Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 08:08:24 -0700 From: Jan Craven To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981209080824.00820c10@mail.usunwired.net> Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Re: [BOARD-L] Motion 98-10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I respectfully would like to ask this question. If this were a state negotiating with someone...say a newspaper to get their obits, would THEY have to get permission from the board to do so? I can't see where the board has the authority to govern what the archives does. I do not have any problem with keeping you folks up to date on how this is progressing, but I think that asking the archives to get the Board's approval is NOT bottoms up policy that we are trying to maintain. I am not trying to start a big commotion, I just want to state what I think the bylaws say. Jan >Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 05:48:35 -0800 (PST) >X-Sender: essxbook@citrus.infi.net >Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 08:54:21 -0500 >Old-To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com, BOARD-L@rootsweb.com >From: Bob Bamford >Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Motion 98-10 >Resent-Message-ID: <"O1tR_C.A.oHE.y-nb2"@bl-14.rootsweb.com> >To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com >Resent-From: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com >Reply-To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com >X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1303 >X-Loop: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com >Resent-Sender: BOARD-L-request@rootsweb.com > >At 08:55 AM 12/9/98 -0500, Holly Timm wrote: >>A small change suggested: >>from: >>Any agreements shall be subject to approval by The USGenWeb Advisory Board. >>to: >>Any agreements shall be subject to prior approval by The USGenWeb Advisory >>Board. >> >Make a motion to ammend. > >Bob > > > Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 06:41:14 -0800 From: "Kay Mason" To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Message-Id: <199812091444.GAA30685@mail.networkone.net> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Re: [BOARD-L] Motion 98-10 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT I agree with Jan on this. Under the Bylaws, the Special Projects are treated in the same way as the states, and the Board has no more authority over a Special Project than they do over a state. The Board was not consulted by the Archives regarding their agreements with Rootsweb, or SK Publications, and this would be the same. Kay Mason Date forwarded: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 06:07:17 -0800 (PST) Date sent: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 08:08:24 -0700 From: Jan Craven Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Re: [BOARD-L] Motion 98-10 To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Forwarded by: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Send reply to: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > I respectfully would like to ask this question. > If this were a state negotiating with someone...say a newspaper to get > their obits, > would THEY have to get permission from the board to do so? > I can't see where the board has the authority to govern what the archives > does. > I do not have any problem with keeping you folks up to date on how this is > progressing, but I think that asking the archives to get the Board's approval > is NOT bottoms up policy that we are trying to maintain. > I am not trying to start a big commotion, I just want to state what I think > the bylaws say. > Jan > > >Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 05:48:35 -0800 (PST) > >X-Sender: essxbook@citrus.infi.net > >Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 08:54:21 -0500 > >Old-To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com, BOARD-L@rootsweb.com > >From: Bob Bamford > >Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Motion 98-10 > >Resent-Message-ID: <"O1tR_C.A.oHE.y-nb2"@bl-14.rootsweb.com> > >To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com > >Resent-From: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com > >Reply-To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com > >X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1303 > >X-Loop: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com > >Resent-Sender: BOARD-L-request@rootsweb.com > > > >At 08:55 AM 12/9/98 -0500, Holly Timm wrote: > >>A small change suggested: > >>from: > >>Any agreements shall be subject to approval by The USGenWeb Advisory Board. > >>to: > >>Any agreements shall be subject to prior approval by The USGenWeb Advisory > >>Board. > >> > >Make a motion to ammend. > > > >Bob > > > > > > > USGenWeb Census Project http://www.usgenweb.org/census/ http://www.usgenweb.com/census http://www.usgenweb.net/census/ Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 12:22:31 -0500 From: Bob Bamford To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981209122231.007afc40@citrus.infi.net> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Re: [BOARD-L] Motion 98-10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:08 AM 12/9/98 -0700, Jan Craven wrote: >I respectfully would like to ask this question. >If this were a state negotiating with someone...say a newspaper to get >their obits, >would THEY have to get permission from the board to do so? >I can't see where the board has the authority to govern what the archives >does. Let's keep it simple. If a state were to hook up wth some outside outfit and engage in a commercial venture, would you question it both as a vounteer or a board member? The Archives are a part of the project and what they do reflects on the project as a whole. Because this activity requires dealing with a commercial entity the project is possibly at risk to exposure to copyright infringement and accusations that the board is "going commercial." All Trey is trying to do is formalize the control to protect the project and the board. Any board of any corp. would impose the same strictures on one of it's divisions. In short is says: 'go ahead, but make no deals and keep us posted.' It puts no restraint on the Archives to investigate what could be a very valuable, for the project, relationship. >I do not have any problem with keeping you folks up to date on how this is >progressing, but I think that asking the archives to get the Board's approval >is NOT bottoms up policy that we are trying to maintain. >I am not trying to start a big commotion, I just want to state what I think >the bylaws say. Bottom up goes just so far. When an action by the bottom jeopardizes the organization, the top is obligated to protect the organization. I'm not saying this does but any manager would agree with that philosophy. Bob >Jan > >>Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 05:48:35 -0800 (PST) >>X-Sender: essxbook@citrus.infi.net >>Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 08:54:21 -0500 >>Old-To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com, BOARD-L@rootsweb.com >>From: Bob Bamford >>Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Motion 98-10 >>Resent-Message-ID: <"O1tR_C.A.oHE.y-nb2"@bl-14.rootsweb.com> >>To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com >>Resent-From: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com >>Reply-To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com >>X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1303 >>X-Loop: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com >>Resent-Sender: BOARD-L-request@rootsweb.com >> >>At 08:55 AM 12/9/98 -0500, Holly Timm wrote: >>>A small change suggested: >>>from: >>>Any agreements shall be subject to approval by The USGenWeb Advisory Board. >>>to: >>>Any agreements shall be subject to prior approval by The USGenWeb Advisory >>>Board. >>> >>Make a motion to ammend. >> >>Bob >> >> >> > > Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 21:50:49 -0600 From: Trey Holt To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19981209215049.0187e9f0@txcyber.com> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Re: [BOARD-L] Motion 98-10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I initially felt the same way. My opinion was that the board should not have to approve such routine things. I dont feel that it is our business to meddle in state and project business but after much thought and some consultation I have come to the position that in cases where direct communication between members of this project and outside entities could directly reflect on the project I think the board should at a minimum give final approval before any formal relationships are approved. Since the party involved is a corporation and since the letter was initially sent to the attention of the National Coordinator it is reasonable to believe that they do not see the difference between a special project and the whole project. I am not in favor of the Board micromanaging any such discussions. That is why I tried to word the motion in such a way as to give the Archives Project the flexibility to freely have discussions without strict reporting deadlines or other requirements. I am only in favor in this instance of the board approving a final agreement if everything were to work out and perhaps an occasional report. Thanks Trey At 08:08 AM 12/9/98 -0700, you wrote: >I respectfully would like to ask this question. >If this were a state negotiating with someone...say a newspaper to get >their obits, >would THEY have to get permission from the board to do so? >I can't see where the board has the authority to govern what the archives >does. >I do not have any problem with keeping you folks up to date on how this is >progressing, but I think that asking the archives to get the Board's approval >is NOT bottoms up policy that we are trying to maintain. >I am not trying to start a big commotion, I just want to state what I think >the bylaws say. >Jan > >>Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 05:48:35 -0800 (PST) >>X-Sender: essxbook@citrus.infi.net >>Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 08:54:21 -0500 >>Old-To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com, BOARD-L@rootsweb.com >>From: Bob Bamford >>Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Motion 98-10 >>Resent-Message-ID: <"O1tR_C.A.oHE.y-nb2"@bl-14.rootsweb.com> >>To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com >>Resent-From: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com >>Reply-To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com >>X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1303 >>X-Loop: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com >>Resent-Sender: BOARD-L-request@rootsweb.com >> >>At 08:55 AM 12/9/98 -0500, Holly Timm wrote: >>>A small change suggested: >>>from: >>>Any agreements shall be subject to approval by The USGenWeb Advisory Board. >>>to: >>>Any agreements shall be subject to prior approval by The USGenWeb Advisory >>>Board. >>> >>Make a motion to ammend. >> >>Bob >> >> >> > > Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 12:33:21 -0500 From: Yvonne James-Henderson To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <366EB461.A5B5EEE9@idt.net> Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Candidates's private lives Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All, Kay brought up this topic a week or so ago and I have been mulling it around for a while. "What constitutes a member in good standing?" In light of the current candidates running for office, (no, not you Kathy ) I think we need to further define member in good standing. I may be way off base here, but to me "member in good standing" would *have* to touch on the "personalities/faces" that are presented to fellow members of the USGenWeb and their ability to work as a team member/help mate. No, I don't mean they have to be a "yes" man and follow faithfully through thick and thin, but someone that deliberately tries to incite "the masses" and rip apart the system, is not a member in good standing in my book, no matter what their web page looks like! Anyone's thoughts on this? In response to Tim Stowell's note to the ALL list, (yes, I still read it) I have sent him the following letter. Hi Tim, The by-laws state that the cc must be a member in "good standing" and goes further to say, "In good standing" is demonstrated by responding promptly to email, actively supporting researchers' efforts to find information, maintaining their website with appropriate, up-to-date content, and serving as a good example of the guidelines and standards of The USGenWeb Project. What is your definition of good standing, can you elaborate on the above statement? Tim wrote: 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. Take care, Yvonne in Burke, VA Vive la USGenWeb Project! **************************