Dec 1-5 1999

From merope@Radix.Net Wed Dec 1 08:37:48 1999

Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 08:37:47 -0500 (EST)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.991130061121.11584A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: O

X-Status:

A Scotsman on a horse...its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!

Sunday 28 November 1999:

There is no Board-L traffic on this date.

Monday 29 November 1999:

There is no Board-L traffic on this date.

[We hear the Board lists have been silent as the tomb these days....]

Winds of Change Corner: An anonymous correspondent brings to our

attention to some minor changes on the USGW homepages. Apparently the

USGW Archives is now styling itself "The USGenWeb Digital Library",

according to its blurb at http://www.usgenweb.com. On the "Other Special

Projects" page [http://www.usgenweb.org/projects/projects.html] the

Archives still calls itself the Archives, but also asserts that it is the

"Digital Library" of the USGW but the page also notes that "The USGenWeb

Census Project is a part of USGenWeb Project Archives" [which is

apparently not the same as the USGW Archives. Its no wonder our visitors

get confused.] This page also mistakenly notes that Kay Mason is the

coordinator of the Census Project and also lists the Lineages Project,

which has not accepted new submissions for several months.

It may just be early in the morning, but all this is confusing.

So please follow carefully along as we explore the tangled mess of the

Special Projects. According to the bylaws, the USGW shall provide a

"digital library" called the "the USGW Project Archives". Linda Lewis'

Archives call themselves _either_ "The USGW Digital Library" _or_ "The

USGW Archives", depending on which page you are on. Neither of these

names is in compliance with the wording in the bylaws. The Census Project

[Census II], on the other hand, is apparently part of something called

"The USGW Project Archives" to which no links can be found anywhere on the

USGW home pages. There is also something called the USGW Archives Census

Project [Census I], which is not the same as the USGW Census Project

Archives. The USGW Archives Census Project is apparently part of the USGW

Archives and may be part of the USGW Digital Library, but is apparently

not part of the USGW Project Archives. Now, the other "Special Projects",

such as the map, pension, kidz [sic], and tombstone projects, are

variously listed as part of the USGW Archives but not as part of the USGW

Project Archives. From past correspondence with Linda Lewis, we know that

the USGW Archives [now the USGW Digital Library in some places] is _not_

part of the USGW project, but just uses its name. The USGW Project

Archives, wherever they may be located, are apparently part of the USGW

Project, as required in the bylaws. So, on the face of it, it appears

that we have 1) The USGW Archives/USGW Digital Library which is an

independent project outside the control of the USGW, but which project

members are feeding data to at an impressive rate under the impression

that it _is_ part of the USGW Project; and 2) The USGW Project Archives,

which at this time apparently consists solely of the Census Project

Archives [not to be confused with the Archives Census Project]. Is this

beginning to seem a little like a shell game?

Today's quote is from a reader:

"Truth may be stretched, but cannnot be broken, and always gets above

falsehood, as oil does above water."

---Miguel de Cervantes

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-----------

From merope@Radix.Net Thu Dec 2 19:25:24 1999

Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 19:25:20 -0500 (EST)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.991202060154.5495A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: O

X-Status:

Hoody hoo!...its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!

Tuesday 30 November 1999:

There is no Board-L traffic on this date.

Election News: We've received word that the amendment to limit MIGW CCs

to three counties [originally proposed by Jen "Spare Change" Godwin] has

passed, with 15 yes votes and 10 no votes.

Blast From the Past Corner: In digging through voluminous archives, I

came across a post with great historical interest. It's from July 17,

1996, was originally posted to the alt.genealogy newsgroup, and apparently

constitutes the first ever world-wide notice of the USGW Archives project.

Here's what Linda Lewis had to say about it way back when:

"The USGenWeb is currently organizing its ftp site, donated by RootsWeb,

to store data files contributed by volunteers. Files will include

transcribed wills, census, marriages, cemetery listings, etc....Visit the

USGenWeb site at http://www.teleport.com/~jmurphy/states.html to see

the how we can use the Internet for genealogy in an organized way."

At least once upon a time, the Archives [or at least its ftp site] did

belong to the USGW project. I wonder when that changed.

"It is a fool's prerogative to utter truths that no one else will speak."

---Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night's Dream

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

========

From merope@Radix.Net Fri Dec 3 10:50:57 1999

Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:50:56 -0500 (EST)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.991203061522.22870C-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: O

X-Status:

To infinity and beyond!...its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!

Wednesday 1 December 1999

There is no Board-L traffic on this date.

Tomorrow's News Today: On Friday morning [Dec 3, 1999] the NC opened the

floor for voting on Motion 99-28, "that Megan [Zurawicz] be accorded full

membership priveleges [sic] on the State Coordinator List for as long as

she desires to remain there." We hear that nine members have already

voted; five "ayes", two "nays", and two abstentions. [We here at the

newscube are curious as to how the Board intends to implement this motion,

should it pass and should the SC list protest this intrusion.]

Backtracking Corner: It seems that the results of the recent election in

the MIGW are being questioned by some of its participants. We are told

that then-SC Joan Brausch had notified her troops that the amendment to

limit CCs to three counties needed to pass by a "simple majority", and

specifically that 29 votes were needed to pass the amendment.

Unfortunately, only 25 CCs voted, and Joan declared the amendment passed

by a simple majority, with 15 yes votes. Now at least one CC has

questioned whether Joan is changing the rules on them, and Joan has opened

discussion on the new MI list as to whether the amendment should be

dropped since not enough people voted to make a majority of CCs.

Whither the Archives? Corner: A reader writes [and thanks to all you

USGW-ALL members that forwarded it to me!] regarding yesterday's news item

about the Archives: "I am curious as to the source of your frequent

assertion that the Archives is not part of The USGenWeb Project. So far as

I am aware, it has been ever since the date you mention, and still is."

Its apparent that, from nearly the beginning at least, the Archives were

envisioned as part and parcel of the USGenWeb Project. Linda's post in

July 1996 makes it pretty clear that the ftp space on which the Archives

reside was in fact donated to the USGW Project by Root$web, not to Linda

Lewis and not to her "time to do" project. Linda fought very hard to get

the project into the USGW and her insistence that it be a part of the

project and bear its name was at least one cause of the resignation of

the found and first National Coordinator, Jeff Murphy. At least in the

early days, state file managers were recommended by the state coordinators

and were usually someone involved in USGW as a state and/or county

coordinator; giving some project members the impression that they had some

say in the management of the Archives. The Big Three Special

Projects [Archives, Tombstone, Census] were even granted Board seats and

file managers vote in USGW elections. The Board, at least, operates as if

the Archives were indeed part of the project, and has considered a number

of motions pertaining to the Archives since Sept 1998 [Motions 98-10,

99-4, 99-5, 99-12, but see below].

The USGenWeb home pages list the Archives Project as one of the Special

Projects that were "created to collect and disseminate data that goes

beyond county and state lines" [although the actual focus of most the the

SPs, especially the "Big Three" is state and county level data]. The

project bylaws direct the project to "provide a "digital library" called

The USGenWeb Project Archives". Motion 99-4, passed by the Advisory Board

on Feb 16, 1999, states that "all original records that are transcribed

and submitted to any special project whether it be "The USGenWeb Archives

Project," "The USGenWeb Census Project," "The USGenWeb Tombstone

Project,"or any other special project, they are a part of The USGenWeb

Project's "digital library" known as "The USGenWeb Project Archives."

Linda promptly reminded people that "Only data submitted to the USGenWeb

Archives and uploaded to the USGenWeb Archives directory is "part of" the

USGenWeb Archives [message to USGW-SE, 24 Feb 1999]. She also chose at

that time to ignore the other directive of the motion, that "the special

project, named in the bylaws as "The USGenWeb Archives Project," leave the

job of transcribing original US census records and recruiting volunteers

for the same purpose to the special project named in the bylaws as, "The

USGenWeb Census Project," and that "The USGenWeb Archives Project" should

otherwise direct their efforts to transcribing the other vast volumes of

original records that need to be transcribed in this country." The

Archives continues to maintain its own separate Census project [Census I,

http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/census/].

On 26 Feb 1999, in response to motion 99-4 and to a series of emails

on the topic on one of the regional lists, Linda sent a message to

all the Board members, in which she stated,

"The USGenWeb Archives is not "owned" by USGenWeb. It is a project

started to support the county coordinators, back when people only had 2

megs of space from their ISP. It does not belong to anyone except the

submitters, who have agreed to allow their files be stored there

permanently as long as there is free access. A few hours before the

announcement about the Archives went out in July 1996, it was almost

named the Rootsweb Archives, but with the same goals and strict

guidelines. It was still going to be a support project for county

coordinators, but I had to obtain permission from the then national

coordinator to use the name "USGenWeb."

Thus, by Linda's own words, the USGW project does not own the Archives,

and has no control over them. [Her claim that the submitters own the

Archives is interesting; try to get one of "your" files removed and you'll

find out just how far your ownership rights go.]

Later, in the summer of 1999, a long conversation took place between Linda

Lewis and some CCs on the USGW-CC-L list regarding the agreement that the

Archives had signed with Root$web, an agreement that has changed a number

of times, most recently to include the statement that the Archives can

reside on no server but Root$web. Although the original agreement with

Root$web predates the Board [but not the National Coordinatorship],

the last statement was added during last year,without seeking the advice

of the Board or notifying it in any way. Linda has asserted, that like any

State Coordinator, she has the right to enter into any agreement she

pleases with whomever she pleases, and that is not disputed. However,

since she asserts total control over the disposition of the collection of

files known as the "USGenWeb Archives", the USGW project itself cannot

direct in any way the fate of these files. They cannot prevent offensive

commercial advertisements from appearing over its search engine and

results [as has recently happened]. They cannot prevent inappropriate

activities such as stripping an original contributor's name off of a file

and re-submitting it under another person's name [as the Census I

coordinator claims Linda Lewis told her to do when someone asked that

their files be removed from the Archives]. They cannot prevent behavior by

the file managers that could expose the project to legal threat, such as

the posting of copyrighted files without the owner's permission [as has

happened in the past]. Should the current or new owners of Root$web, which

after all is a for-profit corporation, decide to alter substantially the

agreement under which the files are housed, the project would be powerless

to protect the files from any effects of this, including

commercialization. The Archives Coordinator is a paid employee of

RootsWeb.com, Inc., the server on which the files reside, and thus has a

personal financial incentive in keeping the collection there regardless of

the wishes of the contributors or of the USGW project in general.

Interestingly enough, should Root$web cease to exist suddenly, for

whatever reason [bankruptcy, earthquake, stark fist of removal], Linda is

prevented by the terms of her personal verbal agreement with Mr. Leverich,

which both claim has the force of a written contract, from placing the

files anywhere else. [Come to think of it, has anyone ever seen a

statement from RW regarding their Y2K readiness?] Since the files don't

belong to USGW and USGW presumably has no mirror or backup of them, they

would again be powerless to arrange for alternate storage and

presentation. States and counties can be rebuilt if lost; the Archives

cannot.

It might seem only a semantic difference, but the USGenWeb Project

Archives and the USGenWeb Archives are clearly not the same thing, and

while the Board may feel that it is meeting the intent of the bylaws by

affiliating with these independent projects and calling them collectively

"The USGenWeb Project Archives", it in fact has no control over them, as

has been amply demonstrated by the split between Census I and Census II.

Linda Lewis apparently considers _all_ the Special Projects to be under

the umbrella of the USGW Archives Project, and although at least two new

Special Projects have been founded since the bylaws were adopted, neither

was formed in accordance with the provisions of Article XIII, Section 1

["Special projects shall be established by The USGenWeb Project to promote

the gathering of information in specialized areas. A coordinator shall be

appointed by the Advisory Board to organize the project and enlist

volunteers."] At the time, the argument was made that these new Special

Projects were not part of the USGW Project Archives but were subsets of

the USGW Archives Project, and thus not subject to these provisions of the

bylaws.

Many, if not most, persons who donate files to the USGenWeb Archives are

under the impression that they are donating them to the USGenWeb Project,

and not to a privately run project which merely affiliates with the USGWP

in order to use its name and reputation in order to collect files. No one

denies that the Archives are a valuable contribution to online genealogy

or that much of their success is due to the dedication of their

coordinator. It just should be clear to all contributors from the outset

that they are not contributing their work to "the USGenWeb Project" but to

an independent project called "the USGenWeb Archives", over which the

USGWP and its volunteers have not even the merest hint of influence.

[As a side note, for those of you who do not know this, the Archives now

has a newsletter: http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/newsletter/index.htm.

Nowhere in the description of the Archives does it say they are part of

the USGW Project. In fact, the USGWP is mentioned exactly once; Root$web

actually gets more mentions than the Archives' supposed parent

organization.]

[Since yesterday's DBS was excerpted in several places, readers are

welcome to forward today's to whatever lists they deem appropriate.]

"Things do not pass for what they are, but for what they seem. Most things

are judged by their jackets."

---Balthasar Gracian

This has been your Daily Board Show. God speed, Mars Polar Lander!

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-----------

From merope@Radix.Net Fri Dec 3 13:37:13 1999

Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 13:37:11 -0500 (EST)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>

Subject: News Flash!

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.991203132351.796B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: O

X-Status:

Daily Board Show News Flash!

This Just In... Someone has checked and reported to the DBS newsstaff that

the name of the founder and coordinator of the USGenWeb Archives Map

project has been removed from the project pages. In response to

inquiries, the former coordinator of the Map project, Fred Smoot, informs

us that he resigned, effective yesterday, in an email to Linda Lewis. He

has resigned as coordinator because he "has other endeavors that are

taking up [his] time." He will continue to participate in the project as

a contributer of Indian Territory maps, but the project is now in need of

a coordinator, preferably one who knows about maps [according to Mr.

Smoot].

Oh, and one more Board member has voted "nay" to Motion 99-28.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

From merope@Radix.Net Fri Dec 3 16:22:51 1999

Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 16:22:49 -0500 (EST)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>

Subject: News Flash!

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.991203161711.14033C-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: RO

X-Status:

This Just In...Two more people have voted on Motion 99-28. One has voted

"no" and the other has abstained. The count stands currently at 5 yes

votes, 4 no votes, and 3 abstentions. A quorum has been reached; unless

a number of members change their vote, and since even if all the remaining

members vote "yes" the 2/3 majority won't be reached, this motion has

failed.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

From merope@Radix.Net Sat Dec 4 09:34:25 1999

Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 09:34:24 -0500 (EST)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.991204083222.26761A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: O

X-Status:

MPL, phone home!...its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!

Thursday 2 December 1999:

There is no Board-L traffic on this date.

Getting Confusing Corner: Prompted by some questions from a Board member,

the DBS news staff has researched parliamentary procedure on the issue of

"abstentions", particularly as it relates to the current Motion 99-28.

According to a 1915 version of RRoR with 1996 revisions found online at

http://www.sudval.org/~sdg/rror/, abstentions should not be counted toward

attaining the 2/3 majority of members voting as required in the bylaws.

This forces some recalculations in yesterday's News Flash stating the

motion was defeated. As it stands at last report [5 yes votes, 4 no votes

and 3 abstentions] the motion is defeated. If all three remaining Board

members [not counting Kay Mason] vote and vote yes the motion can pass.

If one votes no, the motion will not pass. If all three abstain or don't

vote, the motion does not pass. If two abstain or don't vote, the motion

does not pass. If one more abstains or doesn't vote, and the other two

vote yes, the motion can pass only if you consider 7 to be 2/3 of 11

rather than 8. [I'm not always real good at that figgerin' stuff, so if

someone comes up with different results, let me know.] Since I have not

received reports of further votes on this motion, this is still a horse

race.

Its an interesting motion, though, whatever the outcome. It seems almost

entirely pointless. If it wins and the SCs don't want Megan subbed to

their list, what can the Board do? I understand that Tim Stowell is the

listowner of SC-L and he can presumably sub whomever he pleases, so that

would be one way of dealing with it. However, overriding the SCs' wishes

concerning their list hardly seems appropriate. If the motion does not

carry, the SC list is in no way prevented from inviting Megan to remain on

the list. If the intent, as one Board member mentioned while casting her

'yes' vote, is to pass the motion and then let the SCs decide, what's the

point of the motion in the first place? Wouldn't it have been easier,

quicker, and more appropriate for Joe to have proposed his idea to the SCs

directly?

Adios Corner: We hear that the long-time State Coordinator for WYGW,

George Langston, has retired. The Acting SC will be Carol Haagensen, and

the new acting ASC will be Suzanne Leonard, both well-known and

well-respected in the WYGW.

End of An Era Corner: Root$web has notified its paying customers that it

is discontinuing the popular Surname Notification Program in favor of the

new, paying-customers-only Personalized Mailing List. The final run of the

SNP will be sometime today. Although this is presented as a "good thing"

by Root$web, a number of subscribers have already expressed unhappiness

with RW's decision. One, who signs themselves "a very unsatisfied Rootsweb

Donor", says, "I'm really disappointed that Rootsweb is doing away with

the "Surname Notification Program" I really liked it and so far have been

totally unsatisfied with the PML program for the following reasons: Two of

my surnames...are not only common surnames but commonly used words in

posts as well... This means that using PML for those two surnames

generates HUNDREDS of emails a day...While with the SNP I only got

notified on specific entries for MY surnames, ...With PML I get an email

EVERY TIME someone posts one of those words...why was RNP [sic] was put on

the removal list and who do I need to send this to to make it seen that

this system is not, as the email said, "Much, much, much better" than SNP

and what can I do about it???" Root$web's response to this was

essentially "you are doing it wrong and here's the address for the

Genconnect Board where you can discuss it."

"If you don't like someone, the way he holds his spoon makes you furious;

If you like him, he can turn his plate over in your lap and you won't

mind."

---Irving Becker

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Sun Dec 5 07:42:49 1999

Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 07:42:48 -0500 (EST)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.991205064244.21350A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: O

X-Status:

Robbing Peter to pay Paul...its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!

Friday 3 December 1999

The NC asks the Board members to vote on Motion 99-28, tellingly entitled

"SC Membership List Priveleges [sic]".

By the end of the day, 5 members had voted "aye", 4 had voted "no", and 3

had abstained. [Since 12 members have either voted or abstained and thus

are "present" a quorum has been obtained.]

Here are some of the various comments attached with votes and abstentions:

"While I can appreciate the philosophy behind this Motion, I believe

we are overstepping our bounds. The SC list belongs to SC's and if this

gesture is to be made by anyone, it should come from them and not from the

Board in this somewhat dictatorial fashion. [Ginger Cisewski]

"I"m not sure that this motion is within the bounds of our

authority...Until, and unless, the SC's decide that this is something they

wish to do to honor Megan I regretfully have to vote NO." [Ginger

Hayes]

"I do not believe that the Board should vote on this, I believe the SC's

should honor their own (maybe a Hall of Fame) and in this case, I believe

that she should have the full priveleges but I don't think it is the

Board's Business to yea or aye." [Gloria Mayfield]

"Yes, although I do realize that we do not dictate to the SC list. It is

a nice gesture and then will be up to the SC's to make a final decision."

[Betsy Mills]

"I not being a SC feel that the Board does not have the right to accorded

FULL membership privileges to the SC's List." [Richard Howland]

"I appreciate the sentiment, and agree, that it is a wonderful gesture of

respect that Megan richly deserves. But, this gesture should be extended

by the participants of the State Coordinators list." [Tina Vickery]

"I think abstaining is a better way than voting no to express the feeling

that this gesture should be initiated by the SC's... If enough of us

abstain that a quorum cannot be reached, then it better expresses the idea

that we have nothing against the motion except that it is not within the

proper jurisdiction of the board." [Teri Pettit]

Going About it the Right Way Corner: After a week and half, one of the

Board members has finally decided to ask the SCs whether or not they would

like to extend permanent membership privileges on the SC list to St.

Megan. Yesterday, Shari Handley posted a message to the list which

contained the following: "The AB has been discussing a motion to accord

Megan full membership priveleges [sic] on the State Coordinator List for

as long as she desires to remain here. However, the feeling of the Board

seems to be that this is something that should come from the SCs

themselves, and not the Board. I do feel that Megan should be invited to

stay on here. What do *you* think?" So far, a number of SCs and ASCs

have written to support this notion, among them at least three Board

members.

Taking Candy From A Baby Corner: A Root$web user has written to inform us

that the recently demised Surname Notification Project was available to

everyone, not just to people who give Root$web at least $24 a year. The

new Personalized Mailing List, on the other hand, is available only to

paying customers.

"There's a sucker born every minute"

---P.T. Barnum [attributed, may have actually been said by Barnum's

rival David Hannum]

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-----------

From merope@Radix.Net Sun Dec 5 10:54:55 1999

Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 10:54:54 -0500 (EST)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>

Subject: News Flash!

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.991205104718.4738A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: O

X-Status:

DBS News Flash!

This Just In..We've received reports of two new votes on Motion 99-28.

One member has voted "yes" and one has abstained. Additionally, one

member has switched her vote from "yes" to abstain.

Current count: 5 yes votes, 4 no votes, and 5 abstentions. 2 Board

members have not voted.

-Teresa

merope@radix.net