Nov 6-12 2000

From merope@Radix.Net Mon Nov 6 14:03:41 2000

Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 14:03:39 -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.SV4.3.96.1001106061022.25871A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

Like a ticking bomb...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Sunday 5 November 2000:

Holly Timm posts responses to questions regarding the ESC report:

Regarding the questin about members who resign from the projec during

an election: "If they are a member as of the first day of the voting

period (regular election this would be July 1), they vote and it counts

provided they vote _before_ they leave. After they leave they can neither

send in a new vote, or change an old one. If I went and voted this

Tuesday in the presidential elections at 7AM and died at 9, my vote would

count."

Regarding the question as to who selects the committee members handling

the voter list, Holly quotes relevant sections from both the majority and

minority opinions of the ESC report.

===

"Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad name."

---Henry Kissinger

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Tue Nov 7 08:41:29 2000

Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:41:28 -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.SV4.3.96.1001107063448.13504A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: RO

X-Status:

Vote early and vote often...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Tuesday 6 November 2000:

Tim Stowell thanks the Election Study Committee for its efforts on the

issue of election procedures, for its report, and for replying to his

questions and concerns.

Shari Handley informs the Board that both the SC and the ASC for the

DEGenWeb are AWOL since January 2000. The three counties in DEGW have

elected to remove them both and Shari will be acting SC until they can

find replacements for their counties and hold an election. She moves that

the Board "support their request for the removal of the Delaware SC

and ASC." [Per the bylaws, 2/3 of CCs and 2/3 of the Board must approve

the removal of the SC.]

Richard Harrison seconds her motion.

Tuesday 7 November 2000:

Motion 00-35 fails with 3 yes votes [I count four], 5 no votes, and 1

abstention.

Tim asks some procedural questions on Motion 00-36 [motion to accept the

report and implement its recommendations]. He splits the motion into

three separate actions: "1. to accept the report in it's entirety 2. to

accept the committee's recommendations 3. to implement the committee's

recommendations." He notes that "accepting the report" means "the

AB...accepts their report on the work they put into discussing the issue

at hand." He asks "If the AB accepts the committee's recommendations -

are they accepting the majority or the minority position?" and notes "Once

that is decided the AB would then possibly, if not covered above, would

have to decide on implementation." He asks if anyone sees this as a

dilemna.

Tim Stowell calls a vote on Joe Zsedeny's amendment to Motion 00-30. Thus

far, one Board member has voted "yes" and one Board member has voted "no"

Tim gives Shari's motion regarding the DEGenWeb number 00-37 and opens the

floor for discussion. [Hmmm...guess he IS going to ignore Ginger Haye's

motion about sending a letter to USPTO indefinitely.]

Maggie Stewart thinks Motion 00-36 should be split into two parts, one to

accept the report and thank the ESC, and one to implement the committee's

recommendations. She notes "it will take time to go through the report

and give it the justice it deserves. We also need to make and discuss the

specific ways to "implement" the report and the USGW membership as a whole

needs to have the final say so with a vote. The motion needs to include

specifics and not generalities. I also believe that each section of the

report should be addressed in a separate motion."

===

"Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power

over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and

senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this

country."

---Franklin D. Roosevelt

This has been your Daily Board Show. Vote your conscience if you have

one; vote your pocketbook if you don't. But whatever you do, go vote.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Wed Nov 8 09:24:42 2000

Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 09:24:41 -0500 (EST)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

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

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

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1001108061245.25512A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: RO

X-Status:

It ain't over til its over...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Tuesday 7 November 2000:

Voting continues on the amendment to Motion 00-30. Thus far 2 Board

members have voted yes and one has voted no.

Election Study Committee member Shari Handley states "I cannot state

strongly enough the importance of accepting and implementing this report

completely, rather than micromanaging and pulling apart and dissecting

every section. This board voted to create the Election Study Committee,

and we have a great opportunity here to show that we can be an effective

group, using committees as one tool to cut through the malaise that seems

to be smothering us. If we "pick" this thing to death, we will be showing

the project that we can find NO way to do what needs doing on a national

level. We'll lose any credibility which we may now have with a large

number of our constituents." She urges a "yes" vote on Motion 00-36.

Richard Howland says "Common sense tells me that the Election Study

Committee worked very hard and made several sacrifices to produce it [the

ESC report]...I agree with most of the principles it puts forth...Some

Committee Reports are designed to be passed as is and put in to the record

or into effect. This report is not such...The Election Study Committee

report should have been submitted as two reports. A majority report on

Election Study. A minority report on Election Study. There are several

Bylaws and RRoOR problems with both majority and minority sides of this

report. Several have told me that these don't matter we should pass as is

and then fix and define it. That was a bad idea when the bylaws were

passed and is a bad idea now...this report is the best attempt to bring a

very important issue to the AB attention that I have seen. I am truly

sorry we can not work out a way to discuss it to a favorable conclusion."

Rich also points out some sections in RRoO that indicate that a vote to

"accept" the report is tantamount to a vote to "adopt" it.

Holly Timm responds that the ESC made every effort to make its

recommendation workable within the present bylaws, but notes "This

certainly does not preclude any changes or improvements by future Bylaws

changes, such as in the number of CC''s/votes per county." She also

points out that the ESC has remained available for questions and notes

"it should be clear whether the board is approving minority or majority

opinions although common sense certainly indicates that the majority

opinion is the one taken on a blanket acceptance. I apologize if our

arrangement of placing the clearly marked minority opinions in proximity

to the related majority section has distressed or confused you."

===

Rebuttal Corner: Board member Richard Howland has posted a rebuttal to the

ESC report at: http://www.wf.net/~richpump/rebuttal.htm He appears to

base much of his criticism of the report on the inclusion of the

Representative-At-Large as an EC member. He is also concerned that the

Chair of the EC votes only in the case of a tie, although this is standard

practice both generally and within USGW.

Committees And Camels Corner: We hear through the grapevine that the fine

folk over at IrelandGenWeb are having trouble of their own with one of

their committees. The IGW Policies Committee was convened to rework the

Policies statement currently online at:

http://www.rootsweb.com/~irlwgw/policy.html The finished their work in

August and submitted a draft document, but were told by the IGW head

honcho [USGW's own Don Kelly] to rework a couple of items. Shortly

thereafter, Don and the Chair of the committee had a spat, and Don removed

her from the committee and directed the other members to continue the work

without her. Instead, they all resigned. Now if you thought that was the

end of it, you'd be wrong. The committee's draft, written and copyrighted

by the Chair, somehow found its way online to a page belonging to Don

[http://www.rootsweb.com/~irlwgw/bylaws.htm] without her permission or

the permission of the other committee members. After some fussing that

involved the Root$web copyright cops most of the draft was removed,

although the format, some random paragraphs, and the committee members'

names remained. Apparently feeling her concerns were not being

seriously addressed by the head of the BritishIslesGenWeb [who did tell

her he respected her copyright], the Policy Committee Chair took the her

copyright concerns to Chuck Merrin of Root$web. The issue was more or

less resolved when all copyrighted content and format was removed from the

page, although the committee members' names remain posted for no

discernable reason. So now the IGW finds itself without a Policies

Committee and without a Policies and Procedures draft document, and little

to show for their effort but ill will and wasted effort. [One is tempted

to ask what exactly it is about the collection of letters "genweb" that

causes people to be utterly unable to work together collegially. *shrug*]

Weird Times Corner: As the DBS goes to press today, there is still no

declared winner in the Presidential race, although my girl Hillary will be

going to the Senate, where she will apparently be sitting next to a dead

man. About 200,000 votes separate Gore and Bush; in Florida [which

decides the race], they may be apart by only a few hundred votes.

Wisconson just went for Gore, with a slim margin of about 12,000 votes.

Oregon is still too close to call. Let this be a lesson to you...your

vote counts. [For an interesting treatise on this issue, see:

http://444vote.net/onevote.html and thanks to all the readers who sent in

the various permutations of the "one vote" list!]

===

"To make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not simply

observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain."

---Louis L'Amour

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Fri Nov 10 06:36:58 2000

Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 06:36:57 -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.SV4.3.96.1001110061721.3786A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

By the slimmest of margins...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Thursday 9 November 2000:

Voting continues, slowly, on the amendment to Motion 00-30. Thus far

three Board members have voted yes and one has voted no. [This motion is

now past the 48 hour window and appears to have failed.]

Friday 10 November 2000:

Tim Stowell calls for a vote on Motion 00-37 [to remove the DEGenWeb SC].

Tim calls for a vote on Motion 00-36 [to accept and implement the Election

Study Committee report].

===

We Get Mail Corner: http://www.pinstruck.com/doll.php3?HEX=858592370435

===

"You may think your actions are meaningless and that they won't help, but

that is no excuse, you must still act."

---Gandhi

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Sat Nov 11 08:24:48 2000

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 08:24:47 -0500 (EST)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

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

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

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1001111074253.21645A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

Keep the faith...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Friday 10 November 2000:

Ginger Hayes reminds the Board that several weeks ago she made a motion,

which was seconded, given a number, then later stripped of its number. It

has apparently not been voted on. She notes "I would like an explanation

of why this motion has been ignored, aside from the fact that it deals

with the Linda Lewis TM application. Is that subject sacrosanct now?"

Ginger asks if the requirements for the Board Secretary position could be

posted on a web page so those interested in volunteering can see what they

are.

Saturday 11 November 2000:

Maggie Stewart says she's noticed "quite a few motions disappearing," and

suggests they fill the BS position "soon". She states she was unaware

that Linda Lewis' service mark application was sacrosanct, but "objected

to any member of the project being treated in that manner." Maggie says

"She [Linda] has a right to file for a TM application. What I personally

feel is that we, the Advisory Board, need to get her answers to some some

specific topic in the official record. The most important of those is that

she indicates that she supports the project filing for then TM/SM

"USGenWeb". [In other words, we should make sure we have Linda's

permission before we do anything. Sheesh.]

Ginger asks Maggie why she did not object "when Jerry Dill was drummed out

of the project and the Census Project was delinked?" She notes that "If

Linda has a right to file for the TM then Jerry Dill had the right to

incorporate as Usgenweb, Inc. and the the Census Project had the right to

incorporate as the USGenWeb Census Project." Ginger thinks that Linda had

no right to file for a service mark using the USGenWeb name, since if she

is using the name with permission it does not confer ownership and if she

were to admit that the Archives are a part of USGW "she would still be

wrong for sneaking around and seeking to acquire personal ownership of the

mark without the permission of the volunteers." Ginger speculates that

"there are those who would like to see the project crumble away because

they think they can make the phoenix rise from the ashes with only the

"right" people, with the "right" frame of mind, in place. That would get

rid of those that are in the way."

Voting proceeds on Motion 00-36 [to accept and implement the Election

Study Committee's report]. Thus far 5 Board members have voted "yes" and 2

have voted "no".

Voting proceeds on Motion 00-37 [to removed the DEGenWeb SC]. Thus far 7

Board members have voted "yes".

===

Smack Down Corner: We hear that FamilyDiscovery.com's latest host has

shut them down. If you visit http://www.familydiscovery.com you get the

following messge: "This account has been disabled.. To have the account

restored, contact Customer Service" [Thanks to several readers for

pointing this out!]

===

"Unbridled passions produce the same effects, whether in a king, nobility,

or a mob. The experience of all mankind has proved the prevalence of a

disposition to use power wantonly. It is therefore as necessary to defend

an individual against the majority (in a democracy) as against the king in

a monarchy."

---John Adams

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Sun Nov 12 09:06:09 2000

Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 09:06:07 -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.SV4.3.96.1001112081202.579A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

When the fat lady sings...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Saturday 11 November 2000:

Tim Stowell tells Ginger Hayes that he guesses her missing motion was

"overlooked in the flurry of motions, motion amendments and other content

on this list." He renumbers it again, this time with number 00-38 and

says he'll get around to when voting on the current motions is complete.

Ellen Pack offers to help Tim with numbering and counting votes since he

is so busy with "all his states, counties, and mailing lists". In regards

to Linda Lewis' service mark application, she notes, "I'm not so sure

anyone has a "right" to lay claim to something that is not his...Even if

it is her right, we have not only a right, but also a responsibility, to

oppose her filing, in order to protect our name. Our name and mark must

belong to the Project only, not to ANY one individual." Ellen points out

out that "if Jane Doe from WhoKnowsWhat county had tried the same thing,

Ms. Doe would have been tarred and feathered and run out of town,

undoubtedly without any opportunity to "indicate" his purpose, regardless

of how noble." She says "If it's [the project in question] the USGW

Archives, the name/mark belongs to the Project, and ther is no question

but what we have a responsibility to secure and project it

immediately...If it's the Linda Lewis Archives, I would suggest that Linda

design her own mark/logo, and apply for that mark. "

Pam Reid asks that the original motion and second for what is now called

Motion 00-38 be reported so she can have it for the webpage.

Sunday 12 November 2000:

Two additional "yes" votes come in for the amendment to Motion 00-30,

even though it is well past the 48 hour window. The count is now 5 yes

votes and one no vote.

Voting proceeds on Motion 00-36. Thus far 9 Board members have voted

"yes" and 4 have voted "no".

Voting proceeds on Motion 00-37 [to remove the DEGW SC]. Thus far 12

Board members have voted "yes." [This motion has passed. I wonder if

anyone on the Board even tried to verify that the SC and ASC are in fact

gone.]

[There is still another motion pending, Ken's latest motion to apply for a

service mark for "USGenWeb".]

===

Protest Corner: Someone isn't happy with the Archives. Again.

http://www.redrival.com/cstern/genmenu1.html This site has recently been

highlighted in the About.com genealogy section

Trademark Revisited Corner: Phyllis Rippee, late of the

not-lamented-at-all Trademark Committee, has posted a brief summary of the

utility of having both a "collective service mark" for "The USGenWeb

Project", and a service mark for "USGenWeb". It is reprinted here in

full with her permission:

"A mark would give the Project some legal protection of the information

that is made available for researchers. Since the material is free, it is

more of a service than a product. Therefore, the mark most appropriate

would be a service mark. Two kinds of service marks. Service Mark and

Collective Service Mark. If a Collective Service Mark "The USGenWeb

Project" were applied for, it could be "granted" by the Project to the CCs

to use to denote the sites they do are a part of the Project, but still

the CC's material. The Project could withdraw permission to use that mark

in the case of a ruling of "not in good standing." Choice of what to do

with the material remains in the control of the CC as promised.

That would take care of the individual counties, but the special projects

information is a slightly different matter. The special projects

information seems to be regarded as permanent and belonging to the

Project. These special projects also need some protection. They could be

covered by the service mark "USGenWeb".

Summary: "The USGenWeb Project" as a collective service mark would cover

all the individual sites produced by individual members. The Project, as

an entity, could not claim the material contained on each indivdual site

"belonged" to the Project. "USGenWeb" as a service mark would cover the

information that is considered to "belong" to the Project and to remain

with the Project as long as it exists. This would mean that each

application would need to be accompanied by $350. But, both "sets" of

information made available would have protection. This would mean that

the Archives would be under an umbrella of protection, that would negate

the necessity of it having its own mark registered to a single individual.

If that doesn't help resolve the existing situation, perhaps nothing will.

One more thing....any application that is filed, should be filed as ITU,

which means "Intent To Use" and makes the mark (should it be granted)

considered the "property" of the Project from the date of the application

instead of the date of approval."

[In another interesting trademark related development Joy Fisher, Board

member and signatory to Linda Lewis' service application, has admitted

publically that "The term GenWeb was stolen. We added US in front to try

to legitimatize ourselves." The USPTO will, I am sure, be pleased to

learn this.]

===

"Why should freedom of speech and freedom of press be allowed? Why should

a government which is doing what it believes to be right allow itself to

be criticized? It would not allow opposition by lethal weapons. Ideas are

much more fatal things than guns. Why should any man be allowed to buy a

printing press and disseminate pernicious opinions calculated to embarrass

the government?"

---Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------