I find this whole line of reasoning about "fund raising" (and I use that term
lightly) asinine. I cannot believe how much of a mountain is being made out of
this issue. Everytime it is raised we hear the "violation of the concept of the
USGenWeb". Forgive me, but I am not violating the concept of the USGenWeb
Project. I just got back from a week of vacation time in PA where I spent the 90%
of it collecting data not only to post on my county site but also for the Clarion
County and Forest County sites. I cannot believe the high and mighty attitude that
gets raised. If I didn't care about the concept of the project, I certainly would
spend my money and my vacation time collecting data for someone else to post on
their website.
If that's the way it's got to be then maybe I need to in conjunction with my
co-hosts remove the USGenWeb logo.
Nate, a digruntled CC
Linda Lewis wrote:
Billie R. McNamara wrote:
>
> Hey, everybody. I'm not trying to stir up trouble here, but I do feel
> compelled to share something that was sent to me yesterday. This is a
> portion of a message between Brian Leverich and Joanne Abby (a NYGenWeb
> volunteer). Joanne is concerned that the USGenWeb "board" may have
> intentions or funding or other things of which we, the volunteers who make
> up this project, are unaware. It's Brian's last sentence that frightens
> the living daylights out of me.
Billie, I'm on the Board (Brian is not) and the only "funding" we've
discussed was collecting the money amongst ourselves, at about $100
each, when Jerry offered to sell USGenWeb, Inc. to us. We discussed
paying it, and then dissolving the corporation. It was formed in secrecy
by someone who tried to tell everyone he *owned*
usgenweb.com. That has
been proven wrong, too, as it's been returned to its rightful/legal
owner.
>
> I have been "Bambi" in this context. Our own Nate Zipfel is on the table
> right now with a big ole target on his back (as it were) over his requests
> for supporters for his PA-Roots domain. The current "advisory board"
can't
> decide if it's okay for Nate -- while we're all but told to solicit
> donations to RootsWeb.
The difference here is: Nate is a county coordinator, solilicting funds
to pay for his page. Brian is not a county coordinator and is not
soliciting funds to keep his county page online. What Nate is doing is
totally against the concept of the USGenWeb Project, as you well know
from being on the state coordinator mailing list for over a year. You
remember the dicussions about selling advertisements for our pages and
that Jeff Murphy even came up with a "fee-breakdown".. so much for the
National page, so much for the state pages, and so much for the county
pages. That idea didn't fly, as you remember... thank goodness.
Nate has every right, however, to turn his server into a co-op and sell
memberships, offering all kinds of services like Rootsweb does, and any
pages that he hosts for free could put an "appreciation" blurb on their
pages, for the free space, and encourage folks to become members. Brian
offers membership at $12 a year, but does not limit the services to only
"members."
> I just feel really strongly about this issue, especially since the whole
> election procedure and by-laws creation have been done without a dime's
> worth of input from the county volunteers. If we try to get something
> changed, they ignore us. For instance, the majority of those voicing an
> opinion on the USGenWeb-All mailing list apparently wanted all voters to be
> able to vote for every regional representative in the upcoming elections.
> The way it was originally set up, the county volunteers vote for county
> representatives, and the state project coordinators vote for their own
> state representatives because "they have different needs that require
> special representation." You can imagine that that flew in the face of
> most county volunteers. When we all demanded that the election procedures
> be changed, we were told it was "too late."
If you will look at the candidates, there is only one current board
member running for state coord rep - Megan. And she hasn't even taken
part in the by-laws discussion, as she's been on vaction most of June. I
could see your point if all the current board sc reps were running for
office, but then again.. there's no guarantee that their fellow sc's
would vote for them. They would have to believe that the current sc rep
has done a good job to cast their vote for them.
> I can't believe it's too late to change something that the volunteers on
> this project want. That's an autocratic attitude with no basis in a
> project of this nature.
>
> I hope you will be as concerned about "power" as I am and that you will
> share this with others outside our fine state's project list as you see
> fit. And, I hope you will vote in this illegal election -- against any
> by-laws provisions or any individuals who support this kind of "power"
> structure. I know our Nate doesn't support it. I know Nancy Trice doesn't
> support it. I don't think our fearless leader, Gary, does -- but we
> haven't heard from him on the issue <g>.
>
> I'll climb down off my soapbox now -- and leave you with Brian Leverich's
> chilling words, which speak for themselves.
>
> >> One important point here is that the USGENWEB Project wuld not be able to
> >> field another KSGENWEB site in the future if the "board" decided
to boot
> >> each and everyone of them for some infraction of those bylaws we keep
> >> hearing about.... well that is not without a fight in a Kansas court. How
> >> many board members would be willing to pay legal fees ourt of their own
> >> pocket to test the theory? Not many I would surmise.
> >
> >The Board would have no trouble fielding another KSGenWeb. With as
> >many users as USGenWeb has, it could raise a $20k defense fund in a
> >week if need be. Folks don't seem to clearly understand just how
> >much potential power the Board has but chooses not to use -- this is
> >sort of a Godzilla meets Bambi thing. -B
> >
>From all indications, in a private message to me from Carolyn Ward,
KSGenWeb sc, (which she requested I not forward to ANYone) KSGenWeb,
Inc. is not committing to staying with The USGenWeb Project. My feeling
is that they will allign themselves with Jerry Dill, Inc. It through a
wrench in that group's plans, when they lost
usgenweb.com. How do I
know? Because I used to be a USIGS officer and I saw many discussions on
USGenWeb and how *they* wanted it OFF of Rootsweb, because they couldn't
stand Brian. (which is actually what all this boils down to, and (in my
experienced opinion) the fact that Jerry and his friends want any
USGenWeb funding potentials to benefit USIGS and Jerry's server. Would
it make sense to incorporate USGenWeb, Inc. secretly if that was in the
back of thier minds?? Sure would! Also, why were several USIGS officers
and board members nominated at the last minute, right after they lost
the
usgenweb.com domain?
Yes, there is a plot, but it's not being planned by the really dedicated
USGenWeb volunteers. It's being planned by those who want to take
advantage of what the USGenWeb Project has become.
Linda