Jan 10-16 2000

From merope@Radix.Net Mon Jan 10 07:46:50 2000

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 07:46:49 -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.SV4.3.96.1000110060949.2861A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: RO

X-Status:

The eighth wonder of the world...its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* due to circumstances beyond our control, may contain editorial

content. Read at your own risk!

Sunday 9 January 2000:

Pam Reid posts a message under the title "Year 2000 cleanups" in which she

notes that now it is a new year it might be time to clean up some old

business. She brings up several issues and asks to "where the Board

Members stand: 1. USGenNet and the sites that are hosted as USGenWeb

sites and USGenNet sites. 2. The 2 Census Projects and how we should

handle that. 3. The absence of Kay Mason for so many months. 4. The

possibility of combining the Tombstone Project up with the Archives

Project, as a subsidiary (which I already consider it to be).

By topic, responses thus far are as follows:

USGenNet vs USGW pages [00-1]:

Joy Fisher notes "there should be separate pages."

Jim Powell notes that "Although I prefer and keep my sites for different

organizations on separate pages, I believe as long as a Volunteer is

keeping up their site to our minimum specifications and keeping their

visitors more or less happy, we should leave them alone." [hear, hear.

Jim, BTW, has taken these issues to his constituents for their opinions.]

Ginger Hayes notes that she would "would like to see each county have at

least a different main page, no matter what other project they were also

affiliated with. Those pages could carry the same links on each page, but

would be specific to each project." She states that some of the dual

sites "almost have an identity crisis" and that she's met people who

couldn't tell what project a site belonged to.

Census Projects [00-2]:

Joy Fisher states "Since the merger of the two CP's fell through, I

suggest we submit the whole question to binding arbitration." She asks if

anyone knows where they can find someone with the "wisdom of Solomon" to

handle the task.

Jim posts "Leave them alone. There is nothing productive that we can

do. They need to try again and again to work things out. As long as

there is a chance that we will approve one or the other as "The" Census

Project, they will not work things out."

Ginger notes that she's optimistic that the Census projects can work

things out between them, and suggests "the coordinators for both projects

will take a deep breath and start again and keep in mind that the good of

the USGenWeb Project, as a whole, should be their primary consideration."

Kay Mason [00-3]:

Joy suggests declaring Kay "unable to fulfill her term".

Jim has no opinion on Kay's absence but notes that he might be upset if

his rep was absent, "Unless of course I didn't think that it mattered.

Maybe they are trying to tell us something?"

Ginger says that the Census project volunteers don't appear to be too

upset about Kay's absence, but believes the Board can "consider that she

has resigned, if not in fact then by her actions." She's going to check

her RRoR to see if it covers this cirmcumstance.

Tombstone Project [00-4]:

Joy notes that subsuming the TP into the Archives "would probably mean

removing the TP representative on the Board", and suggests preparing

something for the membership to vote on in the summer.

Jim says "If the Volunteers of both projects agree, then by all means

combine the Tombstone Project with the Archives Project." He notes that

he has always considered it to be part of the Archives and thinks Joy's

point about the representative is a good one.

Ginger asks how a merger will affect the representation on the Board and

whether the TP members will be subsumed into the Archives.

Monday 10 January 2000

Tim posts a message regarding subscription to Board-L, noting that "at the

end of the first 24 hours or so we've had 97 members join the list." He

says that many of the subscribers are not familiar to him and it "seems

that some of the silent majority is joining this list to see for

themselves."

Tim asks members not to present more than one issue for discussion at a

time and numbers the questions in Pam's message, using the traditional

motion numbering system [although these are not motions; numbers are in

brackets after each topic above]. Pam apologizes, saying "My little brain

was just ticking away and I put several thoughts into one note. I will try

to do better in the future."

Stirring the Pot Corner: Just when we thought it would die down, the

Board looks ready to spring into action. Unfortunately, on most of these

issues, they will spring smack into a brick wall called the bylaws.

Regarding Issue 00-1 [USGW vs. USGNI], the Board is apparently confused

about what USGenNet, Inc. is. It is not a project but a server, much

like Root$web, and hosts pages for several different projects, USGW among

them. What the board is apparently meaning here is dual pages with other

projects, such as ALHN. The bylaws set very few requirements for CCs and

are silent on the issue of dual pages. A number of states have already

dealt with this issue internally, and there is really very little need for

the Board to address it as well, but this is Tim's "Project Purity" issue,

so it most likely won't go away anytime soon. Issue 00-2, the Census

projects war, is not something the Board can resolve, since it has

absolutely no authority over either the Archives [which is independent of

USGW] _or_ the Census Project, and neither are under any obligation to

submit to mediation, grievance procedures, or binding arbritration, or to

honor the results of same [the last time the Board passed a resolution

regarding this issue, the Archives blithely ignored it]. There is no

provision in the bylaws to remove a Board member once elected [00-3], even

if they no longer qualify for the position or are absent, and declaring

Kay "unable to perform her duties" or "resigned" is not going to change

that. It will be interesting, however, once they do remove her from the

Board, to see which Census Project they decide that seat belongs to.

Regarding the Tombstone Project [00-4], if the volunteers want to merge

with the Archives and assume the status of a subproject [like the Pension

and Map Projects] within the Archives, that's their business. The bylaws

do make provision for a Tombstone representative on the Board, however, so

unless those are revised, one should be there. This will mean, of course,

that the Archives, which is not a part of USGW, will have two and maybe

three of the Special Project seats. Wouldn't that be an interesting turn

of affairs?

Make It So Corner: We hear that Tim Stowell is sending out invitations

for an "appointed committee to revise the bylaws". If interested in

participating, please contact your Board rep or Tim [you can get their

addresses from the "Advisory Board" link off the USGW main page.]

Quid Pro Quo Corner: Yesterday, GenConnect issued its "Good Faith

Policy", which states in part, "GenConnect Board Admins who have Web sites

for the subject of their boards, whether they be surname, US State or

County, International, or other Special Boards must provide prominent

links to their Boards from their Web site in return for GenConnect's

provision for a link from each Board to the allied Web site. In addition,

it is expected that any information pertaining to the GenConnect Boards

found on the allied Web site will be of a positive and informative nature,

encouraging the use of the allied Boards....Failure to adhere to this

policy will be cause for removal of the Admin for those boards."

[Apparently some number of people have been helpfully pointing out that RW

is a for-profit company when they link to a GC board, and a few other

folks who link from GC to their pages but not vice-versa. Its all about

advertising.] We hear this new policy is causing some distress on the

GenConnect mailing lists, and RW employees and supporters are scrambling

to contain the damage. So far there have several people who have turned

their boards back to GC, including one person who has returned 96 boards.

Today's quote is from a reader:

"When these types of problems arise, then they have to be dealt with....

so an official policy has to replace common sense.."

--Barbara "Rootslady" Dore, USGW Board member

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Tue Jan 11 08:47:59 2000

Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 08:47:58 -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.SV4.3.96.1000110202155.3496B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: RO

X-Status:

Good to the last drop...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Monday 10 January 2000:

Joy Fisher clarifies her position on Isue 00-2 [Census Projects] by

stating first that her suggestion of binding arbitration "should not be

forced on the Census Projects. It can only work if both sides truly want a

merger and agree to go into arbitration", and second that the abritator

should be someone outside of USGW and "preferably someone outside the

genealogy community with no stake in the outcome."

Joe Zsedeny states thinks the Board "should step back and ask by what

right does anyone speak for the members of the Census Project?" He notes

that Kay Mason has walked away from the Coordinator position and her

position on the Board, and she is the last "legitimate" person to hold

either position [ouch! Sorry, Ron!]. He is of the opinion that "the CP

members should hold an election, as outlined in the Bylaws, for a CP

coordinator", so that discussions can be undertaken with the knowledge

that that person represents the Census Project. He also notes that his

reading of the bylaws leads him to believe that "a separate election

would be needed to fill the vacant CP position on the Board. The CP

Coordinator can hold both positions but two elections are needed in any

case." [*sigh* The Board appoints replacements for vacant positions.

You'd think they'd have this down by now.]

Jim Powell posts that he thinks issues 00-2 and 00-3 should be combined,

and that "the two Census projects should come together on their own and

create something bigger and better than sum of the two projects as they

now exist. They should do this without Board involvement or pressure."

After they are merged, the new project can elect a new Board

representative. He also suggests that a list be created for participants

in the discussions that others could subscribe to in read-only mode, and

notes "If it blew up we would be no worse off than we are now."

Tuesday 11 January 2000:

Tim Stowell [responding to Joe's post on Monday] notes "That the CP and

other Special Project elect their Board Rep there is no question."

[*sigh*] He further states that the bylaws Article 13, section 1 states

that the Special Projects coordinators are appointed by the Board and Art

13, sec 6 says they are elected by the volunteers. He speculates that "It

seems as if in the writing of the Sections regarding the Special Projects

that two positions were being discussed without a clear division regarding

which was being talked about where."

Ginger Cisewski points out that Article 13, sec 1 refers to appointing a

Special Project coordinator during the initial creation of a project, and

section 6 details the method of replacing a coordinator in an existing

special project. She notes the procedure is almost identical to that of

replacing a State Coordinator, and "This procedure has been used a number

of times since the initiation of the Bylaws, so I fail to see a cause for

confusion in this case."

Jim Powell posts, "I think the intent was to have the Special Projects

Coordinator Originally appointed by the AB and then when the Special

Project was established and in need of a new Coordinator, the Volunteers

would elect one."

Gloria Mayfield notes that she agrees with Jim on the issue of letting the

Census projects work things out for themselves, saying "I do have the

faith that the two parties can reach an agreement, and will reach an

agreement for the cause of the Project."

It Never Rains But It Pours Corner: Things just get worse for poor old

GenConnect, following the announcement on Sunday of their "Good Faith

Policy". Apparently many people are reacting very badly to what they

perceive as a bald threat. Here's what some of them have to say, all from

GENCONNECT-L:

"What a great policy! When all else fails, start twisting people's arms!

You should be ashamed of yourselves!...If you can get away with this, what

will you be attempting next? I will have to carefully rethink my decision

to continue utilizing your service." [Art Michaelis]

"I agree the policy comes across as too coercive and should have been

eased in after discussion on this list. On the other hand, it seems like

a policy that we could all support... In any case, whoever published this

new policy ought to rescind it and get some consensus first. And, if we

are going with the policy, let us implement it over the next year for

those who have a lot of boards." [George Waller]

"Well, isn't this a bunch of crap!!!!!????? Isn't it enough that we

manage the Boards and link from them to our web sites at Rootsweb? Must

we now add even more clutter to the web pages? As it is, I spend far

too much time administering all this for FREE, and now you want to add yet

another burden. When does Rootsweb's greed stop? The more you guys go,

the worse you get...Nothing like bluntness and lack of common tact to set

off a whole multitude of your most avid supporters again. Did you

people hire Don Rickles as your new PR man?" [George W. Durman]

"What idiot thought up this policy? Your motivations seem honest enough,

but the way it was expressed -- both in wording and in implication --

seems damn insulting....If there was a problem with adequate reciprocation

... you could have handled the matter with a friendly suggestion rather

than a menacing threat. From the wording of the announcement it seems the

purpose of the new policy is more to build a mutual-admiration society

rather than an efficient vehicle for exchanging genealogical information."

[Dave Lawrence]

"Once again GenConnect/RootsWeb has gone hunting for fleas with an

elephant gun. There was no need to make the implied threats that were

contained in the message conveying the new policy...At one time GenConnect

was there to "assist" if we desired the help. Now it has become

mandatory? My understanding was that GenConnect was going to put the

resources online and it was up to the CC's to use or not use them.

Now it would appear that you either get with the program or get off the

train" [Henry Folsom]

"I'd be willing to bet that 99% of the administrators are using the boards

to the best benefit of the researchers and only a handful are creating any

problems for researchers, GC or Rootsweb. When these types of problems

arise, then they have to be dealt with.... so an official policy has to

replace common sense." [Barbara Yancey Dore]

A large number of posts on the topic express confusion, mostly by

people who don't appear to have pages to link to, or who aren't sure they

are in compliance or how to get into compliance if they aren't. Some

GC/RW supporters are claiming that according to the new policy [which in

true Root$web fashion is being claimed as old policy] if you don't

link to your web page from your GC Board, then you aren't required to link

to the GC Board from your web page. But interestingly enough, Joan Young,

"the unofficial firefighter for Rootsweb", notes that "GenConnect never

removes an admin who is properly maintaining their boards. If no one can

find your boards--if they are hidden--then the resource is not being

properly maintained as a service for your visitors." The new policy is

also written in such a way that if GC doesn't like the _way_ you advertise

your boards, they can take them away.

Tales Out of School Corner: Among the other fallout from GC's

ill-fated announcement was the spectacle of one USGW member ratting

another out for not being in compliance with the policy. Seems a regional

coordinator in a southern state is distressed because a county coordinator

in her area adopted all the boards for her county. The RC alleges the CC

has told her she will not be using the boards for her USGW county, and the

RC asks GenConnect "if it is possible for you to write to [name deleted]

and personally ask her, and then if she doesn't, to take those Boards away

from her, I would be most grateful As you know the GAGenWeb has very

little control if an individual is maintaining the county page in a

reasonable manner....and [name deleted] does that." The RC then helpfully

supplies the CC's email address and the names of a couple of other USGW

county pages that don't manage their GC boards to her liking. The RC adds

this: "In my opinion the Gen Connect Boards and the Rootsweb Resource

pages are the salvation for the USGenWeb project." [well, that's one way

of looking at it.] A fellow USGW member [who signs herself as one "who

has been doing genealogy on the web since long before RootsWeb was more

than a greedy gleam in someone's eyes"] reminds the RC that GC/RW and

Root$web are not associated with the USGW, "except that the same server

houses both projects and seemingly the same folks control both projects."

"Kill not the goose that lays the golden egg."

---Proverb

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

----------

From merope@Radix.Net Wed Jan 12 11:17:30 2000

Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:17:29 -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.SV4.3.96.1000112060804.28660A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

Shuffling off to Buffalo...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Tuesday 11 January 2000:

Jim Powell posts, "I believe that we need to officially say something

about motion 99-4. We need to either make a new motion that makes

specific guidelines and drops the "The Board strongly recommends" or we

should declare that directive null and void and "Strongly recommend" that

they get together and solve their differences." He believes that left as

it is, it will interfere with any attempt to merge the two projects. He

also says "I know what I meant when I voted for that motion, but a lot has

gone on between then and now. I'm not so sure any more", and asks the

rest of the Board for its opinion.

In regards to issues 00-2 and 00-3, Tina Vickery says that she thinks that

"a good faith and good effort is being made to reconcile the two

projects. I would let the involved parties continue to work towards

agreement and resolution." [Hmmmm. I wonder where she's been the last

couple of weeks.] She also suggests that Tim contact Kay Mason and ask

her to submit her resignation for the Borad's consideration.

On the topic of issue 00-4, Tina notes that she also considers the

Tombstone a subsidiary of the Archives, but then inexplicably says

"Placing it within the USGenWeb Archives would only raise the question of

representation on the board."

Archives rep Joe Zsedeny treats the Board to a bit of Archives history,

saying "On the surface it seems to me that archival matters should be left

with those entrusted to manage them. I do think the Board overstepped on

part of M99-4." Joe tells the Board how Linda Lewis started both the

Archives and the Census Project and eventually appointed Kay Mason to head

the Census Project. He says that Kay "rebelled against Linda's authority"

and acquired directories from RW where she proceeded to store census files

where Linda had no control over them. In do so, Joe claims, Kay violated

the agreement between Linda and Brian Leverich. [How could Kay violate an

agreement she had no part in?] Joe closes with this: "So what we have is

the Archives coordinator without the means to effect her control of a part

of the Archives. Is it any wonder Linda and the file managers are upset?

Now Kay has vanished from the scene and left the wreckage for others to

clean up. But it needs to be discussed civilly so all current members

understand it. Then perhaps we can craft a solution fair to all."

Pam Reid gives the group a bit of history on the Tombstone Project, which

she started as a Memorial Day project. It became very popular and she

made it permanent. She notes that "The Project did not begin as an off

shoot of the Archives Project, but I more or less made it into one because

of my beliefs." Pam says "I ALWAYS considered the Archives to the proper

place for storage of all records of this type for posterity's sake. It

just made sense to me then and still does to me now. I don't believe

that records belong on county web sites (unless they are also archived).

The Archives is the central repository for all important historical and

genealogical records for the USGenWeb Project." Although she notes that

"The Tombstone Project is probably too large now to be handled by one

volunteer in each state who is also the Archives coordinator... To be

done right, it needs its own volunteer group making sure that files are

uploaded, updated, etc.", she reiterates that she does "consider it to be

an "Archives" Project from the standpoint that I believe ALL records

should be in our central repository."

Conundrum Corner: This issue of "whither the Census Project" is an

interesting one. Joe's notion that because the Archives and Census

Project existed before the board and bylaws and therefore the actions of

one and provisions of the other do not apply, is akin to stating that the

USA can not exist as separate from Great Britain because we were a colony

before our Constitution was written [a bold analogy, yes, but you get the

point.] The bylaws clearly define three Special Projects: the Archives,

the Census Project, and the Tombstone Project, each of which gets its own

Board representative. Kay Mason, Linda Lewis and Pam Reid were all were

all members of the bylaws committee [ref: Kay Mason, USGENWEB-ALL, 31 May

1998 "Question about Bylaws Committee"] so presumably the delineation of

three Special Projects [as opposed to one with several subprojects] was by

their mutual agreement, and they apparently thought each would need its

own representative to properly represent their interests on the Board. If

the Census Project was merely thought to be a subsidiary of the Archives,

then why would it merit its own representative when other Special Projects

[Lineages, Kidz] did not? Why could not the Archives representative

adequately represent the interests of its staff in the Census Project?

Whether or not the three projects are separate is entirely unrelated to

where the files are stored; all three could operate independently of each

other and still store the files in the same place. Its difficult not to

conclude that at least at the time the bylaws were written, the three

projects were considered to be separate with independent issues and

concerns. Of course, back then, the various Special Projects Coordinators

were friends and perhaps it was not foreseen that there would later be a

rift over management and control issues. Whatever, the three Coordinators

helped to write the bylaws, the bylaws were accepted by a majority of the

electorate, and the bylaws treat them as three separate projects.

[Incidentally, the bylaws refer separately to both "the USGenWeb Project

Archives" and "the USGenWeb Archives Project", indicating that the writers

of the bylaws did not consider them to be the same thing. The USGW

Archives Project has a Board representative. The USGW Project Archives,

as the umbrella for the Special Projects, does not.]

Sauce For The Goose Corner: As you know, National Coordinator Tim Stowell

has recently asked at least two online genealogy projects to stop using

our official logo and instead use one of the "friends of USGW" logos

[which are absolutely horrible]. As it turns out, Root$Web is currently

using the logo on all of its county cluster pages, and further they are

claiming to "sponsor" USGW, along with WorldConnect, the SSDI, the RSL,

etc. I've now had a dozen people send me copies of various county cluster

pages [thanks everyone!] and yep, our official logo appears on each and

every one, under the words "Major Projects Sponsored by RootsWeb".

Someone also sent me a surname page, and the logo and claim of sponsorship

appears there as well. So its safe to assume that our official logo

appears on updwards of 18,000 [3000+ county, 15,000+ surname] pages on

RW. [The "sponsorship language" also appears on the RW home page.]

According to Tim, the official logo is copyrighted and is to be "used only

on officially approved USGenWeb sites." So can we expect a letter to go

out shortly asking RW to use one of the "friends" logos instead?

Perhaps, but its unlikely anything will come of it. After all, the Board

has been woefully ineffectual in getting RW to change the admin contacts

on the usgenweb.net and usgenweb.org domains, so why expect them to have

any better luck with this? [10 months and counting]

"The same energy of character which renders a man a daring villain would

have rendered him useful in society, had that society been well

organized."

---Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-----------

From merope@Radix.Net Thu Jan 13 12:16:20 2000

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 12:16:16 -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.SV4.3.96.1000113060221.1142B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

Oh Lord, stuck in Lodi again...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Wednesday 12 January 2000:

Ginger Cisewski forwards to the Board her copy of the email this author

originally sent to the National Coordinator and later to all 16 Board

members. Ginger says "My opinion is that we should either request that

Rootsweb remove the USGenWeb logo from non-USGenWeb pages, as we have done

with every other non-official site, or allow anyone to use the logo so

long as it's a link back to the USGenWeb Project. Any attempt to be

selective will be met with ugly accusations of discrimination, etc., and

increases our vulnerability to litigation." She suggests that whichever

they choose, they should implement as soon as possible to avoid confusion

to the volunteers and visitors.

Shari Handley says "I personally don't see a problem with using the logo

as a link back to the USGW, as long as it is not used in such a way that

it could make a non-USGW site seem as though it was part of the USGW."

She also notes that Jen Godwin has created a set of "specialized logos

that look great, and could be used by non-USGW sites who have a special

relationship with our Project (ie "friends of", "data donor", "web site

host", "web space provider")." These can be viewed at:

<http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Meadows/7135/logos.html> [be aware

though that this page takes _forever_ to load]. Shari further notes, "If

we do indeed want to restrict the use of our primary logo, I think we need

to apply it to everyone. These logos would provide attractive alternates

that are close enough in appearance to the primary logo they would be

readily recognizable by visitors to the sites."

Lego My Logo Corner: In Jen Godwin's post to the -ALL list she says that

she doesn't understand what makes a logo "official" and why some are OK

and others are not [A Boad member reminds her that the official ones have

been voted on and approved as official logos by the Board]. But Jen

thinks "we could actually solve the problem with just a little bit of work."

The logos she's put together are mostly variations on the theme of the

official logo with titles describing the group of entities that would be

entitled to use them [USGW "friend", "host", "free web space provider"

etc.] They are a _vast_ improvement over the current "Friends of USGW"

logos, which one anonymous correspondent thought "stank to high heaven"

[at least one of the projects that has been asked to stop using the

official logo has commissioned an artist to make their own "friends of

USGW" link button.] Jen has made her logos available to all so long as

they are properly used, and welcomes comments and additions to her page.

[We admit to some curiosity, however, as to how use of these logos will be

controlled/regulated. Is RW for instance, a "friend", a "host", or a

"free web space provider"? If USGNI chooses to use the "host" version of

the logo, will that be OK? Can you use the "data donor" logo if you give

data to a county site but not the Archives? We're guessing, though, that

rather than write a letter to Brian, the Board will just decide to let

other organizations use the official logo.]

In a side note to this issue, this author sent a note regarding the logo

issue to all 16 Board members and the NC, midday yesterday formally

notifying them of RW's improper use of the logo. Thus far, I have heard

back from exactly one Board member, and that was Betsy Mills' mail reader

telling me she wasn't accepting mail from me [O, the humanity.]

New Zoo Review Corner: Utterly, utterly boring this week. Don't even

bother reading it.

"Leadership is a potent combination of strategy and character. But if you

must be without one, be without the strategy."

---Norman Schwarzkopf

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

------------

From merope@Radix.Net Fri Jan 14 22:39:42 2000

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 22:39:41 -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.SV4.3.96.1000114222217.17184B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

Hey Homer!...its Your Daily Board Show

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

Thursday 13 January 2000:

There was no traffic on Board-L on this date.

Pontious Pilate Corner: We hear through mysterious channels that NC Tim

Stowell has officially "washed his hands" of the Census issue, saying that

if the Board wants to get involved that's up to them; he's off to do more

productive things [so much for that legacy].

Manning The Helm Corner: In a letter released to the volunteers of the

ALHN yesterday, Jeff Weaver and Mary Katzman announced that papers have

been filed to incorporate the American Local History Network as a

not-for-profit public benefit corporation. The corporate officers are:

Jerry E. Dill, President, John G. West, Vice President, Mary Floy Katzman,

Vice President, Lucy Dill, Treasurer and Webmaste, Lynn Waterman,

Secretary, Betty Sellers, Webmaster, William E. Oliver, Webmaster, Carl

Kirton, Public Relations, and Jeff Weaver, Education and Aquisitions.

In the letter, Jeff and Mary state "Mary Floy Katzman and Jeffrey C.

Weaver, do, by this letter, formally transfer right of trademark to the

American Local History Network to The American Local History Network,

Inc., and also transfer the intellectual property rights to the concept

of the American Local History Network, to The American Local History

Network, Inc." This is an interesting and unexpected turn of affairs; we

understand that the ALHN volunteers were especially surprised by the

announcement.

"Our whole lives are lived in a tangle of telling, not telling,

misleading, allowing to know, concealing, eavesdropping and collusion.

When Washington said he could not tell a lie, his father must have

answered, "You had better learn.""

---Germaine Greer

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Sat Jan 15 14:53:28 2000

Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 14:53:26 -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--Special Anniversary Edition!

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000114061341.8254A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: RO

X-Status:

Brought to you by the letters R and W and the number 4...Its Your Daily

Board Show!

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

Friday 14 January 2000:

There was no Board-L traffic on this date.

Once Upon A Time Corner: You all remember the tale of Yertle the Turtle,

right? The story about the little turtle who wasn't happy with the pond

he ruled and stood on the backs of his fellow turtles, believing that the

higher he got and the more he could see, the bigger his kingdom would be.

He was nasty and obnoxious to all the other turtles, especially when

they asked him to be a little more considerate of them. The turtle

pile got higher and Yertle got more and more obnoxious and full of

himself. "Hooray!" shouted Yertle. "I'm the king of the trees! I'm king

of the birds! And I'm king of the bees! I'm king of the butterflies! King

of the air! Ah, me! What a throne! What a wonderful chair! I'm Yertle the

Turtle! Oh, marvelous me! For I am the ruler of all that I see!" Until a

little turtle burped and the whole pile came crashing down and the mighty

Yertle ended up in the mud. Its a great story; if you don't know it, you

should [http://www.ugrad.cs.jhu.edu/~ab/yertle.html].

Anyways, to the issue at hand. Today marks the one year anniversary of

the banning of the RootsWeb Four. For those of you who joined the show

already in progress, the trouble started when Dale Schneider, the Root$web

employee who was supposed to be running the special election for the USGW

Project, disappeared on January 15, the day scheduled for the start of the

election. Kay Mason, election committee chair, sent a message out that

there had been a hard drive crash and all the election information had

been lost and the election would be delayed indefinitely. Following her

announcement, Suzanne Cook, Carol Dean, and Pam Cresswell exchanged some

banter about it on the USGENWEB-ALL list. This author was not online

that weekend, as a major storm knocked out my power for three days. When

I was able to get back online, I found that all my messages to the -ALL

list just disappeared; Suzanne, Carol and Pam reported the same thing.

After several queries to the listowner and other people who might know

something of it, Brian Leverich, minor potentate of Root$web, finally

informed the -ALL list that he had banned the four of us for 30 days:

Carol, Suzanne and Pam for their comments about Dale and the election, and

me apparently just because [although I think the real reason is that I

found out about their discussions to put commercial advertisements on the

webpages]. Perhaps unsurprisingly, he has never bothered to communicate

with any of us directly about the ban, and we were notified of it with the

rest of the world on Jan 19. At that time, he also threatened reprisal

against anyone who helped the them access RW resources. Although the

RootsWeb Four protested to the USGW Advisory Board, the Board responded

merely by saying it wasn't their problem and they weren't going to get

involved.

Shortly thereafter, tie-dyed "Free the RW4" protest buttons began showing

up on USGW county pages and the Board attempted to pass a restrictive

"Standards and Ethics" policy to prevent negative publicity from spreading

beyond the confines of the project. They wisely reconsidered following an

outcry from a large number of project members. Around this time, Pam

Cresswell left the project for good and moved her pages to another online

genealogy project.

Three months after the ban went into affect, Carol and Suzanne's State

Coordinator attempted to mediate an end to the ban on them, since it was

preventing them from participating in their required state mailing list.

The terms offered by Mr. Leverich were unduly restrictive and

constituted prior censorship of their posts; they were rejected out of

hand by both Carol and Suzanne. The other two members of the RW4 were not

included in the offer of terms to lift the ban.

Since then, a great many things have happened. RootsWeb formally

incorporated as a for-profit corporation in Delaware and California,

despite years of telling people they were working on a non-profit

application. Commercial ads did indeed come to pass, and can now be seen

posted over USGW mailing list archives, Archives search engines, and

project-affiliated Genconnect Boards. RootsWeb published an

Acceptable Use Policy that effectively gives it the right to

distribute in perpetuity any information posted to any RW resource,

regardless of the copyright owner's wishes. Then they made the AUP

retroactive. Then they instituted a policy that asking them to remove

even one single post would cause the requestor to lose FOREVER the

privilege of posting to RW mailing lists. Three more people have been

banned and a fourth has been prevented forever from posting to RW mailing

lists. The USGW project has weathered a number of crises attendant on its

"special relationship" with RW, ranging from the mundane [the improper use

of our offical logo], to the profound [the numerous issues raised by the

continued management of our elections by RW staff]. Rootsweb has

instituted a plethora of new features and resources, including the surname

and county cluster pages, the WorldConnect project, and the for-a-fee

Personal Mailing Lists, and Brain stands atop an ever higher pile of

GEDCOMs, cluster pages, mailing lists, GenConnect boards, and exhausted

volunteers, surveying his domain.

Since the RW4 were banned, the Board has had six members resign [although

two later changed their minds], and has had two of its newest members

caught in apparently unethical behavior [one voted twice in the run-off

election and one was caught publicly discussing stripping a submitter's

name off transcribed date files in the Archives and resubmitting them

under someone else's name]. The Census issue has not been resolved, and

they've never, after 10 months, been able to get RW to change the admin

contacts on the usgenweb.org and usgenweb.net domains to the current NC's

name.

And the RootsWeb Four? Well, The "30 day ban" is now 365 days old and

we have yet to go away. We've all been sort of vaguely accused of

questionable activities at various times, usually when Brian needs to

justify his ban to some unhappy group or other. We've been threatened with

criminal charges and civil suit. But the ban hasn't stopped any of us

from participating fully in USGW, even though one of us has to get special

permission to vote each and every time we have an election. Pam Cresswell

is actively involved in the American Local History Network, and reportedly

quite happy there. Carol Dean and Suzanne Cook remain active in the

USGenWeb project, but have also diversified into other online

history/genealogy projects. All three seem to be managing quite well in

their endeavors despite Mr. Leverich's ban and don't miss RW. And me?

Well, you know all about what I've been up to this last year. <g>

Helpful Reminder Corner: Don't forget, you can read all about the

RootsWeb Four and other interesting stuff, including the redacted

Board-Exec material and the history of the USGW Project, at Radio Free

USGenWeb: http://www.radix.net/~merope

"And today the great Yertle, that Marvelous he, is King of the Mud. That

is all he can see. And the turtles, of course... all the turtles are free

as turtles and, maybe, all creatures should be."

---Dr. Seuss, "Yertle the Turtle"

This has been a special anniversary edition of the Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

------------

From merope@Radix.Net Sun Jan 16 11:39:51 2000

Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 11:39:50 -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.SV4.3.96.1000116105731.24170C-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

Oodles of noodles...its your Daily Board Show!

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

Saturday 15 January 2000:

There was no Board-L traffic on this date.

Memories Corner: Someone tells me that yesterday's edition of the DBS was

posted to the -ALL list. We here in the newscube still get a wee bit

choked up when the DBS finds its way back to its old home, and we thank

whoever was responsible [and hope they don't get banned!].

Exceeding His Grasp Corner: Did you know that when you use the threaded

search engine over at Root$web, you get an "important system notice" that

says "The Search Engine we are using has hit an architectural limit and

can no longer index the entire site. Work is under way to break up the

search engine into per-list databases." Thanks to an alert reader for

forwarding this along.

Avoiding the Issue: We also hear that the management of RW is _still_

side-stepping the issue of whether or not the wholesale forwarding of PML

messages [which do indeed contain posts in their entirety] violates the

author's copyright. RW's new AUP allows RW the right of unlimited

redistribution by any method that strikes their fancy, but whether or not

this applies to other people forwarding the PML to other places is another

issue entirely. Brain's response to the most recent discussion of this

issue is basically to ignore it, except to tell people that they are

discussing it on the wrong list.

"If one is going to change things, one has to make a fuss and catch the

eye of the world."

---Elizabeth Janeway

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-----------