Sep 18-24 2000

From merope@Radix.Net Mon Sep 18 14:51:39 2000

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 14:51:38 -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.SV4.3.96.1000917164641.19004A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

Letting the genie out of the bottle...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

[We apologize for the lack of a DBS yesterday. Listbot was down much of

the day for maintenance.]

Saturday 16 September 2000:

Joe Zsedeny updates the Board on the status of the pledge drive for the

trademark application: "As of 9/16/00 12:01am we had 41 pledges totaling

$74 minimum and $1501 Maximum, as John is my witness. My hat is off to

everyone who has responded to this pledge drive....You folks are assuring

that the money to do the job awaits. Several people have commented that

their pledges are ONLY for costs associated with the filing for the

USGenWeb mark, but NOT for contesting the USGenWeb Archives filing. Those

comments are noted. Also, several people have commented that they believe

that costs should include consultation with one or more patent attorneys.

Those concerns are also noted. For those who have not pledged, but would

like to do so, you can send your pledge publicly to this list (ALL) or

privately to Joe Zsedeny (jzsed@slic.com). Please include the word PLEDGE

in the subject line to facilitate tabulations."

Holly Timm posts information regarding the Election Study Committee: "...I

would like to thank everyone who volunteered to serve on the committee, it

made the choosing difficult but it also gave us the ability to try to have

a broad spectrum of opinion and perspective from across the project.

Listed below are the Election Study Committee Members with their states

and regions. The committee wants to hear from anyone with thoughts ideas

and comments regarding the election process...Pease address these comments

to: ESC@timmweb.pair.com...

SC Members:

Nathan Zipfel PA NE Region

Linda Mason MS SE Region

Carol Haagensen WY NW Region

Patrick Hays IN NE Region

Mary Ann Hetrick CO NW Region

CC Members:

Robert Sullivan NY NE Region

Connie Bates connie_bates@att.net IL NE Region

Jerimiah Moerke MN, SD NW Region

John McCoy NE NW Region

Esther Frye IA NW Region

Chip Brown TN SE Region

Carol Carwile-Head GA SE Region

Teresa Lindquist KS SW Region

Bob Chada OK SW Region

Linda Hotchkiss CA SW Region

Board Members:

Ellen Pack - Southeast / Mid-Atlantic CC Rep

Betsy Mills, Southwest / South Central SC Rep

Tina Vickery, Northeast / North Central CC Rep

Shari Handley, Southeast/Mid-Atlantic SC Rep

Holly Timm, Representative-At-Large and Chair of the Committee

Ex-Officio, National Coordinator Tim Stowell

Sunday 17 September 2000:

No Board-L traffic on this date.

Monday 18 September 2000:

Joe Zsedeny moves "that the Chairman's ruling of 9/15/00 regarding Ellen

Pack's motion on trademarks be overruled and that her motion be brought

to a vote."

Joe says he's decided "that some action is needed to solve the impasse

caused by Tim's ruling on Ellen's motion." Although he would vote against

the motion, it bothers him that it was not allowed to come to a vote and

believes "that Tim acted sincerely in this matter but erred in judgment."

He notes "This Board was elected by the membership to conduct the Projects

business and cannot be muzzled by one person. In this case I think the

entire Board should vote or be polled as to whether Tim's judgment should

stand."

Ginger Hayes reminds him "There is already an appeal on the floor that is

being ignored, which, per RRoO takes precedence." She notes "I

understand Joe's frustration but am getting used to the stalling by the NC

when it's not something that is to his liking.

Joe posts an update on the trademark pledge drive: "As of this morning,

9/18/00, 48 pledges have been received for a maximum of $1756. John has a

web page at:http://home.kscable.com/jschunk/pledge.html with the names of

those who have pledged." He notes "Some general observations about this

pledge drive are that many feel that filing for TM is more important than

filing a protest to Linda's filing. And they show the Board that raising

the money for such an action shouldn't be too much of a problem. Many

people are willing to offer considerable financial support."

Joe withdraws his motion at the urging of "Ginger and others". However, he

strongly urges the Board to "get the appeal over with so we can move on. I

think the will of the majority of Board members should be heard regardless

of how I feel about Ellen's motion."

Rich Howland forwards a quite nasty post about Ginger Hayes making the

rounds on the lists [it will not be repeated here]. He strongly deplores

this attack on Ginger and calls "for any one knowing who this lowly skunk

is to make it public so we may take action against this person." [the

person posting the note did so anonymously, with an apparently spoofed

email address. Yes, this is how low some folks in USGW have apparently

sunk...]

===

Virtual Warzone Corner: Sharon Williamson, SC of the NCGenWeb, has

succesfully petitioned to have one of the CCs she whacked a couple of

weeks ago locked out of their GenConnect boards, even though the pages he

maintains for the boards is still active. Sharon is also now attempting

to claim copyright on the terms "North Carolina GenWeb" and "NCGW" [but

for some reason, _not_ "NCGenWeb"]. Horace Peele has taken down his "for

sale" page at http://www.ncgenweb.org, apparently deciding instead to run

a registry for NC genealogical and historical societies. The ncgenweb.net

and ncgenweb.com addresses are still advertising NC genealogy webrings.

Neither of them mention NCGenWeb itself.

Copyright Corner: A group of individuals and businesses, one of them is

Higginson Books, is challenging the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension

Act of 1998. Because this law prevented works published in 1923 from

entering the public domain at the end of 1998, it has negatively affected

many of us genealogists. You can read all about it at:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/eldredvreno/ and

http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/eldredvreno/ [Also check out Dick

Eastman's newsletter for a brief synopsis of this case.]

===

Today's quote was submitted by a reader:

"All adverse and depressing influences can be overcome, not by fighting,

but by rising above them."

---Charles Caleb Colton

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Tue Sep 19 10:25:35 2000

Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:25:34 -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.SV4.3.96.1000919093137.11113B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

Jeepers creepers...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Monday 18 September 2000:

Tina Vickery says she is "appalled that there is a pledge drive being

conducted." She believes that "To have an exchange of money, or even a

hint of exchange of money, enter into a discussion, whatever the

discussion, is inherently wrong, in regard to the USGenWeb Project." She

worries that "with this effort a very bad precedent is being set. A

precedent that contradicts everything that the USGenWeb Project represents

to visitors and volunteers alike...In my estimation, we have lost all

credibility." She acknowledges the importance of the trademark but says

its "Important in the respect, of providing free genealogical information

on-line. Period."

Richard Harrison points out that it often costs money to support the

provision of "free genealogical information on-line" and thinks that

"There is nothing wrong with our members voluntarily joining together to

pledge some financial resources to meet needs of the project, whether that

be filing fees to protect our name, attorney's fees to determin our rights

or another legitimate expense." He notes that not every expense can be

covered by individual CCs' willingness to fund transcriptions, space, etc,

and says "Some things you can barter for, other things people will give

you, but in some cases you must buy things with "filthy lucre"...It is not

a bad precedent. It does not taint the value of the service we still

provide free to our visitors. It, in fact, enhances our credibility

because by assessing our resources we are opening our eyes to reality--it

costs money to provide free genealogical information on-line."

Ellen Pack says the pledges are terrific and she's happy to see broad

member participation. She notes "Obviously, many think the Trademark

issue is very important - so important, in fact, they are willing to help

provide financial support, if needed."

Ken Short joins Rich Howland in asking to know who posted the nasty post

about Ginger Hayes yesterday [which both he and Richard have repeated in

full on Board-L]. He notes "to attack someone like this is below

contempt...There is no room in our organization, or any other for that

matter for bigotry."

Tuesday 19 September 2000:

Tim Stowell notes that the appeal of his ruling on the trademark issue

was answered when he noted that if certain language was removed it could

come to the floor. He suggests however "as there is now a committee

studying all issues concerning trademark - this and other motions of like

subject should be placed on hold until the committee issues it's report."

Ginger suggests that Tim check RRoO for information on how to properly

deal with an appeal. She notes "Your role in dealing with an appeal from

the decision of the chair is to define the issues involved, explain the

reasons for your decision and then bring the appeal to a vote. Since this

is a debatable appeal all members of this body that wish to must have the

opportunity to comment before the actual vote. The outcome is determined

by majority vote."

===

To The Rescue Corner: Many of you are probably familiar with JewishGen,

the nonprofit organization that supports and preserves Jewish genealogy

and history. It serves to connect Jewish genealogists worldwide via the

internet, and is a United States tax-exempt organization. The leadership

of JewishGen have announced that they have a substantial operating budget

shortfall and may need to curtail their valuable activites unless the

shortfall can be made up. They operate entirely on volunteer

contributions and donations, and ask for the community's support at this

time. You can read about it at

http://www.jewishgen.org/jewishgen-erosity/imagine.html; there is also

information on how to contribute at this address. All donations are

tax-deductible.

Under A Rock Corner: On the other end of the online genealogy spectrum,

we have FamilyDiscovery.com, which is now doing business at a new ISP

[same URL though: http://www.familydiscovery.com] Gene Olson has posted

an "all about FamilyDiscovery.com" webpage at

http://gene_olson.tripod.com; this page summarizes what is known about the

business to date and the various efforts with local law enforcement to

stop them. Mr. Olsen is asking that anyone with any information about or

experience with FamilyDiscovery.com to please contact him; he appears to

have every intention of getting this business offline. If you want to

know if your records are linked to, visit this URL:

http://www.familydiscovery.com/members/index.htm. You will be able to

view all records available in every state and some international locations

as well. There are quite a lot of USGW-affiliated records represented in

the links, including some Archives records.

===

"Such truth as opposeth no man's profit nor pleasure is to all men

welcome."

---Thomas Hobbes

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Wed Sep 20 12:20:19 2000

Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 12:20:18 -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.SV4.3.96.1000920061215.6140A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: RO

X-Status:

Contents under pressure...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Tuesday 19 September 2000:

Teri Pettit reminds Tim that requests for clarification as to what

language he finds threatening in Ellen's motion have not been answered,

and notes "Without knowing what phrases you find objectionable, it is

impossible to guess what kind of modifications would remove a "threatening

tone" that the authors don't perceive to be there to start with." She

also points out that "Since you stated that other motions of the same

nature, whatever that is, would also be ruled out of order and lead to the

disclipline of one's peers, and Ellen's motion doesn't contain anything

that we can see any threat, intimidation or hostility in, for all we know

any motion at all might be judged to be "of the same nature." She also

notes, as did Holly, that "if some of the wording of the motion bothers

some people, the proper way to change it is through amendments. Which

can't be done until it is returned to the floor"

Maggie withdraws her motion regarding application for a trademark pending

the results of the Trademark Committee.

Maggie notes that "the current pledge drive being conducted on the project

lists has not been authorized by the Advisory Board and should be halted

until such time as the Trademark Committee reports and the Advisory Board

takes appropriate action." She requests that Tim order a halt to the

pledge drive. [Well, well. Looks like Maggie doesn't want the project to

have the money available to challenge her boss' right to the trademark.

And as someone else noted, "god forbid the members of this project want to

do something and have the money to back them up. Also interesting is how

all these lists the Board won't touch with a 10 foot pole are now

suddenly "project lists".]

Rich Howland suggests the Board work through its backlog of appeals and

grievances before they "try to do something else to stop this terrible

idea of members saying protect our projects name."

Wednesday 20 September 2000:

Tim Stowell says the language that should be "removed as it is an implied

threat" is the phrase ""Failure to comply with Advisory Board

instructions, within the time specified, will result in further action by

the Advisory Board." He also notes that something happening within 5 days

with the federal government is unlikely [although this is not relevant;

the motion requires Linda to provide proof that she's filed a letter to

withdraw the application, not that the government do something.] Tim

ignores completely Ginger's suggestion that he conduct the appeal

according to RRoO.

Holly Timm notes that Tim has defined the issues and explained his reasons

for declaring Ellen's motion out of order; she asks him "now how about

following the rest of the procedure?

Ginger Hayes says she sees no threat in the motion, "unlike the obvious

threat against AB members you made in your [Tim's] ruling." She notes

that changes in wording can be addressed during the discussion. She

suggests that Tim reread the motion and notes "Since this appeal does not

deal with the Trademark itself, only with your improper ruling, there is

no reason to keep stalling it." She asks if they can get on with the

appeal procedure.

Maggie notes that she is merely stating that "it [the ongoing pledge

drive] wasn't being done following the proper procedure and since we have

bylaws that we were elected to uphold we, as the Advisory Board, are

obligated to uphold them." [she does not specify how the pledge drive

violates the bylaws.]

===

What's In A Name Corner: According to the USPTO website a "non-final

action" was mailed on 15 September; according the listing this is a "1st

action" and is "a letter from the examining attorney requesting additional

information and/or making an initial refusal. However, no final

determination as to the registrability of the mark has been made." We do

urge those Board members to whom Linda will still speak to find out from

her what is in that letter.

We've also heard that some members who sent in protest letters regarding

Linda Lewis' trademark application have begun to receive letters back

from the USPTO denying their letters of protest. The letters state:

"The issue raised in your Letter of Protest requires investigation and

production of evidence that is beyond the scope of authority of an

Examining Attorney in the Patent and Trademark Office during the _ex

parte_ examination of this application...As such, it is best resolved in

the course of an _inter partes_ proceeding. Your Letter of Protest will

be kept on file for two years by the Patent and Trademark Office and will

not be referred to the Examining Attorney. The denial of your Letter of

Protest does not preclude you from filing opposition to a pending

application after it has published in the Official Gazette or a petition

to cancel an existing registration with the Trademark Trial and Appeal

Board..."

===

"Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too

many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and

the only thing that's wrong is to get caught."

---J. C. Watts

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Thu Sep 21 14:25:46 2000

Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 14:25:45 -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.SV4.3.96.1000921064521.13582A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

Nothing ventured, nothing gained...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Wednesday 20 September 2000:

Rich Howland notes that the only section of the bylaws he can find that

may pertain to the pledge drive is the section that reads "Solicitation of

funds for personal gain is inappropriate. This is defined as the direct

appeal on the home page of any of the websites comprising The USGenWeb

Project for funding to do research, to pay for server space, to do

look-ups, etc." He says "As best I can see this pledge drive is not for

personal gain? I haven't seen it posted on any the home page of any of the

websites? I also believe Joe and John will confirm that no money has

changed hands?" He also notes that the Board has several items of

pending business that should come first.

Teri Pettit agrees with Ginger Hayes that she also does not see any threat

inherent in Ellen's motion, but suggests changing the wording anyways. She

notes "it is hard to guess what kind of wording others will perceive a

threat in when it is already apparent that their perceptions differ from

one's own." She suggests the following rewording: "If a withdrawal

request is not submitted within the time specified, the Advisory Board

will take separate action to ensure that the service mark 'USGenWeb

Archives' continues to be usable by the USGenWeb Project to refer to its

digital library and archival services." She requests suggestions for

alternate wording if this is not acceptable. She also notes that the

motion does not require the federal government to take any action at all

and says "As soon as the form is submitted by Linda, the request has been

fully complied with, even if it takes the government five years to process

it." Teri notes that although technically amendments to the motion should

not be made until it is on the floor and Tim Stowell won't let it return

to the floor until it is changed to suit him, she is more interested in

getting something done quickly. She says "What I'm not OK with is giving

up and doing nothing at all while the trademark study committee

deliberates for 30 days. The critical time frame for us to officially ask

Linda to withdraw or amend her trademark application may be over by then."

Ginger asks Maggie to point out where in the bylaws "there is anything

addressing project members needing the AB's approval before pledging

support to protect the USGenWeb Project" and asks "Don't you think that

your speaking out against this constitutes somewhat of a conflict of

interest?"

Teri Pettit points out to Maggie that "The Bylaws don't have a single word

in them that suggests that Project members should obtain the permission of

the Advisory Board before they ask their fellow Project members, using the

Project related email lists, to provide information about their desires."

The pledge drive, according to Teri, is basically a survey to find out how

many people would be willing to contribute and how much in the event the

Board decides to do anything about the trademark issue. She finds the

information very useful, and notes "even if one disagrees as to whether

some particular member-initiated poll is useful or not, the Advisory Board

has no business telling project members what kinds of information they

are allowed to ask their fellows to send to us."

Shari Handley says she likes Teri's suggested wording for an amendment to

Ellen's motion.

Tina Vickery says she is not opposed to the use of a survey to ascertain

members' wishes, but takes exception to "the

"pledge drive," and the perceived, real or otherwise, concept of money

exchanging hands to accomplish the goal of ascertaining wishes of project

members."

Holly Timm notes that Ellen's motion "can not be modified or amended or

any other action taken until there is a discussion and vote on the appeal.

If the out-of-order ruling is sustained then the motion is dead, if it is

over-ruled then the motion is on the floor and subject to discussion and

amendment." Richard Harrison agrees with Holly and suggests they "get on

with it."

Thursday 21 September 2000:

Tim Stowell says he doesn't think he has the authority to order a halt to

the pledge drive since most of the organizers are not Board members and

most of the drive is occurring on "non-project" lists. He says "I suppose

I could ask Board members to refrain from reporting on the pledge drive on

the Board list, but that's about all."

In regards to Ellen's motion, Tim notes "Since the Board knew that a

Trademarks Committee was being formed as of Sept 4, why was this motion

made to begin with if not to use as a hammer against Linda? It seems to

be rather vindictive. Don't you think asking Linda would have been better

- not in the manner of dragging her before committee or threatening her

with this or that action? I read once again somewhere today that you win

more friends with honey than with vinegar." [Yeah, I got a good laugh out

of this one, too. <g>] Tim asks Teri if she is willing to forgo the use

of parliamentary procedure "IF it goes against the way you feel things

should go?" and whether she wants to make decisions about the trademark

before the committee has finished its work.

Tim calls a vote on the motion to overrule his decision to declare Ellen's

motion out of order, asking the Board members to vote "Yes - to Overrule

Out of Order position of NC; No - to agree with the NC that the motion was

out of order; Abstain - whatever you wish it to mean". Then [and this is

rich] he also asks them to vote on a motion that is NOT on the floor, has

never been made, and apparently comes out of blue: "Please also vote on

whether or not we are going to use Parliamentary procedure as the Bylaws

state OR only when convenient to those with the most votes: Yes - use

Parliamentary procedure and the Bylaws; No - use it PP only when

convenient and/or the Bylaws; Abstain - don't care one way or the other."

[Well, I reckon we can tell where Tim stands on this issue. And he really

needs to quit deciding on his own what an abstention means.]

Ellen Pack raises some points of order: 1) "The question on the appeal is

improperly stated, and there has been no official discussion period on

the appeal;" and 2) "The second vote call is out of order. There is no

motion on the floor or second, and there has been no discussion period

regarding the question."

Ellen tells Tim "Since it is common knowledge, and repeatedly on public

record, that I personally submitted the motion in question, and that it

was seconded by Holly, I respectfully request that you clarify your

statement..." [she refers to Tim's statement that so-called "threat

against Linda" was "rather vindictive."] She cites a section of RRoO that

covers breaches of order as the basis of her request.

===

Recall Amendment Update: Richard Harrison has posted a website detailing

the current status of the Recall Amendment Discussion Group's work so far.

Comments are welcome; the website is at:

http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard/recall/group.htm

You can send your comments to any member of the group, or subscribe

yourself at: http://www.coollist.com/subscribe.html [put "recall", no

quotes and in lower case in the field for list name]

Pledge Drive Update: From Joe Zsedeny: "Pledges as of this morning,

9/21/00, are 56 pledges for a total of $1992. BTW, I have been asked to

refrain from posting this update to the Board lists as it seems to be

upsetting some members. So if you want your Board representatives to get a

copy you have my permission to forward. For anyone with doubts about the

legality of this pledge drive, John has consulted with attorneys to

confirm that these are NOT tax deductible contributions, which most of you

are already aware, and no filing of any kind to any state tax department

is necessary." [In a later message, Joe notes the correct pledge amount

is $1922]

===

"To give up the task of reforming society is to give up one's

responsibility as a free man."

---Alan Paton

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Fri Sep 22 13:22:34 2000

Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 13:22:32 -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.SV4.3.96.1000922061558.19149A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

Over and above...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Thursday 21 September 2000:

Teri Pettit reminds Tim Stowell that Ellen's motion was submitted for the

following reasons: "1. If Linda agrees to withdraw her application, there

will be no need to communicate with the Patent & Trademark Office

regarding it...The Board and the Trademark Study Committee would be spared

the necessity of deciding how we ought to deal with the trademark

application, if it no longer existed. 2. The trouble with the informal

negotiations that Joe Zsedeny has been serving as a go-between for are

that there is no proof that Joe is representing the official will of the

Advisory Board...for all WE know until we can vote on it, the request to

withdraw her application might be a minority position...

3...If the application is going to be withdrawn, the earlier it is

withdrawn the better. If we wait until 30 days from now to even ask her to

withdraw it, she could easily feel, "NOW you tell me! Why in the world

didn't you say so earlier?"" She also notes that the motion was not

submitted to be "vindictive" toward Linda but "under the hope that Linda

would prefer an amicable withdrawal to any kind of messy dispute with the

PTO." She says "The motion is no more "vindictive" than it is when we

officially make a motion to instruct Pam Reid to make some change to the

national web pages. There is no suggestion at all, either in the wording

of the motion itself or in any supporting communications, that the

"further action" would be retaliatory." She asks Tim why he persists "in

seeing antagonism that does not exist" and notes "It is just as off-base,

unfounded, and disrespectful of one's peers to continually suggest hostile

motives in Ellen's motion as it would be to suggest predatory motives in

Linda's trademark application, which none of us has done even once."

Teri lets Tim know that she may have some email trouble over the weekend.

Teri tells Tim "it is still not clear to me whether the rewording I asked

about sounds threatening to you or not. It would REALLY help if you would

just answer the questions. They are not rhetorical." She notes that the

motion is a way to determine the will of the majority of the Board on the

topic but says "without voting on the motion, we wouldn't know whether or

not most of us WANT to ask her to withdraw her application. And she

wouldn't know whether any request was official or just something that Joe,

John Schunk and the others who know her personally and who've been

communicating with her offline would personally like her to do. It is only

fair to her that she be given the opportunity to know what the majority

will of the Board is." She reiterates "THERE IS NO THREAT!!! There isn't

even anything that looks the least bit LIKE a threat to me. There is not

the slightest suggestion that the "further action" would be a punishment,

a retaliation, or anything at all like that." [Teri is beginning to sound

more than a little frustrated with Our Esteemed National Coordinator.] As

far as parliamentary procedure goes, Teri reminds Tim that _he_ is the one

who has insisted the motion be amended before it will be allowed on the

floor and notes "Holly and Ginger seem to be the ones here who are

insisting on proper parliamentary procedure, and you are the one who has

asked Ellen and Holly to do something that is technically against

Parliamentary Procedure." She notes that for pragmatic reasons, "if

somebody else wants to do something that is technically against RRoO, but

that enables us to work together more effectively and better ascertain the

will of the majority, we shouldn't stand on ceremony...The rule-of-thumb

should not be whether something is going "my way" or "your way", but on

whether Parliamentary Procedure is facilitating or hindering the

expression of the will of the majority. In this particular case, I think

ignoring RRoO and doing as YOU ask...is the most expedient way to

facilitate finding out what the majority wants us to do." Teri specifies

that she is not recommending that "further acion" be decided before the

Trademark Committee submits its report, but that the Board make a decision

on whether to ask Linda to withdraw her application before the window of

opportunity for her to do so closes. She notes "At least I'm supporting a

motion made through official channels, and will defer to whatever the

Board decides. You didn't even give the Advisory Board a chance to vote

on whether or not we should form a Trademark Study Committee or what the

committee should be charged with or what time limit should be placed on

the report, etc."

Voting proceeds on the appeal of Tim's out of order ruling on Ellen's

motion. Thus far, 1 member has voted no and 4 have voted yes.

Voting on the issue of whether or not the Board will use parliamentary

procedure and the bylaws proceeds. Thus far, 1 member has voted yes and

one has indicated "present." Three others have indicated they will not

vote on this motion.

Richard Harrison notes that his yes vote on the appeal is not meant to

construe support for the motion, but he does believe the Board should be

given the opportunity to vote on it and perhaps to amend it. As regards

the parliamentary procedure issue, he says "I am thoroughly confused

regarding this question. There has been no discussion. Of course, we're

going to abide by the bylaws and, of course, wer're going to use some form

of PP...In any case, use of parliamentary procedure is not an effective

tool to browbeat the Board members with. Perhaps it is a joke I am not

clever enough to understand." [Richard originally voted "abstain" on this

motion and then changed his vote to "present"]

In response to Ellen's point of order, Tim says "Your point of order is

moot. Ginger has asked for a vote - this gives it. There has been

considerable discussion already. If you wish to vote, do so. If you

don't, don't." [Leadership at its finest, folks] He also tells her that

asking a question or for an opinion doesn't require a motion and cites

this section of RRoO: "In ordinary meetings it is undesirable to raise

points of order on minor irregularities of a purely technical character,

if it is clear that no one's rights are being infringed upon and no real

harm is being done to the proper transaction of business."

Friday 22 September 2000:

Holly Timm notes that she will vote on the appeal, noting that "According

to proper procedure ("procedure" being what was used to club us with

originally), the appeal should have been officially placed for discussion

but in the interests of efficiency and cognizant of the fact that although

the original motion was made 9/12,declared out of order 9/13, and

appealed 9/14, it was stalled for an entire week, no action being taken

until 9/21." She will not vote on the issue of the use of

parliamentary procedure and says "Use of PP as a weapon or stalling tool

has not been limited to those with the most votes but has primarily been

used by yourself to club others into submission to your wishes. There is

no need for this question whatsoever as the ByLaws state we are to use PP

and the alternative votes have been used to insult us. Since there has

been no discussion to clarify what your intent is with this motion, I view

it as a frivolous attempt to insult the Board and will not be placing any

vote at all on it, i.e., taking a leaf out of your book and ignoring the

question." She suggests that if Tim is asking for an opinion, he should

state that clearly in the future.

Joe Zsedeny also indicates he will not vote on the parliamentary procedure

question.

Ginger Hayes tells Tim: "I asked for proper procedure to be followed for

the appeal, which, of course, was not done. The blatant threat you made

against members of this board is completely out of line...If this out of

order ruling on the motion stands then ALL board members are under threat

if they make a motion that may or may not be to your liking....Instead of

facilitating the smooth transaction of business, which is a duty of the

chair, you seem especially bent on hindering that process through improper

rulings and, now, outright threats against members of this board."

Regarding the parliamentary procedure question, she says "The second part

of your call for a vote on PP is out order. There was no motion, no

second and no discussion. Now stating that it is only a question only

makes it all the more so... Voting on it, either way, would imply that

this was a proper thing for you do, which it was not. This issue is

already addressed by the Bylaws."

===

Changes In The Air Corner: Looks like MyFamily.com is beginning to look

at making changes to RootsWeb. A survey has been mailed from the

"survey@myfamily.com " address to a select group of Ancestry and Root$web

users asking questions about the Ancestry WorldTree and the Root$web

Worldconnect project. The survey starts "You have been selected to

participate in a brief survey about your experience with RootsWeb.com.

Your responses will remain confidential and will help us gain valuable

feedback to help us enhance the site." Its a standard multiple choice

questionnaire and these are the questions: "1. Approximately how many

individuals have you entered into your family tree? 2. For how long have

you been tracing or researching your family's history? 3. How often do

you visit Ancestry.com? 4. Are you familiar with the Ancestry World Tree?

5. What do you think the Ancestry World Tree is? 6. Do you find the

name, Ancestry World Tree, descriptive of what it does? 7. How often do

you visit RootsWeb.com? 8. Are you familiar with the RootsWeb

WorldConnect Project? 9. What do you think the RootsWeb WorldConnect

Project is? 10. Do you find the name, RootsWeb WorldConnect Project,

descriptive of what it does? 11. Which of the following names best

describes this feature: A collection of family trees created by family

historians, made available free for searching and viewing in one central

location. 12. Which of the following Internet sites do you use more than

once a month? [Choices for this one are: RootsWeb.com, FamilySearch.org,

Ancestry.com, Cyndislist.com, Genealogy.com, KindredKonnections.com,

FamilyTreeMaker.com, USGenWeb.com, Other]"

===

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so

certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."

---Bertrand Russell

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Fri Sep 22 15:13:01 2000

Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 15:13:00 -0400 (EDT)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

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

Subject: DBS--correction

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000922150731.6976B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

I have been kindly notified that I have mixed up my Richards. Both have

voted and the counts on the votes are currently:

Appeal: 5 yes, 1 no [voted so far: Ken Short, Ginger Hayes, Joe Zsedeny,

Holly Timm, Richard Howland, Richard Harrison]

Parliamentary question: 1 yes, 1 abstain, 1 "present" [responded so far,

Ken Short, Richard Howland, Richard Harrison]

I apologize for any confusion and to both Richards for mixing them up. <g>

-Teresa

merope@radix.net

From merope@Radix.Net Sat Sep 23 07:48:39 2000

Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 07:48:38 -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.SV4.3.96.1000923064331.21292A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

Get it while it's hot...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Friday 22 September 2000:

Voting proceeds on the appeal of Tim's ruling that Ellen's motion was out

of order. Thus far, 7 Board members have voted "yes" and 1 has voted

"no".

Teri Pettit notes that she will not be voting on the parliamentary

procedure question, but attempts to provide a useful answer to Tim's

"honest desire for clarification." She says: ""...I think we should

recognize that the traditional codifications of Parliamentary Procedure

can be unwieldly for email meetings which are constantly in session, and

that the rules should be interpreted in the spirit of enabling the

business to proceed in an orderly and expeditious manner, rather than

delaying or obstructing it. The concept of "open for discussion" is

especially vague in email meetings. For example, if messages have been

flying back and forth about a motion, I don't find it absolutely necessary

to rule the senders of those motions out-of-order just because they were

discussing something not officially opened for discussion....If there is

nothing else on the table, and the only reason the discussion hasn't been

officially opened is that the chair hasn't got around to it yet, Board

members should not feel they have to remain mum....Appeals are

particularly problematical, because of the delays that can be up to a week

between when a point of order or appeal is raised and when it is even

acknowledged by the chair. RRoO don't shed much light on this situation.

They often specify steps 1-2-3-4 that must be followed when faced with

disagreements on points of order, and don't take into account the

impracticality of trying to do that when each step may take five or more

elapsed days. I think in such situations we should nearly always rule

towards putting the core motion on the table and voting on it, even if it

means bypassing some of the steps of an appeal, such as the discussion

period...So I sometimes think we do need to be somewhat relaxed about our

adherence to the technicalities of RRoO. But the decisions should never be

based on what is convenient to those with the most votes or the positions

most similar to one's own, they should concern themselves solely with

whether the procedure makes the Project's business run more smoothly and

more democratically."

===

Off the Hook Corner: The DBS staff will be away for the weekend. Unless

we turn out to have free local phone calls at the hotel, we'll see you all

on Monday!

===

"A country is considered the more civilized the more the wisdom and

efficiency of its laws hinder a weak man from becoming too weak or a

powerful one too powerful."

---Primo Levi

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------