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