Mar 13-19 2000

From merope@Radix.Net Mon Mar 13 11:58:50 2000

Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:58:49 -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.SV4.3.96.1000313061456.16831I-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

Just a spoonful of sugar...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Sunday 12 March 2000:

Tim Stowell numbers Shari Handley's revised motion [forcing a merger on

the two census projects] Motion 00-6, and says that the floor opens for

"formal discussion" at noon EST 13 March and closes at noon EST 15 March.

Ginger Hayes moves to postpone "any action on Motion 00-6, including the

discussion period of the motion", until the Board appooints someone for

the vacant Census Project representative seat.

Shari Handley seconds GingerH's motion to postpone action on Motion 00-6

until a CP rep is appointed.

===

The Past Revisited Corner: A week or so ago, one of the Board members

recommended untabling Motion 99-12. This motion, originally made by Joe

Zsedeny and seconded by Yvonne James-Henderson on May 21, 1999, reads:

"Whereas directories are being inappropriately used for unintended

archival purposes it is hereby resolved that all archival data directories

not under the USGW XXGenWeb Archives and containing census data be purged

immediately of all such data and the census data placed in the appropriate

XXGenWeb archives. This includes but is not limited to the

ftp://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/census/ directory. It is further resolved that

Dr Brian Leverich be requested to return the USGW Census Account(s) to the

USGW Archives Census Accounts."

There are two key points in this motion: 1) that all census data files not

in the USGW Archives be placed within the USGW Archives; and 2) that

any non-Archives directories containing census data be purged. Notice that

until the _very_ last sentence of the motion the CP is not mentioned by

name, and the motion specifically states it is not limited to the

directories the CP uses. Thus, a literal reading of this motion would have

also required that _any_ USGW affiliated state or county harboring census

data that is not in the Archives turn over their census data and purge

their own files of any such data. This motion was tabled on May 24 1999.

Motion 00-6 specifically refers to the Census Project and the Archives

Census Project, and retains the two key points of Motion 99-12: that the

Census Project's files be turned over to the Archives, and that the Census

Project's directories be purged. We have all heard, over the last year or

so, that the bylaws protect the Special Projects from external meddling

and grant them the same status as states in terms of local control. We

have been assured that this was the original intent of the bylaws

committee when the bylaws were written. Yet Motion 00-6 clearly grants

the Board the authority to dictate to the special projects [and by

extension any other local project] how they are run, who gets to vote for

their coordinators, and where they may keep their files. For an idea of

how inappropriate this is, replace all mentions of "Census II" and "USGW

Census Project" in Motion 00-6 with "TNGenWeb" [a state that keeps its own

archives]. Pretty appalling, isn't it? Now, replace all references to

"Census I" and "USGW Archives Census Project" with "KSGenWeb" [another

state that keeps its own archives]. Pretty ludicrous, yes? If the

Special Projects are afforded the same protections in the bylaws as the

state projects, then Motion 00-6 cannot be legal under the bylaws, unless

of course someone wants to argue that the bylaws afford some projects more

protection than others.

Those of you who think this is farfetched are reminded that not so long

ago, KSGW members were publicly and privately accused of all sorts of

perfidy for choosing not to put their files in the USGW Archives. More

recently, there has been extensive discussion in TNGW over where files

submitted to TNGW should be placed, with some members arguing that they

should _by default_ be placed in the USGW Archives rather than TNGW's own

archives. Several Board members, SCs, CCs, Archives file managers,

Root$web employees, etc., have gone on record that all data files donated

to or transcribed for any component of the USGW should be placed in the

Archives. It is not at all outside the realm of possibility that, "for

the good of the project", or "to benefit the researchers" any state or

local projects that are keeping data locally rather than in the Archives

can be brought into line using a mechanism similar to Motion 00-6.

Once upon a time, there was another motion that sought to "reorganize" the

Special Projects; it was called Motion 99-5

[http://www.usgenweb.com/official/boardvotes-99-1.html#99-5], which

stated specifically that "each Special Project will maintain their own

directory and infrastructure, separate from any other Special Project."

Back then, our NC said: "The Motion...usurps the Bylaws by trying to take

authority not given the Board in the Bylaws. Since a reorganization of the

Special Projects is a major change in the way the Bylaws read." [Tim

Stowell, Board-L, 9 March 1999]. Tim actually declared this motion illegal

based on Article 16, section 5 of the bylaws [emergency amendment

procedures]. Only a year ago our NC felt it was contrary to the bylaws

for the Board to interfere with the business of the Special Projects. So

what has changed?

===

"In my opinion the board does not have the authority to direct any state

or special project to anything as long as they are in compliance with the

bylaws. If they are not we do have the authority to delink the entire

state or special project but I do not believe the census project is in

noncompliance.... The only way to restructure the special projects is

through an amendment to the bylaws and if such an amendment is proposed it

should have considerable input from the volunteers of the special projects

who the restructuring will effect the most."

---Trey Holt, 23 May 1999, BOARD-L, regarding Motion 99-12

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

--------

From merope@Radix.Net Tue Mar 14 16:57:55 2000

Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 16:57:52 -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.SV4.3.96.1000314060811.106A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: RO

X-Status:

This ain't no party, this ain't no disco...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Monday 13 March 2000:

Tim Stowell calls for a vote on the motion to table Motion 00-6, then

corrects himself and calls for a vote on the motion to postpone Motion

00-6 [I wonder if he got a nastygram from GingerH too? <g>]. So far there

are two "yes" votes, one "no" and two have abstained.

Joe Zsedney believes the Board should seat someone from the CP "so that

they can participate in the discussion of Shari's motion and have a change

to offer amendments just as the ACP members will have that chance thru

me." It seems unfair to him to "ignore the wishes of 20 people whose

project will dissolve into a new project without giving them a

voice." He suggests the Board "bring them along into it and give

them a fair hearing," and notes "Their cooperation is important to a

smooth transition." He says he's received support for Shari's motion from

Archives FMs and has received suggestions for amendment which he will

forward "when the floor clears." He also says that if a CP rep is not

seated "keep an open mind on any suggestions the CP members may have," and

that they send him. He notes "In some manner they must be represented."

And then he votes "yea" on Motion 00-6. [There's nothing like a Board

member that pays attention.]

Ginger Cisewski points out the Board is currently voting to postpone and

asks Joe to clarify his vote. Then she notes that he's raised a question

she's also been pndering: "How do we get around the fact that autonomy of

each project has been a basic guarantee since the founding of USGenWeb,

and the fact that the Bylaws do not give us the power to force one Project

to become part of another? We also have no power to tell a Project where

they will (or will not) keep their files." She wonders if they can

accomplish all this legally.

Joe says to ignore his first attempt at voting on Motion 00-6 and he

doesn't agree on tabling, only on postponing. He notes that "If there are

any other versions of this motion floating around out there rest assured I

will run them down before the day ends." Then he posts the same message

he sent previously, and once again votes "yea" on Motion 00-6.

Joe responds to Ginger's questions first by noting that the Board should

"clear M00-6 before discussing Shari's motion" and then by saying, "When

Virginia and I come anywhere near agreeing on something I look at the

billboard to make sure I have come to play at the right ballpark." He

goes no to say that he agrees that "M00-5 will solve the problem and

with amendment will be a good motion the thought goes thru my mind that we

are attempting to merge an Archive special project with a USGW special

project, two entirely different animals." [Joe seems confused here;

Motion 00-5 has been withdrawn.] Joe says the Board must follow the

bylaws to the letter but when they are open to interpretation, "the Board

is free, consistent, with the wishes of the volunteers, to proceed." He

urges getting the "broadest level of support possible from those

involved," but in his opinion the census issue is not of huge importance

to anyone in the project other than the two projects' leaders. He says

that based on the bylaws, which provide for a "Digital Library" [called

the USGW Project Archives] "the Board can certainly insist that the books

(files) be put in the library." He then notes that the "library system"

depends on the "librarian's perogatives [sic]" and "Each new special

project cannot redesign the library system to suit themselves. They must

use the existing structure so that special scrips [sic] written to search

the material can do their job." [This particular straw man is getting a

little old.] He says that he will post suggestions for amendment for

Motion 00-5 when it comes to the floor again and he will "be quite adamant

that they be included." He then notes "As for autonomy, the ByLaws do

provide autonomy, but autonomy for each special project one from the

other. Not autonomy from Board directives." [Funny, we've always been told

that control in this project moves from the bottom up. Now we're told

that VT can't tell CA what to do, but the Board can tell us _all_ what to

do.] Joe says that "we have three autonomous special projects, Archives,

Tombstone and Census. The Archives Project has no business telling the

others how they will organize or manage their day to day projects." But

he then says that the Archives _does_ have the business of "insuring that

ftp files be formatted in text format and be placed in specified

directories."

[Joe's understanding of the bylaws is a little scary. Even more scary is

that it seems to be shared by several other Board members.]

===

Smoke and Mirrors Corner: Joe's argument about libraries and librarians

only works if one thinks that the USGW Archives Project and the Digital

Library are synonomous. The bylaws in their current form do not support

such an interpretation. Under the bylaws, which all three heads of the

Special Projects helped to write, the Archives are a specific Special

Project, as is Tombstone and Census. Joe explicitly supports the

interpretation of the bylaws to read that these are three separate and

autonomous projects. The Digital Library/Project Archives can encompass

all of these without interfering with each project's management or file

storage. It could even encompass such diverse entities as the TNGW

Archives or the KSGenWeb Digital Library. The Archives cannot do that and

has made it clear that it will not.

Essentially Joe is arguing that every project can be independent until it

comes down to storing things the Archives considers to belong to the

Archives, and then it comes down to the "librarian's perogatives", where

and when the files are stored. That's clearly not what the bylaws say;

all the bylaws say is that "The USGenWeb Project shall also provide a

"digital library" called The USGenWeb Project Archives." They are silent

about where files may be kept, who is in charge of them, what form they

shall be in, etc. In the absence of any specific delegation of authority

to the Board, or to anyone else, local control should trump all other

interpretations.

By the admission of its founder, Pam Reid, Tombstone _chooses_ to put its

files in the Archives, because that is where she feels they should be.

Likewise, TNGenWeb and KSGenWeb choose to maintain separate archives

outside the Archives Project. Why is the Census Project, an independent,

autonomous project just like any state or other Special Project, not

afforded the same right to choose where they store their files? Why do

some on the Board feel that the Board should decide, or that the Archives

should decide? [What if Tombstone someday decides _not_ to put its files

in the Archives; is the Archives then going to argue that the files

_still_ belong, by right, to it?]

The argument that the files have to be in the same place to be "searched"

is not incredibly compelling either. Where I live, there is a county

library system. It has dozens of libraries. Each maintains its own

catalog. However, it is possible to do a "master search" of all the

catalogs for _every_ library in my county; if a book is not on the shelves

at the library near my house, but I find it in the master search, they

will send it to my local library, where I can pick it up. If my cheesy

local government with its pitiful resources can manage to do this, surely

the mighty Root$web can figure out how to have its search engine index

more than one directory tree.

===

"Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad with power."

---Charles Beard

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

------

From merope@Radix.Net Wed Mar 15 06:57:12 2000

Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 06:57:11 -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.SV4.3.96.1000315055713.1832A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

Preaching to the choir...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Tuesday 14 March 2000-Wednesday 15 March 2000:

Voting continues on the motion to postpone Motion 00-6, albeit slowly.

There are now 3 yes votes, 1 no vote, and three have abstained.

Tim Stowell clarifies some things for Joe Zsedeny, to wit: 1) "Motion

00-6 is Shari's motion. What is before the Board at present is whether

or not to postpone Motion 00-6 until the Board can instead appointment

someone to fill the Census Project's Board seat or go ahead and handle

Shari's motion."; 2) Motion 00-5 has been withdrawn and will not come to

the floor again, although a similar motion may come to the floor.

Pam Reid asks Jim Powell if he is sure of his vote as she thought he was

against postponing Motion 00-6. She later tells everone, "never mind my

crazy brain." It was Joe who is against postponing Motion 00-6 [she might

be confused here as well; Joe may not have a clue which motion is which,

but he's pretty clearly stated that he would like Ron seated before any

action is taken that involved merging the census projects.

Pam has updated the "Board votes" web pages, but called the motion to

postpone Motion 00-6 a motion to table. She has corrected the pages, but

at least as of last night was not able to upload the pages.

Ginger Cisewski says she has always seen the "Project Archives/Digital

Library" as a collective term encompassing "all the archived data within

the USGenWeb Project "regardless of where that data is stored." It

includes state projects as well as the Special Projects and whatever

control over it exists rests with the Advisory Board and the bylaws. She

envisions the Project Archives as similar to the National Archives, which

has branches all over the country, which work independently but are linked

[and I might add, regional NARA branches often have a _lot_ of data that

is not held at the main NARA facilty in D.C.]. She asks Joe to put

himself in the Census Projects's shoes and asks how he would feel if the

Board told him to give all ND's files to MN and then ordered that all of

ND's directories be purged. She thinks such an action would lead to

states leaving the program. She argues that if "this Board to order such a

thing as Shari's motion proposes, it would succeed in causing a gigantic

rift in the USGenWeb Project itself which might never be healed, not to

mention the numerous dedicated volunteers who would leave in

disillusionment and disgust, never to return. The passing of Shari's

motion would do much greater harm to USGenWeb than just allowing the

two Census Projects to co-exist and come to whatever working agreements

they can among themselves, of their own volition."

Joe Zsedeny responds that the "common thread" [of NARA? of the USGW

Archives Project? of the Project Archives?] is "that the librarian

assigns the directory and the password," and reminds her of what the Sioux

did to Custer [no, I have no idea what analogy he is trying to make,

unless he is trotting out his boss' old "they are trying to destroy the

Archives" mantra. Frankly, Custer deserved it.] Joe agrees that the two

projects should merge on their own, but they haven't done so in the last

couple of years [its been about 16 months since the two split]. He notes

that the one thing that bothers him is "the ACP is a special project under

the Archives. Does the Board have the right to dissolve an Archive special

project?" He says "the Board does have the right and responsibility to

seek a remedy to a problem that causes confusion to researchers, turns

away volunteers and causes discord within the Project," and notes that if

he and GingerC cannot come up with a better solution, "we will probably

have to dance with the ones that brung us."

===

Out of the Woodwork Corner: All this yammering about the Census Project

has finally spooked USGW's resident control freak out of her hole. Linda

Lewis, head of the USGW Archives Project, has used the Board's Secretary

to post an open letter to the Board to all the regional lists and the -ALL

list, which says, in part:

"None of the negotiations, and there have been several attempts, have

worked out since the census project was split from the USGenWeb Archives

in November 1998. It is time for the USGenWeb Advisory board to publicly

support and recognize the USGenWeb Archives Census Project, a special

project of the USGenWeb Archives (Digital Library), as the "Special Census

Project" as named and described in the bylaws. As coordinator, and one of

the founders, of the USGenWeb Archives Project (Digital Library) since

it's inception, I have watched as the Census Project (CP) has been

spirited from under the Archives by deception, and mismanaged by some at

the top while dedicated volunteers labor to achieve the original goal of

getting census records transcribed and online. This problem has festered

long enough."

She goes on to present the usual argument that the Census Project was

formed before the bylaws, that Kay "spirited away" the Census Project

using deception, and that the Archives Census Project formed in response

to her action is in fact the "original census transcription project." Not

only is she asking the Board to recognize the ACP as the Census Project

named in the bylaws, but she is also requesting that the CP take the

February 1997 founding date off its pages, and that the passwords for

their accounts be returned to her.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'm guessing this means that the

Archives is less than interested in the Board's grand plans for solving

the problem by forcing a merger on the two census projects. Unless of

course, that merger results in one Census Project under the Archives,

forever and ever, Amen.

===

Today's quote is from a reader:

"I'll be the odd person out again - even though the Board may have the

right to appoint a Board member, I believe the CCs should have input into

who it is - even if it's just for nominations."

---Tim Stowell, TN-ALL, 4 Oct 1999

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

--------

From merope@Radix.Net Wed Mar 15 16:29:26 2000

Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 16:29:25 -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.SV4.3.96.1000315113743.792A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

Too much is always better than not enough...its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* Contains a double dose of editorial content today. Read at your

own risk!

Wednesday 15 March 2000:

[Too much interesting stuff to wait 'til tomorrow]

More votes are in on the motion to postpone Motion 00-6. The count is now

4 yes votes, 4 no votes, and 3 abstentions. [Its going to be really hard

to pass this one. If all 5 remaining Board members vote, all five will

need to vote "yes" to make the 2/3 requirement. Unless I've done the math

wrong, which is always a possibility.]

Betsy Mills, who we never hear too much from, sends a most extraordinary

message to Board-L [although I'm guessing it was supposed to go somewhere

else]. She asks what the Board Secretary is doing forwarding email to the

projects lists that looks as if it is coming from the Board. She tells

Tim Stowell that the whole thing has gotten out of hand, and if it keeps

up she is going to request "the board list become moderated -- but

unfortunately, I will ask that it NOT be you [Tim] that moderates it." She

indicates that she's very angry this morning. She complains that she

can't post messages to BOARD-EXEC [the secret list] because "some jerk on

there keeps forwarding everything to the DBS," and says if it happens

again she will request that the suspect be removed from the list. She

claims that "There is nothing underhanded about having a list where we can

talk without some idiot taking every word, placing it under a microscope

and twisting it into squabbling and dissention." [ouch.] She thinks they

seriously need to consider whether "there is a need for bylaws and/or an

advisory board" and notes that people "scream" about using parliamentary

procedure until people want to say things that are out of line. She asks

"What is the point anymore????????" [appended to her post is Linda's

"open letter" from earlier today.]

Ginger Cisewski says Betsy's questions are excellent and she would like to

know the answer herself.

In voting on the motion to postpone Motion 00-6, Rich Howland says he sees

"no way out of this," he's been told that "not to vote or abstain is

chicken's way out," and he considers a yes vote to be a vote for the

status quo. He says he doesn't understand why anyone on either side would

want that.

[Gad, this is nice bunch of people. "jerks", "idiots", and "chickens",

all in one day!]

===

Hell Frozen Over Corner: Linda Lewis has written to say that should the

Tombstone Project ever decide to store its files someplace other than the

Archives, the Archives will not claim the TP's files belong to it.

So, apparently, the Tombstone Project is free to come and go as it

chooses, as far as file storage goes. But not the Census Project.

Interesting.

Meaningless Speculation Corner: Someone pointed out to me today that this

whole thing could get _really_ interesting. Since it does not appear that

the motion to postpone Motion 00-6 will pass, the Board will need to take

up the issue of merging the census projects as their next order of

business, without either a CP representative on the Board [the ACP is

represented by Joe Zsedeny] OR the support of the USGW Archives Project.

Now consider for an instant, given item #8 of Motion 00-6, what could

happen if the Board passes the motion, and _both_ projects refuse to

comply. The Board could find itself in short order having to delink both

the recalcitrant Special Projects. This is probably not the intended

outcome of the recent push to "resolve" the census issue.

===

"When the least they could do to you was everything, then the most they

could do to you suddenly held no terror."

---Terry Pratchett, "Small Gods"

This has been your Daily Board Show, redux!

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

------

From merope@Radix.Net Thu Mar 16 08:21:52 2000

Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:21:51 -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.SV4.3.96.1000316061728.2625B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: RO

X-Status:

Whassup?...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Wednesday 15 March 2000-Thursday 16 March 2000:

Voting proceeds on the motion to postpone Motion 00-6. The count is now 5

yes votes, 6 no votes, and 6 abstentions. [I have not been including

Joe's vote in this county; if one assumes he meant to vote "yes" to

postpone, rather than "yes on Motion 00-6", the yes vote tally is 6, with

but one Board member left to vote. Interestingly enough, once it became a

concern that the motion to postpone might pass on a simple majority, Holly

Fee Timm changed her vote from "abstain" to "no", noting that "appointing

representation for the Census Project without determining (finally) who is

the Census Project is putting the cart before the horse." It looks like

that remaining Board member's vote is going to be very important, and if

she doesn't vote, our esteemed NC may get to determine whether the CP has

a voice in its fate or not. Scary thought, no?]

Pam Reid disagrees with Rich, and says "We aren't voting to table the

motion - we are voting to put it on hold until a Census Rep is seated on

the Board." She assures him the Board will deal with the motion regardless

of how the vote goes. She abstained because she doesn't "feel it matters

much. This is going to be a bloody battle, whether a Census Rep is seated

or not." She says she "probably should have voted NO, since I figure we

may as well get on it the battle." She hopes that if Motion 00-6 is

postponed they can seat a rep quickly and get going on it. [Great. The

Board is girding itself for battle. You know people, this doesn't have to

happen.]

Teri Pettit notes that all motions must pass by a 2/3 majority, per the

bylaws. She says she has never liked that rule, since "whether or not a

change is made can depend on how the motion is phrased. It allows the

tricky strategy of phrasing your motion so that the results you want

happen if the motion fails." She asks "do votes to postpone or table

count as "motions" for the purpose of the 2/3 rule, or are they just

"votes", which would therefore go by a simple majority?" [Interesting

question. Our bylaws say "2/3", RRoR says "majority" but also says "if

the postponement is to a later time in the same meeting, the effect is to

amend the agenda of that meeting, and the motion therefore requires a

two-thirds majority vote." Essentially, I think the motion to postpone is

doomed. The bylaws say a 2/3 majority is needed to pass motions and do not

discriminate between main and subsidiary motions. RRoR says a "majority"

is needed to pass any motions other than those that materially affect the

rules of the meeting or of the organization; RRoR generally defers to

rules enumerated in bylaws though. If a 2/3 majority is required, the

motion has already failed. If only a simple majority is required, it gets

more complicated. At best, the motion to postpone has one more _possible_

vote; should the remaining Board member vote to postpone, either Pam or

Maggie can change her vote from "abstain" to "no", thus forcing the NC to

cast a vote. If both change, of course, or the remaining Board member

votes "no", the motion has failed.]

Pam tells Teri "You think WAY too much for your own good <grin>!" and says

her question is a good one, but she doesn't know the answer. According to

her RRoR requires a majority and "if the Motion to Postpone passes, the

other motion is called up automatically when the time to which it was

postponed arrives." Pam says a simple majority should be sufficient, but

notes "there are those who will disagree." [which is why they have a

Board Secretary.]

Tim responds to Betsy's angry screed from yesterday by pointing out that

Ken Short was not forwarding mail "as coming from the Board." Tim was one

of three Board members that received the mail [along with Ken]. According

to Tim, Ken forwarded the mail everywhere _but_ Board-L because Tim had

indicated in IRC that no more constituent mail was to be forwarded to the

Board lists. Tim notes that he can't stop people forwarding mail and

Ken's action were not out of order, "unless you consider that Ken sent it

as Board Secretary." Tim agrees with Betsy's sentiments about BOARD-EXEC

being private as opposed to secret, and says "just because the Daily BS

says it's Secret doesn't make it so." [no, its "secret" because you use it

to talk nasty about your fellow project members, and to hide activities

you don't want us to know about.] On her other points, Tim notes that

some constituents also wonder whether a Board and bylaws are necessaary,

that things do seriously stink, and only time will tell if there's any

point to any of this.

===

500 Hats Corner: From CC-L, here's a list of Board members known to be

affiliated with the Archives Census Project:

Joe - ACP Coordinator for ND, ACP's rep on the Board

Maggie - ACP Coordinator

Joy - ACP Coordinator for SD

Tina - Part of ACP Mgmt Team, also host for NH,

WI, ME and others

Barbara - ACP Coordinator for TX

Holly - listed as a co-copyright holder on the ACP web pages

Joe has apparently voted yes on the motion to postpone and Maggie has

abstained. Joy, Tina, Holly and Barbara, on the other hand, have voted no

on the motion postpone, apparently feeling it is OK to discuss the fate of

the census projects without a CP rep sitting on the Board.

Backpedalling Corner: Ken Short has responded [on ALL and other places] to

Betsy's complaints that he forwarded mail as if it were from the Board by

saying that he forwarded Linda's "open letter" as a member of USGW, not as

Board Secretary. He says "Since the NC had asked that no more

messages be forwarded to Board-L and this was an open letter to the Board,

I decided posting it here was the best way to insure it would be seen by

the largest audience, including Board members." He also says that several

messages have been posted to the lists "touting the virtues of CP II," but

no one has complained about those messages. He felt it was only fair that

the ACP have its side of the story aired, and notes "If you were upset

with what was contained in the message, maybe it is time you stepped back

and took a look at what happened in the past and what is happening now."

But of course no one has complained about the ones in favor of the ACP

either, _and_ no one complained about Linda's message except for Betsy,

and her complaint had nothing to do with the fact that the message was in

support of the ACP. It had to do with the fact that it appeared to have

come from the Board. Perhaps the Board Secretary could better spend his

time ruling on whether the motion to postpone Motion 00-6 requires a

simple majority or a 2/3 majority.

===

"We didn't send you to Washington to make intelligent decisions. We sent

you to represent us."

---Kent York

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

--------

From merope@Radix.Net Thu Mar 16 11:11:20 2000

Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:11:18 -0500 (EST)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

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

Subject: News Flash!

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000316110910.28330A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

For those of you are keeping track, Pam Reid has changed her vote from

"abstain" to "no". The count now stands at 5 yes votes [6 with Joe's

vote], 7 no votes, and one abstention.

Did we see this coming or what?

-Teresa

meope@radix.net

From merope@Radix.Net Thu Mar 16 14:40:51 2000

Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 14:40:50 -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.SV4.3.96.1000316143501.19087H-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: RO

X-Status:

The Board Secretary has just forwarded a message that appears to be from

Tim Stowell to Board-L. It contains the final count for the vote on the

motion to postpone Motion 00-6:

6 yes votes, 5 no votes, 3 abstentions [1 board member did not vote]

The motion carries, and action on Motion 00-6 is postponed until a CP

representative is seated.

It appears that for motions of this nature, only a simple majority is

needed to pass. It also appears that Tim sent the vote count without

checking his mail; two of those three abstentions have changed to "no"

votes, which would alter the outcome of the vote. [Yes, changing one's

vote is allowed under RRoR.] I'm personally kinda surprised that the BS

didn't catch this, but there you go.

So, now we apparently go back to the original question: Ron or not Ron?

-Teresa

merope@radix.net

From merope@Radix.Net Fri Mar 17 17:19:55 2000

Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 17:19:54 -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.SV4.3.96.1000317072132.14044A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: RO

X-Status:

Pickin' and grinnin'...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Thursday 16 March-Friday 17 March 2000:

There has no public Board activity since the final result was announced on

Thursday.

===

Anatomy of a Vote Corner: Although the Board is apparently not commenting

on the result of the motion to postpone Motion 00-6, some USGW members

have made some observations. One has recommended that someone [Board

member, volunteer?] immediately appeal the ruling, stating "The bylaws

specifically state a 2/3 majority is required for motions to pass. The

motion to postpone even though subsidiary in nature is still a motion."

We have always been in favor of interpreting the bylaws exactly as they

are written, but the Board has generally favored "original intent"; we

know of no public record as to what "original intent" might have been in

this case [if they even thought of something so nuanced as subsidiary

motions]. RRoR itself generally defers to specific written rules and

bylaws of an organization, so any references in it to "majority" would

defer to a requirement in the bylaws for a "2/3 majority". Under this

requirement, this motion should not have carried. However, and here's the

kicker, the bylaws do _not_ say that motions require a 2/3 majority to

pass; they say "Issues shall require a 2/3 majority, of those board

members voting, to pass." [Art VIII, SEc 2] Apparently not all "motions"

are "issues."

The failure of the final result to take into account some votes [which

would alter the outcome] has also troubled some readers. The "48 hour"

rule on voting has always been a rather flexible standard. Generally, Tim

includes votes made up until the time he produces the final count, and no

specific voting time-frame was stated when he called for a vote. Tim

called the vote on Monday, 13 Mar 2000 19:36:32. Voting should have ended

15 Mar 2000 at 19:36:32 [Tim is on EST, I believe].

A reader has put together this chart of when Board members voted [I've

added last names when needed; please remember not all Board members are

in the same time zone]:

Barbara Yancey Dore nay Tue, 14 Mar 2000 00:40:30

Maggie Stewart abstain Tue, 14 Mar 2000 02:05:06

Ginger Hayes yes Tue, 14 Mar 2000 04:44:49

*Joe Zsedeny yea Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:03:52

Virginia (Ginger) Cisewski aye Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:29:59

Pam Reid abstain Tue, 14 Mar 2000 15:10:54

Holly Timm abstain Tue, 14 Mar 2000 17:42:56

Jim Powell yes Tue, 14 Mar 2000 17:49:21

Betsy Mills no Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:09:17

Richard Howland no Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:30:17

Tina Vickery no Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:42:26

Shari Handley yes Wed, 15 Mar 2000 10:07:50

Teri Petitt yes Wed, 15 Mar 2000 18:33:18

[* Joe voted "yes on Motion 00-6" and not specifically on the motion to

postpone; we are not aware that he made any clarification of his vote.

However, the BS has included his vote as a "yes" vote on the motion to

postpone.]

Joy Fisher voted "abstain": 15 Mar 2000 21:57:30

Joy changed her vote to "no": 15 Mar 2000 21:59:44.

Pam Reid changed her vote from "abstain" to "no': 16 Mar 2000 10:06:29

Holly Fee Timm changed her vote from "abstain" to "no":16 Mar 2000

07:13:31.

Tim's last post to the list: 16 Mar 2000 02:44:43.

Ken Short posted the final vote count: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:15:30 [Ken

is also on EST, I believe]

So it appears that Tim must have last checked his mail at 2 am [EST,

11pm PST] on Thursday 16 March; although he could not have seen Pam's and

Holly's votes, he should have seen Joy's. Joy's vote would not have

changed the outcome, but combined with the other two changes would have.

Was a conscious decision made to only include votes received within the 48

hour window? If so, this hardly seems fair; I don't recall that there has

been such rigor applied previously to this time frame, and Board members

may be forgiven if they assume they have extra time if Tim fails to tally

the votes during one of his brief forays into his inbox. Perhaps he just

didn't see Joy's votes. On the other hand, no Board members have publicly

challenged the final ruling, so perhaps they 1) are too stunned to

respond; 2) knew this was going to happen so changed their votes for show,

knowing it would not matter; or 3) don't care. The choices made in this

particular instance set a number of precedents; we would hope the Board

members would at least care enough to ask Tim and/or Ken to clarify their

reasoning in this case.

This is a curious situation. We obviously approve of the outcome but we

are not sure we approve [or understand] how it came to be.

===

Today's quote is from a reader:

"Which way did they go?

How many were there?

How fast were they going?

I must find them,

I am their leader!"

---Anonymous

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

------

From merope@Radix.Net Sat Mar 18 16:01:37 2000

Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 16:01:35 -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.SV4.3.96.1000318075751.9672A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

Where the inmates are in charge of the asylum...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Saturday 18 March 2000

Tim Stowell explains his final tally on the vote to postpone Motion 00-6

thusly, "According to Ken, Board Secretary, this postponement action is a

subsidary motion and therefore does not require a 2/3 vote to pass. As for

the changed votes - as I understand it - members votes can be changed as

long as a vote is ongoing and/or up until the time the results are

announced. I sent my notice to Ken before Holly and then Pam did a vote

change." [Well. If they can vote up until the "results are announced"

then any votes prior to Ken's posting of Tim's count should have been

included, now shouldn't they?]

Holly Fee Timm responds by noting first that 1) the motion to postponse

was never defined as a "subsidiary motion" [the distinction is based on

RRoR, I believe] although a ruling was requested [on 15 Mar by Teri

Pettit]; 2) it was not made clear to the Board prior to the vote that a

2/3 majority was not required on subsidiary motions; and 3) no such

distinctions have been made in the past. Holly notes "This smacks of

procedural manipulation to achieve certain results." She also notes that

if voting closes at a certain time [such as when Tim makes a vote count

that is not released to the Board for _hours_], "a post to this list

stating voting is closed would probably help avoid this problem."

Tim replies that although she may think his decision in this matter

"smacks of procedural manipulation", it was not. He notes that Teri asked

the question, he consulted with Ken, and "only after he told me that it

did not require a 2/3 vote did I make the results known." In addition, he

reminds Holly that voting periods have customarily been for 48 hours, and

"At some point after that time is passed the results are made known."

[Hmmm...guess the Board is on notice: don't dawdle with getting that vote

in.]

===

"I am a Bear of very little brain, and long words bother me."

---Winnie the Pooh

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-----

From merope@Radix.Net Sun Mar 19 18:09:05 2000

Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:09:04 -0500 (EST)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

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

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000319175919.15182A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

By hook or by crook...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Sunday 19 March 2000:

Holly Fee Timm moves to reconsider the motion to postpone action on Motion

00-6.

Rich Howland seconds Holly's motion.

[My stars! A mutiny!]

===

"When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you

find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite

different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at

it."

---A.A. Milne,"The House at Pooh Corner"

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-----