Sorry, meant to say "If I didn't care about the concept of the project, I
certainly
would NOT spend my money and my vacation time collecting data for someone else to post
on
their website.
Nate
Nate Zipfel wrote:
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