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 07:01:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fABC1HT30081; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 05:01:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 05:01:17 -0700 X-Original-Sender: merope@Radix.Net Sun Nov 11 05:01:12 2001 Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 07:01:12 -0500 (EST) From: merope Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Elaborate In-Reply-To: <008f01c16948$0afe8a20$b1967a3f@wchs> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <_jhYfC.A.jVH.Lim77@lists5.rootsweb.com> To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/90 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > The question seems to be how to be sure there is SP representation without > doubling up. And, I was trying to figure out how to keep that from > happening. I'm not sure that "doubling up" is a bad idea. Most of us have more than one job to do in this project and thus can bring different perspectives to the table [which most definitely should be kidney shaped ;) ]. > We need the approval of 5 SCs to place the final product on the ballot. Ah. I see. In order to craft bylaws that get the approval of 5 SCs, we must craft bylaws that make the SCs happy. And the larger say they have in them, the more likely that is to happen. Good point. I do recall, however, that the last time there were amendments up for approval, most SCs had their CCs vote on them. Of course, we will still need to count on the SCs to bring them to the CCs and to present them positively [or neutrally] enough that the CCs feel no pressure not to vote against them. > I can see Tim's point of voting on each Article as it is ready to be > reported out of committee (put aside to work on another one) and I tend to > agree with him. But, I'm wondering if it should be a "final approval" vote > each time. I know there are "spill overs" and if one subject is approved, > the real committee will have to be sure that when working on another subject > any previously approved "spill over" is compatible. As long as its in committe, I have no problem with section-by-section approval. If there is contradiction, it can be resolved by the committee before it goes out for final approval by the voters. But in terms of the final document being put to voters' approval, I honestly don't see how section-by-section approval is going to work. Even if the committee does its best to avoid contradiction, voters may thwart this by not voting to amend the original sections of the bylaws. For instance, the special projects are mentioned generally and specifically in 4 separate articles in the current bylaws, and several sections within those articles. Deleting, combining, rewording or otherwise altering those original bylaws constitutes amendment, and if just one of our proposed amendments for any of those sections fails to win 2/3 of the voters' approval, we have a problem. Anyways, I am willing to let the full committee decide how best to handle it. Its probably better to let the full 21 of them decide after deliberation than for us 8 to make the decision now. -Teresa merope@radix.net From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Nov 11 07:09:25 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA04953 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 07:09:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA02219 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 07:09:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fABC95j27550; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 05:09:05 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 05:09:05 -0700 X-Original-Sender: merope@Radix.Net Sun Nov 11 05:09:02 2001 Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 07:09:02 -0500 (EST) From: merope Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] SPs In-Reply-To: <003501c1696f$82724de0$4c28c141@wchs> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/91 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > Ron, > > When you say a representative from each of the recognized SPs, do you mean > one from each of the 9 (?) that are listed on the main page, or do you mean > one from the Archives and one from Tombstone.....as in number filling AB > seats? There are six "special projects" listed at http://www.usgenweb.org/projects/projects.html; the other three are subprojects of the Archives. The bylaws grant Board representation only to Archives, Tombstone and Census at this time. I'm not really sure how the other three came to be "special projects" but I do recall that the last one listed, Genealogical Events", did _not_ follow the procedure established in the bylaws for the establishment of Special Projects. And I think some distinction is made generally between "special projects" and "Special Projects". Make of this what you will. :) -Teresa From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Nov 11 07:16:41 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA05451 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 07:16:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA02887 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 07:16:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fABCGP103451; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 05:16:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 05:16:25 -0700 X-Original-Sender: merope@Radix.Net Sun Nov 11 05:16:12 2001 Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 07:16:11 -0500 (EST) From: merope Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] SPs In-Reply-To: <001301c169f9$b372c160$a8967a3f@wchs> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/92 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > How about this idea? Since we don't know who will volunteer to serve on the > real committee, how about something like this: Assuming that there will be > more than 4 AB members willing to serve on the committee, they are to be > selected by the whole AB in the same manner as the mediation panel. Then, > the remaining 17 (?) will be selected from a pool of volunteers from the > general membership....being sure to include 4 SC/ASC volunteers and 2 SP > volunteers IF available. Sounds good to me. If we provide for regular input to the process from the membership, we may be able to get good participation from those who want to help but may not have time to devote to committee work. > Next question: What contingency plan if there aren't 17 volunteers? I > don't think that this is a problem that will arise, but what if it does? > Just go with those who do? I'd say make another call for volunteers and if the second one does not garner more volunteers, then either solicit more volunteers directly or go with what we have. > Next question: If there are more than enough, will they be taken in first > come, first chosen, order? I'd prefer that there be some other criteria other than "fast on the return button". I'd like to ask volunteers for their experience with other non-profits, their tenure in USGW, their thoughts on the current bylaws, any outside experience [legal, etc] that may be of use, etc., and use that info in choosing the committee members. I do believe willingness to serve should be the most important criteria and I also think that its probably a good idea to have some newbies on the committee; they won't have the issues history that many of us have and will bring fresh perspective. Either that, or pull names out of a hat. ;) -Teresa merope@radix.net From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Nov 12 09:18:47 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA17582 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 09:18:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA18551 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 09:18:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fACEIRQ23453; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 07:18:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 07:18:27 -0700 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@mccallie.org Mon Nov 12 07:18:26 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011112091035.008d9870@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 09:10:35 -0500 Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Elaborate In-Reply-To: References: <008f01c16948$0afe8a20$b1967a3f@wchs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/93 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A At 07:01 AM 11/11/01 -0500, you wrote: > >On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > >> The question seems to be how to be sure there is SP representation without >> doubling up. And, I was trying to figure out how to keep that from >> happening. > >I'm not sure that "doubling up" is a bad idea. Most of us have more than >one job to do in this project and thus can bring different perspectives to >the table [which most definitely should be kidney shaped ;) ]. Agreed - except perhaps on the table shape. >> We need the approval of 5 SCs to place the final product on the ballot. > >Ah. I see. In order to craft bylaws that get the approval of 5 SCs, we >must craft bylaws that make the SCs happy. And the larger say they have in >them, the more likely that is to happen. Good point. > >I do recall, however, that the last time there were amendments up for >approval, most SCs had their CCs vote on them. Of course, we will still >need to count on the SCs to bring them to the CCs and to present them >positively [or neutrally] enough that the CCs feel no pressure not to vote >against them. 5 states - and most definately the CCs in the state should vote if they are a sponsoring state - for if one can't sell this to the CCs in x state, the SC certainly has no business saying 'yes' for them. >> I can see Tim's point of voting on each Article as it is ready to be >> reported out of committee (put aside to work on another one) and I tend to >> agree with him. But, I'm wondering if it should be a "final approval" vote >> each time. I know there are "spill overs" and if one subject is approved, >> the real committee will have to be sure that when working on another subject >> any previously approved "spill over" is compatible. > >As long as its in committe, I have no problem with section-by-section >approval. If there is contradiction, it can be resolved by the committee >before it goes out for final approval by the voters. > >But in terms of the final document being put to voters' approval, I >honestly don't see how section-by-section approval is going to work. Even >if the committee does its best to avoid contradiction, voters may thwart >this by not voting to amend the original sections of the bylaws. > >For instance, the special projects are mentioned generally and >specifically in 4 separate articles in the current bylaws, and several >sections within those articles. Deleting, combining, rewording or >otherwise altering those original bylaws constitutes amendment, and if >just one of our proposed amendments for any of those sections fails to win >2/3 of the voters' approval, we have a problem. > >Anyways, I am willing to let the full committee decide how best to handle >it. Its probably better to let the full 21 of them decide after >deliberation than for us 8 to make the decision now. Agree to a point - the difference being - how about we stress the importance of non-overlap of sections. In other words, there would be possible sections about: Membership - definition; duties State officers - terms of service; replacement; duties Advisory Board - terms of service; replacement; duties Amending the Bylaws - how; when; circumstances and who knows what else? The thing is if the lines between sections are carefully crafted they can be made to not overlap - perhaps the committee could say section 3 will replace section 4 article 2; section 5 article 3 or something to that effect. Tim From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Nov 12 09:18:57 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA17591 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 09:18:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA18573 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 09:18:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fACEIYr23538; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 07:18:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 07:18:34 -0700 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@mccallie.org Mon Nov 12 07:18:26 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011112091718.007f45f0@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 09:17:18 -0500 Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] SPs In-Reply-To: References: <001301c169f9$b372c160$a8967a3f@wchs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/94 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 07:16 AM 11/11/01 -0500, you wrote: > >On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > >> How about this idea? Since we don't know who will volunteer to serve on the >> real committee, how about something like this: Assuming that there will be >> more than 4 AB members willing to serve on the committee, they are to be >> selected by the whole AB in the same manner as the mediation panel. Then, >> the remaining 17 (?) will be selected from a pool of volunteers from the >> general membership....being sure to include 4 SC/ASC volunteers and 2 SP >> volunteers IF available. > >Sounds good to me. If we provide for regular input to the process from >the membership, we may be able to get good participation from those who >want to help but may not have time to devote to committee work. Agreed. >> Next question: What contingency plan if there aren't 17 volunteers? I >> don't think that this is a problem that will arise, but what if it does? >> Just go with those who do? > >I'd say make another call for volunteers and if the second one does not >garner more volunteers, then either solicit more volunteers directly or go >with what we have. Agreed. >> Next question: If there are more than enough, will they be taken in first >> come, first chosen, order? > >I'd prefer that there be some other criteria other than "fast on the >return button". I'd like to ask volunteers for their experience with >other non-profits, their tenure in USGW, their thoughts on the current >bylaws, any outside experience [legal, etc] that may be of use, etc., and >use that info in choosing the committee members. I do believe willingness >to serve should be the most important criteria and I also think that its >probably a good idea to have some newbies on the committee; they won't >have the issues history that many of us have and will bring fresh >perspective. The willingness to serve and to realize that this is going to take quite some time to do it right - which I would think is what we all want - better than the slap it together in 30 days or less. Also that serving means responding, one can't serve very well if one doesn't speak up as the other members have no idea if you agree, disagree or have another idea. >Either that, or pull names out of a hat. ;) Ah but whose hat? What shape of hat? :) Tim From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Nov 12 10:28:40 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA24864 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 10:28:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA29678 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 10:28:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fACFSIM02535; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 08:28:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 08:28:18 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Mon Nov 12 08:28:18 2001 Message-ID: <006901c16b8e$9a400720$d5967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 09:27:20 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Vote Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/95 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A Please vote on whether or not the AB members to be on the real bylaws committee are to be selected by the whole AB in the same manner as the mediation panel. I vote Yes. Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Nov 12 10:33:11 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA25491 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 10:33:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA00436 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 10:33:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fACFWqD08756; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 08:32:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 08:32:52 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Mon Nov 12 08:32:52 2001 Message-ID: <006f01c16b8f$3d9bca80$d5967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 09:32:28 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Remaining Members Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/96 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Assuming that we get a confirmation as to the selection process of the AB members (if we don't we back up a step): In our final report to the AB, how much detail do we put in it in regard to the selection of the remaining members? Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Nov 12 10:33:11 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA25491 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 10:33:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA00436 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 10:33:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fACFWqD08756; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 08:32:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 08:32:52 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Mon Nov 12 08:32:52 2001 Message-ID: <006f01c16b8f$3d9bca80$d5967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 09:32:28 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Remaining Members Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/96 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A Assuming that we get a confirmation as to the selection process of the AB members (if we don't we back up a step): In our final report to the AB, how much detail do we put in it in regard to the selection of the remaining members? Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Nov 12 12:38:35 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA09624 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 12:38:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA21680 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 12:38:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fACHcFU06982; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 10:38:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 10:38:15 -0700 X-Original-Sender: ky.quest@gte.net Mon Nov 12 10:38:15 2001 Message-ID: <008901c16b9f$55853590$0301a8c0@Diane> From: "Diane Montgomery Parsons" Old-To: References: <006901c16b8e$9a400720$d5967a3f@wchs> Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Vote Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 12:27:41 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/97 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Yes Diane Parsons > Please vote on whether or not the AB members to be on the real bylaws > committee are to be selected by the whole AB in the same manner as the > mediation panel. > > I vote Yes. > > Phyllis > > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Nov 12 13:11:48 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA13183 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 13:11:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA26863 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 13:11:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fACIBQs22792; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 11:11:26 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 11:11:26 -0700 X-Original-Sender: tngibson@att.net Mon Nov 12 11:11:26 2001 Message-ID: <002201c16ba5$8b67dc20$745bfea9@vaio> Reply-To: "Vicki" From: "Vicki" Old-To: References: <006901c16b8e$9a400720$d5967a3f@wchs> <008901c16b9f$55853590$0301a8c0@Diane> Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Vote Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 12:11:47 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/98 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Yes Vicki ----- Original Message ----- From: "Diane Montgomery Parsons" To: Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 11:27 AM Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Vote > Yes > > Diane Parsons > > > Please vote on whether or not the AB members to be on the real bylaws > > committee are to be selected by the whole AB in the same manner as the > > mediation panel. > > > > I vote Yes. > > > > Phyllis > > > > > > > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Nov 13 01:08:24 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA23243 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 01:08:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA13914 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 01:08:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAD682R25644; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 23:08:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 23:08:02 -0700 X-Original-Sender: nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com Mon Nov 12 23:08:02 2001 X-Originating-IP: [205.188.200.26] From: "Mary Ann Hetrick" Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Vote Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 01:08:03 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Nov 2001 06:08:03.0613 (UTC) FILETIME=[8E02ACD0:01C16C09] Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/99 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I vote Yes Mary Ann Hetrick SC for COGenWeb Project NW/Plains SC Rep. >From: "Phyllis Rippee" >Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com >To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Vote >Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 09:27:20 -0600 > >Please vote on whether or not the AB members to be on the real bylaws >committee are to be selected by the whole AB in the same manner as the >mediation panel. > >I vote Yes. > >Phyllis > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Nov 13 01:15:42 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA23682 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 01:15:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA14552 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 01:15:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAD6EtM07454; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 23:14:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 23:14:55 -0700 X-Original-Sender: nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com Mon Nov 12 23:14:54 2001 X-Originating-IP: [205.188.200.26] From: "Mary Ann Hetrick" Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Remaining Members Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 01:14:56 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Nov 2001 06:14:56.0303 (UTC) FILETIME=[83FE2BF0:01C16C0A] Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/100 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I think we should have a general call for volunteers, and see who is willing. Then we can (if needed), have the AB members of the Committee select from the overflow. Mary Ann Hetrick SC for COGenWeb Project NW/Plains SC Rep. >From: "Phyllis Rippee" >Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com >To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Remaining Members >Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 09:32:28 -0600 > >Assuming that we get a confirmation as to the selection process of the AB >members (if we don't we back up a step): > >In our final report to the AB, how much detail do we put in it in regard to >the selection of the remaining members? > >Phyllis > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Nov 13 06:43:17 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA13545 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 06:43:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA16703 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 06:43:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fADBh1Z31118; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 04:43:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 04:43:01 -0700 X-Original-Sender: merope@Radix.Net Tue Nov 13 04:42:58 2001 Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 06:42:57 -0500 (EST) From: merope Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Vote In-Reply-To: <006901c16b8e$9a400720$d5967a3f@wchs> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/101 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Works for me. -Teresa On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > Please vote on whether or not the AB members to be on the real bylaws > committee are to be selected by the whole AB in the same manner as the > mediation panel. > > I vote Yes. > > Phyllis > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Nov 13 06:45:05 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA13720 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 06:45:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA16850 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 06:45:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fADBiof03874; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 04:44:50 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 04:44:50 -0700 X-Original-Sender: merope@Radix.Net Tue Nov 13 04:44:48 2001 Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 06:44:47 -0500 (EST) From: merope Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Elaborate In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20011112091035.008d9870@mail.mccallie.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/102 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Tim Stowell wrote: > and who knows what else? The thing is if the lines between sections are > carefully crafted they can be made to not overlap - perhaps the committee > could say section 3 will replace section 4 article 2; section 5 article 3 or > something to that effect. That constitutes an amendment of "section 4 article 2" and if that is not accepted... But I still say let the full committee [or the full Board] work out whether or not to submit revisions as a whole or in sections for voting by the membership. -Teresa > > Tim > > > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Nov 13 06:46:24 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA13823 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 06:46:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA17049 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 06:46:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fADBk9h07515; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 04:46:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 04:46:09 -0700 X-Original-Sender: merope@Radix.Net Tue Nov 13 04:46:08 2001 Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 06:46:08 -0500 (EST) From: merope Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Remaining Members In-Reply-To: <006f01c16b8f$3d9bca80$d5967a3f@wchs> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/103 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > In our final report to the AB, how much detail do we put in it in regard to > the selection of the remaining members? As much as we want to. There aren't any restrictions on what our proposal can hold, as I recall. -Teresa > > Phyllis > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Nov 13 10:54:03 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA06210 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:54:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA23639 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:54:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fADFq7601145; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 08:52:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 08:52:07 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Tue Nov 13 08:52:07 2001 Message-ID: <005e01c16c5b$171a2e20$4228c141@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: References: Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Remaining Members Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 09:49:24 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/104 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A That's not what I meant. What I meant was, how far do we go in our recommendations and where is the end point that should be left up to the actual committee? For example: The panel must have 5 blue-eyed people, or there should be 5 people on the panel? This goes a step further than determining the shape of the table :) Phyllis ----- Original Message ----- From: merope To: Sent: 13 November, 2001 5:46 AM Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Remaining Members > > On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > > > In our final report to the AB, how much detail do we put in it in regard to > > the selection of the remaining members? > > As much as we want to. There aren't any restrictions on what our proposal > can hold, as I recall. > > -Teresa > > > > > Phyllis > > > > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Nov 13 21:07:50 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA19123 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 21:07:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA08803 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 21:07:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAE25LW00494; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 19:05:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 19:05:21 -0700 X-Original-Sender: rkeason@tir.com Tue Nov 13 19:05:21 2001 Message-ID: <017601c16cb0$80f57b60$daa028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: <006901c16b8e$9a400720$d5967a3f@wchs> Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Vote Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 21:01:23 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/105 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Yes, Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phyllis Rippee" To: Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 10:27 AM Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Vote > Please vote on whether or not the AB members to be on the real bylaws > committee are to be selected by the whole AB in the same manner as the > mediation panel. > > I vote Yes. > > Phyllis > > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Nov 14 00:36:57 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA07419 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 00:36:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA06770 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 00:36:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAE5YUI26353; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 22:34:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 22:34:30 -0700 X-Original-Sender: nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com Tue Nov 13 22:34:29 2001 X-Originating-IP: [64.12.104.22] From: "Mary Ann Hetrick" Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Elaborate Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 00:34:32 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Nov 2001 05:34:32.0333 (UTC) FILETIME=[099B73D0:01C16CCE] Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/106 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I agree, we need to allow the committee to have some abiltiy to work with things. If you set up too many guidelines we could be setting them up to fail. Set the scope, but give them room to work things out. Mary Ann >From: merope >Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com >To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Elaborate >Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 06:44:47 -0500 (EST) > > >On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Tim Stowell wrote: > > > and who knows what else? The thing is if the lines between sections are > > carefully crafted they can be made to not overlap - perhaps the >committee > > could say section 3 will replace section 4 article 2; section 5 article >3 or > > something to that effect. > >That constitutes an amendment of "section 4 article 2" and if that is not >accepted... > >But I still say let the full committee [or the full Board] work out >whether or not to submit revisions as a whole or in sections for voting by >the membership. > > -Teresa > > > > > Tim > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Nov 14 10:38:01 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA22118 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:38:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA18191 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:37:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAEFZhh21068; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 08:35:43 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 08:35:43 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Wed Nov 14 08:35:43 2001 Message-ID: <003601c16d21$f4080840$4328c141@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:35:10 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Committee Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/109 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A Teresa....No problem, my first statement wasn't very clear. The committee should be able to get the revised set of bylaws ready by next election, if everyone responds in a timely fashion. I know there is a difference in time zones and the "real" lives of members, but do you suppose that we should recommend that the committee either set time limits on response time, or be able to replace members who never contribute? If not the proposed changes are not completed, or are rejected, I think that ending the committee on Sept. 1, 2002 is a good idea. We don't know how situations may change and there may need to be rearranging of committee makeup anyway. For example: An AB member may decide not to run and if the term ends then, the AB member would have to be replaced anyway. Or, if there were 2-year AB members on the committee and say 6 CCs ran successfully for AB seats..... I think that forming a new committee, would be the simplest way to go. Since this committee will be an AB sanctioned sub-committee, maybe we could get a waiver in regard to the SC approval requirement in the current bylaws... They could do so and give the committee some of the extra time that we're taking now. The majority has indicated the AB members of the committee will be selected in the manner of the mediation panel. Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Nov 14 10:42:38 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA22577 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:42:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA18967 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:42:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAEFfiC25969; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 08:41:44 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 08:41:44 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Wed Nov 14 08:41:44 2001 Message-ID: <003d01c16d22$cb4818e0$4328c141@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:41:12 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Numbers Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/110 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A Let's try again on the numbers that we will recommend. Please vote yes or no next to each "category"....(with no "shifting" as in Phyllis' nightmare ) 4 AB 4 SC/ASC 2 SP 11 CC 1 ex officio....the NC If you disagree, please state the number you would recommend. Personally, I like the idea of an uneven number of voting members. Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Nov 14 10:52:12 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA23637 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:52:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA20621 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:52:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAEFp7E02400; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 08:51:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 08:51:07 -0700 X-Original-Sender: tngibson@att.net Wed Nov 14 08:51:06 2001 Message-ID: <011901c16d24$48e06400$745bfea9@vaio> Reply-To: "Vicki" From: "Vicki" Old-To: References: <003d01c16d22$cb4818e0$4328c141@wchs> Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Numbers Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:51:48 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: <5ouGN.A.Xl.rLp87@lists5.rootsweb.com> To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/111 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: 4 AB NO 4 SC/ASC YES 2 SP YES 11 CC YES 1 ex officio....the NC YES Vicki ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phyllis Rippee" To: Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 9:41 AM Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Numbers > Let's try again on the numbers that we will recommend. Please vote yes or > no next to each "category"....(with no "shifting" as in Phyllis' nightmare > ) > > 4 AB > > 4 SC/ASC > > 2 SP > > 11 CC > > 1 ex officio....the NC > > If you disagree, please state the number you would recommend. Personally, I > like the idea of an uneven number of voting members. > > Phyllis > > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Nov 14 13:03:00 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA08717 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 13:02:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA13800 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 13:02:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAEI2cL21240; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 11:02:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 11:02:38 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Wed Nov 14 11:02:38 2001 Message-ID: <008601c16d36$7aa24140$4328c141@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:02:07 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Numbers Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/112 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Vicki....you don't want any AB members on the committee? Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Nov 14 13:09:31 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA09380 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 13:09:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA14897 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 13:09:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAEI97F07823; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 11:09:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 11:09:07 -0700 X-Original-Sender: tngibson@att.net Wed Nov 14 11:09:07 2001 Message-ID: <017a01c16d37$7e9afd40$745bfea9@vaio> Reply-To: "Vicki" From: "Vicki" Old-To: References: <008601c16d36$7aa24140$4328c141@wchs> Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Numbers Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:08:23 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/113 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I thought you said vote YES or NO. I don't agree with 4 AB........my choice is 2. Vicki ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phyllis Rippee" To: Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 12:02 PM Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Numbers > Vicki....you don't want any AB members on the committee? > > Phyllis > > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Nov 14 14:56:56 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA22452 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:56:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA03600 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:56:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAEJuZa22026; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:56:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:56:35 -0700 X-Original-Sender: ky.quest@gte.net Wed Nov 14 12:56:35 2001 Message-ID: <004a01c16d45$00cadb70$0301a8c0@Diane> From: "Diane Montgomery Parsons" Old-To: References: <003d01c16d22$cb4818e0$4328c141@wchs> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:46:07 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Re: Numbers Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/114 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Diane Parsons > > 4 AB YES > > 4 SC/ASC YES > > 2 SP YES > > 11 CC YES > > 1 ex officio....the NC YES > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Nov 14 16:20:53 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA01894 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:20:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA18941 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:20:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAELKVi05467; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:20:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:20:31 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Wed Nov 14 14:20:31 2001 Message-ID: <001b01c16d52$1f2d68a0$c1967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:20:00 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Numbers Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/115 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: 4 AB Yes 4 SC/ASC Yes 2 SP Yes 11 CC Yes 1 ex officio....the NC current bylaws require Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Nov 14 16:57:42 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA06181 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:57:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA25935 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:57:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAELvCa21561; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:57:12 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:57:12 -0700 X-Original-Sender: rkeason@tir.com Wed Nov 14 14:57:12 2001 Message-ID: <008401c16d57$003a7d20$17a028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Remaining Members Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:54:55 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/116 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A > 1) telling the Board how the Board reps should be chosen. I think most if > not all of us have now voted in favor of the 'mediation panel method' of > selecting the Board members > **Agreed > 2) telling the four selected Board members that there must be x SC reps, x > SP reps, x CC reps on the committee, and allowing them to issue the call > for volunteers. We might add a recommendation that they try to obtain > "good" mix of people, but any criteria we add as to experience, > involvement, inclusiveness, etc. is going to be subjective anyways. > **Agreed > 3) making a provision for the entire Board to approve the entire slate of > committee members once they have been selected. > **Agreed > As far as scope goes, your original thoughts on this are fine; we might > want to flesh them out a bit. > **By this are you talking about just cleaning or sprucing up the wording, etc? > Also, do we want to add a "kill date" for the Comittee, to prevent this > from becoming a "permanent" committee? Something like "once amendments > have been submitted to the membership for approval in the July election > the committee will be disbanded." or "If the comittee fails to have > amendments ready for the July 2002 election it will be disbanded on August > 30, and a new committee formed after September 1 2002'. > ** 9/1/2002 is appropriate. It would seem that if it isn't finished, for whatever reason, that a new committee can be created and they can take the notes from what has already been done and take up the torch from there. Ron From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Nov 14 16:58:36 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA06282 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:58:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA26064 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:58:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAELwGD26223; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:58:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:58:16 -0700 X-Original-Sender: rkeason@tir.com Wed Nov 14 14:58:16 2001 Message-ID: <009001c16d57$2687c960$17a028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: <003d01c16d22$cb4818e0$4328c141@wchs> Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Numbers Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:56:00 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: <7D10fD.A.ZZG.4ju87@lists5.rootsweb.com> To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/117 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: > 4 AB yes > > 4 SC/ASC yes > > 2 SP yes > > 11 CC yes > > 1 ex officio....the NC yes Ron From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Nov 14 17:45:49 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA11664 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:45:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA05145 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:45:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAEMjPP04575; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:45:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:45:25 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Wed Nov 14 15:45:25 2001 Message-ID: <001301c16d5d$fbf7ed40$c7967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:44:55 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Slate Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/118 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A Do we recommend to the "real" committee that the AB approve/reject the entire slate, thus not giving any leeway in order to avoid the appearance of picking and choosing favorites? If we do, what do we want to recommend the committee do if the slate is rejected? After the vote, would it be easier to go to Board-Exec and ask who is objected to, than to try to read minds and come up with another whole slate? Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Nov 14 17:51:48 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA12192 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:51:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA06087 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:51:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAEMpPi14020; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:51:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:51:25 -0700 X-Original-Sender: nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com Wed Nov 14 15:51:25 2001 X-Originating-IP: [64.12.104.59] From: "Mary Ann Hetrick" Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Numbers Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:51:24 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Nov 2001 22:51:24.0575 (UTC) FILETIME=[E2FE3AF0:01C16D5E] Resent-Message-ID: <9CpPGC.A.4aD.tVv87@lists5.rootsweb.com> To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/119 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Yes Mary Ann Hetrick >From: "Phyllis Rippee" >Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com >To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Numbers >Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:41:12 -0600 > >Let's try again on the numbers that we will recommend. Please vote yes or >no next to each "category"....(with no "shifting" as in Phyllis' nightmare >) > >4 AB > >4 SC/ASC > >2 SP > >11 CC > >1 ex officio....the NC > >If you disagree, please state the number you would recommend. Personally, >I >like the idea of an uneven number of voting members. > >Phyllis > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Nov 15 06:06:33 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA19026 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 06:06:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA06611 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 06:06:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAFB6Gc06340; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 04:06:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 04:06:16 -0700 X-Original-Sender: merope@Radix.Net Thu Nov 15 04:06:15 2001 Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 06:06:13 -0500 (EST) From: merope Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Committee In-Reply-To: <003601c16d21$f4080840$4328c141@wchs> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/121 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > The committee should be able to get the revised set of bylaws ready by next > election, if everyone responds in a timely fashion. I know there is a > difference in time zones and the "real" lives of members, but do you suppose > that we should recommend that the committee either set time limits on > response time, or be able to replace members who never contribute? With the ESC, we found that the "quiet ones" almost always voted, so even though they weren't always contributing to every discussion, they were participating. So I would not recommend removing people because they aren't vocal. > > If not the proposed changes are not completed, or are rejected, I think that > ending the committee on Sept. 1, 2002 is a good idea. We don't know how > situations may change and there may need to be rearranging of committee > makeup anyway. For example: An AB member may decide not to run and if the > term ends then, the AB member would have to be replaced anyway. Or, if > there were 2-year AB members on the committee and say 6 CCs ran successfully > for AB seats..... I think that forming a new committee, would be the > simplest way to go. Sounds good to me. > Since this committee will be an AB sanctioned sub-committee, maybe we could > get a waiver in regard to the SC approval requirement in the current > bylaws... They could do so and give the committee some of the extra time > that we're taking now. Hmmm...might cause some concern among the membership that the committee is trying to thwart the existing bylaws in order to ram through amendments. Rather than go this way, I'd recommend using the "emergency" provision in the existing bylaws, but only if it becomes necessary. -Teresa From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Nov 15 06:07:19 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA19052 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 06:07:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA06708 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 06:07:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAFB72Z09912; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 04:07:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 04:07:02 -0700 X-Original-Sender: merope@Radix.Net Thu Nov 15 04:07:01 2001 Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 06:06:59 -0500 (EST) From: merope Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Numbers In-Reply-To: <003d01c16d22$cb4818e0$4328c141@wchs> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/122 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > 4 AB yes > > 4 SC/ASC no, prefer 2 > > 2 SP yes > > 11 CC yes > > 1 ex officio....the NC yes -Teresa From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Nov 15 06:10:21 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA19271 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 06:10:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA06942 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 06:10:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAFBA3J17927; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 04:10:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 04:10:03 -0700 X-Original-Sender: merope@Radix.Net Thu Nov 15 04:10:00 2001 Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 06:09:58 -0500 (EST) From: merope Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Remaining Members In-Reply-To: <008401c16d57$003a7d20$17a028d8@hppav> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/123 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Ron Eason wrote: > > As far as scope goes, your original thoughts on this are fine; we might > > want to flesh them out a bit. > > > **By this are you talking about just cleaning or sprucing up the > wording, etc? Mostly just adding the committee selection rules, numbering the various provisions, adding any detail we think might be necessary, making them into complete sentences, adding a statement to the effect that rules not enumerated in our proposal should be left to the committee itself to provide, providing for the election of a committee chair once the full committee is formed, adding the kill date if we decide we want to do that. -Teresa merope@radix.net From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Nov 14 06:29:14 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA00474 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 06:29:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA12558 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 06:29:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAEBQtM04463; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 04:26:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 04:26:55 -0700 X-Original-Sender: merope@Radix.Net Wed Nov 14 04:26:53 2001 Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 06:26:52 -0500 (EST) From: merope Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Remaining Members In-Reply-To: <005e01c16c5b$171a2e20$4228c141@wchs> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/107 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > That's not what I meant. What I meant was, how far do we go in our > recommendations and where is the end point that should be left up to the > actual committee? For example: The panel must have 5 blue-eyed people, or > there should be 5 people on the panel? Sorry, misunderstood your question. I would limit our instructions to: 1) telling the Board how the Board reps should be chosen. I think most if not all of us have now voted in favor of the 'mediation panel method' of selecting the Board members 2) telling the four selected Board members that there must be x SC reps, x SP reps, x CC reps on the committee, and allowing them to issue the call for volunteers. We might add a recommendation that they try to obtain "good" mix of people, but any criteria we add as to experience, involvement, inclusiveness, etc. is going to be subjective anyways. 3) making a provision for the entire Board to approve the entire slate of committee members once they have been selected. As far as scope goes, your original thoughts on this are fine; we might want to flesh them out a bit. Also, do we want to add a "kill date" for the Comittee, to prevent this from becoming a "permanent" committee? Something like "once amendments have been submitted to the membership for approval in the July election the committee will be disbanded." or "If the comittee fails to have amendments ready for the July 2002 election it will be disbanded on August 30, and a new committee formed after September 1 2002'. -Teresa merope@radix.net From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Nov 14 08:59:50 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA11841 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 08:59:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA01495 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 08:59:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAEDxOf15324; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 06:59:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 06:59:24 -0700 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@mccallie.org Wed Nov 14 06:59:24 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011114085335.00858790@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 08:53:35 -0500 Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Remaining Members In-Reply-To: References: <005e01c16c5b$171a2e20$4228c141@wchs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/108 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 06:26 AM 11/14/01 -0500, you wrote: >I would limit our instructions to: > >1) telling the Board how the Board reps should be chosen. I think most if >not all of us have now voted in favor of the 'mediation panel method' of >selecting the Board members > >2) telling the four selected Board members that there must be x SC reps, x >SP reps, x CC reps on the committee, and allowing them to issue the call >for volunteers. We might add a recommendation that they try to obtain >"good" mix of people, but any criteria we add as to experience, >involvement, inclusiveness, etc. is going to be subjective anyways. > >3) making a provision for the entire Board to approve the entire slate of >committee members once they have been selected. > >As far as scope goes, your original thoughts on this are fine; we might >want to flesh them out a bit. Elaborate please? >Also, do we want to add a "kill date" for the Comittee, to prevent this >from becoming a "permanent" committee? Something like "once amendments >have been submitted to the membership for approval in the July election >the committee will be disbanded." or "If the comittee fails to have >amendments ready for the July 2002 election it will be disbanded on August >30, and a new committee formed after September 1 2002'. Other than the question above, sounds good. Tim From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Sat Nov 17 10:54:16 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA13112 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 10:54:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA15866 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 10:54:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAHFpEU07641; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 08:51:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 08:51:14 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Sat Nov 17 08:51:14 2001 Message-ID: <005901c16f7f$95bb62e0$b2967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 09:50:28 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Brother Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/124 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Thank you for your prayers and best wishes. I just talked to my brother. He's home and doing fine. His heart attack was just starting to happen when he went to the hospital and because of the care he received and the prayers that were said on his behalf, he has NO heart damage....his words were "It's working perfect both mechanically and electrically." Once again THANK YOU. Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Nov 26 18:04:47 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA06726 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 18:04:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA17271 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 18:04:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAQN4RK15766; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 16:04:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 16:04:27 -0700 X-Original-Sender: merope@Radix.Net Mon Nov 26 16:04:26 2001 Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 18:04:30 -0500 (EST) From: merope Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Purpos In-Reply-To: <001301c176c8$74a9b3e0$9a967a3f@wchs> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <_FbYzB.A.N2D.7psA8@lists5.rootsweb.com> To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/127 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > Taking this one step at a time......Is this okay for the beginning? > ____________ > > The name of the committee will be the Bylaws Revision Committee. > > The purpose of the Bylaws Revision Committee shall be to study the current > USGenWeb Project Bylaws to determine which portions do not need revising. Here I would say: The Committee shall propose for amendment as follows: 1) any sections it determines are not needed 2) any sections it determines need clarification or strengthening 3) any new bylaws that should be added. Does this work? -Teresa From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Nov 26 17:06:57 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA00075 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:06:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA06483 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:06:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAQM6Yj06834; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 15:06:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 15:06:34 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Mon Nov 26 15:06:33 2001 Message-ID: <000701c176c6$6ece4aa0$9a967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 16:05:12 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Numbers Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/125 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: With 7 out of 8 people voting and the remaining vote not being able to change the majority vote on any category, the results are: 4 AB 4 ASC/SC 2 SP 11 CC NC as ex officio Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Nov 26 17:21:27 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA01650 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:21:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA09068 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:21:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAQML2v00819; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 15:21:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 15:21:02 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Mon Nov 26 15:21:02 2001 Message-ID: <001301c176c8$74a9b3e0$9a967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 16:19:45 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Purpose Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/126 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A Taking this one step at a time......Is this okay for the beginning? ____________ The name of the committee will be the Bylaws Revision Committee. The purpose of the Bylaws Revision Committee shall be to study the current USGenWeb Project Bylaws to determine which portions do not need revising. The Committee shall delete any portions which it determines are not needed and shall revise those portions that need clarification, or strenthening. The Committee shall also add any other portions that it may determine are necessary...(please finish sentence, my head is throbbing.....) Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Nov 26 18:18:21 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA08120 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 18:18:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA19724 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 18:18:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAQNHrp29560; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 16:17:53 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 16:17:53 -0700 X-Original-Sender: nate@gte.net Mon Nov 26 16:17:53 2001 From: "Nathan Zipfel" Old-To: Subject: RE: [USGW-ByLaws] Purpos Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 18:18:09 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/128 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: works for me... Nate Nathan Zipfel PA-Roots Webmaster http://www.pa-roots.com -----Original Message----- From: merope [mailto:merope@radix.net] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 6:05 PM To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Purpos On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > Taking this one step at a time......Is this okay for the beginning? > ____________ > > The name of the committee will be the Bylaws Revision Committee. > > The purpose of the Bylaws Revision Committee shall be to study the current > USGenWeb Project Bylaws to determine which portions do not need revising. Here I would say: The Committee shall propose for amendment as follows: 1) any sections it determines are not needed 2) any sections it determines need clarification or strengthening 3) any new bylaws that should be added. Does this work? -Teresa From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Nov 26 19:07:07 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA12543 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 19:07:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA27240 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 19:07:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAR06bL16143; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:06:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:06:37 -0700 X-Original-Sender: ky.quest@gte.net Mon Nov 26 17:06:37 2001 Message-ID: <001601c176d7$5f13bda0$6501a8c0@Diane> From: "Diane Montgomery Parsons" Old-To: References: Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Purpos Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 19:06:32 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: <8HR_8.A.h7D.NktA8@lists5.rootsweb.com> To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/129 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Sounds good, Phyllis & Teresa Diane Parsons > > > On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > > > Taking this one step at a time......Is this okay for the beginning? > > ____________ > > > > The name of the committee will be the Bylaws Revision Committee. > > > > The purpose of the Bylaws Revision Committee shall be to study the current > > USGenWeb Project Bylaws to determine which portions do not need revising. > > Here I would say: > > The Committee shall propose for amendment as follows: > > 1) any sections it determines are not needed > > 2) any sections it determines need clarification or strengthening > > 3) any new bylaws that should be added. > > Does this work? > > -Teresa > > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Nov 26 19:16:15 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA13414 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 19:16:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA28509 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 19:16:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAR0Fm406276; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:15:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:15:48 -0700 X-Original-Sender: tngibson@att.net Mon Nov 26 17:15:47 2001 Message-ID: <011401c176d8$7cae5d60$745bfea9@vaio> Reply-To: "Vicki" From: "Vicki" Old-To: References: Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Purpos Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 18:14:27 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/130 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Sounds OK to me, too. Vicki ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nathan Zipfel" To: Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 5:18 PM Subject: RE: [USGW-ByLaws] Purpos > works for me... > > Nate > > Nathan Zipfel > PA-Roots Webmaster > http://www.pa-roots.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: merope [mailto:merope@radix.net] > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 6:05 PM > To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Purpos > > > > > On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > > > Taking this one step at a time......Is this okay for the beginning? > > ____________ > > > > The name of the committee will be the Bylaws Revision Committee. > > > > The purpose of the Bylaws Revision Committee shall be to study the current > > USGenWeb Project Bylaws to determine which portions do not need revising. > > Here I would say: > > The Committee shall propose for amendment as follows: > > 1) any sections it determines are not needed > > 2) any sections it determines need clarification or strengthening > > 3) any new bylaws that should be added. > > Does this work? > > -Teresa > > > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Nov 26 19:57:40 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA17150 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 19:57:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA04828 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 19:57:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAR0vDD17446; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:57:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:57:13 -0700 X-Original-Sender: rkeason@tir.com Mon Nov 26 17:57:13 2001 Message-ID: <02a501c176de$118f3620$23a028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Purpos Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 19:54:27 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/131 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Yes it does. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "merope" To: Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 6:04 PM Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Purpos > > > On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > > > Taking this one step at a time......Is this okay for the beginning? > > ____________ > > > > The name of the committee will be the Bylaws Revision Committee. > > > > The purpose of the Bylaws Revision Committee shall be to study the current > > USGenWeb Project Bylaws to determine which portions do not need revising. > > Here I would say: > > The Committee shall propose for amendment as follows: > > 1) any sections it determines are not needed > > 2) any sections it determines need clarification or strengthening > > 3) any new bylaws that should be added. > > Does this work? > > -Teresa > > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Nov 26 21:12:09 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA24564 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 21:12:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA16373 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 21:12:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAR2BjQ10798; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 19:11:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 19:11:45 -0700 X-Original-Sender: nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com Mon Nov 26 19:11:44 2001 X-Originating-IP: [205.188.199.184] From: "Mary Ann Hetrick" Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Purpos Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 21:11:45 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Nov 2001 02:11:45.0772 (UTC) FILETIME=[DD2452C0:01C176E8] Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/132 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Sounds good to me. Mary Ann Hetrick >From: merope >Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com >To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Purpos >Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 18:04:30 -0500 (EST) > > > >On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > > > Taking this one step at a time......Is this okay for the beginning? > > ____________ > > > > The name of the committee will be the Bylaws Revision Committee. > > > > The purpose of the Bylaws Revision Committee shall be to study the >current > > USGenWeb Project Bylaws to determine which portions do not need >revising. > >Here I would say: > >The Committee shall propose for amendment as follows: > >1) any sections it determines are not needed > >2) any sections it determines need clarification or strengthening > >3) any new bylaws that should be added. > >Does this work? > >-Teresa > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Nov 27 11:18:32 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA04800 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 11:18:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA05987 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 11:18:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fARGI9n29563; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:18:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:18:09 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Tue Nov 27 09:18:09 2001 Message-ID: <007e01c1775e$ec5c7d00$8d967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:15:48 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Progress Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/133 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A Thank You, Teresa. The first part of this is what has been agreed on so far: Please check and suggest changes to the second part. Promise: We'll put all the parts in the right order once we get them "fixed." __________________________ The name of the committee shall be the Bylaws Revision Committee. The purpose of the Bylaws Revision Committee shall be to study the current USGenWeb Project Bylaws to determine which portions do not need revising. The Committee shall propose for amendment as follows: 1) Any sections it determines are not needed; 2) Any sections it determines need clarification or strengthening; 3) Any new bylaws that should be added. The Committee shall be composed of the following: 1) Four (4) Advisory Board members; 2) Four (4) State or Assistant State Coordinators 3) Two (2) members from Special Projects 4) Eleven (11) County Coordinators __________________________________________ The Advisory Board members shall be selected by nominations from the Advisory Board in the same manner as Mediation Panel members are selected. These four members shall then call for volunteers from the general membership and shall complete the selection of the committee. If there are not enough "first call" volunteers to fill the allocated seats, a "second call" will be issued. ______________________ Now: What if there are not enough volunteers? Suppose (for example) that there are not enough SC/ASC after two calls. Will there be another call, or will those seats be filled with CCs? And, if there aren't enough volunteers, how about having the committee composed of those who do, even if it means a smaller committee? I don't think that this problem will develope, but..... Should the volunteers be selected on first come, first chosen basis....or do you have suggestions for some other criterior? IMHO: The answers to these questions should be included in the same section as the selection process for AB members. Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Nov 28 05:46:06 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA09050 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 05:46:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA25299 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 05:46:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fASAjoE29989; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 03:45:50 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 03:45:50 -0700 X-Original-Sender: merope@Radix.Net Wed Nov 28 03:45:49 2001 Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 05:45:49 -0500 (EST) From: merope Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Progress In-Reply-To: <007e01c1775e$ec5c7d00$8d967a3f@wchs> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/134 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > The first part of this is what has been agreed on so far: Please check and > suggest changes to the second part. Promise: We'll put all the parts in > the right order once we get them "fixed." My suggestions are in brackets. > __________________________ > The name of the committee shall be the Bylaws Revision Committee. > > The purpose of the Bylaws Revision Committee shall be to study the current > USGenWeb Project Bylaws to determine which portions do not need revising, [and to propose for amendment as follows:] > 1) Any sections it determines are not needed; > > 2) Any sections it determines need clarification or strengthening; > > 3) Any new bylaws that should be added. > > The Committee shall be composed of the following: > > 1) Four (4) Advisory Board members; > > 2) Four (4) State or Assistant State Coordinators > > 3) Two (2) members from Special Projects > > 4) Eleven (11) County Coordinators [Question: should this be "local coordinators", as it is in the current bylaws? Otherwise, town coordinators, city coordinators, etc may be excluded.] [Add: 5) The National Coordinator, ex-officio member] > __________________________________________ > > The [four] Advisory Board members shall be selected by nominations from the Advisory Board in the same manner as Mediation Panel members are selected. > These four members [and the NC] shall then call for volunteers from the general > membership and shall complete the selection of the committee. If there are > not enough "first call" volunteers to fill the allocated seats, a "second > call" will be issued. [Add: if necessary, these five members may issue invitations to specific project members if there are not enough responses to the call for volunteers.] > ______________________ > > Now: What if there are not enough volunteers? Suppose (for example) that > there are not enough SC/ASC after two calls. Will there be another call, or > will those seats be filled with CCs? See above, re issuing specific invitations if necessary. Also, I wouldn't be opposed to filling any open seats with CCs if there are enough volunteers to do so. > > And, if there aren't enough volunteers, how about having the committee > composed of those who do, even if it means a smaller committee? This is also acceptable. We can make provision for a later call for volunteers, or for the committee to invite members who show a particular interest or facility with the process once it has started. The EC leaves a "call for volunteers" on its website whenever it has an empty seat; the BRC can do the same. > I don't think that this problem will develope, but..... > > Should the volunteers be selected on first come, first chosen basis....or do > you have suggestions for some other criterior? Again, I wouldn't go with first come, first served, but rather than stating a specific mechanism for choice, why don't we leave it up to the five Board members? If FCFS seems the right way to go for them, that wouldn't be a huge problem. > > IMHO: The answers to these questions should be included in the same section > as the selection process for AB members. Agree. -Teresa > > Phyllis > > > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Nov 28 19:16:59 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA12285 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 19:16:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA11342 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 19:16:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAT0GLc01260; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 17:16:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 17:16:21 -0700 X-Original-Sender: nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com Wed Nov 28 17:16:17 2001 X-Originating-IP: [152.163.197.49] From: "Mary Ann Hetrick" Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Progress Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 19:16:17 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Nov 2001 00:16:17.0807 (UTC) FILETIME=[109441F0:01C1786B] Resent-Message-ID: <2S_Ae.A._R.U5XB8@lists5.rootsweb.com> To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/135 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: My comments in **** >From: merope >Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com >To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Progress >Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 05:45:49 -0500 (EST) > > >On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > > > The first part of this is what has been agreed on so far: Please check >and > > suggest changes to the second part. Promise: We'll put all the parts >in > > the right order once we get them "fixed." > >My suggestions are in brackets. > > > __________________________ > > The name of the committee shall be the Bylaws Revision Committee. > > > > The purpose of the Bylaws Revision Committee shall be to study the >current > > USGenWeb Project Bylaws to determine which portions do not need >revising, [and to propose for amendment as follows:] > > > 1) Any sections it determines are not needed; > > > > 2) Any sections it determines need clarification or strengthening; > > > > 3) Any new bylaws that should be added. > > > > The Committee shall be composed of the following: > > > > 1) Four (4) Advisory Board members; > > > > 2) Four (4) State or Assistant State Coordinators > > > > 3) Two (2) members from Special Projects > > > > 4) Eleven (11) County Coordinators [Question: should this be "local >coordinators", as it is in the current bylaws? Otherwise, town >coordinators, city coordinators, etc may be excluded.] > >[Add: 5) The National Coordinator, ex-officio member] > > > __________________________________________ > > > > The [four] Advisory Board members shall be selected by nominations from >the Advisory Board in the same manner as Mediation Panel members are >selected. > > > These four members [and the NC] shall then call for volunteers from the >general > > membership and shall complete the selection of the committee. If there >are > > not enough "first call" volunteers to fill the allocated seats, a >"second > > call" will be issued. > >[Add: if necessary, these five members may issue invitations to specific >project members if there are not enough responses to the call for >volunteers.] **** I think that sould be added, yes. > > > ______________________ > > > > Now: What if there are not enough volunteers? Suppose (for example) >that > > there are not enough SC/ASC after two calls. Will there be another >call, or > > will those seats be filled with CCs? > >See above, re issuing specific invitations if necessary. Also, I wouldn't >be opposed to filling any open seats with CCs if there are enough >volunteers to do so. > > > > > And, if there aren't enough volunteers, how about having the committee > > composed of those who do, even if it means a smaller committee? > >This is also acceptable. We can make provision for a later call for >volunteers, or for the committee to invite members who show a particular >interest or facility with the process once it has started. The EC leaves >a "call for volunteers" on its website whenever it has an empty seat; the >BRC can do the same. **** Only thought about this, is that this committee, is a short tearm committee. Not like the EC, it will not be working from year to year. it is designed to work to get the revisions ready for the next election. > > > I don't think >that this problem will develope, but..... > > > Should the volunteers be selected on first come, first chosen >basis....or do > > you have suggestions for some other criterior? > >Again, I wouldn't go with first come, first served, but rather than >stating a specific mechanism for choice, why don't we leave it up to the >five Board members? If FCFS seems the right way to go for them, that >wouldn't be a huge problem. > > > > > IMHO: The answers to these questions should be included in the same >section > > as the selection process for AB members. > >Agree. > >-Teresa > > > > > Phyllis > > > > > > > ** We don't have the time limit add in yet either. Mary Ann _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Nov 29 11:56:53 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA05509 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:56:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29187 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:56:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fATGuTA07295; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:56:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:56:29 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Thu Nov 29 09:56:28 2001 Message-ID: <015b01c178f6$97598980$b2967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:54:31 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] How's This? Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/136 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A I changed the wording a little bit, but not the meaning. Is this okay, so far? Phyllis ____________________- The name of the committee shall be the Bylaws Revision Committee. The purpose of the Bylaws Revision Committee shall be to study the current USGenWeb Project Bylaws to determine which portions do not need revising. The Committee shall propose for revision as follows: 1) Deletion of unnecessary sections; 2) Clarification or strengthening sections where needed; 3) New Articles that may be determined necessary. The Committee shall be composed of the following: 1) Four (4) Advisory Board members; 2) Four (4) State or Assistant State Coordinators 3) Two (2) members from Special Projects 4) Eleven (11) County Coordinators 5) One (1) ex officio....the NC ____________________________________ The four (4) Advisory Board members shall be selected by nominations from the Advisory Board in the same manner as Mediation Panel members are selected. These five (5) members shall then call for volunteers from the general membership and shall complete the selection of the committee. If there are not enough "first call" volunteers to fill the allocated seats, a "second call" will be issued. In the event that the ASC/SC or SP seats are still not filled, a "third call" will be issued. If any seats remain unfilled after the third call, they will be filled by CCs. After this, if there is still not a total of 22 members, the committee shall consist of those who have been selected. __________________ I believe that when it states that the 5 will select the rest, that makes it possible for them to determine by what means. Either first come, first chosen, names drawn from a hat, or whatever. From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Nov 29 17:27:32 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA18043 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:27:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA28935 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:27:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fATMR3k21459; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 15:27:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 15:27:03 -0700 X-Original-Sender: rkeason@tir.com Thu Nov 29 15:27:03 2001 Message-ID: <00cf01c17924$94789ac0$90a028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: <015b01c178f6$97598980$b2967a3f@wchs> Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] How's This? Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:24:14 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/138 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Yes it is. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phyllis Rippee" To: Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 11:54 AM Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] How's This? > I changed the wording a little bit, but not the meaning. Is this okay, so > far? > > Phyllis > ____________________- > > The name of the committee shall be the Bylaws Revision Committee. > > The purpose of the Bylaws Revision Committee shall be to study the current > USGenWeb Project Bylaws to determine which portions do not need revising. > > The Committee shall propose for revision as follows: > > 1) Deletion of unnecessary sections; > > 2) Clarification or strengthening sections where needed; > > 3) New Articles that may be determined necessary. > > The Committee shall be composed of the following: > > 1) Four (4) Advisory Board members; > > 2) Four (4) State or Assistant State Coordinators > > 3) Two (2) members from Special Projects > > 4) Eleven (11) County Coordinators > > 5) One (1) ex officio....the NC > ____________________________________ > > The four (4) Advisory Board members shall be selected by nominations from > the Advisory Board in the same manner as Mediation Panel members are > selected. > > These five (5) members shall then call for volunteers from the general > membership and shall complete the selection of the committee. If there are > not enough "first call" volunteers to fill the allocated seats, a "second > call" will be issued. > > In the event that the ASC/SC or SP seats are still not filled, a "third > call" will be issued. If any seats remain unfilled after the third call, > they will be filled by CCs. After this, if there is still not a total of 22 > members, the committee shall consist of those who have been selected. > __________________ > > I believe that when it states that the 5 will select the rest, that makes it > possible for them to determine by what means. Either first come, first > chosen, names drawn from a hat, or whatever. > > > > > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Nov 29 17:49:20 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA20303 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:49:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA02573 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:49:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fATMmuE17609; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 15:48:56 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 15:48:56 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Thu Nov 29 15:48:55 2001 Message-ID: <003301c17927$d3e57400$99967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 16:47:26 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Proposal Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/139 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A We need to add something like this: The Bylaws Revision Committee is to complete its work in time to present the Revised Bylaws for approval/disapproval vote of the general membership by the next general election in (month) 2002. In the event the Revised Bylaws are not ready for presentation to the general membership by (day, month, 2002), the Bylaws Revision Committee will cease its work. This work will then be turned over to a newly formed Bylaws Revision Committee, should the new Advisory Board wish said work to continue. _______________ IMHO: Since this committee will be sanctioned by the AB, it will not be necessary to secure the approval of 5 SCs prior to submitting it to the voters. Although, I do feel that it should be ready to be studied by the general membership in plenty of time for them to make a determination as to how they should vote. What I'm meaning is, I don't think it would be fair to anybody to just suddenly "pop/plop" it in front of them the day the actual voting starts. Please suggest dates, or changes in wording. Also, what else do we need to add? Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Nov 29 18:23:12 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA24284 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 18:23:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA08669 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 18:23:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fATNMlE14195; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 16:22:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 16:22:47 -0700 X-Original-Sender: merope@Radix.Net Thu Nov 29 16:22:46 2001 Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 18:22:50 -0500 (EST) From: merope Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Proposal In-Reply-To: <003301c17927$d3e57400$99967a3f@wchs> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/140 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > > IMHO: Since this committee will be sanctioned by the AB, it will not be > necessary to secure the approval of 5 SCs prior to submitting it to the > voters. Although, I do feel that it should be ready to be studied by the > general membership in plenty of time for them to make a determination as to > how they should vote. Unless the Board is willing to use the "emergency amendment" provisions, this approach would be in violation of the current bylaws. Putting a provision like this in the proposal will almost certainly doom it due to this unavoidable fact. > What I'm meaning is, I don't think it would be fair to anybody to just > suddenly "pop/plop" it in front of them the day the actual voting starts. Agree. -Teresa From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Nov 30 10:52:25 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA16561 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:52:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA19767 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:52:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAUFq0E32237; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 08:52:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 08:52:00 -0700 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@mccallie.org Fri Nov 30 08:52:00 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011130105017.007fa410@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:50:17 -0500 Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Proposal In-Reply-To: <003301c17927$d3e57400$99967a3f@wchs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/141 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 04:47 PM 11/29/01 -0600, you wrote: >We need to add something like this: > >The Bylaws Revision Committee is to complete its work in time to present the >Revised Bylaws for approval/disapproval vote of the general membership by >the next general election in (month) 2002. In the event the Revised Bylaws >are not ready for presentation to the general membership by (day, month, >2002), the Bylaws Revision Committee will cease its work. This work will >then be turned over to a newly formed Bylaws Revision Committee, should the >new Advisory Board wish said work to continue. >_______________ > >IMHO: Since this committee will be sanctioned by the AB, it will not be >necessary to secure the approval of 5 SCs prior to submitting it to the >voters. Although, I do feel that it should be ready to be studied by the >general membership in plenty of time for them to make a determination as to >how they should vote. No. The Bylaws committee comes up with their proposals and can publish them. Then seek to get 5 States to sponsor the proposals to be voted on by the membership. >What I'm meaning is, I don't think it would be fair to anybody to just >suddenly "pop/plop" it in front of them the day the actual voting starts. > >Please suggest dates, or changes in wording. To give the states time to review the proposal and get a vote from their CCs - I think that May 1st would be a good target date. You speak of plopping the proposal in front of the voters the day the actual voting starts. It would be in the Project's best interest if the Committee published proposed changes as they come up with them in order to get comments and/or suggestions from the members on the fly - ie the committee while it may have some ideas of its own should basically in its core be the vehicle or being the recording secretary as it were of the membership's desired changes to the Bylaws. For instance, if there was a section that several members thought should be included, a previously non-addressed subject such as the creation of a new type of member - members could send their input via existing lists or perhaps a message board that members could post suggestions to - where all could visit, if they so desired without being subscribed to the various lists. As the committee wrote out the proposals they could post them on a website and continually add/remove/revise the document as such. Perhaps the Bylaws as they now stand could be posted and then in different colors additions, revisions, deletions could be highlighted so that folks get a feel for what is, what is proposed. >Also, what else do we need to add? Tim From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Nov 30 11:20:00 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA19650 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:19:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA24626 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:19:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAUGJU929598; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:19:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:19:30 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Fri Nov 30 09:19:29 2001 Message-ID: <009401c179ba$941a15e0$a1967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:17:53 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Okay Resent-Message-ID: <7Bicf.A.VOH.SG7B8@lists5.rootsweb.com> To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/142 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: The current bylaws cover on the instance of amendments being proposed. However, in order to get the actual committee formed and working, let's just leave the decision up to them in regard to the "approval to be placed on ballot" issue. And, just simply state that the bylaws are to be ready to be placed on the ballot July 1, 2002 after allowing a reasonable amount of time for study by the general membership. Do you want to leave it this general or substitute a definite period of time in place of "reasonable amount?" This should cover any procedure for placing on the ballot that the committee might find necessary. I don't want to rush things. But, if I understand correctly, the bylaws that we have now were a "rush job." It could very well be that the revision committee will decide that there are only a couple of wording changes and everything else can be covered with a couple of new Articles that would amend them, so a month would be plenty long enough. (Don't swallow your toothpaste , I don't believe they'll find this to be true.) It could very well be that it will take longer than this committee will have when it is finally set up. That is why I'd like to see our recommendations presented to the AB as soon as possible. Is there anything else that we, as the formation committee, need to cover. Anything that we feel should not be left up to the revision committee itself? What comes to mind is the slate of candidates the 5 AB members will present to the AB for approval. Do we want to stipulate that this slate must be accepted or rejected in its entirety? Please let me know. If possible, I'd like to see a final draft being approved by us before the end of next week. Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Nov 30 15:19:23 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA18057 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 15:19:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA07395 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 15:19:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAUKIxR11580; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:18:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:18:59 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Fri Nov 30 13:18:59 2001 Message-ID: <002d01c179dc$09be0a60$b1967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 14:16:51 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] How's This? Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/143 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A You've seen the first part of this....except I added the word "then" and designated it here by enclosing it in brackets. The second part is a suggestion for consideration. _____________________ The name of the committee shall be the Bylaws Revision Committee. The purpose of the Bylaws Revision Committee shall be to study the current USGenWeb Project Bylaws to determine which portions do not need revising. The Committee shall [then] propose for revision as follows: 1) Deletion of unnecessary sections; 2) Clarification or strengthening sections where needed; 3) New Articles that may be determined necessary. The Committee shall be composed of the following: 1) Four (4) Advisory Board members; 2) Four (4) State or Assistant State Coordinators 3) Two (2) members from Special Projects 4) Eleven (11) County Coordinators 5) One (1) ex officio....the NC The four (4) Advisory Board members shall be selected by nominations from the Advisory Board in the same manner as Mediation Panel members are selected. These five (5) members shall then call for volunteers from the general membership and shall complete the selection of the committee. If there are not enough "first call" volunteers to fill the allocated seats, a "second call" will be issued. In the event that the ASC/SC or SP seats are still not filled, a "third call" will be issued. If any seats remain unfilled after the third call, they will be filled by CCs. After this, if there is still not a total of 22 members, the committee shall consist of those who have been selected. _______________________ The Bylaws Revision Committee will be charged with: 1) Considering suggestions from the USGW P general membership; 2) Making reasonable suggestions public (suggested method would be by a committee member chosen to maintain a website showing proposed changes, with the URL made known to all USGW P members); 3) Making monthly progress reports to the AB, with the provision that such reports will be forwarded to the national lists by the NC. 4) Filing its final report no later than May 15, 2002. ________________________ I'm a little bit concerned about the paragraph that begins "These five (5) members shall then call for volunteers"....Can that be changed to: "These four (4) members and the NC shall then call for volunteers.." We know what 5 we're talking about, but it might confuse someone else. Also, on number 2 above....would it be better to have two websites, one for suggestions and the other to reflect the changes as outlined by Tim? I also think that if the committee finds something in the current bylaws that needs revising and put into effect before the deadline for the total document, the committee ought to be allowed to present it to the AB for consideration of an "emergency" designation. (Well, who knows...it's a possibility.) Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Nov 30 22:29:31 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA00757 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 22:29:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA13329 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 22:29:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fB13T6S18992; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 20:29:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 20:29:06 -0700 X-Original-Sender: nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com Fri Nov 30 20:29:06 2001 X-Originating-IP: [64.12.104.161] From: "Mary Ann Hetrick" Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] How's This? Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 22:29:07 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Dec 2001 03:29:07.0907 (UTC) FILETIME=[55B8E930:01C17A18] Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/149 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: >From: "Phyllis Rippee" >Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com >To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] How's This? >Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 14:16:51 -0600 > >You've seen the first part of this....except I added the word "then" and >designated it here by enclosing it in brackets. The second part is a >suggestion for consideration. >_____________________ > >The name of the committee shall be the Bylaws Revision Committee. > >The purpose of the Bylaws Revision Committee shall be to study the current >USGenWeb Project Bylaws to determine which portions do not need revising. > >The Committee shall [then] propose for revision as follows: > >1) Deletion of unnecessary sections; > >2) Clarification or strengthening sections where needed; > >3) New Articles that may be determined necessary. > >The Committee shall be composed of the following: > >1) Four (4) Advisory Board members; > >2) Four (4) State or Assistant State Coordinators > >3) Two (2) members from Special Projects > >4) Eleven (11) County Coordinators > >5) One (1) ex officio....the NC > >The four (4) Advisory Board members shall be selected by nominations from >the Advisory Board in the same manner as Mediation Panel members are >selected. > >These five (5) members shall then call for volunteers from the general >membership and shall complete the selection of the committee. If there are >not enough "first call" volunteers to fill the allocated seats, a "second >call" will be issued. > >In the event that the ASC/SC or SP seats are still not filled, a "third >call" will be issued. If any seats remain unfilled after the third call, >they will be filled by CCs. After this, if there is still not a total of >22 >members, the committee shall consist of those who have been selected. >_______________________ > >The Bylaws Revision Committee will be charged with: > >1) Considering suggestions from the USGW P general membership; > >2) Making reasonable suggestions public (suggested > method would be by a committee member chosen to maintain a > website showing proposed changes, with the URL made known to > all USGW P members); > >3) Making monthly progress reports to the AB, with the provision that > such reports will be forwarded to the national lists by the NC. > >4) Filing its final report no later than May 15, 2002. >________________________ > >I'm a little bit concerned about the paragraph that begins "These five >(5) >members shall then call for volunteers"....Can that be changed to: "These >four (4) members and the NC shall then call for volunteers.." We know what >5 we're talking about, but it might confuse someone else. > ******** I see no problem with making sure things are clearly stated. I think that is why we are now in the posistion of setting up this committee to rework the bylaws. >Also, on number 2 above....would it be better to have two websites, one for >suggestions and the other to reflect the changes as outlined by Tim? > ****** No they can set up sections on the website for both. Why ask for extra space when it can all be in one location? >I also think that if the committee finds something in the current bylaws >that needs revising and put into effect before the deadline for the total >document, the committee ought to be allowed to present it to the AB for >consideration of an "emergency" designation. (Well, who knows...it's a >possibility.) > >Phyllis > **** I think just getting 5 states to agree to sponser the revision is going to be hard. We have had several amendments that failed to get the required number of sponsers the last few elections. Mary Ann _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Nov 30 18:02:50 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA07145 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 18:02:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA07645 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 18:02:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAUN2NH01074; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 16:02:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 16:02:23 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Fri Nov 30 16:02:23 2001 Message-ID: <003901c179f2$ddec9340$82967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 17:00:54 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Okay, Except Resent-Message-ID: <8tTGOD.A.mQ.__AC8@lists5.rootsweb.com> To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/145 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A I'm okay with Teresa's suggestions, except for the substitution of the word "all" in place of "reasonable" suggestions being posted. Can we come up with a word that will eliminate any x-rated suggestions? Oh, I just thought of something that you all may have already assumed (so, I'm a bit slow).....Should the webmaster also post the names of the ones who make the suggestions? Would that stiffle some who might have sincere and good ideas, but are "shy" about going public? Or would it serve to eliminate "x-rated" or "innuendo-filled" suggestions? Puzzled with this one. Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Nov 30 18:04:45 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA07321 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 18:04:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA07888 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 18:04:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fAUN4Op03792; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 16:04:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 16:04:24 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Fri Nov 30 16:04:24 2001 Message-ID: <004701c179f3$25e282e0$82967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 17:02:54 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Many Calls Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/146 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A Sorry, I forgot this question: Would you be more comfortable with two calls and then invitations? Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Dec 3 08:47:01 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA28387 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 08:47:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA18668 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 08:46:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fB3Dkh331533; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 06:46:43 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 06:46:43 -0700 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@mccallie.org Mon Dec 3 06:46:42 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011203083022.00859100@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 08:30:22 -0500 Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] How's This? In-Reply-To: References: <002d01c179dc$09be0a60$b1967a3f@wchs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/157 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 05:49 PM 11/30/01 -0500, Teresa wrote: > >> >> 2) Making reasonable suggestions public (suggested >> method would be by a committee member chosen to maintain a >> website showing proposed changes, with the URL made known to >> all USGW P members); > >I'd make _all_ suggestions public. Who's to say what's reasonable? Better >not to offend someone by not posting their suggestion and having them >assume the committee found it "unreasonable". All suggestions public but without who proposed it, correct? No need to embrass someone if everyone else thinks its a goofy idea. Tim From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Dec 3 09:03:32 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA00073 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:03:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA21408 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:03:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fB3E3DF11489; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 07:03:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 07:03:13 -0700 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@mccallie.org Mon Dec 3 07:03:12 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011203085825.008c2660@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 08:58:25 -0500 Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] What Do You Think? In-Reply-To: <009d01c17a8b$ca6d7b60$b8967a3f@wchs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/158 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:15 AM 12/1/01 -0600, you wrote: >Do we need to add anything else? (My brain is "tap city" today) > >Any wording changes? > >Phyllis >______________________ > >The name of the committee shall be the Bylaws Revision Committee. > >The purpose of the Bylaws Revision Committee shall be to study the current >USGenWeb Project Bylaws to determine which portions do not need revising. "The purpose of the Bylaws Revision Committee shall be to study the current USGenWeb Project Bylaws to determine which portions need revising." Changed to 'which portions need revising'. What doesn't need revising they'll ignore (although I daresay that won't be much). >The Committee shall then propose for revision as follows: > >1) Deletion of unnecessary sections; > >2) Clarification or strengthening sections where needed; > >3) New Articles that may be determined necessary. I like to see lists in concise ways: The Committee shall then propose for revision as follows: - Deletion of unnecessary sections; - Clarification or strengthening sections; - New Articles that may be deemed necessary. 'Where needed' removed from line 2 as redundant. 'Determined' in line 3 replaced with 'deemed'. >The Committee shall be composed of the following: > >1) Four (4) Advisory Board members; > >2) Four (4) State or Assistant State Coordinators > >3) Two (2) members from Special Projects > >4) Eleven (11) County Coordinators > >5) One (1) ex officio....the NC The Committee shall be composed of the following: - Four (4) Advisory Board members; - Four (4) State or Assistant State Coordinators - Two (2) members from Special Projects - Eleven (11) County Coordinators Since the NC is automatically a member of any committee it is redundant to mention it in the motion. >The four (4) Advisory Board members shall be selected by nominations from >the Advisory Board in the same manner as Mediation Panel members are >selected. > >This committee shall then call for volunteers from the general >membership and shall complete the selection of the committee. If there are >not enough "first call" volunteers to fill the allocated seats, another call >will be made. > >If the ASC/SC or SP seats are still not filled, they will be filled by CCs. >In the event there is still not a total of 22 members, the committee shall >consist of those who have been selected. > >The Bylaws Revision Committee will be charged with: > >1) Soliciting and considering suggestions from the USGW P general > membership; - Asking for suggestions from the USGenWeb Project membership and determining if they conflict with other sections. >2) Summerizing and posting these suggestions on a website. (URL to > be posted to all national lists.) - Summerizing these suggestions on a web site. >3) Posting the current bylaws and suggested revisions on the website > in a manner that may be easily followed. (Example: Current in > black; proposed in a second color; final in a third color.) - Posting the current Bylaws and suggested revisions in a manner showing the changes through the use of colored text. >4) Making monthly progress reports to the AB, with the provision that > such reports will be forwarded to the national lists by the NC. - Making monthly progress reports to the AB, the NC to forward the reports to all the national and regional lists. >5) Filing its final report no later than May 15, 2002. - Final report to be filed by May 15, 2002. >The Bylaws Revision Committee will be responsible for organizing itself and >how best to proceed with its work. Also, if the committee makes the >determination that an Article it will propose should be put in place prior >to voting on the complete set of Bylaws, it may petition the Advisory Board >to invoke the "emergency amendment procedure." > >In the event the committee is unable to complete its work in time to present >the revised set of bylaws for approval by the general membership during >Election 2002, the committee will be dissolved and its work will be turned >over to the new Advisory Board. >_____________________ Tim From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Dec 3 09:03:37 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA00082 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:03:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA21415 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:03:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fB3E3D511531; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 07:03:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 07:03:13 -0700 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@mccallie.org Mon Dec 3 07:03:13 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011203090032.007f57e0@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 09:00:32 -0500 Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Bylaws Report In-Reply-To: <00c601c17b59$0e977fc0$9a967a3f@wchs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/159 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:44 AM 12/2/01 -0600, you wrote: >Message to Holly about the NC posting the monthly reports to the national >lists, brought her suggestion that this be done by the Board Secretary. >Therefore, I changed # 4 under "Bylaws Committee shall be charged with:" to >reflect this. > >Please vote "yes" to accept this as the official report to be sent to the >AB. Report? This isn't a report - it should be a motion. Tim >Please vote "no" to not accept and please state any changes you would make. > >Phyllis >_________________ From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Dec 3 10:49:55 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA11595 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 10:49:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA09651 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 10:49:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fB3Fnbq26234; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 08:49:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 08:49:37 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Mon Dec 3 08:49:36 2001 Message-ID: <00e001c17c11$debe8280$4328c141@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:47:16 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Report Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/160 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: No, this is a report. It can be followed by a motion asking the AB to approve the report and select the AB members. Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Sat Dec 1 12:17:28 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA02058 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 12:17:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA10573 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 12:17:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fB1HHAh19799; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 10:17:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 10:17:10 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Sat Dec 1 10:17:09 2001 Message-ID: <009d01c17a8b$ca6d7b60$b8967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 11:15:34 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] What Do You Think? Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/150 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A Do we need to add anything else? (My brain is "tap city" today) Any wording changes? Phyllis ______________________ The name of the committee shall be the Bylaws Revision Committee. The purpose of the Bylaws Revision Committee shall be to study the current USGenWeb Project Bylaws to determine which portions do not need revising. The Committee shall then propose for revision as follows: 1) Deletion of unnecessary sections; 2) Clarification or strengthening sections where needed; 3) New Articles that may be determined necessary. The Committee shall be composed of the following: 1) Four (4) Advisory Board members; 2) Four (4) State or Assistant State Coordinators 3) Two (2) members from Special Projects 4) Eleven (11) County Coordinators 5) One (1) ex officio....the NC The four (4) Advisory Board members shall be selected by nominations from the Advisory Board in the same manner as Mediation Panel members are selected. This committee shall then call for volunteers from the general membership and shall complete the selection of the committee. If there are not enough "first call" volunteers to fill the allocated seats, another call will be made. If the ASC/SC or SP seats are still not filled, they will be filled by CCs. In the event there is still not a total of 22 members, the committee shall consist of those who have been selected. The Bylaws Revision Committee will be charged with: 1) Soliciting and considering suggestions from the USGW P general membership; 2) Summerizing and posting these suggestions on a website. (URL to be posted to all national lists.) 3) Posting the current bylaws and suggested revisions on the website in a manner that may be easily followed. (Example: Current in black; proposed in a second color; final in a third color.) 4) Making monthly progress reports to the AB, with the provision that such reports will be forwarded to the national lists by the NC. 5) Filing its final report no later than May 15, 2002. The Bylaws Revision Committee will be responsible for organizing itself and how best to proceed with its work. Also, if the committee makes the determination that an Article it will propose should be put in place prior to voting on the complete set of Bylaws, it may petition the Advisory Board to invoke the "emergency amendment procedure." In the event the committee is unable to complete its work in time to present the revised set of bylaws for approval by the general membership during Election 2002, the committee will be dissolved and its work will be turned over to the new Advisory Board. _____________________ From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Sat Dec 1 15:09:59 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA03193 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 15:09:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA16976 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 13:17:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fB1IH3703436; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 11:17:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 11:17:03 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Sat Dec 1 11:17:03 2001 Message-ID: <00c801c17a94$28a5fd80$b8967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 12:15:27 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Forgot Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/151 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A The paragraph that tells about the selection of the members of the committee by the 5 AB members......should we add something like this: The slate of committee members shall then be present to the Advisory Board for approval. Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Dec 2 00:04:21 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA22836 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 00:04:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA22936 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 00:04:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fB253vC05096; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 22:03:57 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 22:03:57 -0700 X-Original-Sender: nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com Sat Dec 1 22:03:56 2001 X-Originating-IP: [64.12.103.168] From: "Mary Ann Hetrick" Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] What Do You Think? Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 00:03:58 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Dec 2001 05:03:58.0334 (UTC) FILETIME=[BFE4E9E0:01C17AEE] Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/152 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Looks very good! I have no problem with it. Mary Ann Hetrick >From: "Phyllis Rippee" >Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com >To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] What Do You Think? >Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 11:15:34 -0600 > >Do we need to add anything else? (My brain is "tap city" today) > >Any wording changes? > >Phyllis >______________________ > >The name of the committee shall be the Bylaws Revision Committee. > >The purpose of the Bylaws Revision Committee shall be to study the current >USGenWeb Project Bylaws to determine which portions do not need revising. > >The Committee shall then propose for revision as follows: > >1) Deletion of unnecessary sections; > >2) Clarification or strengthening sections where needed; > >3) New Articles that may be determined necessary. > >The Committee shall be composed of the following: > >1) Four (4) Advisory Board members; > >2) Four (4) State or Assistant State Coordinators > >3) Two (2) members from Special Projects > >4) Eleven (11) County Coordinators > >5) One (1) ex officio....the NC > >The four (4) Advisory Board members shall be selected by nominations from >the Advisory Board in the same manner as Mediation Panel members are >selected. > >This committee shall then call for volunteers from the general >membership and shall complete the selection of the committee. If there are >not enough "first call" volunteers to fill the allocated seats, another >call >will be made. > >If the ASC/SC or SP seats are still not filled, they will be filled by CCs. >In the event there is still not a total of 22 members, the committee shall >consist of those who have been selected. > >The Bylaws Revision Committee will be charged with: > >1) Soliciting and considering suggestions from the USGW P general > membership; > >2) Summerizing and posting these suggestions on a website. (URL to > be posted to all national lists.) > >3) Posting the current bylaws and suggested revisions on the website > in a manner that may be easily followed. (Example: Current in > black; proposed in a second color; final in a third color.) > >4) Making monthly progress reports to the AB, with the provision that > such reports will be forwarded to the national lists by the NC. > >5) Filing its final report no later than May 15, 2002. > >The Bylaws Revision Committee will be responsible for organizing itself and >how best to proceed with its work. Also, if the committee makes the >determination that an Article it will propose should be put in place prior >to voting on the complete set of Bylaws, it may petition the Advisory Board >to invoke the "emergency amendment procedure." > >In the event the committee is unable to complete its work in time to >present >the revised set of bylaws for approval by the general membership during >Election 2002, the committee will be dissolved and its work will be turned >over to the new Advisory Board. >_____________________ > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Dec 2 00:07:47 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA23126 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 00:07:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA23196 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 00:07:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fB257QJ10527; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 22:07:26 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 22:07:26 -0700 X-Original-Sender: nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com Sat Dec 1 22:07:25 2001 X-Originating-IP: [64.12.103.168] From: "Mary Ann Hetrick" Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Forgot Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 00:07:27 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Dec 2001 05:07:27.0804 (UTC) FILETIME=[3CBF7FC0:01C17AEF] Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/153 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I thought we had agreed that the selection would work like the mediation panal did. With the highest votes getting the AB slots. Mary Ann Hetrick >From: "Phyllis Rippee" >Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com >To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Forgot >Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 12:15:27 -0600 > >The paragraph that tells about the selection of the members of the >committee >by the 5 AB members......should we add something like this: > >The slate of committee members shall then be present to the Advisory Board >for approval. > >Phyllis > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Dec 2 12:02:43 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA23157 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 12:02:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA27385 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 12:02:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fB2H2PS30737; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 10:02:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 10:02:25 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Sun Dec 2 10:02:25 2001 Message-ID: <006401c17b52$e2f18ba0$9a967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 11:00:45 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Forgot Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/154 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Mary Ann, Sorry to have confused you. The slate of candidates presented to the AB would be those who are selected by the AB members. The AB members themselves would be selected in the same manner as the Mediation Panel. But, those they select should be approved by the AB. Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Dec 2 12:47:02 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA26202 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 12:47:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA02023 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 12:47:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fB2HkZG01652; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 10:46:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 10:46:35 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Sun Dec 2 10:46:35 2001 Message-ID: <00c601c17b59$0e977fc0$9a967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 11:44:55 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Bylaws Report Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/155 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A Message to Holly about the NC posting the monthly reports to the national lists, brought her suggestion that this be done by the Board Secretary. Therefore, I changed # 4 under "Bylaws Committee shall be charged with:" to reflect this. Please vote "yes" to accept this as the official report to be sent to the AB. Please vote "no" to not accept and please state any changes you would make. Phyllis _________________ The name of the committee shall be the Bylaws Revision Committee. The purpose of the Bylaws Revision Committee shall be to study the current USGenWeb Project Bylaws to determine which portions do not need revising. The Committee shall then propose for revision as follows: 1) Deletion of unnecessary sections; 2) Clarification or strengthening sections where needed; 3) New Articles that may be determined necessary. The Committee shall be composed of the following: 1) Four (4) Advisory Board members; 2) Four (4) State or Assistant State Coordinators 3) Two (2) members from Special Projects 4) Eleven (11) County Coordinators 5) One (1) ex officio....the NC The four (4) Advisory Board members shall be selected by nominations from the Advisory Board in the same manner as Mediation Panel members are selected. This committee shall then call for volunteers from the general membership and shall complete the selection of the committee. If there are not enough "first call" volunteers to fill the allocated seats, another call will be made. If the ASC/SC or SP seats are still not filled, they will be filled by CCs. In the event there is still not a total of 22 members, the committee shall consist of those who have been selected. The slate of candidates will then be presented to the AB for approval in its entirety. If it is rejected, revised slates will be presented until one is approved. The Bylaws Revision Committee will be charged with: 1) Soliciting and considering suggestions from the USGW P general membership; 2) Summerizing and posting these suggestions on a website. (URL to be posted to all national lists.) 3) Posting the current bylaws and suggested revisions on the website in a manner that may be easily followed. (Example: Current in black; proposed in a second color; final in a third color.) 4) Making monthly progress reports to the AB, with the provision that such reports will be forwarded to the national lists by the Advisory Board Secretary. 5) Filing its final report no later than May 15, 2002. The Bylaws Revision Committee will be responsible for organizing itself and how best to proceed with its work. Also, if the committee makes the determination that an Article it will propose should be put in place prior to voting on the complete set of Bylaws, it may petition the Advisory Board to invoke the "emergency amendment procedure." In the event the committee is unable to complete its work in time to present the revised set of bylaws for approval by the general membership during Election 2002, the committee will be dissolved and its work will be turned over to the new Advisory Board. ______________________ From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Dec 2 15:02:04 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA06998 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 15:02:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA16749 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 15:02:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fB2K1c322236; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 13:01:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 13:01:38 -0700 X-Original-Sender: ky.quest@gte.net Sun Dec 2 13:01:38 2001 Message-ID: <010801c17b6b$a484d390$6501a8c0@Diane> From: "Diane Montgomery Parsons" Old-To: References: <00c601c17b59$0e977fc0$9a967a3f@wchs> Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 14:57:58 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Re: Bylaws VOTE Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/156 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: YES Diane M Parsons > > Please vote "yes" to accept this as the official report to be sent to the > AB. > > Please vote "no" to not accept and please state any changes you would make. > > Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Dec 3 10:55:21 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA12199 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 10:55:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA10626 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 10:55:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fB3Fsxa09565; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 08:54:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 08:54:59 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Mon Dec 3 08:54:59 2001 Message-ID: <00f201c17c12$9f1cb9c0$4328c141@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:53:15 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Please Vote Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/161 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Please vote on the proposed report. We have 2 "yes". And, Tim wants some changes. If you want to vote "no", that's okay. But, please vote. If you're like me, you have a life you'd like to get on with. Phyllis From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Dec 3 16:59:30 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA24882 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 16:59:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA12682 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 16:59:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fB3LxBb12729; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 14:59:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 14:59:11 -0700 X-Original-Sender: merope@Radix.Net Mon Dec 3 14:59:11 2001 Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 16:59:14 -0500 (EST) From: merope Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] What Do You Think? In-Reply-To: <009d01c17a8b$ca6d7b60$b8967a3f@wchs> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/162 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 1 Dec 2001, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > Do we need to add anything else? (My brain is "tap city" today) > > Any wording changes? See below. > > 2) Summerizing and posting these suggestions on a website. (URL to > be posted to all national lists.) Correct typo to "summarizing". > > 3) Posting the current bylaws and suggested revisions on the website > in a manner that may be easily followed. (Example: Current in > black; proposed in a second color; final in a third color.) > > 4) Making monthly progress reports to the AB, with the provision that > such reports will be forwarded to the national lists by the NC. > > 5) Filing its final report no later than May 15, 2002. Add phrase "including its recommendations for amendments", after the word "report" > > The Bylaws Revision Committee will be responsible for organizing itself and > how best to proceed with its work. Also, if the committee makes the > determination that an Article it will propose should be put in place prior > to voting on the complete set of Bylaws, it may petition the Advisory Board > to invoke the "emergency amendment procedure." > > In the event the committee is unable to complete its work in time to present > the revised set of bylaws for approval by the general membership during > Election 2002, the committee will be dissolved and its work will be turned > over to the new Advisory Board. Add "no later than midnight August 31, 2002. -Teresa From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Dec 3 17:00:09 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA25013 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 17:00:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA12789 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 17:00:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fB3Lxl014551; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 14:59:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 14:59:47 -0700 X-Original-Sender: merope@Radix.Net Mon Dec 3 14:59:47 2001 Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 16:59:49 -0500 (EST) From: merope Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Forgot In-Reply-To: <00c801c17a94$28a5fd80$b8967a3f@wchs> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/163 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 1 Dec 2001, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > The paragraph that tells about the selection of the members of the committee > by the 5 AB members......should we add something like this: > > The slate of committee members shall then be present to the Advisory Board > for approval. Yes. And provide a statement to the effect that the Board must approve the entire slate. -Teresa > > Phyllis > From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Dec 3 17:11:11 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA26258 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 17:11:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA14779 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 17:11:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fB3MAol30104; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 15:10:50 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 15:10:50 -0700 X-Original-Sender: merope@Radix.Net Mon Dec 3 15:10:49 2001 Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 17:10:52 -0500 (EST) From: merope Old-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Strong suggestion Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/165 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Before we send anything to the Board, I recommend that we select one person to be our spokesperson. That person would present the proposal [a term I prefer to 'report' or 'motion'] to the Board, and address any questions the Board members may have, either in consultation with this committee or based on our discussions to date. This isn't to keep anyone from expressing an opinion but to cut down on confusion. We should be open to amending/revising the proposal before it gets to the stage of being a motion. Some of our colleagues may have suggestions that could be incorporated or may think of something we failed to address. That said, I nominate Phyllis to be our spokesperson, if she's willing. -Teresa merope@radix.net From USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Dec 3 17:31:46 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA28220 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 17:31:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA18124 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 17:31:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fB3MVOC08780; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 15:31:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 15:31:24 -0700 X-Original-Sender: ky.quest@gte.net Mon Dec 3 15:31:23 2001 Message-ID: <009101c17c49$ba774500$6501a8c0@Diane> From: "Diane Montgomery Parsons" Old-To: References: Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 17:27:43 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Subject: [USGW-ByLaws] Re: Strong suggestion Resent-Message-ID: <-j24t.A.DJC.80_C8@lists5.rootsweb.com> To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/166 X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I second that nomination Diane SNIP. > > That said, I nominate Phyllis to be our spokesperson, if she's willing. > > -Teresa > merope@radix.net > > > From ???@??? Tue Feb 26 18:10:25 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA00423 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 06:54:57 -0500 (EST) From: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1QBsucd002471 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 06:54:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1QBsog15265; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:54:50 -0700 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:54:50 -0700 Message-Id: <200202261154.g1QBsog15265@lists5.rootsweb.com> To: merope@radix.net Subject: Re: unsubscribe merope@radix.net X-Loop: USGW-BYLAWS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: junk X-UIDL: 015e20d9dc1d5ee778bf9d4526cf6ae7 32760 merope@radix.net merope@radix.net You have been removed from the list. If this wasn't your intention or you are having problems getting yourself unsubscribed, reply to this mail now (quoting it entirely (for diagnostic purposes), and of course adding any comments you see fit). Transcript of unsubscription request follows: -- >From merope@radix.net >From: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com >Reply-To: merope@radix.net >To: USGW-BYLAWS-L-request@rootsweb.com >Subject: unsubscribe merope@radix.net