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