Teri and all, This is definitely a friendly amendment and if you still feel USGWCC-L needs to be voted on then make that a seperate motion. Guess maybe I should explain my reason for the amendment a bit. I believe USGWCC-L should not even be considered because it is exclusionary. The list is not open to all project members. The list appears to have been created as a forum for those who enjoy bashing the project and RW. Folks that have divergent opionions from those of the list owner and the rest of these folks are banned. I'm sure the first thing to come up is that there are folks that have been banned from other project lists, but that banning was done by the server and not by members, or the board, of the USGW Project. I personally have never supported that ban, but we have no control over that. While I also do not support the DBS, distributed by means of USGW_ALL@listbot.com, it is open to all project members, to the best of my knowledge. I'm not sure why we are even considering adding the DBS, USGW_ALL@listbot.com, since it is merely one CC's forum for amusing herself at the expense of others and her own public avenue for the RW bashing she seems to take such delight in. But, since it does appear to be open to all project members, I would consider it a more legitimate forum to vote on than USGW-CC-L. Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Teri Pettit <pettit@Adobe.COM> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Friday, December 10, 1999 12:58 AM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Motion 99-31 Motion to add USGW-CC-L andUSGW_ALL@listbot to Volunteer's Info >>Now that Teri's motion to add USGW-CC-L and USGW_ALL@listbot to Volunteer's >>Info page has received a second from Virginia - the Motion numbered 99-31 >>would now be open for discussion. >> >>However, as it now has a suggested amendment by Ginger: I move to amend >>this motion as follows: "To strike the USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org list from >>this motion and to make this motion only include USGW_ALL@listbot.com (aka >>The Daily Board Show)". Since this amendment has been seconded by Richard, >>discussion instead opens on the amendment. >> >> >>Tim > >Tim, > >I would be happy to accept Ginger's amendment, and then introduce >a fourth motion listing only USGW-CC-L. In general, I prefer to split >motions up whenever people might like one part and not another. >(One of my pet peeves about the way our state and national legislatures >work is all those huge omnibus bills where you can't get something >you want without getting a whole bunch of stuff you don't.) > >I guess I just assumed that most board members would vote the same >way on one of those two as they voted on the other (the category >they share being "non-Rootsweb-hosted lists".) If that assumption >was wrong, by all means separate them. > >Does this mean it is a "friendly amendment" and doesn't have to >be voted on? > >I just hope nobody wants to split up the 4 regional lists into >separate motions. :-) > >// Teri > > >