Oct 9-15 2000

From merope@Radix.Net Mon Oct 9 13:51:14 2000

Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 13:51:13 -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.SV4.3.96.1001009082821.7049A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: RO

X-Status:

Having a bad hair day...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Sunday 8 October 2000:

Joe Zsedeny moves to amend Motion 00-30 to read: "The committee shall be

composed of at least one CC from each region and one SC selected by the

Representative at Large. But in any event an odd number of committee

members shall be appointed so as to prevent tie votes. Richard Harrison

will serve as the committee chairman. The Chairman will select a

co-chairman from among the committee members. The NC will sit on the

committee as provided for in the Bylaws. The committee once seated will

number each grievance, research the background of each and make a

recommendation to the Board for a fair resolution of each complaint within

10 days with ten day extensions granted at the request of the committee

chair. Any committee member(s), except the NC, named in a complaint will

be excused from hearing and voting on that complaint and an alternate(s)

will be selected by the chairman or his co-chairman to insure an odd

number of votes. The committee must be mindful of the limited authority

granted the Board in the Bylaws to resolve grievances." Ginger Hayes

seconds this motion.

Ken Short tells them they are going about it wrong and he has several

messages about it from constituents. He publishes something that appears

to be one of these: "This is a gross violation of parliamentary procedures

and bylaws as well. For a very good reason, the bylaws clearly specified

any grievance be sent to a member of the Board and referred to a OUTSIDE

grievance committee. Under NO circumstances should a NC or any one else be

on such committee...The procedure is quite clear - the committee has to be

either 3 or 5, nothing more. And the members have to be DISINTERESTED.

Having a CC from each region will practically destroy the whole

process...In case of the USGW it should be like this: 1. Grievance from a

state/region is sent to a Board member. 2. The Board (UNDER NO

CIRCUMSTANCE should void it except clearly frivolous ones) authorize the

committee immediately and appoint 3 to 5 CC plus a SC from different

regions except that region that is affected to ensure absolute

impartiality. The identity of the members of that grievance committee is

not announced on any list whatsoever to ensure impartiality...3. The

recommendations from that committee should be made without undue

delay...to the Board. 4. Under NO circumstance the Board be allowed to

make any action worse than what the committee recommends...5. That

committee is dissolved immediately."

Monday 9 October 2000:

Tim Stowell announces the final vote county for Motion 00-29a. There were

7 yes votes, 4 no votes, and 1 abstention. The motion fails for not

meeting the 2/3 requirement.

Tim opens discussion on Joe's proposed amendment to Motion 00-30.

Joe says Ken's comments on the Grievance Committee motion are well taken

and he realized they aren't following RRoO to the letter. However, he

notes "circumstances between face to face board meetings and online board

meetings are different...f only occasional grievances were to be heard RRs

could easily be applied. But considering the number of grievances already

stacked up unheard a standing committee can function to sort through and

move the process along...Many grievances can be resolved by individual

Board members if they take the time to answer complaints promptly and

civilly...RRs are a guide and if we slavishly try to follow every dictate

nothing would get done." He says he's not partial to any particular

solution to the problem, but does suggest that "The more we rely on our

volunteers the quieter and more harmonious this Project will become. We

have to reach a point where the "them" is removed from "us and them"."

===

Our Readers Write Corner: Prompted by the recent spectacle of our Board

having three competing motions regarding the USGenWeb service mark

application, an anonymous correspondend writes to ask: "Does no one see

that by asking permission from Linda Lewis and then sending on a copy of

this permission, they are stating that she has the right to the name

USGenWeb and is the rightful owner of the name. Once done no objection

can be put to her ownership. This is the biggest sell out todate, with the

blessing of our NC."

All we can do is point out that a goodly number of our Board members are

apparently less interested in promoting USGenWeb's interests than they are

in protecting Linda Lewis and _her_ interests. They appear to wish to

see her application protected, even if they have to doom USGW's in the

process. Go figure.

Corrections Corner: We are reliably informed that Our Charming Leader did

_not_ unsub his rival Fred Smoot from the SC list as reported here

previously. Fred did that himself, thus depriving Tim of a parting shot.

We hear Timmy is still steaming over it.

===

Today's quote is sent in by a reader:

"This of course from the bozo, who forcibably stopped the South from

leaving when it so desired."

---Tim Stowell [responding to yesterday's quote, which was by Abraham

Lincoln]

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Tue Oct 10 13:36:36 2000

Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:36:30 -0400 (EDT)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

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

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

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1001010060608.17453A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: RO

X-Status:

The next big thing...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Monday 9 October 2000:

Maggie moves to amend Motion 00-30 to read: "I move the AB create a

standing Grievance Committee (GC) as follows: 1) The committee shall

consist of twelve USGenWeb members elected by ballot (Robert's Rules of

Order, page 483 a) from open nominations of candidates by each Advisory

Board member in turn until sufficient candidates have been elected. A

majority shall elect, members shall serve until September 1st or until

their successors are elected. Nominees shall consist of 7 CC's and 5 SC's

with no two committee members affiliated with the same state. 2) The

Advisory Board shall elect a Committee Chairperson by a second ballot

comprised of those elected to committee membership. A majority shall

elect. 3) The National Coordinator as an ex-officio member, has the right,

but not the obligation, to participate in the proceedings of the

committee, and is not counted in the quorum. 4) The committee is

authorized to obtain any information deemed necessary for investigation

and evaluation of grievances, including but not limited to public and

private e-mails, obtaining statements from the parties involved, and other

USGenWeb members, or other persons as related to the investigation or

determination of a recommendation to the Advisory Board. 5) The committee

shall meet on a closed unarchived email list under the same restrictions

of secrecy regarding deliberations as for executive session of the

Advisory Board. 6) The committee deliberations shall adhere to accepted

parliamentary procedures for committees and USGenWeb bylaws. Nine members

shall constitute a quorum for the conduct of committee business. A 2/3

majority of members voting on main motions/recommendations is required for

approval. 7) The Grievance Committee Chair shall submit reports directly

to the NC. The NC shall present the report to the Advisory Board in

Executive Session. Recommendations of the Grievance Committee are not

binding upon the AB for administrative or disciplinary action toward the

person(s) involved. 8) Supplemental instructions may be given to the

committee in accordance accepted parliamentary procedures."

Regarding Ken Short's motion regarding the trademark committee [Motion

00-31], Teri Pettit asks "I thought we were waiting for the report of the

Trademark Committee." [Interesting story about that...there is no "report

of the Trademark Committee. They met for a bit, chatted a bit, voted on a

proposal by the the Chair, and then were dismissed. The proposal they

voted on more or less became Motion 00-31.]

===

Sour Grapes Corner: A correspondent writes to give us a head up on an

interesting article in an upcoming issue of the Genexchange Newsletter [if

its not already out]. One of the features of this newsletter is a column

highlighting the virtues of other online genealogy websites. This weeks'

focus is on Gensite, a feature of Genealogy.org which is hosted by

Root$web. Gensite ranks genealogy sites based on page loads and thus

should serve as a useful listing. However, it appears that not only does

Gensite have a few problems, but that the listed technical support staff

are less than interested in helping to resolve them. The Genexchange

article notes the following problems with the Gesnite system: ""...the

number of recorded button loads on our GenExchange site varied widely from

hour to hour. Sometimes the number of loads the Gensite had recorded were

less than they were only an hour previously...The information found at

Genealogy.org indicates they record the number of button loads, but their

numbers simply did not match the ground truth as evidenced from our own

web logs...In our third week of participation on the GenSite system we've

noted that it undercounts the number of times their button loads on our

site by a factor of many times on a daily basis. Consequently the listing

for the GenExchange is placed much lower in their ranking system than it

otherwise would have been had the correct number of impressions been

recorded by their system." After several attempts to correct the

situation via a technical support person who did not answer questions and

seemed both uninterested and uninformed, the Genexchange rep contacted RW

General Manager Charles Merrin, who did not even bother to respond.

While it is not known whether or not these problems affect other

websites, we find it interesting that the website they do affect is the

one that RW unsuccesfully tried to buy right before the sell-out to

MyFamily.com.

===

"We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongues, at our

peril, risk and hazard."

---Voltaire, "Liberty of the Press"

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Thu Oct 12 12:17:47 2000

Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:17:46 -0400 (EDT)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

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

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1001012121600.26488C-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

The wolf at the door...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Wednesday 11 October 2000:

Barbara Dore seconds Maggie's amendment to Motion 00-30, noting that it

would "be proper and at the same time fairer to everyone involved." She

also notes that it "allows for a broader base and would not be hampered by

the absence of one or two members being out of touch at any given time."

[Babs has an interesting idea of fairness. This amendment inexplicably

leaves Special Projects members out of consideration for positions on the

proposed grievance committee, and has no provision for actually notifying

the parties to a grievance of their findings.]

Ken Short asks why the Chair [of the proposed grievance committee] has to

elected by the Board; this looks like micromanagement to him.

Thursday 12 October 2000:

Tim Stowell calls for a vote on Motion 00-31 [the motion to amend Motion

00-25 to allow the NC to appoint the Board Secretary]. Thus far, one

member has voted yes and four have voted no.

Tim opens the amendment to Motion 00-30 for discussion.

===

Into the Fray Corner: This week's Root$web Review has this little blurb

about FamilyDiscovery.com:

"Many of our readers have expressed concern, outrage, and frustration at

the FamilyDiscovery.com site. MyFamily.com, including RootsWeb and

Ancestry, is currently investigating these concerns, and will respond as

appropriate under current Fair Use Copyright and Truth in Advertising

laws. In the meantime, users who have their own concerns or conflicts with

this site can file their own complaint directly with the Federal Trade

Commission's (FTC) Bureau of Consumer Protection by visiting

https://www.ftc.gov/ftc/complaint.htm The FTC has the power to

investigate your concerns regarding FamilyDiscovery.com, and to take

appropriate action."

Well, better late than never, I guess, but we do note that they make no

mention of Kindred Konnections, which does more or less the same thing as

FamilyDiscovery.com. But of course, Kindred Konnections pays to advertise

in the New Zoo Review, so its probably OK if they do it.

In Other News Corner: Also in the New Zoo Review this week: RW finally

reports on the addition of Ancestry World Tree search boxes on its

WorldConnect pages.

Catching Up With the News Corner: A correspondent writes to tell us that

recently, a full 16 months after it was first requested and after several

list members were banned for asking, the TOTTY-L archived messages were

removed from Root$web's archives. The original request for removal was

forwarded to former CEO Robert Tillman shortly after RW published its

Acceptable Use Policy in June 1999 and began to deny listowners the right

to decide whether or not their lists were archived. Because the Totty

mailing list group allows no commercial use [and the archived messages

were accompanied by ads], the listowner requested their removal. In usual

fashion RW, instead of making the customer happy, banned her and any of

her listmembers who also requested that their posts be removed [this

eventually became RW policy]. Following the sell-out to MyFamily.com, the

Totty list pursued its case with new head honcho Charles Merrin, who was

apparently instrumental in having the archives finally removed. Totty

family mailing list archives are now available at

http://www.totty-families.org/ [Looks like there may be some hope for

those of you out there who are still trying to get your list archives

removed.]

Free Time Corner: Apparently having some time on her hands since giving up

the counties she adopted just prior to the last election, Archives

syncophant Kelly Courtney-Blizzard has opened a "Census look-ups" mailing

list for every state in the United States. In the welcome message, she

specifically states "NO FLAMING or you will be unsubbed without notice."

[Ironic, isn't it? A clever person would of course sub to all these lists

and use them to advertise the USGenWeb Census Project

<http://www.us-census.org>; an added bonus would be provoking Kelly to

breakh her own no flaming rule, since any mention of the CP seems to send

her into a frenzy.] To subscribe use these addresses, replacing the "XX"

with the state abbreviation of your choice:

XX-CENSUS-LOOKUP-L-request@rootsweb.com,

XX-CENSUS-LOOKUP-D-request@rootsweb.com

===

Today's quote was sent in by a reader:

"By doing just a little every day, I can gradually let the task overwhelm

me."

---Ashleigh Brilliant

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Fri Oct 13 10:18:31 2000

Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:18:30 -0400 (EDT)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

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

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

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1001013101557.25671B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

Blame it on the mai tais...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Thursday 12 October 2000:

Barbara Dore says she agrees with most of the proposed amendment to Motion

00-30 but she did have some concerns about it. She suggests that the

motion be divided and the concerns addresses and notes "That is what we

should be doing with all motions..... fine tuning each until it best

represents the interests of the majority of our members while protecting

the rights of the minority."

Voting proceeds on Motion 00-31, with one Board member voting yes and 10

voting no [it appears that the Board does not want Timmy appointing

Secretaries].

Friday 13 October 2000 [lucky day]:

Tim Stowell calls for a vote on Motion 00-32, the first motion to "direct

the NC to apply for the Service Mark "The USGenWeb Project" as soon as

possible."

Rich Howland says he would like answers to his questions before voting on

Motion 00-32. Tim asks him to clarify his questions. Rich reiterates his

questions: "There is also the problem of where the money will come from

next year and the year after? It would be nice for future Boards to know

where the moneys are to be raised both for Service Mark and Domains? Are

we going to have a Treasurer? A bank account? Is the NC suppose to pay

for this out of their pocket? Is a collection to be taken up of AB

Members? I really think there is much to be decided before we just direct

the NC to apply for the Service Mark. I believe that it was also mentioned

that we should just apply for "USGenWeb"? And not "The USGenWeb Project"?"

===

The Kindness of Strangers Corner: From Joe Zsedeny on the status of the

Trademark pledge drive: "Pledges have reached a plateau over the past two

weeks and now hold steady at 58 pledges for a total of $2022. I think a

final motion to file for a Service Mark will emerge from the Board in the

next few weeks. The Board then will have to make funding decisions to pay

for the filing. Thanks to all who have made pledges."

Old Faces, New Friends Corner: We've heard that USGenWeb founder Jeff

Murphy has joined up with the American History and Genealogy Project

[www.ahgp.org] and is managing some of its Kentucky pages.

Secretary to the Stars Corner: Imagine our shock when we opened our inbox

yesterday and found a message from The Man Himself, Charles Merrin,

Executive Producer of Root$web. After we recovered from our swoon, we

perused the letter and found it referred to a recent DBS story on the

misadventures of Gensite [RW "feature"] and the GenExchange [independent

free online genealogy provider that RW tried to "sponsor" just prior to

the sell-out to Ancestry]. If you will recall, Gensite is grossly

undercounting page hits to GenExchange and thus lists it far too low on

its rankings. Anthony Abby, tech guy at GenExchange, tried to resolve

this through a low level RW flunky who more or less ignored him, and then

by contacting Charles Merrin, who did not respond to his emails. After

flattering us shamelessly [he said he reads the DBS and likes it!],

Charles asked us if we would contact Anthony for him. He claimed that he

has been trying to reach Anthony both via email which apparently did not

go through and by telephone [wrong numbers] since early October. He gave

me multiple ways of contacting him and asked as a favor to forward the

info to Anthony, and also noted that if Anthony claimed that no one had

tried to contact him I would "have the facts" for the DBS. We did as he

requested and forwarded the info on to Anthony with a request to keep up

posted.

We are pleased to report that Anthony and Charles have finally had a

chance to talk. Apparently Anthony is sporadically losing email and

Charles was able to forward copies of his replies to Anthony's original

attempts to contact him, so it does not appear that Charles was ignoring

or avoiding Anthony. Charles has admitted that Gensite is broken and

that RW is either going to fix it or trash it [hope its not on the same

repair schedule as the newsgroups automoderator]. Charles also reportedly

talked extensively about other topics. Apparently he shares many folks'

unhappy feelings about the former proprietor of RW and he also revealed

that RW keeps files on people and projects. The Abby/GenExchange file is

apparently quite large and demonstrates considerable animosity toward the

Abbys and GenExchange on the part of RW [or at least its former owners.

Man, I'd love to get a peek at my file <g>]. Charles also apparently

promised to work on resolving the issues between RW and Genexchange,

including lifting the restrictions on people discussing the GenExchange on

RW mailing lists.

The upshot of all this, of course, is that the Genexchange newsletter will

be published without the article about Gensite. Anthony agreed to drop

it in the interests of promoting good will and because Charles agreed to

let him be the first to review whatever replacement system RW devises.

[Yet more negative publicity about RW avoided, and all for the price of a

long distance phone call.] Both parties are reportedly happy with the

outcome and there is hope that the relationship between these two

prominent online genealogy providers will continue to improve. Air

kisses, all around!

Using The News To Make The News Corner: We understand from an anonymous

correspondent on the TOTTY-L list that following our mention of them in

the DBS yesterday, their listowner was notified formally by Charles

Merrin that their list archives have been removed from RW's archives.

===

"When a management with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business

with a reputation for bad economics, it is the reputation of the business

that remains intact."

---Warren Buffet

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Sat Oct 14 09:12:46 2000

Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 09:12:45 -0400 (EDT)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

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

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

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1001014082406.2607A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

Ars longa, vita brevis...Its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Friday 13 October 2000:

Maggie Stewart asks Ken Short what alternative suggestions he has for

Motion 00-30.

Ken replies that there is no reason for the Board to involve itself in

choosing the Grievance Committee chairperson and that committee members

should be able to do that themselves. He notes that no Board members will

be on the committee so their choice of chair is irrelevant. He states

"One of the biggest problems we have is the AB trying to micro manage

things. We should not be doing that. Once a committee is picked, they

are given their guidelines and are turned loose to do the job they were

selected for. We should only get involved by answering questions,

clarifying something that might come up and/or replacing someone who for

what ever reason has to resign. Have we gotten so arrogant we think we

have all the answers."

Joe Zsedeny muses that he didn't hear this argument when the Trademark

Committee was being formed [or the Election Study Committee, for that

matter].

Voting continues on Motion 00-31 [Board Secretary]. Thus far, 2 Board

members have voted yes and 10 have voted no.

Saturday 14 October 2000:

Tim Stowell answers Richard Howland's questions regarding Motion 00-32

[first motion regarding the trademark]. Tim says he will pay the initial

filing fee, but would hope to be at least partially reimbursed by other

project members. The Board will decide what address to use on the

application and the application would be only for the term "USGenWeb".

Tim notes that the answers are solely his and also notes that he

has heard "talk on the some of the lists about this and why the membership

at large is not being asked to vote on this." He says he's passing these

answers along "to address the concerns of those who have expressed these

reservations." [Why am I not reassured?]

===

"When we build, let us think that we build for ever."

---John Ruskin

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------