From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Oct 2 18:45:44 2000 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 SAA18159 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:45:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA03870 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:45:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 1FC873C160; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:45:42 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from postoffice5.ipa.net (postoffice5.ipa.net [205.218.170.26]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F7793C132 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:45:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-176.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.176]) by postoffice5.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA29508 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 17:45:59 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <008e01c02cc2$3cd2cf20$b02b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: <76.382c080.27096ee0@aol.com> Subject: Re: [ESC] Registration page Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 17:08:59 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I don't want to build in safeguards to vote padding, because I think anything we could figure out would be unfair to some legitimate cc's. But, I also will not agree to anything that is an open invitation and open welcome for vote padding. SCs are the only ones who can verify ALL the addy's in their states. If they have to verify them, then they just as well turn in a list from the beginning. Let's ask the other SCs on this list. Knowing *your* cc's, how many do you believe would make the effort to go to a separate website and register to vote? In Wyoming, I could, with confidence, say that less than half would do it. Consider the last election. We had 38% participation when all anyone had to do was click on a link and VOTE, which required a very minimal effort. We are clearly divided here about whether or not CC's should register themselves, or the SCs provide a list. I think there are valid arguments for both methods. However, I have to strenuously disagree with the cc-register method because I believe it is an open invitation to voter padding; and also that I don't believe we could nudge a high enough percentage of cc's to register that would pull in more names than from the SCs. Carol ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 11:53 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] Registration page > In a message dated 10/1/00 8:57:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, wygenweb@ipa.net > writes: > > > The best chance > > for getting a some-what complete roster is through the SCs. > > Let's ask the CC's? I think you will be surprised. > > Tina > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Oct 2 18:45:44 2000 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 SAA18157 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:45:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA03869 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:45:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id E54113C15D; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:45:40 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from postoffice5.ipa.net (postoffice5.ipa.net [205.218.170.26]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D1E73C127 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:45:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-176.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.176]) by postoffice5.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA29503 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 17:45:57 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <008d01c02cc2$3bb57840$b02b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: <18.2fd50b6.2709492c@aol.com> <013d01c02c28$ed3b89f0$0201a8c0@connie> Subject: Re: [ESC] Registration page Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 16:59:20 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: > The SEC should NOT be in charge of the election software. __The SEC is > going to be appointed by the board__. That implies that the board can > influence the SEC. It doesn't matter whether or not they will or can - the There is nothing in the rules anywhere that says that the EC *must* be appointed by the AB. I'd prefer to see them *not* appointed by the Board, for the reasons you mention. Once the NC and AB are removed from choosing the EC, then you also remove the appearance of AB/NC interference. But, that doesn't guarantee impartiality. On this committee, I think we've achieved a nice blend of different philosophies. I don't see any reason why that can't happen again when choosing EC members by some other method. Some ideas: I've played around with the idea of adding one or two positions called "Election Commissioner" for each region. I'm sure there must be some problems with electing people for the EC, too, though. Such as, would only people with a "political agenda" run for the position? As for the software: I don't think it makes much difference whether or not it is administered by the EC or some "neutral" 3rd party. I'd suggest, instead, that everyone be given a unique voter ID. Then, the results of every election be published showing the voter ID, but no other identifying info. Publishing the results by some identification that the VOTER can verify that his/her vote was recorded faithfully, but no one else could figure out who voted for whom, would "verify" that the election results were true and accurate. OR, have the RESULTS verified by a neutral 3rd party, rather than the actual software of process. Random ID generators are plentiful on the internet. As part of the verification of email addresses, the new voter ID can be sent each year. If the ID comes back, then it is obviously a bad addy. Otherwise, everyone would get a new ID. Although not proficient in writing software programs, I *do* know that a program can be written to do whatever we need it to do. And there are some excellent programmers in this project who have not ever gotten very involved in the politics. Patty Lindsay, who created Surname Helper, is the first person who comes to my mind. The point being that I still believe that we can become so goosey and paranoid about "cheating" and "power" and "controlled by the Ab" etc., that we end up being self-defeating. You won't be able to find a "neutral" 3rd party to administer anything without at least a few complaining and suspecting a rigged election. Again, I think the key is consistency, a plan in place that does not change. I think we need to come up with the best plan mechanically that we can, and leave the "dissidents" to scream and holler, as they will no matter what we do! Because we aren't going to please everyone, and no matter what we do, someone is going to want it differently. So, I'd stick to fairness and consistentcy, and let our genius be discovered as the plan works! Carol _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Oct 2 18:46:01 2000 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 SAA18197 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:46:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA03916 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:45:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id E81E03C127; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:45:58 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from postoffice5.ipa.net (postoffice5.ipa.net [205.218.170.26]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4786F3C15D for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:45:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-176.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.176]) by postoffice5.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA29516 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 17:46:02 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <009001c02cc2$3e967820$b02b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: <29.ae27618.2709eb70@aol.com> Subject: Re: [ESC] Re: State Election Official (Additional Comments) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 17:31:42 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Everytime I read about how much power I have as a SC, I want to laugh. No offense, please! But, if I aggravated my cc's enough, I'd be gone whether or not it was time to elect a new SC or not! If my philosophy were significally different from the majority in the state, they'd hold a special election and dump me! If I suggest something they don't want to do, I get dead silence and no response. If I manage to think of something good, they all rally and support "me?" I don't have any "power" folks! How about you, Holly? Carol ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 8:45 AM Subject: [ESC] Re: State Election Official (Additional Comments) > In a message dated 10/1/00 9:16:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Jerimiah writes: > > << there was an > interesting idea or a state elections official. That sounds like a > possiblity to develop further. > Jerimiah >> > > Thank you very much, sometimes even nitwits such as myslf have good ideas. > > As for real issues with distrustful SC's. I don't think it's our place on > this committee to discuss such issues. However, I will maintain that at least > in my mind I have personal knowledge of one SC who has not been the most > outstanding example of good sportsmanship in elections. (will discuss this > privately but not here) > > If the SC's are allowed to maintain a power hold (real or imagined) on the > national elections what have we done in restoring voter confidence? To > restore trust we must not only deal with real events, but also the perception > of events. Regardless whether we think it is true or not, one of the > complaints we see in the responses mention numerous times are complaints of > SC's and their participation. Leaving it totally up to the SC's in my opinion > is what got voter confidence as low as it is. > > My bottom line is this. We are here to recommend ways of fixing all of this. > I can see no way of balancing fixing it, but changing nothing. There comes a > time we have to make a stand and say, this may not be popular with a few, but > in the longrun will sustain and nourish our project. > > Chip > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Oct 2 19:04:15 2000 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 TAA19832 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:04:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA06518 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:04:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id A2F423C154; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:04:12 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A85753C127 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:04:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port1445.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.210.245]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA18292; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:04:09 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001002175608.00c45d40@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 17:58:46 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] Registration page Cc: In-Reply-To: <008d01c02cc2$3bb57840$b02b95d0@youda> References: <18.2fd50b6.2709492c@aol.com> <013d01c02c28$ed3b89f0$0201a8c0@connie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 04:59 PM 10/02/2000 -0500, Carol wrote: >I think we need to come up with the best plan mechanically that we can, and >leave the "dissidents" to scream and holler, as they will no matter what we >do! Because we aren't going to please everyone, and no matter what we do, >someone is going to want it differently. So, I'd stick to fairness and >consistentcy, and let our genius be discovered as the plan works! > >Carol If there is fairness and consistency, do you really think there will be any "dissidents"? I don't. Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ RootsWeb listowner http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/lists/ CC for Carroll County, GA http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/Carroll/ CC for Chattahoochee County, GA http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/CHA/ _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Oct 2 19:07:00 2000 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 TAA19979 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:06:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA06841 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:06:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id DEDB53C15B; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:06:56 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from clavin.efn.org (clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F40A23C127 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:06:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pm3-006.efn.org (pm3-006.efn.org [206.163.180.6]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id e92N6jG08111 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 16:06:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <39D91644.74A0@efn.org> Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 16:12:04 -0700 From: John McCoy X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] Registration page References: <18.2fd50b6.2709492c@aol.com> <013d01c02c28$ed3b89f0$0201a8c0@connie> <008d01c02cc2$3bb57840$b02b95d0@youda> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Carol wrote: > >... I'd suggest, instead, that everyone be given a unique voter ID. > Then, the results of every election be published showing the voter ID, > but no other identifying info. Publishing the results by some > identification that the VOTER can verify that his/her vote was recorded > faithfully... I hope I am not missing something here. Isn't this the way it was handled in the last election? [BTW, Jeremiah and any others on the last EC - I *personally* thought this worked well, and thought you did a good job]. Even doing it that way, near riots broke out and folks were very unhappy, just because the *trust* was not there. I think therein lies the problem: Trust. I do not think it was necessarily the individuals on the EC that weren't trusted in all cases. I think it was a more general "them." Anything handled by National was "them," which would include the EC, which I believe was appointed by either the AB or NC or both (I never knew). I hate to see our state, or even our national organization torn apart like that again. That is the reason I keep urging for us to keep our hands off, and let some outside organization handle everything, including any needed software (which they probably already have in place). I realize the theoretical benefit that having our own software could have, or even administering the voting, but the perceived mistrust far outweighs any benefit at this juncture. John > > The SEC should NOT be in charge of the election software. __The SEC is > > going to be appointed by the board__. That implies that the board can > > influence the SEC. It doesn't matter whether or not they will or can - > the > > There is nothing in the rules anywhere that says that the EC *must* be > appointed by the AB. I'd prefer to see them *not* appointed by the Board, > for the reasons you mention. Once the NC and AB are removed from choosing > the EC, then you also remove the appearance of AB/NC interference. But, > that doesn't guarantee impartiality. On this committee, I think we've > achieved a nice blend of different philosophies. I don't see any reason why > that can't happen again when choosing EC members by some other method. > > Some ideas: > > I've played around with the idea of adding one or two positions called > "Election Commissioner" for each region. I'm sure there must be some > problems with electing people for the EC, too, though. Such as, would only > people with a "political agenda" run for the position? > > As for the software: I don't think it makes much difference whether or not > it is administered by the EC or some "neutral" 3rd party. I'd suggest, > instead, that everyone be given a unique voter ID. Then, the results of > every election be published showing the voter ID, but no other identifying > info. Publishing the results by some identification that the VOTER can > verify that his/her vote was recorded faithfully, but no one else could > figure out who voted for whom, would "verify" that the election results were > true and accurate. > > OR, have the RESULTS verified by a neutral 3rd party, rather than the actual > software of process. > > Random ID generators are plentiful on the internet. As part of the > verification of email addresses, the new voter ID can be sent each year. If > the ID comes back, then it is obviously a bad addy. Otherwise, everyone > would get a new ID. > > Although not proficient in writing software programs, I *do* know that a > program can be written to do whatever we need it to do. And there are some > excellent programmers in this project who have not ever gotten very involved > in the politics. Patty Lindsay, who created Surname Helper, is the first > person who comes to my mind. > > The point being that I still believe that we can become so goosey and > paranoid about "cheating" and "power" and "controlled by the Ab" etc., that > we end up being self-defeating. You won't be able to find a "neutral" 3rd > party to administer anything without at least a few complaining and > suspecting a rigged election. Again, I think the key is consistency, a plan > in place that does not change. > > I think we need to come up with the best plan mechanically that we can, and > leave the "dissidents" to scream and holler, as they will no matter what we > do! Because we aren't going to please everyone, and no matter what we do, > someone is going to want it differently. So, I'd stick to fairness and > consistentcy, and let our genius be discovered as the plan works! > > Carol > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Oct 2 19:15:37 2000 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 TAA20753 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:15:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA08067 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:15:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id D25793C13C; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:15:32 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27AA53C127 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:15:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.202]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001002231530.EKKK425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:15:30 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001002191145.00e5d8c0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 19:21:12 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] Registration page In-Reply-To: <008e01c02cc2$3cd2cf20$b02b95d0@youda> References: <76.382c080.27096ee0@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 05:08 PM 10/2/00 -0500, Carol wrote: >Let's ask the other SCs on this list. Knowing *your* cc's, how many do you >believe would make the effort to go to a separate website and register to >vote? > >In Wyoming, I could, with confidence, say that less than half would do it. probably about the same... maybe 40% >We are clearly divided here about whether or not CC's should register >themselves, or the SCs provide a list. I think there are valid arguments >for both methods. However, I have to strenuously disagree with the >cc-register method because I believe it is an open invitation to voter >padding; and also that I don't believe we could nudge a high enough >percentage of cc's to register that would pull in more names than from the >SCs. Here's one of the scenario's I am concerned about.... I've got two counties that are about to have their CC's dumped for lack of action... like months and months and no response... I sent out final warnings and gave them a few days to do something or the sites are being turned over elsewhere. Now, if the SC is out of the loop re: voter registration, how do they get removed? And if they insist they are the CC? Holly _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Oct 2 19:22:25 2000 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 TAA21308 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:22:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA09000 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:22:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id B48CB3C160; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:22:22 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2215C3C15B for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:22:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.202]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001002232217.EPAZ425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:22:17 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001002192132.00cc3b20@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 19:27:42 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] Re: State Election Official (Additional Comments) In-Reply-To: <009001c02cc2$3e967820$b02b95d0@youda> References: <29.ae27618.2709eb70@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 05:31 PM 10/2/00 -0500, Carol wrote: >I don't have any "power" folks! How about you, Holly? We're supposed to have power? Oh, I suppose I do have the power to remove CC's but if I did so without good cause, the rest would be all over me or gone. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Oct 2 19:24:41 2000 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 TAA21581 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:24:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA09353 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:24:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 5C2533C160; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:24:37 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E15483C15B for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:24:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port1445.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.210.245]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA00940 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:24:34 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001002181537.00c91440@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 18:19:16 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] Registration page In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20001002191145.00e5d8c0@mail.bright.net> References: <008e01c02cc2$3cd2cf20$b02b95d0@youda> <76.382c080.27096ee0@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 07:21 PM 10/02/2000 -0500, you wrote: Now, if the SC is out of the loop re: voter registration, how do they get removed? And if they insist they are the CC? >Holly Holly, maybe I missed it with all that has been going on elsewhere today, but I don't remember anyone wanting SCs to be out of the loop - SCs would be very much needed to be in the loop, IMHO - just not controlling the loop - and if someone insisted they were the CC and the SC said they were not, then of course the SC would be the final authority - that is one of their responsibilities, right? Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Oct 2 19:25:54 2000 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 TAA21636 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:25:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA09504 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:25:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id E381B3C160; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:25:51 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r18.mail.aol.com (imo-r18.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.72]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0902F3C15B for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:25:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MHet703234@aol.com by imo-r18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.24.) id s.9.b4c17f5 (3860) for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:25:08 -0400 (EDT) From: MHet703234@aol.com Message-ID: <9.b4c17f5.270a7336@aol.com> Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:24:38 EDT Subject: Re: [ESC] Registration page To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 120 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 10/2/2000 3:45:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, wygenweb@ipa.net writes: << Let's ask the other SCs on this list. Knowing *your* cc's, how many do you believe would make the effort to go to a separate website and register to vote? In Wyoming, I could, with confidence, say that less than half would do it. Consider the last election. We had 38% participation when all anyone had to do was click on a link and VOTE, which required a very minimal effort. We are clearly divided here about whether or not CC's should register themselves, or the SCs provide a list. I think there are valid arguments for both methods. However, I have to strenuously disagree with the cc-register method because I believe it is an open invitation to voter padding; and also that I don't believe we could nudge a high enough percentage of cc's to register that would pull in more names than from the SCs. Carol >> I could say about half of my CC's would use the registration, but don't know for sure. I agree, with you Carol, there are arguments for both sides. I think the reason we have the two view points is that we are hearing from CC's who have not had a good experience with there SC's. I think the SC's are a legitimate link in the chain to national level. Most CC's don't understand what the national level is about. This is showed in the posts to our survey. Mary Ann _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Oct 2 19:31:09 2000 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 TAA22175 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:31:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA10263 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:31:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id F27F03C144; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:31:06 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A4B83C130 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:31:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.202]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001002233102.EVCE425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:31:02 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001002192852.00c19430@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 19:36:36 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] Just a thought In-Reply-To: <009101c02cc2$3fd560c0$b02b95d0@youda> References: <9a.a5bcb05.27097c09@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 05:42 PM 10/2/00 -0500, Carol wrote: >We had some good responses on our last survey, but it was just a very small >percentage of the project members who took it! less than voted actually >And, if you side-step the people in the project who you NEED to help you, >and step on their toes, you're going to have a bigger mess than we have now. >Because if you, in effect, tell the SCs that you don't want their lists, >then how much response are you going to get from the SCs when it comes time >to VERIFY those lists? Yes, some SCs would welcome not having one more >thing to do. Some won't care. But, those who DO care, and DO keep track of >their cc's, and DO feel a closeness and comraderie with their cc's, >will --without a doubt--resent that you're side-stepping them. As I've said before, a major part of my job as SC in NY is being the interface with the rest of the project. I'm not going to resent being side-stepped but I am going to be very concerned about teh reaction of some of my CC's and I know my email volume will go up as they write for explanations etc. I am willing to accept that there may be an SC or two that would be obstructive but if there is a means for a CC to report directly should they wish to do so, they have an opening. >There is nothing I can do or say if everyone's mind is made up on this >subject. However, I will ask Holly to note in the report that at least one >SC felt that the only way to get a fairly complete election roster was >through the SCs. A bit soon to worry about that Carol... I think we're still in mid discussion on this point _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Oct 2 19:35:16 2000 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 TAA22558 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:35:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA10934 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:35:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 9114F3C160; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:35:13 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r12.mail.aol.com (imo-r12.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.66]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 836213C130 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:35:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MHet703234@aol.com by imo-r12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.24.) id s.11.9e06177 (3860) for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:35:00 -0400 (EDT) From: MHet703234@aol.com Message-ID: <11.9e06177.270a7586@aol.com> Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:34:30 EDT Subject: Re: [ESC] Just a thought To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 120 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 10/2/2000 3:46:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time, wygenweb@ipa.net writes: << I just really think that voting turn-out will actually decrease instead of increase with this method. There is nothing I can do or say if everyone's mind is made up on this subject. However, I will ask Holly to note in the report that at least one SC felt that the only way to get a fairly complete election roster was through the SCs. I also do not think a total revamp is necessary to restore confidence in the election process. I only believe that CONSISTENCY is needed. Thanks for listening, once again. Carol >> I think you are right Carol, the SC's who are involved with their CC's will be the ones that are not going to agree with this. I also would like to have one more SC added to the count for that note in the report. I also agree that consistency is what will make things work more smoothly. Just as Patrick pointed out on carrying over the voter list from the past election. Mary Ann _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Oct 2 19:59:32 2000 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 TAA24472 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:59:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA14500 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:59:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 135713C13C; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:59:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C12A3C130 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:59:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (pool-63.52.128.63.dlls.grid.net [63.52.128.63]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA20216 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:59:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <029001c02ccc$bfa22900$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: <29.ae27618.2709eb70@aol.com> <009001c02cc2$3e967820$b02b95d0@youda> Subject: Re: [ESC] Re: State Election Official (Additional Comments) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:47:30 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Carol Wrote: > Everytime I read about how much power I have as a SC, I want to laugh. No > offense, please! But, if I aggravated my cc's enough, I'd be gone whether > or not it was time to elect a new SC or not! If my philosophy were > significally different from the majority in the state, they'd hold a special > election and dump me! If I suggest something they don't want to do, I get > dead silence and no response. If I manage to think of something good, they > all rally and support "me?" I don't have any "power" folks! How about you, > Holly? > Carol (and all of SCs on this list) I believe I was very careful to say "Real or Perceived". It's not a question of whether the SC HAS power it's the perception that the SCs do HAVE the power to fix or fiddle a list. Once again I'm not trying to side step the SCs - I'm trying very hard to make it so that any Volunteer can feel they have a part of the project. Perhaps there will be only a very small percentage of volunteers who care enough to go and supply their membership information and if that is truly the case then this project is probably in more trouble than any of us realize. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Oct 2 19:59:42 2000 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 TAA24489 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:59:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA14527 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:59:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id B9F6C3C130; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:59:40 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1C693C160 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:59:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (pool-63.52.128.63.dlls.grid.net [63.52.128.63]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA30810 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:59:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <029201c02ccc$c34c9360$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: <7a.ae963f8.270a761a@aol.com> Subject: Re: [ESC] Registration page Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:58:46 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I think I've said a few times but perhaps it was missed. The SC would be requested to notify the SEC of any additions, deletions or changes for their states. The SEC could make those changes if the volunteers did not. The SCs would have to verify their states prior to an election. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 6:36 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] Registration page > In a message dated 10/2/2000 4:16:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > hollyft@bright.net writes: > > << Here's one of the scenario's I am concerned about.... I've got two > counties > that are about to have their CC's dumped for lack of action... like months > and months and no response... I sent out final warnings and gave them a few > days to do something or the sites are being turned over elsewhere. Now, if > the SC is out of the loop re: voter registration, how do they get removed? > And if they insist they are the CC? > > Holly > >> > > > I totaly agree with you Holly! > > Mary Ann > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Oct 2 20:02:40 2000 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 UAA24824 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 20:02:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA14944 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 20:02:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id BD2403C13E; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 20:02:38 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1F063C130 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 20:02:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from TVick65536@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.15.) id s.66.7ed98fb (4188) for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 20:02:35 -0400 (EDT) From: TVick65536@aol.com Message-ID: <66.7ed98fb.270a7c1b@aol.com> Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 20:02:35 EDT Subject: Re: [ESC] Registration page To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 118 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 10/2/00 6:45:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, wygenweb@ipa.net writes: > Let's ask the other SCs on this list. Knowing *your* cc's, how many do you > believe would make the effort to go to a separate website and register to > vote? In WI, with 72 counties and 24 active CC's and Co-CC's covering those counties, I can safely say, that perhaps 15 of those individuals would register to vote. Tina _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Oct 2 20:05:59 2000 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 UAA25152 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 20:05:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA15436 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 20:05:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id D84FF3C160; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 20:05:56 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09A603C130 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 20:05:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port1445.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.210.245]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA25526 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:05:46 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001002185731.00babc70@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 19:00:29 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] Registration page In-Reply-To: <029101c02ccc$c102a360$0200a8c0@Linda> References: <18.2fd50b6.2709492c@aol.com> <013d01c02c28$ed3b89f0$0201a8c0@connie> <008d01c02cc2$3bb57840$b02b95d0@youda> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 06:49 PM 10/02/2000 -0500, you wrote: >Carol wrote: > > >As for the software: I don't think it makes much difference whether or not > >it is administered by the EC or some "neutral" 3rd party. I'd suggest, > >instead, that everyone be given a unique voter ID. Then, the results of > >every election be published showing the voter ID, but no other identifying > >info. Publishing the results by some identification that the VOTER can > >verify that his/her vote was recorded faithfully, but no one else could > >figure out who voted for whom, would "verify" that the election results >were > >true and accurate. > >Excellent suggestion (darn I wish I'd thought of that ) > >Linda I'm apparently missing something - what would keep someone(s) who wanted to pad votes from making up a bunch of fictitious numbers and voting them however they wanted the election to swing? This suggestion would only verify for the one vote, which would leave the same questions that existed in the last election wouldn't it? Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ RootsWeb listowner http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/lists/ CC for Carroll County, GA http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/Carroll/ CC for Chattahoochee County, GA http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/CHA/ _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Oct 2 20:09:48 2000 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 UAA25380 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 20:09:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA16049 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 20:09:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id D00733C13E; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 20:09:45 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from postoffice5.ipa.net (postoffice5.ipa.net [205.218.170.26]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A56C73C130 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 20:09:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-142.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.142]) by postoffice5.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id TAA06867 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:10:03 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <000501c02ccd$faac7d60$8e2b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:06:55 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Just a poor SC Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I finished answering all my email this evening, then layed down for a quick nap before I have to go to work. I tossed and turned for awhile, with the of the recent messages playing heavily on my mind. I couldn't sleep. I couldn't sleep because I am offended by the recent anti-SC sentiment expressed on this list. Whatever has happened to some of you, or what have you seen in the project that makes you think that SCs are such powerful, "unscrupulous," people that we can't even be trusted to send in a list of our cc's? No matter. *I* am offended. And, I think, if that is the way the majority of this project, or this committee feels, about the SCs, then I definitely think that it's time for me to retire quietly to the back of the bus, if not resign. I work too darn hard for the good of my State, with little thanks as it is, to now come under fire because I'm so "powerful" and "unstrustworthy" and "unscrupulous." Enough said. Carol _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Oct 2 22:50:37 2000 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 WAA09136 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 22:50:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA09555 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 22:50:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 6370A3C214; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 22:50:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from bob.propagation.net (unknown [63.249.193.1]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4918D3C209 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 22:50:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from computer (ppp91-rch.klondyke.net [208.245.179.107]) by bob.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA26692 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 21:50:24 -0500 Message-ID: <007d01c02ce3$c998b340$6bb3f5d0@computer> From: "Shari Handley" To: References: <000501c02ccd$faac7d60$8e2b95d0@youda> Subject: Re: [ESC] Just a poor SC Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 22:44:00 -0400 Organization: Tyaskin Web Designs 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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Carol, FWIW, I recognize the hard work the SCs do, and I personally feel they are a level-headed, fair, dedicated group. The USGenWeb is blessed to have them, and I am honored to represent those in my region. There have been a few comments posted in the last few days with less than pleasant tone. We're here to work together to accomplish a task. Can we please try to be very sensitive to the tone of our posts? We don't need to belittle anyone, we don't need to make insinuations about the trustworthiness or scrupulousness of any person or group within the USGenWeb, whether they be SCs, AB members, or anyone else. Shari Handley shari@tyaskin.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Carol To: Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 8:06 PM Subject: [ESC] Just a poor SC > I finished answering all my email this evening, then layed down for a quick > nap before I have to go to work. I tossed and turned for awhile, with the > of the recent messages playing heavily on my mind. I couldn't sleep. > > I couldn't sleep because I am offended by the recent anti-SC sentiment > expressed on this list. Whatever has happened to some of you, or what have > you seen in the project that makes you think that SCs are such powerful, > "unscrupulous," people that we can't even be trusted to send in a list of > our cc's? > > No matter. *I* am offended. And, I think, if that is the way the majority > of this project, or this committee feels, about the SCs, then I definitely > think that it's time for me to retire quietly to the back of the bus, if not > resign. I work too darn hard for the good of my State, with little thanks > as it is, to now come under fire because I'm so "powerful" and > "unstrustworthy" and "unscrupulous." > > Enough said. > > Carol > > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Oct 2 23:31:53 2000 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 XAA12104 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:31:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA14396 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:31:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 4D2A93C170; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:31:51 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.48]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E43BF3C130 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:31:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from connie ([12.75.31.250]) by mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with SMTP id <20001003033148.HGPB18564.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@connie> for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 03:31:48 +0000 Message-ID: <002501c02cea$2a8d5a10$0201a8c0@connie> From: "Connie Bates" To: References: <18.2fd50b6.2709492c@aol.com> <013d01c02c28$ed3b89f0$0201a8c0@connie> <008d01c02cc2$3bb57840$b02b95d0@youda> Subject: Re: [ESC] Registration page Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:22:52 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: > There is nothing in the rules anywhere that says that the EC *must* be > appointed by the AB. I'd prefer to see them *not* appointed by the Board, Nothing except the bylaws: ARTICLE VII. ELECTION PROCEDURES Section 1. A subcommittee to oversee elections shall be appointed by the Advisory Board. The Elections Subcommittee shall consist of Advisory Board members and volunteers from the members of The USGenWeb Project. > As for the software: I don't think it makes much difference whether or not > it is administered by the EC or some "neutral" 3rd party. I'd suggest, > instead, that everyone be given a unique voter ID. Then, the results of > every election be published showing the voter ID, but no other identifying > info. Publishing the results by some identification that the VOTER can > verify that his/her vote was recorded faithfully, but no one else could > figure out who voted for whom, would "verify" that the election results were > true and accurate. I think it makes a *very* big difference. The results of the last election were published, so I know that my vote was recorded accurately, but I *still* wouldn't swear that election was fair. (No offense to the last EC is meant, here, although I can't figure out how to say what I am trying to say without causing offense. It wasn't the folks - it was the method, done under trying conditions without enough time and with very unpopular constraints. ) > > OR, have the RESULTS verified by a neutral 3rd party, rather than the actual > software of process. Sorry - I want the PROCESS verified, not the results. I want to know that the PROCESS is unbiased and untainted. > I think we need to come up with the best plan mechanically that we can, and > leave the "dissidents" to scream and holler, as they will no matter what we > do! Because we aren't going to please everyone, and no matter what we do, > someone is going to want it differently. So, I'd stick to fairness and > consistentcy, and let our genius be discovered as the plan works! You are correct - and speaking as one of those dissidents, I can promise you that I will continue to scream and holler so long as the elections are under the direct or indirect control or influence of the SAME people whose names appear on the ballot. Fairness? I don't think so. Connie _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Oct 2 23:37:51 2000 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 XAA12532 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:37:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA15079 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:37:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 4EE093C14A; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:37:49 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A495A3C130 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:37:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from linda-s.netdoor.com (port368.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.193.68]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA03276 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 22:37:47 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001002222326.00b09bf0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: msgenweb/mail.netdoor.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 22:37:31 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Linda Mason MS SC Subject: Re: [ESC] Just a poor SC In-Reply-To: <007d01c02ce3$c998b340$6bb3f5d0@computer> References: <000501c02ccd$faac7d60$8e2b95d0@youda> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: As a SC I had to speak up on this topic before it gets way out of hand. I try very hard to treat my CC's with dignity and respect and they return it. I don't make a lot of rules because all my CC's are adults and act like such. I pass along pertinent information to them including election info. I trust them to make the best decision for themselves and the project. Don't get me wrong I can be tough if need be but those times are far and few between. I have a great bunch of CC's. I think all the SC's on this committee are here because we ARE fair and we do try to allow our CC's a choice. I have heard the horror stories of SC's who run roughshod over their CC's to the point of telling them who to vote for on a national level. But they are hopefully in the minority. Yes, SC's have a thankless job, but most of us do it because we love the project and we love genealogy. Not for name recognition or fame or glory and certainly not for money! Most people in my "real" life have no idea what a USGenWeb or a State Coordinator is, nor do they care. While I feel that part of my job as SC is to keep track of my CC's, not only their email addresses but what problems they may be having both personally and online. I know that many SC's feel that even gathering together a list of CC's for the EC is a hassle and they don't want to do it. But any SC worth their salt would want to make sure their CC's have the same opportunity as the next state. But that is just MHO. So while there are bad SC's out there, just remember that most are willing to meet anyone more than halfway in the best interest of their CC's. Linda ***************** MSGW SC CC & Listowner for Rankin & Warren UIN# 279574 _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 3 00:44:14 2000 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 AAA18335 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 00:44:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA22424 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 00:44:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id E3E493C18D; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 00:44:11 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mhub2.tc.umn.edu (mhub2.tc.umn.edu [128.101.131.42]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 835A43C13C for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 00:44:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [128.101.248.61] by mhub2.tc.umn.edu for esc@pairlist.net; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:44:08 -0500 Message-Id: <000701c02cf3$b89dd380$23885ea0@tc.umn.edu> From: "Jerimiah Moerke" To: References: <000501c02ccd$faac7d60$8e2b95d0@youda> <4.3.2.7.2.20001002222326.00b09bf0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [ESC] Just a poor SC Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:38:03 -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 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I think it's clear that the SCs on this list are doing their jobs well. Others are not. Why don't we give SCs the option of appointing or the state electing a state election representative as was previously suggested if the SC doesn't care to work with the EC on verifying names or email addresses. That way SCs who are doing their job can continue as before, those who choose not to work with the EC will still have their states represented. I see problems with this idea already, but perhaps it is a start and someone will have a great idea to expand on it if you feel it is worthwhile. Jerimiah ----- Original Message ----- From: Linda Mason MS SC To: Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 10:37 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] Just a poor SC > As a SC I had to speak up on this topic before it gets way out of hand. > > I try very hard to treat my CC's with dignity and respect and they return > it. I don't make a lot of rules because all my CC's are adults and act > like such. I pass along pertinent information to them including election > info. I trust them to make the best decision for themselves and the > project. Don't get me wrong I can be tough if need be but those times are > far and few between. I have a great bunch of CC's. > > I think all the SC's on this committee are here because we ARE fair and we > do try to allow our CC's a choice. I have heard the horror stories of SC's > who run roughshod over their CC's to the point of telling them who to vote > for on a national level. But they are hopefully in the minority. > > Yes, SC's have a thankless job, but most of us do it because we love the > project and we love genealogy. Not for name recognition or fame or glory > and certainly not for money! Most people in my "real" life have no idea > what a USGenWeb or a State Coordinator is, nor do they care. > > While I feel that part of my job as SC is to keep track of my CC's, not > only their email addresses but what problems they may be having both > personally and online. I know that many SC's feel that even gathering > together a list of CC's for the EC is a hassle and they don't want to do > it. But any SC worth their salt would want to make sure their CC's have > the same opportunity as the next state. But that is just MHO. > > So while there are bad SC's out there, just remember that most are willing > to meet anyone more than halfway in the best interest of their CC's. > > Linda > > > ***************** > MSGW SC > CC & Listowner for Rankin & Warren > UIN# 279574 > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Oct 2 18:46:09 2000 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 SAA18211 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:46:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA03935 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:46:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 0CB873C127; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:46:07 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from postoffice5.ipa.net (postoffice5.ipa.net [205.218.170.26]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC00B3C160 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:45:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-176.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.176]) by postoffice5.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA29523 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 17:46:04 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <009101c02cc2$3fd560c0$b02b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: <9a.a5bcb05.27097c09@aol.com> Subject: Re: [ESC] Just a thought Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 17:42:46 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A > 3. Would you register to vote, if there was a USGenWeb Project > Membership Registration Page? With all due respect, Tina, this won't work. The ones I'm talking about, who would NOT go to a registration page are the ones who wouldn't take this survey, either. We had some good responses on our last survey, but it was just a very small percentage of the project members who took it! The point I'm making is that you *will* get answers from those who are typically involved and vocal. But, you will not from those who aren't. And, ditto for a registration page that is only cc generated, and side-stepping the SC. I do think a self-supplied membership list would get some interest. However, I think the majority of the project would not bother anymore than they've bothered to vote in the past. More voter IDs were sent out than those who voted, right Jerimiah? That means that you had more names than you had voters. That is because you had a more comprehensive list of membership than those who were willing to participate. And that was because of the SCs, those names came from the SCs! I would suspect that the numbers who would self-register would be about the same percentage of actual voters from the last election. I would like to see a more comprehensive membership roster. You can't get that without the SCs help. Period. And, if you side-step the people in the project who you NEED to help you, and step on their toes, you're going to have a bigger mess than we have now. Because if you, in effect, tell the SCs that you don't want their lists, then how much response are you going to get from the SCs when it comes time to VERIFY those lists? Yes, some SCs would welcome not having one more thing to do. Some won't care. But, those who DO care, and DO keep track of their cc's, and DO feel a closeness and comraderie with their cc's, will --without a doubt--resent that you're side-stepping them. I just really think that voting turn-out will actually decrease instead of increase with this method. There is nothing I can do or say if everyone's mind is made up on this subject. However, I will ask Holly to note in the report that at least one SC felt that the only way to get a fairly complete election roster was through the SCs. I also do not think a total revamp is necessary to restore confidence in the election process. I only believe that CONSISTENCY is needed. Thanks for listening, once again. Carol _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 3 07:09:06 2000 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 HAA13670 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 07:09:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA26448 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 07:09:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 3D63C3C159; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 07:09:04 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74DBE3C130 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 07:09:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.25]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001003110902.TVNP425.invictus@pooh.bright.net>; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 07:09:02 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001003071340.035128e0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 07:14:47 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net, esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] Registration page In-Reply-To: References: <029101c02ccc$c102a360$0200a8c0@Linda> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 06:11 AM 10/3/00 -0400, merope wrote: >Yes, except that it needs to posted _before_ the new Board is seated in >the future. The entire procedure of reporting results and any verification rpocedure needs to be done much more quickly than this last election. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 3 08:46:43 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA20329 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 08:46:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA07890 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 08:46:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 4ABAA3C166; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 08:46:40 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from postoffice6.ipa.net (postoffice6.ipa.net [205.218.170.27]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 127633C1D2 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 08:46:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-49.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.49]) by postoffice6.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id HAA03787 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 07:49:49 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <001f01c02d37$b5092320$312b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: <18.2fd50b6.2709492c@aol.com> <013d01c02c28$ed3b89f0$0201a8c0@connie> <008d01c02cc2$3bb57840$b02b95d0@youda> <002501c02cea$2a8d5a10$0201a8c0@connie> Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 07:44:03 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Some thoughts Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Just a couple of comments before I (finally) get some sleep this morning: First, the bylaws say that *committees* are appointed by the NC/AB, whatever. That's a very simple thing to get around. We are discussing a standing, continuous entity in the USGW. Who said it had to be called a "committee?" A committee implies a finite existence that is disbanded when the job is done. The American Heritage Dictionary defines committee as: "A group of people officially delegated to perform a function . . ." I'm sure that RRoO would have some further definitions of a "committee." Someone with a RRoO, could you look that up? Stay with me here, don't yawn off. In other words, a committee BECOMES a "committee" BECAUSE it is "officially delegated." If "committee" members are ELECTED, then it is no longer a "committee" by definition, unless the AB wants to call themselves the "Advisory Committee" in the future! (being elected, not appointed) Am I being clear here? It's kinda hard to express this thought. The EC, or whatever we call it, does NOT have to be appointed by the AB/NC. If members are *elected*, or *chosen* from a pool of volunteers, then it is NOT a "committee" by definition, because the members were NOT appointed! Why not call it an "election commission" or an "election board?" -------------- Next thought. Thank you for those who responded to my "Just a poor SC." My point here, besides being a little tiffed at the "tone" expressed in some emails is that: We have decided not to punish good, hardworking cc's to prevent vote padding. Why, then, do you feel that it is OK to punish good, hardworking SCs to prevent "unscrupulous" acts? Why side-step SCs for the SOLE reason to prevent the "bad" SCs from having any (what is being called) "power?" You see, we either have a positive approach where we trust in the good to outweigh the bad, and call for ALL to be honest and fair, or else we have to start getting nuts about trying to block every one of the very few minority in this project who don't want to play with integrity. My vote is still to find the best method, mechanically, and stop trying to figure out ways to out-think, outsmart, out-maneuver those who will just find another way to reek their nastiness the moment you close one loophole. And also just because I believe there are more caring, hardworking, fair, honest people in this project than the minority who try to force their wills on the rest of us. Perhaps I am also just incredibly, childishly, naive enough to still believe that the good is stronger, and outnumber, the bad in this world. Carol _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 3 08:53:49 2000 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 IAA20935 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 08:53:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA08977 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 08:53:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 694703C181; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 08:53:46 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r03.mail.aol.com (imo-r03.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.3]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 932B13C14A for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 08:53:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Morom01@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.24.) id s.a1.b640277 (659) for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 08:53:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Morom01@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 08:53:36 EDT To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 118 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Anti SC Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 10/3/00 12:44:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, esc-admin@pairlist.net writes: << I couldn't sleep because I am offended by the recent anti-SC sentiment expressed on this list. >> Now wait a minute folks, nobody is against SC's. Nobody has said that. Everything has checks and balances. What Linda and others including myself referred to is "real or perceived" not actual. Lets state facts with names. One example, both are my friends and I'm sure they wouldn't mind my mentioning them in this closed forum: There was rampant accusations of vote padding in the last election. Did the CC's think other CC's padded? No they could not. Tim accused Fred, Fred accused Tim. Both are (were) SC's at that time. Now was there vote padding? I doubt it, or there would have been more voted. But we can't ignore the complaints it's one reason we're here. Nobody is trying to take powers away from SC's at all. In my opinion SC's will still be doing it as they are now. I do not intend to change that one bit. What I would like to see is that there are checks and balances. The good SC's like Carol and Mary and others are great, but we can't assume all have the same dedication. If they did I'll bet you there would be no need in this committee. I'll bet if we checked, their states had good high turnouts for the election because they took the time to get involved. Many SC's didn't. Or did but not in a proper way. If we don't start doing something to give CC's the perception that they have some say in the future of this project (don't tell me voting, they don't trust the current process) we have not done our job. We can not correct what is perceived to be wrong without making some changes. I'd love to fix everything and do nothing, but that has been tried and gotten us to where we are today. Listen folks, the deadline is approaching, what have we actually done? What will the CC's believe when this committee is finished and little or nothing has been done? Will this help their perception of our project? I suggest to you, it's time to review. Just what have we decided here? Lets list them and get back to basics. If we do not suggest changes we are endorsing the process that got us here today. Chip _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 3 09:23:29 2000 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 JAA23705 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 09:23:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA13707 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 09:23:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 3D3CB3C166; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 09:23:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D9003C144 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 09:23:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust243.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.243]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA11308 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 09:23:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <038101c02d3d$11628c60$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: <000501c02ccd$faac7d60$8e2b95d0@youda> Subject: Re: [ESC] Just a poor SC - My turn Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 08:20:52 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: To Carol and Shari (and any other SC who feels the same) I'm so sorry that you have taken my comments (and apparently Chip's) as a personal attack on you as an individual and/or how you yourself do your job as an SC because that was never my intent. And, I have said that over and over and over in my posts. Since I have read and considered each of your posts about how you feel perhaps you will now return the favor and read mine. I haven't seen any of the CCs on the list (including me) get upset with the posts that talk about how SCs have to take care of their CCs. Some of those posts have been extremely offensive to me as a CC. I don't need Betsy to hold my hand, direct me, tell me to change my address, keep my web page up, explain the voting procedure to me, decide which issues I should see on the state CC list or in any way treat me as if I were incapable of acting like an adult and doing my job. I don't need my SC to be my "mother". But, as I said I haven't seen a post from a CC getting upset at this when such statements are made in a post by an SC. It has been pointed out here on the list that we CCs on this committee are "different" because we are here which means that we care about the project, that we are exceptions and that most CCs don't care and don't want to be bothered and want their SC to take care of everything. Well, let's put the shoe on the other foot - perhaps the SCs on this list are the exceptions for SCs? There are what 40-45 SCs (since some take care of more than one state), yet Holly wasn't covered up with SC volunteers to be on this committee. As you know I sent out a personal e-mail to every SC in the project following up on the posting of the survey request to their state lists. (I posted a copy of the e-mail here on this list). I didn't post a message telling everyone that out of the 40-45 SCs only two bothered to acknowledge my e-mail (Patrick and Tim). I did not expect a response from the SCs on this list but I did expect some type of acknowledgement from the rest and that didn't happen. So based on this what should I think of the average SC I will say again, for the umpteenth time - The problem of any INDIVIDUAL having the right to decide who or who will not vote is a fact of life in this project. It matters none whether that person has a title of SC, AB Member, SP Mrg, CC rep or CC. It is the simple fact that a single INDIVIDUAL has that right. It also doesn't matter if the individual abuses that right or is the most honest human in the world, it is the FACT that is the problem not the individual concerned. So perhaps it is time to put aside our protectiveness of our positions and just try to figure out what is best for this project as a whole? Isn't that what this committee was formed for? Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 3 09:35:42 2000 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 JAA24841 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 09:35:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA15772 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 09:35:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 5A4043C1D9; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 09:35:40 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from bunyip.flash.net (bunyip.flash.net [209.30.2.15]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C9073C144 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 09:35:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from flash.net (p240.amax15.dialup.okc1.flash.net [209.30.87.240]) by bunyip.flash.net (8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA28702 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 08:35:37 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <39D9DD38.EBC56BD6@flash.net> Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 08:20:56 -0500 From: Bob Chada X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] SP Rep Elections References: <95.11ccf5e.2704dbe4@aol.com> <050901c0296e$5ae6f240$0200a8c0@Linda> <39D39513.6689@efn.org> <4.3.2.7.2.20000929064022.03c2a560@mail.bright.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Yes -- Bob Chada bchada@flash.net Logan County, Oklahoma See our home page: http://www.flash.net/~tchada/ See our Logan County page: http://www.rootsweb.com/~oklogan/oklogan.htm _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 3 09:41:16 2000 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 JAA25286 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 09:41:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA16652 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 09:41:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 966503C1C6; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 09:41:14 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9BB43C144 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 09:41:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust243.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.243]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA04718 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 09:41:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <038f01c02d3f$8d286c00$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] Voting lists Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 08:28:43 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Carol Wrote: > There is nothing I can do or say if everyone's mind is made up on this > subject. However, I will ask Holly to note in the report that at least one > SC felt that the only way to get a fairly complete election roster was > through the SCs. Teresa answered: >I don't think our minds are anywhere near 100% agreement on this topic, >and I think avoiding or detouring around the SCs is probably going to be >unworkable. We need to involve people more, not less. Where has this idea that the SC should be AVOIDED or WORKED AROUND come from? It didn't come from me and I'm the person who laid out the plan. What I did say was: The problem of an individual having the right to decide who may vote and who may not vote must be solved. Whether it is a real problem or a preceived problem. No where have I said to cut the SC out of the loop. I did say and will continue to say that for credibility to be restored to the election process the volunteer must be allowed to handle their own information. I also have said over and over that the SC will have to verify the voter list. I have also said over and over that the SCs should be responsible for notifying the membership list committee that a change has occured. How has this been turned into avoidiance or working around the SC? OK this is my last post on this subject. I respectfully throw in the towel. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 3 09:41:18 2000 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 JAA25290 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 09:41:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA16659 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 09:41:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id AB76E3C1E6; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 09:41:16 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE48B3C1D9 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 09:41:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust243.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.243]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA08765 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 09:41:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <039001c02d3f$8e707c60$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] Voting lists Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 08:40:48 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Excellent summary Teresa. I personally have no problems with any one of the items nor do I have additional suggestions to make. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: merope To: Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 6:10 AM Subject: [ESC] Voting lists > > >> snipped <<< > Anyways, here's my take on this: > > We are in agreement that there should be a standing EC. One of the > advantages to a standing EC is continuity from election to election in > terms of not having to redo the work of previous ECs over and over again. > It makes sense to me to recommend strongly that the EC > > 1) maintain voter lists from election to election. The voter lists from > the previous election should be obtained from the old EC as a first order > of business. SC/SPCs should be contacted prior to an election [say a > month] with a list of LCs and file managers that the EC has on record >>> snipped <<<<< _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 3 11:43:47 2000 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 LAA08541 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:43:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA08543 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:43:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 3152F3C13F; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:43:37 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from clavin.efn.org (clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7A253C131 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:43:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pm3-161.efn.org (pm3-161.efn.org [206.163.180.161]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id e93FhO309444 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 08:43:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <39D9FFDB.1AC8@efn.org> Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 08:48:43 -0700 From: John McCoy X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] Voting lists References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A I think Theresa summed it up fairly well. I can agree with all the items except number four. I see we are bound and determined to have control of the voting, thereby committing social suicide. We just don't learn, or we don't give a whip, because we have an agenda. John merope wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, Carol wrote: > > > There is nothing I can do or say if everyone's mind is made up on this > > subject. However, I will ask Holly to note in the report that at least one > > SC felt that the only way to get a fairly complete election roster was > > through the SCs. > > I don't think our minds are anywhere near 100% agreement on this topic, > and I think avoiding or detouring around the SCs is probably going to be > unworkable. We need to involve people more, not less. > > Anyways, here's my take on this: > > We are in agreement that there should be a standing EC. One of the > advantages to a standing EC is continuity from election to election in > terms of not having to redo the work of previous ECs over and over again. > It makes sense to me to recommend strongly that the EC > > 1) maintain voter lists from election to election. The voter lists from > the previous election should be obtained from the old EC as a first order > of business. SC/SPCs should be contacted prior to an election [say a > month] with a list of LCs and file managers that the EC has on record > already and asked to update it for the upcoming election. [the EC can of > course decide to do this more frequently, such as quarterly, but at a > minimum it must be done prior to an election of any type]. I would > recommend that members not be allowed to "opt out" of this membership > list; if they don't want to vote, so be it, all they need to do is trash > the messages. If at all possible, the voter lists for each state should > include the name, email address, position [CC, state special project > coordinator, SC, etc], and specific area covered [such as county name] of > each voter. Hopefully, this "meeting the SCs halfway" will make their job > easier and encourage the stubborn ones to help out with their lists. > > 2) maintain a webpage where LCs can go and check their membership and > voting status to insure that they are included on the voter rolls and > their information is current. They would also be able to udpate their > information at this webpage. The webpage should also contain a current > EC roster and contact info, links to EC reports, election information, > election results, etc. Access to membership info should be password > protected, but the rest of the page should be publicly available. The EC > can send out monthly or quarterly reminders to the membership to update > their information; SCs will be encouraged to send in updates whenever > possible. > > 3) maintain an announce-only mailing list for elections to which all > projects members will be subbed, with the option of unsubbing if they do > not wish to be on it. announcements regarding elections will be made to > this list, the Board list, State-Coord-L, -ALL, CC-L, and the regional > lists [this will mean some of us will get the messages multiple times, but > it also allows those who don't want to sub to the political lists to still > get election announcements]. SCs and the Special Projects coordinators > will be encouraged to forward election announcements to their state > and special project lists as well. [I would also suggest this list not be > on RW for obvious reasons but the home of the list should be up to the > EC]. > > 4) maintain election software. I still am evenly divided between tapping > the pool of talented programmers in this project to accomplish this and > using a third-party neutral off-the-shelf software. Both approaches have > advantages and disadvantages, so I can't decide. > > What do you think sirs? > > -Teresa Lindquist > merope@radix.net > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 3 12:46:21 2000 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 MAA16157 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:46:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA19332 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:46:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 0C01A3C16C; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:46:18 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from bob.propagation.net (unknown [63.249.193.1]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D763B3C16A for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:46:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from computer (ppp142-rch.klondyke.net [208.245.179.158]) by bob.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA23264 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:46:10 -0500 Message-ID: <000b01c02d58$8abd2f00$9eb3f5d0@computer> From: "Shari Handley" To: References: <39D9FFDB.1AC8@efn.org> Subject: Re: [ESC] Voting lists Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:39:45 -0400 Organization: Tyaskin Web Designs 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 5.00.2615.200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A There's no agenda, John. It is a matter of practicality. Why is it that we cannot just take differences of opinion at face value and give those who don't agree with us the benefit of the doubt, that they are acting in good faith, according to their genuinely-held beliefs and opinions? Why is it always an "agenda" when others don't agree with us? Shari Handley shari@tyaskin.com ----- Original Message ----- From: John McCoy To: Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 11:48 AM Subject: Re: [ESC] Voting lists > I think Theresa summed it up fairly well. I can agree with all the > items except number four. I see we are bound and determined to have > control of the voting, thereby committing social suicide. We just don't > learn, or we don't give a whip, because we have an agenda. > > John > > merope wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, Carol wrote: > > > > > There is nothing I can do or say if everyone's mind is made up on this > > > subject. However, I will ask Holly to note in the report that at least one > > > SC felt that the only way to get a fairly complete election roster was > > > through the SCs. > > > > I don't think our minds are anywhere near 100% agreement on this topic, > > and I think avoiding or detouring around the SCs is probably going to be > > unworkable. We need to involve people more, not less. > > > > Anyways, here's my take on this: > > > > We are in agreement that there should be a standing EC. One of the > > advantages to a standing EC is continuity from election to election in > > terms of not having to redo the work of previous ECs over and over again. > > It makes sense to me to recommend strongly that the EC > > > > 1) maintain voter lists from election to election. The voter lists from > > the previous election should be obtained from the old EC as a first order > > of business. SC/SPCs should be contacted prior to an election [say a > > month] with a list of LCs and file managers that the EC has on record > > already and asked to update it for the upcoming election. [the EC can of > > course decide to do this more frequently, such as quarterly, but at a > > minimum it must be done prior to an election of any type]. I would > > recommend that members not be allowed to "opt out" of this membership > > list; if they don't want to vote, so be it, all they need to do is trash > > the messages. If at all possible, the voter lists for each state should > > include the name, email address, position [CC, state special project > > coordinator, SC, etc], and specific area covered [such as county name] of > > each voter. Hopefully, this "meeting the SCs halfway" will make their job > > easier and encourage the stubborn ones to help out with their lists. > > > > 2) maintain a webpage where LCs can go and check their membership and > > voting status to insure that they are included on the voter rolls and > > their information is current. They would also be able to udpate their > > information at this webpage. The webpage should also contain a current > > EC roster and contact info, links to EC reports, election information, > > election results, etc. Access to membership info should be password > > protected, but the rest of the page should be publicly available. The EC > > can send out monthly or quarterly reminders to the membership to update > > their information; SCs will be encouraged to send in updates whenever > > possible. > > > > 3) maintain an announce-only mailing list for elections to which all > > projects members will be subbed, with the option of unsubbing if they do > > not wish to be on it. announcements regarding elections will be made to > > this list, the Board list, State-Coord-L, -ALL, CC-L, and the regional > > lists [this will mean some of us will get the messages multiple times, but > > it also allows those who don't want to sub to the political lists to still > > get election announcements]. SCs and the Special Projects coordinators > > will be encouraged to forward election announcements to their state > > and special project lists as well. [I would also suggest this list not be > > on RW for obvious reasons but the home of the list should be up to the > > EC]. > > > > 4) maintain election software. I still am evenly divided between tapping > > the pool of talented programmers in this project to accomplish this and > > using a third-party neutral off-the-shelf software. Both approaches have > > advantages and disadvantages, so I can't decide. > > > > What do you think sirs? > > > > -Teresa Lindquist > > merope@radix.net > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Esc mailing list > > Esc@pairlist.net > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 3 13:42:56 2000 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 NAA22689 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:42:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA28699 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:42:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 84C7E3C153; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:42:53 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92E853C131 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:42:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port1339.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.210.139]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17505 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:42:49 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001003122312.00aa2f00@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 12:38:41 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] Voting lists In-Reply-To: <000b01c02d58$8abd2f00$9eb3f5d0@computer> References: <39D9FFDB.1AC8@efn.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 12:39 PM 10/03/2000 -0400, you wrote: >There's no agenda, John. It is a matter of practicality. > >Why is it that we cannot just take differences of opinion at face value >and give those who don't agree with us the >benefit of the doubt, that they are acting in good faith, according to >their genuinely-held beliefs and opinions? Why >is it always an "agenda" when others don't agree with us? Shari, The very fact that the members of this group are interested in overcoming problems leads me to believe that we are all eager to resolve conflict and insure a future for the Project. While we may have differences of opinion as to how this could be accomplished, I kinda assumed we all knew, at least, that we agreed with that objective, and could express our opinions freely, without being considered in a different "camp". Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ RootsWeb listowner http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/lists/ CC for Carroll County, GA http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/Carroll/ CC for Chattahoochee County, GA http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/CHA/ _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 3 14:10:04 2000 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 OAA25850 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:10:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA03210 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:10:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id C3E903C157; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:10:00 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from bob.propagation.net (unknown [63.249.193.1]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 948E13C131 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:09:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from computer (ppp87-rch.klondyke.net [208.245.179.103]) by bob.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA08560 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:09:56 -0500 Message-ID: <002701c02d64$3e829a60$67b3f5d0@computer> From: "Shari Handley" To: References: <39D9FFDB.1AC8@efn.org> <4.3.1.2.20001003122312.00aa2f00@mail.netdoor.com> Subject: Re: [ESC] Voting lists Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:03:31 -0400 Organization: Tyaskin Web Designs 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 5.00.2615.200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: My point exactly. Obviously, we are all interested in accomplishing the goal of coming up with workable solutions for the betterment of our Project, or we wouldn't be here. We're not going to always agree. But we need to try to keep in mind that someone can come to a different conclusion or have a different opinion from our own, and that conclusion or opinion was arrived at in good faith, not because the person has an "agenda". There's nothing wrong with freely expressing one's opinion. But there's no need to call into question the motives of those who don't agree with our opinions here in this committee. Shari Handley shari@tyaskin.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Carol C-H To: Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 1:38 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] Voting lists > At 12:39 PM 10/03/2000 -0400, you wrote: > >There's no agenda, John. It is a matter of practicality. > > > >Why is it that we cannot just take differences of opinion at face value > >and give those who don't agree with us the > >benefit of the doubt, that they are acting in good faith, according to > >their genuinely-held beliefs and opinions? Why > >is it always an "agenda" when others don't agree with us? > Shari, > > The very fact that the members of this group are interested in overcoming > problems leads me to believe that we are all eager to resolve conflict and > insure a future for the Project. While we may have differences of opinion > as to how this could be accomplished, I kinda assumed we all knew, at > least, that we agreed with that objective, and could express our opinions > freely, without being considered in a different "camp". > > > > Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ > RootsWeb listowner http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/lists/ > CC for Carroll County, GA http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/Carroll/ > CC for Chattahoochee County, GA http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/CHA/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 3 14:08:19 2000 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 OAA25672 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:08:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA02849 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:08:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 3C4193C159; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:08:17 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r18.mail.aol.com (imo-r18.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.72]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2CA03C131 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:08:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MHet703234@aol.com by imo-r18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.24.) id s.c0.9f19604 (4463) for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:07:59 -0400 (EDT) From: MHet703234@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:07:58 EDT Subject: Re: [ESC] Voting lists To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 120 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A In a message dated 10/3/2000 4:11:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time, merope@Radix.Net writes: << I don't think our minds are anywhere near 100% agreement on this topic, and I think avoiding or detouring around the SCs is probably going to be unworkable. We need to involve people more, not less. *** I totaly agree with you on this ** Anyways, here's my take on this: We are in agreement that there should be a standing EC. One of the advantages to a standing EC is continuity from election to election in terms of not having to redo the work of previous ECs over and over again. It makes sense to me to recommend strongly that the EC 1) maintain voter lists from election to election. The voter lists from the previous election should be obtained from the old EC as a first order of business. SC/SPCs should be contacted prior to an election [say a month] with a list of LCs and file managers that the EC has on record already and asked to update it for the upcoming election. [the EC can of course decide to do this more frequently, such as quarterly, but at a minimum it must be done prior to an election of any type]. I would recommend that members not be allowed to "opt out" of this membership list; if they don't want to vote, so be it, all they need to do is trash the messages. If at all possible, the voter lists for each state should include the name, email address, position [CC, state special project coordinator, SC, etc], and specific area covered [such as county name] of each voter. Hopefully, this "meeting the SCs halfway" will make their job easier and encourage the stubborn ones to help out with their lists. ***** Keeping the voter lists from year to year is one of the most common sense things the past EC and our group have came up with. The voter lists from last year showed all you sugested but the postion. I think "meeting the SC's halfway" is the only way to get more participation not less. ** 2) maintain a webpage where LCs can go and check their membership and voting status to insure that they are included on the voter rolls and their information is current. They would also be able to udpate their information at this webpage. The webpage should also contain a current EC roster and contact info, links to EC reports, election information, election results, etc. Access to membership info should be password protected, but the rest of the page should be publicly available. The EC can send out monthly or quarterly reminders to the membership to update their information; SCs will be encouraged to send in updates whenever possible. ******** Sounds reasonable ** 3) maintain an announce-only mailing list for elections to which all projects members will be subbed, with the option of unsubbing if they do not wish to be on it. announcements regarding elections will be made to this list, the Board list, State-Coord-L, -ALL, CC-L, and the regional lists [this will mean some of us will get the messages multiple times, but it also allows those who don't want to sub to the political lists to still get election announcements]. SCs and the Special Projects coordinators will be encouraged to forward election announcements to their state and special project lists as well. [I would also suggest this list not be on RW for obvious reasons but the home of the list should be up to the EC]. *** I don't know about this one. I think the suggeston of a group mailing using the membership list would be more practical. Then we would not have to worry about what server the list is on. ** 4) maintain election software. I still am evenly divided between tapping the pool of talented programmers in this project to accomplish this and using a third-party neutral off-the-shelf software. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages, so I can't decide. *** Only problem I see with the third-party off-the-shelf software would be 1) how to pay for it. 2) Where to locate it once it is acquired. What do you think sirs? -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net >> _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 3 14:39:07 2000 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 OAA00802 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:39:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA08350 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:39:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 67C563C157; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:39:05 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7C903C128 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:39:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port1339.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.210.139]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA25018 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:39:01 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001003132531.00da9e20@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 13:34:16 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] Voting lists In-Reply-To: <39D9FFDB.1AC8@efn.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A At 08:48 AM 10/03/2000 -0700, you wrote: >I think Theresa summed it up fairly well. I can agree with all the >items except number four. I see we are bound and determined to have >control of the voting, thereby committing social suicide. This kinda puzzled me also - Teresa, what are your reasons for thinking it would be better to do it ourselves than to have a voting site do it? It does occur to me, though, that if we do it ourselves, with adequate safeguards, it will be even more secure than having an outside site do it - and who is to say that the outside site would - in reality - be neutral? There would be a lot of factors that could influence just how "neutral" any site would be - Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ RootsWeb listowner http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/lists/ CC for Carroll County, GA http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/Carroll/ CC for Chattahoochee County, GA http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/CHA/ _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 3 15:02:07 2000 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 PAA03325 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:02:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA12445 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:02:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 1D70F3C197; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:02:05 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from clavin.efn.org (clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0472E3C153 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:02:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pm3-022.efn.org (pm3-022.efn.org [206.163.180.22]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id e93J20328582 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:02:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <39DA2E67.6C43@efn.org> Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 12:07:19 -0700 From: John McCoy X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] Voting lists References: <4.3.1.2.20001003132531.00da9e20@mail.netdoor.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Carol C-H wrote: > >...> It does occur to me, though, that if we do it ourselves, with adequate > safeguards, it will be even more secure than having an outside site do it - > and who is to say that the outside site would - in reality - be > neutral? There would be a lot of factors that could influence just how > "neutral" any site would be - I do not disagree with this. The problem I have,and I hope that I can explain it simply enough and clearly enough to be understood and to have folks that read this understand that it is the underlying problem with the last voting project. T R U S T. Trust. Trust. Trust. What, in reality, may work really good for the voting process, will not garner trust in the process. I *urge* all of you to work for trust first and foremost. For the next few elections, distance ourselves from anything that smacks of anybody on the "inside" having a chance to manipulate the process - in house software, in house voting, etc. Once the trust is back, at least with a definite majority, not just a slim majority, then work towards doing something like what has been proposed. I don't want to see this organization lose any more volunteers because they don't trust the process. John > At 08:48 AM 10/03/2000 -0700, you wrote: > >I think Theresa summed it up fairly well. I can agree with all the > >items except number four. I see we are bound and determined to have > >control of the voting, thereby committing social suicide. > > This kinda puzzled me also - Teresa, what are your reasons for thinking it > would be better to do it ourselves than to have a voting site do it? > > It does occur to me, though, that if we do it ourselves, with adequate > safeguards, it will be even more secure than having an outside site do it - > and who is to say that the outside site would - in reality - be > neutral? There would be a lot of factors that could influence just how > "neutral" any site would be - > > Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ > RootsWeb listowner http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/lists/ > CC for Carroll County, GA http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/Carroll/ > CC for Chattahoochee County, GA http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/CHA/ > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 3 15:17:05 2000 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 PAA04813 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:17:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA14785 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:17:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 859B43C157; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:17:02 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B27423C153 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:17:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port1339.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.210.139]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA22293 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:16:57 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001003140604.00aa9f00@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 14:11:15 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] Voting lists In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.1.2.20001003132531.00da9e20@mail.netdoor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 03:05 PM 10/03/2000 -0400, you wrote: >On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Carol C-H wrote: > > > This kinda puzzled me also - Teresa, what are your reasons for thinking it > > would be better to do it ourselves than to have a voting site do it? > >Autonomy, flexibility, price , independence, making use of our assets, >that sort of thing. > > > It does occur to me, though, that if we do it ourselves, with adequate > > safeguards, it will be even more secure than having an outside site do > it - > > and who is to say that the outside site would - in reality - be > > neutral? There would be a lot of factors that could influence just how > > "neutral" any site would be - > >Something like VoteBot or InfoPoll is not going to care one way or the >other how the USGW election turns out, so I'm not sure that would be an >issue. > >-Teresa My ignorance is/was showing. I misread the copy (I didn't get an original) of your post to the list about this to mean that you thought it should be conducted by USGW members, using software (freeware or original or off the shelf or whatever) - thanks for the clarification - Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ RootsWeb listowner http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/lists/ CC for Carroll County, GA http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/Carroll/ CC for Chattahoochee County, GA http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/CHA/ _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 3 17:53:37 2000 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 RAA22969 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 17:53:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA12193 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 17:53:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 431C03C159; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 17:53:30 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43F163C149 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 17:53:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port1339.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.210.139]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14295 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 16:53:24 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001003164453.00bfe940@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 16:49:43 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20000916160728.00b344b0@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Where we are Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Holly, Could you summarize where it is that we are, and what we have left to do, and how much time we have to do it? I'm not sure what has been "finalized", and what got left hanging..... At 04:09 PM 09/16/2000 -0500, you wrote: >feel free to add items..... > >a. Eligibility > 1. eligible positions > 2. good standing > 3. cutoff dates > 4. # per county > 5. multi-region CC's > >b. Standing Election Committee and/or EC formation > >c. Voting mechanism including location and method > >d. Other election issues > 1. *PR* Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 3 18:26:19 2000 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 SAA25956 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 18:26:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA17250 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 18:26:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 0A1523C17C; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 18:26:17 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E7893C159 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 18:26:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.213]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001003222615.JPCR425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 18:26:15 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001003183038.034ad100@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 18:32:01 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] Where we are In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20001003164453.00bfe940@mail.netdoor.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000916160728.00b344b0@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 04:49 PM 10/3/00 -0500, Carol C-H wrote: >Could you summarize where it is that we are, and what we have left to do, >and how much time we have to do it? I'm not sure what has been >"finalized", and what got left hanging..... I had planned to do that Thurs/Friday... I'm tied up locally the next two evenings and I'd like to hear just a little more from everyone else as to where you think we are on stuff.... what we've left out... etc Holly _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 3 18:30:32 2000 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 SAA26379 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 18:30:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA17969 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 18:30:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 5258F3C19E; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 18:30:29 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB93B3C17C for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 18:30:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.213]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001003223026.JSEV425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 18:30:26 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001003183250.03614100@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 18:36:12 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] Voting lists In-Reply-To: <002701c02d64$3e829a60$67b3f5d0@computer> References: <39D9FFDB.1AC8@efn.org> <4.3.1.2.20001003122312.00aa2f00@mail.netdoor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 02:03 PM 10/3/00 -0400, Shari Handley wrote: >My point exactly. Obviously, we are all interested in accomplishing the >goal of coming up with workable solutions for the betterment of our >Project, or we wouldn't be here. We're not going to always agree. But we >need to try to keep in mind that someone can come to a different >conclusion or have a different opinion from our own, and that conclusion >or opinion was arrived at in good faith, not because the person has an >"agenda". There's nothing wrong with freely expressing one's >opinion. But there's no need to call into question the motives of those >who don't agree with our >opinions here in this committee. Thanks for saying this so well Shari... I don't think anyone here has an AGENDA other than working together for the good of the project. We have different perspectives and opinions but everyone here tries to listen to the rest of us and I am very grateful already for how everyone here has worked towards a common goal of a good election process for USGenWeb. I know we can complete this and hammer together a good report!!! Holly _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 3 19:43:51 2000 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 TAA02310 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 19:43:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA28052 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 19:43:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 51EF13C14A; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 19:43:49 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r20.mail.aol.com (imo-r20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.162]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 911793C149 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 19:43:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Morom01@aol.com by imo-r20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.24.) id s.5f.b40e444 (4510) for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 19:43:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Morom01@aol.com Message-ID: <5f.b40e444.270bc929@aol.com> Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 19:43:37 EDT Subject: Re: [ESC] Voting lists (Johns Comment) To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 106 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 10/3/00 6:31:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, JOHN writes: << I *urge* all of you to work for trust first and foremost. For the next few elections, distance ourselves from anything that smacks of anybody on the "inside" having a chance to manipulate the process - in house software, in house voting, etc. >> YES YES YES YES YES YES YES! This was my point, dang I wish I had said it that clearly! Chip (Who couldn't be in a camp if he brought his own tent) _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 3 20:13:32 2000 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 UAA04703 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 20:13:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA02221 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 20:13:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 7F6873C14A; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 20:13:30 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D04B73C149 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 20:13:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port1339.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.210.139]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA06678 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 19:13:27 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001003185959.00bf46b0@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 19:09:45 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] Voting lists In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 02:07 PM 10/03/2000 -0400, you wrote: > 3) maintain an announce-only mailing list for elections to which all > projects members will be subbed, with the option of unsubbing if they do > not wish to be on it. announcements regarding elections will be made to > this list, the Board list, State-Coord-L, -ALL, CC-L, and the regional > lists [this will mean some of us will get the messages multiple times, but > it also allows those who don't want to sub to the political lists to still > get election announcements]. SCs and the Special Projects coordinators > will be encouraged to forward election announcements to their state > and special project lists as well. [I would also suggest this list not be > on RW for obvious reasons but the home of the list should be up to the > EC]. > > >*** >I don't know about this one. I think the suggeston of a group mailing using >the membership list would be more practical. Then we would not have to worry >about what server the list is on. >** IMHO, we need mailing lists to which all CCs can belong. This bit of having good CCs banned just because the owner of the server got his back up a few years ago is for the birds, IMHO. If the AB does not have the courage to compel MyFamily to allow the members of the project to subscribe to the lists FOR the project, then the lists FOR the project need to be on another server, IMHO, that does not ban project members. This membership issue is only one example of why the banning should not be allowed, but is a valid reason for needing an OFFICIAL set of lists whose subs are controlled ONLY by USGenWeb, and not a server. Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 3 22:48:41 2000 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 WAA18348 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:48:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA22558 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:48:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 8959C3C151; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:48:37 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C73FA3C128 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:48:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.32]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001004024836.QSYD425.invictus@pooh.bright.net>; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:48:36 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001003225234.034759d0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 22:54:21 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net, esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] Voting lists In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20001003185959.00bf46b0@mail.netdoor.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 07:09 PM 10/3/00 -0500, Carol C-H wrote: >IMHO, we need mailing lists to which all CCs can belong. This bit of >having good CCs banned just because the owner of the server got his back >up a few years ago is for the birds, IMHO. If the AB does not have the >courage to compel MyFamily to allow the members of the project to >subscribe to the lists FOR the project, then the lists FOR the project >need to be on another server, IMHO, that does not ban project >members. This membership issue is only one example of why the banning >should not be allowed, but is a valid reason for needing an OFFICIAL set >of lists whose subs are controlled ONLY by USGenWeb, and not a server. What is under discussion here is contact with the potential voters, not general project mail list issues. If we use the voter list itself as the email base and not a mail list, we don't have that problem at all. Holly _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 3 22:55:15 2000 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 WAA18951 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:55:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA23338 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:55:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id DB63B3C154; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:55:13 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from hotmail.com (f111.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.111]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 119473C128 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:55:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 19:55:12 -0700 Received: from 63.66.233.16 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 04 Oct 2000 02:55:12 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.66.233.16] From: "Esse Frye" To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] Some thoughts Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 22:55:12 EDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Oct 2000 02:55:12.0320 (UTC) FILETIME=[83AEBC00:01C02DAE] Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Carol; An Election Board sounds good to me. Esse _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 3 22:59:59 2000 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 WAA19317 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:59:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA23964 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:59:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 2043B3C159; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:59:58 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r13.mail.aol.com (imo-r13.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.67]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 547B13C128 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:59:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MHet703234@aol.com by imo-r13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.24.) id s.37.b048083 (4249) for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:59:41 -0400 (EDT) From: MHet703234@aol.com Message-ID: <37.b048083.270bf71c@aol.com> Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:59:40 EDT Subject: Re: [ESC] Voting lists To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 120 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 10/3/2000 12:04:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, merope@Radix.Net writes: << By "third party off the shelf" I mean something like VoteBot, which is free and run by their own server. We wouldn't have to worry about storing anything anywhere. -Teresa >> OH, I get you now. Sorry I miss-read that to mean some kind of program you thought we could purchase and install. Thanks for you comments back. Mary Ann _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 3 23:24:31 2000 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 XAA21391 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 23:24:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA27216 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 23:24:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id B289C3C151; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 23:24:29 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F8603C128 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 23:24:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port997.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.209.97]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA21509 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:24:20 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001003221704.00d04e00@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 22:20:27 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] Voting lists In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20001003225234.034759d0@mail.bright.net> References: <4.3.1.2.20001003185959.00bf46b0@mail.netdoor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A At 10:54 PM 10/03/2000 -0500, you wrote: >At 07:09 PM 10/3/00 -0500, Carol C-H wrote: >>IMHO, we need mailing lists to which all CCs can belong. This bit of >>having good CCs banned just because the owner of the server got his back >>up a few years ago is for the birds, IMHO. If the AB does not have the >>courage to compel MyFamily to allow the members of the project to >>subscribe to the lists FOR the project, then the lists FOR the project >>need to be on another server, IMHO, that does not ban project >>members. This membership issue is only one example of why the banning >>should not be allowed, but is a valid reason for needing an OFFICIAL set >>of lists whose subs are controlled ONLY by USGenWeb, and not a server. > >What is under discussion here is contact with the potential voters, not >general project mail list issues. If we use the voter list itself as the >email base and not a mail list, we don't have that problem at all. > >Holly If you use the voter list itself, and some of the voters are banned, it would still be a problem, would it not? Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 3 16:14:06 2000 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 QAA10788 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 16:14:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA24818 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 16:14:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id CD2ED3C1D2; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 16:14:03 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 104193C1CF for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 16:14:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Morom01@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.15.) id s.2d.1b25a08 (4232) for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 16:13:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Morom01@aol.com Message-ID: <2d.1b25a08.270b9806@aol.com> Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 16:13:58 EDT To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 106 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Teresa's suggestions (my comments) Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I find Teresa's suggestion to be very suitable indeed. As for number four, I say a third party is best. Our own software is technically best, and best in the long run. However, the best to restore confidence in voting (why we're here) is a third party service such as Votebot. And as far as this bypassing the SC, I have no idea where that came from, it was not from me. I have said and here I say again, I still think the SC is the main character in voting in each state. I suggested an election commissioner voted into office by the CC's of the state. This commissioner is not taking the place of the SC, he\she will do the grunt work, and help the SC keep things in order. Keeping the election in order and provide continuity is too large a job for one person in a state with say 90 counties. The SC runs the state, but the commissioner in that state keeps up on the mechanics of the voting and reports both to the SC and to whatever committee\commission is formed. You know I'm not a big fan of the AB or even the NC appointing this committee\commission. Have we considered letting the state elect it's own commissioner, and each state's commissioner has a seat on the new election board? That way each state is represented equally, and the whole board is made up of people put there by the states, independent of the national scene. Don't quote bylaws to me, it says committee, we could as easily call this a commission and avoid that line of the bylaws. Chip _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Wed Oct 4 06:32:33 2000 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 GAA20581 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 06:32:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA08738 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 06:32:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 625DB3C19C; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 06:32:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2E2D3C149 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 06:32:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust38.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.38]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA13861 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 06:32:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <014401c02dee$593b51a0$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001003225234.034759d0@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [ESC] Voting lists Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 05:11:15 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Carol C-H wrote: > >IMHO, we need mailing lists to which all CCs can belong. This bit of > >having good CCs banned just because the owner of the server got his back > >up a few years ago is for the birds, IMHO. If the AB does not have the > >courage to compel MyFamily to allow the members of the project to > >subscribe to the lists FOR the project, then the lists FOR the project > >need to be on another server, IMHO, that does not ban project > >members. This membership issue is only one example of why the banning > >should not be allowed, but is a valid reason for needing an OFFICIAL set > >of lists whose subs are controlled ONLY by USGenWeb, and not a server. > Holly Wrote: > What is under discussion here is contact with the potential voters, not > general project mail list issues. If we use the voter list itself as the > email base and not a mail list, we don't have that problem at all. > If I remember correctly somewhere along the line we discussed that the volunteers would be more apt to read a personal message than what was posted on an list? I agree with Holly, I would rather see the membership list used as a contact list and personal e-mails sent. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Wed Oct 4 06:59:47 2000 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 GAA22024 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 06:59:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA11366 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 06:59:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 96E7C3C1AD; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 06:59:45 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1C633C132 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 06:59:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.42]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001004105943.HPI425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 06:59:43 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001004070216.033461d0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 07:05:30 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] Teresa's suggestions (my comments) In-Reply-To: References: <2d.1b25a08.270b9806@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 06:45 AM 10/4/00 -0400, merope wrote: >Regardless of what we call it, the bylaws still empower and require the >Board to establish an Election Committee. And doing things to get around >the bylaws is at least one source of discontent in this project; I don't >recommend it in this case either. It also makes it more difficult to get our recommendations accepted and enacted upon. I also don't see the committee itself as having been distrusted, and until this last election, not even the chair. It was more the process and mechanism and perceived possibility of tampering from outside the committee (as in by Rootsweb when the voting was on that server). >Would it be acceptable to folks to have the Board appoint the Chair, >and let the Chair select the committeee members from a pool of volunteers? >We could recommend that if the Board approves the committee membership >that the EC chair has chosen it approve the entire slate, rather than >individual members. This may cut down a bit on any desire the Board may >have to micromanage the committee membership. Yes I realized that the >Board may just appoint a "like-minded" individual as Chair, who will in >turn accept "like-minded" individuals onto the committee. But I don't >honestly see any way to not have the Board involved in this process, >both because of the bylaws, and for the same reasons mentioned regarding >CCs and SCs. It would be better for the project to assume that these and >future Board members will do the right thing by the project instead of >using their positions to forward some narrower interest. > >-Teresa > > > Chip > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Wed Oct 4 07:01:37 2000 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 HAA22134 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 07:01:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA11550 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 07:01:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id A6CB83C1C2; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 07:01:35 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB8CD3C1B4 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 07:01:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.42]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001004110133.INP425.invictus@pooh.bright.net>; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 07:01:33 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001004064706.00de5190@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 07:07:20 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net, From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] Voting lists In-Reply-To: <014401c02dee$593b51a0$0200a8c0@Linda> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001003225234.034759d0@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 05:11 AM 10/4/00 -0500, Linda Haas Davenport wrote: >If I remember correctly somewhere along the line we discussed that the >volunteers would be more apt to read a personal message than what was posted >on an list? I agree with Holly, I would rather see the membership list used >as a contact list and personal e-mails sent. yup, some CC's seem to have developed almost a phobia about being stuck on even one more list, no matter what the purpose _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Wed Oct 4 07:41:25 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA24383 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 07:41:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA15666 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 07:41:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 545EF3C151; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 07:41:22 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D4633C132 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 07:41:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust38.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.38]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA30975 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 07:41:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <017501c02df7$f74462c0$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] Teresa's suggestions (my comments) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 06:40:53 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: This isn't something that could be put in the recommendations I don't think. But possibly the committee membership could include xx number of the most vocal "distrusters". This might go a long way toward solving the problems. IMO the most vocal "distrusters" are not necessarily just troublemakers but believe what they say. Perhaps involving them and letting them see that the procedure is as fair and honest as humanly possible will cause them to as vocal in support of the SEC / Voting as they were against the past elections. Just a thought that crossed my mind. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: merope To: Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 5:45 AM Subject: Re: [ESC] Teresa's suggestions (my comments) > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2000 Morom01@aol.com wrote: > > > You know I'm not a big fan of the AB or even the NC appointing this > > committee\commission. Have we considered letting the state elect it's own > > commissioner, and each state's commissioner has a seat on the new election > > board? That way each state is represented equally, and the whole board is > > made up of people put there by the states, independent of the national scene. > > Don't quote bylaws to me, it says committee, we could as easily call this a > > commission and avoid that line of the bylaws. > > Regardless of what we call it, the bylaws still empower and require the > Board to establish an Election Committee. And doing things to get around > the bylaws is at least one source of discontent in this project; I don't > recommend it in this case either. > > Would it be acceptable to folks to have the Board appoint the Chair, > and let the Chair select the committeee members from a pool of volunteers? > We could recommend that if the Board approves the committee membership > that the EC chair has chosen it approve the entire slate, rather than > individual members. This may cut down a bit on any desire the Board may > have to micromanage the committee membership. Yes I realized that the > Board may just appoint a "like-minded" individual as Chair, who will in > turn accept "like-minded" individuals onto the committee. But I don't > honestly see any way to not have the Board involved in this process, > both because of the bylaws, and for the same reasons mentioned regarding > CCs and SCs. It would be better for the project to assume that these and > future Board members will do the right thing by the project instead of > using their positions to forward some narrower interest. > > -Teresa > > > Chip > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Wed Oct 4 14:01:37 2000 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 OAA05899 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:01:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA22228 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:01:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 421BF3C1D6; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:01:35 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r06.mail.aol.com (imo-r06.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80C4A3C19E for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:01:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Morom01@aol.com by imo-r06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.24.) id s.4f.1a75b93 (3952) for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:01:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Morom01@aol.com Message-ID: <4f.1a75b93.270cca7a@aol.com> Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:01:30 EDT To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 106 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Passing the bylaws? Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 10/4/00 12:08:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Teresa writes: << And doing things to get around the bylaws is at least one source of discontent in this project; >> And the AB is another source that was mentioned in the responses. So which is worse? I'm not talking about circumventing the bylaws really, possibly it was poorly worded. I was just saying I don't think a commitee formed by the AB would be fully trusted either. The less national power contact we can have, the better it will soothe nerves. Chip _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Thu Oct 5 08:49:11 2000 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 IAA14012 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 08:49:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA20849 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 08:49:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 395F23C16E; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 08:49:09 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55ECE3C123 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 08:49:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port246.jxn.netdoor.com [208.137.132.246]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA03484 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 07:49:06 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001005073141.00b96ca0@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 07:45:23 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] Passing the bylaws? In-Reply-To: <4f.1a75b93.270cca7a@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 02:01 PM 10/04/2000 -0400, you wrote: >In a message dated 10/4/00 12:08:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Teresa writes: > ><< And doing things to get around > the bylaws is at least one source of discontent in this project; >> > >And the AB is another source that was mentioned in the responses. So which is >worse? I'm not talking about circumventing the bylaws really, possibly it was >poorly worded. I was just saying I don't think a commitee formed by the AB >would be fully trusted either. The less national power contact we can have, >the better it will soothe nerves. > >Chip So why tiptoe around that situation in the report? This is not going to be our decision to make, anyhow - we were only supposed to be investigating possibilities, and making and suggestions based on what we thought about what we found, right? Well, this is one of the things we found. The AB members are not stupid - they have to be aware of this already, and certainly they, of all people, must be interested in the future of the Project - it seems to me that the report should state that our suggestions are made accordingly. Unwillingness to openly face facts and discuss stuff does not mean that such does not exist - if these negative issues can not be dealt with satisfactorily, they will destroy the Project - as adults, we all know that - why can we not just acknowledge the facts, so that we can hopefully find ways to deal with them? Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Oct 6 00:27:26 2000 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 AAA16809 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 00:27:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA22105 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 00:27:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 802073C17F; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 00:27:24 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from hotmail.com (f12.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B20793C12D for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 00:27:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 21:27:20 -0700 Received: from 63.66.233.102 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 06 Oct 2000 04:27:20 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.66.233.102] From: "Esse Frye" To: esc@pairlist.net Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 00:27:20 EDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Oct 2000 04:27:20.0212 (UTC) FILETIME=[B7639D40:01C02F4D] Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] QUIET... Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: To All; This list has become quiet all of a sudden. Is it because of the latest news concerning the project? Holly, did you get my message? Time is running out and we are only half way through the agenda. Best regards, Esse _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Oct 6 01:05:44 2000 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 BAA19390 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 01:05:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA25857 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 01:05:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id DF37A3C1D5; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 01:05:42 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from clavin.efn.org (clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B6BB3C1CB for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 01:05:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pm3-129.efn.org (pm3-232.efn.org [206.163.180.232]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id e9655WS12074 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 22:05:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <39DD5EDD.171A@efn.org> Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 22:10:53 -0700 From: John McCoy X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] QUIET... References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Esse, I an here, but I haven't heard the latest news about the project, so that is not why I have been quiet. For some reason, I am not receiving all of the messages. I see folks responding to messages that I did not see the original for. I have seen folks respond to my message, but I never saw my message posted. I know it has nothing to do with Holly or the pairlist. I am also not getting all of the regular day to day messages that are being sent to me by friends and relatives, so it seems to be at my isp, I believe. Any way, I am not sure what the latest discussion is, so I have been waiting to see if I might somehow get caught up when the messages do start flowing again. John Esse Frye wrote: > > To All; > > This list has become quiet all of a sudden. Is it because of the latest news > concerning the project? Holly, did you get my message? > Time is running out and we are only half way through the agenda. > Best regards, > Esse > _________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > http://profiles.msn.com. > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Oct 6 01:22:19 2000 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 BAA20324 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 01:22:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA27298 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 01:22:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 3DE073C1CB; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 01:22:18 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 676B53C17F for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 01:22:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port1017.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.209.117]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA28783 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 00:22:15 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001006001455.00b36b70@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 00:18:33 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] QUIET... In-Reply-To: <39DD5EDD.171A@efn.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: John, I have noticed the same thing (posts on this list I got the reply to, but not the original) - but have not noticed it with any other lists, so was wondering if it is a router misbehaving somewhere along the way. I have not heard any latest news, either. Can someone please enlighten us? Carol At 10:10 PM 10/05/2000 -0700, you wrote: >Esse, > >I an here, but I haven't heard the latest news about the project, so >that is not why I have been quiet. For some reason, I am not receiving >all of the messages. I see folks responding to messages that I did not >see the original for. I have seen folks respond to my message, but I >never saw my message posted. I know it has nothing to do with Holly or >the pairlist. I am also not getting all of the regular day to day >messages that are being sent to me by friends and relatives, so it seems >to be at my isp, I believe. > >Any way, I am not sure what the latest discussion is, so I have been >waiting to see if I might somehow get caught up when the messages do >start flowing again. > >John > >Esse Frye wrote: > > > > To All; > > > > This list has become quiet all of a sudden. Is it because of the latest > news > > concerning the project? Holly, did you get my message? > > Time is running out and we are only half way through the agenda. > > Best regards, > > Esse > > _________________________________________________________________________ > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > > http://profiles.msn.com. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Esc mailing list > > Esc@pairlist.net > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Oct 6 07:36:48 2000 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 HAA15171 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 07:36:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA29285 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 07:36:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id D63EC3C175; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 07:36:42 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from hotmail.com (f328.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.8.203]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7C9D3C139 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 07:36:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 04:36:41 -0700 Received: from 63.66.233.185 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 06 Oct 2000 11:36:41 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.66.233.185] From: "Esse Frye" To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] QUIET... Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 07:36:41 EDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Oct 2000 11:36:41.0149 (UTC) FILETIME=[B21AA6D0:01C02F89] Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A John; As this is a committee list, I am not at liberty to say what I have heard, but I will let you know privately. Esse >From: John McCoy >Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net >To: esc@pairlist.net >Subject: Re: [ESC] QUIET... >Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 22:10:53 -0700 > >Esse, > >I an here, but I haven't heard the latest news about the project, so >that is not why I have been quiet. For some reason, I am not receiving >all of the messages. I see folks responding to messages that I did not >see the original for. I have seen folks respond to my message, but I >never saw my message posted. I know it has nothing to do with Holly or >the pairlist. I am also not getting all of the regular day to day >messages that are being sent to me by friends and relatives, so it seems >to be at my isp, I believe. > >Any way, I am not sure what the latest discussion is, so I have been >waiting to see if I might somehow get caught up when the messages do >start flowing again. > >John > >Esse Frye wrote: > > > > To All; > > > > This list has become quiet all of a sudden. Is it because of the latest >news > > concerning the project? Holly, did you get my message? > > Time is running out and we are only half way through the agenda. > > Best regards, > > Esse > > >_________________________________________________________________________ > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at >http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > > http://profiles.msn.com. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Esc mailing list > > Esc@pairlist.net > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Oct 6 10:33:33 2000 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 KAA05288 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:33:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA27670 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:33:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id F2ED83C19E; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:33:29 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.47]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66B043C139 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:33:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ellenpack ([12.75.197.198]) by mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20001006143328.ZZAZ23816.mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net@ellenpack> for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 14:33:28 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20001006070406.00aab288@postoffice.att.net> X-Sender: e.j.pack@postoffice.att.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 08:50:13 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Ellen Pack Subject: Re: [ESC] QUIET... In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I'm not sure why the list has become quiet, over the last 24 hours, but the lull gives me an opportunity to remark that I've been reading and reading, note after note, throughout the week. Then I reply to a note, only to find, a few notes down the list, that the question/remark has already been addressed. In the interest of not cluttering the list, I delete the note I just wrote. You guys are good! The discourse and well articulated thoughts, ideas, and opinions have resulted in my changing my mind on a couple of points, while reaffirming my feelings on other issues. This note will be followed by a summation of where I am on the issues, at this juncture. Happy to have feedback. :-) Ellen At 12:27 AM 10/6/2000 -0400, you wrote: >To All; > >This list has become quiet all of a sudden. Is it because of the latest >news concerning the project? Holly, did you get my message? >Time is running out and we are only half way through the agenda. >Best regards, >Esse _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Oct 6 10:33:34 2000 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 KAA05293 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:33:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA27675 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:33:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 1B1163C1AD; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:33:32 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.47]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDF733C1AC for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:33:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ellenpack ([12.75.197.198]) by mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20001006143329.ZZBD23816.mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net@ellenpack> for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 14:33:29 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20001006072524.00aad6c8@postoffice.att.net> X-Sender: e.j.pack@postoffice.att.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 09:32:45 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Ellen Pack Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Thoughts on Recent Topics Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: 1. Voter registration by the SC working with a SEC assigned committee member who would be responsible for (hopefully) no more than 4-6 states, though the actual number should be left up to the SEC, taking into consideration size of state, time available to the SEC member, etc. We have to be careful not produce a committee that is too large to be effective and efficient. Compliance will be very low if CCs are asked to register. Again, the idea is not to make work, but to reduce work, and streamline the task, while improving accuracy and inclusion. The SEC must depend on the SC for initial input, and later verification. They have to be able to work together toward a common goal. Might even give the SC a means of contacting the SEC chair in the even the SC feels the SEC regional member is making too many demands, decisions, etc. 2. Quarterly updates to the master voter list, and of course a check immediately preceding, each election, and constant vigil during an election. 3. Means of CCs to check to make sure they are included on the voter list, and to verify ID. Corrections/additions should be through the SC and SEC member responsible for the state. The CC should be able to contact the SEC rep directly, if necessary. Serious disagreements re eligibility, between the CC and SC, should be addressed by the AB and/or grievance committee, should there be a grievance committee in place. In the event of an election, any voter grievances should be given immediate attention. It will do little good to ok an eligible member, if that eligibility is not determined until after the election. 4. Periodic informational notes sent out to each ID in voter list, by the SEC. Recommended minimum: after each voter list update, and before, during, and after each election. This would eliminate, or reduce, one more responsibility currently placed on the shoulders of the SC, while not overloading the CCs with mail, but at the same time insuring that each CC is properly and adequately informed of the election, knowledgeable of where to go for further information, how to address problems, etc.. I don't feel that subscribing CCs to yet *another* mandatory list would be well received. :-) 5. Election software handled by a neutral party. This point is one of the most important, in my mind, and is crucial to restoring trust and faith in the voting process. 6. SEC must be answerable to the AB, and not enabled to make arbitrary decisions as to eligibility, cut off dates, etc. 7. The AB should publicly endorse the members of the SEC, including alternates, probably by vote. This should eliminate charges of "committee packing" by an SEC Chair, in the event the chair is not an especially popular choice to a minority (or even majority) group. 8. I'm not necessarily opposed to an Election Commissioner, or other newly named positions, but I'm not sure any of that is necessary. I think we need to be careful not to insist upon a rigid structure that might later be found to be cumbersome and unwieldy. The SEC must be given some leeway to work, allowing for variables - we just need to be sure that the responsibilities and boundaries of the SEC are clearly defined, and adhered to. Questions and comments welcomed. :-) Thanks for listening. Ellen _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Oct 6 12:05:39 2000 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 MAA16528 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:05:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA14293 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:05:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 6B5853C1D2; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:05:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from clavin.efn.org (clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92FDC3C1AC for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:05:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pm3-044.efn.org (pm3-044.efn.org [206.163.180.44]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id e96G5OS10831 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 09:05:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <39DDF982.404A@efn.org> Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 09:10:42 -0700 From: John McCoy X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Thoughts On Recent Topics Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Hi, I think Elllen's summation and the additional comments/additions by Carol C-H are well done and, when factoring in Carol C-H's comments, sum up, IMHO, where we are very well. I do have one suggestion in relation to number 7 on Ellen's list, which had to do with the appointment of the SEC and Chair. I am not too sure how the SEC committee should be formed (I guess at this time, I am neutral or on the fence, as I have not been swayed one way or the other). I would like to offer a suggestion for the selection of the chair, however. I just about all of the professional organizations I belong to, the members elect their board, and the board elects from amongst themselves, their chairperson. This has worked great for the organizations I belong to, and think it might have merit for the selection of the SEC Chair. The committee has to work together and with the chair. If they members of the committee are allowed to select the chair from their own ranks, there is a feeling of ownership and a cohesiveness. Just a suggestion. John _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Oct 6 12:43:48 2000 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 MAA20902 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:43:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA20847 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:43:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 068A73C135; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:43:47 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r16.mail.aol.com (imo-r16.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.70]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 696D93C11F for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:43:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Morom01@aol.com by imo-r16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.26.) id s.81.12033c8 (9492) for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:43:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Morom01@aol.com Message-ID: <81.12033c8.270f5b35@aol.com> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:43:33 EDT To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 118 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Re: Thoughts on Recent Topics Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Ellen, I have copied your thoughts and intejected my notes between them.-Chip In a message dated 10/6/00 12:08:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Ellen writes: << 1. Voter registration by the SC working with a SEC assigned committee member who would be responsible for (hopefully) no more than 4-6 states, though the actual number should be left up to the SEC, taking into consideration size of state, time available to the SEC member, etc. We have to be careful not produce a committee that is too large to be effective and efficient. ..........Me............ Great idea! Exactly what I was thinking, someone to coordinate and help the SC's efforts. .............you.............. Compliance will be very low if CCs are asked to register. Again, the idea is not to make work, but to reduce work, .....me........ I can agree with this, although I am along another line of thinking. I don't think registration by each CC would be a requirement. But it would be available. The SC's would do the intitial work, and the CC's would be able (not required) to make their own changes. .........you......... 2. Quarterly updates to the master voter list, and of course a check immediately preceding, each election, and constant vigil during an election. .........me........... Of course I agree with this one. You know a lot has been said about CC's resenting a monthly or quarterly mailing to verify addresses. Maybe it doesn't have to be for that purpose. The mailing could be a newsletter format about recent additions, or about help topics asked and answered in that time frame. I guess sort of like a shorter winded version of what Rootsweb does. ........You......... 3. Means of CCs to check to make sure they are included on the voter list, and to verify ID. ........Me........... Of course. .....You......... Corrections/additions should be through the SC and SEC member responsible for the state. The CC should be able to contact the SEC rep directly, if necessary. Serious disagreements re eligibility, between the CC and SC, should be addressed by the AB and/or grievance committee, should there be a grievance committee in place. In the event of an election, any voter grievances should be given immediate attention. It will do little good to ok an eligible member, if that eligibility is not determined until after the election. ......me.......... Again you and I are thinking alike. I would like to see an online form for CC's to submit their own changes. However, once submitted these will be forwarded to the EC person who will then send it to the appropriate SC for their review, since in my opinion this EC person may represnt multiple states. .......You........... 4. Periodic informational notes sent out to each ID in voter list, by the SEC. Recommended minimum: after each voter list update, and before, during, and after each election. .....me......... I have no problem with more often if they remain truly helpful and include subjects and announcements that might benefit the CC. ...........You............ 5. Election software handled by a neutral party. This point is one of the most important, in my mind, and is crucial to restoring trust and faith in the voting process. ..........Me........... I have seen both sides of this one, Teresa made some good points both ways. But I must say, I agree with Ellen here. If at least for the first few years, we do not outsource the voting, confidence will not be restored. I most eagerly agree with Ellen on this one. .......You........ 6. SEC must be answerable to the AB, and not enabled to make arbitrary decisions as to eligibility, cut off dates, etc. .......Me........ I understand this one, but I'm not sure I'm all that keen on it. I think elections and government should be separate. The AB can make the rules for membership, that's fair enough, but to tie the EC's hands could in the long run hurt their ability to deal with issues that we haven't thought of yet. Nothing personal to you Ellen as you know I even voted for you. But I think the more we can distance elected officials from the elections, the better the CC's will feel. Haven't closed my mind though, convince me I'm wrong on this point. .......You......... 7. The AB should publicly endorse the members of the SEC, including alternates, probably by vote. This should eliminate charges of "committee packing" by an SEC Chair, in the event the chair is not an especially popular choice to a minority (or even majority) group. ..........Me.......... I'd rather see the EC members elected by the body of the project. .......You......... 8. I'm not necessarily opposed to an Election Commissioner, or other newly named positions, but I'm not sure any of that is necessary. I think we need to be careful not to insist upon a rigid structure that might later be found to be cumbersome and unwieldy. The SEC must be given some leeway to work, allowing for variables - we just need to be sure that the responsibilities and boundaries of the SEC are clearly defined, and adhered to. >> .........Me........... Agreed, but I greatly support an election commissioner to help the CC's feel they have more of a voice. And the fact is, it would be that much more detailed help. And in the case of disputes the CC's would feel they were represented by one of their own. Define that however you like, I'm not even sure what one of My Own is.. Great ideas Ellen, you and I agree on all points, with a minor philosophy difference on one! Chip _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Oct 6 10:56:12 2000 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 KAA07653 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:56:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA01839 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:56:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 755583C1A1; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:55:54 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5BFA3C12A for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:55:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port1271.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.210.71]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA15177 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 09:55:50 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001006094105.00d04470@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 09:52:05 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] Thoughts on Recent Topics In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20001006072524.00aad6c8@postoffice.att.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 09:32 AM 10/06/2000 -0500, you wrote: >Questions and comments welcomed. :-) > >Thanks for listening. > >Ellen Omissions - 1) Permanently online, sortable voter list, enabling verification by all involved 2) EC to handle SP elections Also - I did not realize an agreement had been reached re: the AB appointing the members of this committee, given that the apparent near-total lack of trust in the AB would automatically result in any committee they appointed being also untrustworthy. Such being the case, nothing beneficial for the project could result, so why waste the time? Why not instead do something that would actually benefit the Project, by figuring out a way to come up with a trustworthy committee? Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Oct 6 13:37:22 2000 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 NAA26563 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 13:37:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29880 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 13:37:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id D9DF93C161; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 13:37:15 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from clavin.efn.org (clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB1803C125 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 13:37:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pm3-085.efn.org (pm3-085.efn.org [206.163.180.85]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id e96HbCS02072 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:37:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <39DE0F06.2C60@efn.org> Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 10:42:30 -0700 From: John McCoy X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Esc@pairlist.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Addtional Comments on Thoughts Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Wow, I am really impressed with the level of thought and how well you all are putting your thoughts into written words...I enjoyed Chip's comments and found them of great value. I don't think I did as well in my last message. I am not sure if I understood it after I read it on the list . My comment should have said, as a suggestion, let the committee pick their own chairperson from their ranks. Now, I will step back and look for some great input, especially about Esse's, Carol C-H and Chips comments. Again, I am really impressed with the input from this group. John _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Oct 6 14:02:21 2000 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 OAA29393 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 14:02:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04480 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 14:02:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 581B33C161; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 14:02:09 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.47]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3C293C15F for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 14:02:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ellenpack ([12.75.197.198]) by mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20001006180208.CWWJ23816.mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net@ellenpack> for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 18:02:08 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20001006102449.00b07c08@postoffice.att.net> X-Sender: e.j.pack@postoffice.att.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 12:57:16 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Ellen Pack Subject: Re: [ESC] Thoughts on Recent Topics In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20001006094105.00d04470@mail.netdoor.com> References: <4.2.2.20001006072524.00aad6c8@postoffice.att.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Hi, Carole - At 09:52 AM 10/6/2000 -0500, you wrote: >Omissions - > >1) Permanently online, sortable voter list, enabling verification by all >involved >2) EC to handle SP elections Not really omissions. :-) I've already commented on the SP elections (in favor of EC handling all elections involving AB and/or national issues). I'm still thinking about some aspects of a permanent online voter list. >Also - I did not realize an agreement had been reached re: the AB >appointing the members of this committee, given that the apparent >near-total lack of trust in the AB would automatically result in any >committee they appointed being also >untrustworthy. I don't know that an agreement has been made, one way or the other. Maybe I was thinking out loud. I do feel that the members should have some input on each SEC member, if not directly, at least via an elected rep. We must work within the guidelines provided by the By-Laws, which in this case state that an EC will be appointed by the AB. There doesn't seem to be anything in the By-Laws that would accommodate a general election for EC members. I guess the best way to insure a fair committee, is to elect what you feel would be a fair AB and NC. The best way to accomplish that is to hold fair elections, and that's one thing this ESC is charged with - recommending a means to hold fair elections, without even the appearance of an impropriety. In a way it's a catch 22. However........we can avoid a lot of problems, in future elections, by clearly and carefully defining the responsibilities and boundaries of an Election Committee, and by farming out the actual voting mechanism to a neutral party. Ellen _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Oct 6 14:02:32 2000 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 OAA29405 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 14:02:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04526 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 14:02:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 300133C1CF; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 14:02:22 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.47]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FB353C1CD for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 14:02:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ellenpack ([12.75.197.198]) by mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20001006180220.CWXS23816.mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net@ellenpack> for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 18:02:20 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20001006111211.00b15a80@postoffice.att.net> X-Sender: e.j.pack@postoffice.att.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 12:56:24 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Ellen Pack Subject: Re: [ESC] Thoughts On Recent Topics In-Reply-To: <39DDF982.404A@efn.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 09:10 AM 10/6/2000 -0700, you wrote: > I would like to offer a suggestion for the selection of the >chair, however. I just about all of the professional organizations I >belong to, the members elect their board, and the board elects from >amongst themselves, their chairperson. John, this has been my experience, as well, and it has worked quite nicely. Usually a temp chair is appointed, just to get the ball rolling. Frequently the temp chair gets elected. But not always, and at least one wise organization president I knew had the wisdom to appoint, to the temp chair position, someone who had no interest in running for permanent chair. :-) Her responsibility as temp chair was simply to facilitate electing a permanent chair. Perhaps a recommendation, to the effect that the committee members would elect their own chair, would alleviate some of the concern. As for the committee members as a whole, I think they should be ok'd via an AB vote. Ellen _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Oct 6 14:02:36 2000 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 OAA29411 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 14:02:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04539 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 14:02:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id B3D0F3C1D0; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 14:02:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.47]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CA133C1CB for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 14:02:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ellenpack ([12.75.197.198]) by mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20001006180230.CWYW23816.mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net@ellenpack> for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 18:02:30 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20001006114841.00b0ead0@postoffice.att.net> X-Sender: e.j.pack@postoffice.att.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 12:58:22 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Ellen Pack Subject: Re: [ESC] Re: Thoughts on Recent Topics In-Reply-To: <81.12033c8.270f5b35@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 12:43 PM 10/6/2000 -0400, Chip wrote: >Ellen, I have copied your thoughts and intejected my notes between them.-Chip > >In a message dated 10/6/00 12:08:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Ellen writes: > >.............you.............. > > Compliance will be very low if CCs are asked to register. Again, the idea > is not to make work, but to reduce work, > >.....me........ > >I can agree with this, although I am along another line of thinking. I don't >think registration by each CC would be a requirement. But it would be >available. The SC's would do the intitial work, and the CC's would be able >(not required) to make their own changes. My concern is that no one has the capability to alter the master voter list except for the SEC. A place for input by a CC or SC? Yes, I suppose. But it just seems so much easier, and an elimination of a step or two, for the CC to write to the SC and say, "Hey, turkey! Why'd ya leave my name off the voter list!" [as our MS CCs would so kindly put it ], rather than go to a form, fill everything in, then have the SEC check the messages, contact the SC, etc., etc. NBD - I could go either way, on this one. > 2. Quarterly updates to the master voter list, and of course a check > immediately preceding, each election, and constant vigil during an election. > >.........me........... > >Of course I agree with this one. You know a lot has been said about CC's >resenting a monthly or quarterly mailing to verify addresses. Maybe it >doesn't have to be for that purpose. The mailing could be a newsletter format >about recent additions, or about help topics asked and answered in that time >frame. I guess sort of like a shorter winded version of what Rootsweb does. I definitely agree on the shorter version than RW. What goes into the informational notes/newsletters would be up to the SEC, and would depend upon the issue/information of the day. I would encourage the SEC to send notes, but to avoid overusing the capability. Too many notes, and they will end up in trash cans. We would have to trust in the SECs ability to use good judgement in determining when such notes would be necessary and/or beneficial. >.......You........ > > 6. SEC must be answerable to the AB, and not enabled to make arbitrary > decisions as to eligibility, cut off dates, etc. > >.......Me........ > >I understand this one, but I'm not sure I'm all that keen on it. I think >elections and government should be separate. The AB can make the rules for >membership, that's fair enough, but to tie the EC's hands could in the long >run hurt their ability to deal with issues that we haven't thought of yet. >Nothing personal to you Ellen as you know I even voted for you. But I think >the more we can distance elected officials from the elections, the better the >CC's will feel. Haven't closed my mind though, convince me I'm wrong on this >point. Not wrong, necessarily...... The problem is the absence of a third neutral party to make judgement calls, or to interpret the By-Laws. We don't have an appellate or Supreme Court. Given the two entities we do have, the AB and the SEC, I think serious conflicts should be addressed by the AB, because AB members are elected directly by the membership. >.......You......... > > > 8. I'm not necessarily opposed to an Election Commissioner, or other newly > named positions, but I'm not sure any of that is necessary. I think we > need to be careful not to insist upon a rigid structure that might later be > found to be cumbersome and unwieldy. The SEC must be given some leeway to > work, allowing for variables - we just need to be sure that the > responsibilities and boundaries of the SEC are clearly defined, and adhered >to. >> > >.........Me........... > >Agreed, but I greatly support an election commissioner to help the CC's feel >they have more of a voice. And the fact is, it would be that much more >detailed help. And in the case of disputes the CC's would feel they were >represented by one of their own. Define that however you like, I'm not even >sure what one of My Own is.. This almost sounds like some sort of a grievance committee for voters. Is that what y'all have in mind? Maybe I'm not clear on this one. Ellen _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Oct 6 17:10:29 2000 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 RAA21891 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 17:10:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA08125 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 17:10:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id CC59F3C137; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 17:10:25 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F00693C11F for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 17:10:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port1240.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.210.40]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA06697; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 16:10:19 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001006155923.00af9e60@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 16:06:34 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] Thoughts on Recent Topics Cc: esc@pairlist.net In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20001006102449.00b07c08@postoffice.att.net> References: <4.3.1.2.20001006094105.00d04470@mail.netdoor.com> <4.2.2.20001006072524.00aad6c8@postoffice.att.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 12:57 PM 10/06/2000 -0500, Ellen Pack wrote: >In a way it's a catch 22. However........we can avoid a lot of problems, >in future elections, by clearly and carefully defining the >responsibilities and boundaries of an Election Committee, and by farming >out the actual voting mechanism to a neutral party. > >Ellen Ellen, I am so undone by a comment elsewhere that I can't focus, but IMHO USGenWeb would be well advised to get the h*** out of Dallas before the goal is to get its user base "monetized" (if it isn't already) - Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 8 08:32:14 2000 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 IAA29434 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 08:32:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA08914 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 08:32:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id D01F53C15B; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 08:32:12 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BE7C3C13B for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 08:32:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.21]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001008123210.RQLD425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 08:32:10 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001008082256.02b7c9d0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 08:38:02 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] in general Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: in case you wondered... I am wading through the over 900 messages trying to summarize, a bit more of a project than I expected but also a good thing showing that we have been thinking and discussing one thing we really must do is make recommendations for initial actions that can co-exist with the present bylaws... anything that we think needs changing that does not co-exist with the current bylaws can also be included as a recommendation to be pursued if/when such a bylaws change can be made. in other words, as an example, Article VII of the ByLaws state: "Section 1. A subcommittee to oversee elections shall be appointed by the Advisory Board. The Elections Subcommittee shall consist of Advisory Board members and volunteers from the members of The USGenWeb Project." If we feel that it should be elected by the general membership, this would require a bylaws change so we must first recommend whatever we can about the formation of the Elections Committee that fits within its appointment by the AB and ALSO recommend that an amendment be proposed and passed to have the committee formed by election of the general membership. As I summarize, I will also be including some of my own thoughts and comments as I have been relatively silent recently due mostly to thunderstorms conflicting with the evenings I had free to be responsive ... we have more of those (including sleet and snow squalls) forecast for today here in Cleveland but hopefully I will be able to jump on the computer in between. Holly _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 8 09:02:04 2000 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 JAA01386 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 09:02:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA11321 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 09:02:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id D84E13C16F; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 09:02:01 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 069FA3C13B for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 09:02:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.21]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001008130159.SAPG425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 09:01:59 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001008084810.02b7d740@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 09:07:50 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Teresa summed this up well early so I am drawing on her post as a base for my summary a. eligible positions 1) eligibility to vote confers a right to vote 2) eligibility is best determined by the SC 3) eligible positions include CCs, SCs, RCs, TCs, state SP coordinators (as opposed to the state levels of the national special projects), and all permutations of assistants and partners for these positions [this last, incidentally, is supported by the bylaws, which refer to "local coordinator representatives"; I think the framers meant this category of rep to cover more than just counties and towns and deliberately made the category broad.] 2. good standing - The consensus is that determination of good standing is not the business of the EC, but is more properly done by the SC and perhaps the AB but definitely not for the EC to determine. 3. cutoff dates - 30 days seems to be the most common recommendation; there are several people who would like 60 days. [I think "30 days" is better than saying "June 1" because there may be mid-year special elections] Holly's Comment: 30 days has been the usual and has not had complaints, unlike the abrupt change to 90 days. 4. # per county - People feel there should be some limit to the number of persons representing any specific category of voter [county, state, region, town, sp]; the most common number I have heard is 2 per category [the discussion has pretty much focused on CCs but should probably rightly be extended to the other types of coordinators as well...think how easy it would be to pack an election for state rep by putting on three or four assts.] The general feeling seems to be that either the coordinators would determine among themselves who does not get to vote, or the SC could determine. Holly's Comment: My own feeling here is that 3 per county is an acceptable number but that perhaps per the bylaws we can not restrict the number without a bylaws change??? 5. multi-region CC's - The general consensus is that coordinators should be allowed to vote in each election for which they are eligible [CC rep, SC rep, SP rep], and once in each national level race [NC, At-large, amendments]. General recommendations: the only one I recall seeing is Carol's [the other one ] suggestion that we include a statement that we recognize that vote padding is a concern but that it is our determination that attempts to stop it will cause more problems than is desirable and to call on project members to act honestly in elections. [She phrased it better than I just did, but I can't find her post]. ---- Carol's quote: "I think we still need to address this problem in some way. My suggestion would be to make the statement saying that we can't control it without hurting the hard-working, legitimate cc's, so we call upon the entire project to live by the honor system." Looking at the above, I see that we have come to more or less a consensus that the status quo [before the latest election] is what we want. This is fine with me. I think most of the anger caused by the EC's decisions this time around were based on the unexpected changes in the rules people had come to feel were "how elections are done". I will agree here and add that prior to the last election, there were very few if any complaints about eligibility or the process except for concerns about Rootsweb tampering or allowing tampering and lack of communication. I have tried not to leave anything out on the Eligibility section but please add or comment.... Holly _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 8 09:16:27 2000 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 JAA02291 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 09:16:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA12605 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 09:16:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 7E1E83C15B; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 09:16:25 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4BF83C13B for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 09:16:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.21]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001008131623.SFUC425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 09:16:23 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001008090806.02b81600@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 09:22:14 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Standing Committee Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A There is absolutely no doubt that we are all in favor of a year-round standing committee primarily for the purpose of maintaining a current voter list and to be prepared for an election whenever one is wanted. I can not find a consensus on how the committee is to be chosen although the bylaws specify appointed by the AB... I think this is covered if the AB appoints the chair who then selects the committee from volunteers (which may ought to be approved by the AB, more so that they know who is on the committee rather than a name by name approval). There were some comments about having a representative from each state for this but I think this would be quite cumbersome. I would like to suggest that the standing committee ask each state to appoint an election liaison (in whatever manner they choose to, by appointment, election within the state or by whatever volunteer they can conscript or by the SC taking on that duty) to work with the SEC on maintenance of the voter list and communication during election periods. NOTE: I am a strong believer in state's rights in the project and think that not only we as a study committee but the national level as a whole should avoid as much as possible dictating how a state functions within itself. I also think that the standing committee need not be maintained year round at full election strength but merely at sufficient numbers to maintain the voter list (2 per region plus a chair?) and ought to be able to take on *workers* (as opposed to *committee members* at election time as needed. Holly _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 8 09:27:33 2000 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 JAA02989 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 09:27:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA13702 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 09:27:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id DC8FA3C16F; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 09:27:30 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CF7F3C13B for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 09:27:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.21]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001008132728.SJMO425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 09:27:28 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001008092221.00b9be60@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 09:33:20 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Mechanism Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Again, I saw no clear consensus on the specific mechanism... a program written and maintained by teh committee/project... an outside source (such as votebot) etc... I also think that that choice is far less an issue than the actual security and procedure and perhaps we ought to produce the *requirements* for the mechanism rather than dictate (or recommend actually) a specific mechanism. It should be: Secure - so that no one may see how another person voted Accessible - some people have problems (technical or user-brain) with forms and there must be an alternative or *helpline* available to resolve those occurrences.***(see further below) Verifiable - There must be some means to determine the legality of votes especially if there is a challenge in a close contest. Timely - the mechanism must allow for timely results (hopefully within hours of the polls closing) ****one problem I have seen arise when the vote program *reads* the voting email is where that varies from the registered email such as mail.bright.net or brutus.bright.net instead of bright.net (this has happened to me although not in a USGW election) "certification" - to me this is an official announcement by the EC of the final results Mail List Maintenance (part of the mechanism in our discussions) There was a great deal of discussion on this point which seems on the whole to have the SC as the front line of the information provided but that there should be some means of managing when an SC is uncooperative or not forthcoming with information including a means for CC's to communicate directly with the EC. Holly _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 8 12:17:45 2000 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 MAA14007 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 12:17:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA29224 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 12:17:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 4805C3C188; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 12:17:43 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from ogopogo.flash.net (ogopogo.flash.net [209.30.2.14]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86B403C17F for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 12:17:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from flash.net (p203.amax19.dialup.okc1.flash.net [209.30.82.203]) by ogopogo.flash.net (8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA15657 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 11:17:40 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <39E09A9E.2B28090F@flash.net> Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 11:02:38 -0500 From: Bob Chada X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] Thoughts on Recent Topics References: <4.3.1.2.20001006094105.00d04470@mail.netdoor.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: We might could have the EC members elected/selected by region, and then have the AB "bless" (appoint) the committee as a whole. Once this is done, the committee selects a chairman from among the members. -- Bob Chada bchada@flash.net Logan County, Oklahoma See our home page: http://www.flash.net/~tchada/ See our Logan County page: http://www.rootsweb.com/~oklogan/oklogan.htm _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 8 14:03:43 2000 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 OAA23310 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:03:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA09292 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:03:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id AB8C13C124; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:03:41 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from hotmail.com (f200.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.200]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF0673C121 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:03:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 11:03:40 -0700 Received: from 63.66.233.249 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 08 Oct 2000 18:03:40 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.66.233.249] From: "Esse Frye" To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] in general Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 14:03:40 EDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Oct 2000 18:03:40.0164 (UTC) FILETIME=[168AAC40:01C03152] Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Holly; I would then like to reccomend that the bylaw be changed to state that: A subcommittee to oversee elections shall be appointed by the members of The USGenWeb Project, and be approved by All members of the advisory board and not just by the NC. Esse _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 8 14:09:52 2000 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 OAA23727 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:09:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA09932 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:09:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 877FA3C188; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:09:51 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from hotmail.com (f175.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.175]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A96533C13B for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:09:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 11:09:50 -0700 Received: from 63.66.233.249 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 08 Oct 2000 18:09:49 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.66.233.249] From: "Esse Frye" To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] Standing Committee Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 14:09:49 EDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Oct 2000 18:09:50.0073 (UTC) FILETIME=[F3064E90:01C03152] Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Again; let me say, that the Standing Committee should be nominated by the Project members with approval from the Advisory Board but NOT by the judgement of the NC Himself without notifying the duly elected board that the members have voted for. If not, then maybe a grievance would be in order against the NC. Esse >From: Holly Timm >Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net >To: esc@pairlist.net >Subject: [ESC] Standing Committee >Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 09:22:14 -0500 > >There is absolutely no doubt that we are all in favor of a year-round >standing committee primarily for the purpose of maintaining a current voter >list and to be prepared for an election whenever one is wanted. > >I can not find a consensus on how the committee is to be chosen although >the bylaws specify appointed by the AB... I think this is covered if the AB >appoints the chair who then selects the committee from volunteers (which >may ought to be approved by the AB, more so that they know who is on the >committee rather than a name by name approval). > >There were some comments about having a representative from each state for >this but I think this would be quite cumbersome. I would like to suggest >that the standing committee ask each state to appoint an election liaison >(in whatever manner they choose to, by appointment, election within the >state or by whatever volunteer they can conscript or by the SC taking on >that duty) to work with the SEC on maintenance of the voter list and >communication during election periods. > >NOTE: I am a strong believer in state's rights in the project and think >that not only we as a study committee but the national level as a whole >should avoid as much as possible dictating how a state functions within >itself. > >I also think that the standing committee need not be maintained year round >at full election strength but merely at sufficient numbers to maintain the >voter list (2 per region plus a chair?) and ought to be able to take on >*workers* (as opposed to *committee members* at election time as needed. > >Holly > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 8 14:13:04 2000 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 OAA23892 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:13:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA10360 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:13:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id C87733C18B; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:13:02 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from hotmail.com (f161.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.161]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03C733C13B for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:13:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 11:13:01 -0700 Received: from 63.66.233.249 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 08 Oct 2000 18:13:01 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.66.233.249] From: "Esse Frye" To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] Thoughts on Recent Topics Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 14:13:01 EDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Oct 2000 18:13:01.0063 (UTC) FILETIME=[64DD1170:01C03153] Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Bob; Instead of the NC being the main person to approve the committee as a whole, I belive in the best interest of the project is to have the Board as a whole approve whom the members theirselves have voted in. Just my opinion. Esse >From: Bob Chada >Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net >To: esc@pairlist.net >Subject: Re: [ESC] Thoughts on Recent Topics >Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 11:02:38 -0500 > >We might could have the EC members elected/selected by >region, and then have the AB "bless" (appoint) the committee >as a whole. Once this is done, the committee selects a >chairman from among the members. > >-- >Bob Chada >bchada@flash.net >Logan County, Oklahoma > > >See our home page: http://www.flash.net/~tchada/ >See our Logan County page: >http://www.rootsweb.com/~oklogan/oklogan.htm > > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 8 15:16:30 2000 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 PAA29189 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 15:16:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA16186 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 15:16:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 8063E3C1AF; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 15:16:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64D333C15B for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 15:16:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.40]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001008191626.XEDK425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 15:16:26 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001008151539.00b5f540@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 15:22:15 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] in general In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 02:03 PM 10/8/00 -0400, Esse Frye wrote: >I would then like to reccomend that the bylaw be changed to state that: >A subcommittee to oversee elections shall be appointed by the members of >The USGenWeb Project, and be approved by All members of the advisory board >and not just by the NC. The bylaws now state that the committee is to be appointed by the AB, not by the NC alone. First, we can not count on changing the bylaws so must have recommendations that work within the present bylaws even when we also recommend something that does require a bylaws change. Secondly, appointing *by the members of the project* pretty much means an election in and of itself which would be time consuming and cumbersome. With the exception of the actions recently which were pretty much those of the chair of the committee, I have not seen criticism or distrust of the committee itself but rather concerns about outside influences or manipulation. I think that removing eligibility guidelines from the decision making power of the election committee (as we all agree should be done) and detailing requirements for the mechanism and the voter roll and requiring some reporting and accountability to the AB we have pretty much dealt with the problems seen with the election committee. Holly _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 8 15:31:38 2000 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 PAA00210 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 15:31:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA17592 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 15:31:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 0FB3C3C1B2; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 15:31:37 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D7573C192 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 15:31:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (pool-63.52.129.56.dlls.grid.net [63.52.129.56]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA31650 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 15:31:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <004201c0315e$50611380$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] in general Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:04:05 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Esse: I think that any request for a by-law change will probably have to go to the AB. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: Esse Frye To: Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 1:03 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] in general > > Holly; > I would then like to reccomend that the bylaw be changed to > state that: > A subcommittee to oversee elections shall be appointed by the members of The > USGenWeb Project, and be approved by All members of the advisory board and > not just by the NC. > > Esse > > > > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > http://profiles.msn.com. > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 8 16:01:44 2000 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 QAA02420 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 16:01:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA20559 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 16:01:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 20C473C1B6; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 16:01:43 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FD2C3C192 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 16:01:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (pool-63.52.129.56.dlls.grid.net [63.52.129.56]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA07308 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 16:01:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <008701c03162$84dff640$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: "Election Committee" References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001008084810.02b7d740@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 15:00:42 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Holly Wrote: >Looking at the above, I see that we have come to more or less a consensus >that the status quo [before the latest election] is what we want. This is >fine with me. I think most of the anger caused by the EC's decisions this >time around were based on the unexpected changes in the rules people had >come to feel were "how elections are done". >I will agree here and add that prior to the last election, there were very >few if any complaints about eligibility or the process except for concerns >about Rootsweb tampering or allowing tampering and lack of communication. I guess I am the only dissenter in the consensus that Holly mentions at the bottom of her e-mail (included above). So I'll register my disagreements for the record: Eligible positions: Everyone who is not a look-up volunteer or a transcriber is eligible to vote - per the bylaws. The SC will continue to determine who is eligible or not eligible. I do not believe the SC should have the right to determine who is to be included or excluded from voting. Number of volunteers per county: I don't believe anyone SEC or SC has the authority to determine this. I agree with Carol's statement that Holly quoted. Things should stay like they were prior to the last election. I think that many of the suggestions made here for changes that would make the SEC non-partisan and move them outside of the politics of this project were excellent. I would hate to see them discarded in favor of keeping the status quo. I also do not agree that the majority of the complaints were because of the change in cut-off date. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 8 16:38:12 2000 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 QAA05066 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 16:38:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA24526 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 16:38:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 32B323C1A0; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 16:38:11 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r10.mail.aol.com (imo-r10.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.10]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AEC03C19F for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 16:38:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Morom01@aol.com by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.26.) id s.76.3b0c749 (4543) for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 16:37:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Morom01@aol.com Message-ID: <76.3b0c749.27123516@aol.com> Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 16:37:42 EDT To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 106 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Reply to Ellen Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 10/8/00 12:07:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, esc-admin@pairlist.net writes: << >Agreed, but I greatly support an election commissioner to help the CC's feel >they have more of a voice. And the fact is, it would be that much more >detailed help. And in the case of disputes the CC's would feel they were >represented by one of their own. Define that however you like, I'm not even >sure what one of My Own is.. This almost sounds like some sort of a grievance committee for voters. Is that what y'all have in mind? Maybe I'm not clear on this one. >> .....ANSWER...... No, I'm not talking about formal disputes, I'm just talking about difference of opinions regarding decision making in general, actual individual disputes should be handled in normal channels. No, I was saying the CC's might feel they were better represented in decision making. Then if the didn't like a new policy at least they would feel their side was at least heard. I see from some of the responses many CC's felt a lack of voice. Chip _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 8 17:27:06 2000 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 RAA08229 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 17:27:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA29460 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 17:27:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id DBFB23C1AD; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 17:27:02 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from hotmail.com (f255.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.8.130]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2C2D3C1A8 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 17:27:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:27:01 -0700 Received: from 63.66.233.172 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 08 Oct 2000 21:27:01 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.66.233.172] From: "Esse Frye" To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] in general Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 17:27:01 EDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Oct 2000 21:27:01.0326 (UTC) FILETIME=[7F003EE0:01C0316E] Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Holly; Could an exception to the rule be made in conjunction of electing a standing committee the same time we are selecting the AB? In consideration of earlier happenings by the NC, that is why I said what I said. It has no bearing on what the rest of the board does. If protocol isn't followed, then steps should be taken to make sure they are. Sincerely, Esse >From: Holly Timm >Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net >To: esc@pairlist.net >Subject: Re: [ESC] in general >Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 15:22:15 -0500 > >At 02:03 PM 10/8/00 -0400, Esse Frye wrote: >>I would then like to reccomend that the bylaw be changed to state that: >>A subcommittee to oversee elections shall be appointed by the members of >>The USGenWeb Project, and be approved by All members of the advisory board >>and not just by the NC. > >The bylaws now state that the committee is to be appointed by the AB, not >by the NC alone. > >First, we can not count on changing the bylaws so must have recommendations >that work within the present bylaws even when we also recommend something >that does require a bylaws change. > >Secondly, appointing *by the members of the project* pretty much means an >election in and of itself which would be time consuming and cumbersome. >With the exception of the actions recently which were pretty much those of >the chair of the committee, I have not seen criticism or distrust of the >committee itself but rather concerns about outside influences or >manipulation. I think that removing eligibility guidelines from the >decision making power of the election committee (as we all agree should be >done) and detailing requirements for the mechanism and the voter roll and >requiring some reporting and accountability to the AB we have pretty much >dealt with the problems seen with the election committee. > >Holly > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 8 17:34:54 2000 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 RAA08752 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 17:34:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA00180 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 17:34:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 8BACC3C1BB; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 17:34:50 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C83593C1A8 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 17:34:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.226]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001008213448.ZEXF425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 17:34:48 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001008173556.00bb8240@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 17:40:37 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines In-Reply-To: <008701c03162$84dff640$0200a8c0@Linda> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001008084810.02b7d740@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 03:00 PM 10/8/00 -0500, Linda Haas Davenport wrote: >I guess I am the only dissenter in the consensus that Holly mentions at the >bottom of her e-mail (included above). actually the reference to consensus comes from Teresa's summary I think..... >I do not believe the SC should have the right to determine who is to be >included or excluded from voting. Then who does decide if someone is part of a state or not? Do people decide for themselves if they are a CC in a state? I am truly confused here as to what the problem is with the SC being the person to list their CC's, TC's, State Special Project people et cetera. Holly _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 8 17:42:38 2000 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 RAA09214 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 17:42:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA01001 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 17:42:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id AFCAF3C1BB; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 17:42:35 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r03.mail.aol.com (imo-r03.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.3]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 185483C1A8 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 17:42:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MHet703234@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.26.) id s.64.735112a (4466) for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 17:42:26 -0400 (EDT) From: MHet703234@aol.com Message-ID: <64.735112a.27124442@aol.com> Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 17:42:26 EDT Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 120 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 10/8/2000 2:34:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, hollyft@bright.net writes: << Then who does decide if someone is part of a state or not? Do people decide for themselves if they are a CC in a state? I am truly confused here as to what the problem is with the SC being the person to list their CC's, TC's, State Special Project people et cetera. Holly >> I agree with you Holly, but think the problem is with the strong misstrust that some CC's now have for the SC's. Mary Ann _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 8 18:51:40 2000 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 SAA13986 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 18:51:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA07542 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 18:51:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id BA43F3C1CC; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 18:51:33 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8553E3C13B for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 18:51:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (pool-63.52.129.56.dlls.grid.net [63.52.129.56]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA14590 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 18:51:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <003201c0317a$3dff8160$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001008084810.02b7d740@mail.bright.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20001008173556.00bb8240@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 17:50:52 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I covered this several times but let me try one more time to be clear. I do not think the SC should have the right to submit a voters list, as they have in the past, and have that list be accepted as gospel. I have no problem with the SC submitting a list and then having that list checked in some manner. That is why I suggested that there be a national membership list with the volunteer able to enter/correct their own information. However, I do not expect the SEC to accept the information as gospel from a volunteer either, I would like to see it checked also. Please understand that my dislike of this practice of SCs submitting voter lists without any verification of the data has nothing to do with any SC or even the SC position, rather it comes from working way too many years not to be familiar with the abuse that can and does take place in a position that has no oversight. I would like to think that every adult would be rational, put aside their own personal feelings and be honest in their performance of their job. But, I have seen enough petty squabbles, people who run and tattle, troublemakers, gossips, etc. etc. not to know that not every adult can be trusted to be a rational adult. In an office it's easy to get to know who cannot be trusted to keep their personal feelings out of a meeting, promotion, or whatever the job is. It's impossible to do here in cyberspace unless the person is vocal enough on one of the 3 CC lists. If I were an SC and I was mad at a CC (use the blackened logos for example) and it came time to submit my list would I be tempted to leave that person off? Me, personally, no - I'd handle it another way and I'm sure many of you SCs would do the same. But neither you nor I nor the EC has anyway of knowing if such a thing were to happen. Or lets take the case of a state where there are co-hosts, special type projects (ie civil war, special history whatever) what if the SC believed that none of those jobs carry any voting right. The SC wouldn't be a bad person just misinformed. Such was the case of a SC who didn't believe the volunteers who maintained town sites were considered CCs so did not submit any of their names. Sorry Holly, but I can not back down from my belief that the SC should not have the final authority on who can and cannot vote. I truly believe the system we have now is flawed and open to abuse. I would very much like to see that changed. This feeling did not just materialize in this committee, I have objected to it from the day I found out how it was done. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: Holly Timm To: Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 5:40 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines > At 03:00 PM 10/8/00 -0500, Linda Haas Davenport wrote: > >I guess I am the only dissenter in the consensus that Holly mentions at the > >bottom of her e-mail (included above). > > actually the reference to consensus comes from Teresa's summary I think..... > > >I do not believe the SC should have the right to determine who is to be > >included or excluded from voting. > > Then who does decide if someone is part of a state or not? > Do people decide for themselves if they are a CC in a state? > I am truly confused here as to what the problem is with the SC being the > person to list their CC's, TC's, State Special Project people et cetera. > > Holly > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 8 19:36:49 2000 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 TAA17221 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 19:36:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA11956 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 19:36:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 730B53C133; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 19:36:44 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2F3A3C121 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 19:36:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.202]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001008233642.BBVY425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 19:36:42 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001008190238.03147af0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 19:42:27 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines In-Reply-To: <003201c0317a$3dff8160$0200a8c0@Linda> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001008084810.02b7d740@mail.bright.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20001008173556.00bb8240@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 05:50 PM 10/8/00 -0500, you wrote: > I do not think the SC should have the right to submit a voters list, as >they have in the past, and have that list be accepted as gospel. I have no >problem with the SC submitting a list and then having that list checked in >some manner. That is why I suggested that there be a national membership >list with the volunteer able to enter/correct their own information. >However, I do not expect the SEC to accept the information as gospel from a >volunteer either, I would like to see it checked also. I believe I specifically said that there should be an avenue for CC''s to address problems including just such as those you have mentioned but I find an wide open list subject to alteration and addition by anyone who says they are a CC far more open to abuse. >Please understand that my dislike of this practice of SCs submitting voter >lists without any verification of the data has nothing to do with any SC or >even the SC position, rather it comes from working way too many years not to >be familiar with the abuse that can and does take place in a position that >has no oversight. At no point did I state no verification Linda... your points below about SC's being wrong (either by mistake or intent) is equally applicable to those who say they are CC's. Who should be the final authority then? >I would like to think that every adult would be rational, >put aside their own personal feelings and be honest in their performance of >their job. But, I have seen enough petty squabbles, people who run and >tattle, troublemakers, gossips, etc. etc. not to know that not every adult >can be trusted to be a rational adult. In an office it's easy to get to know >who cannot be trusted to keep their personal feelings out of a meeting, >promotion, or whatever the job is. It's impossible to do here in cyberspace >unless the person is vocal enough on one of the 3 CC lists. > >If I were an SC and I was mad at a CC (use the blackened logos for example) >and it came time to submit my list would I be tempted to leave that person >off? Me, personally, no - I'd handle it another way and I'm sure many of you >SCs would do the same. But neither you nor I nor the EC has anyway of >knowing if such a thing were to happen. Or lets take the case of a state >where there are co-hosts, special type projects (ie civil war, special >history whatever) what if the SC believed that none of those jobs carry any >voting right. The SC wouldn't be a bad person just misinformed. Such was the >case of a SC who didn't believe the volunteers who maintained town sites >were considered CCs so did not submit any of their names. > >Sorry Holly, but I can not back down from my belief that the SC should not >have the final authority on who can and cannot vote. I truly believe the >system we have now is flawed and open to abuse. I would very much like to >see that changed. This feeling did not just materialize in this committee, I >have objected to it from the day I found out how it was done. > >Linda > >lhaasdav@mindspring.com >Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas >Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion >List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Holly Timm >To: >Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 5:40 PM >Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines > > > > At 03:00 PM 10/8/00 -0500, Linda Haas Davenport wrote: > > >I guess I am the only dissenter in the consensus that Holly mentions at >the > > >bottom of her e-mail (included above). > > > > actually the reference to consensus comes from Teresa's summary I >think..... > > > > >I do not believe the SC should have the right to determine who is to be > > >included or excluded from voting. > > > > Then who does decide if someone is part of a state or not? > > Do people decide for themselves if they are a CC in a state? > > I am truly confused here as to what the problem is with the SC being the > > person to list their CC's, TC's, State Special Project people et cetera. > > > > Holly > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Esc mailing list > > Esc@pairlist.net > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 8 20:01:21 2000 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 UAA18908 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:01:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA14563 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:01:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 0CA3D3C192; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:01:18 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from postoffice5.ipa.net (postoffice5.ipa.net [205.218.170.26]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 255FF3C166 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:01:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-22.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.22]) by postoffice5.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id TAA27663 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 19:01:35 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <004901c03183$bc26a560$8d2c95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001008084810.02b7d740@mail.bright.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20001008173556.00bb8240@mail.bright.net> <003201c0317a$3dff8160$0200a8c0@Linda> Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 18:56:23 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Yes, the system is flawed. But, for every example you mention about the potential for abuse from an SC, I can also give you an example of potential abuse from a CC! You say, basically, that there should be checks and balances. But, who balances the abuse from the CC who wants to vote pad? Who balances the abuse from a petty SC, or an uninformed SC? *Someone* ultimately has to have the final say. Who do you suggest that to be? The EC? That gives the EC the *right* to determine voter eligibility! And, we've already decided we didn't want to give the EC that right. If not the EC, then WHO? You say that you don't want the SC to determine eligibility, but who ELSE do you suggest? IMHO, I think we have already built in the checks and balances that you are wanting, Linda. We are doing that by giving the CC a means to communicate directly with the EC. And, quite frankly, if I went to vote in an election, and the votebot (or whatever is used) wouldn't take my email addy, and I suspected an error or SC tampering, I'd be writing the EC rather quickly. Wouldn't you? I understand that you'd like checks and balances. But, I also don't see that cutting the SC out of the loop for determining WHO is even a voter in their state is going to accomplish that! If we get into anyone except the SC (and the AB when appropriate) determining eligibility, then I'm going to start screaming rather loudly about cc vote padding and insisting on a method to prevent it entirely. Because only the SC really knows who is working in their state! In other words, you can't say the system is open to abuse by the SCs, without also realizing that the system is open to abuse by the CC !!! We have found some "mechanisms" for these problems, but we sure can't prevent it no matter what we do. Again, and again, I'll say this: if someone truly is determined to abuse the system, they'll find a way no matter WHAT guidelines are established! Again, we either call for honesty in the project, or else we drive ourselves crazy trying to prevent it from the NC through the TC! And, I won't allow for the SCs to be "punished" because of some wrongdoing by a very few without all CC's "punished" because of some wrongdoing by the very few, too! Carol ----- Original Message ----- From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 5:50 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines > I covered this several times but let me try one more time to be clear. > > I do not think the SC should have the right to submit a voters list, as > they have in the past, and have that list be accepted as gospel. I have no > problem with the SC submitting a list and then having that list checked in > some manner. That is why I suggested that there be a national membership > list with the volunteer able to enter/correct their own information. > However, I do not expect the SEC to accept the information as gospel from a > volunteer either, I would like to see it checked also. > > Please understand that my dislike of this practice of SCs submitting voter > lists without any verification of the data has nothing to do with any SC or > even the SC position, rather it comes from working way too many years not to > be familiar with the abuse that can and does take place in a position that > has no oversight. I would like to think that every adult would be rational, > put aside their own personal feelings and be honest in their performance of > their job. But, I have seen enough petty squabbles, people who run and > tattle, troublemakers, gossips, etc. etc. not to know that not every adult > can be trusted to be a rational adult. In an office it's easy to get to know > who cannot be trusted to keep their personal feelings out of a meeting, > promotion, or whatever the job is. It's impossible to do here in cyberspace > unless the person is vocal enough on one of the 3 CC lists. > > If I were an SC and I was mad at a CC (use the blackened logos for example) > and it came time to submit my list would I be tempted to leave that person > off? Me, personally, no - I'd handle it another way and I'm sure many of you > SCs would do the same. But neither you nor I nor the EC has anyway of > knowing if such a thing were to happen. Or lets take the case of a state > where there are co-hosts, special type projects (ie civil war, special > history whatever) what if the SC believed that none of those jobs carry any > voting right. The SC wouldn't be a bad person just misinformed. Such was the > case of a SC who didn't believe the volunteers who maintained town sites > were considered CCs so did not submit any of their names. > > Sorry Holly, but I can not back down from my belief that the SC should not > have the final authority on who can and cannot vote. I truly believe the > system we have now is flawed and open to abuse. I would very much like to > see that changed. This feeling did not just materialize in this committee, I > have objected to it from the day I found out how it was done. > > Linda > > lhaasdav@mindspring.com > Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas > Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion > List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Holly Timm > To: > Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 5:40 PM > Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines > > > > At 03:00 PM 10/8/00 -0500, Linda Haas Davenport wrote: > > >I guess I am the only dissenter in the consensus that Holly mentions at > the > > >bottom of her e-mail (included above). > > > > actually the reference to consensus comes from Teresa's summary I > think..... > > > > >I do not believe the SC should have the right to determine who is to be > > >included or excluded from voting. > > > > Then who does decide if someone is part of a state or not? > > Do people decide for themselves if they are a CC in a state? > > I am truly confused here as to what the problem is with the SC being the > > person to list their CC's, TC's, State Special Project people et cetera. > > > > Holly > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Esc mailing list > > Esc@pairlist.net > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 8 20:06:27 2000 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 UAA19332 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:06:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA15125 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:06:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id D9D083C192; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:06:24 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from chupacabras.flash.net (chupacabras.flash.net [209.30.2.16]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A4073C166 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:06:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from flash.net (p215.amax20.dialup.okc1.flash.net [209.30.82.215]) by chupacabras.flash.net (8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA06807 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 19:06:22 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <39E10878.3A34F1A1@flash.net> Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 18:51:20 -0500 From: Bob Chada X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001008084810.02b7d740@mail.bright.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20001008173556.00bb8240@mail.bright.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Holly, it comes across to me that there are some folks out there that don't exactly have a "warm fuzzy" relationship with their SC, and not that it would ever hapen, but an SC could accidently forget to remember to place all of the eligible voters on the list. Even if it only happened once, that is once to many. -- Bob Chada bchada@flash.net Logan County, Oklahoma See our home page: http://www.flash.net/~tchada/ See our Logan County page: http://www.rootsweb.com/~oklogan/oklogan.htm _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 8 20:23:34 2000 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 UAA20422 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:23:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA16874 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:23:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 9AABF3C1E3; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:23:30 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from bunyip.flash.net (bunyip.flash.net [209.30.2.15]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BACBC3C1DD for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:23:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from flash.net (p215.amax20.dialup.okc1.flash.net [209.30.82.215]) by bunyip.flash.net (8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA07089 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 19:23:28 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <39E10C7C.A99811A3@flash.net> Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 19:08:28 -0500 From: Bob Chada X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001008084810.02b7d740@mail.bright.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20001008173556.00bb8240@mail.bright.net> <003201c0317a$3dff8160$0200a8c0@Linda> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Linda, I think you hit my feelings right on the nose. I do not see where a cross check of a list is a bad thing. If I was the one providing the information, I would have no problem having it checked. Even in the best of circimstances, I am not above making an error, and I have had times when this cyber world has managed to loose a part of a message. -- Bob Chada bchada@flash.net Logan County, Oklahoma See our home page: http://www.flash.net/~tchada/ See our Logan County page: http://www.rootsweb.com/~oklogan/oklogan.htm _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 8 20:31:22 2000 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 UAA20901 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:31:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA17775 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:31:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 4A8A13C1E3; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:31:17 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r20.mail.aol.com (imo-r20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.162]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 679F53C1DD for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:31:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Morom01@aol.com by imo-r20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.26.) id s.af.1896792 (4012) for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:31:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Morom01@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:31:13 EDT To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 106 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Re: eligibility guidelines Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 10/8/00 6:52:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, esc-admin@pairlist.net writes: << I think that many of the suggestions made here for changes that would make the SEC non-partisan and move them outside of the politics of this project were excellent. I would hate to see them discarded in favor of keeping the status quo. I also do not agree that the majority of the complaints were because of the change in cut-off date. >> I'll second this thought. Chip _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 8 20:43:05 2000 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 UAA21574 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:43:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA18974 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:43:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id C07CE3C1E3; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:42:59 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0226A3C1DD for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:42:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Morom01@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.26.) id s.3e.1e8ff96 (4012) for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:42:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Morom01@aol.com Message-ID: <3e.1e8ff96.27126e8d@aol.com> Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:42:53 EDT To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 106 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Re: Eligibility guidelines Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 10/8/00 6:52:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, esc-admin@pairlist.net writes: << Sorry Holly, but I can not back down from my belief that the SC should not have the final authority on who can and cannot vote. I truly believe the system we have now is flawed and open to abuse. >> I have no opinion to voice here as to whether I think it happens or not. I have said in the past that I have made up my own mind that I have witnessed it. But the whole idea is to get rid of as much mistrust as we can. If the CC's mistrust some SC's as has been suggested in the responses, to ignore that is to not do our job. Once again, I am for the SC's submitting the lists as they always have, but an additional set of checks and balances added. It seems to me that we are split with this SC power issue. Yes I want total SC power\I want no SC power. I fall in the middle and hope for a compromise. If we cannot trust the motives of each other and our intentions how can we say that the CC's should trust any of it? We can't and most of them don't. If we come out of this saying these powers stay the way they have always been, why should the CC's magically begin to trust it? I will say again on this subject, we can't fix it if we don't change it. Sorry, I mean no disrespect by that, but we can sit here and spin our wheels over one issue or we can come together and make some beneficial changes. Chip Chip _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 8 20:58:15 2000 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 UAA22551 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:58:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA20741 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:58:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 4C0DC3C1DD; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:58:12 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r02.mail.aol.com (imo-r02.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.2]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 514293C153 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:58:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MHet703234@aol.com by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.26.) id s.7c.bef2a4d (4442) for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:57:54 -0400 (EDT) From: MHet703234@aol.com Message-ID: <7c.bef2a4d.27127212@aol.com> Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:57:54 EDT Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 120 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 10/8/2000 3:51:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, lhaasdav@mindspring.com writes: << I covered this several times but let me try one more time to be clear. I do not think the SC should have the right to submit a voters list, as they have in the past, and have that list be accepted as gospel. I have no problem with the SC submitting a list and then having that list checked in some manner. That is why I suggested that there be a national membership list with the volunteer able to enter/correct their own information. However, I do not expect the SEC to accept the information as gospel from a volunteer either, I would like to see it checked also >> Linda, I can see your point of view. I just don't agree with what you are saying at all. The SC's have the responsibility of choosing who adopts counties in their states, but you don't think they should have the ability to say "hey that person is not a CC in my state any longer"? I agree with Carol and Holly. I do this not just from the SC point of view. But from the point of view that I trust my own SC in Ohio to let me know and to keep my name and email addy up to date. Even though I do not always agree with him on things. I think a more positive attitude rather than a negative one, is what is needed here. We have to start by trusting the CC's and trusting the SC's. Micro managing won't work in a volunteer organization. This leads to more politics, not less. Mary Ann _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Oct 9 07:07:25 2000 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 HAA02666 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 07:07:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA17096 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 07:07:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id F3BDD3C133; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 07:07:22 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E493D3C12D for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 07:07:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.5]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001009110719.MRMY425.invictus@pooh.bright.net>; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 07:07:19 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001009064254.00bc6280@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 07:13:10 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net, esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] Re: Eligibility guidelines In-Reply-To: <3e.1e8ff96.27126e8d@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Some how it has been felt that I have said the SC is the ONLY one to have any input as to who is eligible to vote or not in their state and that is not at all what I said. I have specifically said there must be an avenue for CC's (used in the broad sense for any eligible position) to be able to speak up if they have been omitted and to check if they are listed. I have also said in the past that there should be a means for the SC to check that everyone they think should be listed has been listed either by an online list checkable by state or by a list sent to the SC or at the very least the SC being advised when anyone they list has been eliminated. Since she's right here on this list, I will use Carol as an example. If I do not list Carol as a CC in NY (she is Unknown County CC) because I don't think the Unknown County counts, there should be an avenue for her to say to the EC, hey, I'm not listed for NY but I am Unknown County CC. At which point the EC should contact me as SC and say, hey you didn't list her and as Unknown County CC she is eligible... the only way I can come back and say no she isn't eligible would be if she wasn't CC any more, in which case I come back with here is the url to the county list and to the Unknown County, you will see that Jane Doe is CC now and has been for several months. On the whole, the SC's are far more likely to see that their Coordinators (of all types) are listed as eligible voters than most of them are... Carol didn't pursue her lack of a vote in the NE Region when she was omitted from the voter rolls there but I sure would have because it wasn't me that eliminated her. But, when an SC is not diligent there does need to be an avenue for the Coordinator to make contact and bring up their eligibility which can then be discussed with the SC, verified on pages, etc. So I repeat, the SC should not be the ONLY means of voter listing but they should be the front line. Holly PS: It will also help that *who* (as in what positions) are eligible will be firmly established and the SC's advised of what positions are eligible. I.e., the SC cited as not listing TC's because he/she felt they weren't eligible would know that they were. At 08:42 PM 10/8/00 -0400, Morom01@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 10/8/00 6:52:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >esc-admin@pairlist.net writes: > ><< Sorry Holly, but I can not back down from my belief that the SC should not > have the final authority on who can and cannot vote. I truly believe the > system we have now is flawed and open to abuse. >> > >I have no opinion to voice here as to whether I think it happens or not. I >have said in the past that I have made up my own mind that I have witnessed >it. But the whole idea is to get rid of as much mistrust as we can. If the >CC's mistrust some SC's as has been suggested in the responses, to ignore >that is to not do our job. Once again, I am for the SC's submitting the lists >as they always have, but an additional set of checks and balances added. > >It seems to me that we are split with this SC power issue. Yes I want total >SC power\I want no SC power. I fall in the middle and hope for a compromise. >If we cannot trust the motives of each other and our intentions how can we >say that the CC's should trust any of it? We can't and most of them don't. If >we come out of this saying these powers stay the way they have always been, >why should the CC's magically begin to trust it? I will say again on this >subject, we can't fix it if we don't change it. Sorry, I mean no disrespect >by that, but we can sit here and spin our wheels over one issue or we can >come together and make some beneficial changes. > >Chip > >Chip > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 8 09:33:23 2000 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 JAA03324 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 09:33:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA14217 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 09:33:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 3654A3C177; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 09:33:21 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EF323C173 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 09:33:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.21]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001008133319.SLSA425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 09:33:19 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001008093326.02b25760@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 09:39:10 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Other Stuff Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A Two main items here... SP elections and PR/Communications First, our discussion makes it clear that we all think that per the bylaws, the EC should be managing the Special Project elections for their Board Representative. Second, both our survey results and our own opinions make it clear that communications have been insufficient and several means have been discussed... the majority opinion seems to be that the voter roll should be used rather than subscribing everybody to yet another list. Falling also under this category, sort of, is communication and overseeing of the EC by the Board. We haven't discussed this very much but from experience, the AB has been kept as much in the dark about what the EC is doing as the rest of the project, in fact, questions have been ignored and any and all attempts at direction or input regarding problems has been rejected. Holly _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Oct 9 08:55:10 2000 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 IAA10097 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 08:55:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA28241 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 08:55:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 679D53C175; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 08:55:08 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.48]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7F003C166 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 08:55:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from connie ([12.68.6.89]) by mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with SMTP id <20001009125506.EMWN18564.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@connie> for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 12:55:06 +0000 Message-ID: <000201c031ef$d80ed790$0201a8c0@connie> From: "Connie Bates" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001008092221.00b9be60@mail.bright.net> <002c01c031a9$fb81dd80$23885ea0@tc.umn.edu> Subject: Re: [ESC] Mechanism Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 02:50:28 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Again, I *strongly* disagree with this. One of the requirements should be that no one whose name appears on the ballot has *any* influence/guidance/etc. over the SEC. That means that either the voting mechanism *must* be from an outside source - or none of the AB or the NC can run for re-election after they appoint the SEC. It is inconceivable to me that those running for office are allowed to choose the committee who will, basically, count the votes. We cannot change the bylaws in order to change the way the SEC is formed - therefore, we must address this issue. Connie > Again, I saw no clear consensus on the specific mechanism... a program > written and maintained by teh committee/project... an outside source (such > as votebot) etc... I also think that that choice is far less an issue than > the actual security and procedure and perhaps we ought to produce the > *requirements* for the mechanism rather than dictate (or recommend > actually) a specific mechanism. > > It should be: > Secure - so that no one may see how another person voted > Accessible - some people have problems (technical or user-brain) with > forms and there must be an alternative or *helpline* available to resolve > those occurrences.***(see further below) > Verifiable - There must be some means to determine the legality of votes > especially if there is a challenge in a close contest. > Timely - the mechanism must allow for timely results (hopefully within > hours of the polls closing) _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Oct 9 09:38:05 2000 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 JAA13152 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 09:38:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA04080 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 09:38:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 92C0E3C150; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 09:37:42 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC6603C129 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 09:37:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust139.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.139]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA19583 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 09:37:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <006201c031f6$08078400$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: "Election Committee" References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001008084810.02b7d740@mail.bright.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20001008173556.00bb8240@mail.bright.net> <003201c0317a$3dff8160$0200a8c0@Linda> <004901c03183$bc26a560$8d2c95d0@youda> Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 08:17:49 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: My comments inserted below Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: Carol To: Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 6:56 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines > Yes, the system is flawed. But, for every example you mention about the > potential for abuse from an SC, I can also give you an example of potential > abuse from a CC! > > You say, basically, that there should be checks and balances. But, who > balances the abuse from the CC who wants to vote pad? Who balances the > abuse from a petty SC, or an uninformed SC? My comment: There is always the possibility of abuse of a system by any person who participates in it. So, no I was not excluding the possible abuse of a volunteer (ie CC, co-host whatever). But, when it comes to the voting list the volunteer has much less impact on the voters list than does the SC. The SC is now responsible for submitting a voter list for their own state (many people) and the only verification (correct me if I'm wrong) by the EC is to make sure the e-mail address submitted for the voter is still working. A CC can only effect the voter lists by adding co-hosts and/or adopting multiple counties. If we stay with the one person, one vote then the only effect a CC can have is by adding co-hosts. I cannot see how an individual CC can add enough co-hosts to have the same effect as an SC. Yes I know that someone pointed out that one election was decided by something like 10 or 12 votes so possibly a CC could manage to add that many co-hosts if the CC had enough counties. It has been mentioned several times that the SC must agree to the assignment of counties, SP, or whatever in their state. So my question is - if a CC wanted to add co-hosts to the point that they could effect a vote would their SC allow that? I have never been an SC so I'm certainly not familiar with the internal workings of that job but I would think the SC does have the right to determine if a volunteer is accepted or not. I know that when I requested Marion Co AR - both the current CC and I asked Betsy to allow me to take over the county. Before Betsy allowed me to do so she questioned me, looked at my home page and in several ways made sure I had an interest in the county and was capable of handling a web page. I would assume most SCs do something similar. > > *Someone* ultimately has to have the final say. Who do you suggest that to > be? The EC? That gives the EC the *right* to determine voter eligibility! > And, we've already decided we didn't want to give the EC that right. If not > the EC, then WHO? You say that you don't want the SC to determine > eligibility, but who ELSE do you suggest? My Comment: As I said above no-one has the right to determine Eligibility - that is mandated by the by-laws. What is under discussion is who has the right to determine if a volunteer's name will be submitted to the EC to allow that volunteer to vote. What I had in mind was: First time around the SC would submit a list of members The SEC would verify the list by visiting each state/county/SP/etc Any differences would be resolved During normal day to day operations The SC would notify the SEC of any changes of volunteers within their state The SEC would follow up with a e-mail asking the new volunteer to drop by the web page and, either verify their information if the SEC entered it or enter their information if the SEC decides not to enter info. If a volunteer registered and there had been no notification by the SC then an e-mail would be sent to the SC asking them to verify the information. In the case of a dispute: I would believe that a dispute would be rare, but should it happen then the dispute would be forwarded to the AB to make a final decision. This is the checks and balances I had in mind. No SC would be "cut out of the loop" and no volunteer would be cut out either. > > IMHO, I think we have already built in the checks and balances that you are > wanting, Linda. We are doing that by giving the CC a means to communicate > directly with the EC. And, quite frankly, if I went to vote in an election, > and the votebot (or whatever is used) wouldn't take my email addy, and I > suspected an error or SC tampering, I'd be writing the EC rather quickly. > Wouldn't you? My Comments: Sure I would and I would guess that most other volunteers would do the same. But IMO my suggestions above would also serve the purpose of instilling confidence in the SEC as non-political. I believe it was Chip, or possibly John, who said that appearance and perception are very important. > > I understand that you'd like checks and balances. But, I also don't see > that cutting the SC out of the loop for determining WHO is even a voter in > their state is going to accomplish that! If we get into anyone except the > SC (and the AB when appropriate) determining eligibility, then I'm going to > start screaming rather loudly about cc vote padding and insisting on a > method to prevent it entirely. Because only the SC really knows who is > working in their state! My Comment: I covered most of this above. Once again let me say I'm not suggesting "cutting the SC out of the loop" - I have said so time and time again. As for "eligibility" there is no one who can determine that - it is set in the by-laws that any volunteer other than a transcriber or look-up person is eligible to vote. The point under discussion is how a volunteer is to be registered to vote. Why do you feel it has to be a "either or" situation Carol? I don't see it as "either" the SC or CC. I see a group of volunteers working for a common goal without any job/title having "power" over any other. > > In other words, you can't say the system is open to abuse by the SCs, > without also realizing that the system is open to abuse by the CC !!! My Comment: At no time have I ever suggested that the system is NOT open to abuse by anyone - what I have said over and over is that the system we have now IS open to abuse. I still do not feel that the CC (read as any volunteer) can have the same impact as an SC. As is said above - the CC can only abuse the system by taking on several jobs (ie counties, SP, whatever) and/or adding additional volunteers to their site(s) for the express purpose of voting. I have never suggested that the SC give up their authority to manage their own state as they see fit. If a CC were to do what I said above I would think that the SC would handle it in whatever way they needed to. > > We have found some "mechanisms" for these problems, but we sure can't > prevent it no matter what we do. Again, and again, I'll say this: if > someone truly is determined to abuse the system, they'll find a way no > matter WHAT guidelines are established! Again, we either call for honesty in > the project, or else we drive ourselves crazy trying to prevent it from the > NC through the TC! And, I won't allow for the SCs to be "punished" because > of some wrongdoing by a very few without all CC's "punished" because of some > wrongdoing by the very few, too! My Comment: I agree with you Carol, if someone is bound and determined to abuse the system they'll find a way. Hopefully the SC and/or AB can come up with a means to eliminate those people from the project. All that I am asking is that the submission of voter lists be included in a checks/balance system so that the average volunteer can feel comfortable with the system. As for "punishing" anyone - SC or CC - I have no interest in "punishing" anyone. I do have an interest, as a volunteer to this project, in seeing a level playing field for all volunteers no matter their job or their job title. That is ALL that I am asking. Linda > > Carol _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Oct 9 10:07:55 2000 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 KAA17239 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:07:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA09242 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:07:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id AE1A13C143; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:07:53 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 095DF3C13E for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:07:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust139.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.139]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA26966 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:07:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <008201c031fa$409eae20$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: "Election Committee" References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001008084810.02b7d740@mail.bright.net><4.3.2.7.2.20001008173556.00bb8240@mail.bright.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20001008190238.03147af0@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 08:38:08 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: My comments inserted below: Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: Holly Timm To: Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 7:42 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines > At 05:50 PM 10/8/00 -0500, you wrote: > > I do not think the SC should have the right to submit a voters list, as > >they have in the past, and have that list be accepted as gospel. I have no > >problem with the SC submitting a list and then having that list checked in > >some manner. That is why I suggested that there be a national membership > >list with the volunteer able to enter/correct their own information. > >However, I do not expect the SEC to accept the information as gospel from a > >volunteer either, I would like to see it checked also. > > I believe I specifically said that there should be an avenue for CC''s to > address problems including just such as those you have mentioned but I find > an wide open list subject to alteration and addition by anyone who says > they are a CC far more open to abuse. I do believe we are both saying the same thing Holly. I am NOT advocating that a CC's information not be checked. I am simply saying that any information submitted to the SEC be verified. It doesn't matter where it comes from. In answer to Carol's post I listed a brief outline of how I personally would like to see the system work. > > >Please understand that my dislike of this practice of SCs submitting voter > >lists without any verification of the data has nothing to do with any SC or > >even the SC position, rather it comes from working way too many years not to > >be familiar with the abuse that can and does take place in a position that > >has no oversight. > > At no point did I state no verification Linda... your points below about > SC's being wrong (either by mistake or intent) is equally applicable to > those who say they are CC's. Who should be the final authority then? > My Comment: Once again we are in agreement and I was not saying that you did not want verification. My comment above was made because of your comment that the status quo was to be kept and also as an explanation as to why I feel that an SC should not be the final authority as to who is or who is not included in a voter list. And yes the CC is just as apt to make a mistake as an SC. All that I am asking is that any information submitted to the SEC be verified - no matter how it comes to them or who it is submitted by. I would like to see every volunteer treated the same. If the information submitted by a SC is checked then so would be information submitted by any volunteer. I do not see this discussion as a struggle to make one or the other (SC, other type of volunteer) the "power". I see this discussion as a way to insure that the SEC is viewed by the membership at large as a non-partisan entity and that every volunteer could be comfortable with the way the membership / voters list is complied and maintained. >>>> snipped <<<< Since Holly had no comments _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Oct 9 10:07:59 2000 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 KAA17250 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:07:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA09252 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:07:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 1CBD33C156; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:07:57 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A3D73C152 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:07:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust139.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.139]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA10381 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:07:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <008301c031fa$42392440$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001008092221.00b9be60@mail.bright.net> <002c01c031a9$fb81dd80$23885ea0@tc.umn.edu> <000201c031ef$d80ed790$0201a8c0@connie> Subject: Re: [ESC] Mechanism Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 09:04:47 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Perhaps a solution to this problem is that at the time the SEC is appointed by the AB that any individual who will be seeking re-election excuse themselves (or be excluded) from voting for the SEC? RROO allow for just that type of situation. The same thing could work for any person who wants to seek office. They could not be a member of the committee or if a member when the decision to run is made resign or be removed from the committee. Someone also suggested that the AB could ask for volunteers for the committee and approve the committee as a whole rather than selecting individual members. As for the actual voting software -IMO, it doesn't matter if an outside service is used or if the project writes their own there will always be a few people who will be unhappy and believe the system is tampered with. It's the majority of the membership at large who must be satisfied with the voting process and the security of the vote casting/counting. So I see one of the SEC's jobs as educating the voters about whatever system is used. And, although I laid out a guideline for voting software for the project I have no preference. We just have to keep in mind that any outside voting service must be free since we do not have any money. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: Connie Bates To: Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 1:50 AM Subject: Re: [ESC] Mechanism > Again, I *strongly* disagree with this. One of the requirements should be > that no one whose name appears on the ballot has *any* > influence/guidance/etc. over the SEC. That means that either the voting > mechanism *must* be from an outside source - or none of the AB or the NC can > run for re-election after they appoint the SEC. It is inconceivable to me > that those running for office are allowed to choose the committee who will, > basically, count the votes. We cannot change the bylaws in order to change > the way the SEC is formed - therefore, we must address this issue. > > Connie > > > Again, I saw no clear consensus on the specific mechanism... a program > > written and maintained by teh committee/project... an outside source (such > > as votebot) etc... I also think that that choice is far less an issue than > > the actual security and procedure and perhaps we ought to produce the > > *requirements* for the mechanism rather than dictate (or recommend > > actually) a specific mechanism. > > > > It should be: > > Secure - so that no one may see how another person voted > > Accessible - some people have problems (technical or user-brain) with > > forms and there must be an alternative or *helpline* available to resolve > > those occurrences.***(see further below) > > Verifiable - There must be some means to determine the legality of votes > > especially if there is a challenge in a close contest. > > Timely - the mechanism must allow for timely results (hopefully within > > hours of the polls closing) > > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Oct 9 10:38:18 2000 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 KAA21372 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:38:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA14527 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:38:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 3F6FA3C158; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:38:16 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C72C3C133 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:38:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust139.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.139]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA18211 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:38:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <008c01c031fe$7d1a3e60$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001009064254.00bc6280@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [ESC] Re: Eligibility guidelines Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 09:07:29 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Holly, I should have received and read this message before I answered the others There is little doubt that you and I are saying the same thing Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: Holly Timm To: ; Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 7:13 AM Subject: Re: [ESC] Re: Eligibility guidelines > Some how it has been felt that I have said the SC is the ONLY one to have > any input as to who is eligible to vote or not in their state and that is > not at all what I said. I have specifically said there must be an avenue > for CC's (used in the broad sense for any eligible position) to be able to > speak up if they have been omitted and to check if they are listed. I have > also said in the past that there should be a means for the SC to check that > everyone they think should be listed has been listed either by an online > list checkable by state or by a list sent to the SC or at the very least > the SC being advised when anyone they list has been eliminated. > > Since she's right here on this list, I will use Carol as an example. If I > do not list Carol as a CC in NY (she is Unknown County CC) because I don't > think the Unknown County counts, there should be an avenue for her to say > to the EC, hey, I'm not listed for NY but I am Unknown County CC. At which > point the EC should contact me as SC and say, hey you didn't list her and > as Unknown County CC she is eligible... the only way I can come back and > say no she isn't eligible would be if she wasn't CC any more, in which case > I come back with here is the url to the county list and to the Unknown > County, you will see that Jane Doe is CC now and has been for several months. > > On the whole, the SC's are far more likely to see that their Coordinators > (of all types) are listed as eligible voters than most of them are... Carol > didn't pursue her lack of a vote in the NE Region when she was omitted from > the voter rolls there but I sure would have because it wasn't me that > eliminated her. But, when an SC is not diligent there does need to be an > avenue for the Coordinator to make contact and bring up their eligibility > which can then be discussed with the SC, verified on pages, etc. > > So I repeat, the SC should not be the ONLY means of voter listing but they > should be the front line. > > Holly > > PS: It will also help that *who* (as in what positions) are eligible will > be firmly established and the SC's advised of what positions are eligible. > I.e., the SC cited as not listing TC's because he/she felt they weren't > eligible would know that they were. > > At 08:42 PM 10/8/00 -0400, Morom01@aol.com wrote: > >In a message dated 10/8/00 6:52:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > >esc-admin@pairlist.net writes: > > > ><< Sorry Holly, but I can not back down from my belief that the SC should not > > have the final authority on who can and cannot vote. I truly believe the > > system we have now is flawed and open to abuse. >> > > > >I have no opinion to voice here as to whether I think it happens or not. I > >have said in the past that I have made up my own mind that I have witnessed > >it. But the whole idea is to get rid of as much mistrust as we can. If the > >CC's mistrust some SC's as has been suggested in the responses, to ignore > >that is to not do our job. Once again, I am for the SC's submitting the lists > >as they always have, but an additional set of checks and balances added. > > > >It seems to me that we are split with this SC power issue. Yes I want total > >SC power\I want no SC power. I fall in the middle and hope for a compromise. > >If we cannot trust the motives of each other and our intentions how can we > >say that the CC's should trust any of it? We can't and most of them don't. If > >we come out of this saying these powers stay the way they have always been, > >why should the CC's magically begin to trust it? I will say again on this > >subject, we can't fix it if we don't change it. Sorry, I mean no disrespect > >by that, but we can sit here and spin our wheels over one issue or we can > >come together and make some beneficial changes. > > > >Chip > > > >Chip > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Esc mailing list > >Esc@pairlist.net > >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Oct 9 17:58:08 2000 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 RAA20904 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 17:58:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA27850 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 17:58:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 961E63C1E3; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 17:58:05 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CE863C19F for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 17:58:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.201]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001009215802.BQNO425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 17:58:02 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001009174617.00baa600@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 18:03:53 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] Mechanism In-Reply-To: <008301c031fa$42392440$0200a8c0@Linda> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001008092221.00b9be60@mail.bright.net> <002c01c031a9$fb81dd80$23885ea0@tc.umn.edu> <000201c031ef$d80ed790$0201a8c0@connie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: The problem here is that the EC, especially a standing EC is selected long before nominations even. One may have no idea one is going to run. Certainly if one is on the SEC, one could remove oneself if nominated and running (i.e., also accepting the nomination) but, for example, what if our recommendation for a standing committee is accepted and one is selected, say in November.. and say again that at that point I would have no interest in re-election as Rep-At-Large so I participate in the selection, but... six months pass and nominations swing around and someone talks me into accepting, now what, I sure can't take back my participation in selecting the committee. At 09:04 AM 10/9/00 -0500, you wrote: >Perhaps a solution to this problem is that at the time the SEC is appointed >by the AB that any individual who will be seeking re-election excuse >themselves (or be excluded) from voting for the SEC? RROO allow for just >that type of situation. > >The same thing could work for any person who wants to seek office. They >could not be a member of the committee or if a member when the decision to >run is made resign or be removed from the committee. > >Someone also suggested that the AB could ask for volunteers for the >committee and approve the committee as a whole rather than selecting >individual members. I believe I suggested something like that... and I generally can not think of any individual that would be cause for a problem.. it i.e. more being able to know who is on the committee and being able to ensure some cross-section of perspective. Holly >As for the actual voting software -IMO, it doesn't matter if an outside >service is used or if the project writes their own there will always be a >few people who will be unhappy and believe the system is tampered with. It's >the majority of the membership at large who must be satisfied with the >voting process and the security of the vote casting/counting. So I see one >of the SEC's jobs as educating the voters about whatever system is used. >And, although I laid out a guideline for voting software for the project I >have no preference. We just have to keep in mind that any outside voting >service must be free since we do not have any money. > >Linda > >lhaasdav@mindspring.com >Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas >Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion >List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Connie Bates >To: >Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 1:50 AM >Subject: Re: [ESC] Mechanism > > > > Again, I *strongly* disagree with this. One of the requirements should be > > that no one whose name appears on the ballot has *any* > > influence/guidance/etc. over the SEC. That means that either the voting > > mechanism *must* be from an outside source - or none of the AB or the NC >can > > run for re-election after they appoint the SEC. It is inconceivable to me > > that those running for office are allowed to choose the committee who >will, > > basically, count the votes. We cannot change the bylaws in order to change > > the way the SEC is formed - therefore, we must address this issue. > > > > Connie > > > > > Again, I saw no clear consensus on the specific mechanism... a program > > > written and maintained by teh committee/project... an outside source >(such > > > as votebot) etc... I also think that that choice is far less an issue >than > > > the actual security and procedure and perhaps we ought to produce the > > > *requirements* for the mechanism rather than dictate (or recommend > > > actually) a specific mechanism. > > > > > > It should be: > > > Secure - so that no one may see how another person voted > > > Accessible - some people have problems (technical or user-brain) with > > > forms and there must be an alternative or *helpline* available to >resolve > > > those occurrences.***(see further below) > > > Verifiable - There must be some means to determine the legality of votes > > > especially if there is a challenge in a close contest. > > > Timely - the mechanism must allow for timely results (hopefully within > > > hours of the polls closing) > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Esc mailing list > > Esc@pairlist.net > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Oct 9 19:52:30 2000 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 TAA01342 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 19:52:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA14362 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 19:52:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 6888D3C1B5; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 19:52:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from postoffice6.ipa.net (postoffice6.ipa.net [205.218.170.27]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F390D3C196 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 19:52:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-168.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.168]) by postoffice6.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id SAA25427 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 18:55:37 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <002d01c0324b$a7017340$a82b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001008084810.02b7d740@mail.bright.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20001008173556.00bb8240@mail.bright.net> <003201c0317a$3dff8160$0200a8c0@Linda> <004901c03183$bc26a560$8d2c95d0@youda> <006201c031f6$08078400$0200a8c0@Linda> Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 18:48:57 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Get a cup of coffee and several donuts. This is going to be a long read: The > SC is now responsible for submitting a voter list for their own state (many > people) and the only verification (correct me if I'm wrong) by the EC is to > make sure the e-mail address submitted for the voter is still working. I have no problem with the EC checking the lists. I *do* have a problem when someone said that the "SCs should not have the right to submit voter lists." > can have is by adding co-hosts. I cannot see how an individual CC can add > enough co-hosts to have the same effect as an SC. I can. I can see exactly how one "camp" can have several volunteers each adding a co-host, plus adopting extra counties, and each having more than one addy, with the end results of changing the results of an election. Remember it would only have taken 13 votes to change the results of the elections in 1999! When the voter percentages are low, the EFFECT of vote padding becomes much more pronounced. When elections are close, it is even more possible. > their state. So my question is - if a CC wanted to add co-hosts to the point > that they could effect a vote would their SC allow that? It doesn't have to be a situation of a SC "allowing that." I know of one cc in this project who has suddenly volunteered to take 2 counties in SD, two in Wyoming, took on an Archive project, and volunteered to also be a cc in three other States, giving them a total of 10 new websites within the month, add a fictitious co-cc, and this cc will suddenly have 20 AB votes in the next election! I only learned of this cc volunteering for so many counties all in the same month quite by accident! In other words, the vote padders are already taking on counties for the NEXT election to avoid the last EC's 90-day rule! This gives this person quite a few votes at the State level, the AB level, and also in the choosing of Archives representatives. This person can now, in effect, start to change the makeup of the AB! Think about it! Why does this person even WANT so many counties? Bored, perhaps? I doubt it. Unfortunately, this isn't an isolated example. There is more than one person doing this in the project right now! Right now! The problem is that SCs and SP managers don't send out a blanket email to all other SCs to say, "Hey, I have a volunteer! Is he/she also a volunteer in your state?" In other words, there is currently NO WAY in the project for the SCs, or even the CCs, to check to see how many websites any one person has, or how many they have volunteered for. (something I'd love to see: a database where I could lookup the addy or name of anyone in the project to see where they have websites!) It isn't a situation of a single SC "allowing" it. It is a situation that we have no way to figure out just how many counties any one person HAS! So, the SCs often give the volunteer the county, only to discover later that they've hired on someone without an interest in the county, but a real interest in vote padding! Now, if you can see that problem, consider someone who makes 5-6 different hotmail, AOL, or yahoo email accounts. These "volunteers" then become impossible to track, because the addys are all different. In some cases, these "volunteers" even work under different NAMES, also! The only way to track them is to do a "tracert" on all the addy's in the project, which still won't weed them out if they are using AOL, hotmail, or Yahoo. The only way to track them is if they use another ISP. And don't think these people don't realize that! So what does the SC do when they've given a county to someone, who now insists that they are a CC in the state simply for the purposes of vote padding, who do NOTHING with their websites, don't answer visitor's emails, don't participate at the State level in any way, but hang around just enough so the SC can't get rid of them? Well, there is nothing we CAN do! We have to just sit quiet while these cc's change the results of elections, tie up counties so bonafide volunteers can't get the county to host, and make websites that are nothing but a bunch of broken links, and empty shells. And, if a SC complains about this poor CC, then we get all kinds of "power hungry" complaints on the lists. How DARE we try to get rid of this poor, hard working cc? Yeah, right! Yes, you are looking at it from a CC point of view. Perhaps I have shown you only ONE of the problems that a SC faces all too often in this project. An unadopted county just makes the State a target for these kinds of people in the USGW. And, trust me, Linda. Please believe me! There are FAR MORE of these kinds of CCs in the project than there are unfair SCs! Believe it! I'd be willing to bet that every state now has at least ONE of these "unfair" cc's on their roster! > Betsy allowed me to do so she questioned me, looked at my home page and in > several ways made sure I had an interest in the county and was capable of > handling a web page. I would assume most SCs do something similar. > Yep, we do. And, we are getting more and more pickey about who we give the counties to, because of the situation that is prevalent in the USGW I mentioned above. But, the more we question and check, the more the SCs are being accused of only taking cc's "of the same mind." You see, Linda, we can't win. If we try to screen CC's, it is seen as some kind of dishonesty and an attempt to "pad" our states with people who will vote "our way." But, if we don't screen cc's carefully, we get cc's who only want the county to vote pad! And, it's always the power-hungry SCs who are to blame, and the poor innocent cc who is the victim! Not necessarily so! The truth is simply that real problems about SCs are very rare! But, the cc's believe that most of us are rotten no-gooders. The irony is that most will say that they like their SCs, but it's the "others" (who they can't name) who are the "problems." Or else they point to isolated examples of SC wrong-doing to justify the claims that SCs can't be trusted. But, again, what should the SC do? We don't DARE bring the problem to the lists! We'd be crucified in a matter of moments with flaming. Plus, I just plain wouldn't humiliate ANYONE on a list, even with good cause. I don't know of any other SCs who broadcast the names of these CC's on a regular basis, either. But even if we did, the SCs would be the "bad guys" and the cc would end up looking like poor sweet hardworking cc who is being picked-on by the SCs. So, these problems are largely unknown by the CC's in this project, but are becoming very WELL KNOWN to the SCs! > What I had in mind was: > First time around the SC would submit a list of members > The SEC would verify the list by visiting each state/county/SP/etc > Any differences would be resolved I don't have a problem with this. That is, as long as any discrepancies are discussed with ME! And, if I say that a CC is no longer a CC, then that is the way it is! For example, I currently have a couple of counties where the CC has resigned. But, because I've had all my spare time taken up with this committee, I haven't updated the websites. The ex-cc's name is still there. If the EC "checked" right now, this cc would appear to be still a cc, and they are not. Just one scenario why the SC has to have the final say, unless the situation is being challenged to the AB. > > During normal day to day operations > The SC would notify the SEC of any changes of volunteers within their state > The SEC would follow up with a e-mail asking the new volunteer to drop by > the web page and, either verify their information if the SEC entered it or > enter their information if the SEC decides not to enter info. OK. But, when it comes time for a vote on anything, I want the EC to send me a list of addies registered to my State, so I can verify the accuracy of them all, too! Before a vote! > If a volunteer registered and there had been no notification by the SC then > an e-mail would be sent to the SC asking them to verify the information. > > In the case of a dispute: > I would believe that a dispute would be rare, but should it happen then the > dispute would be forwarded to the AB to make a final decision. > I'd say to forward it first to the Regional AB reps (and the regional cc AB rep). Then, if the reps can't resolve it, then to a vote of the entire AB. is to be > registered to vote. Why do you feel it has to be a "either or" situation > Carol? I don't see it as "either" the SC or CC. I see a group of Because the comments on this list persist in saying that the "SC shouldn't have the right to submit voter lists," and "take power away from the SCs" and other such comments. That is as good as a campaign to cut the SC out of the loop, no matter how you say it. Yes, there is distrust in the project towards those people who seem to have the "power." But, I'm telling you that the SCs have very little of this magical "power." Consider, also, that the effects of any SC unfairness if limited to individuals within their own states. (In those situations, quite frankly, I'd counsel the cc's to get together and oused the SC! But that is another story.) However, with widespread vote padding by the CCs, the effect is a national one when AB members are elected that do NOT represent the majority philosophy. Said another way, an unfair SC only affects their one state. Unfair CC's can affect the entire USGW! Sorry, I got off on that again and didn't answer your question. It doesn't have to be "either/or" for me. But, I am responding to what I am hearing as a side-stepping maneuver of the SCs in registering voters as a means to deal with unfair SCs! ***And, I am very, very opposed to USING the EC as a means to solve OTHER problems in the USGW, such as unfair SCs.*** > At no time have I ever suggested that the system is NOT open to abuse by > anyone - what I have said over and over is that the system we have now IS > open to abuse. I still do not feel that the CC (read as any volunteer) can > have the same impact as an SC. As is said above - the CC can See my comments above. > state as they see fit. If a CC were to do what I said above I would think > that the SC would handle it in whatever way they needed to. And, if we "handle" it at all, then we are accused of "power hunger" and trying to only have cc's in our states who will vote as we want them to. Consider the other side of the coin here, Linda. I had a cc who was blatantly vote padding. Removed the USGW and WYGenWeb logos and *links* from her county in protest of the CP delinking. When I told her she had to comply with the standards of the USGW by at least a link to the main websites, I got all kinds of flaming because I was harrassing this poor little cc! Get that! *I* was under fire because I told the cc they had to continue with the minimum standards of the USGW! *I* got flamed because a highly vocal disgruntled cc can, and does, create all kinds of havoc in this project by telling a sanitized version of events so they appear shiney clean and blameless while the SC appears to be a monster! What followed was all kinds of long posts on USGW-ALL by ths cc outlining how "some SCs" are unfair (meaning me). But, consider what would have happened if I had responded on the USGW-ALL about the *real* reasons the CC had been counseled! I'm sure many would have understood why I took the action that I did. But, it would have split the project, created yet another uproar, disrupted the work of every cc in my state, and humiliated that CC on a major list. So, I chose not to respond at all. The end results, though, is more of the * perception * that SCs are unfair! Even when I had every good reason to do what I did, and consulted the AB before I took any action at all! Unfair? You bet! But, it was unfair to *me*, not the cc! Yet, if you ask any cc, they will believe that the Wyoming SC is unfair! And, more often than not, this is what happens to the "power hungry" SC!!! There's lots of "other sides" to these unfair SC claims, but the majority of the CCs are never going to hear it! You're just not going to hear about it! The majority of the SCs don't post their state problems on the major lists, but the cc's DO !!! Again, a SC can do very little without coming under fire in the USGW! If we "handle" problems, then we are the bad guys! You really have no idea! And, the upheaval and stink to a state and to the entire USGW whenever a SC tries to enforce any of the bylaws, guidelines, or to remove a CC, well, that is a true cyber-nightmare. But, the feeling persists that the SCs are "unscrupulous" whenever we try to "handle" anything at all! I am asking you to *try* to see the other side of this! > I agree with you Carol, if someone is bound and determined to abuse the > system they'll find a way. Hopefully the SC and/or AB can come up with a > means to eliminate those people from the project. All that I am asking is > that the submission of voter lists be included in a checks/balance system so > that the average volunteer can feel comfortable with the system. > I have no problem with that. Again, my problem is with the attitude (and comments) that say, "SCs shouldn't have the right to ..." etc. As for "punishing" anyone - SC or CC - I have no interest in "punishing" > anyone. I do have an interest, as a volunteer to this project, in seeing a > level playing field for all volunteers no matter their job or their job > title. That is ALL that I am asking. > There can be no level playing field, Linda, as long as CCs jump to conclusions, spam the lists with vile, accuse the SCs and AB members of throwing elections for their own greedy reasons, etc. I am strongly supportive of the AB and the NC. Even when I don't agree with them. When I've had serious concerns about anyone's actions, I've written them privately to hear their side of things. And one thing is always clear: they are doing what they feel is best, and trying very hard to fullfill their duties as they see them, and that they have a good reason for what they did! Even when I don't agree with what someone has done, I take the time to listen and hear *why* and the reasons always make sense, even when I don't agree. But, the SCs and ABs are first accused, flamed, and harrassed. Ask anyone of them how much hate mail they get when a vote is before the board! But, never, never are they *ever* seen as just a group of VOLUNTEERS who are trying their best. They are *never* given the benefit of the doubt first, with honest debate and discussion as a vehicle to change anything. Now, the movement is a "recall ammendment" to "get rid" of anyone who doesn't vote the way some in the project want! Accuse, flame, and get rid of. That is the way things are done, and by the CC's in this project! Then, they accuse the SCs and ABs of being unfair! Get real! Read on . . . Instead there are attacks, accusations, and flaming, as the FIRST response, so that the AB is often hesitant to do *anything*! And ditto for the SCs. The CCs always feel that it's "us vs. them" and the USGW is split in two once again with different philosophies. What I'm trying to say with this very lengthy and apparently off-topic post is that as much as the CCs complain and flame, there is another side of the story. And, the rank and file cc of the project is doing far more to destroy the project than the SCs and AB! You want a level playing field? Let's start with the attitudes and suspicions of some of the ccs! We can start turning that very vile tidal wave by assuming TRUST on this committee, and calling for it from each and every volunteer in this project! Trust first, accuse later after ALL the *facts* are known by both sides! Stop believing the sanitized version of what appears on the lists as the "gospel truth." Start understanding that we are all just people trying to accomplish some good and work on a hobby together, with different ways to accomplish that same goal. Start to understand that there is *always* *always* *always* another side to the story that makes just as much sense as the sanitized outcry on the lists! And, I will ask everyone on this list, again, to consider that while there may be unfairness by a very small number of SCs, there are far more unfair cc's! Even if that unfairness is limited to their attitudes. Change that, and we will have created a miracle! Then, we *will* have a level playing field where the SCs and AB members can be gven the respect each of us deserve just as much as the CCs deserve respect. Give peace a chance, yeah baby! Carol _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Oct 9 20:02:55 2000 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 UAA02424 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 20:02:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA15809 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 20:02:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 9A4B13C196; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 20:02:52 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 800DE3C164 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 20:02:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port227.jxn.netdoor.com [208.137.132.227]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA05876 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 19:02:48 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001009185731.00bee850@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 18:58:37 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines In-Reply-To: <002d01c0324b$a7017340$a82b95d0@youda> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001008084810.02b7d740@mail.bright.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20001008173556.00bb8240@mail.bright.net> <003201c0317a$3dff8160$0200a8c0@Linda> <004901c03183$bc26a560$8d2c95d0@youda> <006201c031f6$08078400$0200a8c0@Linda> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 06:48 PM 10/09/2000 -0500, you wrote: >The problem is that SCs and SP managers don't send out a blanket email to >all other SCs to say, "Hey, I have a volunteer! Is he/she also a volunteer >in your state?" In other words, there is currently NO WAY in the project >for the SCs, or even the CCs, to check to see how many websites any one >person has, or how many they have volunteered for. (something I'd love to >see: a database where I could lookup the addy or name of anyone in the >project to see where they have websites!) Carol, With a sortable voter list online, won't this be possible? Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ When I dare to be powerful, to use my strength in the service of my vision, then it becomes less and less important whether I am afraid. ~ Audre Lorde _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Oct 9 20:35:12 2000 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 UAA05156 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 20:35:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA20158 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 20:35:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id F14763C169; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 20:35:09 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F41433C129 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 20:35:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.201]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001010003506.GJSR425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 20:35:06 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001009201025.03e69d40@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 20:40:57 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] a cup of coffee... Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: ... actually two or three I think Carol I have not (yet) have had problems in NY with vote padding or other such political tactics but I have had some problem CC's ... two of whom are now gone. Neither was involved in national politics but one was a major problem to some other CC's and the other was rude and hostile to visitor's to their county. One left in a huff and has since tried to come back, the other was removed, neither were publicly shamed on any list et cetera but I can picture either one of them trying to insist they are CC's some where. I have yet to tell a CC someone they have taken on as a co-cc is not welcome but if either of these two turn up, you bet your boots I will and I wouldn't hesitate to tell the SEC they aren't part of NY. But I can also tell ya that good CC's don't grow on trees, out there for the picking, in fact even adequate CC's don't, several of my counties have been under foster care until an interested CC has been found and I don't care a bit what their politics are! Like most every other SC I just want people doing a good job with their counties. Which actually brings me around to another question cause I started thinking back to the last time around with listing CC's... I had two instances of the same email being used... one is a couple doing one county as co-CC's... and both work at it, no *in name only*... he does the tech work (coding etc) and she does the material gathering etc. The other couple each have their own county but shared one email. I had a heck of a time with the EC over it and eventually, got the second couple set up with separate emails, the first couple lost a vote though. So, because they didn't have unique emails, they couldn't vote... ... and there is the co-cc not listed on the county site for personal reasons but who works as hard as her co-cc... these are the things an SC knows about their CC's... ... not sure where I am going with this... just that pretty much the SC is the frontline for what's going on with their counties and coordinators.... as long as there is a means for CC's to have input IF their SC is uncooperative or unresponsive AND if SC's are informed when a name is dropped from the list they provide or any other problem with a state's vote roll. Holly _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 10 08:33:36 2000 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 IAA26835 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:33:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA08986 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:33:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id D00ED3C177; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:33:33 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC4943C173 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:33:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust113.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.113]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA20836 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:33:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <005601c032b6$3cdfa3e0$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001009201025.03e69d40@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [ESC] a cup of coffee... Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 07:30:53 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Holly, your concerns are covered in the L-O-N-G response to Carol's e-mail. If you don't want to read the whole thing just scan thru it and you will find how this type of problem can be handled. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: Holly Timm To: Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 8:40 PM Subject: [ESC] a cup of coffee... > ... actually two or three I think Carol > > I have not (yet) have had problems in NY with vote padding or other such > political tactics but I have had some problem CC's ... two of whom are now > gone. Neither was involved in national politics but one was a major problem > to some other CC's and the other was rude and hostile to visitor's to their > county. One left in a huff and has since tried to come back, the other was > removed, neither were publicly shamed on any list et cetera but I can > picture either one of them trying to insist they are CC's some where. I > have yet to tell a CC someone they have taken on as a co-cc is not welcome > but if either of these two turn up, you bet your boots I will and I > wouldn't hesitate to tell the SEC they aren't part of NY. But I can also > tell ya that good CC's don't grow on trees, out there for the picking, in > fact even adequate CC's don't, several of my counties have been under > foster care until an interested CC has been found and I don't care a bit > what their politics are! Like most every other SC I just want people doing > a good job with their counties. > > Which actually brings me around to another question cause I started > thinking back to the last time around with listing CC's... I had two > instances of the same email being used... one is a couple doing one county > as co-CC's... and both work at it, no *in name only*... he does the tech > work (coding etc) and she does the material gathering etc. The other couple > each have their own county but shared one email. I had a heck of a time > with the EC over it and eventually, got the second couple set up with > separate emails, the first couple lost a vote though. So, because they > didn't have unique emails, they couldn't vote... > > ... and there is the co-cc not listed on the county site for personal > reasons but who works as hard as her co-cc... these are the things an SC > knows about their CC's... > > ... not sure where I am going with this... just that pretty much the SC is > the frontline for what's going on with their counties and coordinators.... > as long as there is a means for CC's to have input IF their SC is > uncooperative or unresponsive AND if SC's are informed when a name is > dropped from the list they provide or any other problem with a state's vote > roll. > > Holly > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 10 08:49:41 2000 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 IAA28355 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:49:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA11361 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:49:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id B85C33C140; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:49:38 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.46]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 294293C12F for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:49:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ellenpack ([12.75.221.27]) by mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20001010124928.OTC2291.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@ellenpack> for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:49:28 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20001010061845.00ad52e8@mail.packnet.net> X-Sender: e.j.pack@postoffice.att.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 07:45:38 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Ellen Pack Subject: Re: [ESC] a cup of coffee... In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20001009201025.03e69d40@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 08:40 PM 10/9/2000 -0500, Holly wrote: >Which actually brings me around to another question cause I started >thinking back to the last time around with listing CC's... I had two >instances of the same email being used... one is a couple doing one county >as co-CC's... and both work at it, no *in name only*... he does the tech >work (coding etc) and she does the material gathering etc. The other >couple each have their own county but shared one email. I had a heck of a >time with the EC over it and eventually, got the second couple set up with >separate emails, the first couple lost a vote though. So, because they >didn't have unique emails, they couldn't vote... Holly, the problem in the first three elections was that the "voter ID" was the E-Mail ID. It's just the way the software worked. Since each succeeding vote canceled out the previous vote, there was no way to give a vote to each of two or more people sharing the same ID. It happened in the region for which I was responsible (SE/MA), and I recall at least one case wherein a 2nd temp ID was obtained, but a couple of other instances wherein the CCs decided to cast just one vote. But they did have an option and means of casting a vote, if they wanted to take advantage of it. You probably already know this, but others may not, so I thought I'd mention it. :-) Ellen _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 10 08:49:42 2000 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 IAA28370 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:49:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA11368 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:49:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 0ADC73C155; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:49:40 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.46]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 537473C153 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:49:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ellenpack ([12.75.221.27]) by mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20001010124938.OTZ2291.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@ellenpack> for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:49:38 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20001010070817.00aca068@postoffice.att.net> X-Sender: e.j.pack@postoffice.att.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 07:49:00 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Ellen Pack Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Voting Software Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A I will make one more comment on the need for an outside disinterested party to handle the voting mechanism. In the first three elections (which includes the NC election after Nancy Trice resigned), RW personnel handled the ballots. I was on all three ECs, and there is no doubt in my mind that those elections were on the up and up, and that Doc and Tim did everything possible to insure honest elections. Tim Pierce worked especially closely with the EC. What a great job he did on short notice! Can I prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there wasn't interference by either gentleman? No, but then I'm sure no one could prove otherwise, either. Yet there were, and still are, claims of manipulation, simply by virtue of the fact that a percentage of members have no faith in RW. (No criticism intended - just stating fact.) Personally, I didn't have much faith in the system used this year (yes, even though I "won", and even though I think whatever interference there was in this years election occurred before the Voter IDs were even assigned, in the form of arbitrarily blocking an entire group of good standing and eligible members from voting - a travesty, and another permanent black mark on the project, IMO.) But the point is that I understand how it feels to be on the "other" side of the fence. I am convinced that the use of a neutral party, to handle the software, is an absolute must. It has occurred to me that we consider recommending that a special committee be assigned the task of tracking down such a party, (or at least offering options, and making recommendations.) That would free the SEC to be formed, tasks assigned, begin collecting IDs, etc., and at the same time serve to remove the SEC itself from accusations that it is "manipulating" an election through selection of the software/company. Jest a thought. :-) Ellen, heading for the coffee pot _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 10 08:51:41 2000 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 IAA28534 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:51:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA11660 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:51:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 8C4CE3C140; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:51:38 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-d10.mx.aol.com (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2C4B3C12F for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:51:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MHet703234@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.26.) id s.60.79eb88d (4593) for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:51:35 -0400 (EDT) From: MHet703234@aol.com Message-ID: <60.79eb88d.27146ad7@aol.com> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:51:35 EDT Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 120 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 10/10/2000 5:34:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time, lhaasdav@mindspring.com writes: << You (SC) would send an e-mail to the SEC saying "Susie Dolittle the CC for xx county is no longer the CC. I'll get the county web page updated as soon as possible" The SEC would send back an e-mail saying "thank you" The SEC would send an e-mail to Susie Dolittle and say that they had been notified she was no longer the CC for xx county and would she please go to the MS page and remove the county from her MS information Susie either: (1) goes and does the removal - no need to check the county page (2) she ignores the e-mail (2nd one is sent to insure that the first one did not get lost in cyberspace - 2nd e-mail is ignored). SEC waits for whatever length of time the SEC "rules" call for (something to be determined by the SEC committee itself) and then the SEC goes to the county page to see if she is still listed - yes she is the SEC sends a gentle reminder to the SC that Susie's name is still on the page. When Susie's name is no longer on the page the SEC removes the information for Susie for this county (if that's the only county Susie has then her name is also removed). If the SC doesn't get the web site updated within a reasonable length of time (reasonable length to be determined by the SEC) then an e-mail would be sent to the regional rep to handle the problem. (3) Susie writes back to the SEC and says nope she's still the CC for the county. SEC double checks with you (SC) and you say nope she's out of here. SEC forwards both e-mails to whoever is responsible for solving the problem (your suggestion of regional rep is excellent). The SEC is out of it until they are notified by whoever (regional rep) of the solution. >> Sounds like we just move the SC's duties to the SEC. Nuf said Mary Ann _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 10 09:54:09 2000 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 JAA04609 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:54:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA22759 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:54:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 288283C13F; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:54:07 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from smtppop3pub.verizon.net (smtppop3pub.gte.net [206.46.170.22]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC9DC3C12A for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:54:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pavilion (A010-0080.MNAS.splitrock.net [209.156.76.80]) by smtppop3pub.verizon.net with SMTP for ; id IAA36743730 Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:50:01 -0500 (CDT) From: "Nathan Zipfel" To: Subject: RE: [ESC] a cup of coffee... Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:53:41 -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 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20001009201025.03e69d40@mail.bright.net> Importance: Normal Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: (Putting on my SC hat) I have not had any problem in my state either. You would think in PA it would be easy to find CCs with the large number of visitors, but it's not. When someone volunteers I do ask about their abilities and interest in the county. I attempt to find out if they're already involved in the USGenWeb and if they are and will visit their existing sites to see the quality of their work. So far I've had pretty good success. Occasionally I'll get a lemon, but the individual usually steps down when they've realized they've taken on more than they can handle. As the "keeper of the list" for my state I should have the final say as to whether an individual is eligible to vote based upon their position in our state. I think that I've heard Carol, Holly, Mary, and Patrick (did I forget any other SC?) say the same things. The ESC is not in a position to do that nor is the Regional Rep in a position to do that. As a bottom-up organization the responsibility must remain at the lowest level. Nate -----Original Message----- From: esc-admin@pairlist.net [mailto:esc-admin@pairlist.net]On Behalf Of Holly Timm Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 9:41 PM To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] a cup of coffee... ... actually two or three I think Carol I have not (yet) have had problems in NY with vote padding or other such political tactics but I have had some problem CC's ... two of whom are now gone. Neither was involved in national politics but one was a major problem to some other CC's and the other was rude and hostile to visitor's to their county. One left in a huff and has since tried to come back, the other was removed, neither were publicly shamed on any list et cetera but I can picture either one of them trying to insist they are CC's some where. I have yet to tell a CC someone they have taken on as a co-cc is not welcome but if either of these two turn up, you bet your boots I will and I wouldn't hesitate to tell the SEC they aren't part of NY. But I can also tell ya that good CC's don't grow on trees, out there for the picking, in fact even adequate CC's don't, several of my counties have been under foster care until an interested CC has been found and I don't care a bit what their politics are! Like most every other SC I just want people doing a good job with their counties. Which actually brings me around to another question cause I started thinking back to the last time around with listing CC's... I had two instances of the same email being used... one is a couple doing one county as co-CC's... and both work at it, no *in name only*... he does the tech work (coding etc) and she does the material gathering etc. The other couple each have their own county but shared one email. I had a heck of a time with the EC over it and eventually, got the second couple set up with separate emails, the first couple lost a vote though. So, because they didn't have unique emails, they couldn't vote... ... and there is the co-cc not listed on the county site for personal reasons but who works as hard as her co-cc... these are the things an SC knows about their CC's... ... not sure where I am going with this... just that pretty much the SC is the frontline for what's going on with their counties and coordinators.... as long as there is a means for CC's to have input IF their SC is uncooperative or unresponsive AND if SC's are informed when a name is dropped from the list they provide or any other problem with a state's vote roll. Holly _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 10 09:59:23 2000 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 JAA05078 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:59:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA23754 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:59:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id C4B513C136; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:59:19 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21FDA3C12A for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:59:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port1235.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.210.35]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA09843 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:59:12 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001010085229.00bfa630@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:55:19 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines In-Reply-To: <005701c032b6$3e61b000$0200a8c0@Linda> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001008084810.02b7d740@mail.bright.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20001008173556.00bb8240@mail.bright.net> <003201c0317a$3dff8160$0200a8c0@Linda> <004901c03183$bc26a560$8d2c95d0@youda> <006201c031f6$08078400$0200a8c0@Linda> <4.3.1.2.20001009185731.00bee850@mail.netdoor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Hasn't it already been decided to recommend an online, sortable, searchable voter database? Anyone who is interested can go there and check its accuracy, be they CC, SC, AB, NC, or whatever - and get it revised if it is inaccurate - right? Carol At 07:31 AM 10/10/2000 -0500, Linda Haas Davenport wrote: >Yes > >Linda > >lhaasdav@mindspring.com >Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas >Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion >List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Carol C-H >To: >Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 6:58 PM >Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines > > > > At 06:48 PM 10/09/2000 -0500, you wrote: > > >The problem is that SCs and SP managers don't send out a blanket email to > > >all other SCs to say, "Hey, I have a volunteer! Is he/she also a >volunteer > > >in your state?" In other words, there is currently NO WAY in the project > > >for the SCs, or even the CCs, to check to see how many websites any one > > >person has, or how many they have volunteered for. (something I'd love >to > > >see: a database where I could lookup the addy or name of anyone in the > > >project to see where they have websites!) > > Carol, > > > > With a sortable voter list online, won't this be possible? > > > > Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ > > When I dare to be powerful, to use my strength in the service of my >vision, > > then it becomes less and less important whether I am afraid. ~ Audre >Lorde > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Esc mailing list > > Esc@pairlist.net > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ When I dare to be powerful, to use my strength in the service of my vision, then it becomes less and less important whether I am afraid. ~ Audre Lorde _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 10 08:33:38 2000 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 IAA26851 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:33:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA08989 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:33:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 452CB3C137; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:33:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D4E23C130 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:33:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust113.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.113]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA26589 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:33:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <005501c032b6$374ffec0$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: "Election Committee" References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001008084810.02b7d740@mail.bright.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20001008173556.00bb8240@mail.bright.net> <003201c0317a$3dff8160$0200a8c0@Linda> <004901c03183$bc26a560$8d2c95d0@youda> <006201c031f6$08078400$0200a8c0@Linda> <002d01c0324b$a7017340$a82b95d0@youda> Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 07:27:43 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A Carol suggested donuts and coffee cause her e-mail would be long. Forget the coffee and donuts - go for a sandwich and tall drink to get thru this response. I'm sorry it's so long. Comments inserted below. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: Carol To: Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 6:48 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines >>snipped<< > It doesn't have to be a situation of a SC "allowing that." I know of one cc > in this project who has suddenly volunteered to take 2 counties in SD, two > in Wyoming, took on an Archive project, and volunteered to also be a cc in > three other States, giving them a total of 10 new websites within the month, > add a fictitious co-cc, and this cc will suddenly have 20 AB votes in the > next election! I only learned of this cc volunteering for so many counties > all in the same month quite by accident! In other words, the vote padders > are already taking on counties for the NEXT election to avoid the last EC's > 90-day rule! This gives this person quite a few votes at the State level, > the AB level, and also in the choosing of Archives representatives. This > person can now, in effect, start to change the makeup of the AB! Think > about it! Why does this person even WANT so many counties? Bored, perhaps? > I doubt it. My Comment: I believe that the consensus from this committee was: 1 person - 1 vote. Therefore this CC would have 1 vote at the national level - 1 vote in each of the regions they have a county in and 1 vote for the SP rep. If this person set up a fictitious co-host at each of their sites using a different e-mail address then the fictitious person would have the same 1 vote as the real CC. This would be a total of 2 votes - no 20 > > Unfortunately, this isn't an isolated example. There is more than one > person doing this in the project right now! Right now! > > The problem is that SCs and SP managers don't send out a blanket email to > all other SCs to say, "Hey, I have a volunteer! Is he/she also a volunteer > in your state?" In other words, there is currently NO WAY in the project > for the SCs, or even the CCs, to check to see how many websites any one > person has, or how many they have volunteered for. (something I'd love to > see: a database where I could lookup the addy or name of anyone in the > project to see where they have websites!) > > It isn't a situation of a single SC "allowing" it. It is a situation that > we have no way to figure out just how many counties any one person HAS! So, > the SCs often give the volunteer the county, only to discover later that > they've hired on someone without an interest in the county, but a real > interest in vote padding! My Comment: This is just one of the reason I'm pushing for a national membership list. If you look at the design outline I posted you will see that the volunteer is listed one time by name and then each of their positions is listed below their name. If you as a SC went to the SEC site and pulled up your volunteer's name you would see all positions that volunteer has. A quick and simply means available to any SC (just want you are asking for above). > Now, if you can see that problem, consider someone who makes 5-6 different > hotmail, AOL, or yahoo email accounts. These "volunteers" then become > impossible to track, because the addys are all different. In some cases, > these "volunteers" even work under different NAMES, also! The only way to > track them is to do a "tracert" on all the addy's in the project, which > still won't weed them out if they are using AOL, hotmail, or Yahoo. The > only way to track them is if they use another ISP. And don't think these > people don't realize that! My Comments: No you couldn't track a volunteer who uses a different name and e-mail address - but since the national membership list lists the volunteer's name only once with one e-mail address the use of multiple addresses would accomplish nothing. > So what does the SC do when they've given a county to someone, who now > insists that they are a CC in the state simply for the purposes of vote > padding, who do NOTHING with their websites, don't answer visitor's emails, > don't participate at the State level in any way, but hang around just enough > so the SC can't get rid of them? Well, there is nothing we CAN do! We have > to just sit quiet while these cc's change the results of elections, tie up > counties so bonafide volunteers can't get the county to host, and make > websites that are nothing but a bunch of broken links, and empty shells. > And, if a SC complains about this poor CC, then we get all kinds of "power > hungry" complaints on the lists. How DARE we try to get rid of this poor, > hard working cc? Yeah, right! My Comments: I can only tell you that if I were a SC and I had a volunteer who did not continue to add information to their county (whatever) site then I would remove them - flack or no flack. Without going back and digging thru the by-laws to find the actual wording I do believe the by-laws say something about not answering e-mails or maintaining their site.I would send the CC several e-mails, keep copies and if the AB's grievance committee asked why this "poor CC" got removed I'd produce the copies. If the flack came from other CCs I'd do the same and also direct them to the site. A thought just crossed my mind - would it help the case of a SC who has a bad CC fend off some of the flack if on the membership page anyone could type in a county/state and see the name of the CC and ALSO all the other position that volunteer holds? If the complaining person is sent to visit the SEC M/S page and then to look at each site that CC maintains it would be difficult to continue to yell "unfair SC" (assuming of course the person is doing a bad job). > > Yes, you are looking at it from a CC point of view. Perhaps I have shown > you only ONE of the problems that a SC faces all too often in this project. > An unadopted county just makes the State a target for these kinds of people > in the USGW. And, trust me, Linda. Please believe me! There are FAR MORE > of these kinds of CCs in the project than there are unfair SCs! Believe it! > I'd be willing to bet that every state now has at least ONE of these > "unfair" cc's on their roster! My Comment: Actually I'm NOT looking at the problem from the viewpoint of a CC at all. I'm looking at the problem from the viewpoint of a business owner/mgr who has a problem within the company that needs to be solved. I believe I once said - No I've never been an SC but I was a state archive manager for about a year and I do understand what an SC has to contend with. But even if I had never held a position in this organization and was called in as a consultant I'd have gone at solving the problem in the same manner. >>Snipped << > > > What I had in mind was: > > First time around the SC would submit a list of members > > The SEC would verify the list by visiting each state/county/SP/etc > > Any differences would be resolved > > I don't have a problem with this. That is, as long as any discrepancies are > discussed with ME! And, if I say that a CC is no longer a CC, then that is > the way it is! For example, I currently have a couple of counties where the > CC has resigned. But, because I've had all my spare time taken up with this > committee, I haven't updated the websites. The ex-cc's name is still there. > If the EC "checked" right now, this cc would appear to be still a cc, and > they are not. Just one scenario why the SC has to have the final say, > unless the situation is being challenged to the AB. > My Comment: In you above example: The procedure would be: You (SC) would send an e-mail to the SEC saying "Susie Dolittle the CC for xx county is no longer the CC. I'll get the county web page updated as soon as possible" The SEC would send back an e-mail saying "thank you" The SEC would send an e-mail to Susie Dolittle and say that they had been notified she was no longer the CC for xx county and would she please go to the MS page and remove the county from her MS information Susie either: (1) goes and does the removal - no need to check the county page (2) she ignores the e-mail (2nd one is sent to insure that the first one did not get lost in cyberspace - 2nd e-mail is ignored). SEC waits for whatever length of time the SEC "rules" call for (something to be determined by the SEC committee itself) and then the SEC goes to the county page to see if she is still listed - yes she is the SEC sends a gentle reminder to the SC that Susie's name is still on the page. When Susie's name is no longer on the page the SEC removes the information for Susie for this county (if that's the only county Susie has then her name is also removed). If the SC doesn't get the web site updated within a reasonable length of time (reasonable length to be determined by the SEC) then an e-mail would be sent to the regional rep to handle the problem. (3) Susie writes back to the SEC and says nope she's still the CC for the county. SEC double checks with you (SC) and you say nope she's out of here. SEC forwards both e-mails to whoever is responsible for solving the problem (your suggestion of regional rep is excellent). The SEC is out of it until they are notified by whoever (regional rep) of the solution. Now before every SC on this committee starts yelling at me about the additional work this procedure would entail. Read it carefully. The SC sends 1 e-mail, the SEC replies with a single thank you. As long as the web page is updated within a reasonable length of time and the CC does not disagree with the removal (or whatever) the SC would not be contacted again. If the SC is not doing their own job and updating the web site then they'd be nagged ONCE. I would assume the number of disputes would be relative small. But the SC would have to handle that type of problem anyway whether a SEC is in existence or not. > > > > During normal day to day operations > > The SC would notify the SEC of any changes of volunteers within their > state > > The SEC would follow up with a e-mail asking the new volunteer to drop by > > the web page and, either verify their information if the SEC entered it or > > enter their information if the SEC decides not to enter info. > > > OK. But, when it comes time for a vote on anything, I want the EC to send > me a list of addies registered to my State, so I can verify the accuracy of > them all, too! Before a vote! My Comment: I covered this also in a couple of e-mails. Prior to a vote it would be responsibility of the SC to verify the membership list, either via a list sent in an e-mail or by going to the SEC page and looking at a list on the screen. > > > If a volunteer registered and there had been no notification by the SC > then > > an e-mail would be sent to the SC asking them to verify the information. > > > > In the case of a dispute: > > I would believe that a dispute would be rare, but should it happen then > the > > dispute would be forwarded to the AB to make a final decision. > > > > I'd say to forward it first to the Regional AB reps (and the regional cc AB > rep). Then, if the reps can't resolve it, then to a vote of the entire AB. My Comment: Your suggestion makes sense. No problem from me. > > is to be > > registered to vote. Why do you feel it has to be a "either or" situation > > Carol? I don't see it as "either" the SC or CC. I see a group of > > Because the comments on this list persist in saying that the "SC shouldn't > have the right to submit voter lists," and "take power away from the SCs" > and other such comments. That is as good as a campaign to cut the SC out of > the loop, no matter how you say it. Yes, there is distrust in the project > towards those people who seem to have the "power." But, I'm telling you > that the SCs have very little of this magical "power." My Comment: I have never seen a suggestion that says "cut the SC out of the loop". I've seen that phrase used time and time again in a reply to a suggestion, but I've never seen it suggested by anyone on this list - at least in any e-mail that came into my mail box. I simply do not believe that those of us who are trying to change the status quo are advocating "cutting the SC out of the loop" (I've said this so many times I sound like a broken record). "Magical power" of the SCs? I see no magical powers but here is what I personally see: The majority of the volunteers in this project are not subscribed to a national list of any kind. (Verifiable by the number of people subscribed to the ALL, DISCUSS, CC lists - the subscription base does not come close to the number of volunteers in this project - why not is not included in this discussion) The majority of CCs within a state are subscribed to their state's list (I'm sure there are lists that do not include a majority but for my point I will assume they are - someone said perception is very important) The SC has the final authority as to what is and what is not posted to their state list. It is up to the SC as to what national level information is sent to or allowed to be posted to their lists. (Several of the responses to the survey said this better than I can.) The SC has the final authority to submit a voter list. If the SC wishes to keep their voters in the "dark" about an election it can be done. If the SC sends a message to someone telling them they do not qualify to vote then most CCs will not question their SC. So the "power" the SC has is that the CCs within the their state CAN be given only the information the SC wishes them to have. Now before you jump in and start yelling at me I will say again ... This is how the job of the SC can be viewed. It has nothing to do with actuality it is how the position can and is often perceived. Once again - no SC will be cut out of the loop. I just want to keep everyone honest and on a level playing field. > Consider, also, that the effects of any SC unfairness if limited to > individuals within their own states. (In those situations, quite frankly, > I'd counsel the cc's to get together and oused the SC! But that is another > story.) However, with widespread vote padding by the CCs, the effect is a > national one when AB members are elected that do NOT represent the majority > philosophy. Said another way, an unfair SC only affects their one state. > Unfair CC's can affect the entire USGW! > > Sorry, I got off on that again and didn't answer your question. It doesn't > have to be "either/or" for me. But, I am responding to what I am hearing as > a side-stepping maneuver of the SCs in registering voters as a means to deal > with unfair SCs! My Comment: All of this is covered above. > > ***And, I am very, very opposed to USING the EC as a means to solve OTHER > problems in the USGW, such as unfair SCs.*** My Comments: Carol, I have said this so many times I'm beginning to hate typing it I am not, have not, will not call SCs unfair. I have not, will not say SCs are not doing their jobs or in anyway putting down the SCs. I do not know how to make it any plainer. Please, please, please stop taking every suggestion as a slur on the SC. Please step outside of your position as SC long enough to read the messages that keep saying to open the project up, give everyone information and the freedom to have some say. If any individual doesn't want that information or that freedom then the choice is theirs - not the ABs, not the SCs, not the SECs, not yours or mine - it's the individual's choice. >>snipped << > > state as they see fit. If a CC were to do what I said above I would think > > that the SC would handle it in whatever way they needed to. > > And, if we "handle" it at all, then we are accused of "power hunger" and > trying to only have cc's in our states who will vote as we want them to. > Consider the other side of the coin here, Linda. My Comment: I have Carol. And, I go back to the same thing I have said over and over. The PERCEPTION is that the SCs are "bad" people and as you said somewhere in here "your damned if you do and damned if you don't". So why are you fighting the idea of a national membership list that will bring information out into the open? The best defense is always an offense. If you are a good SC you won't be throwing people out if they do a good job. Instead of spending hours writing and sending e-mails why not be able to point a central spot and prove your point? >>>> snipped <<<< > the cc! Yet, if you ask any cc, they will believe that the Wyoming SC is > unfair! And, more often than not, this is what happens to the "power > hungry" SC!!! There's lots of "other sides" to these unfair SC claims, but > the majority of the CCs are never going to hear it! You're just not going > to hear about it! The majority of the SCs don't post their state problems > on the major lists, but the cc's DO !!! My Comment: No Carol the majority of the CCs don't post on the 3 lists simply because they don't belong to those lists. No CC, unless they have an real interest in this project subscribes to those lists because to do so is to open yourself up to all kinds of flaming not to mention an overflowing mailbox. There are many mornings when I get up from reading my e-mail and I'm in a bad mood just because of the nastiness on the 3 lists. Why do I stay? Because I do have an interest in this project as a whole and I want to be informed of what is going on and as bad and nasty as those 3 lists are they are the only ones available. You cannot use those three lists as a yardstick to judge the project or the volunteers as a whole since they comprise such a tiny number of volunteers. If you wrote to 500 non-WY volunteers and said "Do you believe the Wyoming SC is unfair" you'd probably get back 480 messages saying "What are you talking about". If you sent the same e-mail to every WY CC who is NOT subscribed to any of the 3 lists you'd probably get the same response from the majority of them. > > Again, a SC can do very little without coming under fire in the USGW! If we > "handle" problems, then we are the bad guys! You really have no idea! And, > the upheaval and stink to a state and to the entire USGW whenever a SC tries > to enforce any of the bylaws, guidelines, or to remove a CC, well, that is a > true cyber-nightmare. But, the feeling persists that the SCs are > "unscrupulous" whenever we try to "handle" anything at all! I am asking you > to *try* to see the other side of this! My Comment: And, Carol I am asking you to see the project as a whole. Whether you believe it or not I have considered all sides. As I said above I simply went at solving the problems in the way I would solve any business problem. I'm not asking that you ignore your experiences as an SC rather I asking you to be open minded about suggestions that will go a long way toward solving just the things you are complaining about. >>> snipped <<< > > As for "punishing" anyone - SC or CC - I have no interest in "punishing" > > anyone. I do have an interest, as a volunteer to this project, in seeing a > > level playing field for all volunteers no matter their job or their job > > title. That is ALL that I am asking. > > > > There can be no level playing field, Linda, as long as CCs jump to > conclusions, spam the lists with vile, accuse the SCs and AB members of > throwing elections for their own greedy reasons, etc. My Comment: I have to disagree - a level playing field is certainly possible. But, only if the people on this committee think about what is best for the project as a whole. Not what is best for the SCs, the CCs, the SPs or whatever. Once again I will say that the average volunteer does not subscribe to the 3 lists and have no idea what is being said about who. I am strongly > supportive of the AB and the NC. Even when I don't agree with them. When > I've had serious concerns about anyone's actions, I've written them > privately to hear their side of things. And one thing is always clear: they > are doing what they feel is best, and trying very hard to fullfill their > duties as they see them, and that they have a good reason for what they did! > Even when I don't agree with what someone has done, I take the time to > listen and hear *why* and the reasons always make sense, even when I don't > agree. But, the SCs and ABs are first accused, flamed, and harrassed. Ask > anyone of them how much hate mail they get when a vote is before the board! > But, never, never are they *ever* seen as just a group of VOLUNTEERS who >are trying their best. They are *never* given the benefit of the doubt first, > with honest debate and discussion as a vehicle to change anything. Now, the > movement is a "recall ammendment" to "get rid" of anyone who doesn't vote > the way some in the project want! Accuse, flame, and get rid of. That is > the way things are done, and by the CC's in this project! Then, they accuse > the SCs and ABs of being unfair! Get real! Read on . . . My Comment: But once again the majority of the members never see those comments, flames, name calling, yelling, screaming, smearing of reputations, etc. simply because the majority of the volunteers are not on those lists. This committees job, IMO, is to come up with suggestions for a SEC, suggestions that will do everything possible to make the SEC function well, insure fair and honest elections, remove them from the politics of this project and make them complete non-partisan. The problems you are discussing above have nothing to do with our job as a committee other than you feeling that the suggestions posted here are unfair to an SC >>snipped << > What I'm trying to say with this very lengthy and apparently off-topic post > is that as much as the CCs complain and flame, there is another side of the > story. And, the rank and file cc of the project is doing far more to > destroy the project than the SCs and AB! You want a level playing field? > Let's start with the attitudes and suspicions of some of the ccs! > > We can start turning that very vile tidal wave by assuming TRUST on this > committee, and calling for it from each and every volunteer in this project! > Trust first, accuse later after ALL the *facts* are known by both sides! > Stop believing the sanitized version of what appears on the lists as the > "gospel truth." Start understanding that we are all just people trying to > accomplish some good and work on a hobby together, with different ways to > accomplish that same goal. Start to understand that there is *always* > *always* *always* another side to the story that makes just as much sense > as the sanitized outcry on the lists! My Comments: Carol, I can't change your mind about how you feel about all volunteers except the SCs. I'm not even going to take offense at your comments about CCs, even tho I am one. I will simply say again - I'm doing the best I know how (and feel that the rest of the members of this committee are doing the same) to try to come up with good honest recommendations that will benefit every volunteer in this project - nothing more and nothing less. If you cannot see that then there is nothing I can say or do to change your mind. > > And, I will ask everyone on this list, again, to consider that while there > may be unfairness by a very small number of SCs, there are far more unfair > cc's! Even if that unfairness is limited to their attitudes. Change that, > and we will have created a miracle! Then, we *will* have a level playing > field where the SCs and AB members can be gven the respect each of us > deserve just as much as the CCs deserve respect. Give peace a chance, yeah > baby! My Comment: That isn't our job Carol. Our job, if I'm not mistaken, is just what I said above to come up with the best recommendations possible for a SEC. > > Carol > > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 10 10:26:11 2000 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 KAA08081 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:26:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA28784 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:26:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 7D5CC3C13C; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:26:08 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AADD73C12A for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:26:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust113.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.113]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA02408 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:26:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <014601c032c5$f7464ea0$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: <4.2.2.20001010070817.00aca068@postoffice.att.net> Subject: Re: [ESC] Voting Software Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:22:16 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Ellen Wrote: >It has occurred to me that we consider recommending that a special >committee be assigned the task of tracking down such a party, (or at least >offering options, and making recommendations.) That would free the SEC to >be formed, tasks assigned, begin collecting IDs, etc., and at the same time >serve to remove the SEC itself from accusations that it is "manipulating" >an election through selection of the software/company. An excellent suggestion! If this were a motion being made I would certainly 2nd it. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 10 10:43:49 2000 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 KAA09901 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:43:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02329 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:43:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 6FA583C152; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:43:46 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2B0F3C137 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:43:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port1235.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.210.35]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA12143 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:43:43 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001010093812.00be5620@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:39:42 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines In-Reply-To: References: <005501c032b6$374ffec0$0200a8c0@Linda> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A At 10:17 AM 10/10/2000 -0400, you wrote: >This discussion of "national registries" and "membership lists" that >"anyone can access" is beginning to make me nervous. I doubt very much >that a majority of project members are going to want their names and >counties and email addresses listed for just anyone to yank out and >examine. Given the history of mistrust in this project, I think this is a >very bad idea. But Teresa, why??? Seems that having everything out in the open would create trust, not cause more distrust - why in the world would anyone mind, and what could be done that would be bad, with it out there for everyone to see? Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ When I dare to be powerful, to use my strength in the service of my vision, then it becomes less and less important whether I am afraid. ~ Audre Lorde _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 10 10:52:30 2000 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 KAA10658 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:52:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA04018 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:52:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id E349B3C137; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:52:26 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 033CE3C133 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:52:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust113.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.113]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA23342 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:52:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <017301c032c9$a3a52ba0$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: "Election Committee" References: Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:51:49 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I do not disagree with you Teresa for the most part. In fact, in my original outline for the software I had the individual volunteer set up with a password - a password the volunteer selected and entered. I said this information would not be accessible to anyone other than the SEC. This was quickly shot down by several replies that said the SC should have access to the file so that the information could be verified by the SC and charges that I was cutting the SC out of the loop. Additionally it was discussed that the membership entry would allow an SC to see where else one of their volunteers worked. Which IMO is a good idea. In my outline I also suggested using this same password as the entry to vote. I don't think any consensus was ever reached but several people felt a vote ID would be better. I suggested that the SEC use the membership list and send out a list of registered voters/members to the SC prior to an election so that any problems could be solved. Then someone suggested that it would be easier for an SC to go to the SEC site and see a list on-line. And, yes Teresa you are correct - the SEC's job is to compile a voter list and oversee the election. The other suggestions that I have made have been in the interest of trying to come up with suggestions that would give the SEC a fighting chance of being viewed as impartial and honest. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: merope To: Election Committee Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 9:17 AM Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines > > On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Linda Haas Davenport said a whole bunch of things, > including this: > > [snip] > > > This is just one of the reason I'm pushing for a national membership list. > > If you look at the design outline I posted you will see that the volunteer > > is listed one time by name and then each of their positions is listed below > > their name. If you as a SC went to the SEC site and pulled up your > > volunteer's name you would see all positions that volunteer has. A quick and > > simply means available to any SC (just want you are asking for above). > > and this: > > [snip] > > > A thought just crossed my mind - would it help the case of a SC who has a > > bad CC fend off some of the flack if on the membership page anyone could > > type in a county/state and see the name of the CC and ALSO all the other > > position that volunteer holds? If the complaining person is sent to visit > > the SEC M/S page and then to look at each site that CC maintains it would be > > difficult to continue to yell "unfair SC" (assuming of course the person is > > doing a bad job). > > This discussion of "national registries" and "membership lists" that > "anyone can access" is beginning to make me nervous. I doubt very much > that a majority of project members are going to want their names and > counties and email addresses listed for just anyone to yank out and > examine. Given the history of mistrust in this project, I think this is a > very bad idea. > > After hearing this and considering the implications, I am beginning to > be of the opinion that any membership list created by the EC for the > purposes of elections should be available _only_ to the EC and _only_ for > the purpose of conducting elections. It should not be adapted for other > uses no matter who finds it convenient. If SCs and CCs are going to be > allowed access to it, they should be limited to accessing only their own > personal information for the purposes of verifying that it is correct. It > is not the job of the EC to do anything other than conduct elections; > maintaining a "registry" for any other purpose is not within its scope and > will probably lead to a negative perception of the EC, cut down on voter > registration and participation and possibly cause people who don't want to > be listed to leave the project. > > -Teresa > merope@radix.net > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 10 10:55:52 2000 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 KAA11034 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:55:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA04715 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:55:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id EDC223C152; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:55:48 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41E2C3C133 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:55:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust113.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.113]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA29376 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:55:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <01a401c032ca$1c9ce200$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: <005501c032b6$374ffec0$0200a8c0@Linda> <4.3.1.2.20001010093812.00be5620@mail.netdoor.com> Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:53:14 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Thanks Carol C-H. My feelings to a "T". Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: Carol C-H To: Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 9:39 AM Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines > At 10:17 AM 10/10/2000 -0400, you wrote: > >This discussion of "national registries" and "membership lists" that > >"anyone can access" is beginning to make me nervous. I doubt very much > >that a majority of project members are going to want their names and > >counties and email addresses listed for just anyone to yank out and > >examine. Given the history of mistrust in this project, I think this is a > >very bad idea. > But Teresa, why??? Seems that having everything out in the open would > create trust, not cause more distrust - why in the world would anyone mind, > and what could be done that would be bad, with it out there for everyone to > see? > > Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ > When I dare to be powerful, to use my strength in the service of my vision, > then it becomes less and less important whether I am afraid. ~ Audre Lorde > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 10 11:00:51 2000 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 LAA11628 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:00:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA05827 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:00:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id CBEA53C153; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:00:48 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBCB23C133 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:00:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port1235.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.210.35]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA24813 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:00:45 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001010095137.00c598c0@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:55:39 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.1.2.20001010093812.00be5620@mail.netdoor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A At 10:53 AM 10/10/2000 -0400, you wrote: >On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Carol C-H wrote: > > > But Teresa, why??? Seems that having everything out in the open would > > create trust, not cause more distrust - why in the world would anyone > mind, > > and what could be done that would be bad, with it out there for > everyone to > > see? > >Its an invasion of privacy. > >Think about what Linda suggested. I could go to this proposed registry >put in your name find out all the places you volunteer in this project, >and get your email address(es). And so can anyone else. SCs, >Board members, RootsWeb/MyFamily employees, spammers, anyone. > >Password protecting it won't work because all outsiders would have to do >is find someone willing to share their password. MyFamily already has >employees working as CCs; so does RW. Many members of other genealogy >projects are also members of USGW. It would be a simple matter for >someone who wanted to obtain access to this database to get it. > >-Teresa I am missing something, obviously - I normally totally agree with you. I can not see what the problem with this would be - if I am CC for a county, that info is already available online - why would it be an invasion of privacy for it to be in this place also? I wouldn't care if someone sorted and found everything I am involved with online - if I wanted it to be private, it wouldn't be out there for all to find in the first place - all a person has to do to find web addresses or names is use a good search engine - how would this be different? Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act ~ George Orwell _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 10 11:23:13 2000 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 LAA14065 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:23:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA10861 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:23:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 477B03C12C; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:23:09 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D5FA3C12A for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:23:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port1235.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.210.35]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA12407 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:23:06 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001010100845.00bdd690@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:19:16 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.1.2.20001010095137.00c598c0@mail.netdoor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A At 11:09 AM 10/10/2000 -0400, you wrote: >On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Carol C-H wrote: > > > I can not see what the problem with this would be - if I am CC for a > > county, that info is already available online - why would it be an > invasion > > of privacy for it to be in this place also? I wouldn't care if someone > > sorted and found everything I am involved with online - if I wanted it to > > be private, it wouldn't be out there for all to find in the first place - > > all a person has to do to find web addresses or names is use a good search > > engine - how would this be different? > > > >How would you like to see this come over a newsgroup: > >"Now available! Full access to email addresses of all USGW members! Just >got to this web page: and use this password " > >Or worse, how would you like to get even more spam in your inbox from >whoever, because the USGW made its membership roster publicly available? >As the situation is now, it takes some work to get a complete membership >roster. But this database will make it easy. > >_You_ may not mind your info being widely and publicly available, but many >people do. And I can guarantee that once it gets out that the Board and >the SCs are being recommended to use this list to "keep tabs on people" >that will look very bad. > >I have no problems with a registry of members. I have no problem with a >registry of members that each member can visit to verify their OWN >information only. I have a problem with every Tom, Dick, and Harry being >able to do the same thing. > >-Teresa So far as the listing being announced to newsgroups - I can not imagine that anyone would care enough to do that - the info is available on state pages and nobody does that. So far as spam - I put queries on websites - spam is a fact of life when a person does that, and it is almost impossible to research without doing it. I guess this may be something that I don't understand because I am a new CC. It just seems more honest and open to me, and seems that others would feel the same way. and that it might help instill confidence, but I don't have the experience that you do, so I yield to your take on it - I value your judgement on other issues, so know you must have good reason to feel this way about this one. Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act ~ George Orwell _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 10 11:32:12 2000 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 LAA14956 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:32:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12780 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:32:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 44BC93C136; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:32:10 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C98C3C12A for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:32:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust113.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.113]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA25013 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:32:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <01ca01c032cf$30adf5e0$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:31:04 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A Possible solution: 1st there would not be multiple e-mail addresses. 1 name 1 e-mail address: Encrypt the e-mail address just like a password. Do not display it on the screen. Do like other sites - if you can't remember your password it will be mailed to you. This is the usual way to stop the harvesting of names & e-mails. Why would having it known where you volunteer within the project be an invasion of privacy? Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: merope To: Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 9:53 AM Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines > > On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Carol C-H wrote: > > > But Teresa, why??? Seems that having everything out in the open would > > create trust, not cause more distrust - why in the world would anyone mind, > > and what could be done that would be bad, with it out there for everyone to > > see? > > Its an invasion of privacy. > > Think about what Linda suggested. I could go to this proposed registry > put in your name find out all the places you volunteer in this project, > and get your email address(es). And so can anyone else. SCs, > Board members, RootsWeb/MyFamily employees, spammers, anyone. > > Password protecting it won't work because all outsiders would have to do > is find someone willing to share their password. MyFamily already has > employees working as CCs; so does RW. Many members of other genealogy > projects are also members of USGW. It would be a simple matter for > someone who wanted to obtain access to this database to get it. > > -Teresa > > > > > Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ > > When I dare to be powerful, to use my strength in the service of my vision, > > then it becomes less and less important whether I am afraid. ~ Audre Lorde > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Esc mailing list > > Esc@pairlist.net > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From cch@netdoor.com Tue Oct 10 12:22:42 2000 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 MAA20940 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:22:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA23678 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:22:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port1235.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.210.35]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA26193 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:22:38 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001010111154.00bddc80@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:18:03 -0500 To: merope From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.1.2.20001010103605.00dcf360@mail.netdoor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Status: RO X-Status: And equally hard to put into words is the fact that in spite of the fact that I think it WOULD be a good idea, I do trust your gut. FWIW, I know what you mean - I learned long ago to trust my gut. Carol At 11:56 AM 10/10/2000 -0400, you wrote: >On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Carol C-H wrote: > > > I figured you had a good reason for protesting, but figured since I had > > come out on the opposite side, would be better to continue the > discussion a > > bit - as stated, I really do think it boils down to your experience vs my > > newbieness and I willingly yield without needing to understand the why of > > it - though at face value it still sounds like a good idea to me - > > primarily because I will have no trust in the SEC - and can not see why > > anyone else would - so what good will it do re: trust, for them to have > the > > list? Might as well not be a list at all - > >Let me put it another way. > >My gut tells me this list is a bad idea. I haven't had too much problem >with most of what's been suggested by the committee. But reading Linda's >message gave me that "uh-oh" feeling. > >Of course, I can't put it that way to the committee... > -Teresa > > > > > Carol Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act ~ George Orwell From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 10 12:19:09 2000 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 MAA20573 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:19:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA22928 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:19:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id BD8DB3C180; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:19:06 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D44EC3C17F for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:19:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust113.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.113]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA13100 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:19:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <01fd01c032d5$bf5addc0$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:18:30 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Teresa, I'm curious, nothing more, how do you think this list could be used by the AB for abuse? You are well known for your dislike and distrust of the AB but I'm curious to know what you believe the AB could do with this list. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: merope To: Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 10:38 AM Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines > > On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Linda Haas Davenport wrote: > > > Why would having it known where you volunteer within the project be an > > invasion of privacy? > > If I do not wish that information to be easily and publicly available, it > would be an invasion of my privacy to make it so. If I am understanding > you correctly, anyone with a password can pull up info on anyone else in > the project. I see no need for that, and I see great potential for it to > be misunderstood and misused. > > No one _needs_ this list but the EC. For everyone else, its just a nice > perk. One that is very risky. I personally will _never_ trust that > something of this sort will not be abused, no matter who sits in the > Board's seats. > > -Teresa > > > > > Linda > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 10 12:19:07 2000 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 MAA20564 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:19:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA22922 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:19:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 6A1043C15A; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:19:04 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 887EA3C129 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:19:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust113.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.113]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA06787 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:19:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <01fc01c032d5$bdc98f60$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:15:51 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A I haven't seen a suggestion to have the web site or any area password protected with a "master password" only the actual file of an individual so your first suggestion, at this time, isn't valid. If the individual's e-mail address is encrypted then the harvesting of name and addresses is no easier than the way it can be done now which is by state and county. Therefore I don't see that it would increase spam to any volunteer. I've seen no recommendation made that the membership list be used to "keep tabs" on anyone. And why would anyone believe that a membership list would be used by the AB, SP, SC or anyone else to "keep tabs" on people. What would the membership list be keeping "tabs" of? Who a volunteer is and where they maintain a site isn't, to me, private information or even information to be ashamed of. However, perhaps I'm the only one who feels this way. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: merope To: Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 10:09 AM Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines > > On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Carol C-H wrote: > > > I can not see what the problem with this would be - if I am CC for a > > county, that info is already available online - why would it be an invasion > > of privacy for it to be in this place also? I wouldn't care if someone > > sorted and found everything I am involved with online - if I wanted it to > > be private, it wouldn't be out there for all to find in the first place - > > all a person has to do to find web addresses or names is use a good search > > engine - how would this be different? > > > > How would you like to see this come over a newsgroup: > > "Now available! Full access to email addresses of all USGW members! Just > got to this web page: and use this password " > > Or worse, how would you like to get even more spam in your inbox from > whoever, because the USGW made its membership roster publicly available? > As the situation is now, it takes some work to get a complete membership > roster. But this database will make it easy. > > _You_ may not mind your info being widely and publicly available, but many > people do. And I can guarantee that once it gets out that the Board and > the SCs are being recommended to use this list to "keep tabs on people" > that will look very bad. > > I have no problems with a registry of members. I have no problem with a > registry of members that each member can visit to verify their OWN > information only. I have a problem with every Tom, Dick, and Harry being > able to do the same thing. > > -Teresa > > > Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ > > During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary > > act ~ George Orwell > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Esc mailing list > > Esc@pairlist.net > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 10 13:06:21 2000 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 NAA26224 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:06:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA02750 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:06:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id E36FD3C13C; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:06:18 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from bob.propagation.net (unknown [63.249.193.1]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F8A03C129 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:06:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from computer (ppp83-rch.klondyke.net [208.245.179.99]) by bob.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA24673 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:03:57 -0500 Message-ID: <007d01c032dc$1d154120$1fb3f5d0@computer> From: "Shari Handley" To: References: <01fc01c032d5$bdc98f60$0200a8c0@Linda> Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:03:50 -0400 Organization: Tyaskin Web Designs 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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Linda, No, you're not the only one who feels that way. I'm trying to understand why it would not be a good idea to have such a master list, but I keep coming back to the fact that nearly all states already have a list of all their CCs, their email addresses, and the counties they coordinate displayed online and easily accessible. I just don't see how having a national list of CCs and their sites would create any additional difficulties. Shari ----- Original Message ----- From: Linda Haas Davenport To: Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 12:15 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines > I haven't seen a suggestion to have the web site or any area password > protected with a "master password" only the actual file of an individual so > your first suggestion, at this time, isn't valid. > > If the individual's e-mail address is encrypted then the harvesting of name > and addresses is no easier than the way it can be done now which is by state > and county. Therefore I don't see that it would increase spam to any > volunteer. > > I've seen no recommendation made that the membership list be used to "keep > tabs" on anyone. And why would anyone believe that a membership list would > be used by the AB, SP, SC or anyone else to "keep tabs" on people. What > would the membership list be keeping "tabs" of? Who a volunteer is and > where they maintain a site isn't, to me, private information or even > information to be ashamed of. However, perhaps I'm the only one who feels > this way. > > > Linda > > lhaasdav@mindspring.com > Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas > Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion > List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: merope > To: > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 10:09 AM > Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines > > > > > > On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Carol C-H wrote: > > > > > I can not see what the problem with this would be - if I am CC for a > > > county, that info is already available online - why would it be an > invasion > > > of privacy for it to be in this place also? I wouldn't care if someone > > > sorted and found everything I am involved with online - if I wanted it > to > > > be private, it wouldn't be out there for all to find in the first > place - > > > all a person has to do to find web addresses or names is use a good > search > > > engine - how would this be different? > > > > > > > How would you like to see this come over a newsgroup: > > > > "Now available! Full access to email addresses of all USGW members! Just > > got to this web page: and use this password " > > > > Or worse, how would you like to get even more spam in your inbox from > > whoever, because the USGW made its membership roster publicly available? > > As the situation is now, it takes some work to get a complete membership > > roster. But this database will make it easy. > > > > _You_ may not mind your info being widely and publicly available, but many > > people do. And I can guarantee that once it gets out that the Board and > > the SCs are being recommended to use this list to "keep tabs on people" > > that will look very bad. > > > > I have no problems with a registry of members. I have no problem with a > > registry of members that each member can visit to verify their OWN > > information only. I have a problem with every Tom, Dick, and Harry being > > able to do the same thing. > > > > -Teresa > > > > > Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ > > > During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a > revolutionary > > > act ~ George Orwell > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Esc mailing list > > > Esc@pairlist.net > > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Esc mailing list > > Esc@pairlist.net > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 10 13:09:31 2000 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 NAA26643 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:09:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA03297 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:09:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id A56603C13C; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:09:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4FC23C129 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:09:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port1235.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.210.35]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA28050 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:09:25 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001010115141.00bf4960@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:05:33 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines In-Reply-To: <01fd01c032d5$bf5addc0$0200a8c0@Linda> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 11:18 AM 10/10/2000 -0500, you wrote: >Teresa, I'm curious, nothing more, how do you think this list could be used >by the AB for abuse? You are well known for your dislike and distrust of the >AB but I'm curious to know what you believe the AB could do with this list. > >Linda Linda, I do not know Teresa for her dislike and distrust of the AB - and she apparently is far from being alone in her distrust of "the AB" (as opposed to individuals - please note), and for good cause, IMHO, especially in her situation, given that "the AB", which theoretically should represent her, will not even come to her defense - she is not alone in this, of course, and that is just one of the reasons I also do not trust "the AB" - matter of fact, I could not name one individual involved with USGenWeb who has ever posted - either publicly or privately - that they DO trust "the AB" - can you? Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act ~ George Orwell _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 10 13:39:59 2000 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 NAA00561 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:39:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA08986 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:39:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 49CC83C17F; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:39:57 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r14.mail.aol.com (imo-r14.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.68]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 158093C138 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:39:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MHet703234@aol.com by imo-r14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.26.) id s.6e.3bdf0da (4001) for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:39:42 -0400 (EDT) From: MHet703234@aol.com Message-ID: <6e.3bdf0da.2714ae5e@aol.com> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:39:42 EDT Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 125 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 10/10/2000 7:17:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time, merope@Radix.Net writes: << After hearing this and considering the implications, I am beginning to be of the opinion that any membership list created by the EC for the purposes of elections should be available _only_ to the EC and _only_ for the purpose of conducting elections. It should not be adapted for other uses no matter who finds it convenient. If SCs and CCs are going to be allowed access to it, they should be limited to accessing only their own personal information for the purposes of verifying that it is correct. It is not the job of the EC to do anything other than conduct elections; maintaining a "registry" for any other purpose is not within its scope and will probably lead to a negative perception of the EC, cut down on voter registration and participation and possibly cause people who don't want to be listed to leave the project. -Teresa merope@radix.net >> I totally agree with you Teresa! I think this is leading into more problems that it will salve. Mary Ann _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 10 13:44:57 2000 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 NAA01195 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:44:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA09887 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:44:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id F159B3C17D; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:44:54 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 100643C138 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:44:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port1235.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.210.35]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA21606 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:44:51 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001010122946.00bf75c0@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:41:02 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Yes, I am "fixated" on the bannings. IMHO, each and every day that members of USGenWeb are banned from a part of the project by a server points directly to a weak and ineffectual and untrustworthy AB which does not have the courage to defend members of the project - the bannings represent blatant discrimination, and have directly to do with elections, in that nothing can be accomplished to re-establish trust so long as they remain in effect. Carol At 11:18 AM 10/10/2000 -0500, you wrote: >Teresa, I'm curious, nothing more, how do you think this list could be used >by the AB for abuse? You are well known for your dislike and distrust of the >AB but I'm curious to know what you believe the AB could do with this list. > >Linda Linda, I do not know Teresa for her dislike and distrust of the AB - and she apparently is far from being alone in her distrust of "the AB" (as opposed to individuals - please note), and for good cause, IMHO, especially in her situation, given that "the AB", which theoretically should represent her, will not even come to her defense - she is not alone in this, of course, and that is just one of the reasons I also do not trust "the AB" - matter of fact, I could not name one individual involved with USGenWeb who has ever posted - either publicly or privately - that they DO trust "the AB" - can you? Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act ~ George Orwell _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 10 13:51:27 2000 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 NAA01804 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:51:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA11100 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:51:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 89F033C125; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:51:24 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A3383C11F for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:51:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MHet703234@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.26.) id s.81.1420457 (4001) for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:51:13 -0400 (EDT) From: MHet703234@aol.com Message-ID: <81.1420457.2714b110@aol.com> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:51:12 EDT Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 125 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 10/10/2000 10:07:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time, shari@tyaskin.com writes: << Linda, No, you're not the only one who feels that way. I'm trying to understand why it would not be a good idea to have such a master list, but I keep coming back to the fact that nearly all states already have a list of all their CCs, their email addresses, and the counties they coordinate displayed online and easily accessible. I just don't see how having a national list of CCs and their sites would create any additional difficulties. Shari >> Colorado doesn't list the email addresses on our County list. We removed them two years ago. This helped to send people to the Counties to find the email address, and slowed down a lot of researchers just sending a query to the CC without looking around the county pages. Mary Ann _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc