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
Freddie,
Here are my votes regarding the proposed amendments to the bylaws:
States Rights -- NO
Recall -- No
Archives Project -- NO
Connie Cameron
Smyth VAGenWeb
This is very well said and it may help to explain the voting cut off and
it's importance.
Kelly
----- Original Message -----
From: "Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny" <jzsed(a)slic.com>
To: <BOARD-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 2:03 PM
Subject: [BOARD-L] EC Support Motion
> While I have a concern that a few worthy CCs may not get to
> vote this time. I would bet you a dime to a bagel that if
> they feel as strongly about this Project as I do they would
> gracefully give up the vote so that the other several
> hundred voting members would feel that their vote fell where
> they aimed it to fall. Tell me, dear friends, is it more
> right that one voter or a few voters be denied than for the
> hundreds that part with their apathy and vote be denied
> their due rights? I think not. Remember last time when ten
> votes separated the runoff for the NC position? Eleven more
> phony votes would have disenfrancised a true majority. Keep
> this in mind if nit picking starts over the motion below.
> Until just a few days ago I sided with those who protested
> the April 1, 2000 date. I am quite naive at times believing
> that all feel as I do about honesty and such. But the
> evidence will continue to mount that the motion below is the
> right course to take. And remember, this Board and any Board
> has the right and duty to make motions not specifically
> prohibited by the ByLaws.
>
> I hereby move that the April 1, 2000 cutoff date be
> affirmed.
>
> Joe
> --
> Zsedeny Genealogy - http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm
> NDGenWeb Archives -
> http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/nd/ndfiles.htm
> Pembina County, ND -
> http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm
> Ramsey County, ND -
> http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm
>
>
There appears to be popular support within the VAGenWeb for the
amendment to the USGenWeb By Laws known as the Archives
Amendment.
Will all volunteers please vote (one volunteer, one vote) YES or NO
on the following question:
Shall the VAGenWeb Project Co-Sponsor the Archives Amendment?
A YES vote signifies that the VAGenWeb Project will join in sponsoring
the amendment, a NO vote signifies that the Project will not join.
Please email your votes to me before Thursday, 15 June 2000.
Regards,
Freddie S.
Just to clear the air, I'd like to give my opinion on the proposed
amendments.
States Rights - I believe this amendment is destructive of the
USGenWeb and has a malicious origin.
Recall - I believe an amendment on this subject is needed, but
perhaps not this one.
Archives - My only objection to this amendment is that it replaces
an article dealing generically with forming Special Projects
with an article specifically about the Archives Project.
I personally don't support any of the amendments.
Regards,
Freddie S.
Sorry to send yet another "political" message to this list, but I felt
the VA cc's should see what's going on elsewhere in the project. If you
want to see Corky's message, and haven't yet, I'll send it privately so
not to clutter this list more.
I have to tell you, whenever I hear a volunteer say their xxgen-L list
is full of flames, etc., I'm proud to tell them that the VA cc's don't
get into all that, and just want to work on their pages making a good
resource for researchers.
Linda
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [BOARD-L] A Plea
Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:37:31 -0700
Resent-From: BOARD-L(a)rootsweb.com
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 13:32:54 -0400
From: "Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny" <jzsed(a)slic.com>
Reply-To: jzsed(a)slic.com
To: BOARD-L(a)rootsweb.com
Fellow Board members and volunteers, it is hard to know
where to begin because I am deeply troubled. But I will try
to get across to you the danger YOUR Project faces because
of a group whose members are using despicable means to
achieve their ends. Evidence is damning and piling up of a
conspiracy to utterly destroy this project as you know it
thru ballot box stuffing. Some of it I am not at liberty to
divulge at this time but your Board is working overtime to
blunt it before the actual election and try to ensure that a
fair and honest election allows the Project to survive in a
form we can accept and to live up to the promise that is
implied in our nobel mission, free online genealogy for all.
The disheartening thing is that some of our most talented
people are involved. When their efforts are directed to
honorable pursuits the results are sometimes stunning. But
once one lapses into a mindset of misconduct each new step
is easier and that is the vortex I spoke of the other day.
For over a year I have served on this Board and, along with
my fellow Board members, suffered the insults poured upon us
by a group who call themselves "activists" while we have
worked sometimes killing hours to do this job. This Board in
the main is a good Board. They are courageous, tough and
have sworn to stay with it. None of us are blessed with
divine wisdom, but most us are blessed with common sense and
dedication. We have made some mistakes but they were honest
mistakes. I am not whining about our sacrifice but asking
that those who are so turned off by all this to support us,
resist the efforts of these so called "activists" to turn
the election into a circus. If you are a concerned SC talk
to your CCs, explain to them the seriousness of this
situation and encourage them to vote their convictions. You
are in a leadership position, now is the time to lead. If
the name of any individual involved in this pops up on your
radar screen talk to them sternly and dismiss them if need
be after a fair hearing and don't shrink from the task. The
Board will back you to the limit allowed in our Bylaws and I
will back you to the limit with my pen.
This plea will be followed by a motion to show Board support
for our NC and the Election Committee, who now stand between
this threat and an honest election. I would be heartened if
the vote were unanimous after discussion but a passing vote
will do. Please hear me, else look around for another
organization in which to pursue your genealogical interests
because you may wake up some morning and not like your
bedfellows. Corky Knebel stood up to be counted yesterday
and others are also. Won't the rest stand up today?
Joe
--
Zsedeny Genealogy - http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm
NDGenWeb Archives -
http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/nd/ndfiles.htm
Pembina County, ND -
http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm
Ramsey County, ND -
http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm
I don't know if I'm allowed to vote or not since I'm not a CC, but I think
I should be able to since this does involve the Archives. So, for the
record whether it counts or not...
States Rights: NO
I'll abstain for now on the other two. I want to hear more discussion.
Jeannie
*************
Now Available: "The Descendants of John Thomas Clay, Jamestown Immigrant and
son of Sir John Clay of Wales"
Also available: "The Descendants of James Bailey & Lucy Simms"
For more info: http://www.trellis.net/users/madamx
I really don't want to get involved with this situation because I think it's
silly. We are being pulled into a power struggle and there's great potential
for flair ups on state mail lists over this issue but for what it's worth
Loudoun County votes:
Recall of Board Members: NO
States Rights: NO
USGenWeb Archives: NO
W. Greene
Loudoun County Coordinator
Halifax Co. votes
Recall of Board Members: NO
States Rights: NO
USGenWeb Archives: YES
--
FARTHING/BONHAM/COPLEY/NICHOLS/HARRIS/KENION/SHAW/KING/JOY/JENKINS
NODINE/MYERS/BURNS/GREINER/SHELLY/SHARP/DAVIS/RUCKER/MARR/WILLIAMS
TERRY/FERGUSON/CRAWFORD/HUNTER/RUSSELL/DeVORE/BROWN/BAKER/BISHOP
CAGLE/NIX/MITCHELL/SELF/COZART/SHARP/WALKER/RIGGS/BETTERTON/HUDSON
Rootsweb doesn't put any banners on the free pages they offer USGenWeb
volunteers.
Linda
Alley Blackford wrote:
>
> Rena,
>
> Are you referring to the banners that Rootsweb puts on sites or something
> else?
>
> Alley
> Bylaws need to be more explicit. They also need to be used. If the EC's
> rule is followed, will you be able to vote in the SE election? You returned
> as ASC after April 1, I think.
>
> Alley
Not sure about that. Freddie would have come in on that I guess.
Although my name was removed as ASC, I was still maintaining the same
VAGenWeb project pages that I have been for four years. I don't know how
long the gap was while my name was off the page as ASC. If the April 1
cutoff date is applied to me, and I was added back as ASC after April 1,
then it means I wouldn't get a ballot for the Southeast regional state
coordinator representative.
I have also been co-cc of Brunswick County for over a year, so I could
vote for the Southeast cc-rep position. Also, I would get a ballot for
the national coordinator position.
This is the only region I'm involved in - Southeast.
Linda
<"decide to put advertising banners on all XXGenWeb">
This is the point i'm trying to make about "PORN" Have you seen some of the
things on these Banners. How can we assure that the banners will be KIDSAFE
or in good taste as it were. Lets not burry our heads in the sand here. We
all need to think about this advertisement thing.
While we are on the subject.
Rena
Alley Blackford wrote:
>
> Now, I'm confused. Where does it say we are moving the archives? Am I
> missing something when I read the proposal?
>
The "states rights" amendment would decentralize the USGenWeb Archives,
splitting the files up to be located wherever the state coordinator
wants them. That would really hurt the researchers that wouldn't find
ggg-grandfather Jones in NC if they were searching for him in MD.
As one person stated on another list, regarding that amendment proposal:
<snipping part of it>
My personal feeling is that there's not much point in making the
USGenWeb Project an "Unincorporated Non-Profit Association,
unto perpetuity" in Article III, if there's no mechanism in place to
enforce that the state organizations also remain non-profit.
Exactly what do you foresee happening under the amended by-
laws if some state should decide that it wants to become a
profitable dot.com corporation? Hypothetically speaking, if a state
were to decide to put advertising banners on all XXGenWeb sites
and split the money, what recourse would the other state
XXGenWebs have under these proposed amendments to the
bylaws?
Secondly, it seems that under the proposed amendment the
special projects would pretty much cease to exist at the national
level and instead be organized into state divisions controlled by the
state organizations. I think it has been assumed that if the
amendment is adopted, the currently existing projects would be
subdivided and subordinated to the state organizations, but I
suspect that if the amendment is approved, the future status of the
already existing special projects will become an interesting
question.
<snip>
> What porn? What personnel at the archives? No one had a link to porn.
> Porn was used as an example. A link to a bakery could have been used but
> that wouldn't have meant Linda actually meant a bakery and Linda didn't mean
> porn............it was an example only.
>
Yes, that was an example, an extreme example. If a state coordinator
were to turn their webpage into a porn site, but it's linked from the
main USGW page as XXGenWeb, it should be okay to delink them
immediately without a two-week notice.
> The recall proposal is to prevent the NC or anyone else from making
> decisions without abiding by the by-laws. If he/she should make decisions
> contrary to by-laws, he/she could be recalled.
The problem with that is the bylaws are subject to interpretation, and
have been interpreted in many different ways. I would rather see the
bylaws tightened up, so that there's no confusion about their meaning in
several places, before any "recall" of an elected person be an easy
thing to do.
Linda
Greetings all,
The question in front of us at the moment is whether VAGenWeb
should join in sponsoring one or more of the amendments in order
to get it/them placed before the membership for a vote up or down.
According to the by laws, it takes five states' sponsorship to get
them considered.
Regards,
Freddie S.
> I would vote to support the one amendment that is titled " USGenWeb
> Archives", but not the other two. The one referred to as "States Rights"
> should be called "Kill the USGenWeb Project as we know it now."
>
> The "Archives" amendment corrects some bad verbage in the bylaws. It
> refers to the USGenWeb Archives as "USGenWeb Project Archives", for
> instance. It would also eliminate two board reps and hopefully
> eliminate any concerns that the Archives has too many representatives on
> the USGenWeb Advisory Board.
>
> Freddie.. if you're counting: <G>
>
> Recall of Board Members: NO
> States Rights: NO
> USGenWeb Archives: YES
>
> Linda
>
>
Lightning hit my computer. i lost a lot of my mail and have only just about
caught up on reading almost 2000 messages, I dont know how many bounced. i
have been going to the library trying to stay on top of things. I just
realised you need my vote on something, here, and i'm not realy sure about
the state rights issue .
i need a better explanation. as for the ARCHIVES. i think we need to leave
things the way they are and not fix things that work. I do however think
that the archives situation has improved and has room for a lot of
information. I wish we had more good volunteers. I look at Patrick county
with all the additional information that has recently been added, and aplaud
the people that typed all the census records. and at Rockbridge, that has
about the best archives in any county that i'm aware of, then the three
volumes of Chalkeys on the Augusta County Archives. Maybe i misunderstand,
but i dont see why anyone would not be able to make a connection with all
the information provided here. Do we realy think we want to uproot all this
information that is in place.
AS for the personell at the archives, i have no complaint. Didnt this all
start over a link to porn. I voiced my opinion on that then and i still dont
believe we have a place for it in the Genealogy archives.
States Rights. a definate NO i dont think we should KILL the US GENWEB
Project,
Recall of Board Members: i dont understand this issue.
Rena