Jul 24-31 2000

From merope@Radix.Net Mon Jul 24 20:46:26 2000

Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 20:46:25 -0400 (EDT)

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.SV4.3.96.1000724070526.833A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

Don't look now...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Sunday 23 July 2000--Monday 24 July 2000:

Regarding the issue of what constitutes a quorum, Tim Stowell tells the

group "Regardless of how many members may or may not be present, the

number is still 9, as per the Bylaws, until the Bylaws are amended."

Since no Board members voted on Motion 00-21, he calls a "roll call" and

notes "If there is not a quorum present, it would seem to me that there

would be no reason to call for any more votes until a quorum does in fact

exist."

Thus far, Maggie, Holly, Shari, Betsy, Pam, Joe, Jim, Richard, Ginger

Hayes, Tina, Ginger Cisewski and Barbara have all answered the roll call.

[That easily makes a quorum, so let's get cracking on Motion 00-22 and

then let's move on to the motion to declare Linda Lewis, Barbara Dore,

Maggie Stewart Zimmerman, and Joy Fisher not in good standing. For some

reason, Tim seems to be ignoring that one.]

[For those of you that don't recall, Motion 00-22 is the motion to

re-register all the usgenweb.* domains.]

Joe Zsedeny reports that Linda Lewis "has decided to remove her name from

the trademark filing and attempt to have just "USGenWeb" placed on the

application." Because the USPTO may need a name a address to replace

hers, Joe suggests that they use the name and address of the National

Coordinator. He also suggests that "If Linda is successful in doing this

we should include in a future amendment to the Bylaws a provision that

each NC pass the TM on to his/her successor."

Jim Powell thanks Linda and Joe and asks "Can't we create written

operating procedures that would include such things as transfer of

trademarks and domains?"

===

"I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many

parasites living on the labor of the industrious."

---Thomas Jefferson

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Tue Jul 25 10:26:53 2000

Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 10:26:52 -0400 (EDT)

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.SV4.3.96.1000724223313.3198A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: RO

X-Status:

Not to put too fine a point on it...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Monday 24 July 2000:

Tim Stowell calls for a vote on Motion 00-22, "That the USGenWeb

Project's domains usgenweb.org, usgenweb.net and usgenweb.com be

immediately registered to reflect these changes: Registrant: The USGenWeb

Project Administrative Contact: Holly Timm Billing Contact: Ginger

Hayes" Tim adds that "no change can be made to usgenweb.com as it

is privately owned by Doc Schneider." [Tim also notes that a quorum is

confirmed.]

Tim gives the motion to "find Board members Barbara Yancey Dore, Maggie

Zimmerman and Joy Fisher, as well as Archives Project Coordinator Linda

Lewis not members in good standing in the USGenWeb Project" number 00-23

and opens the floor for discussion.

Barbara Dore demands "to know the "specific" charge/s under which this

motion has been made and seconded." [Don't you love those ironic quotes

around the word specific?]

===

Election News: Some project members who have not yet voted are reporting

receiving "reminder notices" from the Election Committee. Over on the

State-Coordinators-L list, Tim Stowell is asking if his fellow SCs have

remembered to notify the EC when CCs leave the project during the election

season.

Take the Files And Run Corner: We hear through the grapevine that

there is yet another episode in the seemingly endless saga of

misappropriated files in the Archives. This one, not surprisingly,

concerns the Archives Census Project and one very large set of

transcriptions originally done for the Census Project, but copied over

into the ACP without the transcriber's permission. The tale starts in

1998, when the transcriber submitted a file to the CP and it was uploaded

into the ACP with incorrect information attached. The submitter requested

that the information be corrected and although she was assured it was, the

file is still online in the ACP with the incorrect information included.

[The version in the CP is correct.] In 1999, when she was ready to submit

her second transcription, she _specifically_ requested that it not go into

the ACP, but by then the ACP was running its clandestine mirror script and

her file made it into the ACP directories anyways. The ACP version of

this file also contains incorrect information. When her third

transcription was ready for submission, the transcriber tried once

again to get the incorrect information in the previous two corrected.

However, she was not successful, and because she was never given the name

of a person to contact regarding these problems, she had her State

Coordinator intervene. Her SC's email insisting the files be removed was

cc'd to a handful of people,including Tim Stowell, Linda Lewis, and

Maggie Stewart Zimmerman, but to no avail. The files were left online and

on July 10, 2000, the following header information was added to them:

"This Census was transcribed by Name Withheld Per Transcriber Request and

proofread by Name Withheld per Proofreader Request for the USGenWeb Census

Per Transcriber Request"

The transcriber again wrote to the National Coordinator and the Archives

representative requesting that her transcriptions be removed immediately

and entirely. On 23 July 2000, Ron Eason attempted to intervene on her

behalf with the Board, asking them to "Please help her regain the rights

she deserves." The Board's responses were generally supportive of the

transcriber [although one Board member took the opportunity to take a

swipe at Ron]:

"In my opinion, [name deleted]'s info should be removed from the

Archives. Whatever the reasons are for her unhappiness about having the

files in both places don't really matter. We have an unhappy volunteer and

we should do what we can to fulfill her request. The "no removal" policy

of the Archives does occasionally have to be overlooked and I believe this

is one of those cases."

---Pam Reid

"Linda, in the interest of goodwill and fairness to Ms. [name deleted]...

please consider acknowledging her request and removing her transcript."

---Holly Timm

On July 23, the following message appeared on the top of the disputed

transcriptions, which were still posted in full and available online in

the ACP:

"We are currently looking for someone to retranscribe this census record.

If you are interested please contact the USGenWeb Census Project

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

The Archives and the ACP have had little to say on the matter. Linda

Lewis wrote that she had directed all the files to be removed and

referred further inquiry to Kevin Fraley. Kevin, who now calls himself

the "Administrative Coordinator" of the ACP wrote to the transcriber,

telling her:

"As I understand it...you have had a transcription online for quite some

time, but have since decided that you no longer wish this....I understand

that you or your representative have requested that this material be

removed from its longtime placement in the USGW Archives. I also

understand that, despite its own policies and its agreement with this

project, the USGW Archives has completely removed this work from its

online files and its tables of contents...I understand that despite the

total removal of this material from the USGW Archives, you were in need of

further satisfaction, and demanded that your name not be associated with

the USGW Census Project any longer in any way. Despite this being a

somewhat unusual demand, as I understand it your wishes were honored and

your name and e-mail address removed from all locations, which it now

appears you disagree with, despite your earlier demands. It was at this

point only a few days ago that the matter came to my attention. I

immediately ordered a review of the files in our possession by our staff.

By the time I received the results of this review...I concluded that you

were not placable no matter what was said or done at that point. I

therefore ordered that our staff remove all notes and any other original

authorship from the files, and with it any possible claim of copyright

protection, and I understand that this has been completed. What remains

in our hands is purely in the public domain. Naturally, it is our

intention to find another volunteer (if you remain opposed to our efforts

and unwilling to participate) to properly complete this work including

proofreading to our standards."

[Note Kev's admission that he did not remove her transcriptions, but

merely removed her name from them.]

He similarly wrote to the Board:

"Not only are all [name deleted] files out of the Archives, but within the

USGW Census Project we have removed from our internal directories all

[name deleted]-authored material, this being in our possession over two

years without incident until the "politics of agitation" practiced by some

demanded that there be conflict. At the present time we have nothing

whatsoever of [name deleted] in our inventory, and consider the matter

closed."

Despite Kevin's assurances, as of this morning, the transcriber's first

set of transcriptions are no longer accessible, but the second set is

still online with the notice attached that the ACP is looking for a new

transcriber. The transcriber's name has been removed from the ACP census

assignment lists and both census dates and locations reassigned to someone

else.

How much do you want to bet those transcriptions are reposted in record

time, under someone else's name?

A Question of Ownership Corner: Over on the -ALL list an interesting but

rather pointless thread has been ongoing for the last day or so. Ellen

Pack asked Linda Lewis to answer an apparently simple question: "who owns

the USGenWeb Archives Project?" Once the question was asked, Linda's

minions began their usual flurry of redirections, demanding that Ellen

tell them "who owns the XXGenWebs?". Linda herself, although active in

the thread, has not answered the question, did take pains to point out

that Ellen has been opposed to the Archives since 1996 and noted that

"This latest attack by Ellen Pack is not her first." [And it seemed like

such a simple question...]

Rhetorical Question of the Day Corner: Why is it that some people in this

project only do the right thing AFTER they get busted?

===

"Few men have the virtue to withstand the highest bidder."

---George Washington

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Wed Jul 26 14:43:57 2000

Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 14:43:56 -0400 (EDT)

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.SV4.3.96.1000726060634.8981A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: RO

X-Status:

The devil you know is better than the devil you don't...its Your Daily

Board Show!

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

Tuesday 25 July 2000-Wednesday 26 July 2000:

The vote on Motion 00-22 proceeds. Thus far, 8 Board members have voted

"no" and two have voted "yes".

Joe Zsedeny notes that when the Board does vote on a motion to register

the domain names, he believes "that the NC should be the billing contact

and the USGenWeb Member-At-Large the Administrative Contact. The NC could

more aptly solicit donations for the yearly fee." He suggests this motion

should wait until after the election for NC is over. Shari Handley agree

with him. Pam Reid also agrees and reminds the group "there isn't much we

can do with .com at this point anyway." Betsy concurs with Pam's

statement.

While making her vote, Shari notes "The domains need to have the contacts

changed, but I believe we should wait until after the election is over,

and that Joe's suggestion of using position names...instead of

individuals' names should be looked at." [Wonder if Tim will toss out her

vote for making a comment with it.]

After voting, Jim Powell notes that he believes that the Board needs to

stress the Project's claim to the domain names, but that it "seems silly"

to change them now only to change them again after the election. He notes

"We could however leave them in Holly and GingerH's names."

Shari Handley's only comment on Motion 00-23 is "Ridiculous!" Pam Reid

says "Ditto!"

Joe notes that GingerC and Jim did not ascertain whether Barbara, Joy

and/or Maggie knew their names were on the application. He notes " Seems

during election time all it takes is an accusation to indict and try

someone."

GingerC reminds Joe that Jim Powell did ask for explanations, but none

have been forthcoming. She notes that the application has four

signatures, and asks "Would you rather I assume that all four people were

somehow involved, or would you prefer to have me assume that Linda Lewis

forged their signatures?"

GingerC includes the latest information from the USPTO on the service mark

application and notes "Since the status report from the PTO now contains a

section marked "Prosecution" it would appear that the matter is now under

investigation." [That section was there previously, but was empty.

However, the current status date has changed to 19 Jul 2000.]

Betsy Mills notes that she "refused to vote to find Jim Powell not in good

standing when that was brought up" and she will do the same now.

Joe tells GingerC he'd rather have her personally contact the USPTO and

verify that there are four signatures, rather than just four names. He

notes "I think in your haste to take political avantage of this you are

repeating what you have heard."

Ginger Hayes says that "If the three members state that they were not

aware of Linda's scheme and that their names were added without their

knowledge and consent I would have no reason to disbelieve them." She

wants to hear from them whether or not they were involved and notes "I

don't think that is an indictment or a trial, neither do I have a

political agenda in this."

Jim Powell notes that he "was asking for answers as to why they were part

of this without bringing it before the rest of the board." He also notes

that none of the three Board members involved has bothered to respond and

reminds them " When I was on the other end of a similar motion, I stood up

and gave my reasons for what I was doing. Maybe, we are just different

that way."

Joe states "This is clearly a personnel [sic] issue but it has been put

on public display to become an issue for political advantage before any

kind of investigation worthy of the name...Virginia points out a part of

the form that contains "Prosecution" and immediately draws the phony

conclusion that this is under investigation... Poppycock, that is a

standard part of the form and implies only that if a prosecution has taken

place the reviewer need be aware of it. Virginia futher states that

"signatures" are on the form. Again, poppycock, it was an electronic

filing. Signatures must be cybersignatures. She has clearly taken her

information second hand and in a rush to gain political advantage done a

miserable job of Board work. And Jim has allowed himself to be drawn into

this political charade." He suggests the Board conduct further inquiry on

the secret list. He notes "When something like this occurs the first

course of action is to quietly get the facts, talk to the parties

privately and if their actions are wrong point it out to them and try to

get a change that will solve the problem without an uproar. But we have

people who only want to gain the upper hand on an old enemy or score

political points to get elected and the Project be damned. Too many

motions are rushed to the table, poorly thought out or written and wind up

wasting time and further fueling the contining feud that has become akin

to a soap opera."

Pam Reid has discovered that a TNGenWeb CC is using the official USGenWeb

logo to link to the USGenWeb Census Project and says "This is quite

obviously incorrect use of the logo." She asks the appropriate

representatives [Jim, GingerC, Shari] to contact the CCs and "let them

know that the USGW logo is to be used ONLY to link to the National USGW

site." [The offending item was actually typo in a link; it was corrected

prior to press time.]

===

"Little wonder that not one aspect of this project has created more concern

and anguish, more maligning and flames, more false allegations and

accusations, more problems and difficulties, and more division, than has

the Archives."

---Ellen Pack, USGENWEB-ALL, 25 July 2000

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Thu Jul 27 15:13:38 2000

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:13:37 -0400 (EDT)

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.SV4.3.96.1000727061311.7902C-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

Cuidado! Hay llamas!...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Wednesday 26 July 2000 Thursday 27 July 2000:

Voting concludes on Motion 00-22. 9 Board members voted "no" and 4 voted

"yes". [Shari Handley voted twice; Tim must have reminded her about the

"no comments" rule]. Tim Stowell declares the motion failed.

Pam Reid apologizes for publicly embarrassing two TNGW CCs over a typo in

a link on their webpage [reported yesterday].

Tim opens the vote on Motion 00-23: "I hereby move that The USGenWeb

Advisory Board find Board members Barbara Yancey Dore, Maggie Zimmerman

and Joy Fisher, as well as Archives Project Coordinator Linda Lewis not

members in good standing in the USGenWeb Project." Thus far, 6 Board

members have voted "no" [including two of the three people mentioned in

the motion.]

Ginger Cisewski formally requests that the motion be restated in its

entirety, since the clip that Tim included does not include any of the

documentation she presented.

GingerC notes that parliamentary procedure mandates abstention or recusal

from voting when a conflict of interest exists. She notes "Clearly,

allowing those parties so named in Motion 00-23 to cast votes on the

motion is a blatant conflict of interest," and she requests that their

votes be set aside.

Joy Fisher quotes RRoO "...It is a general rule that no one can vote on a

question in which he or she has a direct personal or financial interest.

However, a member can vote for himself or herself for any office or other

position. A member can also vote when other members are included with him

or her in a motion, even when the member has a personal or financial

interest in the outcome, for instance a vote on charges made against more

than one person...."

Pam Reid says she also looked this up and concurs with Joy that "all three

Board members DO have the right to vote on this issue."

===

We Get Mail Corner: Following Joe Zsedeny's suggestion the other day that

when an issue arises, the Board "quietly get the facts, talk to the

parties privately and if their actions are wrong point it out to them and

try to get a change that will solve the problem without an uproar", a

reader writes:

"Reminds me of a not-too-long ago incident involving the "acceptance of

resignation" of OHGenWeb. Good thing the AB member [Tina Vickery] "quietly

[gathered] the facts, talk[ed] to the part[y] privately and [...] try to

get a change that will solve the problem without an uproar." Of course, we

all know the board says one thing and does another. That's become both

status quo and modus operandi."

New Zoo Review Corner: Careful readers of today's Root$web Review will

have noticed that the address for advertising is now:

sbrenay@myfamilyinc.com

===

"A committee is a lifeform with six or more legs and no brain."

---Robert A. Heinlein

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Fri Jul 28 13:23:43 2000

Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 13:23:42 -0400 (EDT)

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.SV4.3.96.1000728064306.18517A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

I used to be disgusted, now I'm just amused...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Thursday 27 July 2000--Friday 28 July 2000:

Voting on Motion 00-23 proceeds. Thus far 3 Board members have voted

"yes" and 9 have voted "no".

In regards to the not unreasonable suggestion that the three Board members

mentioned in Motion 00-23 recuse themselves from voting on it, Shari

Handley notes that would be very convenient and remarks "This whole motion

stinks to high heaven."

GingerC notes "Linda Lewis has publicly admitted to filing for the

trademark of "USGenWeb Archives" in her own name. Barbara Dore has

publicly admitted it being discussed by a group prior to the filing. Joy

Fisher and Maggie Zimmerman have ignored repeated requests that they offer

some explanation." She reminds the group that the Board is required to

protect the assets of the project "irrespective of personal loyalties,

personal preferences,friendships or a potential loss of popularity." She

notes that failing to protect the project and its assets may leave Board

members financially and legally responsible and furthermore "is a

violation of the trust placed in each of us by the electorate." She

states "As there have been no explanations offered and no mitigating

circumstances found, I have no choice from either a legal or ethical

standpoint in the casting of my vote, which follows this post."

Tim Stowell says he will not honor GingerC's request to post her motion in

its entirety, saying "The Board doesn't vote on support documentation. If

you wanted it included in the motion, then you should have put the 'I

move' above your other material."

Barbara Dore bestirs herself long enough to ask GingerC to provide proof

that she "ever stated that there was a "group" discussion!" of the

trademark application.

GingerC reposts a message from Barbara that was originally sent to Board-L

as well as to other lists in which Barbara states "If I recall when the

possible registering was discussed there were several that agreed it

needing doing and offered to help." [This is the same post in which she

claims that she didn't know she was a signatory to the application.]

Barbara responds, telling GingerC that discussions on the topic of

trademark go back to 1998 and provides a post from the era of bylaws in

which the lack of registration of the USGenWeb service mark is discussed.

She also helpfully provides a definition of "group discussion": "(1) I

certainly wouldn't consider talking to myself a "group" discussion. (2) I

would consider a conversation between myself and another individual a

discussion, but not a "group" discussion. (3) I would consider a

conversation between myself and more than one other individual a "group"

discussion. I have not been in a "group" discussion, by my definition,

about this specific subject during the year 2000..." [Heh. Someone ought

to ask her what the definition of "is" is.]

Ginger Hayes notes "Linda Lewis' part in this is indefensible. The three

board members involved I'm not so sure about. My vote there has to be

based on the fact that they appear to be holding themselves unaccountable

to, and above, the members of this project. If they have commented on

their part in this then it has not been to all the members of the board

and/or to the membership of the project. They were asked and they did not

deign to answer." She notes that the vote is very painful for her, but

she states "If I truly believe that this action was wrong, if I truly

believe that all members should be held to the same standard, regardless

of who they are, and if I truly believe that people, especially those in

leadership positions, are answerable to the membership of this project

then I am left with only one choice."

Jim Powell asks "Why hasn't anyone stepped up to explain?...If it was just

to protect the trademark, why not do it with the Board's knowledge in the

Project's name? If Linda is going to change the registration to list the

Project as owner as Joe has reported, why hasn't she told us so? If Joy,

Maggie or Barbara didn't know that the actual registration was

progressing, or hadn't given their explicit permission, why haven't they

told us so?" He notes that his vote will be made "upon principle, not on

personalities or politics."

Shari notes "It is always amazing how some politician-types speak out of

both sides of their mouths," and reminds Jim that he previously said he

did not support finding Linda, Barbara, Joy, and Maggie not in good

standing. She says "Apparantly, you've changed your mind. Not quite

enough division lately, after all, eh?"

===

Ignorance is Bliss Corner: Over on the -ALL list, Joy Fisher has _finally_

clarified her role in the trademark application: "For the record, I knew

that Linda was going to file for a service mark. I did not know anyone

else was going to be on the application or how she was going to word the

application. I have never signed anything, had anything notarized, or

mailed anything."

Apparently, two of the three "signatories" to Linda's application were not

aware that they were being included on it, although their legal

responsibilities as signatories are not negligible. A USPTO employee that

I discussed this was was very suprised that anyone would include others as

"signatories" without first obtaining their permission.

Alternate Reality Corner: As has been pointed out elsewhere, at the _very

time_ that Joy was proposing to sever our relationship with the USGenWeb

Census Project for [among other things] "using the reserved term

"USGenWeb" without the advisory boards's knowledge or approval" she was

aware that Linda Lewis was about to do the exact same thing.

===

"What I have done is thrown a wrench in plans by other organizations that

have tried to take or destroy the USGenWeb Archives."

---conspiracy theorist Linda Lewis, USGENWEB-ALL, 27 Jul

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Sat Jul 29 19:36:23 2000

Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:36:23 -0400 (EDT)

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.SV4.3.96.1000729065027.12643A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

Part and parcel...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Friday 28 July 2000--Saturday 29 July 2000:

Jim Powell responds to Shari Handley, by noting that all he wanted from

Barbara, Maggie and Joy was an explanation and that his main concern was

that they didn't bring it to the Board in the first place. He notes that

if his vote had been the deciding one, he would have voted no to avoid

more division. He notes that "I really wish this could have come out

differently. I wish this trademark would have been registered in the name

of the project. I wish as a Board we could have discussed it. I wish

Joy, Barbara, Maggie and Linda had stepped up and said this is what we did

and this is why. It of course would have been even better if they had of

offered at the same time to place it in the name of the project. Yes, I

have lots of wishes, but I have to live with what I get, as we all

do....You will not see "LOL" or anything similar in my messages that

relate to my fellow Board Members votes or opinions on issues as they are

expressed here. Even if I disagree with you, I respect you as a person

and as a member of this board."

Joy Fisher proposes to delete the two amendments from the current ballot

and "either have a special election -- or if there is a run-off for NC,

to include the amendments at that time," based on information received

from a CC that the ballot appears to be defaulting to a "yes" vote if one

does not check off any of the radio buttons on the form. [see below]

Shari points out that the appearance of an incorrect vote is due to the

format of the script that generates the "thank you for voting" page and

there is not need to take the amendments off the ballot.

Tim Stowell declares Motion 00-23 failed. 3 members voted yes, 9 voted

no, and 3 did not vote. He also notes that based on RRoO, "Maggie and Joy

had every right to vote on this motion."

Ginger Hayes moves that "using the applicable portion of the below

quoted, and passed, Motion #00-10 as having set the precedent, that Linda

Lewis be declared a member not in good standing of the USGenWeb Project,

and that she be asked to resign from the USGenWeb Project, for applying

for a trademark using the reserved term "USGenWeb" without the knowledge

and approval of the full Advisory Board." She cites the following portion

of Motion 00-10 as applicable: "I move that the USGenWeb Project sever its

relationship with the USGenWeb Census Project, Inc. headed by Ron Eason.

This Census Project has incorporated as a FOR PROFIT corporation using the

reserved term "USGenWeb" without the Advisory Board's knowledge or

approval." GingerH also says "In the event that Ms. Lewis claims that she

is the owner of the Archives Project and that it is not...the digital

library maintained by and for The USGenWeb Project then this motion may

need to be amended to contain a severance of the relationship between The

USGenWeb Project and Ms. Lewis' Archive Project....This motion is born out

of my personal belief that all members of this project should be treated

equally. I am not so naive as to believe that is how world really is, but

I am idealistic enough to believe that is the reality we should all strive

for. I make this motion with great regret in view of Ms. Lewis many

accomplishments during her time with The USGenWeb Project. Those

accomplishments, however, should not make her exempt from the rules and

standards the rest of the project members have to live by." GingerC

seconds this motion, "In the firm belief that all persons must be held

equally accountable under the law, as well as under the Bylaws of the

USGenWeb Project"

Joy Fisher notes that Ron Eason was never declared not in good standing

and notes "If you are going to declare Linda Lewis not in good standing,

then Mr. Eason et. al. should also be included in the motion. The

Archives should be de-linked and banished, to complete the analogy with

Motion #00-10." She also reminds them that it would take a 2/3 vote of

the Archives files managers to remove Linda.

GingerH tells Joy "If you would like to make a motion declaring

Mr. Eason not in good standing for his unauthorized use of the reserved

term "USGenWeb" without approval by the AB then I will support it" [and

expresses some surprise that the CP members were severed as members in

good standing]. She also suggests that if Joy feels that the Archives

volunteers are culpable with Linda's actions that she can amend the motion

"to include severance of the Archives Project." Ginger also notes "I

would however hope that if this board advocated fair treatment for all

members and passed this motion that she [Linda] would put the best

interests of both the USGenWeb Project and the Archives Project above her

own self-interest and gracefully resign."

Jim Powell posts a listing of the various online genealogy projects

in which he is involved: "I host 3 FLGenWeb counties and I am an ASC of

FLGenWeb...I still help the CC that adopted the KYGenWeb site that I

formerly coordinated. I support the Archives with donations...I have

transcribed several censuses, all of the complete ones resided in both

projects and as part the county pages....I do pages for the General Samuel

Hopkins D.A.R. of Henderson Co, KY and the Gainesville Florida Chapter of

the D.A.R. I also do pages for the Henderson County(KY) Historical and

Genealogical Society. I do the pages for the Alachua County Genealogical

Society and I serve on their Board. I have 4 ALHN pages. They are also

affiliated with AHGP....Migrations Project, I feel that I was into this

one from the beginning and do the Florida portion of it." [He also lists

mail lists, board, etc]. He notes that USGenWeb is closest to his heart.

===

Appeance of Impropriety Corner: Carole Hammett posted information

yesterday that appears to indicate that when a person casts a vote for NC

but does not check _any_ of the boxes for the amendments, a default "yes"

vote is sent to the EC [see

http://www.mindspring.com/~carhammett/elections2000/forvoting.gif] Leigh

Compton says this is "an unfortunate artifact of a script which wants to

insert a word between "voted" and "for". The script is coded as:

You voted @recall@ for the proposed Recall Amendment and

@archives@ for the proposed Archives Amendment. Where @recall@ is

expected to take one of the values YES, NO, or ABSTAIN - same for

@archives@. The vote as tabulated simply has ,, instead of ,YES,

recorded."

What Is A Picture Worth? Corner: Lauren O'Donnell has made an interesting

graphic and posted it at: http://www.holyokemass.com/gen_orgs.gif. Known

errors so far: USGenWeb and RootsWeb/MyFamily/Ancestry were inexplicably

left out; ALHN, USIGS, and USGenNet all contain old and no longer

accurate information; and, my name is spelled wrong <g> If you can find

any more errors let us know!

===

"To reach the heart of the issue, we >have to go back to 1996, when

Linda's Archives were presented to the membership, and to the public, as

an official national level product belonging to the USGenWeb Project,

coordinated by Linda Lewis, one of the Archives founders. In fact,

substantiated by both word and action, it is a privately conceived,

operated and controlled entity free to act autonomously without regard to

how its operation impacts the rest of the project, the states, the

members, researchers, submitters, or even the By-Laws. This is the

reality, and we are suffering immensely from the effects."

---Ellen Pack [who has been waxing poetic lately]

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Sun Jul 30 15:40:46 2000

Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 15:40:45 -0400 (EDT)

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.SV4.3.96.1000730063010.10849A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

You better watch out...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Saturday 29 July 2000-Sunday 30 July 2000:

Richard Howland moves to amend the motion to declare Linda Lewis to be not

in good standing, so that it reads as follows: "I move that, using the

applicable portion of the below quoted, and passed, Motion #00-10 as

having set the precedent, that Linda Lewis be declared a member not in

good standing of the USGenWeb Project, and that she be asked to resign

from the USGenWeb Archives Project, for applying for a trademark using the

reserved term "USGenWeb" without the knowledge and approval of the full

Advisory Board."

Ginger Hayes says she has no objection to the amendment.

Pam Reid says "the censure of Ron and the Census Project was quite

different from what it being proposed here as treatment for Linda

Lewis." She suggests that if the author and second of the motion believe

that Ron's and Linda's actions are similar, then the consequences should

also be similar. She also says "Ron was not found to be a member in good

standing. His Project was delinked and its association with USGW was

severed." [No vote was _ever_ taken finding Ron Eason to be not in good

standing. The Census Project was delinked and severed without even the

slightest nod to form.]

Jim Powell says he doesn't really agree with anyone. He doesn't believe

anyone is anything but misguided. He suggests we "stop comparing "crimes"

or "sins" and give amnesty to everyone. Start with a clean slate. Maybe

instead of asking Ron to drop his NonProfit Incorporation, maybe we should

request that Linda do the same with the Archives."

Joe Zsedeny says Linda has "already agreed to do that." [do what?

incorporate the Archives? Now, THAT would be news!]

Richard does not think Ron Eason should be included in the motion, but he

thinks "it would be fine to make the motion to declare Ron as not in good

standing next." He suggests the Board not "pile items on motions" and

notes "Motions need to be to the point and not include second, third, and

fourth points. These extra points can keep us from getting results."

Joy notes that she is just pointing out "the inequity of the punishment

since the motion maker and seconder feel that the infractions were the

same."

GingerC says she cannot accept the amendment for the following reasons:

"this Board has no authority to determine what constitutes "good standing"

in a sub-project...If the Archives Project's members wish to deal with it,

that's entirely up to them and not this Board...Second, the trademark is a

USGenWeb asset, not an Archives asset. The action was taken against the

entire Project, not just one portion of it. This Board has a legal

obligation to protect the assets of the Project. Third, this Board only

has the authority to declare a member as "not in good standing" in the

USGenWeb Project as a whole." She says if GingerH accepts the amendment,

she will have to withdraw her second.

===

Election News: The end of the election draws near. Polls close at 23:59

CDT July 31 [that's one minute before midnight tomorrow night <g>]. If

you need to vote and haven't yet, the polls are at:

http://elsi123.august.net/~usgenweb/

A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words Corner: As we've recently seen, any

fool can spend a few hours making a nifty chart. As proof of the

observation, here's another one:

http://www.radix.net/~merope/bighappyfam.gif

===

"The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it."

---Flannery O'Connor

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Mon Jul 31 13:31:31 2000

Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 13:31:30 -0400 (EDT)

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.SV4.3.96.1000731060343.18664A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

On top of things...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Sunday 30 July 2000:

Richard Howland notes that with his amendment to the current motion, Linda

would be declared not in good standing in the USGenWeb Project but asked

to resign only from the USGenWeb Archives Project, "the part of Project

that she had applied for a trademark on!" Richard also notes "There is a

very major difference between Linda's and Ron's actions. When you Inc.

You declare ownership of a entity, its assets, and debts. When you Trade

Mark a name, you only claim ownership of the name. While both are wrong

without USGenWeb approval. They are not the same."

Ginger Cisewski says she misread Richard's amendment the first time and

she withdraws her objection to the amendment and reinstates her second.

[and where has Tim been the last few days?]

===

Election News: Polls close at 11:59 pm CDT tonight. If you've been

holding off on voting, don't delay!

http://elsi123.august.net/~usgenweb/

Storming Off _Again_ Corner: Declaring herself "tired of the lies, the

accusations, and the non-facts", Linda Lewis has once again unsubbed

herself from the -ALL and -DISCUSS lists. She never did answer the

question Ellen Pack put to her a week ago or so [the one about who owns

the "USGenWeb Archives Project"].

===

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you

end up being governed by your inferiors."

---Plato

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Mon Jul 31 14:35:30 2000

Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:35:29 -0400 (EDT)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

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

Subject: Asleep at the wheel

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000731143039.6067C-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: RO

X-Status:

To all of you who wrote to ask why I did not include Ginger Cisewski's

closing paragraphs [see below], for some reason unknown to me I just did

not see them. I blame the cheap coffee. My apologies for any confusion

and/or despair. <g>

Anyways, here's GingerC's response to Richard's statement about

incorporation and trademarks:

===

Richard said:

> There is a

> very major difference between Linda's and Ron's actions. When

> you Inc. You declare ownership of a entity, its assets, and debts.

> When you Trade Mark a name, you only claim ownership of the name.

Ginger replied:

"Yes, there is a very major difference here. The USGenWeb Census Project

is a nonprofit public benefit corporation. It is owned by no one, not

even its directors and members. It cannot be dissolved without first

transferring all its assets to an IRS approved nonprofit public benefit

corporation or a government entity. Its assets may never be used

commercially or even leased for commercial purposes. On the other hand,

Linda has applied to register a trademark that does not belong to her.

But, if she is successful it can be sold, leased, transferred or otherwise

assigned, put to commercial use, or anything else she chooses."

===

And we hear our own Esteemed National Coordinator has been busy visiting

chat rooms and mailing lists asking people to vote for him, rather than

tending to Board business.

-Teresa

merope@radix.net