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> To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 13:07:53 -0400 Subject: [STATE-COORD] Unofficial poll requested > 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 > > > > ------- End of Original Message -------
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> > To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com > Sent: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 13:07:53 -0400 > Subject: [STATE-COORD] Unofficial poll requested > > > 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 > > > > > > > ------- End of Original Message ------- > >