Su et al, On my page, TNGenWeb Vs TNGenNet, I tried to explore the name issue. I pointed out that if we incorporated as TNGenNet, that name would appear only once as a disclaimer on our main (home) page, perhaps at the bottom of that page. All logos would say TNGenWeb. There should zero confusion to the general public. Why is this so? We would be the Tennessee volunteers the USGenWeb Project. The USGenWeb Project would own the TNGenWeb name. As I pointed out, I would support the use of the TNGenNet name in the spirit of cooperation. But the next questions need to be, what is the story behind the need to cooperate? What is the history of this problem? After I first publicly suggested nonprofit incorporation in January, I was informed by Bridgett Smith that our current National Coordinator, Megan Zurawicz was opposed to our use of the TNGenWeb name in a corporate title. I phoned Megan and discussed this issue. Yes, she did not want us to use the TNGenWeb name, but she had no problem with the state unit incorporating with any other name. National candidate Linda Russell Lewis most recent opinion is yet another in a long line of "nationally oriented" folks who favor ownership of XXGenWeb names by the USGenWeb Project. Seemingly, they are concerned by the threat of rebellion by "renegades." This concern is probably more real than we would normally think. The recent event on the NCGenWeb is an example of discontent. But here is few lines from a message that I received from a TNGenWeb CC. A CC who will remain anonymous. ". . . There are more and more dissatisfied CCs out there and not just from Tennessee. It seems to me the powers that be are pulling the reins tighter and tighter to keep control and it "ain't" working. There's too many of us and not enough of them . . ." So you see, we do have folks who are unhappy, and the "nationally oriented" folks know that they are out there. That is why they are concerned by the threat of rebellion. Su, you ask, "Could it not be written so that, as long as we are affiliated with the USGenWeb, we will call ourselves TNGenWeb and if we ever disassociate ourselves, we will be known as TNGenNet?" Answer: Best if it not put in the Charter. The name usage question would be best spelled out in the Bylaws. Also, the relationship between us and the USGenWeb Project would be spelled out in the Bylaws. We could establish a requirement that in order for us to break our relationship with the USGenWeb Project, we would need a two/thirds vote of all the CCs. That would be a very difficult vote to obtain unless there was an overwhelming and compelling reason to sever our relationship with national. Of course, you have the option of voting in the TNGenWeb name, and we can submit that name as our corporate title and that will cause the "nationally oriented" folks to go ballistic. So yall vote your conscience and we will go from there. Fred Smoot >>> Susan Wilson wrote: > > OK. Here's where I have a problem with this stuff. From reading your site > (now I know what you've been doing instead of demanding that raise you > deserve. :-)), it appears to me that if we incorporate, and if we do it as > TNGenNet, we'll be TNGenWeb *and* TNGenNet. We'll be TNGenWeb by virtue of > our association with and participation in USGenWeb. We'll be TNGenNet > because, for some reason that still fundamentally escapes me, some people > think it's necessary to incorporate. Talk about confusing people! I'm > involved in the silly thing, and I get all fuddled trying to think about it. > What's the average genealogy consumer of ours going to think when he/she > hits the site and sees that on USGenWeb, we're called TNGenWeb and on our > own pages, we're called TNGenNet? I think it's going to cause more trouble > than it's worth, frankly. > > Reading Linda's reply to the question carefully, it seems to me that she is > talking about the consequences of a "renegade" state using the XXGenWeb > name. Could it not be written so that, as long as we are affiliated with > the USGenWeb, we will call ourselves TNGenWeb and if we ever disassociate > ourselves, we will be known as TNGenNet? (Not that I think it's likely that > we'll do that, and just in case it needs to be said right out, if that's > what's being prepared for here, I'd appreciate knowing about it *now* before > I spend the next several days and nights trying to cobble together pages for > a county I'm having to learn as I go.) I don't like the implied distancing > from USGenWeb which is inherent in taking another name. Maybe I'm just > missing something here, but, as y'all have surely figured out by now, I'm > not one to stay quiet in the corner when I've got a question. I don't mean > to stir up trouble or offend anyone. I just don't understand all this and > am trying hard to. > > Fred, I'm sure you'll have this answered before my server knows it's gone. > You've done that with everything else I've asked! I do appreciate your hard > work -- I really don't mean to be trouble. I'll get this worried out > eventually. > > Su Wilson > County Coordinator, Chester County SC USGenWeb Project > http://www.rootsweb.com/~scchest2/scchester.htm > > I'd rather be looking for dead people than have them looking for me!