I have requested that the re-directs for usgenweb.com/co and the .net and .org be changed to Lynn's new URL

Tim, We don't know the background of this and probably don't want to know but maybe Rootsweb can be persuaded to change this account. I would like suggest that you contact Rootsweb and ask that they resolve this by assigning an account to these people which appears less confrontational to USGenWeb folks. This shouldn't require a motion but if it does I will make it. Joe Joy Fisher wrote: > The following was sent to the State Coordinator's list. Since we are all > subbed to that list, I presume you've seen it. > > >X-Loop: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com > > > >I am, hereby, making a formal complaint to the board: > > > >Colorado's State pages were moved off of Rootsweb about a month ago. As the > >SC for COGenWeb, I have the right, under our Bylaws, to move the State pages > >to any server I choose. > >When I moved the State pages off Rootsweb, I did not move the project pages > >that my ASC had on the COGenWeb site, as that was HER project, and I felt it > >wasn't right for me to move them without her permission. She was out of > >town at that time, I was waiting for her return, and it was her choice to > >make. > >She contacted Brian Leverich, owner of Rootsweb, and requested the COGenWeb > >site that was already there, with her project on it, for her project, which > >IS a part of the COGenWeb Project, and was rejected by Brian. > >He gave her another account and she had to move her entire project to the > >new account. > >However, as soon as she had moved her project to the new account, he allowed > >a person who is NOT part of COGenWeb to take over that account with > >"cogenweb" as part of the account name, which is in violation of our Bylaws: > > > >"The USGenWeb Project," and "The XXGenWeb Project" (where XX is the > >two-letter postal code abbreviation for each state) are service marks and > >reserved exclusively for The USGenWeb Project and any websites representing > >The USGenWeb Project." [Article I] > > > >Rootsweb has violated this Bylaw, by allowing a person who is NOT part of > >COGenWeb to adopt this site, and use it for purposes of misdirecting > >researchers, and as part of her personal vendetta. > >According to the bylaws, the board must direct Brian to take back this > >account as this person is not a member of the COGenWeb and any use of these > >pages by anyone else but the State Coordinator is in violation of the > >bylaws. > > > >Lynn > > -- email:jzsed@slic.com http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm

The following was sent to the State Coordinator's list. Since we are all subbed to that list, I presume you've seen it. >X-Loop: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com > >I am, hereby, making a formal complaint to the board: > >Colorado's State pages were moved off of Rootsweb about a month ago. As the >SC for COGenWeb, I have the right, under our Bylaws, to move the State pages >to any server I choose. >When I moved the State pages off Rootsweb, I did not move the project pages >that my ASC had on the COGenWeb site, as that was HER project, and I felt it >wasn't right for me to move them without her permission. She was out of >town at that time, I was waiting for her return, and it was her choice to >make. >She contacted Brian Leverich, owner of Rootsweb, and requested the COGenWeb >site that was already there, with her project on it, for her project, which >IS a part of the COGenWeb Project, and was rejected by Brian. >He gave her another account and she had to move her entire project to the >new account. >However, as soon as she had moved her project to the new account, he allowed >a person who is NOT part of COGenWeb to take over that account with >"cogenweb" as part of the account name, which is in violation of our Bylaws: > >"The USGenWeb Project," and "The XXGenWeb Project" (where XX is the >two-letter postal code abbreviation for each state) are service marks and >reserved exclusively for The USGenWeb Project and any websites representing >The USGenWeb Project." [Article I] > >Rootsweb has violated this Bylaw, by allowing a person who is NOT part of >COGenWeb to adopt this site, and use it for purposes of misdirecting >researchers, and as part of her personal vendetta. >According to the bylaws, the board must direct Brian to take back this >account as this person is not a member of the COGenWeb and any use of these >pages by anyone else but the State Coordinator is in violation of the >bylaws. > >Lynn >

--part1_da21950b.250924c4_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The following is forwarded for your action. Ginger Cisewski NW-Plains CC Rep. --part1_da21950b.250924c4_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: <shadow13@kmtel.net> Received: from rly-yh01.mx.aol.com (rly-yh01.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.33]) by air-yh02.mail.aol.com (v60.28) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Sep 1999 02:30:09 -0400 Received: from inet.htcnet.com (inet.htcnet.com [199.120.83.1]) by rly-yh01.mx.aol.com (v60.28) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Sep 1999 02:30:04 2000 Received: from default (p23.kmtel.net [209.152.80.240]) by inet.htcnet.com (8.7.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id BAA16262; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 01:29:56 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <015201befa8c$8d662680$3ddfdece@default> From: "Lynn" <shadow13@kmtel.net> To: "StateCoord" <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com>, "Maggie" <73777.25@compuserve.com>, "Ginger" <FEATHER2s@aol.com> Subject: Formal Complaint Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 01:28:36 -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 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 I am, hereby, making a formal complaint to the board: Colorado's State pages were moved off of Rootsweb about a month ago. As the SC for COGenWeb, I have the right, under our Bylaws, to move the State pages to any server I choose. When I moved the State pages off Rootsweb, I did not move the project pages that my ASC had on the COGenWeb site, as that was HER project, and I felt it wasn't right for me to move them without her permission. She was out of town at that time, I was waiting for her return, and it was her choice to make. She contacted Brian Leverich, owner of Rootsweb, and requested the COGenWeb site that was already there, with her project on it, for her project, which IS a part of the COGenWeb Project, and was rejected by Brian. He gave her another account and she had to move her entire project to the new account. However, as soon as she had moved her project to the new account, he allowed a person who is NOT part of COGenWeb to take over that account with "cogenweb" as part of the account name, which is in violation of our Bylaws: "The USGenWeb Project," and "The XXGenWeb Project" (where XX is the two-letter postal code abbreviation for each state) are service marks and reserved exclusively for The USGenWeb Project and any websites representing The USGenWeb Project." [Article I] Rootsweb has violated this Bylaw, by allowing a person who is NOT part of COGenWeb to adopt this site, and use it for purposes of misdirecting researchers, and as part of her personal vendetta. According to the bylaws, the board must direct Brian to take back this account as this person is not a member of the COGenWeb and any use of these pages by anyone else but the State Coordinator is in violation of the bylaws. Lynn --part1_da21950b.250924c4_boundary--

Please consider the following: 1. Appointment or lack thereof of a new Secretary. In making a motion regarding this position - please consider putting language into it that would define the terms under which the Secretary position would be filled. Thanks, Tim

Do I hear a motion regarding Fred's Formal Complaint?

This came through NMGEN-L a short while ago. RootsLady (aka) Barbara Yancey Dore RootsLady@lest-we-forget.com - RootsLady@email.msn.com HomePage: RootsLady's Home, Home On The Web - http://RootsLady.com The OUTHOUSE - Genealogy Humor http://www.lest-we-forget.com/The_Outhouse CC for 8 TX Counties & 1 GA County "In loving memory of all my ancestors and for the benefit of all their descendants." ----- Original Message ----- From: <ALewis2520@aol.com> To: <NMGEN-L@usroots.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 1999 10:18 PM Subject: NMGEN-L: Prayers are Needed > Hello everyone -- > > Leon's wife Kay called me this evening from Australia, and left a message on > my answering machine. NMGenWeb State Coordinator, Leon Moya, had a massive > heart attack and is in intensive care. She says she will call again in a few > weeks, but wanted everyone to know so they wouldn't wonder because you might > not be hearing from him for a while. > > Leon, our prayers are with you! > > Angela

I'd like to propose to the Board that we move almost all talking to Board-L with the exception of the following items. Items to be Discussed on Exec: 1. Grievances brought by members through their elected representatives 2. Complaints about sites - so as not to injure the reputation of the CC whose site is being complained about 3. Notices to fellow Board members of being out of town - protection from folks who might be looking for 'I'm going to be out of town messages' so as to select one's property for burglary. At the suggestion of a Board member I include a supplement to items 1 and 2: when either one of these involve an interpretation of the Bylaws - a synopsis of the complaint or grievance will be provided on this list along with the results of the Board's decision - again to protect the privacy of the individual(s) and/or their sites. Tim

In that case, go for it. <g> I'm sorry, I read it as a proposed amendment coming from the Board, which would be inappropriate. Sorry, Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Teri Pettit <pettit@Adobe.COM> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Friday, September 03, 1999 10:59 AM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Amendment Proposal re Funding By-Law >At 7:23 PM -0700 9/2/99, Ginger wrote: >>Hi Teri, >>While in essence I agree with your proposal the Board >>is only authorized to propose amendments under certain >>circumstances. >>This needs to be either left to a possible future Bylaws >>Review committee or it should be an individual proposal >>in one's home state, following the procedure outlined in the >>Bylaws. Neither the Board nor the SC list have the authority >>to propose Bylaws outside of the current procedure set forth >>in the Bylaws. While we may not agree with all aspects of >>the Bylaws, and there is definitely room for improvement, we >>also can not ignore them and forge ahead at will. The Bylaws >>were voted in by the membership of the project and as such >>it is our duty as a Board to adhere to them. >> >>Ginger >>gingerh@shawneelink.com > >Ginger, > >I fully agree. I was intending that everything would proceed according to >the procedures set out in the By-Laws. I wasn't proposing ignoring anything >at all. > >According to the By-Laws, a "state project" has to officially propose an >amendment, and 5 other state projects have to co-sponsor it, before it can >be voted on: > >-------------------------------- >ARTICLE XVI. AMENDMENT TO BYLAWS > >Section 2. Any state project may propose an amendment by sending their >proposal to one or more of the Advisory board members representing their >region and including the exact wording of the proposed amendment. Upon >receipt of the proposed amendment, the Advisory Board representative(s) >shall request the Webmaster to post the proposed change on the national >website and the National Coordinator to post to the State-Coord-L List, and >any other appropriate lists, for dissemination to the members. > >Section 3. The proposed amendment, with the sponsor's name and date of >posting, shall remain posted for a period of at least thirty (30) days >prior to the annual voting period of July 1-July 31. Any proposed amendment >shall require a minimum of five (5) states as co-sponsors to command that >it be placed on the ballot. State projects wishing to co-sponsor the >amendment shall notify the Advisory Board and make an announcement on the >USGenWeb-All Mailing List. >-------------------------------- > >Now, this says nothing about how a "state project" gets to the point of >proposing or co-sponsoring a By-Law, but a reasonable interpretation is >that the CC's of that state would vote on it. (The procedure may have been >left unspecified to allow each state to have its own rules for how it goes >about deciding to propose or co-sponsor an amendment.) And how it gets to >the point of being presented as a possibility to the CC's of the first >state is wide open. I would think anyone whatsoever, even a random site >visitor who isn't part of the Project, could suggest a possible amendment >to someone else who is in a position to officially start the ball rolling >in their state. > >Just as anyone in the world, not even necessarily a citizen of the United >States, can write a letter to a member of Congress asking "could you please >submit this as a bill for me?" (And a lot of them do. You might be >surprised at the number of bills making special exceptions for >individuals.) A member of Congress has to submit each bill, but it doesn't >have to be their own original idea. > >That's what I was proposing to do, to write to the state coordinators, >simply as one individual to another, not as a Board member, saying "Here's >an idea. Would any of you like to propose something like this to the CC's >in your state?" If nobody in any state takes it to their CC's, then that's >the end of it. > >// Teri > pettit@adobe.com > > > >

At 6:47 PM -0700 9/2/99, jpowelljr wrote: >A different approach might be to create a set of Bylaw >defining policies, rather than amendments. Jim, If I understand you right, this is something I've suggested for a long time. As I'm sure you remember, since it was part of the "Radical Idea" (yours) and "Even More Radical Idea" (mine) threads that we started back in 1998 on USGENWEB-ALL-L and KYGEN-L, and which I included, with your permission, on my Candidate Statement page. That is, we've both written in the past that we need a posted "Policies and Procedures" document, which can be modified much more rapidly than the By-Laws can be amended, but still ONLY BY A GENERAL VOTE OF EVERYONE, and which goes into greater detail. I wouldn't, though, use the word "Bylaw" to refer to the rules it would contain. The By-Laws are like the Constitution. The "Policies and Procedures" would be like the regular laws and other business that gets done by a legislature. A By-Law amendment isn't needed for everything. Lots of rules and processes, even substantial ones, can be set up without being mentioned in the By-Laws. The Constitution, for example, says nothing about Social Security! Only if a proposed rule or procedure contradicts the existing By-Laws would an amendment be needed. We would need one, for example, to extend the candidate nomination period beyond two weeks. >We can start with some basics, allow the >volunteers to look at it and make suggestions. Then we >could firm it up and present it back to the Volunteers. I >would like to suggest that then we try one of "Fred's" >voting places to poll the Volunteers. Include Fred in a >Committee to set up the polling place. Sounds like a good idea to me. You did a GREAT job with the procedures for the run-off election. It was so easy to use. And I assume that it was easier than the previous procedure for collecting the results, too. But to allay the concerns of the significant block of volunteers who do not trust the security of software running on Rootsweb, you are wise to suggest that any official polls take place on another server. I can imagine something like a threaded message board, where each thread starts with a single proposed policy or procedure. Any eligible voter could start a thread. There might be two sub-threads, one for discussion of pros and cons, and one for "signing the petition." When the "petition" got to enough signatures, a voting form could be set up. (I know it's work to set up and manage a secure poll, so we wouldn't want to do it on everything.) Definitions of "enough signatures" TBD. Maybe the first procedure to be discussed could be refining this procedure itself. Bootstrap it. The basic model is a lot like the "Ballot Proposition" process here in California. We may get overwhelmed at times by the number of propositions to be voted on (and people who watch TV - I don't - get bombarded by too many political ads), but it has definitely done a lot to revive a feeling of citizen involvement in government. That sense of empowerment alone is worth all the poorly constructed propositions that sometimes get passed. >We could start >with the Funding issue. Nothing you have said contradicts >the bylaws. Well, I'm not sure. Whether that proposal contradicts the current By-Law or not depends on how you interpret the original. Certainly the amendment I proposed is significantly more restrictive than the current By-Law read literally. Especially the change from "home page" to "pages." It could be argued that institutionalizing an interpretation of a By-Law which is significantly stricter than the literal reading of that By-Law would amount to changing it. Some CC who was less willing to submit to the will of the majority than Jen Godwin was might argue that their activities were protected by the By-Laws. So an amendment would be the surest way to prevent future conflicts over interpretation. By no means do I consider this proposal "urgent", though. It's just an idea. // Teri

At 7:23 PM -0700 9/2/99, Ginger wrote: >Hi Teri, >While in essence I agree with your proposal the Board >is only authorized to propose amendments under certain >circumstances. >This needs to be either left to a possible future Bylaws >Review committee or it should be an individual proposal >in one's home state, following the procedure outlined in the >Bylaws. Neither the Board nor the SC list have the authority >to propose Bylaws outside of the current procedure set forth >in the Bylaws. While we may not agree with all aspects of >the Bylaws, and there is definitely room for improvement, we >also can not ignore them and forge ahead at will. The Bylaws >were voted in by the membership of the project and as such >it is our duty as a Board to adhere to them. > >Ginger >gingerh@shawneelink.com Ginger, I fully agree. I was intending that everything would proceed according to the procedures set out in the By-Laws. I wasn't proposing ignoring anything at all. According to the By-Laws, a "state project" has to officially propose an amendment, and 5 other state projects have to co-sponsor it, before it can be voted on: - ------------------------------ ARTICLE XVI. AMENDMENT TO BYLAWS Section 2. Any state project may propose an amendment by sending their proposal to one or more of the Advisory board members representing their region and including the exact wording of the proposed amendment. Upon receipt of the proposed amendment, the Advisory Board representative(s) shall request the Webmaster to post the proposed change on the national website and the National Coordinator to post to the State-Coord-L List, and any other appropriate lists, for dissemination to the members. Section 3. The proposed amendment, with the sponsor's name and date of posting, shall remain posted for a period of at least thirty (30) days prior to the annual voting period of July 1-July 31. Any proposed amendment shall require a minimum of five (5) states as co-sponsors to command that it be placed on the ballot. State projects wishing to co-sponsor the amendment shall notify the Advisory Board and make an announcement on the USGenWeb-All Mailing List. - ------------------------------ Now, this says nothing about how a "state project" gets to the point of proposing or co-sponsoring a By-Law, but a reasonable interpretation is that the CC's of that state would vote on it. (The procedure may have been left unspecified to allow each state to have its own rules for how it goes about deciding to propose or co-sponsor an amendment.) And how it gets to the point of being presented as a possibility to the CC's of the first state is wide open. I would think anyone whatsoever, even a random site visitor who isn't part of the Project, could suggest a possible amendment to someone else who is in a position to officially start the ball rolling in their state. Just as anyone in the world, not even necessarily a citizen of the United States, can write a letter to a member of Congress asking "could you please submit this as a bill for me?" (And a lot of them do. You might be surprised at the number of bills making special exceptions for individuals.) A member of Congress has to submit each bill, but it doesn't have to be their own original idea. That's what I was proposing to do, to write to the state coordinators, simply as one individual to another, not as a Board member, saying "Here's an idea. Would any of you like to propose something like this to the CC's in your state?" If nobody in any state takes it to their CC's, then that's the end of it. // Teri pettit@adobe.com

Hi Teri, While in essence I agree with your proposal the Board is only authorized to propose amendments under certain circumstances. This needs to be either left to a possible future Bylaws Review committee or it should be an individual proposal in one's home state, following the procedure outlined in the Bylaws. Neither the Board nor the SC list have the authority to propose Bylaws outside of the current procedure set forth in the Bylaws. While we may not agree with all aspects of the Bylaws, and there is definitely room for improvement, we also can not ignore them and forge ahead at will. The Bylaws were voted in by the membership of the project and as such it is our duty as a Board to adhere to them. Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Teri Pettit <pettit@Adobe.COM> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Thursday, September 02, 1999 7:20 PM Subject: [BOARD-L] Amendment Proposal re Funding By-Law >At 7:21 AM -0700 9/2/99, Shari Handley wrote: >>So, the immediate problem has been taken care of. We need, though, to think >>of how we, as a Project, should handle similar situations in the future. >>Here are my thoughts: >> >>When you're getting into asking for cash money, in any way, shape, or >>form, you're starting down a very slippery slope. The potential would exist >>for abuse and dishonesty, and once those problems started, we'd have one >>heck of a mess. So, my personal opinion is that I'd rather see *less* data >>and maintain the pristine, commercial and money-free nature of the project. >>This is not any reflection of the CC mentioned above, or her site. I am >>confident that what she was doing was perfectly above-board. But, the next >>person may *not* be, and where do we draw the line? The best place is >>usually at the beginning. >> >>The recent discussions on the SC list seem to indicate that the State >>Coordinators generally feel this way, as well. > >Shari, > >Good summary, and it does seem to be the majority sentiment on the SC list. > >I think I will submit, on STATE-COORD-L, the following amendment proposal: > >(Since Rootsweb lists do not allow the inclusion of formatting codes such as >underlines, strikeouts or colors, additions or changes are indicated in >all-caps. Numbers in parens refer to the reasons, listed after the revised >By-Law.) > >-------------------- >Article IX, Section 2 of the By-Laws shall be amended to read: > >Solicitation of funds for personal gain OR FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF PERSONAL >COSTS INCURRED IN MAINTAINING A USGENWEB SITE(1) is inappropriate. This is >defined as the direct appeal on the [deleted: home page] PAGES (2) of any >of the websites comprising The USGenWeb Project for funding to [deleted: do >research,](3) pay for server space, to do look-ups, TO COVER COSTS OF >PHOTOCOPYING, MICROFILM RENTAL, OBTAINING MATERIALS FOR TRANSCRIPTION, OR >OTHER EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SITE. [delete: etc.](4) > >A website may, however, acknowledge any entities who may host their website >(i.e., provide server space at no cost.) [moved to here: The >acknowledgement may include a link to the hosting entity's website.](5) A >website may also include a link to a coordinator's personal page on which >they offer research services for reimbursement. IF SUCH A LINK IS INCLUDED, >A CLEAR DISTINCTION MUST BE MADE BETWEEN THE USGENWEB PAGES AND THE >COORDINATOR'S PERSONAL PAGES, SO THAT A TYPICAL VISITOR WOULD NOT MISTAKE >THE PERSONAL HOME PAGE FOR PART OF THE USGENWEB SITE.(6) A website may list >research materials and/or services which may be for sale/hire, either by >the coordinator, a genealogy society, or others. Such a listing shall not >be on the main web page for the site, but may be linked from the main web >page. It may be appropriate to include a disclaimer that the coordinator >and The USGenWeb Project do not guarantee the contents of such research >materials and/or the expertise of any professional researchers. > >-------------------- > >Reasons for changes: > > (1) The specific examples given in the original By-Law, and the specific > problem cases which arose, were not what most people would think of > as "personal gain". Adding the phrase about reimbursement of expenses > here makes the definition which follows fit the term it is defining. > > (2) The potential problems with funding appeals are very similar whether > the request is on the home page or a secondary page. The original > wording was too much of a loophole. (The Michigan CC's who resigned > in protest did so three days AFTER the Kent Co Funding FAQ was moved > from the home page to a secondary page to comply with the original > wording, so the issue was plainly not which page it was on.) > > (3) Once we take out the "home page" wording, prohibiting "to do research" > on every page would contradict the research services specifically allowed > to be listed on a secondary page in the "allowed activities" part of > this section. Since the second part specifically restricts listing > research services to secondary pages, there is no need to prohibit it > it the definition sentence. > > (4) This list is to be specific about the type of activities that some CC's > thought were allowed, and other CC's thought were forbidden. To say >"etc." > after such a short list of examples as originally appeared did not give > enough information to predict what the "etc." was meant to cover. > > (5) Minor reordering to move the two clauses about hosts together, and the > sentences about offering personal research services together. The >original > order was HOSTS - RESEARCH - HOSTS - RESEARCH, which was harder to >follow. > > (6) This change is the lowest priority, but I thought it might help stem > controversies where a CC says "but that's my personal page", and a > critic says "it looks just like all your county pages to me". > >The overall goal is to prevent the kind of problem where a CC innocently thinks >they are following the rules, and another CC thinks they are disobeying them, >by being much more specific (and inclusive) about what is prohibited. > >Anybody have any suggestions to make before I post this to the STATE-COORD-L >list? Do we need special wording to allow crediting donations of materials, >such as the Census books provided by S-K Publications? > >// Teri > > >

A different approach might be to create a set of Bylaw defining policies, rather than amendments. We could start with the Funding issue. Nothing you have said contradicts the bylaws. We can start with some basics, allow the volunteers to look at it and make suggestions. Then we could firm it up and present it back to the Volunteers. I would like to suggest that then we try one of "Fred's" voting places to poll the Volunteers. Include Fred in a Committee to set up the polling place. Jim

>Teri, > >I do think there needs to be some language about specifically *allowing* CCs >to accept donated source records or other materials (such as in the case of >the census image CDs from SK). Yeah, I thought that might be a good idea, but I know I tend to be long-winded, so I thought I'd let others decide whether to include it or not. One possibility might be to put that in a SEPARATE amendment, so that CC's could vote for it independently. From Joy's message, it sounds like it might be more controversial than the other parts. As a general rule-of-thumb, I like to split votes up by line item as long as it isn't ridiculous. Basically, whenever you have reason to predict that a large number of people will feel differently about the two parts. One of my pet peeves about the way our national and state governments work is the way they construct bills with a hundred sections, each legislator and special interest lobby adding their own pet amendment, until by the time it finally gets voted on you either get a whole giant boondoggle, or nothing at all. >I'm assuming that your >thinking is to submit this amendment proposal under Article XVI, Section 5, >right? ("In the case of an urgent matter affecting the well-being of The >USGenWeb Project . . .") Oh no, if we call this "urgent", we've pretty much lost all ability to say anything isn't urgent. The word loses its meaning. What I'm proposing is, that since the By-Laws specify that all non-emergency amendments must be introduced by one state and co-sponsored by 5 more states, that we ask the State Coordinators if 6 or more of them are willing to post this amendment to their state lists for possible sponsorship. In the long run, I think we need to get an amendment passed that amends the By-Law on requiring state sponsorship. It's too big of a bottleneck, as I've posted before. NOTHING has ever got more than two states to sponsor it. But a simple, just-for-clarification, likely-to-pass amendment might be the best way to see if the 6-states procedure can be made to work at all. If it can, then we can try working on some more substantial amendments. // Teri

>If we do not allow CCs to accept cash, how can we allow them to accept >merchandise, such as the SK Census materials?? The exact same way we can allow, and always have allowed, CC's to accept donations of web hosting services and donations of labor - by specifically writing in the By-Laws that it is allowed. If what you are suggesting is that it is improper to allow one but not the other, then we could poll the SC's and CC's as to whether they would prefer some other amendment, to wit, one that is even stricter than the current By-Law, prohibiting ALL donations, whether of cash, internet services, or resource materials, or instead a more lenient one (like some CC's interpreted the current By-Law to be), that allows donations of cash to reimburse for copying and transcription expenses. Either way would treat all contributions the same no matter what is being contributed. But the impression I got from the discussion on the SC list is that most Project members find donations of materials for transcription to be appropriate, and donations of cash to be inappropriate. It would be kind of weird, in my opinion, to say that nobody could send a CC a book of biographies that they'd like to see go online. Maybe we could prohibit appeals for the donation of merchandise other than materials to be transcribed and posted? I think that's all that anyone's ever donated or asked to have donated, anyway. // Teri

Teri, I do think there needs to be some language about specifically *allowing* CCs to accept donated source records or other materials (such as in the case of the census image CDs from SK). Other than that, it looks pretty good after a quick read-through. Would like some time to peruse it a little further and to get some feedback from the SCs and CCs. I'm assuming that your thinking is to submit this amendment proposal under Article XVI, Section 5, right? ("In the case of an urgent matter affecting the well-being of The USGenWeb Project . . .") If so, I'd just ask that you hold off on posting it to the SC list until we've all had time to look it over, and we know that the rest of the board is in agreement. Shari SE/MA SC Rep -----Original Message----- From: Teri Pettit <pettit@Adobe.COM> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Thursday, September 02, 1999 8:20 PM Subject: [BOARD-L] Amendment Proposal re Funding By-Law >At 7:21 AM -0700 9/2/99, Shari Handley wrote: >>So, the immediate problem has been taken care of. We need, though, to think >>of how we, as a Project, should handle similar situations in the future. >>Here are my thoughts: >> >>When you're getting into asking for cash money, in any way, shape, or >>form, you're starting down a very slippery slope. The potential would exist >>for abuse and dishonesty, and once those problems started, we'd have one >>heck of a mess. So, my personal opinion is that I'd rather see *less* data >>and maintain the pristine, commercial and money-free nature of the project. >>This is not any reflection of the CC mentioned above, or her site. I am >>confident that what she was doing was perfectly above-board. But, the next >>person may *not* be, and where do we draw the line? The best place is >>usually at the beginning. >> >>The recent discussions on the SC list seem to indicate that the State >>Coordinators generally feel this way, as well. > >Shari, > >Good summary, and it does seem to be the majority sentiment on the SC list. > >I think I will submit, on STATE-COORD-L, the following amendment proposal: > >(Since Rootsweb lists do not allow the inclusion of formatting codes such as >underlines, strikeouts or colors, additions or changes are indicated in >all-caps. Numbers in parens refer to the reasons, listed after the revised >By-Law.) > >-------------------- >Article IX, Section 2 of the By-Laws shall be amended to read: > >Solicitation of funds for personal gain OR FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF PERSONAL >COSTS INCURRED IN MAINTAINING A USGENWEB SITE(1) is inappropriate. This is >defined as the direct appeal on the [deleted: home page] PAGES (2) of any >of the websites comprising The USGenWeb Project for funding to [deleted: do >research,](3) pay for server space, to do look-ups, TO COVER COSTS OF >PHOTOCOPYING, MICROFILM RENTAL, OBTAINING MATERIALS FOR TRANSCRIPTION, OR >OTHER EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SITE. [delete: etc.](4) > >A website may, however, acknowledge any entities who may host their website >(i.e., provide server space at no cost.) [moved to here: The >acknowledgement may include a link to the hosting entity's website.](5) A >website may also include a link to a coordinator's personal page on which >they offer research services for reimbursement. IF SUCH A LINK IS INCLUDED, >A CLEAR DISTINCTION MUST BE MADE BETWEEN THE USGENWEB PAGES AND THE >COORDINATOR'S PERSONAL PAGES, SO THAT A TYPICAL VISITOR WOULD NOT MISTAKE >THE PERSONAL HOME PAGE FOR PART OF THE USGENWEB SITE.(6) A website may list >research materials and/or services which may be for sale/hire, either by >the coordinator, a genealogy society, or others. Such a listing shall not >be on the main web page for the site, but may be linked from the main web >page. It may be appropriate to include a disclaimer that the coordinator >and The USGenWeb Project do not guarantee the contents of such research >materials and/or the expertise of any professional researchers. > >-------------------- > >Reasons for changes: > > (1) The specific examples given in the original By-Law, and the specific > problem cases which arose, were not what most people would think of > as "personal gain". Adding the phrase about reimbursement of expenses > here makes the definition which follows fit the term it is defining. > > (2) The potential problems with funding appeals are very similar whether > the request is on the home page or a secondary page. The original > wording was too much of a loophole. (The Michigan CC's who resigned > in protest did so three days AFTER the Kent Co Funding FAQ was moved > from the home page to a secondary page to comply with the original > wording, so the issue was plainly not which page it was on.) > > (3) Once we take out the "home page" wording, prohibiting "to do research" > on every page would contradict the research services specifically allowed > to be listed on a secondary page in the "allowed activities" part of > this section. Since the second part specifically restricts listing > research services to secondary pages, there is no need to prohibit it > it the definition sentence. > > (4) This list is to be specific about the type of activities that some CC's > thought were allowed, and other CC's thought were forbidden. To say >"etc." > after such a short list of examples as originally appeared did not give > enough information to predict what the "etc." was meant to cover. > > (5) Minor reordering to move the two clauses about hosts together, and the > sentences about offering personal research services together. The >original > order was HOSTS - RESEARCH - HOSTS - RESEARCH, which was harder to >follow. > > (6) This change is the lowest priority, but I thought it might help stem > controversies where a CC says "but that's my personal page", and a > critic says "it looks just like all your county pages to me". > >The overall goal is to prevent the kind of problem where a CC innocently thinks >they are following the rules, and another CC thinks they are disobeying them, >by being much more specific (and inclusive) about what is prohibited. > >Anybody have any suggestions to make before I post this to the STATE-COORD-L >list? Do we need special wording to allow crediting donations of materials, >such as the Census books provided by S-K Publications? > >// Teri > > > >

If we do not allow CCs to accept cash, how can we allow them to accept merchandise, such as the SK Census materials?? At 05:11 PM 9/2/99 -0700, you wrote: >At 7:21 AM -0700 9/2/99, Shari Handley wrote: >>So, the immediate problem has been taken care of. We need, though, to think >>of how we, as a Project, should handle similar situations in the future. >>Here are my thoughts: >> >>When you're getting into asking for cash money, in any way, shape, or >>form, you're starting down a very slippery slope. The potential would exist >>for abuse and dishonesty, and once those problems started, we'd have one >>heck of a mess. So, my personal opinion is that I'd rather see *less* data >>and maintain the pristine, commercial and money-free nature of the project. >>This is not any reflection of the CC mentioned above, or her site. I am >>confident that what she was doing was perfectly above-board. But, the next >>person may *not* be, and where do we draw the line? The best place is >>usually at the beginning. >> >>The recent discussions on the SC list seem to indicate that the State >>Coordinators generally feel this way, as well. > >Shari, > >Good summary, and it does seem to be the majority sentiment on the SC list. > >I think I will submit, on STATE-COORD-L, the following amendment proposal: > >(Since Rootsweb lists do not allow the inclusion of formatting codes such as >underlines, strikeouts or colors, additions or changes are indicated in >all-caps. Numbers in parens refer to the reasons, listed after the revised >By-Law.) > >-------------------- >Article IX, Section 2 of the By-Laws shall be amended to read: > >Solicitation of funds for personal gain OR FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF PERSONAL >COSTS INCURRED IN MAINTAINING A USGENWEB SITE(1) is inappropriate. This is >defined as the direct appeal on the [deleted: home page] PAGES (2) of any >of the websites comprising The USGenWeb Project for funding to [deleted: do >research,](3) pay for server space, to do look-ups, TO COVER COSTS OF >PHOTOCOPYING, MICROFILM RENTAL, OBTAINING MATERIALS FOR TRANSCRIPTION, OR >OTHER EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SITE. [delete: etc.](4) > >A website may, however, acknowledge any entities who may host their website >(i.e., provide server space at no cost.) [moved to here: The >acknowledgement may include a link to the hosting entity's website.](5) A >website may also include a link to a coordinator's personal page on which >they offer research services for reimbursement. IF SUCH A LINK IS INCLUDED, >A CLEAR DISTINCTION MUST BE MADE BETWEEN THE USGENWEB PAGES AND THE >COORDINATOR'S PERSONAL PAGES, SO THAT A TYPICAL VISITOR WOULD NOT MISTAKE >THE PERSONAL HOME PAGE FOR PART OF THE USGENWEB SITE.(6) A website may list >research materials and/or services which may be for sale/hire, either by >the coordinator, a genealogy society, or others. Such a listing shall not >be on the main web page for the site, but may be linked from the main web >page. It may be appropriate to include a disclaimer that the coordinator >and The USGenWeb Project do not guarantee the contents of such research >materials and/or the expertise of any professional researchers. > >-------------------- > >Reasons for changes: > > (1) The specific examples given in the original By-Law, and the specific > problem cases which arose, were not what most people would think of > as "personal gain". Adding the phrase about reimbursement of expenses > here makes the definition which follows fit the term it is defining. > > (2) The potential problems with funding appeals are very similar whether > the request is on the home page or a secondary page. The original > wording was too much of a loophole. (The Michigan CC's who resigned > in protest did so three days AFTER the Kent Co Funding FAQ was moved > from the home page to a secondary page to comply with the original > wording, so the issue was plainly not which page it was on.) > > (3) Once we take out the "home page" wording, prohibiting "to do research" > on every page would contradict the research services specifically allowed > to be listed on a secondary page in the "allowed activities" part of > this section. Since the second part specifically restricts listing > research services to secondary pages, there is no need to prohibit it > it the definition sentence. > > (4) This list is to be specific about the type of activities that some CC's > thought were allowed, and other CC's thought were forbidden. To say >"etc." > after such a short list of examples as originally appeared did not give > enough information to predict what the "etc." was meant to cover. > > (5) Minor reordering to move the two clauses about hosts together, and the > sentences about offering personal research services together. The >original > order was HOSTS - RESEARCH - HOSTS - RESEARCH, which was harder to >follow. > > (6) This change is the lowest priority, but I thought it might help stem > controversies where a CC says "but that's my personal page", and a > critic says "it looks just like all your county pages to me". > >The overall goal is to prevent the kind of problem where a CC innocently thinks >they are following the rules, and another CC thinks they are disobeying them, >by being much more specific (and inclusive) about what is prohibited. > >Anybody have any suggestions to make before I post this to the STATE-COORD-L >list? Do we need special wording to allow crediting donations of materials, >such as the Census books provided by S-K Publications? > >// Teri >

At 7:21 AM -0700 9/2/99, Shari Handley wrote: >So, the immediate problem has been taken care of. We need, though, to think >of how we, as a Project, should handle similar situations in the future. >Here are my thoughts: > >When you're getting into asking for cash money, in any way, shape, or >form, you're starting down a very slippery slope. The potential would exist >for abuse and dishonesty, and once those problems started, we'd have one >heck of a mess. So, my personal opinion is that I'd rather see *less* data >and maintain the pristine, commercial and money-free nature of the project. >This is not any reflection of the CC mentioned above, or her site. I am >confident that what she was doing was perfectly above-board. But, the next >person may *not* be, and where do we draw the line? The best place is >usually at the beginning. > >The recent discussions on the SC list seem to indicate that the State >Coordinators generally feel this way, as well. Shari, Good summary, and it does seem to be the majority sentiment on the SC list. I think I will submit, on STATE-COORD-L, the following amendment proposal: (Since Rootsweb lists do not allow the inclusion of formatting codes such as underlines, strikeouts or colors, additions or changes are indicated in all-caps. Numbers in parens refer to the reasons, listed after the revised By-Law.) -------------------- Article IX, Section 2 of the By-Laws shall be amended to read: Solicitation of funds for personal gain OR FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF PERSONAL COSTS INCURRED IN MAINTAINING A USGENWEB SITE(1) is inappropriate. This is defined as the direct appeal on the [deleted: home page] PAGES (2) of any of the websites comprising The USGenWeb Project for funding to [deleted: do research,](3) pay for server space, to do look-ups, TO COVER COSTS OF PHOTOCOPYING, MICROFILM RENTAL, OBTAINING MATERIALS FOR TRANSCRIPTION, OR OTHER EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SITE. [delete: etc.](4) A website may, however, acknowledge any entities who may host their website (i.e., provide server space at no cost.) [moved to here: The acknowledgement may include a link to the hosting entity's website.](5) A website may also include a link to a coordinator's personal page on which they offer research services for reimbursement. IF SUCH A LINK IS INCLUDED, A CLEAR DISTINCTION MUST BE MADE BETWEEN THE USGENWEB PAGES AND THE COORDINATOR'S PERSONAL PAGES, SO THAT A TYPICAL VISITOR WOULD NOT MISTAKE THE PERSONAL HOME PAGE FOR PART OF THE USGENWEB SITE.(6) A website may list research materials and/or services which may be for sale/hire, either by the coordinator, a genealogy society, or others. Such a listing shall not be on the main web page for the site, but may be linked from the main web page. It may be appropriate to include a disclaimer that the coordinator and The USGenWeb Project do not guarantee the contents of such research materials and/or the expertise of any professional researchers. -------------------- Reasons for changes: (1) The specific examples given in the original By-Law, and the specific problem cases which arose, were not what most people would think of as "personal gain". Adding the phrase about reimbursement of expenses here makes the definition which follows fit the term it is defining. (2) The potential problems with funding appeals are very similar whether the request is on the home page or a secondary page. The original wording was too much of a loophole. (The Michigan CC's who resigned in protest did so three days AFTER the Kent Co Funding FAQ was moved from the home page to a secondary page to comply with the original wording, so the issue was plainly not which page it was on.) (3) Once we take out the "home page" wording, prohibiting "to do research" on every page would contradict the research services specifically allowed to be listed on a secondary page in the "allowed activities" part of this section. Since the second part specifically restricts listing research services to secondary pages, there is no need to prohibit it it the definition sentence. (4) This list is to be specific about the type of activities that some CC's thought were allowed, and other CC's thought were forbidden. To say "etc." after such a short list of examples as originally appeared did not give enough information to predict what the "etc." was meant to cover. (5) Minor reordering to move the two clauses about hosts together, and the sentences about offering personal research services together. The original order was HOSTS - RESEARCH - HOSTS - RESEARCH, which was harder to follow. (6) This change is the lowest priority, but I thought it might help stem controversies where a CC says "but that's my personal page", and a critic says "it looks just like all your county pages to me". The overall goal is to prevent the kind of problem where a CC innocently thinks they are following the rules, and another CC thinks they are disobeying them, by being much more specific (and inclusive) about what is prohibited. Anybody have any suggestions to make before I post this to the STATE-COORD-L list? Do we need special wording to allow crediting donations of materials, such as the Census books provided by S-K Publications? // Teri

At 10:44 PM -0700 9/1/99, Tim Stowell wrote: >There were a couple of items left either undiscussed and/or unhandled by >the former Board. > >These items were, in no particular order: > >1. Discussion concerning a CC's right to ask for reimbursement of costs on >a county site and/or for contributions to further the site's offerings. Discussion is proceeding nicely on this issue on STATE-COORD-L. Since we are all on that list, and interpretation of ambiguous By-Laws is, in my opinion, best done by seeking to ascertain what the majority of the Project members think they should mean, we should probably let the discussion continue there for a while. >2. Fred Smoot's Formal Protest - published here earlier For ease of querying the threaded list archives, discussion on this protest would be best to take place as responses to Fred's original post to the BOARD-L, rather that under the subject "Old business." Can somebody who got that original message post something, anything, as a response to it, and then the rest of us can respond to that response, so that it will all stay in the same thread? Teri

-----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Thursday, September 02, 1999 1:38 AM Subject: [BOARD-L] Old Business >There were a couple of items left either undiscussed and/or unhandled by >the former Board. > >These items were, in no particular order: > >1. Discussion concerning a CC's right to ask for reimbursement of costs on >a county site and/or for contributions to further the site's offerings. > The county site whose coordinator was asking for donations, which started this discussion, has removed the "Funding FAQ" and all other requests for monetary donations. She's replaced it with a very nicely done "Volunteers & Contributors FAQ". She's got some great ideas for encouraging donations of transcriptions and such, and, actually, I think her approach could serve as a model for other CCs to emulate. A particularly good idea is a small mailing list she's set up on eGroups.com just for those who volunteer and contribute data to her site. The list is for general questions and discussion on how to improve the county site. So, the immediate problem has been taken care of. We need, though, to think of how we, as a Project, should handle similar situations in the future. Here are my thoughts: When you're getting into asking for cash money, in any way, shape, or form, you're starting down a very slippery slope. The potential would exist for abuse and dishonesty, and once those problems started, we'd have one heck of a mess. So, my personal opinion is that I'd rather see *less* data and maintain the pristine, commercial and money-free nature of the project. This is not any reflection of the CC mentioned above, or her site. I am confident that what she was doing was perfectly above-board. But, the next person may *not* be, and where do we draw the line? The best place is usually at the beginning. The recent discussions on the SC list seem to indicate that the State Coordinators generally feel this way, as well. Shari SE/MA SC Rep