I don't know, Jim, I will have to think on that motion a little. On the surface it seems to me that archival matters should be left with those entrusted to manage them. I do think the Board overstepped on part of M99-4. But the problem that started it all and will always be with us is this. Linda Lewis initiated the Archives Project and the Census Project (CP) with the CP a special project under the Archives before there were Bylaws or an Advisory Board and appointed Kay Mason later as the CP National Coordinator. Anyway, Kay rebelled against Linda's authority. As part of this rebellion, kay asked Rootsweb for directories to house the census software. But instead of using them just for that purpose she used them to store census files out of reach of the Archive file managers and out of reach of any supervision from Linda. I think all you have read Brian's message to this effect last year. He never intended those directories to be used to archive data. In fact, digital storage costs money. The files hold space in the special directories and identical files are stored in the states' archives. And this problem grows with every upload. Initially there was a verbal agreement between Linda Lewis and Dr Brian Leverich concerning digital storage space for the archives. Linda, and her assistant Joy Fisher, are the only two people who have control of those accounts. When Kay pulled that stunt it really violated that agreement. So what we have is the Archives coordinator without the means to effect her control of a part of the Archives. Is it any wonder Linda and the file managers are upset? Now Kay has vanished from the scene and left the wreckage for others to clean up. But it needs to be discussed civilly so all current members understand it. Then perhaps we can craft a solution fair to all. Joe Jim Powell Jr wrote: > > This may be a separate issue, but it ties to this. I believe that we > need to officially say something about motion 99-4. We need to either > make a new motion that makes specific guidelines and drops the "The > Board strongly recommends" or we should declare that directive null and > void and "Strongly recommend" that they get together and solve their > differences. Otherwise, it will always be there, interfering with any > attempt to merge the two Projects. > > I know what I meant when I voted for that motion, but a lot has gone on > between then and now. I'm not so sure any more. What do the rest of > you think? > > 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