BOARD-L Archives

From: Teri Pettit <>
Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] RE: Motion 00-24A - Not in Good Standing[Consistency]
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 16:50:34 -0700

At 6:47 AM -0700 8/2/00, Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny wrote:
>The members of this Board now have, individually, myself
>included, some tough decisions to make on this motion. We can
>rationalized and moralized but in the end we are going to have to
>realize that there is not a flip of difference between what Ron
>did and what Linda did in using "USGenWeb" in filings for
>incorporation and trade marking, respectively. If I look at it
>objectively I see no harm done to the Project in either case. But
>I do see harm if we continue down the present course. We are
>either at a point of no return or at a point where we can heal
>the project and get on with our mission. Having said that I must
>confess that my conscience cries out for consistency.
>
>I know in my heart that what we should do is withdraw this motion
>and rescind Motion 00-10.

I think that's what we should do, too. I've all along felt that
the punishment far outweighed the crime in the way the Census
Project was dealt with.

>If we can't do that then I must vote
>yes on this motion and chance ruining something I love very much,
>the Archives and lose many valued friendships which I suppose I
>will lose in either case.

Since I voted "No" on Motion 00-10 in the first place, I have no
consistency problem with voting "No" on Motion 00-24. I see no
reason why just because the pro-eviction side won on Motion 00-10,
that people who *disagreed* with the eviction of the Census Project
should vote to punish Linda for a similar action. If the South had
won the Civil War, would moral consistency require that abolitionists
vote to enslave whites just to maintain parity of injustice? I would
prefer to continue working to correct the original injustice rather
than taking part in another one just so that everybody is treated
equally badly.

>But fellow Board members we can not
>have two standards. One for our friends and one for those whom we
>disagree.

I agree that we can't have two standards. I disagree with those
who seem to feel that the proper standard to apply across the
board (pun intended) is that subproject coordinators need to
get the approval of the Advisory Board before they do anything
significant. If it isn't contrary to the Bylaws, I think subproject
coordinators should be able to do whatever they please without
asking a by-your-leave.

>I know most of you as friends who love this Project.
>Well, now is our chance to prove it. So here is the way I propose
>this to be handled.
>
>Ginger be requested to remove her motion and a motion be made to
>rescind Motion 00-10.

>Yesterday a gentleman with deep concerns
>for this organization was prompted by my "consistency" post to
>put these points forward as a precondition to relinking:
>
>1. Ron dissolves the corporation.
>2. Ron agrees to the terms you set for the delinked CP (see RE:
>Motion 00-24A - Not in Good Standing [Consistency])
>3. AB negotiates agreement in writing with Linda to transfer the
>Archives trademark to the Project.
>4. The delinked CP Representative and the Archives Representative
>must both be chosen with oversight by the Advisory Board.

I hope that others besides Ron are allowed to comment on the
proposed preconditions.

Regarding #1, I don't see any reason why we would want the
non-profit Census Project to be dissolved. There would indeed
be a problem if Ron were still associated with a for-profit
corporation using the USGenWeb Project name, but what is the
problem with a NON-profit corporation? Several state projects
have incorporated, and they didn't have to ask for Advisory
Board approval. There is plenty of precedent that this is
something that projects can do on their own without seeking
the approval of anybody except their own project members.

In line with your suggestion that we focus on goals instead
of motions and ultimatums, I would like to know what the
underlying concerns are with the non-profit incorporation
of the USGenWeb Census Project, and see if we can find a
way to deal with those concerns without requiring that the
Census Project be dissolved.

Regarding #2, the conditions in your previous message were:

>If the Archives
>Amendment fails then the CP Representative should be seated, the
>CP be relinked and instructed to furnish one copy of their
>transcriptions to the Digital Library (Archives). Their server
>location is their choice and all others stay out of their
>business.

The only problem I see with this is that there are some
transcribers who specifically request that copies of their
transcriptions NOT be placed in the Archives, generally due
to a distrust of either Rootsweb/MyFamily and/or of the
Archives management. Their distrust may be unwarranted, but
people have the feelings they have, and it is usually futile
to try to change them. Does that mean that all such transcriptions
must be refused by the Census Project, and hence lost to the
USGenWeb Project? It would seem a shame. As you said, "the
more transcriptions the merrier."

How about instead asking if the Census Project together with
the Archives could come up with a "transcriber agreement" that
informs new transcribers that the original purpose of the
USGenWeb Census Project was to coordinate the placement of
census transcriptions in the USGenWeb Project Archives, and
that unless they specifically request otherwise (via a checkbox
on the form), a copy of their transcriptions will be placed
in the Archives?

Regarding #3, personally I trust Linda Lewis to hold the
trademark on behalf of the USGenWeb Archives Project, as a
subproject of The USGenWeb Project Archives, as I'm sure she
intended it to be. But since not everyone does, it would
ease minds all around if it were not registered in the name
of any individual.

I would be OK with the trademark of the USGenWeb Archives
being registered to either the USGenWeb Project or to the
USGenWeb Archives Project, if the latter can be done
without the Archives Project incorporating. It sounds kind of
circular to me for the Foo Project to trademark the name
"Foo Project", but I guess companies do it all the time.

Regarding #4, could you say some more about what kind of
oversight you had in mind?

Thank you for your open mind and concern with fairness.
Even though you are the Archives' Representative to the
Board, you have been more even-handed than many of the
non-Archives Board reps.

-- Teri

This thread:

• [BOARD-L] [Fwd: Motion 00-24A - Not in Good Standing] by "Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny" <>