Beginning March 2nd, 2020 the Mailing Lists functionality on RootsWeb will be discontinued. Users will no longer be able to send outgoing emails or accept incoming emails. Additionally, administration tools will no longer be available to list administrators and mailing lists will be put into an archival state.
Administrators may save the emails in their list prior to March 2nd. After that, mailing list archives will remain available and searchable on RootsWeb
Why would he want to be in the fold, to be treated like this?
If someone else had purchased the domain, what would you do then?
Just some simple questions that I haven't heard addressed yet.
Terria
DAStoddard(a)aol.com wrote:
> << Paul,
> If I was Horace and someone told me that my 39 years of hard work was
> sponging
> off the government. It would be a cold day in Hades before I would give you
> the time of day. Your comments are totally personallly abusive and should
> not
> be allowed on this discuss list. I ask Sharon would she please moderate.
> This
> list should be for issues not personal abuse.
> Thank you! Terria >>
>
> I read Paul's comments as alerting us that Horace was (1), pandering for a
> sympathy vote with the military service and his supposed loyalty to the
> project by his work on the bylaws committee, (2) pandering for a heroic vote
> for "saving us" from the gloom and doom of possible castastrophic
> expectations of Ancestry/MyFamily--all issues devoid of logic and based on
> pushing our fear buttons.
>
> I'm glad Horace served his country for 39 years. I wish he would serve
> NCGenweb for 39 minutes by either surrendering the domain or just dropping
> the whole issue off the web forever and coming back to the fold as a sheep
> who temporarily lost his way.
What I understood was that Ron is a Co-CC. To my knowledge, we still have
Lori.
It does seem that Kelly will be leaving us as she said, since she just
unsubbed from the required Read Only NCGENWEB-L.
Shaorn Williamson
NCGENWEB SC
Diana wrote:
>
> Hello and welcome, Ron. I hope you will introduce yourself to us and provide a brief description/introduction for our cc page that I keep at
> http://betterthanmost.com/wayne/ncgenweb/coordinator.htm
>
> Sharon, does this mean that Lori Tworek is no longer with us in NCGW?
> Diana
Hello and welcome, Ron. I hope you will introduce yourself to us and provide a brief description/introduction for our cc page that I keep at
http://betterthanmost.com/wayne/ncgenweb/coordinator.htm
Sharon, does this mean that Lori Tworek is no longer with us in NCGW?
Diana
<< I guess maybe I am not getting the point and now wonder if I ever will!
So.....then just reject Horace's offer. It would be like anyone else that
can purchase any available domain name. They have the option of doing
whatever they want with it. >>
Terria.
We get your point, some just have a different opinion and vision.
I know people get my point that I don't like to encourage going this road, as
this could happen again, and will we be held hostage forever? I don't think
it imperils the state whatsoever. People will find the right site via
USGenWeb, and if they don't they will keep trying. There are PLENTY of
duplicate county sites outside of USGenWeb and nobody seems to care about
those.
I know few people agree with this, and that's ok.
I think most people want Horace to just give up the domain and let the whole
thing go away. Don't you?
<< Why would he want to be in the fold, to be treated like this? If someone
else had purchased the domain, what would you do then? Just some simple
questions that I haven't heard addressed yet. Terria >>
1. The issue should be, how is Horace treating NCGenWeb....?
2. What would I do if somebody else purchased this domain or one similar?
Totally ignore that person and his behavior, as we should totally ignore
Horace.
Are we going to buy off everyone who comes along buying this or that
variation of our name? Let's don't play that game.
Thank you, Elizabeth.
Sharon
Elizabeth Harris wrote:
>
> I just sent this to Terria in response to a private message, but decided to
> send it to the rest of the list as well:
>
> My objection to what Horace has done is not the fact that he got the domain
> name, but that he has used it to direct traffic to a page that not only is
> not the NCGenWeb home page, but a page that causes serious problems for
> some computers. I would not oppose having a separate domain name that was
> used simply as a redirect to all the county pages, although frankly I still
> don't see the need for it; in my opinion it would be just one more page
> that needed to be kept updated with the ever-changing county URLs. But IF
> we have such a page, then I want it maintained to the same standards as the
> rest of the NCGenWeb home pages, and that means user-friendly,
> browser-compatible, and nicely designed. And it should be done with the
> approval of the majority of the project volunteers, not forced on them.
>
> Elizabeth Harris
>
> NCGenWeb project: http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncgenweb/
> Winston-Salem NC area genealogy: http://users.erols.com/fmoran/
Terria,
If someone wants their messages posted on the discuss list, the least
they can do is to identify themselves. We are not really interested
in what unidentified people have to say about our business. If this is
a NCGENWEB CC, then they can subscribe for themselves. If no, then
at least let them offer their opinions openly.
And, you still aren't getting the point. The very fact that Horace
chose to purchase the domain and then offer it to NCGENWEB with
strings attached, shows that he has absolutely no respect for the
wishes of the NCGENWEB CCs who had just voted that they did not want
to have a domain. Now that he has created the domain, the only way
he is offering it to the NCGENWEB project is IF his conditions are
met, and those conditions go directly against what the majority of
CCs wanted when the issue was voted on.
Maybe every intention doesn't have to be financial. Maybe he is
simply determined to be in control and have things his way.
Sharon Williamson
NCGENWEB SC
Terria Baynor wrote:
>
> List:
> I was asked to send this to the list. It is a comment from someone in
> the
> USGenWeb project. Their views of this situation.
>
> "Horace didn't do wrong, and it's hard to criticize others directly
> related to a specific state project (SD, NY, TN, etc.) from acquiring
> a domain name.
>
> Now on the national level, I think the motives of two can be
> questioned. I can understand Brian L. for acquiring the Usgenweb.org
> domain name back when he did. But the fact that considered it a
> business asset and not a personal asset, when he sold Rootsweb, is
> very questionable, and bordering being deceitful. Consider the money
> involved, less than $200, in a sale of Rootsweb worth millions. Then
> Doc Schneider who owns one of the other domain names. What's his
> motive? He's not active in the USGenWeb project, so is his motive
> money, that is, the sale of the domain name for a profit?"
>
> My comments:
> We need to look at why Horace did what he did. Does he have personal
> gain as a
> motive here? It is obvious that he doesn't if he is willing to give
> it to our
> project, for nothing but our committment to protect it and use it.
> Thank you!
> Terria
<< Paul,
If I was Horace and someone told me that my 39 years of hard work was
sponging
off the government. It would be a cold day in Hades before I would give you
the time of day. Your comments are totally personallly abusive and should
not
be allowed on this discuss list. I ask Sharon would she please moderate.
This
list should be for issues not personal abuse.
Thank you! Terria >>
I read Paul's comments as alerting us that Horace was (1), pandering for a
sympathy vote with the military service and his supposed loyalty to the
project by his work on the bylaws committee, (2) pandering for a heroic vote
for "saving us" from the gloom and doom of possible castastrophic
expectations of Ancestry/MyFamily--all issues devoid of logic and based on
pushing our fear buttons.
I'm glad Horace served his country for 39 years. I wish he would serve
NCGenweb for 39 minutes by either surrendering the domain or just dropping
the whole issue off the web forever and coming back to the fold as a sheep
who temporarily lost his way.
I just sent this to Terria in response to a private message, but decided to
send it to the rest of the list as well:
My objection to what Horace has done is not the fact that he got the domain
name, but that he has used it to direct traffic to a page that not only is
not the NCGenWeb home page, but a page that causes serious problems for
some computers. I would not oppose having a separate domain name that was
used simply as a redirect to all the county pages, although frankly I still
don't see the need for it; in my opinion it would be just one more page
that needed to be kept updated with the ever-changing county URLs. But IF
we have such a page, then I want it maintained to the same standards as the
rest of the NCGenWeb home pages, and that means user-friendly,
browser-compatible, and nicely designed. And it should be done with the
approval of the majority of the project volunteers, not forced on them.
Elizabeth Harris
NCGenWeb project: http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncgenweb/
Winston-Salem NC area genealogy: http://users.erols.com/fmoran/
List:
I was asked to send this to the list. It is a comment from someone in
the
USGenWeb project. Their views of this situation.
"Horace didn't do wrong, and it's hard to criticize others directly
related to a specific state project (SD, NY, TN, etc.) from acquiring
a domain name.
Now on the national level, I think the motives of two can be
questioned. I can understand Brian L. for acquiring the Usgenweb.org
domain name back when he did. But the fact that considered it a
business asset and not a personal asset, when he sold Rootsweb, is
very questionable, and bordering being deceitful. Consider the money
involved, less than $200, in a sale of Rootsweb worth millions. Then
Doc Schneider who owns one of the other domain names. What's his
motive? He's not active in the USGenWeb project, so is his motive
money, that is, the sale of the domain name for a profit?"
My comments:
We need to look at why Horace did what he did. Does he have personal
gain as a
motive here? It is obvious that he doesn't if he is willing to give
it to our
project, for nothing but our committment to protect it and use it.
Thank you!
Terria
Paul,
If I was Horace and someone told me that my 39 years of hard work was sponging
off the government. It would be a cold day in Hades before I would give you
the time of day. Your comments are totally personallly abusive and should not
be allowed on this discuss list. I ask Sharon would she please moderate. This
list should be for issues not personal abuse.
Thank you!
Terria
Paul Buckley wrote:
> And another thing Horace,
>
> I resent your implications that just because you sponged off the military
> for 39 years that you are more of a patriot than the rest of us who only
> served our six-year obligation defending the very laws that you are
> flagrantly attempting to usurp for whatever reason. And need I remind you
> of the many who did not fulfill their six-year term because their names are
> written on a black wall in Washington?
>
> I also resent your inference about the by-laws committee never posting your
> draft. I was the scribe for the previous by-laws committee. I never saw
> your draft until tonight! Further, Sharon has publicly stated that the
> by-laws issue was on the agenda for discussion. Do you not read your
> e-mails?
>
> Let it go Horace. Transfer the NCGenWeb.org registration to its rightful
> owners, The USGenWeb/NCGenWeb Project and redirect ncgenweb.org to the
> official NCGenWeb page.
>
> Paul Buckley
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Horace B. Peele <hpeele(a)txdirect.net>
> To: <NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2000 7:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] Domain, etc.
>
> Hello all.
>
> Some of you accused me of being against NCGENWEB. If that is true then why
> would I go to great length to also write and propose a set of bylaws to
> covering voting. These were sent to the Bylaw committee. You saw you
> never saw them, well they are below. Can anyone else show me their
> proposed bylaws on any subject? Can anyone show me what they tried to
> contribute to the bylaw effort? Maybe you did, I know there were some
> others. But the point is that I would not have taken all the effort to
> write these if I was against NCGENWEB.
>
> Horace
>
> =============
>
> ARTICLE (?1) - GENERAL ELECTION
>
> A. The SC shall cause a bi-annual General Election to held during the
> 30-day period beginning the first day of the month of (some month to be
> determined???) of the even numbered years. This 30-day period shall be
> referred to as the Election Period. The Election Period shall be inclusive
> of all actions to include nominations, changes to by-laws, discussion,
> casting votes by private ballot, interim reporting, validating and final
> reporting on all items to be voted upon in the General Election. The
> Election Period shall be used in the following manner to control all
> actions:
> · Nomination Period. The first 21 days of the 30-day Election Period
> shall be referred as the Nomination Period, which shall be used for
> nominations, seconding nominations, discussions, and in general placing
> duly approved issues onto the ballot. The 21-day Nomination Period cannot
> be extended for any reason, not by any person nor by any quorum. All
> nominations of individuals and all items to be voted upon must be presented
> during the Nomination Period, which shall unconditionally close at midnight
> of the 21st day.
>
> · Discussion Period. The 22nd through the 28th day of the 30-day
> Election Period shall be referred as the Discussion Period. This period
> shall be used by the By-Law Committee and the Voting Committee to finalize
> all work and to write the ballot. During this period, discussions on the
> General List may continue on any subject, however, all nominations or items
> for the ballot are closed.
>
> · Voting Day. The 29th day of the 30-day Election Period shall be
> referred as Voting Day, which shall be used for casting all votes except
> for the absentee voting that may have been done previously, directly, and
> privately to the Absentee Ballot Holder.
>
> · Election Day. The 30th day of the 30-day Election Period shall be
> referred as Election Day, which shall be used for counting, validating and
> reporting all votes to include the absentee voting that may have been done
> previously and during the 28-day Nomination Period. Election winners shall
> be announced.
>
> B. Immediately prior to the Election Period, the SC shall:
> · Obtain one volunteer County Coordinator, trusted and unbiased and
> not in the running for any office, to perform the duty of Absentee Ballot
> Holder as described in Article (?2) entitled "Voting Procedure" and Article
> (?3) entitled "Vote Counting, Reporting, and Validation."
>
> · Obtain three volunteer County Coordinators, trusted and unbiased
> and not in the running for any office, to perform the duties of the Voting
> Committee as described in Article (?2) entitled "Voting Procedure" and
> Article (?3) entitled "Vote Counting, Reporting, and Validation."
>
> · Appoint the members of the By-Law Committee to perform the duties
> as described in Article (?X) entitled (????). (Note: This may need to be
> reworded, I have not seen how this is organized)
>
> C. On the first day of the Election Period, the SC shall:
> · Send a formal message to the General List [NCGENWEB] to formally
> declare that the General Election is now open, naming the inclusive 30-day
> Election Period with exact dates for the Nomination Period, Discussion
> Period, Voting Day, and Election Day.
>
> · The message shall also announce the names and electronic-mail
> (E-mail) addresses of the four persons appointed to perform the roles of
> Absentee Ballot Holder and the Voting Committee as well as the names and
> e-mail address of the members of the current By-Law Committee.
>
> D. During the Nomination Period, the SC shall moderate all discussions on
> the General List for the 28 days and shall cause discussion to cease on the
> evening of the 28th day, the evening before the Voting Day. During this
> period, the SC shall not show favoritism on any item on the ballot or for
> any person on the ballot.
>
> E. In the event that the SC shows favoritism or a bias towards any item or
> toward any person, the Board of Directors may remove the SC for the
> remaining period and appoint an "Acting SC" to fill the remaining period of
> the SC's term. For this purpose, the ASC shall and will not be appointed
> to perform the duty of Acting SC.
>
> F. All voting shall be accomplished in the manner and process as outlined
> and enumerated in Article (?2) entitled "Voting Procedure" and Article (?3)
> entitled "Vote Counting, Reporting, and Validation."
>
> G. During the General Election, a simple majority (51%) of the votes,
> received from the eligible voters as approved by the bylaws, shall be
> required to approve the following actions:
> · Elections of State Coordinator and Board of Directors.
>
> · Amendments of bylaws.
>
> · Any other action deemed appropriate by the State Coordinator and
> Board of Directors.
>
> E. Only Internet E-mail votes are permitted in the General Election.
>
> F. Absentee voting is permitted in accordance with the voting procedure
> described in Article (?2) entitled "Voting Procedure" and Article (?3)
> entitled "Vote Counting, Reporting, and Validation."
>
> G. Proxy voting is not permitted in any circumstance.
> ARTICLE (?2) - VOTING PROCEDURE
>
> 1. The Voting Committee, shall during the Discussion Period, formulate and
> structure the ballot document.
> · The Voting Committee has gather, during the 21-day Nomination
> Period, all items from the General List that have been nominated and
> seconded, in due order, to be voted upon by the general voters except for
> those items being separately worked by the By-Laws Committee.
>
> · For all other ballot issues, the Voting Committee shall word the
> issue to ensure that the wording represents the intention of the
> originating individual. Such words shall be approved through the use of
> private E-mail between the Chairperson of the Voting Committee and its
> originator and his/her seconding individual. Once approved, the wording
> shall be considered final and can not be modified except as modified during
> the Nomination Period.
>
> · The Voting Committee shall use the Discussion Period to prepare and
> finalize the ballot.
>
> · The By-Law Committee will prepare their items that are to be voted
> upon as a separate document. Changes to the by-laws shall be forwarded by
> the Chairperson of the By-Law Committee on the first day of the Discussion
> Period to the Chairperson of the Voting Committee. The Voting Committee
> shall consolidate their issues and the document from the By-laws Committee
> into one ballot. The Voting Committee shall not modify or alter the
> wording of any item presented by the By-Laws Committee.
>
> · The Voting Committee shall send the entire ballot to the General
> List on the 28th day of the Nomination Period.
>
> 2. Each person on the General List shall vote on his/her ballot and send
> it, by private e-mail to all three members of the Voting Committee any time
> during the Voting Day. The "receipt requested" feature of the e-mail
> should be used to ensure delivery. The use private e-mail will eliminate
> any open influence to others.
>
> ARTICLE (?3) - VOTE COUNTING, VALIDATION AND REPORTING
>
> 1. The Absentee Ballot Holder will collect and retain all absentee ballots
> received via private e-mail until Voting Day. On Voting Day, all such
> ballots, if any, will be "forwarded" via e-mail, using the "receipt
> requested" feature, to all three members of the Voting Committee. A file
> copy of such ballots will be retained by the Absentee Ballot Holder for a
> period of 30 days.
>
> 2. All tabulations would be done by Voting Committee on Election Day and
> reported to the General List by the end of Election Day.
>
> 3. The Voting Committee will use to following procedure to construct the
> report. The report shall contain an individual accounting of each ballot
> designed also to protect the anonymity of the individual voter. Only the
> members of the Voting Committee will know how members of the General List
> voted.
> · The date-time-group (DTG) placed on each voter's message will be
> used as a serial number for that voter.
>
> · All entries in the final report will be placed in DTG order and
> each will summarize the vote from the ballot of the individual casting the
> vote.
>
> · The actual ballots shall be retained for 60 days after Election Day
> and then destroyed.
>
> 4. The Voting Committee Chairperson shall construct the final report using
> a line item entry for each person and a summary reflecting the actual tally
> for each ballot item. Each individual entry will reflect three part
> expression "For, Against, Abstain" for each item on the ballot. The report
> summary total for each ballot item will reflect the same.
>
> 5. The Voting Committee Chairperson shall appoint one member to send out
> individual message extracts to the General List as they arrive on Voting
> Day using the DTG accounting described above. The voters identity shall
> not be revealed.
>
> 6. The Voting Committee Chairperson shall appoint one member to perform a
> validation of the count and to review the final report before the
> Chairperson releases it.
>
> Thank you, Horace.
> (I now have over 34,500 descendents of Lawrence Peelle)
> ____________________________________________________
> Visit all my sites from - http://www.horace.peele.com
> Horace Peele, 12806 Chateau Forest, San Antonio, TX 78230
> _________________ô¿ô For More Peeles__________________
> Yeah, Rootsweb could be sold again,
> to someone that doesn't agree with the terms of service that we exist
under
> currently. That hasn't happened so far, and there's no indication of any
> such thing happening.
(yawn)
That's why unexpected surprises are surprises. They don't send you
indications first.
And another thing Horace,
I resent your implications that just because you sponged off the military
for 39 years that you are more of a patriot than the rest of us who only
served our six-year obligation defending the very laws that you are
flagrantly attempting to usurp for whatever reason. And need I remind you
of the many who did not fulfill their six-year term because their names are
written on a black wall in Washington?
I also resent your inference about the by-laws committee never posting your
draft. I was the scribe for the previous by-laws committee. I never saw
your draft until tonight! Further, Sharon has publicly stated that the
by-laws issue was on the agenda for discussion. Do you not read your
e-mails?
Let it go Horace. Transfer the NCGenWeb.org registration to its rightful
owners, The USGenWeb/NCGenWeb Project and redirect ncgenweb.org to the
official NCGenWeb page.
Paul Buckley
----- Original Message -----
From: Horace B. Peele <hpeele(a)txdirect.net>
To: <NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2000 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] Domain, etc.
Hello all.
Some of you accused me of being against NCGENWEB. If that is true then why
would I go to great length to also write and propose a set of bylaws to
covering voting. These were sent to the Bylaw committee. You saw you
never saw them, well they are below. Can anyone else show me their
proposed bylaws on any subject? Can anyone show me what they tried to
contribute to the bylaw effort? Maybe you did, I know there were some
others. But the point is that I would not have taken all the effort to
write these if I was against NCGENWEB.
Horace
=============
ARTICLE (?1) - GENERAL ELECTION
A. The SC shall cause a bi-annual General Election to held during the
30-day period beginning the first day of the month of (some month to be
determined???) of the even numbered years. This 30-day period shall be
referred to as the Election Period. The Election Period shall be inclusive
of all actions to include nominations, changes to by-laws, discussion,
casting votes by private ballot, interim reporting, validating and final
reporting on all items to be voted upon in the General Election. The
Election Period shall be used in the following manner to control all
actions:
· Nomination Period. The first 21 days of the 30-day Election Period
shall be referred as the Nomination Period, which shall be used for
nominations, seconding nominations, discussions, and in general placing
duly approved issues onto the ballot. The 21-day Nomination Period cannot
be extended for any reason, not by any person nor by any quorum. All
nominations of individuals and all items to be voted upon must be presented
during the Nomination Period, which shall unconditionally close at midnight
of the 21st day.
· Discussion Period. The 22nd through the 28th day of the 30-day
Election Period shall be referred as the Discussion Period. This period
shall be used by the By-Law Committee and the Voting Committee to finalize
all work and to write the ballot. During this period, discussions on the
General List may continue on any subject, however, all nominations or items
for the ballot are closed.
· Voting Day. The 29th day of the 30-day Election Period shall be
referred as Voting Day, which shall be used for casting all votes except
for the absentee voting that may have been done previously, directly, and
privately to the Absentee Ballot Holder.
· Election Day. The 30th day of the 30-day Election Period shall be
referred as Election Day, which shall be used for counting, validating and
reporting all votes to include the absentee voting that may have been done
previously and during the 28-day Nomination Period. Election winners shall
be announced.
B. Immediately prior to the Election Period, the SC shall:
· Obtain one volunteer County Coordinator, trusted and unbiased and
not in the running for any office, to perform the duty of Absentee Ballot
Holder as described in Article (?2) entitled "Voting Procedure" and Article
(?3) entitled "Vote Counting, Reporting, and Validation."
· Obtain three volunteer County Coordinators, trusted and unbiased
and not in the running for any office, to perform the duties of the Voting
Committee as described in Article (?2) entitled "Voting Procedure" and
Article (?3) entitled "Vote Counting, Reporting, and Validation."
· Appoint the members of the By-Law Committee to perform the duties
as described in Article (?X) entitled (????). (Note: This may need to be
reworded, I have not seen how this is organized)
C. On the first day of the Election Period, the SC shall:
· Send a formal message to the General List [NCGENWEB] to formally
declare that the General Election is now open, naming the inclusive 30-day
Election Period with exact dates for the Nomination Period, Discussion
Period, Voting Day, and Election Day.
· The message shall also announce the names and electronic-mail
(E-mail) addresses of the four persons appointed to perform the roles of
Absentee Ballot Holder and the Voting Committee as well as the names and
e-mail address of the members of the current By-Law Committee.
D. During the Nomination Period, the SC shall moderate all discussions on
the General List for the 28 days and shall cause discussion to cease on the
evening of the 28th day, the evening before the Voting Day. During this
period, the SC shall not show favoritism on any item on the ballot or for
any person on the ballot.
E. In the event that the SC shows favoritism or a bias towards any item or
toward any person, the Board of Directors may remove the SC for the
remaining period and appoint an "Acting SC" to fill the remaining period of
the SC's term. For this purpose, the ASC shall and will not be appointed
to perform the duty of Acting SC.
F. All voting shall be accomplished in the manner and process as outlined
and enumerated in Article (?2) entitled "Voting Procedure" and Article (?3)
entitled "Vote Counting, Reporting, and Validation."
G. During the General Election, a simple majority (51%) of the votes,
received from the eligible voters as approved by the bylaws, shall be
required to approve the following actions:
· Elections of State Coordinator and Board of Directors.
· Amendments of bylaws.
· Any other action deemed appropriate by the State Coordinator and
Board of Directors.
E. Only Internet E-mail votes are permitted in the General Election.
F. Absentee voting is permitted in accordance with the voting procedure
described in Article (?2) entitled "Voting Procedure" and Article (?3)
entitled "Vote Counting, Reporting, and Validation."
G. Proxy voting is not permitted in any circumstance.
ARTICLE (?2) - VOTING PROCEDURE
1. The Voting Committee, shall during the Discussion Period, formulate and
structure the ballot document.
· The Voting Committee has gather, during the 21-day Nomination
Period, all items from the General List that have been nominated and
seconded, in due order, to be voted upon by the general voters except for
those items being separately worked by the By-Laws Committee.
· For all other ballot issues, the Voting Committee shall word the
issue to ensure that the wording represents the intention of the
originating individual. Such words shall be approved through the use of
private E-mail between the Chairperson of the Voting Committee and its
originator and his/her seconding individual. Once approved, the wording
shall be considered final and can not be modified except as modified during
the Nomination Period.
· The Voting Committee shall use the Discussion Period to prepare and
finalize the ballot.
· The By-Law Committee will prepare their items that are to be voted
upon as a separate document. Changes to the by-laws shall be forwarded by
the Chairperson of the By-Law Committee on the first day of the Discussion
Period to the Chairperson of the Voting Committee. The Voting Committee
shall consolidate their issues and the document from the By-laws Committee
into one ballot. The Voting Committee shall not modify or alter the
wording of any item presented by the By-Laws Committee.
· The Voting Committee shall send the entire ballot to the General
List on the 28th day of the Nomination Period.
2. Each person on the General List shall vote on his/her ballot and send
it, by private e-mail to all three members of the Voting Committee any time
during the Voting Day. The "receipt requested" feature of the e-mail
should be used to ensure delivery. The use private e-mail will eliminate
any open influence to others.
ARTICLE (?3) - VOTE COUNTING, VALIDATION AND REPORTING
1. The Absentee Ballot Holder will collect and retain all absentee ballots
received via private e-mail until Voting Day. On Voting Day, all such
ballots, if any, will be "forwarded" via e-mail, using the "receipt
requested" feature, to all three members of the Voting Committee. A file
copy of such ballots will be retained by the Absentee Ballot Holder for a
period of 30 days.
2. All tabulations would be done by Voting Committee on Election Day and
reported to the General List by the end of Election Day.
3. The Voting Committee will use to following procedure to construct the
report. The report shall contain an individual accounting of each ballot
designed also to protect the anonymity of the individual voter. Only the
members of the Voting Committee will know how members of the General List
voted.
· The date-time-group (DTG) placed on each voter's message will be
used as a serial number for that voter.
· All entries in the final report will be placed in DTG order and
each will summarize the vote from the ballot of the individual casting the
vote.
· The actual ballots shall be retained for 60 days after Election Day
and then destroyed.
4. The Voting Committee Chairperson shall construct the final report using
a line item entry for each person and a summary reflecting the actual tally
for each ballot item. Each individual entry will reflect three part
expression "For, Against, Abstain" for each item on the ballot. The report
summary total for each ballot item will reflect the same.
5. The Voting Committee Chairperson shall appoint one member to send out
individual message extracts to the General List as they arrive on Voting
Day using the DTG accounting described above. The voters identity shall
not be revealed.
6. The Voting Committee Chairperson shall appoint one member to perform a
validation of the count and to review the final report before the
Chairperson releases it.
Thank you, Horace.
(I now have over 34,500 descendents of Lawrence Peelle)
____________________________________________________
Visit all my sites from - http://www.horace.peele.com
Horace Peele, 12806 Chateau Forest, San Antonio, TX 78230
_________________ô¿ô For More Peeles__________________
Horace,
The only way you can redeem yourself as far as I am concerned is to freely
turn over NCGENWEB.org to NCGENWEB, with NO STRINGS ATTACHED. Anything less
leavs me wondering about your true intentions.
As I told you in a private e-mail, -
You can own NCGENWEB.org, NCGENWEB.com and NCGENWEB.net all, that does NOT give
you the RIGHT to USE them. The NCGENWEB part is ours, and it is not for your
use, independent of NCGENWEB.
You say you are wanting to protect NCGENWEB. Protect us from what, our self?
Just what was in your mind when you had the knowledge that the NCGENWEB CCs
had voted a majority vote, NOT to have our own domain, but you decided you
know what is best for the group and create this problem for us all? Just why
is it that you are all knowing and the majority of CCs don't know anything?
Sharon Williamson
NCGENWEB SC
"Horace B. Peele" wrote:
>
> Someone said....
>
> >Maybe that's just what he will do.
> >Truth is, nobody knows WHAT he will do.
>
> Wrong...
>
> Truth is someone does know what Horace will do. And that is me. Horace.
>
> I wonder what you are going to do when the next merger of Rootsweb and
> MyFamily occurs when someone with big money comes along and buys the total
> assets. What happens then to all the love that has been given to creating
> all those document in the archives? Does it go into the drain for
> nothing? Will it happen? Sure, Internet assets sale everyday. In time
> there will be another merger or sale and the new owners will not
> necessarily care about the little people. Sure we have just heard all the
> things that will not happen now during this merger, but there was no
> mention of someone with big dollars buying in the future, or any protection
> for us then. How could there be, it has not happened yet. But it
> will. What then?
>
> I even asked Elizabeth back last year or so about finding a place to house
> all of the NCGENWEB stuff so that we would really be protected. My
> feelings are that the work that all the CC's have done should be
> protected. That is why I am not on Rootsweb. I do not have any guarantee
> with them. I bought NCGENWEB right after the Rootsweb merger if you care
> to check the timing. I bought it to protect us just as I stated in my
> e-mail of 28 July.
>
> If you would like to see what I call a disgrace over of domain name, there
> is one that ought to blow your stack sky high. I don't know how much you
> hold our country at heart but I do. I care a lot. I worked 39 years for
> Uncle Sam and when I found that there is one domain name that disgraces our
> country, it really freaked me out. And the government could do nothing
> about it. Visit if you will http://www.whitehouse.com to see what I
> mean. It is still there and operating after all these years. Is there a
> point to this, Yes. The owner can do anything s/he desires with a name.
>
> Where were you when the NCGenWeb decided they did not want the domain
> leaving it up for grabs? Where were you when RW was giving away the
> xxgenweb subdomains on its server and redirecting them wherever? No one
> seemed to think the sky was falling tthen.
>
> I have never redirected our "state" page as someone stated. The state page
> is right where it has always been with all of its pointers still
> pointing. I simply equated my domain name to one of my pages.
>
> What did I offer to do with my domain name? I have only ever made one
> offer as stated in my email.
>
> Horace
> Thank you, Horace.
> (I now have over 34,500 descendents of Lawrence Peelle)
> ____________________________________________________
> Visit all my sites from - http://www.horace.peele.com
> Horace Peele, 12806 Chateau Forest, San Antonio, TX 78230
> _________________ô¿ô For More Peeles__________________
At 08:49 PM 08/29/2000 -0500, Horace B. Peele wrote:
>Someone said....
>>Maybe that's just what he will do.
>>Truth is, nobody knows WHAT he will do.
>Wrong...
>Truth is someone does know what Horace will do. And that is me. Horace.
But while I believe you were acting with the best of intentions, the
impression that you gave to me, at least, was of a loose cannon so intent
upon having your way in this matter that you were willing to throw an
entire project into an uproar. Especially since you've made it quite clear
that there's no room for compromise in your plans. Either we go along with
your plans for the use of the name, or we wait to see what you do next.
>I wonder what you are going to do when the next merger of Rootsweb and
>MyFamily occurs when someone with big money comes along and buys the total
>assets. <snip>
>
>I even asked Elizabeth back last year or so about finding a place to house
>all of the NCGENWEB stuff so that we would really be protected. My
>feelings are that the work that all the CC's have done should be
>protected. That is why I am not on Rootsweb. I do not have any guarantee
>with them. I bought NCGENWEB right after the Rootsweb merger if you care
>to check the timing. I bought it to protect us just as I stated in my
>e-mail of 28 July.
Then protect us by directing the domain to the state page, as it exists
right now, while everything else is hashed out! I've heard several times
from various people, "Well, what if?" Yeah, Rootsweb could be sold again,
to someone that doesn't agree with the terms of service that we exist under
currently. That hasn't happened so far, and there's no indication of any
such thing happening. In fact, Rootsweb merged with Ancestry/MyFamily
under the conditions that these terms remain in place. Do we have any
guarantees? No, we don't. Then again, unless you own and operate your own
server, no on *ever* has any guarantee that their terms of service will
stay the same forever. This certainly applies to anyplace offering free
webspace: geocities, tripod, freeservers, etc -- all of them reserve the
right to change the TOS at their discretion and without notice. There are
plenty of people happily using them instead of RW, despite the fact that
their TOS say, in so many words, that they own the servers and everything
on them. Even paying for webspace doesn't guarantee anything -- my ISP has
been sold more times than I care to count, and changes have been made every
time. I have purchased server space for my business account, and changes
still happen.
Basically, in my view, any decision made as to whether to buy domain names,
where to park domain names, where to put county pages -- these are all
things that need to be determined without trying to second guess
providers. Any and all providers can change anything at any time.
>Where were you when the NCGenWeb decided they did not want the domain
>leaving it up for grabs?
I was right here, saying that buying a domain name and then deciding how to
deal with it was putting the cart before the horse.
>I have never redirected our "state" page as someone stated. The state
>page is right where it has always been with all of its pointers still
>pointing. I simply equated my domain name to one of my pages.
No, you didn't redirect the state page. I am relieved to see, by the way,
that you have at least removed the scroll stating that your page is part of
the NCGW project.
>What did I offer to do with my domain name? I have only ever made one
>offer as stated in my email.
One non-negotiable offer. No compromise, no discussion, doesn't matter
what anyone else thinks or what the group as a whole would prefer to
do. Regardless of your motives, it shouldn't come as a surprise that there
are people that object to having this shoved down their throats.
Angie
I have put these military records on my home site. I also put the Alamance Co.
one's on the Alamance site. If anyone wants to copy the one's that belong to
their counties and put on their county pages , feel free to do so..
http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~mwellis/military_page.html
Mary Ellis
> CW Records for David Lee of Johnston, Co., NC
> CW Pension Record for Eliza Murray of Franklin Co., NC
> CW Pension Record for Mary A. Murray of Alamance Co., NC
> CW Records for Samuel Stewart of Alamance Co., NC
> CW Pension Record for Esperan A. Sykes of Alamance Co., NC
> CW Pension Record for Henry C. Sykes of Orange Co., NC
> CW Pension Record for J. G. Sykes 1901 of Alamance Co., NC
> CW Pension Record for J. G. Sykes 1902 of Alamance Co., NC
> CW Pension Record for J. G. Sykes 1907 of Alamance Co., NC
> CW Pension Record for J. G. Sykes 1908 of Alamance Co., NC
> CW Pension Record for Jasper J. Sykes of Orange Co., NC
> CW Pension Record for Sarah F. Sykes of Alamance Co., NC
> CW Pension Record for Samuel P. Sykes of Orange Co., NC
> CW Pension Record for Jane Tart of Johnston Co., NC
> CW Pension Record for Phoebie Tart of Johnston Co., NC
> CW Records for WestBrook Tart of Harnett Co., NC
> CW Pension Record for Winnefred Tart 1885 of Harnett Co., NC
> CW Pension Record for Winnefred Tart 1901 of Harnett Co., NC
> War Records 1812 of Charles Webster of Orange Co., NC
> Pension Records of 1812 for Rachel Holt Webster Alamance Co., NC
> CW Pension Record for Elizabeth Webster of Alamance Co., NC
> CW Pension Record for Mary C. Webster of Chatham Co., NC
> CW Pension Record for Mary E. Webster of Person Co., NC
> CW Pension Record for Caroline Wrenn of Alamance Co., NC
> CW Pension Record for George W. Wrenn 1901 of Rockingham Co., NC
> CW Pension Record for George W. Wrenn 1906 of Rockingham Co., NC
> CW Pension Record for John Wrenn of Alamance Co., NC
>
Someone said....
>Maybe that's just what he will do.
>Truth is, nobody knows WHAT he will do.
Wrong...
Truth is someone does know what Horace will do. And that is me. Horace.
I wonder what you are going to do when the next merger of Rootsweb and
MyFamily occurs when someone with big money comes along and buys the total
assets. What happens then to all the love that has been given to creating
all those document in the archives? Does it go into the drain for
nothing? Will it happen? Sure, Internet assets sale everyday. In time
there will be another merger or sale and the new owners will not
necessarily care about the little people. Sure we have just heard all the
things that will not happen now during this merger, but there was no
mention of someone with big dollars buying in the future, or any protection
for us then. How could there be, it has not happened yet. But it
will. What then?
I even asked Elizabeth back last year or so about finding a place to house
all of the NCGENWEB stuff so that we would really be protected. My
feelings are that the work that all the CC's have done should be
protected. That is why I am not on Rootsweb. I do not have any guarantee
with them. I bought NCGENWEB right after the Rootsweb merger if you care
to check the timing. I bought it to protect us just as I stated in my
e-mail of 28 July.
If you would like to see what I call a disgrace over of domain name, there
is one that ought to blow your stack sky high. I don't know how much you
hold our country at heart but I do. I care a lot. I worked 39 years for
Uncle Sam and when I found that there is one domain name that disgraces our
country, it really freaked me out. And the government could do nothing
about it. Visit if you will http://www.whitehouse.com to see what I
mean. It is still there and operating after all these years. Is there a
point to this, Yes. The owner can do anything s/he desires with a name.
Where were you when the NCGenWeb decided they did not want the domain
leaving it up for grabs? Where were you when RW was giving away the
xxgenweb subdomains on its server and redirecting them wherever? No one
seemed to think the sky was falling tthen.
I have never redirected our "state" page as someone stated. The state page
is right where it has always been with all of its pointers still
pointing. I simply equated my domain name to one of my pages.
What did I offer to do with my domain name? I have only ever made one
offer as stated in my email.
Horace
Thank you, Horace.
(I now have over 34,500 descendents of Lawrence Peelle)
____________________________________________________
Visit all my sites from - http://www.horace.peele.com
Horace Peele, 12806 Chateau Forest, San Antonio, TX 78230
_________________ô¿ô For More Peeles__________________
The motion is NOT to table all discussion of the issue. The motion is to
table the VOTE on the issue (and allow discussion to continue).
Diana
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandy" <teylu(a)home.com>
To: <NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2000 7:51 PM
Subject: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] Re:Grievance
>
> Well, if the motion is to TABLE all discussion of this issue, then I
> most certainly vote **NO**.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Angie Rayfield" <angie497(a)home.com>
> make them "do-nothing" people. It simply means that the priorities and
> opinions are different than yours, and it's unfair to sling sarcasm.
>
> Angie
Perhaps it would help if you would state what your priorities and opinions
are. What is your vision of what the USGenWeb Project is? What direction
should it be going in, what should be our goals? What would you like to
see us work for and what do we need to accomplish in order to get us there?
And I don't mean just 'put genealogy online' because we all are here to do
that.
We hear from some in our group who would like to see us own our own domain
name, trademark our name (formally), move away from putting all our eggs in
RootsWeb's basket for fear all our work will be owned by somebody else,
define our organizational structure in by-laws, ... what else? I may be
missing some of the ideas some people have wanted for us, but these are
concrete things we can do.
On the other hand, we hear that we don't need any of these things. So to
those people who feel that way, what are your visions of our project?
Diana
Actually, I didn't shoot anyone down. The information you posted
concerning using the (TM) trademark sign was incorrect. If being corrected
singes your feathers, I'm sorry, but your facts were inaccurate. And I'm
certainly entitled to my opinion, which is that in the scheme of things,
registering a trademark is an unnecessary expense, and certainly should be
far down on the list of priorities. If my having an opinion contrary to
yours singes your feathers, well, that I'm not going to apologize for.
And I think you're being horribly unfair to most of your co-CC's in NCGW
with some of your comments. The fact that someone doesn't necessarily line
up with your opinions and agenda, marching in lockstep with you, doesn't
mean that they aren't concerned about the good of the project. It doesn't
make them "do-nothing" people. It simply means that the priorities and
opinions are different than yours, and it's unfair to sling sarcasm.
Angie
At 01:41 AM 08/29/2000 -0400, Terria Baynor wrote:
>Well Sharon, see what I mean? I bet that if I said anything that it would
>be shot
>down immediately. Thank you Angie for proving my point!
>Please let us not do anything because it might just be good for this
>project. Lets
>sit on our duffs and argue about it. This is real constructive to
>accomplishing
>anything useful.
>Thank you for all the discussion, but I think it is all a waste of time and
>energy. Lets change our name to the NCdo-nothing Project! (If you detect
>a note
>of sarcasm, that is because you are absolutely right!)
>Terria
>
>Angie Rayfield wrote:
>
> > At 09:47 PM 08/28/2000 -0400, Terria Baynor wrote:
> > >I would like to discuss trademarking our name. Angie suggested that
> we put tm
> > >on our logo. We cannot do that unless we have trademarked it. So lets
> > >get the
> > >ball rolling on this and collect some money....$325.00 and do it
> > >legally....That
> > >way, our logo will be trademarked and our name will be protected. This is
> > >not a
> > >motion, because Sharon didn't want to confuse the issue by having too many
> > >things on the plate. I just would like to discuss this idea. Lets
> hear your
> > >ideas!
> >
> > Actually, we have no need whatsoever to trademark our name, and yes we CAN
> > put a trademark sign (TM) on our logo. We can't represent it as a
> > registered trademark (the (R) sign), but we already have the common-law
> > trademark on the name and the logos, by virtue of having used them. Our
> > name is already protected and trademarked.
> >
> > And while it sounds easy to say "Collect $325 and do it legally," well,
> > it's not necessarily that simple. There's probably someone on this list
> > with more legal knowledge than I have <g>, but if I'm not mistaken, $325 is
> > just the filing fee. A trademark search is considerably more expensive,
> > and attorney's fees are even more expensive. Yes, you can fill out the
> > paperwork and do it yourself, but if you make a mistake and your
> > registration isn't approved, you're out the filing fee and have
> > accomplished nothing -- and considering we have logos as well as a name to
> > consider, it can be a very detailed undertaking.
> >
> > And registering a trademark would bring up another little detail -- I'm not
> > sure, but I don't know that our group even has legal standing to fill out
> > the paperwork. We don't exist, in the legal world. Trademarks have to be
> > registered by *someone*, either an individual or a corporation. We aren't
> > a corporation, and just who should be the individual to register the
> > name? The name belongs to the person that registers it. And let's not
> > even discuss incorporation right now -- yes, it's a reasonably simple form
> > to fill out. Filing fees aren' t outrageously expensive in most
> > states. But there are a lot of other issues involved, and it's not
> > something that we should be even attempting to hash out with this group, at
> > this time.
> >
> > Basically, my feeling is that there's no reason to get any government
> > entity involved in NCGW unless we just absolutely have to do so. If, at
> > some point later, someone feels an incredible urge to want to deal with the
> > government, the IRS, the USPTO, and so on, I would suggest that *one*
> > person should do the basic footwork and present it the group for either
> > approval or disapproval. This sort of thing is NOT something that should
> > be done by committee! And at this point, and for our purposes, the
> > common-law trademark is more than sufficient.
> >
> > Angie