| |
Edward Serros wrote:
I do not think you should "ax" any member simply
that key word is "Simply". . .after you go through a few rounds of
"unsubscribing" members like I have and a good few of the other members
have, one thing will be clear. I don't unsubscribe members becasue they
simply didn't submit their genealogy report. The way I figure some
folks are in "extreme" non participant mode and I do these "Ax"
sessions on average of once a year to 18 months. I think this is my 3rd
go around. If a person doesn't have enough "gumption" to at the very
least email me and say they are interested in staying in the group then
they are gone. The key is "lack of participation" I can't say to people
they need to participate that is so subjective, but I can say that
everyone needs to "show" a small sign of life and that sign to me is at
the very least to email me in response to my "Ax" email and say
"hey it's my 'jobs, lack of time, lack of resources, lack of family
sources, etc' or any of another reasons"
One member unknown to me lives in New Orleans and they were
busy, hey
no further dialogue on that subject was needed. Meaning understood.
I guarantee you that I have not unsubscribed anyone in the past that
didn't even email me and say something like the above. and I view them
as reasons not excuses. Afterall "life does happen."
I guess I am subjectively defining "participation" in this and in past
emails of this sort as: "Participation in the ranchos
group is emailing me either directly or indirectly once every year to
18 months saying you have some reason why you can't send in your
genealogy report."
I feel strongly about the participation part even though I feel like
I'm being a wimp about it for being so lax in how much people should
participate. So I guess it comes down to am I "still" being to strict?.
. .well according to the statistics of that one poll we had awhile back
this is how the too few people who voted to make it an official vote
felt:
Question
You can only vote if you have already
submitted your genealogy, but even if
you haven't you can still influence by
giving your opinion via an email to the
group (freedom of speech).
Question: Should the requirements for
being a member of Ranchos be More Strict
(have your genealogy in hand to submit
before being accepted into the group);
the same as now; or less Strict?
I will not change anything unless 75% of
the permanent members vote and if I get
60% of those voting to vote for one of
the choices.
Responses
|
Choices |
Votes |
%
|
1 reply |
| More Strict |
9 |
45 |
|
|
The Same |
8 |
40 |
|
|
Less Strict |
3 |
15 |
|
|
Other |
0 |
0 |
|
Are we at "loggerheads?"
joseph
ps: if anyone that is about to be "Axed" on January 31, 2006 for some
reason refuses or doesn't want to email me giving "some" reason for
their lack of participation then one spot is available for "exchange"
with Ed Serros' membership see below
I offer my spot in the membership to someone else who
does not have the "requirements" but wants to stay in the group.
I anticipate
that you will post this.
I didn't need to post it as you already did. I'm simply responding to
your email to the group
I further anticipate that I will be axed unless you reconsider your
requirements.
no the requirements stay the same. . .go back and reread the archives
and you will see that I beg people to just "communicate" with me. if my
"unmoveable" position means you "self unsubscribe" I'll understand, but
I won't change until we have an official vote of the membership that
tells me that my definition of "participation" is too strict and needs
to be lightened up. I guess lightened up would be having "Ax" sessions
every 24-36 months and then from there it would be 48 months and then
not at all so we would have people that joined but never participated
at all. hmmmn, not what I would call exactly a "serious" researcher.
Then again even though I try to put parameters on this whole thing I'm
still be subjective. Best I can do though.
lets have another poll, what say?
joseph
Respectfully,
Ed
|
|
| |
by Date 
-