In a message dated 5/12/2001 12:16:45 AM Central Daylight Time,
PaulDBuckley(a)worldnet.att.net writes:
But, my question is why shouldn't the USGenWeb project keep a
"blacklist" of
disruptive former cc's and why shouldn't the SC declare disruptive current
cc's as "members not in good standing" as prescribed in the bylaws? After
all, every cc voluntarily agrees to the USGenWeb bylaws when they sign on
to the project.
Paul,
I have to disagree with you here about SC's being able to declare
"disruptive" cc's as not in good standing per the bylaws. The USGenWeb
bylaws lists what in good standing is.
Our bylaws located at
http://www.usgenweb.org/official/bylaws.html state:
"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."
The guidelines and standards for our project lists placing logos & links for
the USGenWeb on our pages. It also lists other things that shouldn't be
placed on our websites, such as solicitation of funds for such items such as
payment for webspace, lookups, material for the site, etc. Items for sale or
offers of services for hire may may be a part of your site, but not on the
main page.
A CC being vocal and expressing his or her opinions on a list shouldn't give
a SC the right to declare a person not in good standing. But being
disruptive to a list can get you banned from that list and it's the
listowners decision to do this. If our rules were to declare a member not in
good standing because of this, then our own National Coordinator, Tim
Stowell, would be blacklisted for his disruptive behavior on the
USGenWeb-Discuss list (which got him booted from that list) Should he be
declared not in good standing and blacklisted because of this? IMO, no, and
neither should any CC that has done the same.
Debi