USGENWEB-ALL-L Archives

Archiver > USGENWEB-ALL > 2008-09 > 1222277844


From: "Mike St. Clair/ST" <>
Subject: [ABChat] [Fwd: RE: Website maintenance / website host issues Summary
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:37:24 -0600


For Sherri.

-------- Original Message --------

Mike,

I'll be glad to help. I can't respond to the list from here at work,
though, so this is going only to you.

. . . .

Sherri

-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Mike St.
Clair/ST
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 12:46 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [ABChat] Website maintenance / website host issues Summary

I've now heard from all but one of the AB members on this and the count
is 9 for 1-2-3 and 4 for 2-1-3 (meaning 2 and 1 at the same time).

Below is a draft of a motion I'm planning to put forward on Board later
today. Since the majority leans toward 1-2-3, it will be that version.

Any suggestions about the wording? Any concerns about moving ahead now?

By the way, at this point I've volunteered to serve on the informal
study group for step 1 and for step 3. Concetta has also so
volunteered. Gail has also volunteered, but has some availability
problems from late this week through part of next week. Someone else
has volunteered Cyndie, but I don't remember seeing a response from her.
Is there anyone else interested in working hard for three weeks on step
1?

Draft Motion:

I move that we proceed with the following three step process in
addressing the website maintenance/website hosting issues that we have
been discussing.

1 - Create a temporary and informal study group (called the Webmaster
Study Group) of a few volunteers from the AB (to be approved by the AB
in a separate action) to create a proposed national webmaster position
description and to recommend what the reporting relationships should be
for this person. This group shall bring their proposal to the full AB
three weeks from the time the group is selected and approved by the AB.

The AB shall then decide to endorse or to modify the Webmaster Study
Group's proposals and shall then make the required changes in our
standing procedures. Inherent in this shall be asking our current
Webmaster to continue for the time being. The NC and the Webmaster are
to be asked by the Webmaster Study Group to provide input, an shall also
ask for input from other interested AB or project members.

2 - After the position description and associated reporting
relationships are approved from step 1, a call shall be issued for
members who are interested in serving as part of the Webmaster team. The
wording for this call shall be determined at that time. The AB shall
then decide to either continue the service of the current webmaster (if
interested) or to select a new one from the applicants and shall decide
whether to select an assistant from the same group.

3 - After the Webmaster team is in place from step 2 the same AB study
group or another such set of volunteers (to be decided at that time)
shall be created called the Hosting Study Group and charged to do
research on potential web hosting providers. They shall bring the
results of their research and specific recommendations to the AB six
weeks from the date they are seated. The AB shall then make a decision
on whether we should stay with our current hosting arrangement or move
to another web hosting supplier and if chosing to move, on what
schedule.

Mike St. Clair

Mike St. Clair/ST wrote:
>
> One of the items we have been discussing for some time is how to
> proceed on the website Maintenance/Website Hosting issues. Since I
> feel strongly this is an important issue to be addressed, I proposed
> an approach a couple of weeks back. With this message I'm going to
> summarize very briefly the discussion that has taken place, from my
> perspective. I apologize in advance if I missed anything important.
> Feel free to correct me or to clarify things.
>
> I proposed a three step, sequential process, as follows:
>
> 1 - Create a temporary and informal study group of a few volunteers
> from the AB to create a proposal for a national webmaster position
> description and to recommend what the reporting relationships should
> be for this person,. This group would bring their proposals to the
> full AB, who would decide to endorse, or to modify that and then make
> the required changes in our standing procedures. (inherent in this
> would be asking our current webmaster to continue for the time being)
> The NC and the webmaster would provide input, and input would be
> solicited from any other interested AB or project members, but this
> process would be intended to be very quick - about three weeks for the

> study group to present their proposal for Advisory Board
consideration.
>
> 2 - After we have a new position description and the associated
> reporting relationships approved from step 1, we would issue a call
> for members who are interested in serving as part of the webmaster
> team. The AB would then decide to either continue the service of the
> current webmaster (if interested) or to select a new one from the
> applicants and would decide whether to select an assistant from the
> same group.
>
> 3 - After the webmaster team was in place from step 2, either the
> same, or another AB study group would be charged to do research on
> potential web hosting providers and to bring the results and
> recommendations to the AB for a decision on whether we should stay
> with our current hosting arrangement or move to another web hosting
> supplier and if chosing to move, on what schedule.
>
> Following that proposal, Scott Burow proposed a modification of the
> order. He said he thought we should do step 2 "in parallel" with step
> 1 so that the new webmaster team could provide input on the products
> that would result from step 1.
>
> At present it appears to me that 6 board members lean toward the
> original order and 3 lean toward the revised order. Another 5 have not

> expressed a preference, unless I missed something.
>
> During this discussion some AB members have said that we should
> reappoint the webmaster for this term of the Advisory Board, based on
> the precedent that it has always been done that way unless the
> webmaster didn't care to continue. Several AB members have said we
> should ask for volunteers right away to serve as webmaster or
> assistant and stated that the present webmaster could toss her hat in
> the ring. Others have objected that we have never done that before,
> and should not do so this time either. My 1-2-3 order is intended to
> defer that decision until after we have completed step 1.
>
> I'm very anxious to get something moving on this. I don't want us to
> talk about it for a few months, instead of actually doing something.
> I'd love to see every board member express their leaning on this issue

> right away here on the ABChat list so that the motion most likely to
> garner enough support to pass could be presented on Board - be that
> the original 1-2-3 order, or Scott's 2-1-3 order.
>
> I recognize that whichever option is presented, the debate on the
> motion (and feedback from interested members) could result in a change

> to the other option before we vote, but it would be best if we started

> with the order that is preferred by the majority of the AB at this
> point. This could be clarified if each member of the AB would respond
> to this message by replying either: I prefer 1-2-3 or I prefer 2-1-3.
>
> Mike St. Clair
>


Alice Allen wrote:
> At this point, I am in favor of the 1-2-3 approach as well.
>
> Alice
> NENC CC Rep
>
> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>
> On 9/23/2008 at 9:48 PM Gail Kilgore wrote:
>
>
>> Mike, I will support this 1-2-3 and help in any areas that I can with

>> my time schedule.
>>
>> Gail Meyer Kilgore
>> NW PL CC-Rep


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE



This thread: