At 02:33 PM 5/6/2003 -0500, you wrote: >--Boundary_(ID_paYvn0TkiCEtilUcnq1KoQ) >Content-type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-1F35D79; charset=us-ascii; > format=flowed >Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > >At 08:39 AM 5/6/2003 -1000, you wrote: > >The natonal web site is only a small part of this organization, > >and does not take that much disk space, at that. Why was a > >legally binding agreement necessary? > >Without a binding agreement, anyone at Ancestry or Rootsweb could decide to >shut down the site at any time, for any reason. Or for no reason. It >doesn't matter how small a part of the organization it is, or how much disk >space it takes, the site has to be hosted *somewhere*, after all. > > >What is positive about secret negotiations? > >I don't see anything surprising about secret negotiations. It's certainly >not unusual for businesses to keep the details of contracts and >negotiations confidential. It may sound sinister, but it's not that big a >deal. And to be honest, in this case, Rootsweb holds the trump card. They >have something we need -- server space. If keeping the details >confidential makes it possible to get what *we* need, well, then, such is >life. > >And my personal opinion -- the last thing that would have been useful would >have been to have thousands of USGWP volunteers thinking that they needed >to be intimately involved in the negotiations & sticking their 2-cents >worth in. I shudder to think of the chaos <G>. > >Angie Rayfield >NCGenWeb Project Excellent points! -Isaiah