While I do understand what the Friends of IAGenWeb is doing, I don't think its in the best interests of the USGenWeb project. My perception of it all, is that it's going to open a big can of worms, in that others will be doing the same. I do think they have made an excellent attempt, but, once started, will others do the same? Jan Cortez MI SC ----- Original Message ----- From: George Waller <George@Waller.Org> > Richard et al., > Thanks for asking for a clearer definition of "best interests test." > For the purposes of this poll it means best interests of the USGWP. > I doubt if we could get all of us on the same exact meaning, but I > do believe we all have a reasonable idea of what it means. > > Anyone voting is welcome to make explanatory comments. > > The results of the poll will, if nothing else, put us on record as to how > we feel about what IAGenWeb is doing. This might have some impact > on how the bylaws get revised. > > Respectfully, > George > MAGenWeb/CTGenWeb > > > On 24 Aug 2003 at 13:25, mannannan wrote: > > > George, > > > > While I like the idea of a poll, official or unofficial, binding or > > non- binding, I believe we need to get a definition of the "best > > interests test". I know what it means, and you know what it means and > > Ellen knows what it means. In fact, all of us know what it means. > > However, it may have different meanings or connotations for each of > > us. Some may deem it to mean in the best interests of the USGWP. > > Others may deem it to mean in the best interests of IAGenWeb. Still > > others may deem it to mean "not directly harmful to USGWP". > > > > So, can we elaborate on this before we take a straw poll? > > > > The other concern is this: if we agree that it is not in the best > > interests, what have we truly said? And what can we do about it if we > > find that it is not in the best interests? I mean, the NC appears to > > have started "Friends" or, if not, is certainly a mover and shaker > > with it. We can't exactly fire him for it any more than we can > > de-link IAGenWeb. > > > > So, in truth, I guess my question is, "What is the point of such a > > poll? Is it an effort to stop the discussion? Or is it an effort to > > cease the problematic issue where we have neither the ability to act > > nor the teeth to enforce our vote?" > > > > Richard Pettys > > Second ASC Georgia > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- Original Message ----------- > > From: "George Waller" <George@Waller.Org> > > > Well put Ellen! > > > > > > I would like to take your note as a jumping off point to > > > hold an unofficial poll amongst SCs and ASCs. > > > > > > The question is do you agree with Ellen's statement: > > > > > > > I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW > > > > for it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is > > > > not >free standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is > > > > first a member of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best > > > > interests of the project. I don't believe there are any ulterior > > > > motives at all, but I do not believe the actions pass the "best > > > > interests" test. I believe, in fact, it is setting dangerous > > > > precedence. > > > > > > Thanks to those who will participate. > > > Respectfully, > > > George > > > MAGenWeb > > > CTGenWeb > > > > > > On 24 Aug 2003 at 10:14, Ellen Pack wrote: > > > > > > > At 10:06 AM 8/24/2003 -0400, Pettys wrote: > > > > >Ellen, > > > > > > > > > >Had you truly read my note, > > > > > > > > > > > > I say again, I did read it, and completely understood it, along > > > > with several thousand other notes that have drifted through from a > > > > number of folks, from a number of lists, for a number of years. > > > > > > > > I'm agreeing with Vicki. The bickering has got to stop. This > > > > project needs to take a major turn towards mature, respectful, and > > > > cooperative behavior. > > > > > > > > It has nothing at all to do with protected speech, modems, or > > > > interstate commerce. > > > > > > > > We all have the Constitutional right to say anything we want. But > > > > we do not have the right to be listened to or taken seriously. > > > > For that to occur, we must at least try to frame our words in a > > > > polite and respectful fashion more palatable to those we are > > > > addressing. > > > > > > > > The irony is that while Phyllis is accusing me of making cutting > > > > remarks (not my intent at all), and you're explaining FCC > > > > Regulations, I agree with both of you re IAGW, if only because the > > > > Friends Board members are all IAGW members. Legal or otherwise, I > > > > believe it is a clear conflict of interest when the Friends Board > > > > members are the direct benefactors (albeit via the state project) > > > > of the funds they themselves solicit, control and disperse. No > > > > one on that Board should be an IAGW member, except perhaps a > > > > "guest" IAGW member, without voting rights. > > > > > > > > I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW > > > > for it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is > > > > not free standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is > > > > first a member of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best > > > > interests of the project. I don't believe there are any ulterior > > > > motives at all, but I do not believe the actions pass the "best > > > > interests" test. I believe, in fact, it is setting dangerous > > > > precedence. > > > > > > > > Ellen