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