I thought that we had agreed to only dealing with one motion at a time. So I asked Joe to withdraw his 00-14. Since it doesn't seem I was correct. I also Request that Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny's motion 00-14 be replace back on the table in the correct order. Richard... "Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny" wrote: > > Request the Chairman place my subject motion back on the > table in the correct order. I agreed to let Richard preempt > it with that understanding. > > Thanks > Joe > -- > Zsedeny Genealogy - http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm > NDGenWeb Archives - > http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/nd/ndfiles.htm > Pembina County, ND - > http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm > Ramsey County, ND - > http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm -- Richard M. Howland IlGenWeb State Coordinator Mailto:illinois@usroots.com ICQ # 898319 NE/NCR CC Representative USGWP Advisory Board ILGEN-L List Co-ordinator ILPIATT-L List Co-ordinator IL-CHAT-L List Co-ordinator TXYOUNG-L List Co-ordinator http://www.rootsweb.com/~ilpiatt/piatt.htm http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richpump/YoungCountyCemPage.htm http://www.pets.rootsweb.com/~hedgehogs/index.html http://www.crafts.rootsweb.com/~woodworking/index.html http://www.wf.net/~richpump/HowlandOnLine.html

I should have said after the vote on Richard's motion Motion 00-14 be voted on. But here we are with motion sickness again. Joe "Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny" wrote: > > Request the Chairman place my subject motion back on the > table in the correct order. I agreed to let Richard preempt > it with that understanding. > > Thanks > Joe > -- > Zsedeny Genealogy - http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm > NDGenWeb Archives - > http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/nd/ndfiles.htm > Pembina County, ND - > http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm > Ramsey County, ND - > http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm -- Zsedeny Genealogy - http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm NDGenWeb Archives - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/nd/ndfiles.htm Pembina County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm Ramsey County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm

Request the Chairman place my subject motion back on the table in the correct order. I agreed to let Richard preempt it with that understanding. Thanks Joe -- Zsedeny Genealogy - http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm NDGenWeb Archives - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/nd/ndfiles.htm Pembina County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm Ramsey County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm

I know Maggie made the motion with good intentions but I have to agree with Ginger and Teri on this. More ammunition for subjective complaints we don't need. Joe Teri Pettit wrote: > > At 3:35 AM -0700 6/5/00, Ginger wrote: > >I have some questions in regard to this motion: > > > >1. Who decides if a member is promoting enough of > >a "positive public image" to be considered in good > >standing. > > > >2. Who decides if a member is working to "enhance > >its good name and reputation"? What does this > >work consist of? > > > >3. Define the term "contributing to its operations" please. > >Wouldn't you say that maintaining websites and working > >to place data online is already "contributing to its > >operations"? > > > >It is my considered opinion that this motion is repetitious > >of matter already contained in the Bylaws of the USGenWeb > >Project and only places a broader intrepretation on the > >guidelines already contained therein. This would only serve > >to open the door wider to potential abuse and allow more > >intrepretation of the Bylaws to suit whatever the "whim" > >of the moment is. > > > >Ginger > >gingerh@shawneelink.com > > I agree. It is an almost identical repetition of the statement in the > ByLaws, except for the part about "promoting a positive public image > of the project, and working to enhance its good name and reputation." > > It will have no practical result except to give people two more clauses > under which to file grievances against other project members, including > members of this Board. > > A whole lot of CC's feel that the NC and the Board members who supported > his actions were acting in ways which do not promote a positive image > of the project or serve as an example of the guidelines and standards > of the USGenWeb Project. And others feel that their actions were good > examples of those standards. > > The problem isn't that project members are insufficiently dedicated to > maintaining high standards of behavior, it is that different project > members sincerely disagree about whether a particular action is beneficial > or detrimental to the welfare of the USGenWeb Project. > > We have too many vague, subjective standards and guidelines already, > we don't need to add more. > > -- Teri -- Zsedeny Genealogy - http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm NDGenWeb Archives - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/nd/ndfiles.htm Pembina County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm Ramsey County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm

At 3:35 AM -0700 6/5/00, Ginger wrote: >I have some questions in regard to this motion: > >1. Who decides if a member is promoting enough of >a "positive public image" to be considered in good >standing. > >2. Who decides if a member is working to "enhance >its good name and reputation"? What does this >work consist of? > >3. Define the term "contributing to its operations" please. >Wouldn't you say that maintaining websites and working >to place data online is already "contributing to its >operations"? > >It is my considered opinion that this motion is repetitious >of matter already contained in the Bylaws of the USGenWeb >Project and only places a broader intrepretation on the >guidelines already contained therein. This would only serve >to open the door wider to potential abuse and allow more >intrepretation of the Bylaws to suit whatever the "whim" >of the moment is. > >Ginger >gingerh@shawneelink.com I agree. It is an almost identical repetition of the statement in the ByLaws, except for the part about "promoting a positive public image of the project, and working to enhance its good name and reputation." It will have no practical result except to give people two more clauses under which to file grievances against other project members, including members of this Board. A whole lot of CC's feel that the NC and the Board members who supported his actions were acting in ways which do not promote a positive image of the project or serve as an example of the guidelines and standards of the USGenWeb Project. And others feel that their actions were good examples of those standards. The problem isn't that project members are insufficiently dedicated to maintaining high standards of behavior, it is that different project members sincerely disagree about whether a particular action is beneficial or detrimental to the welfare of the USGenWeb Project. We have too many vague, subjective standards and guidelines already, we don't need to add more. -- Teri

----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Stowell <usgw1nc@yahoo.com> To: <shari@tyaskin.com> Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 12:17 AM Subject: Special Projects Amendment : Please forward as appropriate: : : On the vote of the Special Projects amendment - that : Georgia co-sponsor this amendment with MarylandGenWeb : the totals are as follows: : : Yes - 43 : No - 2 : Abstain - 1 : : 42.6 % of eligible voters - 46 of 108 cast a vote - : Of that total: : : yes - 93.5% : no - 4.3 : abstain - 2.2 : : 39.8% of 108 said yes. : : Therefore GAGenWeb co-sponsors the Special Project : amendment alongside MDGenWeb. : : Tim Stowell : State Coordinator GAGenWeb : :

Although I believe that the EC was trying to be fair in this matter, little they do at this time will please anyone. So let me add my humble voice and say that I suggest that anyone with a working website as certified by the respective SC be allowed to vote. In other words, leave the decision as to eligibility to the SCs. If this can be done without a motion, fine. Hang in there Roger et al, it's going to be a rough ride. I will try to help you find common sense solutions. Otherwise, I second Ginger's motion. Joe Ginger wrote: > > I move that the April 1, 2000 cut off date for voter > eligibility be declared contrary to the Bylaws of the > USGenWeb Project and that this Board instruct > the Elections Committee that all members of the > USGenWeb Project are eligible to vote in accordance > with the duly adopted Bylaws of The USGenWeb > Project. > > My personal note and not part of the motion itself: > To do anything less smacks of attempted manipulation > of the Election by this Board and the Election committee. > > Ginger > gingerh@shawneelink.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Powell Jr <jpowelljr@gru.net> > To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> > Date: Sunday, June 04, 2000 9:55 PM > Subject: [BOARD-L] Election.. April 1, 2000, cut-off date > > >As I am hopefully running for office, I don't believe that I should be > >dealing with this. Will someone else bring it up and discuss it. When > >I was Chairman of the EC most such changes were run by the board. Will > >you please look at? There are 2 grievances about this at this time. I > >am not asking you to give the EC a hard time. I know how hard, and most > >of the time thankless, that their job can be. > > > >Thanks, > >Jim > > -- Zsedeny Genealogy - http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm NDGenWeb Archives - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/nd/ndfiles.htm Pembina County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm Ramsey County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm

Teri, allow me to take a page from your book <G> and take the discussion to a theoretical extreme. Suppose all 2100 or so CCs filed separate complaints simultaneously. Who would have the time to read them all and where would you find the impartial mediators? In fact, where in this Project would you find impartial mediators? That is why the electorate is the best committee for hearing these complaints and making their feelings known thru their vote to elect. And, the amendment process is the only way to change major parts of the Project. I still believe that the Board has the right (given by the ByLaws) to judge whether a complaint has merit and to act on it or if deemed appropiate to decide on mediators. After all the Board members were put there by the volunteers. Who better than their (the volunteers') employees (though poorly paid) to do this job? We don't have a supreme court to handle this process and even if we did it would be criticized if the complaintant didn't hear what he/she wanted to hear. This Project has spiraled into a vortex where reason has been lost and only egoism seems to matter. Hatred and spite are rampant and growing and now manifest in these complaints. The present situation disgusts those of us who only want to persue the original (stated) intent of the Project, to bring genealogy online. We sit here and endlessly discuss matters which when put into the perspective of our original mission matter not at all to it's accomplishment. Bah humbug or as my dear old daddy used to say, Bullll shit. He always dragged out the "l"s. If BS defined offends anyone let me invoke my humble appologies. Joe Teri Pettit wrote: > > Joe and Board members, > > If a grievance is frivolous or without merit, any impartial committee > will recognize it as such, and so rule. We don't have to prejudge it > for them, and shouldn't. > > Due to our conflict of interest, it is my firm belief that we should > NEVER dismiss any grievance filed against a Board member without > submitting it to an outside mediator. This has nothing to do with > the contents of these particular grievances. If, say, somebody were > to file a grievance that my email privileges should be revoked because > I bore the reader to tears, I would not want the motion ruled "frivolous" > without being heard by some impartial mediator. > > I would have preferred not to discuss the content of these grievances > themselves, because feelings on this Board are too highly charged, > and the impartial mediators would be better judges of the issues than > we are. But seeing as how Joe's rationale for dismissing these motions > is largely based on their content, I do not see how I properly rebut > the arguments for the motion for dismissal without bringing that > content into the discussion. > > ******************************* > > On grievance #1, I feel that nothing should be done except perhaps > that the Guidelines for Volunteers page should make more clear that > the ByLaws do not prohibit advertising by or on behalf of a commercial > web host server. It is my opinion that people who think that such > appeals are disallowed are reading more into the ByLaws than they say. > Only solicitations for the personal gain of the Project member are > disallowed. > > There are a great many county sites that contain advertisements for > commercial web presence providers, e.g., > > Wyoming County, Pennsylvania: > http://wyomingpa.freeservers.com/ > > (This is just pulling one out at random, it is not meant to single out > this county site in any way.) THESE ADS DO NOT THREATEN THE NON-PROFIT > STATUS OF THE USGENWEB PROJECT AND ARE ALLOWED UNDER OUR BYLAWS. But > we could do more to make this understood. > > ******************************* > > Grievance #2 seems totally valid to me. I see no difference between the > use of the small USGenWeb logo on the Rootsweb cluster pages to link > to the USGenWeb national page, versus the use of the same small USGenWeb > logo on the USGenNet page to link to the USGenWeb national page. If one > is allowed to use it in that fashion, all should be. Since the logos > when used in the smaller size in a row of links cannot be mistaken as > identifying the page they appear on as part of the USGenWeb Project, > I think a policy statement should be added to the page where the logos > appear, describing and limiting the contexts in which they can be used, > in a way that makes clear that the use as links to USGenWeb from the > Rootsweb cluster pages and from USGenNet or other genealogical > organizations are proper usage. > > ******************************* > > Grievance #3 seems completely valid for the same reason. While space > limitations make it impractical to list every free server in the world, > it makes perfect sense to list all of the servers who specifically make > provisions for USGenWeb county sites with policies different than they > have for the public at large. Pam should be directed to add USGenNet to > the same list as Rootsweb, and with a similarly neutral wording. > > ******************************* > > Grievance #4 I mostly do not agree with. For the same reasons of subproject > autonomy that make me believe that the Census Project was within its > rights to move the Census Project files anywhere they want, I also believe > the Archives Project has the right to make any contracts it wants with > any web host, commercial or not. They have a right to make a contract that > their data will always reside on Yahoo! if they want to. > > (A "no mirrors" policy was admittedly not in the best interest of data > longevity and accessibility, but it is their right. The vast majority > of County sites are likewise not mirrored, and that is a cause of deep > concern to me. But the USGenWeb Project is a network of independent > subprojects, and we were never designed to insist that our subprojects > follow a central leadership's decisions on the best way to run their > web sites.) > > The non-profit status of the USGenWeb Project means that access to the > data must be free to the end user. It doesn't mean that nobody else can > make money indirectly from the fact that someone is accessing the data. > > If we were a physical library, we couldn't charge an entrance fee. Nor > could locate on an island if the only access to the island was by paying > ferry. But we COULD locate in a part of town that was served by a free > shuttle that put ads on their buses. Loads of non-profits accept > advertising. They help keep the costs down. > > However, since this issue keeps coming up, if I were on a mediation > committee I would recommend that the facts that the Archives has an > exclusive contract to store the files permanently on Rootsweb, and that > Rootsweb derives advertising income from the search engines that are > one of the primary means of public access to those files, should be > outlined in a "permissions contract", and that all submitters should > be required to sign the contract that they understand this policy and > do not object to it, before their files would be accepted. > > ******************************* > > On grievance #5, I do not believe that there is any copyright > violation. Copyright does not give an author the right to control > where their work is stored; it only gives them the right to restrict > COPIES being made of their *original* work, and either sold by another, > or distributed in a way that would reduce their own income from > that work. > > However, as a matter of courtesy and good will, it would be best if > the Archives consented to remove items that the submitter later > requests removal of. The argument that the submission was made when > the submitter did not know of the profits that Rootsweb derives > from advertising has some merit for invalidating the permanent use > permission. Contracts that omit key information that might have led > the signatories to decide otherwise are often ruled null and void. > (It hinges on how key the information is, which can be a subjective > judgement.) This is yet another reason that making this status very > clear in the submitter's agreement, not only that permission for > permanent use is given, but that the permission is given WITH FULL > KNOWLEDGE THAT, while no end-user will ever be charged for access > to the data, A FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION MAY DERIVE INCREASED ADVERTISING > INCOME FROM ITS PRESENCE ON THEIR SERVER. > > I do not believe that the USGenWeb Advisory Board has any right to > dictate terms of operation to the USGenWeb Archives Project, just > exactly as I believe that we do not have the right to dictate terms > of operation to the USGenWeb Census Project or to any USGenWeb State > Project. So this recommendation would be advisory only, for the purpose > of hopefully reducing the number of transcribers who submit data to > the Archives and later claim that they didn't know the full implications > of their submission. > > ******************************* > > So, even though I only agree with two out of the five grievances, I > do not feel that any of them are "frivolous." Even those which I disagree > with stem from a sincerely held misapprehension of what the non-profit > status of USGenWeb Project means, one which is so widely-spread that, > while I would deny the grievances, I would suggest taking immediate > clear measures to reduce the level of misunderstanding. > > I also still believe that these, and ALL grievances that name the > national leadership of the USGenWeb Project, are best judged by a > party that does not include any members of that leadership, and that > to avoid conflict of interest is not appointed by us. I would not even > have gone into my opinions on these grievances except that I saw no > other way to rebut the argument that they were frivolous and should > be dismissed without being heard by anybody at all. > > -- Teri Pettit -- Zsedeny Genealogy - http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm NDGenWeb Archives - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/nd/ndfiles.htm Pembina County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm Ramsey County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm

I move that the April 1, 2000 cut off date for voter eligibility be declared contrary to the Bylaws of the USGenWeb Project and that this Board instruct the Elections Committee that all members of the USGenWeb Project are eligible to vote in accordance with the duly adopted Bylaws of The USGenWeb Project. My personal note and not part of the motion itself: To do anything less smacks of attempted manipulation of the Election by this Board and the Election committee. Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Jim Powell Jr <jpowelljr@gru.net> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Sunday, June 04, 2000 9:55 PM Subject: [BOARD-L] Election.. April 1, 2000, cut-off date >As I am hopefully running for office, I don't believe that I should be >dealing with this. Will someone else bring it up and discuss it. When >I was Chairman of the EC most such changes were run by the board. Will >you please look at? There are 2 grievances about this at this time. I >am not asking you to give the EC a hard time. I know how hard, and most >of the time thankless, that their job can be. > >Thanks, >Jim >

I have some questions in regard to this motion: 1. Who decides if a member is promoting enough of a "positive public image" to be considered in good standing. 2. Who decides if a member is working to "enhance its good name and reputation"? What does this work consist of? 3. Define the term "contributing to its operations" please. Wouldn't you say that maintaining websites and working to place data online is already "contributing to its operations"? It is my considered opinion that this motion is repetitious of matter already contained in the Bylaws of the USGenWeb Project and only places a broader intrepretation on the guidelines already contained therein. This would only serve to open the door wider to potential abuse and allow more intrepretation of the Bylaws to suit whatever the "whim" of the moment is. Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell <usgw1nc@yahoo.com> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Monday, June 05, 2000 12:44 AM Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 00-16 - Good Standing >The motion below made by Maggie and seconded by >Barbara is numbered 00-16 is and is now open for >discussion: > >I move to adopt the following standing rule; > >"It is the responsibility of each member of The >USGenWeb Project to demonstrate membership in good >standing by; promoting a positive public image of the >project, and working to enhance its good name and >reputation, and contributing to its operations. In >addition, members must respond promptly to email, >actively support researchers' efforts to find >information, maintain their website with appropriate, >up-to-date content, and serving as a good example of >the guidelines and standards of The USGenWeb Project." >

In a message dated 06/05/2000 6:48:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, gingerh@shawneelink.com writes: > I move that the April 1, 2000 cut off date for voter > eligibility be declared contrary to the Bylaws of the > USGenWeb Project and that this Board instruct > the Elections Committee that all members of the > USGenWeb Project are eligible to vote in accordance > with the duly adopted Bylaws of The USGenWeb > Project. > > My personal note and not part of the motion itself: > To do anything less smacks of attempted manipulation > of the Election by this Board and the Election committee. I second this Motion and also the personal comments! Virginia (Ginger) Cisewski NW-Plains CC Rep

> The motion below made by Maggie and seconded by > Barbara is numbered 00-16 is and is now open for > discussion: This is something that should be decided by the entire membership of the USGenWeb Project. We have an election coming up in just a few weeks, and adding this to the ballot would not pose a problem or cause excessive delays. Given the fact that this Board already has an unprecedented number of grievances filed against various Board members, I believe this is the very last group who should be taking it upon themselves to dictate rules of conduct. The Guidelines and Standards were voted on by the general membership and this should also be. We are vastly overstepping and attempting to dictate a policy in a top-down manner, instead of the bottom-up fashion that the USGenWeb Project was to be. Virginia (Ginger) Cisewski NW-Plains CC Rep

The motion below made by Maggie and seconded by Barbara is numbered 00-16 is and is now open for discussion: I move to adopt the following standing rule; "It is the responsibility of each member of The USGenWeb Project to demonstrate membership in good standing by; promoting a positive public image of the project, and working to enhance its good name and reputation, and contributing to its operations. In addition, members must respond promptly to email, actively support researchers' efforts to find information, maintain their website with appropriate, up-to-date content, and serving as a good example of the guidelines and standards of The USGenWeb Project."

The explanation of Motion 00-12 and a new motion to rescind it below, made by Richard and seconded by Joe is numbered 00-15 and is now open for discussion: Motion #00-12:"I move to find the logos (know as protest logo's) as inappropriate and in non-compliance, and those displaying them after 23:59 on 21 May, 2000 "NOT" to be in good standing with USGWP." It was my intent that with making of this motion #00-12 that notice be served to all that they could not inappropriately display or be little the USGWP name or image. It was and could be used to keep persons that would do such from running for office. However it was not my intent to open the door to hunt down honest protesters who attempted to correct their mistake. That is why I inserted a time limit. To allow for compliance. There for I move to Rescind, Repeal, or Annul. Motion #00-12.

I, hereby, second the motion. RootsLady (aka) Barbara Yancey Dore ----- Original Message ----- From: Maggie Stewart <maggieohio@columbus.rr.com> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2000 12:04 AM Subject: [BOARD-L] Advisory Board-Standing Rule #1 > I move to adopt the following standing rule; > > "It is the responsibility of each member of The USGenWeb Project to > demonstrate membership in good standing by; promoting a positive public > image of the project, and working to enhance its good name and reputation, > and contributing to its operations. In addition, members must respond > promptly to email, actively support researchers' efforts to find > information, maintain their website with appropriate, up-to-date content, > and serving as a good example of the guidelines and standards of The > USGenWeb Project." > > Maggie > NW/Plains CC Representative > > > >

As I am hopefully running for office, I don't believe that I should be dealing with this. Will someone else bring it up and discuss it. When I was Chairman of the EC most such changes were run by the board. Will you please look at? There are 2 grievances about this at this time. I am not asking you to give the EC a hard time. I know how hard, and most of the time thankless, that their job can be. Thanks, Jim

Joe and Board members, If a grievance is frivolous or without merit, any impartial committee will recognize it as such, and so rule. We don't have to prejudge it for them, and shouldn't. Due to our conflict of interest, it is my firm belief that we should NEVER dismiss any grievance filed against a Board member without submitting it to an outside mediator. This has nothing to do with the contents of these particular grievances. If, say, somebody were to file a grievance that my email privileges should be revoked because I bore the reader to tears, I would not want the motion ruled "frivolous" without being heard by some impartial mediator. I would have preferred not to discuss the content of these grievances themselves, because feelings on this Board are too highly charged, and the impartial mediators would be better judges of the issues than we are. But seeing as how Joe's rationale for dismissing these motions is largely based on their content, I do not see how I properly rebut the arguments for the motion for dismissal without bringing that content into the discussion. ******************************* On grievance #1, I feel that nothing should be done except perhaps that the Guidelines for Volunteers page should make more clear that the ByLaws do not prohibit advertising by or on behalf of a commercial web host server. It is my opinion that people who think that such appeals are disallowed are reading more into the ByLaws than they say. Only solicitations for the personal gain of the Project member are disallowed. There are a great many county sites that contain advertisements for commercial web presence providers, e.g., Wyoming County, Pennsylvania: http://wyomingpa.freeservers.com/ (This is just pulling one out at random, it is not meant to single out this county site in any way.) THESE ADS DO NOT THREATEN THE NON-PROFIT STATUS OF THE USGENWEB PROJECT AND ARE ALLOWED UNDER OUR BYLAWS. But we could do more to make this understood. ******************************* Grievance #2 seems totally valid to me. I see no difference between the use of the small USGenWeb logo on the Rootsweb cluster pages to link to the USGenWeb national page, versus the use of the same small USGenWeb logo on the USGenNet page to link to the USGenWeb national page. If one is allowed to use it in that fashion, all should be. Since the logos when used in the smaller size in a row of links cannot be mistaken as identifying the page they appear on as part of the USGenWeb Project, I think a policy statement should be added to the page where the logos appear, describing and limiting the contexts in which they can be used, in a way that makes clear that the use as links to USGenWeb from the Rootsweb cluster pages and from USGenNet or other genealogical organizations are proper usage. ******************************* Grievance #3 seems completely valid for the same reason. While space limitations make it impractical to list every free server in the world, it makes perfect sense to list all of the servers who specifically make provisions for USGenWeb county sites with policies different than they have for the public at large. Pam should be directed to add USGenNet to the same list as Rootsweb, and with a similarly neutral wording. ******************************* Grievance #4 I mostly do not agree with. For the same reasons of subproject autonomy that make me believe that the Census Project was within its rights to move the Census Project files anywhere they want, I also believe the Archives Project has the right to make any contracts it wants with any web host, commercial or not. They have a right to make a contract that their data will always reside on Yahoo! if they want to. (A "no mirrors" policy was admittedly not in the best interest of data longevity and accessibility, but it is their right. The vast majority of County sites are likewise not mirrored, and that is a cause of deep concern to me. But the USGenWeb Project is a network of independent subprojects, and we were never designed to insist that our subprojects follow a central leadership's decisions on the best way to run their web sites.) The non-profit status of the USGenWeb Project means that access to the data must be free to the end user. It doesn't mean that nobody else can make money indirectly from the fact that someone is accessing the data. If we were a physical library, we couldn't charge an entrance fee. Nor could locate on an island if the only access to the island was by paying ferry. But we COULD locate in a part of town that was served by a free shuttle that put ads on their buses. Loads of non-profits accept advertising. They help keep the costs down. However, since this issue keeps coming up, if I were on a mediation committee I would recommend that the facts that the Archives has an exclusive contract to store the files permanently on Rootsweb, and that Rootsweb derives advertising income from the search engines that are one of the primary means of public access to those files, should be outlined in a "permissions contract", and that all submitters should be required to sign the contract that they understand this policy and do not object to it, before their files would be accepted. ******************************* On grievance #5, I do not believe that there is any copyright violation. Copyright does not give an author the right to control where their work is stored; it only gives them the right to restrict COPIES being made of their *original* work, and either sold by another, or distributed in a way that would reduce their own income from that work. However, as a matter of courtesy and good will, it would be best if the Archives consented to remove items that the submitter later requests removal of. The argument that the submission was made when the submitter did not know of the profits that Rootsweb derives from advertising has some merit for invalidating the permanent use permission. Contracts that omit key information that might have led the signatories to decide otherwise are often ruled null and void. (It hinges on how key the information is, which can be a subjective judgement.) This is yet another reason that making this status very clear in the submitter's agreement, not only that permission for permanent use is given, but that the permission is given WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT, while no end-user will ever be charged for access to the data, A FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION MAY DERIVE INCREASED ADVERTISING INCOME FROM ITS PRESENCE ON THEIR SERVER. I do not believe that the USGenWeb Advisory Board has any right to dictate terms of operation to the USGenWeb Archives Project, just exactly as I believe that we do not have the right to dictate terms of operation to the USGenWeb Census Project or to any USGenWeb State Project. So this recommendation would be advisory only, for the purpose of hopefully reducing the number of transcribers who submit data to the Archives and later claim that they didn't know the full implications of their submission. ******************************* So, even though I only agree with two out of the five grievances, I do not feel that any of them are "frivolous." Even those which I disagree with stem from a sincerely held misapprehension of what the non-profit status of USGenWeb Project means, one which is so widely-spread that, while I would deny the grievances, I would suggest taking immediate clear measures to reduce the level of misunderstanding. I also still believe that these, and ALL grievances that name the national leadership of the USGenWeb Project, are best judged by a party that does not include any members of that leadership, and that to avoid conflict of interest is not appointed by us. I would not even have gone into my opinions on these grievances except that I saw no other way to rebut the argument that they were frivolous and should be dismissed without being heard by anybody at all. -- Teri Pettit

Forwarded as requested. At 02:24 PM 6/4/00 -0700, you wrote: >Please forward this notice to the board Betsy. > >Thank you > >Don >**************************************************************************** >******************************** >On Saturday June 3, 2000, a message apparently from Joe Zsdedeny appeared on >some of the lists to the effect that he withdrew motion 00-12 and any >sanctions against anyone as a result of findings by vote on that motion. > >If motion 00-12 and the sanctions that go with it has been officially >withdrawn, then the sanctions and my motion under that motion are moot. > >I will not waste the time of those charged with handling moot appeals, >therefore: > >I, Don Kelly, officially withdraw my appeal of the results of motion 00-12. > >The appeal of motion 00-11 stands until heard, or mooted by motion 00-14. > >Thank you all. > >Don Kelly >

----- Original Message ----- From: Roger Swafford <sagitta56@earthlink.net> To: <ELECTIONS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2000 1:22 PM Subject: [ELECTIONS] Re: [BOARD-L] Question : *Please fwd to Board-:L* : I have absolutely no problems with Jim Powell, we have communicated on : numerous occasions even though we often disagree, I recently offered him a : viable and legal motion almost immediately after chastising another AB : member for putting an improper one. I respect the opinions of every member : of USGW. My communication to Jim was merely a courtesy as advised by RRoO. : The link discovered caused concern within the EC, as chairman I could not : ignore that concern. I attribute Jim's disclosure of the subject matter of : my message, which was marked *Personal & Confidential*, to an apparent lack : of knowledge regarding accepted parliamentary procedure. : : I take this opportunity to add some personal observations which may be of : value in sorting out our present situation. Precedents have been set by : recent actions of the NC and AB. It is my duty as chairman of the EC to : exercise due caution on behalf of "USGWP" to consider the "effect" of those : precedents in conducting this election with the greatest possible degree of : fairness to assure that the outcome is truly the will of the majority. These : are stressful and difficult times for both the majority and minority. Such : circumstances dictate extraordinary measures, numerous members have : expressed outrage concerning the determinations of the EC, to those whom I : have not personally responded I ask acceptance of this message as a response : and apologize for the delay. Our present situation and the method utilized : in creation of the EC imposes far greater responsibilities upon this : committee than any other of the past. : : Roger : *Permission granted to fwd as appropriate.* : : From: Gloria B. Mayfield <gbmayfield@tyler.net> : To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> : Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2000 8:21 AM : Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Question : > Roger, I would also like to know if you have a problem with Jim Powell. : > Gloria : > : : :

At 08:05 AM 6/4/00 -0400, Ron & Kathy wrote: >Esteemed Members of the Board, > >I just wanted to make a simple observation. Ron: It would have been so simple if you had: 1. Bargained in good faith when your group first contacted the Archives last fall regarding a merger. Instead, you allowed events to proceed for more than 6 weeks without so much as a word from you. Silence implies consent in most negotiations. If you had said "Wait a minute -- I don't like ________ (fill in the blank with something that was disagreeable to you), I am willing to give up ____________ (fill in this blank with something you know the other side wants) if you will grant me _____________ ." Instead we got a flat and final "NO" just as we were about to exchange passwords. 2. Immediately following the de-link, restored Holly Timm's copyrights to all pages she wrote and those with her formatting, and changed to an e-mail address on your web site where all your top echelon people had access. to insure that e-mail to the was handled expeditiously -- and then appled to be re-linked. Instead you embarked on a lengthy spam attack on the Board. 3. Never incorporated as USGenWeb ____________. This name belongs to all of us; CCs, SCs, and SP's. It cannot be incorporated without the permission of all of us. Instead, you incorporated TWICE using the word, USGenWeb. <big snip>