Oct 23-31 2000

From merope@Radix.Net Mon Oct 23 13:37:52 2000

Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:37:50 -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.SV4.3.96.1001023063346.1695A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: RO

X-Status:

Don't be fooled by cheap substitutes...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Sunday 22 October 2000:

Tim Stowell calls for a vote on Motion 00-33 [the other service mark

motion]

Tim gives number 00-33 to Ginger Hayes' motion calling for a letter of

protest to the USPTO over Linda Lewis' service mark application.

Tim calls for the vote on the proposed amendment to Motion 00-30

[grievance committee].

Tim announces the results of the vote on Motion 00-32 [first service mark

motion]. Only three Board members voted, they all voted "no", and the

motion fails.

===

In The News Corner: Time Magazine has printed an excellent article on the

pitfalls of genealogical research, both online and off. The article has

the following blurb about USGenWeb:

"This site has information on surnames that is grouped by state, county

and town. It's run by an eager squadron of volunteers who do such things

as walk local cemeteries and post copies of their surveys online."

The full article is available at:

http://www.time.com/time/digital/feature/0,2955,56764,00.html

USGW blurb is at:

http://www.time.com/time/digital/feature/0,2955,57197-4,00.html

[Our thanks to a reader for sending this in]

===

"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey

to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is

eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the

consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."

---John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Wed Oct 25 13:55:30 2000

Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 13:55:29 -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.SV4.3.96.1001024080104.19067A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: RO

X-Status:

Any port in a storm...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Tuesday 24 October 2000:

On behalf of the Election Study Committee Holly Timm requests an

extension until October 31 for the preparation of their report to the

Board. She notes "the excellent and thoughtful discussion on the

committee has not made finalizing the details and wording a speedy task.

We are well into the final preparation of the report but do not wish to

err in any haste to complete it."

Joy Fisher moves "that we grant the Election Study Committee the requested

extension to finish their report. The new due date shall be 31 October

2000." Richard Howland seconds the motion.

Wednesday 25 October 2000:

Tim Stowell, noting there probably doesn't need to be discussion on Joy's

motion, gives it number 00-34 and calls for a vote. Thus far 8 Board

Members have voted "yes".

===

"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty."

---Edward R. Murrow

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Thu Oct 26 14:47:39 2000

Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 14:47:38 -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.SV4.3.96.1001026112222.8937A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: RO

X-Status:

You are what you read...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Wednesday 25-Thursday 26 October 2000:

Voting proceeds on Motion 00-34. Thus far 13 Board members have voted

yes.

===

"Let us rise up tonight with a greater readiness. Let us stand with

greater determination. And let us move in these powerful days, these days

of challenge, to make America what it ought to be."

---Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Fri Oct 27 15:41:03 2000

Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 15:41:02 -0400 (EDT)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

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

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1001027153249.28985B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: RO

X-Status:

While you were sleeping...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Friday 27 October 2000:

Ken Short moves "that Roger Swafford be accepted as Board Secretary."

Shari Handley seconds the motion.

===

"Our great democracies still tend to think that a stupid man is more

likely to be honest than a clever man, and our politicians take advantage

of this prejudice by pretending to be even more stupid than nature made

them."

---Bertrand Russell

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Sat Oct 28 11:11:57 2000

Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 11:11:56 -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.SV4.3.96.1001028093902.5882A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

The bigger they come, the harder they fall...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Saturday 28 October 2000:

Tim Stowell gives the motion to appoint Roger Swafford to the position of

Board Secretary number 00-35 and opens the floor for discussion.

Motion 00-34 is declared passed with 13 yes votes. The Election Study

Committee report will now be due on October 31 2000.

[Both Motion 00-30 (Grievance Committee) and Motion 00-33 (Service Mark)

have been open for voting for nearly a week now. Neither has received any

votes.]

===

Advise and Consent Corner: Unhappiness with the prospect of Roger

Swafford serving as Board Secretary is seeping out on the project mailing

lists. Some comments:

"...it occurs to me to wonder why anyone who is even remotely interested

in a harmonious future for the USGenWeb Project would nominate an

individual, no matter how well qualified, when they knew, up front, that

the nomination of that particular individual would cause controversy and

further division within the Project. "

---Carol, USGENWEB-ALL

"I am tired of having Tim make discissions and most of the Board allows

him to do what he wants. Now we are being forced to accept Roger as a

member of the Board. May I ask why? Roger made such a mess of the

Election, and then Tim turns around and opens the door for him to go on to

the Board. not once but twice and most of the Board members jump when Tim

snaps his fingers."

Kathy, USGENWEB-ALL

"...at the present moment, there is a far more serious threat to the

Project than the mark issue.....that of having Roger Swafford, once again,

being proposed as Secretary of the AB. If you think there were problems

with the Election.........Folks, you ain't seen nuthin' yet!"

Phyllis, USGW-CC-L

"I object to having this forced on us...Can't you at least try to find new

people to help on the AB?...You know this really, really bothers me, seems

as though it is the same old song and dance....Tim and his gang will get

what they want. And we keep seeing the same people making the same

decisions...Surely there are people in this organization who have not been

in this ABClique that would be able to fulfill this position. Roger is a

nice guy but there were problems with the Election Process, and now you

want him to report about the AB meetings...Please consider others from the

project. Instead of asking for candidates, because we all know that just a

small fraction of the CC's even subscribe to these lists, much less read

them, why don't you have the SC's contact people through their state lists

and ask for volunteers to fill this position. This way more will be

involved and the Board will have more qualified people to select from."

---Kathy, USGW-CC

We will be curious to see if Roger is appointed. In other circumstances

he might be an excellent choice; he is very familiar with parliamentary

procedure and is bullish enough about enforcing it that he might actually

be able to impose some discipline on the Board and our unruly National

Coordinator. However, he carries a lot of baggage these days, and the

perception that a [notvoting] seat at the Board's table is quid pro quo

for "managing" the election to the Board's liking is very strong. His

appointment to the position may just be seen as "payment for services

rendered." And despite Tim's disingenuous comment that the Board

Secretary doesn't really do much, it is in fact rather a powerful

position. It might be better if the Board could solicit for a less hot

political potato to run its meetings, determine what motions pass muster,

etc.

Speak Your Piece Corner: Richard Howland has posted a petition for

the members of USGenWeb regarding Linda Lewis' trademark application. Its

available at: http://www.wf.net/~richpump/petition1.htm

Back in the News Corner: The trademark issue has heated up again.

Project member Don Tharp has suggested that he might apply for a service

mark on behalf of the Project, since it is apparent that the Board will do

nothing on this issue. He asked for his colleagues input and was

promptly threatened by Keith Giddeon [lately embroiled in the latest

grievance against the Archives] who pledged "monies to fight it." It is

painfully obvious that little or nothing will ever be done on this issue,

even though the Board has been ineffectually flailing around on it for 4

months now. There are enough Archives supporters and employees on the

Board to block any attempt to sanction Linda Lewis or endanger her

application and too much confusion and lack of knowledge for the Board to

make any decisions on what needs to be done and when. They can

barely bring themselves to vote on on motions regarding the service

mark issue these days. Tim's hand-picked Trademark Committee [which of

course contained a substantial number of Archives supporters and

employees] has apparently failed miserably in its mission of finding out

and explaining to the Board what it needs to to do to protect the

Project's name and identity. Project members who wish to do _exactly_

what Linda Lewis did, take the bull by the horns and register the marks in

order to protect the project, are ignored or threatened. There has been

little or no effort to ascertain the wishes of the project membership on

this matter or even to explain to them what the issues are and why they

should. While the Project burns, the Board fiddles. Which, sadly, isn't

news.

Serious Competition Corner: Project member John Schunk is maintaining an

archives of all Board-L posts since September 1, 2000. He's also

maintaining a "monthly highlights" file that he says will be free of

editorial content. [well, that's no fun!] The archive is available

here: http://home.kscable.com/jschunk/Board/ [John tells us he's not

bothered to ask the Board members or Root$web if he can repost their

emails and their digests; we wonder if he'll joint the list of people the

Board has threatened to sue for just that very thing. <g>]

===

Today's quote was sent in by a reader:

"Give us clear vision, that we may know where to stand and what to stand

for, because unless we stand for something, we shall fall for anything."

---Peter Marshall

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Sun Oct 29 17:34:24 2000

Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:34:22 -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.SV4.3.96.1001029165922.12815A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: RO

X-Status:

Justice will prevail...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Saturday 28 October 2000:

Shari Handly requests that the Board members be allowed to address

questions to Roger Swafford in order to address the concerns surrounding

his nomination, such as "how exactly does he view the role of the Board

Secretary? What, if any, impact does he see the Board Secretary having in

the operations of the Board and the USGenWeb Project itself? Does he view

the secretary as serving at the pleasure of the AB?"

Joe Zsedeny asks Tim Stowell for the status of Motion 00-30.

Sunday 29 October 2000:

Responding to an email that is over a week old, Tim notes that he does not

construe the phrase directing "the NC to apply for the Service Mark" as

meaning he should personally own the mark.

Tim replies to Joe, noting that on 10/22 he called for a vote on the

amendment to Motion 00-30 [Grievance committee] and on Motion 00-33

[Service Mark]. [thus far, no one has voted on either of these motions].

Tim notes that "Since Board members seemed to want to discuss/investigate

the service mark further before voting, I've let 00-33 dangle out there as

well as the vote or lack thereof on the amendment to 00-30." He now once

again asks the members to vote on both motions. Tim also notes that he

made an error in numbering Ginger's motion regarding sending a letter to

the USPTO. He erroneously numbered it 00-33 and has now given it Motion

00-35 [which number has already been given to the motion about appointing

Roger Swafford to the Board Secretary position. Oy vey.]

===

You Can't Keep a Good Cow Down Corner: We hear through the grapevine that

NetZero has reactivated the ncgenweb.com and ncgenweb.net domains. From

their letter to Sharon Williamson:

"This message is to inform you that the domain names ncgenweb.com and .net

have been reactivated, though they will be transferred out of Namezero's

free service. The people that registered the domain names ncgenweb.com

and .net felt strongly that they had rights to the domain names. Our

attorney, [name deleted] reviewed the facts, and Namezero decided that

this situation was too complicated to be involved with directly. Because

our members raised some valid points, and feel very committed to their

websites, Namezero respected their right to pursue their goals with their

websites. Since Namezero just started a new service that allows our free

members to upgrade to a paid service that lists them as the owners of the

domain name, we reactivated their sites so that they can technically

transfer to the individualized option. We did this so that Namezero avoids

any legal liability, and yet we are able to let our members validate their

claims in the event that you decide to pursue your legal options.

Consequently, you will notice that the domains are active, and by the end

of the week you will be able to see the owner of the domain names. I'm

sure that you will find this disappointing, and I regret that there was no

way to make everyone happy. However, there are still remedies for you, and

I'm sure that justice will prevail."

As the letter notes, both sites are now active, although both still show

NameZero as the registrant. We hear that Sharon "the Axe" Williamson is

still trying to influence NameZero with the threat of a lawsuit over these

domain names however, even though she's just effectively been told to take

a hike.

===

"I think "immoral" is probably the wrong word to use...I prefer the word

"unethical."

---Ivan Boesky

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Mon Oct 30 17:32:21 2000

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:32:21 -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.SV4.3.96.1001030071908.10928B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

Wouldn't you know...its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* chock full o' editorial content. Read at your own risk!

Sunday 29 October 2000:

Joe Zsedeny asks if the amendment to Motion 00-30 [Grievance committee]

that they are currently supposed to vote on is his amendment or Maggie

Stewart's.

Voting proceeds on Motion 00-30. Thus far two Board member have voted no.

Voting proceeds on Motion 00-33 [Service Mark]. Thus far one Board member

has voted yes, and one has abstained.

Monday 30 October 2000:

Tim tells Joe they are voting on Maggie's amendment to Motion 00-30.

Joe explains his abstention on Motion -33: "I think we should file but

with Linda's filing pending we need an attorney to guide us through the

process else we might simply throw our money away...Do we intend to file?

If we do it will happen faster if a PROPOSED [motion] is put on the floor

for discussion so that the combined thinking of the Board could be

reflected in a FINAL motion...We need to cooperate in an orderly manner to

get the job done. If we keep firing motions at it, amending, rejecting and

ignoring nothing will get done. John Schunk has access to a patent

attorney and has offered to help fund the cost of some professional

advice. We could take John up on the offer and reimburse him from funds

collected for the filing. With that kind of advice to draw on we could

craft a motion with the correct procedures built in to effect a successful

filing."

Roger Swafford responds to Shari's questions: "I view the job as a

combination of Secretary and Parliamentary advisor. My intent, if

appointed, is to serve the board collectively and its members

individually. IMO, such a position requires objectivity and neutrality in

carrying out the duties...The secretary is a non-voting member, therefore

has no right to participate in discussions on motions under consideration.

I would privately offer assistance to members to put forth motions which

have reasonable expectation of adoption in order to promote collective

compromise rather than continue the recent stream of failed motions...RRoO

provides for any assembly to adopt its own "special rules of order" and or

"standing rules" to better serve the membership in conducting its

business. I would work to promote adoption of such rules as deemed

necessary for the AB to function more easily and efficiently using the

internet...Appointment requires adoption of a main motion by 2/3 majority.

If the motion is adopted then dismissal would require adoption of a main

motion to rescind the current motion making the appointment. Appointed

officers serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority, in this case

the AB." [Interesting that Roger, a non Board member, is apparently still

subbed in full read and response mode to the list.]

===

Going Going Gone Corner: Our ever resourceful friends over at

FamilyDiscovery.com are now advertising their "services" on Ebay. You can

check this out at:

http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?MfcISAPICommand=ViewItem&item=484240984

[Our thanks to an alert reader for pointing this out.]

===

"There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an advantage

and security to all, but especially to democracies against despots --

suspicion."

---Demosthenes

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radxi.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Tue Oct 31 14:59:14 2000

Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 14:59:13 -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.SV4.3.96.1001031062727.7593A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

Things that go bump in the night...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Monday 30 October 2000:

Teri Pettit notes she is abstaining on Motion 00-33 for the same reasons

Joe Zsedeny stated. She says she hopes the group files for a service

mark, noting she "thought that was the intention of Ken's motion, to first

vote on whether we thought we should file something, and then to hammer

out the details immediately afterwards, IF the motion passed. But from the

comments that people sent with their "no" votes on Ken's motion, it seems

that many Board members feared that Ken's motion might instead be

interpreted as giving the NC carte blanche to file whatever application he

felt best, without consulting the Board on the details." Teri proposes

that "an orderly way to construct more passable motions might be for

someone to propose a straw man "draft motion"...and then take "polls" on

proposed revisions. We would then be operating under the more informal

rules for committee deliberations, and we wouldn't have to be officially

voting on amendments. We could go ahead with a revision if a simple

majority of those expressing an opinion on it were in favor...Once

suitably revised through this informal process, it would of course still

require a 2/3 majority to pass the final motion." She also strongly

recommends that all the revisions discussion take place on Board-L rather

than secretly. She is also in favor of taking John Schunk up on his offer

of his patent attorney's advice.

Teri publishes some line item comments regarding Motion 00-33 [Service

Mark]. She notes "Whatever we do about "The USGenWeb Project", I think

there should be a parallel process about "USGenWeb" all by itself. It is

more important to protect "USGenWeb" than "The USGenWeb Project", because

in practice there are more potential conflicts that use "USGenWeb" either

all by itself or in conjuction with some other words, than that try to use

"The USGenWeb Project" in its entirety....we want any mark(s) we file for

to "belong to" the organization as a whole, and for the NC or other

officials to be contacts only. What a knowledgeable attorney can do is

give us authoritative advice on just where it is "possible" to use The

USGenWeb Project as the name of the trademark holder, and what we might

have to do, if anything, to extend the realm of that possibility...we seem

to get a lot of conflicting opinions on whether it is necessary for us to

first be legally registered in some state as an unincorporated

association... I don't like this clause at all, [the one that directs the

NC to have Linda write to the USPTO] because it seems to give our implicit

consent to the notion that Linda Lewis has a personal right to the

"USGenWeb Archives" mark, and I don't think she does...While it would

probably make it smoother for us if she did file such a communication than

if she did nothing at all, it would be even better if she either withdrew

her application altogether...I would rather we leave it as "no official

comment" from the Advisory Board as to whether Linda Lewis has a right to

apply for "USGenWeb Archives", than to make an official communication that

seems to concede such a right to her when at least 7 of us have already

gone on record as believing that "USGenWeb Archives" properly belongs to

the Project....Is it possible to specify multiple addresses for the

communications from the PTO? For example, if possible, I think it would be

great if someone at the PTO could write directly to BOARD-L. This would

free the NC of the responsibility of "apprising" the Board if the Board

was in on all communications from the get-go...it seems "common sense"

that this [collecting funds for the application] would fall under the same

category as taking up a pool in your office to buy a baby shower gift for

a co-worker, something which is counted as neither "income" to the

mother-to-be nor "charitable donations" by the contributors, and that

people do all the time without the IRS caring about it. But the

law doesn't always follow common sense, and others have expressed the

opinion that collecting contributions for any expenditures would open us

up to all sorts of tax regulations. We ought to get a really authoritative

opinion before we go ahead and do it."

Teri says she prefers Joe's original formulation of the grievance

committee motion and she asks him if he is open to a "line item"

discussion of his motion similar to the one she did for Motion 00-33. Joe

says he has no problem with this and that all motions should be handled

this way.

Tuesday 31 October 2000 [boo!]:

Voting proceeds on the amendment to Motion 00-30. Thus far one Board

member has voted yes and 7 have voted no.

Voting proceeds on Motion 00-33. Thus far, two Board members have voted

yes, three have voted no, and two have abstained.

===

"It's better to be a lion for a day than a sheep all your life"

---Sister Elizabeth Kenny

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------