At 07:08 AM 5/15/03 -1000, you wrote: > > >I have a copy of the agreement, thank you, and I have read it. > >I was just trying to find out what Tim was talking about, if >there is anything else about this that is being witheld. > >I wasn't twisting anything and I don't know anything about >a conspiracy. > >David Exactly what Phyllis said - is the other half. Even though the NC alone signed the agreement - each member of the AB is liable for any action by a party that sues Rootsweb in which the agreement states under 3.4 - up to $10,000 per incident those costs to be shared by the Project. So it would seem that as Phyllis mentioned that either each Board member would have to put up a bond, or some sort of financial agreement that they would pay their portion of expenses for said action. Unless all AB members would pony up this bond or agreement - even with insurance at $3000 per year - who is going to pay for this? Would the members at large pay $3000 a year to keep a NC/AB? Tim >On Thu, 15 May 2003, Angie Rayfield wrote: > >> >> --Boundary_(ID_jmcOJor8tllCY7WGY5PslA) >> Content-type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-72974003; charset=us-ascii; >> format=flowed >> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT >> >> Unfortunately, by "stealing" one post out of dozens, it's far too easy to >> give an incomplete and perhaps inaccurate picture of the >> situation. There's no context. >> >> If read properly, the "half out of the bag" does NOT refer to half of the >> hosting agreement being out of the bag. The entire hosting agreement is >> available to anyone that chooses to read it -- simply email Richard >> Harrison and ask for it. He's made that post publicly and on several >> lists. The agreement may not be posted publicly, but any USGWP member who >> wishes may have a copy. But if you've requested the agreement, and read >> it, then you know all there is to know about it. That's all there is -- >> one reason for having a written agreement, by the way. No question about >> what is expected, as opposed to the unwritten, oral understanding that had >> been in existence for so long. >> >> What isn't apparent without the rest of the discussion to give perspective >> is that the AB is discussing the disposition of the very motion that raised >> so much ruckus on this list -- whether to establish a separate private >> email list to discuss the future organization of the USGWP. Possibly >> reorganizing the USGWP *was* something that needed to be considered when >> the hosting agreement was up in the air -- what if Ancestry/MyFamily >> demanded control of the project? What if they demanded a spot on the AB >> for a representative of their own? What if they demanded veto rights over >> project elections, or AB decisions? What if, what if, what if? If >> Ancestry/MyFamily had made such demands, reorganizing the structure of the >> project might have been the only way to *keep* them from effectively >> "owning" it. With the hosting agreement signed, these "what ifs" have >> disappeared -- which, I imagine, is why Tim would comment that the only >> reason to have another motion would be to clarify why structural changes >> would be considered in the first place. The reasons why, and possible new >> structures of, the USGWP would be the items still "in the bag" (I don't >> care for that phrase, incidentally), and not made known or discussed with >> the organization at large as of yet. >> >> Admittedly, I haven't been on the board for very long, but I haven't seen >> any sinister conspiracy to take over the world and do some kind of harm to >> the CC's that are the backbone of this project. Maybe I just haven't been >> given the secret password yet <g>. But I don't think it's productive to >> take bits and pieces of long discussions and try to see plots and plans in >> them. Almost *anything* can be twisted a thousand ways to Sunday if it >> suits someone to do so. >> >> Angie Rayfield >> NCGenWeb Personnel Coordinator/ASC >> SE/MA CC Representative >> >> >> >> >> At 01:15 AM 5/15/2003 -1000, you wrote: >> >> >What is the other half? What is it that we still don't know >> >about this agreement, and why the USGenWeb Project needs to >> >consider reorganization? >> > >> >Please note the copyright violation below. Yes, I stole it from >> >board-l. >> > >> >David >> > >> > BOARD-L Archives >> > >> > From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> >> > Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] VOTE - MOTION 03-11 >> > Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 20:26:05 -0400 >> > >> ><SNIP> >> > >> >An aside to the Tombstone Project and the other SP - Archives - these >> >groups were not left out on purpose, they just weren't thought of in terms >> >of day to day life of the Project. >> > >> >The private email list is the SC list - except I doubt all SCs/ASCs are >> >subbed there for there has been no roll call there for at least 2 years. >> >Other than looking at the Who's Who - and wondering how up to date it is - >> >for if the SCs don't inform the webmaster of a change, she probably doesn't >> >know of it. >> > >> >The SC list is archived and the membership can read it fairly soon after >> >messages are posted there. >> > >> >Since the cat is already 1/2 out of the bag - with the contents of the Hosting >> >Agreement known by most anyone that wants to know it - the only reason to >> >have another motion would be to clarify why in tandem with the Hosting >> >Agreement - the AB would even consider broaching the subject of Project >> >reorganization. >> > >> >Tim >> >> --Boundary_(ID_jmcOJor8tllCY7WGY5PslA) >> Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; >> x-avg-checked=avg-ok-72974003 >> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT >> Content-disposition: inline >> >> >> --- >> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >> Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release Date: 5/13/2003 >> >> --Boundary_(ID_jmcOJor8tllCY7WGY5PslA)-- >> > >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/ > > >

At 08:10 AM 5/17/2003 -0400, Tim Stowell wrote: Even though the NC alone signed the agreement - each member of the AB is >liable for any action by a party that sues Rootsweb in which the agreement >states under 3.4 - up to $10,000 per incident those costs to be shared by >the Project. Not necessarily. Someone might sue RootsWeb for any number of reasons. Someone might sue The USGenWeb Project for any number of reasons. Someone might sue individual Board Members or individual project members for any number of reasons. A careful reading of the Hosting Agreement shows just how limited The Project's liability is in the circumstances covered by the agreement. Section 3.4 is concerned only with settlements arising out of the "warranties stated above" and only applies to the National website. The Project's warrantee is stated in Section 3.1: "3.1. Grantee Warranty. Grantee warrants that the contents of the Grantee Site do not infringe the intellectual property rights of any third party. Grantee further warrants that it has the authority to enter into this Agreement and perform its obligations hereunder." Access to the National website is strictly limited and the possibility that something posted there would result in a complaint regarding copyright infringement, let alone a lawsuit, is remote. >So it would seem that as Phyllis mentioned that either each Board member would >have to put up a bond, or some sort of financial agreement that they would >pay their portion of expenses for said action. > >Unless all AB members would pony up this bond or agreement - even with >insurance at $3000 per year - who is going to pay for this? Would the >members at large pay $3000 a year to keep a NC/AB? > >Tim Estimates of insurance at $2000-$3000 per year are for comprehensive policies that cover a wide range of circumstances. Coverage that would allow The Project to meet its obligation under the terms of the Hosting Agreement is available at a considerably lower cost. If fact, an angel has stepped forward who has offered to fund coverage and the matter is being discussed. The Project and its individual officers and members are in no greater danger of being sued now than they were before the agreement was signed--and I believe that danger was and is minimal. -Isaiah