Mar 8-14 1999

From merope@Radix.Net Mon Mar 8 19:22:56 1999

Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 19:22:55 -0500 (EST)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

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

To: usgw_all@listbot.com

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.990308181029.26547A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

Where do you want to go today?...its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* venting spleens area, contains editorial content. Read at your

own risk!

Saturday March 6 1999:

Regarding Motion 99-5:

A Board member says that although she agrees with parts of the resolution,

she "will not support this motion as written."

The NC posts a comment, stating, "that unless someone can demonstrate

under which Bylaws the Board has the power to effect such a radical

reorganization of the Special Projects that this Motion is in effect

illegal."

The NC posts further comment on the motion, referencing the bylaws Article

XVI, Section 5 [this is teh section that allows for "emergency amendment"

of the bylaws.] He asks the following questions and makes the following

points, based on this article:

"Is this an urgent matter? This is an urgent matter - for some on the

Board it seems but not to the public at large. It is up to the Board to

learn facts, discuss issues, study consequences and to make decisions

wisely. Does this affect the well-being of the Project? If this motion

moves forward and is approved then yes it will affect the well-being of

the Project as hundreds will leave, taking a lot of work and materials

with them. Who approves these changes? Since this would be a major

reorganization and thus fall into the Bylaws area then the membership at

large would have to approve this change. At this juncture, I certainly

don't see that happening."

The original motioner states that the motion is not intended to rewrite

the bylaws but to reinforce existing bylaws. She states that the bylaws

recognize three special projects, and "These projects already have their

own separate coordinators, directories and infrastructures, so the

Resolution is proposing no vast, sweeping changes - merely a reiteration

of what already is, and is certainly open to amendment." [Then why propose

it?]

A Board member requests that the motion be withdrawn "motion

beforeany more harm is done", since his constituents are almost

unanimously against it and the 2/3 majority to pass it is plainly not

going to happen.

A Board member notes that he appreciates the lively discussion and thinks

withdrawing or tabling the motion would "push the topic into the

background where it will fester until it surfaces again." [Hmmm...I had

no idea such discontent was festering in the hearts of Archives file

managers. They've done a remarkable job of hiding it all this time.] He

goes on to say that "I represent only 12 state SCs and their ASCs and in

the short time this has been out on various lists, there has not been

enough expression for me to say I represent more than my own mind."

The Tombstone rep points out that the Tombstone project does not have its

own separate directories and files are uploaded into the same sort of

directory structure as all other Archives files.

Regarding Motion 99-3: (domain names)

The NC posts a message from him to Brian Leverich requesting that the

admin contacts for the USGW domains be changed to the current NC.

Happening Elsewhere Corner: Linda Lewis rebuts Kay Mason's description of

the problems that led her to split the Census Project off from the

Archives. Linda states that she was the only Archives person uploading

census project transcriptions and has never heard of a transcriber's name

being incorrect; existing file managers were not allowed to volunteer to

help with uploading files; she has never been given information as to

where and when files were combined or renamed or uploaded to other

directories; she says Kay has "disregarded guidelines, mislead [sic]

volunteers, and did not respect the works of transcribers, by moving the

files to wherever she wants"; that the Census II files will not be

included in the search engine; and she does not know which Census II

transcribers have given permission to put their files in Census I.

A couple of Census II members rebut the rebuttal, and play "she said, she

said" for awhile. One points out the the whole thing [two Census

projects] is working fine and says all the distress is just a "witch

hunt". [I could buy this if a very real attempt to force the other Special

Projects to go the way of Archives II wasn't underway. I confess to being

mystified why the authors of that motion felt it was needed.] Anyways,

the discussion proceeds from there in basically predictable directions.

Linda is challenged to produce contracts, Kay is accused of being on an

ego trip, the RW search engine is questions, and folks wonder where their

files are today.

Bet You'd Forgotten Corner: One of the banned Rootsweb Four has taken it

on herself to discover under what conditions they would be allowed back

into the genealogical fold. Her SC was informed that under the

"arrangement" with RW [What arrangement? I was never even personally

notified!] certain conditions would need to be met before any of the Four

would be allowed back into the Sacred Search Engines and the Most Holy

Mailing Lists. Unfortunately, it seems that Brian "Its My Toy" Leverich

isn't responding to his mail. [*sigh* what's an evil sinner to do?]

Always A Bridesmaid Corner: According to Dick Eastman's newsletter, Media

Metrix, a company that compiles web usage statistics, has found the most

visited genealogy site on the web to be -- Ancestry.com. Congrats to

Ancestry, and better luck next time to all the worthy genealogy sites out

there.

"Never offend people with style when you can offend them with substance."

--Sam Brown, "Washington Post" (1977)

Write your Board members! This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-----

From merope@Radix.Net Tue Mar 9 20:58:00 1999

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 20:57:58 -0500 (EST)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

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

To: usgw_all@listbot.com

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.990309200139.17825A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

Like dinner with the Donner party...its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* since I don't suffer fools gladly, this contains editorial

content. Read at your own risk!

Sunday 7 March 1999:

Board Secretray Bill posts his "Summary of USGW Advisory Board Business.

[You've all seen it, or should have, so I won't repeat it here.]

Tomorrow's news today: The group starts voting on tabling the motion;

based on the votes so far, the group does not want to table the motion

[good thing, too. Tabling it won't make it go away. They need to drive a

stake through its foul heart. And maybe bury it with a rope of garlic.]

Fighting Dirty Corner: The "discussion" of the Census Project has erupted

in open partisan fighting on the SC list, even as its dying down on the

Board list. Names are being called, honesty is being challenged, and

history is being rewritten. Two of the more vicious pitbulls in USGW

are battling it out! Who will get to write the official history of the

USGW/Archives/Census split? [Who cares? A pox on both your special

projects!]

"BULL!!!!"

--Linda Lewis (in response to Ron Eason's version of recent Census

events)

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

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

From merope@Radix.Net Wed Mar 10 17:53:31 1999

Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 17:53:29 -0500 (EST)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

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

To: usgw_all@listbot.com

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.990310173025.18484A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

A whiter shade of pale...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Monday 8 March 1999:

The NC asks for a vote on the motion to table Motion 99-5 ["Digital

Library" resolution] and requests that the voting be accomplished with 24

hours if possible so that the Board can move on to dealing with the actual

motion.

By the end of the day, 6 Board members had voted "no" to tabling the

motion.

Tomorrow's News Today: The NC declares the motion to table defeated; the

author of Motion 99-5 withdraws it [we hear after a masterful display of

authority by the NC!].

USGW Celebrity Deathmatch Corner: We hear through the grapevine that

Linda has requested a face to face meeting with Kay to "discuss the

census problem." Apparently no word from Kay, but if this meeting comes

off, my money's on Linda to take her in 3 rounds [and I get the popcorn

and t-shirt concession. Fight fair, ladies!]

[On a serious note...shouldn't this discussion have taken place somewhat

earlier? Seems a little late for it now.]

Kudos Corner: The DBS would like to take this opportunity to thank the

Board and the NC for vigorously debating Motion 99-5 publicly, and for

equally vigorously soliciting public comment. We've seen much productive

debate and discussion on this issue on a wide variety of lists [SC-L

notwithstanding <g>], and its been most enlightening. I know a lot of

discussion went on privately, but thanks for affording the project your

thoughts on this important issue. [I think all three of my Board reps

agreed with me on this one; that HAS to be a sign of good things ahead!]

A quote from a reader, and a particularly pertinent one at that:

"For every vision there is an equal and opposite Revision"

---Nate Gruber

This has been your Daily Board Show. Happy days are here again!

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

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

From merope@Radix.Net Thu Mar 11 20:13:45 1999

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 20:13:44 -0500 (EST)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

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

To: usgw_all@listbot.com

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.990311193031.8545A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

I like you, you're not like the others...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Tuesday 9 March 1999:

The NC posts the "final" count on the motion to table Motion 99-5: 11

nays, 0 ayes, and declared the motion to table defeated

A board member votes "aye" on the motion to table

A board member votes "nay" on the motion to table [bringing the final

count to 12 nays, 1 aye]

The NC posts his reasons for believing that Motion 99-5 is illegal. He

states, "The Motion as now written 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." He

also lists the option he feels are available to the Board: "The Board

could leave the Bylaws as they are and work within the framework

provided therein. The Board could encourage the separate parties in this

matter to meet, work out differences and let the Project move on. The

Board could ask for volunteers for a committee to either make

recommendations to the Board or to be a body unto itself with the end

result being that Kay and Linda would agree to abide by the decision of

said group. The Board could ask for suggestions from the Project at large

on how to address this problem." He opens the floor for discussion of

these ideas.

Linda Lewis, Tombstone Project rep and National Coordinator for the

Archives points out, "Any "power" the Board tries to use to reorganize a

Special Project, could eventually be used to reorganize any state XXGenWeb

project.... very dangerous and potentially hazardous to the health of The

USGenWebProject." She also posts her invitation to meet personally with

Kay, "It's been suggested that this (census problem) is mainly between two

people, Kay and me. Since Kay and I have met in person a couple times,

and live rather close to each other, I'm inviting Kay to meet for lunch

or dinner to discuss the problem." [hmmmm...could this be, dare I say it,

a day late and a dollar short?]

Ladies, Take Your Corners: A little bird tells us that Brian "Are you

Ready To Rumble" Leverich has agreed to referee the upcoming

USGW Celebrity Deathmatch between Kay Mason [in the left corner,

representing Census II] and Linda Lewis [right corner, representing Census

I]. This would be at Kay's request, apparently. I'm still laying odds on

Lewis in three rounds, but incoming mail slightly favors Kay. We'll keep

you posted as we know more!

"When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public

property."

--Thomas Jefferson

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

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

From merope@Radix.Net Sat Mar 13 11:38:45 1999

Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 11:38:43 -0500 (EST)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

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

To: usgw_all@listbot.com

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.990313081518.680A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

One more for the road...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Wednesday 10 March 1999:

Kay Mason [Census II] indicates that she would agree to a face to face

meeting with Linda Lewis [Census I] if such a meeting would resolve "the

problem of all the special projects" [which would be none of the Census II

coordinator's business]. However, she points out, "it would appear that

Motion 99-4 is being completely ignored and there has been no indication

that it will be honored in the future. That doesn't seem to be an

attitude conducive resolving this issue." [Motion 99-4 essentially

supported Census II and encouraged the Archives projects to focus its

efforts on other types of records.] Kay requests an agenda for the

meeting and wonders what assurances she has that any agreements they reach

would be sanctioned by the Board [The Board would be sooooo happy if they

could reach an agreement, I doubt they'd interfere. But even if they

wanted to, would it be appropriate?] Kay thinks that under these

circumstances a meeting would be a waste of time, but she would meet with

Linda "Should a plan be forthcoming which exhibits a chance of resolving

this problem". Finally, she states, "If such a meeting should take place,

Dr. Brian Leverich has agreed to be present."

Linda responds to Kay, wondering why two former friends should need an

agenda in order to have an informal discussion about the Census project.

Linda indicates that she trusted Kay to take over the Census project and

still trusts her to discuss this issue civilly.

Thursday 11 March 1999

Jan Craven resigns from the Board, effectively immediately, stating "I do

not feelthat my being on the board is contributing significantly to the

project and thus does not justify the time and energy that it takesto

serve." She notes that her first priority has always been her state

Archives and helping researchers, she has a large backlog of work that is

not getting done, and she requests to be removed from the board lists.

The message from Board Secretary Bill outlining recent Board activity

concerning Motion 99-5 is posted to Board-L. It notes that the motion was

withdrawn on Wednesday March 10, but that withdrawal has not yet appeared

on Board-L [and my copy of it is mysteriously dated March 9; you don't

suppose the Board could be using its secret list again, do you?]

Linda Lewis posts a sham motion, apparently to make a point that it is

improper for the Board to interfere in state or special project business.

the "motion" points out that since the the bylaws for a state that has

incorporated misrepresent the USGW project's name and the bylaws do not

give the Board the authority to manage the states or special projects, it

is resolved, "That the [name deleted] project revise or dissolve their

by-laws, and That before adoption, any XXGenWeb by-laws be approved by The

USGenWeb Project Advisory Board, and That The USGenWeb Archives Advisory

Board be given authority to force XXGenWeb's and Special Projects to make

any changes as so desired by the majority of the Advisory Board, without

input from or discussion with volunteers of said projects."

Linda Lewis posts an apology to the State Coordinator of the project used

as an example in the above sham motion, stating "I only used the

[name deleted] bylaws because they were "there".. and I tell you.. I had a

hard time trying to find something to use as an example... The only thing

I could find was the "the" instead of "The". Those bylaws are

well-written."

Pat on the Back Corner: A brief article about The USGenWeb Project written

by Jo Anne Matthews is available at

http://www.starnewspapers.com/star/allinsde/111niz1.htm. Starring Board

member Megan Zurawicz and Cook county coordinator Sharon Dickson, the

article appears to have been written for a community newspaper in the

Chicago area and repeatedly misidentifies the project's name ["GenWeb

Project", "the USGenWeb project"]. It also manages to incorrectly peg the

beginning of the "genealogy boom" to the Bicentennial when it can be more

properly attributed to the broadcast of the television miniseries based on

Alex Haley's "Roots." However, it does give a good but very generic

description of the project and the correct URL, along with local resources

for people near the Cook County area.

The Power of Publicity Corner: Seems another project volunteer has

discovered the value of going public with problems they have with the

Archives. A certain volunteer has been attmpting for some months now to

have changes made to files they submitted over a year ago. Despite

assurances that the changes would be made and the submitter contacted by

the appropriate file manager, nothing has happened. The submitter had

their State Coordinator post a formal request for the removal of their

files to the SC list, and voila! like magic the files were removed in one

day _and_ the submitter got some very nice apologies.

Moving Right Along Corner: As might be expected, the Archives files

managers are busily discussing the replacement for their recently resigned

representative. Most file managers seems to feel that they must move

quickly to elect someone or the Board will appoint the replacement itself.

File manager Joe Zsedeny has been nominated and this nomination has been

seconded, and he has kind sorta accepted [unless someone else wants the

job]. Of course, according to the bylaws, the Board must appoint the

replacement for the resigned representative. They are certainly free to

appoint the choice of the Archives file managers, but they are just as

free to ignore it and appoint someone else. Given the Board's

disregard for the formalities of the bylaws the last time they

replaced a replacement, I'm sure we'll be seeing Joe on the Board

shortly. [oh, and the fairy godmother's threat to Little Bunny Fru-Fru was

"I'm going to turn you into a loon". How...appropriate.]

Rules and Regs Corner: Someone has forwarded to me the newly posted

"RootsWeb Listowner Guidelines" sent to all RW listowners by Tim "Mighty

Mouse" Pierce. Among the usual "tend your bounces, help your subscribers

sub and unsub, and answer your email" admonishments common to any

listmanager guidelines are some interesting things that RW expects of its

listowners, including allowing RW to conduct fundraising on lists,

allowing RW to approve posts to your list that might be of a commercial

nature, and keep RW informed of your whereabouts and intended absences

away from your computer. Along with nearly every one of these guidelines

is the explicit threat that RW will be forced to "intervene" should a

listowner fail to comply. [I swear, RW has to be the most micromanaging

list provider in my experience. Where DO they find the time? And, you

know, if someone pays for a list, shouldn't they be able to do what they

want with it? If a listowner doesn't want RW pimping for dollars on a list

they paid for why should they have to allow that? A note to the innocent:

they can and have taken lists away from paid in full sponsors on the

slightest whim, so beware. They are serious about these guidelines.

Remember, if you've been treated unfairly, the FTC accepts complaints

about improper business practices at http://www.ftc.gov. There are

already complaints lodged against RW under File# 444020. See

http://www.radix.net/~merope for details.]

"Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth."

"Or by misleading the innocent."

---Spock and McCoy, "And The Children Shall Lead", stardate 5029.5.

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

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