Alley Blackford wrote: > > Now, I'm confused. Where does it say we are moving the archives? Am I > missing something when I read the proposal? > The "states rights" amendment would decentralize the USGenWeb Archives, splitting the files up to be located wherever the state coordinator wants them. That would really hurt the researchers that wouldn't find ggg-grandfather Jones in NC if they were searching for him in MD. As one person stated on another list, regarding that amendment proposal: <snipping part of it> My personal feeling is that there's not much point in making the USGenWeb Project an "Unincorporated Non-Profit Association, unto perpetuity" in Article III, if there's no mechanism in place to enforce that the state organizations also remain non-profit. Exactly what do you foresee happening under the amended by- laws if some state should decide that it wants to become a profitable dot.com corporation? Hypothetically speaking, if a state were to decide to put advertising banners on all XXGenWeb sites and split the money, what recourse would the other state XXGenWebs have under these proposed amendments to the bylaws? Secondly, it seems that under the proposed amendment the special projects would pretty much cease to exist at the national level and instead be organized into state divisions controlled by the state organizations. I think it has been assumed that if the amendment is adopted, the currently existing projects would be subdivided and subordinated to the state organizations, but I suspect that if the amendment is approved, the future status of the already existing special projects will become an interesting question. <snip> > What porn? What personnel at the archives? No one had a link to porn. > Porn was used as an example. A link to a bakery could have been used but > that wouldn't have meant Linda actually meant a bakery and Linda didn't mean > porn............it was an example only. > Yes, that was an example, an extreme example. If a state coordinator were to turn their webpage into a porn site, but it's linked from the main USGW page as XXGenWeb, it should be okay to delink them immediately without a two-week notice. > The recall proposal is to prevent the NC or anyone else from making > decisions without abiding by the by-laws. If he/she should make decisions > contrary to by-laws, he/she could be recalled. The problem with that is the bylaws are subject to interpretation, and have been interpreted in many different ways. I would rather see the bylaws tightened up, so that there's no confusion about their meaning in several places, before any "recall" of an elected person be an easy thing to do. Linda

> The "states rights" amendment would decentralize the USGenWeb Archives, > splitting the files up to be located wherever the state coordinator > wants them I misunderstood what Rena wrote. I thought she was referring to the Archives proposal and she apparently was referring to the States' Rights proposal. I read the msg on the ALL list, the one you just posted here. I agree with the author. > The problem with that is the bylaws are subject to interpretation, and > have been interpreted in many different ways. I would rather see the > bylaws tightened up, so that there's no confusion about their meaning in > several places, before any "recall" of an elected person be an easy > thing to do. A recall would not be easy and the proposal states "Reasons for recall are to be limited to: violation of bylaws, improper handling of information or legal/ethical violations." Bylaws need to be more explicit. They also need to be used. If the EC's rule is followed, will you be able to vote in the SE election? You returned as ASC after April 1, I think. Alley