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 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/