Heh heh...you know, I'm used to the idea that you can't please all of the people all of the time, but I've seen basically 3 complaints about this proposed revision. Of those 3, one seems to be that it's not specific enough and so the SC might be able to block a vote, and a second complaint is that the SC *can't* block a vote! >-----Original Message----- > >What this does is give me an idea. All I have to do is find >another CC in >MO who wants to tie up the system. We can propose one bylaws amendment >after the other and keep MO holding votes on whether or not to >pass them on >to the AB. And, if the SC will cooperate, he can request the >EC to conduct >each such election to insure fairness. > >Now, if we can get two people, in each XXGenWeb Project to >partner up, we >can pretty well eliminate any other business any XXGenWeb >Project might wish >to conduct and drive the EC nutz! > >And, we cannot be declared not in good standing because we >will be following >the bylaws (if this is passed)., and there is no provision for >a judgement >of "frivolous" to be declared, except by the CCs of XXGenWeb >Project. Who >knows, maybe after wearing down the CCs to the point where >they ignore any >further proposals, the two of us would be the only ones voting in the >XXGenWeb on the issue. Of course, we would be voted down on >the national >level, but wouldn't it be a lot of fun to present the general >membership >with an amendment requiring the NC to wear purple shorts with pink >polka-dots during his/her term in office.? > >It looks to me like this is just one more reason (of many so >far) to vote >against the revised set of bylaws, when they are presented to the >membership. > >Phyllis Rippee >SW/SC CC Representative > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003

Very well stated, Phyllis. I TOTALLY agree. Richard White ALGenWeb SC Quoting Phyllis Rippee <wchs@getgoin.net>: > What this does is give me an idea. All I have to do is find another CC > in > MO who wants to tie up the system. We can propose one bylaws > amendment > after the other and keep MO holding votes on whether or not to pass them > on > to the AB. And, if the SC will cooperate, he can request the EC to > conduct > each such election to insure fairness. > > Now, if we can get two people, in each XXGenWeb Project to partner up, > we > can pretty well eliminate any other business any XXGenWeb Project might > wish > to conduct and drive the EC nutz! > > And, we cannot be declared not in good standing because we will be > following > the bylaws (if this is passed)., and there is no provision for a > judgement > of "frivolous" to be declared, except by the CCs of XXGenWeb Project. > Who > knows, maybe after wearing down the CCs to the point where they ignore > any > further proposals, the two of us would be the only ones voting in the > XXGenWeb on the issue. Of course, we would be voted down on the > national > level, but wouldn't it be a lot of fun to present the general > membership > with an amendment requiring the NC to wear purple shorts with pink > polka-dots during his/her term in office.? > > It looks to me like this is just one more reason (of many so far) to > vote > against the revised set of bylaws, when they are presented to the > membership. > > Phyllis Rippee > SW/SC CC Representative >

What this does is give me an idea. All I have to do is find another CC in MO who wants to tie up the system. We can propose one bylaws amendment after the other and keep MO holding votes on whether or not to pass them on to the AB. And, if the SC will cooperate, he can request the EC to conduct each such election to insure fairness. Now, if we can get two people, in each XXGenWeb Project to partner up, we can pretty well eliminate any other business any XXGenWeb Project might wish to conduct and drive the EC nutz! And, we cannot be declared not in good standing because we will be following the bylaws (if this is passed)., and there is no provision for a judgement of "frivolous" to be declared, except by the CCs of XXGenWeb Project. Who knows, maybe after wearing down the CCs to the point where they ignore any further proposals, the two of us would be the only ones voting in the XXGenWeb on the issue. Of course, we would be voted down on the national level, but wouldn't it be a lot of fun to present the general membership with an amendment requiring the NC to wear purple shorts with pink polka-dots during his/her term in office.? It looks to me like this is just one more reason (of many so far) to vote against the revised set of bylaws, when they are presented to the membership. Phyllis Rippee SW/SC CC Representative

I agree with David, but I have been out of commission for the past ten days and am trying to play catch up on all that happened. I want to present a well-worded opinion on this motion and will try to do so tomorrow. Problem is, my flu infected brain is still trying to keep me from being quite as handy with words as I would like. Pam -----Original Message----- From: David W. Morgan [mailto:damorgan@nyx.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 10:36 PM To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [STATE-COORD] Motion 03-26? Motion 03-26 was made and seconded on December 1, and numbered by the NC on Dec 2. There has been no discussion on this issue on board-l since December 3. It is now December 10. It is time to move on. David David W. Morgan damorgan@nyx.net Honolulu Hawaii SC - TXGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txgenweb/ ** http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/

The Dec. 9 issue of the Internet Tourbus (an online newsletter which reaches about 90,000) covers online genealogy, and had this to say about the project: An outstanding project that has pages for each state and each county in each US state with extensive links to applicable resources, query boards, surname lists, and most anything else imaginable. You can get to the county pages from the state pages, and to the state pages from the main page shown above. You can also get to the state pages using: www.usgenweb.org/xx where "xx" is the two-letter postal code for the state. See <http://www.tourbus.com/> for more information. Bob Sullivan NY SC

At 05:36 PM 12/10/2003 -1000, you wrote: >Motion 03-26 was made and seconded on December 1, and numbered >by the NC on Dec 2. > >There has been no discussion on this issue on board-l since >December 3. It is now December 10. > >It is time to move on. > >David > >David W. Morgan damorgan@nyx.net Honolulu Hawaii >SC - TXGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txgenweb/ >** http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/ The lack of discussion on Board-L does not mean the question is being neglected. Sensitive issues have been addressed on Board-Exec and discussions with the principals of related projects are taking place. I believe the members of the AB are committed to finding an equitable and long-term solution to this question. Reaching the kind of compromise that will benefit the whole project requires quiet and careful behind the scenes work, not public grandstanding. -Isaiah Isaiah Harrison National Coordinator The USGenWeb Project

Motion 03-26 was made and seconded on December 1, and numbered by the NC on Dec 2. There has been no discussion on this issue on board-l since December 3. It is now December 10. It is time to move on. David David W. Morgan damorgan@nyx.net Honolulu Hawaii SC - TXGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txgenweb/ ** http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/

(**Please forward to all appropriate project lists**) The Bylaws Revision Committee (BRC) has completed a first draft revision of Section 2 of Article XV. Amendment to Bylaws Section 2. Members of any XXGenWeb may submit an amendment proposal (in proper format with desired wording) to their State Coordinator for review and presentation to the XXGenWeb membership by referendum. A 2/3 vote of approval shall cause the proposal to be forwarded to the Advisory Board to be posted on the national website and notice to be sent to the membership via appropriate email lists. All revision drafts may be viewed at http://home.mchsi.com/~sagitta56/ Members are encouraged to send comments or questions related to this or other revision drafts. **The BRC is seeking a volunteer to fill a vacancy on the committee. Interested members please contact the National Coordinator or the BRC Chairman. Roger Swafford BRC - Chairman

(**Please forward to all appropriate project lists**) The Bylaws Revision Committee (BRC) has completed a first draft revision of Section 1 of Article XV. Amendment to Bylaws Section 1. These Bylaws may be amended by the membership of the USGenWeb Project through a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote by members who vote on the proposed amendment to the bylaw. All revision drafts may be viewed at http://home.mchsi.com/~sagitta56/ Members are encouraged to send comments or questions related to this or other revision drafts. **The BRC is seeking a volunteer to fill a vacancy on the committee. Interested members please contact the National Coordinator or the BRC Chairman. Roger Swafford BRC - Chairman

Mr. NC, if you want to do something about one of the Census Projects using the USGenWeb Project name without authorization, the time of opposition is here. One of the census projects is about to acquire a service mark from the federal government for the name "The USGenWeb Census Project." If they are successfull, then they can possibly give the other census project some legal problems. It only takes about $358 to file a letter of opposition, I think, and I don't believe it is worth it. Besides, that census project did not stand in the way of our two service marks, even though they files first. But it is something the AB might want to think about, if they are going to try to resolve this issue. Here is the latest news from TARR Thank you for your request. Here are the latest results from the TARR web server. This page was generated by the TARR system on 2003-12-01 12:49:55 ET Serial Number: 78047841 Registration Number: (NOT AVAILABLE) Mark (words only): THE USGENWEB CENSUS PROJECT Standard Character claim: No Current Status: Final review prior to publication has been completed, application will be published for opposition. Date of Status: 2003-10-23 Filing Date: 2001-02-12 The Information will be/was published in the Official Gazette on 2003-12-02 Transformed into a National Application: No Registration Date: (DATE NOT AVAILABLE) Law Office Assigned: LAW OFFICE 110 Attorney Assigned: SMITH REBECCA A Employee Location Current Location: 650 -Publication And Issue Section Date In Location: 2003-10-23 _________________________________________________________________ LAST APPLICANT(S)/OWNER(S) OF RECORD _________________________________________________________________ 1. USGenWeb Census Project, The Address: USGenWeb Census Project, The 3246 East Maple Flint, MI 48507 United States Legal Entity Type: Corporation State or Country of Incorporation: Michigan _________________________________________________________________ GOODS AND/OR SERVICES _________________________________________________________________ Providing an on-line computer database in the field of GENEALOGICAL RESEARCH SERVICES, NAMELY, PROVIDING AN ON-LINE DATABASE OF GENEALOGICAL ENUMERATIONS, TRANSCRIBED BY VOLUNTEERS, WHICH IS FREELY ACCESSIBLE AND SEARCHABLE International Class: 042 First Use Date: 1998-07-01 First Use in Commerce Date: 1998-07-01 Basis: 1(a) _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL INFORMATION _________________________________________________________________ Disclaimer: "THE" AND "CENSUS PROJECT" _________________________________________________________________ MADRID PROTOCOL INFORMATION _________________________________________________________________ (NOT AVAILABLE) _________________________________________________________________ PROSECUTION HISTORY _________________________________________________________________ 2003-11-12 - Notice of publication 2003-09-23 - Approved for Pub - Principal Register (Initial exam) 2003-08-12 - Communication received from applicant 2003-09-06 - Case File in TICRS 2003-08-12 - PAPER RECEIVED 2003-01-21 - Communication received from applicant 2003-01-21 - PAPER RECEIVED 2002-07-15 - Communication received from applicant 2002-07-15 - PAPER RECEIVED 2002-01-07 - Communication received from applicant 2001-10-02 - Letter of suspension mailed 2001-08-07 - Communication received from applicant 2001-07-11 - Non-final action mailed 2001-06-27 - Case file assigned to examining attorney _________________________________________________________________ CONTACT INFORMATION _________________________________________________________________ Correspondent (Owner) The USGenWeb Census Project 3246 East Maple Flint MI 48507 _________________________________________________________________ David On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Isaiah Harrison wrote: > There seems to be some misunderstanding regarding the changed wording and > relocation of some links from the National Site. > > 1) No one has been delinked. Some links were changed and reworded, but all > the links that were there are still there. > > 2) The AB never voted to have links to the census projects placed on the > main page of the National Site. The webmaster made that decision on her > own. The AB voted to " > > 3) The AB's resolution did not change the status of either of the renegade > census projects. It simply allowed for links to them. > This change was made because the AB recently had to respond to a complaint > regarding an issue with one of the census projects and because I receive a > couple or several messages each month from people who are confused because > there are two "USGenWeb Census Projects" or who want some or the other > census project issue resolved. The current wording and location leads > people to believe these projects have a different connection to the > USGenWeb Project than they actually do. > > 5) It is unreasonable to expect me, or any AB member, to abandon their > holiday plans in order to deal with a non-emergency issue, such as this one. > > Just because I've made no complaint was made in the past, it doesn't mean > that I was ever happy with the misleading wording and placement of the > links to the census projects, or that there is not a valid complaint now. > Both the wording (projects made up of USGenWeb volunteers) and the > placement (on the main page) imply a relationship that is not there. Does > someone need to be a member of the USGenWeb Project to be a member of > either of the census projects? No. Do organizations generally link to > outside projects that use their name without authorization on the main page > of their site? No. > > There is a census project that is part of The USGenWeb Project--The > USGenWeb Archives Census Project. That is the project that ought to be > linked to on our main page--not those census projects that steal the files > and run and choose not to be part of The USGebWeb Project. It is > unfortunate that so long as those links are on the main page of our > site, the census projects have no motivation to resolve their differences > nor to resolve their differences with The USGenWeb Project. They're already > getting the publicity they want--why should they make any effort to resolve > the basic problem. > > However, in order to prevent this non-issue from taking over the time that > needs to be spent on other matters, I will yield to the opinion of the AB > and restore the links to their previous location and wording. It is > unfortunate that so long as those links are there the census projects have > no motivation to resolve their differences nor to resolve their differences > with The USGenWeb Project. They're already getting the publicity they want. > > Perhaps this discussion of the situation will lead the AB to make some > effort to find a fair and permanent solution, but I wouldn't hold my > breath. The AB seems to be uninterested in devoting time or energy to any > issue that does not involve a threat to their perceived authority. They > seem too be far more adept at expressing their individual opinions on > specific issues than they are at putting in the effort to reach a consensus > > -Isaiah > > > ==== BOARD Mailing List ==== > Standing Procedures for the Advisory Board are located at: > http://www.usgenweb.com/official/standing-procedures.html > > David W. Morgan dmorgan@efn.org Honolulu Hawaii SC - TXGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txgenweb/ FM - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/tx/txfiles.htm ** http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/

There are some pretty major differences between the Census Projects, the TP, and the other Projects that you mentioned. I am all for giving all SPs, whether they are officially sanctioned or not, a link from the SP page. The only requirements should be that they operate within the bylaws, they display the USGW logo, and the fill a true need as a Project. The CP situation is vastly more complicated because of things done in the past that need to be rectified. The only SPs mentioned in the bylaws are The Archives (IMO, not a true SP), the Tombstone Project, and the Census Project. Since we can't come to terms as to which CP is the true CP, it was decided to link to both from the front page. The other SPs are not called for in the bylaws and do not encompass the breadth of the TP or the CPs. This isn't to say that they are not terribly important - just that they are on a different level. Pam -----Original Message----- From: angie [mailto:angie@inmyattic.com] Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 2:59 PM To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [STATE-COORD] Re: [BOARD-L] Motion 03-25 NO ADJOURNMENT > > I believe there was a motion passed at the time, to include both > links. > > It was all done in public, to the best of my memory. > Yup, but the motion didn't specify front page links, only that they should both be linked to, and basically they should recieve equal billing. They both have links, and they're linked to from the same area of the special projects page. To me, that is in accordance with the motion that the AB passed. Some of the arguments to put the links back on the front page I'm afraid don't make sense to me. I've seen the comment that neither project has violated the bylaws (although you might could point out that since neither is really part of USGW, there's not really a way of knowing if they violate the bylaws -- they're not covered by them), that both projects are made up of USGWP members, and that the projects provide a benefit to the researcher. All that's true, but is it fair to other special projects to say that that's all you need to do? I don't think the Tombstone Project got a link under those conditions, or the Kidz Project, the Events Project, and so on. I *know* that the Family Group Sheet Project didn't. In fact, there's no link to the Family Group Sheet Project now that I see, because it hasn't yet been accepted by USGWP as an official special project. But it's in compliance with the bylaws, is made up of USGWP members, and is providing a benefit to the researchers. Shoot, the FGS has even asked to be recognized as a project -- I don't believe either census project has. To me, if you're going to argue that the unofficial census projects should have a link from the front page, then you also be in favor of putting all the official projects on the front page, as well as the trying-to-become-official projects. It's not fair to give special dispensations to some groups while making the others jump through hoops. Angie

> > I believe there was a motion passed at the time, to include both > links. > > It was all done in public, to the best of my memory. > Yup, but the motion didn't specify front page links, only that they should both be linked to, and basically they should recieve equal billing. They both have links, and they're linked to from the same area of the special projects page. To me, that is in accordance with the motion that the AB passed. Some of the arguments to put the links back on the front page I'm afraid don't make sense to me. I've seen the comment that neither project has violated the bylaws (although you might could point out that since neither is really part of USGW, there's not really a way of knowing if they violate the bylaws -- they're not covered by them), that both projects are made up of USGWP members, and that the projects provide a benefit to the researcher. All that's true, but is it fair to other special projects to say that that's all you need to do? I don't think the Tombstone Project got a link under those conditions, or the Kidz Project, the Events Project, and so on. I *know* that the Family Group Sheet Project didn't. In fact, there's no link to the Family Group Sheet Project now that I see, because it hasn't yet been accepted by USGWP as an official special project. But it's in compliance with the bylaws, is made up of USGWP members, and is providing a benefit to the researchers. Shoot, the FGS has even asked to be recognized as a project -- I don't believe either census project has. To me, if you're going to argue that the unofficial census projects should have a link from the front page, then you also be in favor of putting all the official projects on the front page, as well as the trying-to-become-official projects. It's not fair to give special dispensations to some groups while making the others jump through hoops. Angie

When we are free to talk about this situation, we will try to explain what happened. The discussion should moved to the Board list and will then be public. Pam -----Original Message----- From: David W. Morgan [mailto:dmorgan@efn.org] Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 7:20 PM To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [STATE-COORD] Census Project links That does not answer why the pages were changed. But I don't think you were the one that did it, anyway, and apparently we are not going to here from the person that did it, and why, and why there was no discussion. I give up, this is ridiculous. David On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Angie Rayfield wrote: > Both projects DO have links from the national website, just not from the > main page from the web site. Both have links on the project page. So, > unless there was another motion after this one, the page is actually > still in accord with this motion -- it simply requires that there be > links to *both* census projects from "a page on the national website." > The main page isn't specified. > > The links may have been moved, but they haven't been removed. > > Angie > > >-----Original Message----- > > > >Here is part of what I was looking for. > > > >David > > > >-----Original Message----- > > > >Please cast your vote on Motion 01-20, as amended: > > > >"I move that we overturn Executive Order 2000-E-1. I further > >move that we > >link from a page on the national web site, without prejudice, to the > >census projects located at > > > >www.rootsweb.com/~census > > > >and > > > >www.us-census.org" > > > >Thanks, > > > >Tim > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003 > > > David W. Morgan dmorgan@efn.org Honolulu Hawaii SC - TXGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txgenweb/ FM - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/tx/txfiles.htm ** http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/

David is right, there was a vote and we decided to keep links to both CPs. They bylaws call for a CP and there has been an ongoing battle to bring the two CPs to some sort of amicable affiliation. It has become clear to me that is never going to happen. My opinion is that we should prominently link to both. While you say that neither is a part of USGW, I believe the people involved in both would adamantly disagree. They consider themselves active USGW members who are doing this work for USGW and for researchers everywhere. Neither has violated the bylaws, though both have made mistakes. It is time to accept the fact that the two CPs will never be united (at least not in our lifetime), but it is important to recognize them as valid contributors to USGW. Pam -----Original Message----- From: David W. Morgan [mailto:dmorgan@efn.org] Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 5:47 PM To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [STATE-COORD] Re: [BOARD-L] Motion 03-25 NO ADJOURNMENT On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Angie Rayfield wrote: > > > > >> > >> If I remember correctly, the Archives Project and the > >Tombstone Project > >> are the only actual special projects recognized by the > >USGenWeb Project, > >> and from what I've seen, they're both still linked. Neither Census > >> Project is actually recognized as being part of the USGenWeb Project, > >> and that's been the case for years. > >> > >> Angie > >> > > > >No argument here. > > > >So why were the links to both census projects removed from the main > >USGenWeb page, and why wasn't there some discussion of it in public? > > Hmm, but you could as easily turn that question around -- why should > there have ever been links to the census projects on the USGW main page? > Neither is recognized as a special project of the USGW Project. Useful, > yes, but despite the use of the project name, neither is part of the > project. The only link on the front page now is to the census image > portion of the Archives, which *is* recognized by the USGW Project. > > It makes more sense to me to have removed the links. Why should be main > USGW page link to groups that aren't actually associated with our > project? There's no link on the main page for the Family Group Sheet > project, which is working to be accepted as an official project within > the USGWP. Why should the unofficial census projects get a link? > > Angie > I believe there was a motion passed at the time, to include both links. It was all done in public, to the best of my memory. David David W. Morgan dmorgan@efn.org Honolulu Hawaii SC - TXGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txgenweb/ FM - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/tx/txfiles.htm ** http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/

Both projects DO have links from the national website, just not from the main page from the web site. Both have links on the project page. So, unless there was another motion after this one, the page is actually still in accord with this motion -- it simply requires that there be links to *both* census projects from "a page on the national website." The main page isn't specified. The links may have been moved, but they haven't been removed. Angie >-----Original Message----- > >Here is part of what I was looking for. > >David > >-----Original Message----- > >Please cast your vote on Motion 01-20, as amended: > >"I move that we overturn Executive Order 2000-E-1. I further >move that we >link from a page on the national web site, without prejudice, to the >census projects located at > >www.rootsweb.com/~census > >and > >www.us-census.org" > >Thanks, > >Tim --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003

>> >> If I remember correctly, the Archives Project and the >Tombstone Project >> are the only actual special projects recognized by the >USGenWeb Project, >> and from what I've seen, they're both still linked. Neither Census >> Project is actually recognized as being part of the USGenWeb Project, >> and that's been the case for years. >> >> Angie >> > >No argument here. > >So why were the links to both census projects removed from the main >USGenWeb page, and why wasn't there some discussion of it in public? Hmm, but you could as easily turn that question around -- why should there have ever been links to the census projects on the USGW main page? Neither is recognized as a special project of the USGW Project. Useful, yes, but despite the use of the project name, neither is part of the project. The only link on the front page now is to the census image portion of the Archives, which *is* recognized by the USGW Project. It makes more sense to me to have removed the links. Why should be main USGW page link to groups that aren't actually associated with our project? There's no link on the main page for the Family Group Sheet project, which is working to be accepted as an official project within the USGWP. Why should the unofficial census projects get a link? Angie --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003

That does not answer why the pages were changed. But I don't think you were the one that did it, anyway, and apparently we are not going to here from the person that did it, and why, and why there was no discussion. I give up, this is ridiculous. David On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Angie Rayfield wrote: > Both projects DO have links from the national website, just not from the > main page from the web site. Both have links on the project page. So, > unless there was another motion after this one, the page is actually > still in accord with this motion -- it simply requires that there be > links to *both* census projects from "a page on the national website." > The main page isn't specified. > > The links may have been moved, but they haven't been removed. > > Angie > > >-----Original Message----- > > > >Here is part of what I was looking for. > > > >David > > > >-----Original Message----- > > > >Please cast your vote on Motion 01-20, as amended: > > > >"I move that we overturn Executive Order 2000-E-1. I further > >move that we > >link from a page on the national web site, without prejudice, to the > >census projects located at > > > >www.rootsweb.com/~census > > > >and > > > >www.us-census.org" > > > >Thanks, > > > >Tim > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003 > > > David W. Morgan dmorgan@efn.org Honolulu Hawaii SC - TXGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txgenweb/ FM - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/tx/txfiles.htm ** http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/

Here is part of what I was looking for. David -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell [mailto:tstowell@mccallie.org] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 4:30 PM To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 01-20 as amended - vote Please cast your vote on Motion 01-20, as amended: "I move that we overturn Executive Order 2000-E-1. I further move that we link from a page on the national web site, without prejudice, to the census projects located at www.rootsweb.com/~census and www.us-census.org" Thanks, Tim ______________________________ ------------------------------ On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, David W. Morgan wrote: > On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Angie Rayfield wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> If I remember correctly, the Archives Project and the > > >Tombstone Project > > >> are the only actual special projects recognized by the > > >USGenWeb Project, > > >> and from what I've seen, they're both still linked. Neither Census > > >> Project is actually recognized as being part of the USGenWeb Project, > > >> and that's been the case for years. > > >> > > >> Angie > > >> > > > > > >No argument here. > > > > > >So why were the links to both census projects removed from the main > > >USGenWeb page, and why wasn't there some discussion of it in public? > > > > Hmm, but you could as easily turn that question around -- why should > > there have ever been links to the census projects on the USGW main page? > > Neither is recognized as a special project of the USGW Project. Useful, > > yes, but despite the use of the project name, neither is part of the > > project. The only link on the front page now is to the census image > > portion of the Archives, which *is* recognized by the USGW Project. > > > > It makes more sense to me to have removed the links. Why should be main > > USGW page link to groups that aren't actually associated with our > > project? There's no link on the main page for the Family Group Sheet > > project, which is working to be accepted as an official project within > > the USGWP. Why should the unofficial census projects get a link? > > > > Angie > > > > I believe there was a motion passed at the time, to include both > links. > > It was all done in public, to the best of my memory. > > David > > > David W. Morgan dmorgan@efn.org Honolulu Hawaii > SC - TXGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txgenweb/ > FM - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/tx/txfiles.htm > ** http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/ > > David W. Morgan dmorgan@efn.org Honolulu Hawaii SC - TXGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txgenweb/ FM - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/tx/txfiles.htm ** http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Angie Rayfield wrote: > > > > >> > >> If I remember correctly, the Archives Project and the > >Tombstone Project > >> are the only actual special projects recognized by the > >USGenWeb Project, > >> and from what I've seen, they're both still linked. Neither Census > >> Project is actually recognized as being part of the USGenWeb Project, > >> and that's been the case for years. > >> > >> Angie > >> > > > >No argument here. > > > >So why were the links to both census projects removed from the main > >USGenWeb page, and why wasn't there some discussion of it in public? > > Hmm, but you could as easily turn that question around -- why should > there have ever been links to the census projects on the USGW main page? > Neither is recognized as a special project of the USGW Project. Useful, > yes, but despite the use of the project name, neither is part of the > project. The only link on the front page now is to the census image > portion of the Archives, which *is* recognized by the USGW Project. > > It makes more sense to me to have removed the links. Why should be main > USGW page link to groups that aren't actually associated with our > project? There's no link on the main page for the Family Group Sheet > project, which is working to be accepted as an official project within > the USGWP. Why should the unofficial census projects get a link? > > Angie > I believe there was a motion passed at the time, to include both links. It was all done in public, to the best of my memory. David David W. Morgan dmorgan@efn.org Honolulu Hawaii SC - TXGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txgenweb/ FM - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/tx/txfiles.htm ** http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/

Hello David Speaking as the CC Rep for NW/Plains... I can tell you that the Exec. List has proven itself an important part of the AB's effectiveness. We have resolved several "important" grievances without placing undo stress/embrassment on the people involved. Not everyone (probably none) in those grievances were totally happy with our compromises but those compromises worked and we still have terrific CC's working for the project and great SC's learning how to be better leaders... So the exec. list works... extremely well that way... As for the current issue... I am not, at this moment, able to discuss it... But if Jan's proposed motion is presented to list, I will be glad to share my opinions at that time <grin> Respectfully Darilee Bednar "David W. Morgan" <damorgan@nyx.net> wrote: On Fri, 28 Nov 2003, Angie Rayfield wrote: > > > > >I think it is time to get rid of the exec list and discuss the peoples' > >business on the public list. De-linking a project in secret? Come on! > > > > If I remember correctly, the Archives Project and the Tombstone Project > are the only actual special projects recognized by the USGenWeb Project, > and from what I've seen, they're both still linked. Neither Census > Project is actually recognized as being part of the USGenWeb Project, > and that's been the case for years. > > Angie > No argument here. So why were the links to both census projects removed from the main USGenWeb page, and why wasn't there some discussion of it in public? David David W. Morgan damorgan@nyx.net Honolulu Hawaii SC - TXGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txgenweb/ FM - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/tx/txfiles.htm ** http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/ bookstorelady@prodigy.net http://www.rootsweb.com/~waskagit - Skagit USGW http://www.thirdstbooks.com - 3rd St. Book Exchange http://www.facesfromthewall.com - Faces From the Wall - Vietnam/Washington