RADIO FREE USGENWEB....broadcasting live from pirate satellite! The following information represents summarized information from the minutes of the Advisory Board of the USGenWeb Project, obtained from the publicly available archives at Rootsweb. The original messages are no longer available at that site, and I have been placed under a threat of lawsuit if I post them. Thus they are here summarized for your information; all quotations from the original material are clearly marked and fall under the fair use' provision of U.S. Copyright law. If you want to see the originals, petition the Board for them. Message ID numbers have been provided to make this easier for you. Material in brackets constitutes editorial comments. All the following material represents the personal opinion of this author, based on my understanding of events and on the original material. As always, there are two sides to every coin, and if anyone wishes to clarify or rebut anything below, I will be happy to post it. 9 DECEMBER 1998 Highlights: The Board further discusses the pros and cons of interfering in Special Project business; a member tells what she thinks of "members in good standing". +++++++++++ The following messages are in reference to Motion 98-10, in which the Board directs the Archives Project to pursue the offer by Systems Integrators of free obituaries. The Archives is not allowed to make any agreements with this company without the Board's approval. There is some disagreement among the Board members, primarily from the two that are closely involved in the special projects, as to the appropriateness of the requirement of Board approval in something that is properly the business of the special project or state. Per the order of Bob Bamford, Advisory Board members are not allowed to publicly debate issues and motions before the Board. They are under of threat of banning from the meeting if they do so. Thus, members of the USGenWeb Project were not able to participate in this debate, or make their opinions known to their representatives during the discussion period of this precedent-setting motion. Jan Craven, Archives Project representative, asks the Board if they would require a state to get permission from the Board to negotiate an arrangement for free data from an outside organziation. She does not feel the Board has any authority to impose its control over what the Archives project does. She is willing to provide updates to the Board but the attempt by the Board to impose its control over the Archives does not promote the "bottoms up policy" at the core of USGW. She bases her position on the bylaws. (Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 08:08:24 -0700; From: Jan Craven ; Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981209080824.00820c10@mail.usunwired.net>; Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Re: [BOARD-L] Motion 98-10) Kay Mason, Census Project representative, agrees with Jan. Her feeling is that the bylaws treat the special projects in the same way they treat states and therefore "the Board has no more authority over a Special Project than they do over a state." She further points out that the Archives did not consult the Board prior to entering agreements with Rootsweb or SK publications, and this would be a similar circumstance. (Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 06:41:14 -0800; From: "Kay Mason" ; Message-Id: <199812091444.GAA30685@mail.networkone.net>; Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Re: [BOARD-L] Motion 98-10) Bob Bamford, however, does not agree with either of them. In response to Jan's message Bob's message begins with the words "lets keep it simple". He asks Jan if a state were to enter an agreement with some non-project group and pursue a commercial venture would she take issue with it as both a volunteer and a board member. He points out that the Archives are part of the USGW project and thus their activity reflects on the project as a whole. Since the offer is from a commercial entity he feels the project could be exposed to copyright infringement and the Board might be accused of going commercial'. He notes [in reference to an earlier message; see below. Ed.] that Trey Holt is merely attempting to formalize control in order to "protect the project" and the Board itself. He [Bob] feels that any organization in a similar situation would act similarly and institute such controls. He summarizes the idea as one in which the Board is saying that the Archives may go ahead but may make no deals and must keep the Board informed. The Archives is not prevented from investigating a potentially very valuable relationship. Bob summarizes his statements by stating "Bottom up goes just so far" [again in response to Jan Craven's concerns about retaining local control; Ed.]. He says that when an action by the bottom threatens the organization, the top is then required to "protect the organization". It is his opinion that any manager in a similar situation would agree with him. (Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 12:22:31 -0500; From: Bob Bamford ; Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981209122231.007afc40@citrus.infi.net>; Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Re: [BOARD-L] Motion 98-10) [By the time this motion went to vote, the rest of the Board members were in lock-step with Bob Bamford, with the exception of Jan Craven. She was the lone "nay" vote on this motion. It appears that "protecting the project" is of greater importance than preserving one of its defining and perhaps most cherished features, local control. The statement "bottom up goes just so far" is a particularly revealing one. The Board has just asserted itself as final authority on all project business, including that conducted at the level of the state or special project. Ed.] Trey Holt, a CC representative for the SW/SC region, states that he initially held similar feelings [again in response toJan Craven's message] and that the Board should not involve itself in approving this sort of thing. He feels it is not the business of the Board to interfere in state level activities but he changed his mind insofar as these activities involve contact between project members and non-project entities. Since these contacts could directly affect the project's reputation, he feels the Board should have power of final approval prior to the formation of any formal relationships. The original contact was between the corporate entity and the National Coordinator, so it is reasonable to assume that they see no difference between the archives and the USGW project itself. Trey states that he is not in favor of the Board involving itself in the actual discussions and tried to present the motion in such a way as to provide the Archives project with the freedom to explore the offer. He favors the Board approving the final agreement, if one is reached, and a periodic report from the Archives. (Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 21:50:49 -0600; From: Trey Holt ; Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19981209215049.0187e9f0@txcyber.com>; Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Re: [BOARD-L] Motion 98-10) +++++++ The only other message on this date concerned the election and what constitutes a "member in good standing", as described in the bylaws. Kay Mason originated this topic about a week ago in response to the candidacy of a vocal critic of the Board and its activities. In response to Kay Mason's original musings on this topic, [which in my opinion constitute a suggestion of election tampering, but YMMV; Ed.] Yvonne James-Henderson has been considering the question: "What constitutes a member in good standing?" It is her feeling that "in light of the current candidates" currently seeking office [she is careful to not include current Board member and candidate Kathy Heidel], the Board should actively be involved in defining a member in good standing. [At the time this message was written, there were only two candidates for office, Kathy Heidel and Eric Segal. Thus Yvonne is clearly speaking of Eric Segal in the following. Ed.] Yvonne thinks that any definition of "member in good standing" must consider the "personalities/faces" of the candidates as they are shown to other project members and their ability to function as a member of the USGW team. She say she doesn't mean they have to be a blind follower type, but anyone who "deliberately tries to incite the masses' and rip apart the system" cannot be a "member in good standing", no matter how accomplished a web designer they are. [In other words, no critics need apply. Ed.] Yvonne also posts a reply [presumably for the Board's information. Ed.] she sent to a letter from Tim Stowell [originally posted to-ALL] in which she points out that the bylaws state that the CC candidates must be members in good standing and lists the criteria for "good standing" as they appear in the bylaws. She asks Tim for his definition of "good standing". (Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 12:33:21 -0500; From: Yvonne James-Henderson ; Message-ID: <366EB461.A5B5EEE9@idt.net>; Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Candidates's private lives) [Tim's original message is attached as it originally appeared on the -ALL list: "If a person has been 'certified' to run for office, meaning they've met all the conditions of the bylaws as a viable candidate, let us endeavor to debate the issues not the personalities."] ------------------------------ Radio Free USGENWEB, 1998, Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.