On 30 Jan 99 at 10:38, TNCHAT-L@rootsweb.com wrote: > Greetings all, > > This is a full answer to George Waller's "Political" missive of last > night (29 Jan 1999) which had been posted to our CC list. Fred, A big hug to you :-)) > Please delete this now if you are bothered by politics. > The question of whether we are technically separate from the USGenWeb > Project is answered in our TNGenNet Bylaws, Article 5. We are > "affiliated" with the USGenWeb and under extreme conditions, we could > sever our connection. Any state can sever its connection to USGenWeb. Then USGenWeb would either by request or by decision remove our state page from the list of USGenWeb states and remove our state coordinator from the SC list. The state would have to remove all mention of USGenWeb and TNGenWeb from the state pages and all CCs (who wanted to belong to to this new state page) would have to remove all mention of USGenWeb and TNGenWeb from the county pages. So, you are right... but TN is not especially different than any other state in this regard. > The visibility of our separateness is amplified by the use of the > TNGenNet Inc. name on our main page. In the statement at the bottom of > that page which defines TGN Inc, we state "we are the Tennessee > volunteers to the USGenWeb Project." This definition was suggested by > Megan Zurawicz, then National USGWP Coordinator. In the same paragraph, > you will see this: "The name TNGenWeb is a service mark of the USGenWeb > Project." This reflects the national project's Bylaws. Here, we do not > claim ownership of the name TNGenWeb, but rather we acquiesced to wishes > of the paranoid* nationally oriented folks by voting in the TNGenNet > name. We were the peace keepers! > As some know, the only two XXGenWebs that did (non-profit) incorporate > are the Kansas and Tennessee unit. > > Those two actions have made some of the nationally oriented folks very > displeased. Below I will share with you part of an e-mail that shows the > attitude of "separateness" demonstrated by two USGWP members. It is > directed to the other XXGenWeb, Kansas, but could apply to us as well. > BTW, "B" is the expurgator of the USGENWEB-ALL mailing list. > > >>>> > > > One important point here is that the USGENWEB Project wuld not be able to > > field another KSGENWEB site in the future if the "board" decided to boot > > each and everyone of them for some infraction of those bylaws we keep > > hearing about.... well that is not without a fight in a Kansas court. How > > many board members would be willing to pay legal fees ourt of their own > > pocket to test the theory? Not many I would surmise. > > The Board would have no trouble fielding another KSGenWeb. With as > many users as USGenWeb has, it could raise a $20k defense fund in a > week if need be. Folks don't seem to clearly understand just how > much potential power the Board has but chooses not to use -- this is > sort of a Godzilla meets Bambi thing. -B > > >>>> > > It is important to note here that a great many of our CCs are fiercely > loyal to the principles of the USGenWeb Project - principles that are > also written into our state Charter. But this is not a question of > loyality, it is a question legality. > > ------ > > * George Waller has determined that the word "paranoid" has become part > of our modern lexicon and does necessarily qualify as a medical > diagnosis. According to George, it is not insulting to refer to a person > as "paranoid." I suppose it now means "great angst" or something like > that. > Fred Smoot Fred, I truly wish that you and I could discuss this in a civil manner. I happen to believe that there is great value in having a USGenWeb Project that is solid at the national level. I wish the USGenWeb Project would incorporate as a non-profit and start drawing in funds to help make us both independent and more productive. It is hurtful to me to see what you wrote about me above. I don't think it is accurate nor was it necessary. Respectfully, George