Archives Search Engine

Body:
Subject:
From:
(email address of poster)
List:
(limit search to one mailing list)
Date:
(e.g. 10 Jun 2005, Jun 2005, or 2005)
   Search tips

Searching for: +path:board +(+date:sep +date:2000)
Viewing 1-25 of 200 matches from 36,107,694 documents1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Next
1. [BOARD-L] Tombstone Project [1]
We are in the process of electing a rep for The Tombstone Project. At this point, I am the only nominee and that has been seconded. So far, all of the votes have been in my favor. So, unless there is something raised in the next few days, it would appear that I will be with you for a while longer. Just thought I would let you know. Pam
2. [BOARD-L] Endings [1]
The 1999 - 2000 Board terms have come to an end. I ask that you join me in thanking each of the departing members - Gloria Mayfield, Jim Powell and Virginia Cisewski for their service on the USGenWeb Project Advisory Board and to the Project as well. During the time of their service the Project has faced many trials. Sometimes there was agreement, other times not but to each of you, I express my thanks for your service and your commitment to stick true to your ideals. Tim
3. [BOARD-L] Beginnings [1]
The 2000 - 2001 term is now beginning. Welcoming to the Board - Ken Short as Southwest/South Central CC Rep, Richard Howland as Northeast/North Central CC Rep and Ellen Pack as Southeast/Mid-Atlantic CC Rep. Returning for another term - Richard Harrison as Northwest/Plains CC Rep and Betsy Mills as Southwest/South Central SC Rep. The Tombstone Project is currently voting on their Rep and that will be announced most likely later today. To begin, I'd like to ask for a Roll Call, to see if every Board memb
4. Re: [BOARD-L] Beginnings [1]
Present. Richard... Tim Stowell wrote: > > The 2000 - 2001 term is now beginning. > > Welcoming to the Board - Ken Short as Southwest/South Central CC Rep, > Richard Howland as Northeast/North Central CC Rep and Ellen Pack as > Southeast/Mid-Atlantic CC Rep. > > Returning for another term - Richard Harrison as Northwest/Plains CC Rep > and Betsy Mills as Southwest/South Central SC Rep. > > The Tombstone Project is currently voting on their Rep and that will be > announced most likely later today. > >
5. [BOARD-L] Election Study Committee [1]
First, I would like to thank everyone who volunteered to serve on the committee, it made the choosing difficult but it also gave us the ability to try to have a broad spectrum of opinion and perspective from across the project. Listed below are the Election Study Committee Members with their states and regions. The committee wants to hear from anyone with thoughts ideas and comments regarding the election process. At some points we may be asking specific questions about election issues but we welcome
6. Re: [BOARD-L] Motion 00-28 vote [1]
Tim Stowell wrote: > > > Now that the amended Motion 00-28 has been approved of by the seconder - > please vote on Motion 00-28 Yes -Isaiah -- Richard Harrison/Encinitas, San Diego, California USGenWeb Northwest/Plains County Coordinator Rep IAGenWeb Immediate Past State Coordinator Jones Co. IAGenWeb Coord.: http://www.rootsweb.com/~iajones/index.htm Jones Co. List Owner: IAJONES-L@rootsweb.com IOWA-L List Owner: IOWA-L@rootsweb.com Richard's Genealogy: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard
7. Re: [BOARD-L] Trademark Motion [1]
>I move that Mr. Tim Stowell, National Coordinator and Ms. Holly Timm, County >Coordinator Representative At Large apply on behalf of the USGenWeb Project >for a trademark. Maggie, This motion you are making is exactly the kind of "further action" that was anticipated in Ellen's motion, except with respect to the trademark "USGenWeb Archives". The study committee that Tim is working on is also in the same class of action. The details were left unspecified because there are a lot of decisions to be made,
8. [BOARD-L] Motion 00-28 - Election Study Committee [1]
The motion made by Tina, seconded by Joy is numbered 00-28. The floor is now open for discussion. The motion: I move that the USGenWeb Advisory Board appoint a special committee, the Election Study Committee, to study and make recommendations about the election process within the USGenWeb Project. Said committee will consist of: 5 Advisory Board members ~ Proposed members of the committee are Holly Timm - Representative-At-Large (chair); Ellen Pack - Southeast / Mid- Atlantic CC Rep., Betsy Mills, Sou
9. Re: [BOARD-L] Parliamentary Inquiry re: Pledge Drive [1]
At 7:01 AM -0700 9/20/00, Maggie Stewart wrote: > >I'm simply saying that it wasn't being done following the proper >procedure and since we have bylaws that we were elected to uphold >we, as the Advisory Board, are obligated to uphold them. Maggie, The Bylaws don't have a single word in them that suggests that Project members should obtain the permission of the Advisory Board before they ask their fellow Project members, using the Project related email lists, to provide information about their desires. T
10. Re: [BOARD-L] USGenWeb Domains [1]
The info was forwarded to Rootsweb this PM. Tim At 09:01 PM 9/28/00 -0500, you wrote: >A reminder: RootsWeb and MyFamily are awaiting instructions to change the contacts on the two domains (.net and .org) over to whatever the Advisory Board wishes. Both domains are currently paid up. > >Betsy > >
11. Re: [BOARD-L] Motion 00-28. [1]
Thank you Rich. I'd like to encourage all members of this body to support this motion. This is not a deciding body, merely a committee to study the issue and make some recommendations that are NOT binding on this body. Now can we have a vote on this? I'm having a little struggle in understanding why there would be any opposition to this. Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com ----- Original Message ----- From: NE/NC Region CC Representative To: Sent: Saturday, September
12. Re: [BOARD-L] Options in front of us [1]
Ellen Pack wrote: > Richard - > > I'm not sure what you mean, "rather than renaming USGenWeb..." I am saying that if we do not file a letter of protest against the Trade Marking of the USGenWeb name, or file for the name ourselves. We will need to find new name. And if we decide to find a new name we won't need anymore elections, because there won't be a need for any Advisory Board. > As long as it's on the table, and we've come this far with it, let's see if > we can get this Election Study Committee
13. Re: [BOARD-L] Election Study Committee - Discussion [1]
At 11:02 AM 04 09 2000 -0400, TVick65536@aol.com wrote: >I move that the USGenWeb Advisory Board appoint a special committee, >the Election Study Committee, to study and make recommendations about >the election process within the USGenWeb Project. > >Said committee will consist of: > >5 State Coordinators (one from each region); > >10 County Coordinators (two from each region); There are 4 regions
14. [BOARD-L] Tina's Motion [1]
As it currently stands, I will vote against Tina's motion for the following reasons. 1. It has too many AB members on it. There should only be one AB member on it, the At-Large Rep. 2. I think the board reps should be replaced with CC's. 3. The SC members should be picked by the SC rep for each region from a pool of volunteers. 4. The cc's should be picked by the CC rep from each region from a pool of volunteers. Having 5 AB members on the committee says we want to govern from the top down, g
15. [BOARD-L] In regard to the TM Motion [1]
In accordance with Roberts Rules of Order, in the matter of the motion regarding the trademark issue, made by Ellen Pack and seconded by Holly Timm: "I appeal from the decision of the Chair." Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com
16. [BOARD-L] Double Vote [1]
No - agree with the NC that the motion was out of order Yes - use Parliamentary procedure and the Bylaws Ken
17. Re: [BOARD-L] Tina's Motion [1]
Ken, I do have EC experience (three of them), but while I don't have a problem with the ratio of AB members, I can see that it could appear a little top heavy. In the spirit of productive compromise, and in the interest of getting this very important committee seated and under way, I would be willing to accept dropping the number of Reps by one or two members. Exactly which reps would be dropped (myself included) doesn't matter to me - we could toss names in a hat - with the following exceptions: Ti
18. Re: [BOARD-L] Parliamentary Inquiry re: Pledge Drive [1]
Richard, I'm simply saying that it wasn't being done following the proper procedure and since we have bylaws that we were elected to uphold we, as the Advisory Board, are obligated to uphold them. Maggie ----- Original Message ----- From: ILGenWeb State Coordinator To: Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 11:39 PM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Parliamentary Inquiry re: Pledge Drive Gee Maggie How about we take care of some of the Appeals and grievances first. Then we can
19. Re: [BOARD-L] Election Study Committee [1]
I would very much like to see the USGenWeb Project have a "Standing Election Committee". It appears that this motion to form a committee to "study" what might be needed by such a "standing" committee and not for the appointing of a "standing" committee itself. I sincerely hope that I am reading the motion correctly because I'm afraid that by adoption of said motion, to act as a standing committee itself, we would once again be in a "top heavy" mode because the top membership of the committee is part of the
20. Re: [BOARD-L] Withdrawal of Trademark Application - Discussion [1]
And wait until the horse is gone before attempting to shut the barn door? Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Joy Fisher To: Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 4:12 PM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Withdrawal of Trademark Application - Discussion > There are some things that bother me about this motion: > > 1. There have been amendments made to this application -- not done by any > of the persons on the original application. Until we find ou
21. Re: [BOARD-L] In regard to the TM Motion [1]
How about resubmitting the motion, and instead of saying, "Failure to comply with Advisory Board instructions, within the time specified, will result in further action by the Advisory Board", specify just *what* 'further actions' would be taken. This would take away the "threatening" flavor of the motion, I think, and maybe we could start discussing this issue instead of everyone sniping at each other. If you actually mean that we would file a protest, then why not just say so? Shari Handley shari@tyaski
22. [BOARD-L] More Trademark Discussion [1]
Well, we are at another impasse where nothing gets done. As in every dispute there is some merit to both sides of this argument. I for one did not see a threat to Linda personally but perhaps a threat to take more action. So in that regard I think Tim misinterpreted RRs. The motion should have been allowed ot come to vote. I do not think it would have passed but a vote should have been taken. As someone has pointed out a resolution against Linda's filing would show the will of the Board. The real issue is h
23. Re: [BOARD-L] Trademark Motion [1]
Maggie and Tina, Please don't be offended but this issue really needs more discussion before motions are made. Tim is working up a committee which can iron out many questions. John Shrunk has kicked off a pledge drive which has so far garnered $900 in pledges. I would hope we could discuss exactly how to craft a motion to cover all concerns. Therefore, would you please consider withdrawing the motion for the time being. Joe Maggie Stewart wrote: > > I move that Mr. Tim Stowell, National Coordinator and
24. Re: [BOARD-L] Withdrawal of Trademark Application [1]
Again.....please cite your source. Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Maggie Stewart To: Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 11:42 PM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Withdrawal of Trademark Application > The AB can open themselves to be sued if they meddle in trying to impune in > any manner Linda's legal right to make that application. Robert's Rules of > Order > states that no motion can be untaken which in contrary to local, stat
25. Re: [BOARD-L] Election Study Committee - Discussion [1]
At 07:43 PM 9/7/00 -0700, you wrote: >I was going to complain that there was no Northwest/Plains >representative in the committee, but after seeing Ken's post I'd like to >know what the reason was for proposing a committee with so many Board >Members. Additionally, while the committee should accept input from >anyone willing to give it, 25 seems like an awfully large number. I >think a smaller committee would be able to function more efficiently. First, 5 board + 5 SC + 10 CC = 20 I think (on first cup of
Viewing 1-25 of 200 matches from 36,107,694 documents1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Next

CPU seconds used 0.779882