Apr 10-16 2000

From merope@Radix.Net Mon Apr 10 00:07:57 2000

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 00:07:56 -0400 (EDT)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

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

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

Subject: Late Breaking News

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000409230858.26498A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: RO

X-Status:

DBS Late Breaking News...Get it while its hot!

Mergers and Acquisitions Corner: John Schunk, of SK Publications [upon

whose generosity both the Census Project and the Archives Census Project

depend heavily] has recently proposed a "solution" to the census issue.

It appears to be in good faith and is quite simple, having only two

points:

"1) The USGW Census Project remains the Census Project and functions as

outlined in the Bylaws. Its purpose is get census transcriptions in the

USGW Archives, but it is an autonomous project...The USGW Archives Census

Project ceases to exist as such.

2) Maggie Stewart-Zimmerman becomes Coordinator of the USGW Census

Project...CP (Census Project) personnel are retained, but ACP (Archives

Census Project) File Managers are also welcomed to be integrated into the

Census Project structure. Ron is allowed to select what leadership role

he would like to perform in the Census Project."

According to Joy Fisher, one of the Board members privy to this proposal,

"Many of us accepted his proposal with certain modifications or

stipulations. Ron rejected it. He has not budged one bit from his "my way

or no way"." [These "certain modifications or stipulations" remain

unknown to me at this time, but I will bet a census transcription that

one of them includes retaining the name "the Archives Census Project".]

According to Ron, he rejected the proposal because it violates the wishes

of the Census Project volunteers, who recently elected him as their

coordinator and as their choice for their Board representative. Ron says,

"I offered to my constituents that I would step down and move out of the

way if they wanted to just turn everything over to the Archives. They

resoundingly rejected that idea and so I will honor their wishes." Ron

also noted that although this proposal has been under discussion for some

time, he had seen no response from Tim Stowell, Maggie, or Linda, and had

no idea what their position on the proposal might be. However, he says,

Tim _did_ contact him privately after John made his proposal and "told him

the score" and that "He and Linda and Maggie have already made an

agreement but it had to be on the grounds that I [Ron] accept."

According to Ron, "They have made a pact that if I will go away peaceably

and turn the Project over to Maggie that Tim will do everything he can to

expedite me being assigned to the Board." He says he's willing to talk but

"this deal was already done before we started talking." In his opinion, a

Board seat is not worth the price of selling out his volunteers.

Joy Fisher and Linda Lewis deny any knowledge of any such "pact", although

Linda Lewis has noted that that, while she has recommended to her

representative that Ron should be seated as the CP rep, "Board rep and

project coordinator are two different things." John Schunk _specifically_

recommends the CP representative seat as Ron's "leadership role" in the

Census Project. Other Board members involved in this proposal, including

Tim Stowell and Maggie Stewart-Zimmerman, have so far declined to comment.

More news as it develops; it's sure to get more interesting.

-Teresa

merope@radix.net

From merope@Radix.Net Mon Apr 10 14:31:35 2000

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 14:31:34 -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.SV4.3.96.1000409180734.5384B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: RO

X-Status:

Here it comes to save the day!...its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* editorial content raging out of control. Read at your own risk!

Sunday 9 April 2000:

In response to GingerH's question as to why the vote has not been

called on Motion 00-8, Holly Fee Timm notes that "the volume of email

being received and needing to be read and digested and some replied to is

to me part of the discussion." She says she is "no where near ready to

vote" and the opinions of the Board members are of less interest to her

than figuring out those of her constituency, "not just those who are

bombarding the lists and the board members."

Jim Powell calls the question.

Pam Reid agrees with Holly that more discussion is warranted but wants to

vote on Motion 00-8. She notes "The concerns expressed by everyone in the

Project, from Census Project I and II members, to Board members, to

volunteer transcribers, to the general constituency, can all be addressed

in the discussion of Motion 00-6."

Pam also notes that the first thing the Board should do is seat a CP rep.

She asks "Can we do something about that today? Or, as soon as is humanly

possible?"

Teri Pettit agrees with Pam that the Board should "vote on Motion 00-8 and

then seat a Census Rep and then vote on Motion 00-6, in that order," using

Tim Stowell's recent series of census merger talks as guidance. She

points out though, that "Motion 00-8 is NOT a vote on the question "Should

the non-Archives Census Project be delinked from the National Pages?" It

is specifically a vote on whether the National Coordinator's unlinking of

the Census Project should be reversed because the proper procedures for

the delinking of a project as outlined in Article VI, Section 5 were not

followed." She points out that in order to start that process, a separate

motion would be required.

Joe Zsedeny agrees with Teri that it would take a new motion to delink the

Census Project.

Teri asks if they can ask Richard Howland to restate his original motion,

noting that she is "especially concerned that the presence of the word

"confirm" in Rich's second sentence is potentially misleading if it were

to appear in the text of the motion." She suggests rewording the motion

thus:

"The National Coordinator's delinking of the Census Project not being done

according to the procedures laid out in Article VI, Section 5, all link to

and mentions of the Census Project from pages of the national web site

shall be promptly restored to their state as of 4 April 2000."

She asks if the return of the URL's to their states before Tim messed with

them is implicit in Motion 00-8 or does it need to explicitly stated.

His Serene Highness Tim Stowell begins to post merger discussions from the

November-December round of talks [this series of events is covered in the

chapter of the USGW Project History page at

http://www.radix.net/~merope/history/chaptr5a.htm]. However, one of the

messages that he includes is from Ron Eason and dated Jul 1998; in it Ron

credits Linda Lewis with envisioning the Census Project and thanks both

its leaders [Ken Hollingsworth and Kay Mason] for their "tireless

efforts" on its behalf.

===

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad

people will find a way around the laws."

---Plato

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Tue Apr 11 23:06:46 2000

Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 23:06:45 -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.SV4.3.96.1000411135435.12920A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

Batten down the hatches...its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* editorial content by the bucketful. Read at your own risk!

Tuesday 11 April 2000:

His Serene Highness Tim Stowell tells Jim Powell that his call for the

previous question is dead for lack of a second. He then cites Section 16

of his version of RRoO entitled "EQUAL APPLICATION OF RULES TO COLLOQUIAL

FORMS SUCH AS "CALL FOR THE QUESTION," which notes that using nonstandard

ways to call for an immediate vote are still covered under the all the

usual rules that pertain to such motions. In particular, Tim points out

the provision "A member who has spoken twice on a particular question on

the same day has exhausted his right to debate that question for that

day" [from page 42, but referred to in section 16. Its unclear why HSH

points out this provision, since he has already declared Jim's motion dead

for a perfectly legitimate reason, unless he is putting the Board on

notice that each member will be limited to speaking twice each day on a

particular issue. Which ought to go over real well.]

Jim asks if "our esteemed NC" called for a second and again calls for the

question and calls for a second himself. [It is, after all, a new day.]

His motion is seconded by Ginger Cisewski.

Tim posts his "Why I Delinked the Census Project" manifesto. According to

this, he delinked the CP for the following reasons: 1) Copyright

violation: the CP continues to use pages without the permission of their

creator [Holly Fee Timm] and hasn't made changes to their web pages that

Tim has asked them to make fast enough to suit him; also, he dared to

call himself "National Coordinator" of the Census Project; 2) failure to

answer email in a timely fasion; Tim says "several complaints of not

getting answers from the CP", he just began misdirecting the inquiries to

the ACP; 3) "failure to negotiate in good faith for a merger of the CP and

the ACP [incredibly, he supports this by citing every time that Ron and

the CP have stepped to the table to negotiate.] Tim claims that Ron

continues "to demand more and more, refused to concede anything, says he

wants to talk but does not show ANY form of compromise other than to

continually whine that the CP gives up everything the ACP nothing."

According to Tim, the CP "is NOT the original project but is in fact the

pirated project and pirated name. The ACP IS the Original project but

obviously had to change it's name when it's files / name were stolen."

He says that Ron is asking the Board to validate "Kay's theft of the

files and his continuance of those actions." Noting the difficulty of

continuing to deal with someone who won't take An Offer You Can't

Refuse [see below], Tim says "It was time to take the bull by the horns."

Ginger Hayes responds with "At this point the why of your actions is

irrelevant. The fact is that you had no authority to act as you

did without a full vote of the board." She again points out that the

bylaws clearly charge the Board with that responsibility and that no one

person has or should have that authority. She notes that his actions

affect the project at every level and points out "Tomorrow you could

decide to delink a couple of states because you perceive them to be in

violation of something."

Tim asks Jim if he is aware that other Board members wish to continue the

disucssion and does he not respect their wishes in that matter?

However, the question has been called [so to speak] and seconded, he opens

the floor for a vote, saying "This vote is only to determine whether or

not discussion shall continue regarding Motion 00-8, it is NOT a vote on

Motion 00-8. Voting YES means that you wish discussion to cease on the

Motion in question; Voting NO means that you wish discussion to continue

on the Motion in question; Voting Abstain means that you don't care either

way." [actually, that is not what abstaining means, but whatever.] He

reminds the Board that this motion requires a 2/3 majority to pass. Thus

far, three Board members have voted "yes".

In casting his vote, Jim Powell, [a bit more fiery than we are used to]

says that this is getting absurd, and why doesn't Tim just let the Board

vote on the Motion to override the delinking. He votes yes to cease

discussion and votes yes again twice more "Just in case the unwanted

commentary clouded my vote."

Ginger Hayes tells Tim his comments are uncalled for and recommends that

he "review the role of a Chair in a meeting." She notes that his recent

actions "clearly demonstrate that you have no respect for this board or

it's function."

===

Dance With the Devil Corner: The bluebird of happiness is back and

left me a little present. It does indeed appear that during the recent

negotiations regarding the John Schunk proposal, Tim Stowell made the

following offer to Ron Eason:

"If you will accept John's proposal and if the agreement is signed by all

parties - Margaret Stewart for USGenWeb Archives Census Project, Ron Eason

for USGenWeb Census Project, Linda Lewis for USGenWeb Archives, John

Schunk for S-K Publications and Tim Stowell for USGenWeb Project - and if

that signed agreement is made public to the world in return I shall press

for your immediate seating to the AB...Maggie, Linda and I have agreed to

this arrangement."

This is a direct quote from an email [which I have in its entirety] sent

from Tim to Ron on April 8, 2000. In an email I received from Tim a

short time ago in response to a direct question in this matter [and more

less quoting the paragraph above] Tim says "The only thing I said to Ron

about Maggie and Linda was that they had accepted John's proposal. As far

as I know they had no knowledge of any thing else I said to Ron." [Then

this will come as a surprise to them as well.] At least he didn't go so

far as to actually _promise_ to seat Ron; that would have required another

Executive Order.

Follow the Bouncing Ball Corner: John Schunk has been kind enough to post

his proposal and the ensuing correspondence online so that you all may see

how the latest attempt to bring the two census projects together failed:

http://home.kscable.com/jschunk/usgw.html [It does not, alas, include the

correspondence quoted above.]

===

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,

it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute

new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing

its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their

Safety and Happiness."

---Declaration of Independence

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Wed Apr 12 08:31:26 2000

Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 08:31:25 -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.SV4.3.96.1000412060553.3015A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

Grabbing the bull by the horns...its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* contains editorial content. Do not operate heavy machinery and

read at your own risk!

Tuesday April 11 2000-Wednesday April 12 2000:

Voting proceeds on Jim's call of the question. Thus far 10 Board members

have voted Yes. [I believe this is both a quorum _and_ a 2/3 majority.

Regardless of how anyone else votes, the call of the question has passed.]

His Serene Highness Tim Stowell tells Jim that according to RRoO the

motion to call the previous question "must be voted upon and 2/3 vote is

required for the discussion to cease and the Motion [00-8] to be voted

upon." He also reminds Jim that "votes to be counted are to be free of

comment. In other words just say YES, NO or ABSTAIN when you vote. If

you wish to comment, please send it in a seperate [sic] note."

Pam Reid tells Tim that she did not ask for more time on the vote for

Motion 00-8; rather she urged the Board to "VOTE soon, seat a Census Rep

and then move on to the discussion of Motion 00-6."

Tim says he stands corrected; Holly Fee Timm and Ginger Cisewski

previously requested more time and GingerC has now "repealed" her request

by voting yes on the motion to call the question.

GingerC says she did not ask for more time to discuss Motion 00-8.

Jim Powell votes "yes" again on the motion to call the question, in case

his previous three votes were not counted.

===

Vox Populi Corner: Continuing comment on the delinking and Tim's

explanation of why he delinked the Census Project:

"One man's opinions of past events is not a valid reasons for tyranny. The

USGenWeb has an elected Advisory board to prevent such rash actions. You

have overstepped your authority. Stop talking about my last efforts to

solve this dilemma. What started out as an honest talk between two

concerned people was turned into another Archives dictatorship of the

Census Project...To negotiate is to openly talk about all of the issues at

hand in order to come to terms or reach an agreement. This never happened.

Every issue was dictated by the Archives. Even to the point of replacing

the Census Project's elected leadership. The Census Project was willing to

accept *some* of the ruling decisions handed down by the Archives, but the

demanded submission finally reached a point of extremes and the merger

ended. The attempt to remove the Census Project from the Special Project

status has never been acceptable and still isn't. Please get your facts

straight...The USGenWeb Census Project is a Special Project as described in the

bylaws. The bylaws give this project the right to elect their leadership

and representation on the advisory board. You have denied the project and

hundreds of transcription volunteers of their rights. The USGenWeb bylaws

clearly state that The Census Project is on equal status with the

Archives. To deny this is futile."

---Sue Soden, to the Board

"Way to go, Tim! I applaud you for cutting through the BS and taking

decisive action! Sometimes breaking the law is the only way to accomplish

a greater good. Too bad the AB didn't make the move first and that not

all members are behind you now... For the record, I think you chose the

wrong project --after many months of trying to get some kind of response,

the first person who helped me in any way was Veda Mendoza who was

affiliated with the "renegade" CP-- but that's neither here nor there now

and I stand behind your choice... I hope there'll never be an Exec Order

#2! One bold ploy is enough!"

---B.J. Smothers, USGENWEB-ALL

"IT stands to reason that if the CP should be delinked, that perhaps the

ACP should as well. They are not without a blemish either. 1. The ACP

(the Archives and Linda Lewis) blatantly ignrored the "strong

recommendation" by the board to quit transcribing census data and leave

it up to the CP....2. Continued to use copyrighted pages and images

without consent (in fact, with objection if Sue Soden remembers)for up to

9 months before making their own pages and images to replace them. 3.

Refuses to allow volunteers to remove their files from the Archives when

requested, although the copyright belongs to them...4. The ACP has never

been the recognized census project by the AB (until recently) or the USGW

Project....5. Failing to negotiate a settlement as set out by the recent

motion by the AB. They have given a list of demands but have not been open

to negotiating or compromising.... Since the Archives is behind

all of this (the ACP is an archive project), then the Archives is just as

guilty of these things. Shall we delink the Archives too? The Archives has

not allowed the CP to function as an independent special project that the

by laws state they are. This is interference of one special project with

another....There are just as many reason for delinking the ACP and

Archives as the NC believes there are to delink the CP. Just something to

ponder."

---Stacey Orchard, former ACP coordinator, to the Board

"If copyright law were to be appealed to before a judge, with the

evidence being the location of Web pages which were produced in the

implementation of a militantly non-profit project, she would have to

rule that no one was or could have been monetarily damaged, that the

pages in question were likely not copyrightable in the first place, and

that they had in any case been donated to the project in the first

instance. Any subsequent use of them by the project has to be okay,

and she would tell a putative plaintiff to take a hike."

--John Ashmun, on copyright as a "red herring", USGENWEB-NEW-L

"IMO it seems the Census problem was addressed last year. Linda Lewis

(still admire her work) refused to acknowledge the board's request to stop

the duplication of work and the competition. The NC has chosen to go

against the Board, the By-laws, and stated goals of the USGW. NC, AB,

and Linda Lewis. If you are going to change the policies of USGW, Could

you put it in writing... like by-law changes and policy statements and

not illegal actions?"

---"Bookstorelady", USGWNWEB-ALL

"I was also told that the initial table layout was created by Phil

Beshear and his wife when they created the CART Program and the job of

setting up the tables after that was given to Holly...Kay felt there

wasn't a problem and when the arguing started over everyone getting thier

name in lights on who's pages I thought the best thing to do was remove

names and make the copyright to the Project. Since everyone has at one

time helped the Project then they can get their reward throught the

Project...HTML coding is generic. You can't make tables without using

the same coding as the other guy and they can't, vice-versa....In a court

of law the claim of copyright on that issue would probably be mute."

---Ron Eason, to the Board

"If it's time to take the bull by the horns then why didn't you let the

Advisory Board do THEIR job? I've looked around at the by-laws and see

the section that gives the AB the right to delink, not you, the NC... is

there something in the by-laws, that I've missed, that gives the National

Coordinator the right to delink?"

---Debi Kendrick

"I most definitely disagree with Tim's statement that the CP is NOT the

original project. The CP is the original and continuing project. The ACP

Census Project did not start until well after Kay moved the project. Kay

did not steal the files, she rescued them. And as far as delinking, I

think it is time for TIM to be delinked."

---Connie Burkett, USGENWEB-ALL

===

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The

Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good

intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they

mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be

masters."

---Daniel Webster

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Thu Apr 13 06:02:40 2000

Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 06:02:39 -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, part I

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000412162532.1899A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

Working my fingers to the bone...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Wednesday 12 April 2000:

Voting finishes on the motion to call the question, with all 15 Board

members voting and all Board members voting in the affirmative.

Teri Pettit jokingly tells Jim Powell "How disrespectful of your fellow

Board Members to introduce a motion that passed unanimously within 11

hours," and reminds him that it disturbs them all greatly when they agree

on something. [It can only be a disturbance in the Force <g>]

Joe Zsedeny has been reflectin' again. He tells the board "there just

ain't gonna be an agreement between the parties to solve this mess. If

Shari's motion is passed it will be ignored by both sides...The ACP is a

special project of the Archives. The CP was originally THE Archives

Census Project. It was pirated away by Kay, the privateer. In the

meantime, the ByLaws arose out of the mists to sanction a Census Project.

The CP fills that role now because the ACP is an Archives special

project." He suggests a workaround: "Let the CP continued as they are.

Let the ACP continue as they are....Insure that both projects answer email

from transcribers and others in a timely fashion...The first to receive a

message from a transcriber puts that person to work for their respective

project and the other stays the hell out of THAT particular transcriber's

business so that John Schunk doesn't have to send two CDs. The CP puts up

a front page with only their transcriber information including the

completed transcriptions, as they do now, and furnishes copies to the

Archives, as they do now. The Acp puts up a front page with ALL

transcriptions (but only ACP transcribers), including indexes...and etc."

He points out that there is enough work for two census projects and that

the Archives must receive all the files in order to fulfill their role as

the Digital Library. According to him, his solution would satisfy egos on

both sides and he hopes that "those in the trenches doing the work for

both projects ignore any ego driven leadership from both projects and work

together to satisfy the goal of getting the census online."

Pam Reid notes that "The ONLY reason that there is Census Special Project

in the bylaws is because Kay fought her way onto to Board and the

committee and made sure it was worded that way. She had a plan LONG

before it was put into effect." Pam thinks that Kay is probably also the

reason the Archives are listed as a Special Project [Pam feels this is in

error]. She reminds the Board that she started the Tombstone Project

herself and gave it to the USGW because she "believed so deeply in the

USGenWeb Project and the accomplishments being made and had no interest in

be "in charge" or "powerful"." Transcriptions from the TP have always

gone to the Archives.

Joe posts a note from a transcriber, and notes that "those in the

trenches" aren't aware of all the fighting and "just want to transcribe

and contribute." He says "This mess is all bound up with the "managers".

Remove the top and it all goes away....If the "managers" want to fight let

them do it in private."

Teri Pettit once again explains how she views the Archives Project

[people] and the Project Archives [files]:

"USGenWeb Project Archives = USGenWeb Digital Library = files, not people

USGenWeb Census Project = a Special Project, composed of volunteers

who focus on getting census transcriptions submitted to the USGenWeb

Project Archives

USGenWeb Tombstone Project = a Special Project, composed of volunteers

who focus on getting cemetery transcriptions submitted to the USGenWeb

Project Archives

USGenWeb Archives Project = a Special Project, composed of volunteers

who act as custodians for the USGenWeb Project Archives, and who also

coordinate volunteers to gather for submission content of miscellaneous

types not covered under any other Special Project (including scanned

images, even if they are images of censuses or tombstones.)"

She notes that the 3 SPs "are of equal status under the ByLaws, and none

is subordinate to the other. None of them can vote in each other's

elections, or have any say in choosing each other's leaders." She

recognizes the Archives' "special responsibility"; whereas the other SPs

"focus on providing content, the Archives Project focuses on storing that

content and facilitating access to it." It is her opinion that this was

the intent of the Bylaws and also of Motion 99-4 [which has been

rescinded]. She hopes that "on any matters requiring a coordination

between two special projects, the volunteers of each would work together

to come up a solution that worked for everyone." She also suggests that

the SPs should be encouraged to duplicate files wherever possible, but

notes that "such backup directories or supplementary indexes would not

substitute for the primary obligation of the Special Project to submit any

plain text files it generates to the USGenWeb Project Archives."

She gives the following url for more of her thoughts on the Archives:

http://www.best.com/~tpettit/usgenweb/ArchivesQA.html

[Teri puts a lot of thought into this idea of hers and is routinely

ignored by the rest of the Board. Which is really too bad.]

Richard Howland announces that he's created a chat room called

#USGW-Census at irc.rootsweb.com [presumably for Board members only] to

come and chat about the issue. Teri asks he can post a log of the chat,

since she cannot attend.

===

continued in part II...

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

From merope@Radix.Net Thu Apr 13 19:34:13 2000

Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 19:34:11 -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, part II

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000413060244.5187A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

Running with a dangerous crowd...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Wednesday 12 Apr 2000:

[Please note that the following messages are not in order. There are a

number of separate conversations ongoing, and I've tried to group them

that way rather than chronologically.]

His Serene Highness Tim Stowell says "Discussion period is at an end by

more or less unanimous consent as two or three members ignored the

statement not to include comments with their vote." He tells them if they

wish to make statements to do so in a separate email as he will throw out

votes that are accompanied by comments and the offending Board member will

be asked to vote again. He opens the vote on Motion 00-8, to over ride

the NC's delinking of the Census Project. A yes vote means "the NC

overstepped authority and that the link should be restored for the CP," a

no vote means "a vote of no means that the NC is within bounds and that

the CP should remained de-linked," and abstention means "you are

ambivalent on this issue". [*sigh* an absention could mean so many

things...]

Thus far 7 Board members have voted yes, and 5 have voted no.

In a separate note following his vote, Joe Zsedeny says that although he

can think of cases in which an NC could delink a project on his or her own

initiative he doesn't believe this case qualifies. He notes "The ByLaws

are quite clear on delinking, the Board makes that decision. If the Board

members feel that the CP should be delinked it should be done in a

separate motion. " He stresses that his vote indicated "only that the

delinking was illegal" and not that he agrees or disagrees whether the CP

should be delinked.

Teri says she disagrees with Joe on whether there would be cases where the

NC could delink a project on his or her own. Teri says "Even if a site

were so flagrantly in violation of the ByLaws that the National

Coordinator was absolutely 100% sure that the Board would unanimously

agree on delinking the page...the ByLaws *still* say that the decision

would be up to the Advisory Board, not the NC or the webmaster." She notes

that this provision of the bylaws is there to make sure that "any

delinking happens for reasons that are clear-cut and important enough to

convince 2/3 of the Advisory Board." She asks those who voted "no" to

explain their reasoning to her and points out that "Nothing about what the

Census Project did or did not do is the slightest bit relevant to this

question. It is only about how you came to the conclusion that the ByLaws

permit the National Coordinator to delink a project site on his or her own

initiative." She asks them to tell her if they believe the bylaws

give the National Coordinator the authority to delink the Archives Project

if it were committing a clear and serious violation of the bylaws, and if

they do believe so, why?

Joe gives Teri an example of a situation in which the NC would want to

delink a website as soon as possible, without waiting "48 hours to

endlessly discuss it and vote on it or even two hours," and in these

extreme cases "the NC would be justified in delinking immediately."

However, he notes that the case at hand [Executive Order 2000E-1] the

Board should make the decision to delink; as he points out "If we can

trash the ByLaws succeeding Boards or anyone else can also."

GingerC says she agrees with Joe and says that to sanction Tim's action

is equivalent to giving the same power to any future NC. She notes that

"At some future point, an NC could even decide to delink the Tombstone

Project or the Archives themselves, the Board at that time would have no

way to prevent it."

Betsy Mills reminds GingerC that she had previously asked RootsLady not to

post messages while a vote is ongoing and says it is against the rules of

Parliamentary Procedure. She says "It does seem that some folks only want

to apply Parliamentary Procedure to the "other" folks and not to

themselves."

Barbara Dore says she's been "checking the reasons" that Tim presented as

why he delinked the Census Project. She's put together a web page for us

at: http://lest-we-forget.com/census/ [Hey, its worth visiting just for

the giggle factor alone. Just remember, Rootslady is notorious for shoddy

research. This page, for example, contains little more than a weird

collection of disjointed unattributed quotes, sound bites from known

Archives supporters, and her own opinions presented as fact. In some of

the items she quotes, its not even clear which census project the person

is angry at.]

Ginger Cisewski reminds Barbara that the ongoing vote "is simply on

whether Tim had the authority to delink anyone since the Bylaws clearly

give that authority to the Board alone." She asks that the group stick to

the item being voted and continue discussion when the vote is completed.

Teri Pettit also tells Barbara that while her web page will be useful

when the Board resumes debate on the census issue, the board is currently

"voting only on whether the NC has the authority to delink a project."

She notes that even obvious violations of the bylaws would require

notification by the Advisory Board and a two week period to allow the

offending page to come into compliance.

Rich tells Teri he forgot to log the #USGW-Census chat.

===

We Have Spoken Corner: Pam Reid has added a new page to the Votes section

[which is now renamed to "Board Votes & Executive Orders"] to the national

webpages at: http://www.usgenweb.org/official/exec-orders-00.html. It

contains the following paragraph:

"Executive Orders, in the Federal Government, are orders made by the

President that bypass Congress. The USGenWeb Project Bylaws do not deal

with Executive Orders and there is some question as to whether or not

they are legal within our set-up. The Bylaws are written so as to have

the Board make any important decision, as a group. We are NOT at this

point sure if an Executive Order is allowable. Our current National

Coordinator has issued and Executive Order and that Order is currently

being challenged and voted on by the Board."

===

"When the government's boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot

or a right boot is of no consequence."

---Gary Lloyd

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Fri Apr 14 07:34:45 2000

Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 07:34:44 -0400 (EDT)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

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

To: USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org, Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>

Subject: News Flash--Motion 00-8

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000413103105.25897B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

The Board has voted 8 to 7 NOT to override Tim Stowell's illegal per the

bylaws action of delinking the USGenWeb Census Project. [Because of the

wording of this motion 10 yes votes would have been required to overturn

the delinking.]

Betsy Mills has moved that the board ratify Tim's action and that motion

[00-9] has been seconded and is now open for discussion.

-Teresa

merope@radix.net

From merope@Radix.Net Fri Apr 14 08:12:35 2000

Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 08:12:34 -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.SV4.3.96.1000414073551.9894B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: RO

X-Status:

With much wailing and gnashing of teeth...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Thursday 13 April 2000 [a day that will live in infamy]:

Gloria Mayfield tells the Board that she was curious way back in October

and November why Tim thought he could handle the census issue himself and

failed to bring the Board in on it then. But, she notes "t was not HIS

problem but when he failed to pull it off, He handled the situation HIS

WAY. This looks to me, like Tim considers the USGenWeb to be a "One Man

Operation." He had plenty of time and whether he liked the outcome or

not, it was not in his RIGHTS (Read the ByLaws) to make the decision to

delink anything. This action was a mockery of the BOARD." [Yes, it was.

But Tim has a legacy to consider and he once told me, months ago, that he

considered bringing the two census projects together would be his finest

achievement as NC.]

Voting on Motion 00-8 is over. The final count is 7 yes votes and 8 no

votes. The illegal action of the NC to delink the Census Project is NOT

overturned.

Prior to voting Barbara Dore gives her reasons for voting "no" on

overturning Tim's action. She asks if there was cause for the delinking

and if so did the NC have the responsibility and authority to delink the

CP. She's basically decided there was cause, so the only real issue is

whether the NC could legally take the action he did. [She's basically

already decided that too, but at least she goes through the motions of

justifying it using the bylaws]. As did Tim, she also cites the "day to

day" clause and notes "We have nothing to tell us what ALL might be

included in "day-to-day" administration so that is left open to

interpretation....If the NC does anything that is not specifically

mentioned above, the rest of board has the responsibility to bring it to a

vote if necessary." She also notes that among the Board's

responsibilities is the timely addressing of any problems that may arise

and notes that the Board has thus far failed to address the many issues

arising from the Census Project leaving the Archives, including the moving

the files, closing the mailing lists, and violation of Holly Fee Timm's

copyright. She thinks that "To this very day those issues have not been

dealt with except by Tim in his "cause" for his Executive Order

2000-01...I think you can see by Tim's EO... he fulfilled his

responsibility and effectively said... "here... now this board WILL HAVE

to take responsibility by either overturning my EO or upholding it and

even if I'm overturned I have put it in this board's lap." As far as the

Board having the ultimate authority to delink a project, she feels "that

Tim had given notice to Ron and he accepted the responsibility to delink."

[she's gone way out on a limb with this one. There is no evidence

whatsoever that Tim or the Board had given due notice to the CP of its

failure "to meet the established guidelines/standards for The USGenWeb

Project" and started the 2 week clock.]

Betsy Mills moves "that the board ratify the National Coordinator's

delinking of the Census Project." Tina Vickery seconds it, the NC numbers

it Motion 00-9 and opens the floor for discussion.

===

History Marches On Corner: A new chapter has been added to the USGebWeb

Project History. This one covers the merger proposal mediated by John

Schunk of SK Publications and can be found at:

http://www.radix.net/~merope/history/chaptr5b.htm

Also, the chapter on National Coordinators has been updated to reflect

current events [Tim Stowell's entry is at the bottom]:

http://www.radix.net/~merope/history/chapter4.htm

===

"Never was a government that was not composed of liars, malefactors and

thieves."

---Cicero, last Free Consul of Rome

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Sat Apr 15 10:35:54 2000

Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:35:53 -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.SV4.3.96.1000415075705.2118A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

A voice crying in the wilderness...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Friday 14 April 2000:

Shari Handley says she doesn't understand what the purpose of Motion 00-9

is, since to ratify is "to approve and sanction formally." She says, "I

understand that with 00-8, the board chose *not* to overturn the NC's

action, but is that not effectively the same as ratifying it?" She also

notes that what the Board was done with Motion 00-8 is set a precedent:

"Instead of requiring a 2/3rds majority of the board to PASS an important

action, as I am quite sure the framers of the bylaws intended, we now will

need a 2/3rds majority to KEEP an unwanted action from passing."

Joe Zsedeny says Shari has a good point, and he feels "motion sickness

coming on again."

Shari moves to amend Betsy's motion to read as follows: "Recognizing that

the bylaws give the board final authority over any delinking action, I

move that the board ratify the NC's delinking of Census II, and that any

similar actions by the NC will need to be ratified by a majority vote of

the board in the future." [a bold rewriting of the bylaws there!]

Tim asks if there is a second on the motion to amend or if Betsy Mills

agrees to it, and Beetsy seconds the motion to amend. Tim opens the floor

on the "amended Motion 00-9." [Actually he probably means to open the

floor for discussion of the amendment; the motion itself is not amended

until the Board approves the amendment.]

Teri Pettit notes that the second clause appears to violate the bylaws by

1) referring to a "majority vote" when "The ByLaws state that all motions

require a 2/3 majority;" and 2) "The ByLaws state that delinking requires

a decision by the Advisory Board, and THEN after the decision is made 2

weeks formal advance notice that the site is non-compliant before any

delinking occurs. A "similar action" would be if a National Coordinator

again delinked a site without a vote of the Advisory Board. The ByLaws do

not allow such an decision to be made by a National Coordinator first,

and then ratified after the fact by the Advisory Board." She notes that

if either of these changes are desired by the Board they would need to

amend the bylaws.

Joe Zsedeny notes "This motion proposes to ratify a clearly illegal

action." He cannot in good conscience support such an illegal action. He

notes that the Board has already set a dangerous precedent and Motion 00-9

only makes it worse. He again points out that "The act of delinking by

the NC and delinking are two separate issues. To say I support your

illegal action but don't do it again is irresponsible." He suggest the

motion read "I condemn your illegal action and move that the CP be

relinked," and then a motion to delink should be made. A motion to delink

may or may not pass, but at least the Board would be deciding the issue.

Jim Powell applauds Joe's message and says "I believe the motion should be

declared out of order as there is no provision for ratifying an illegal

action or for amending the Bylaws in such a round about fashion."

Ginger Cisewski forwards a message from W. David Samuelsen, Secretary of

the World GenWeb. David notes that the WGW has recently received a

request to archive submissions from a USGW county on the condition "that

none of those submissions be submitted to USGenWeb Archives." The WGW

Board members are being kept apprised of the of Census Project situation

and have submitter their preference for "repairing the damage done":

"1. The USGenWeb Advisory Board reaffirms the separation of Archives

Census Project and Census Project reached last year. That is that

ACP continues to add census IMAGES while the CP continues the

transcription.

2. That they stay separate until ALL transcriptions/images are done.

3. That the ACP recognizes the rights of the CP volunteers to elect

their own NC.

4. The ACP recognizes the necessity of the CP's responsibility to

maintain order in the Census Archives, including the links.

5. Restores the mis-directed links.

6. Declare the Motion 00-9 null and void as not being in conforming

to the Bylaws in first place." [He may actually mean Motion 00-8 here.]

[Interesting. It appears that what happens inside USGW is beginning to

negatively impact organizations outside it.]

===

New Direction Corner: The USGenWeb Census Project has update its pages so

there are no more incorrect redirects to Archives Census Project

information. If you wish to link directly to the Census Project you may

use this url: http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgw/census/

Another One Bites The Dust Corner: We are saddened to report that Stacey

Orchard, recently an eloquent promoter of further merger talks between

the CP and ACP, has resigned her position as Oregon Archivist. She cites

the following reasons:

"1. As Coordinator of the Archives, you [Lnda Lewis] seem to be in

control of every special project in the USGenWeb even tho the by laws

state otherwise.

2. You [Linda] will not relinquish control of the Census Project and allow

it to stand as a special project as outlined in the by laws.

3. You [Linda] will not concede on the issue regarding the name of the

census project but insist it care the Archives name, in violation of the

bylaws.

4. You [Linda] quote the bylaws when it supports your thinking but

disregard it when it contradicts you.

5. You [Linda] are not showing good faith in negotiating a merge by not

being able to concede control of the CP."

Stacey notes that "The power stuggle is one sided" and she can no longer

work with a project that is controlled by one person rather than its

volunteers. She says "I want no part of the archives and as I stated

before, any volunteer who want to transcribe or help out at the county

level will have their files in the county directory, not the archives. I

will not upload or in any way support the archives." [Stacey's

short-lived efforts to involved the Board, the CP staff, and the ACP staff

in new merger talks can be read in the Root$web mailing list archives,

CONFERENCE-L.]

Peanut Gallery Corner: Meanwhile, within USGW reaction to the failure of

the Board to overturn Tim's illegal actions and to Motion 00-9 has been,

thus far, all negative. Some comments:

"The action by 8 members of AB in effect uphold Tim Stowell's action to

UNLINK - shows that those 8 are telling us to HELL with the bylaws that

are there in first place....I already read through all the emails John

Shuck posted earlier in the week and it clearly showed one thing - A

STRONG-ARMED ATTEMPT TO TAKE OVER THE CENSUS PROJECT and TAKE AWAY

THE

VOICES OF THE WORKERS INVOLVED, right from the start of the negotiations."

---Davod Samuelsen, USGENWEB-ALL

"I really am disappointed that the board voted against the overturning of

the NC decision to delink although the bylaws state that it an AB

perogative. I guess what this means to all the volunteers of the USGW

Project is that the bylaws are obsolete and none of us have to follow it.

We elect individuals to office whether it be the AB or US/State to uphold

the laws, bylaws or consititution, whichever set they are run by. In this

case, the AB did not uphold the bylaws...With this done, I see no reason

why any volunteer must follow the bylaws if it does not suit their

purpose. My [sic] this decision, you have made that portion of the bylaws

obsolete.... How can volunteers be expected to support the AB when the AB

does not support us or the bylaws?... The point is, we can't trust the AB

to do what is "right" according to the rules they are suppose to follow,

how can we trust the USGW project as a whole? Is it any wonder that many

people have decided to place all their files on their OWN website so that

they can have control? It's a sad day for the USGW project and its

volunteers."

---Stacey Orchard, USGENWEB-ALL

"Delinking is one thing but redirecting pages is entirely another matter.

There is no precendence or rule that says this is legal or any way

sanctioned....This is just another example how the NC can do whatever he

or she wishes without recourse. The AB does not seem to have the ability

to control anyone, not even the NC"

---Stacey Orchard, USGENWEB-ALL

"Personally I have little regard for people who trampled all over the

bylaws.... as witnessed by the latest actions of certain members of the

Advisory Board and the NC"

---Darilee, USGENWEB-ALL

"If I was a betting person I'd say it's just another ploy to drag things

out more interminably than they already have been. Or a case of, "if at

first you don't succeed then try and try again. Absolutely boggles the

mind doesn't it."

---Ginger Hayes, regarding Motion 00-9, USGENWEB-ALL

"This fiasco was not engineered by the leadership of the USGenWeb Archives

Project. Please place the responsibility where it belongs, on Tim Stowell

and the half of the Advisory Board that voted not to reverse his action."

---Teri Pettit, USGENWEB-ALL

"Joe you are right on with your post and procedures. I might not agree

that there should be a delinking in this case, but there is only one way

to go about it if it is to be done. Jim your "common sense" is also good.

I appreciate both your positions."

---Bill Oliver, to the Board

===

"I am so disheartened by the vote results on Motion 00-8 that it almost

makes me cry.

---Teri Pettit, USGENWEB-ALL

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Sun Apr 16 18:34:20 2000

Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 18:34:19 -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.SV4.3.96.1000416080830.1518A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

Right between the eyes...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Saturday 15 Apr 2000:

Pam Reid says that she is at the point where she doesn't know what to

think anymore. She supported Tim Stowell's illegal action to delink the

Census Project and believes the CP "was NOT within USGenWeb guidelines and

MANY attempts had been made by Tim through correspondence with Ron Eason

to rectify the situation. CPII was given MUCH more than the 2 weeks that

the bylaws allow." She says that although everyone is angry that the

bylaws weren't followed, "the bylaws are a poorly written document and

MANY things aren't being done according to the bylaws. The bylaws don't

even name the SPs correctly...wording of the bylaws has gotten us into

hot water many times and the naming of Projects has been one serious

flaw." She worries that a CP rep will never be seated and Motion 00-6 will

never be discussed or come to a vote. The Board is at a standstill and

she thinks that "The bylaws need to be rewritten and some very basic

things need to be agreed upon. The Board has its hands tied much of the

time and when ANY action is taken, that action is criticized anywhere and

everywhere." She says she has no answer and her brain is in an uproar.

Jim Powell forwards a message from Ellen Pack to the Board regarding yet

another proposal for resolving the Census problem. [see below]

Ginger Hays says that Ellen's idea is excellent, and "it would behoove us

all to pay attention. This project, after all, does belong to the

volunteers."

===

We Don't Need No Stinking Copyright Corner: David Samuelsen has joined

the growing ranks of those who have submitted their work to the USGW

Census Project and are now demanding that the Archives Census Project

remove it from their directories. He says "Found out today that the

Archives Census Project made copy of my Grant County, Oregon 1870 Census

transcription WITHOUT my permission! I submitted it to Census Project...

Nowhere did I ever give permission to the ACP to take copy of it and place

in the ACP whatsoever.... Here is the DEMAND (not request) the copy that

is in the ACP be removed, as well any other places the ACP may have placed

in. Only the Census Project has the authorized copy. I wonder how many

other copies had been made without knowledge or authorization of the

transcribers."

We actually are curious about this too. A fairly large number of people

have recently insisted that their transcriptions be removed from the

Archives Census Project directories. If the ACP has not complied with

their requests, then wouldn't they be in violation of copyright?

Once More Into the Breech Corner: Ellen Pack has proposed yet another

solution to the census mess. She says:

"The Census/Archives dispute is a shameless mess which seriously

undermines the entire project, and it's credibility. ...Due to entrenched

lines in the sand, and preconceived ideas and personal alliances, the SPs

and the AB as a whole have made absolutely no headway. There is not one

shred of evidence that any meaningful break-through is even possible,

given the current climate. ...I submit that there is only one way this

horrendous problem will be solved, and that is by removing the decision

from the involved parties, including the AB, and turning it over to the

general membership. ...To that end, I would strongly suggest the

appointment of a special committee comprised of at-large USGW members.

Those members should not be or have been in any position of USGW

authority, i.e. SC's, ASCs, Board Reps, etc. They should never have been

involved in any aspect of any Archives and/or Census projects, and should

not hold known pre-conceived opinions of the current situation, or

maintain personal associations with Archive/Census members or Board

reps....This committee would be charged with rebuilding/restructuring the

SPs to include determining the goal(s) of the entire Archives arm of USGW

(CP included of course), the inner hierarchy, method of leadership

assignment, administration of individual SPs, data storage, and the means

that data, and the integrity of the SPs, can be best protected, as well as

policy re submitters and their copyrighted data...The committee findings

should then be submitted to the AB in the form of a By-Laws Amendment, and

(sans ANY alterations by the AB) voted upon by the general membership.

The proposed amendment could be legally (what a novel idea!) placed on a

ballot and voted upon under ...[Article XVI, Section 5 of the bylaws]"

[This is a hugely summarized version of her proposal. The original was

posted to USGENWEB-ALL, and to her reps [Jim Powell and Teri Pettit], and

now has been forwarded to the Board.]

It will be interesting to see how the Board deals with this one. I think

logistically it will be very difficult; at the very least it will be hard

to find people with no opinion on this one way or the other, who are not

politically involved yet, and who are willing to put themselves in the

line of fire, so to speak. It is unlikely the committee could be kept

anonymous for any lenght of time and if they were not they would be

bombarded by email from both factions. And face it... its highly unlikely

that either side will accept anything from such a committee. Both have

positions that are non-negotiable and its being optimistic in the extreme

to think either would respect any action of any committee or any bylaws

amendments that violate their conceptions of what is Right and True.

[Quick summary of non-negotiable positions:

ACP: The name is Archives Census Project, Maggie Stewart-Zimmerman is the

coordinator, they use Maggie's pages for the project-- Linda has recently

added public mailing lists to her list of demands;

CP: the project is independent of the Archives and keeps the name USGW

Census Project, per the bylaws, only CP file managers have access to CP

files;

What they both agree on: the file are stored in the Archives directories.]

Not The Way I Remember It Corner: In her letter to her reps, Ellen also

takes issue with Pam Reid's statement that ""The ONLY reason that there is

Census Special Project in the bylaws is because Kay fought her way onto to

Board and the committee and made sure it was worded that way." Ellen was

herself a member of the committee and says "I can assure anyone interested

that NO one "made sure" that I agreed or disagreed with anything...For the

record, my personal reason for preferring to itemize the SPs, and in the

wording adopted, was to avoid the possibility of one person wielding

enormous power and control over such a large and ever-expanding collection

of material...I am not aware of anyone on the By-Laws committee who served

as a puppet subject to Kay Mason's bidding, or to anyone's bidding.

Certainly, I was not, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise."

===

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people

alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories."

---Thomas Jefferson.

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Sun Apr 16 22:19:46 2000

Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 22:19:44 -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.SV4.3.96.1000416211448.17400A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

Yadda yadda yadda...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

[Lucky you guys...you get another one today <g>]

Sunday 16 Apr 2000:

Joe Zsedeny says he could endorse Ellen Pack's proposal, but notes "If we

find it so easy and expedient to endorse an illegal action to meet a

desired end would we find it any harder to ignore a committee

recommendation? " He asks "how can we flaunt the wishes of the

volunteers by trashing their ByLaws?...Without the rule of law, the

respect for law, any country or any organization is no better than a

mob." He asks Betsy and Shair to amend motion 00-9 to read simply "I move

that all actions taken to delink the CP be reversed" and says that once

this is done, he himself will make the motion to delink the Census

Project, whether he supports it or not.

Pam Reid apologizes to Ellen for implying that she or anyone else on

the bylaws committee was "led" by Kay Mason, but she notes "Kay, IMO, was

a problem and we didn't know it at the time."

Joy Fisher explains her "no" vote on Motion 00-8. Basically, she was

intending to vote "yes", but changed her mind after reading the bylaws.

She says "I have added -- and removed links to many sites over the years

as a CC and SC in my "day-to-day duties." She also says that the section

of the bylaws that gives the responsibility of deciding to unlink a

project to the Board means, to her, that "The Advisory Board has the

responsibility to order the removal of links, if the NC did not remove

them him/herself. Section 5 does not grant the Advisory Board *SOLE*

responsibility for this action; just responsibility." [A most interesting

and creative reading of the bylaws, indeed.] She says that she

personally believes delinking is a bad idea, as "it costs us volunteers

and gives us a bad reputation as an organization," but she also notes "In

my view, there will never be a resolution to this issue. If both sides

desired a solution, it would have been solved long ago."

Teri Pettit responds positively to Ellen's proposal but has concerns about

limiting the committee to people who've never had anything to do with the

CP or the Archives. She says, "The volunteers most affected by any

revision to the ByLaws dealing with Special Projects would be the

volunteers of those Special Projects, especially the transcribers. To make

major decisions about the rules they are expected to work under without

their having any say at all in the construction of the proposed amendments

seems backwards to me. If the committee contains no grass-roots members

of any of the Special Project, it will be severely underinformed as to

what the concerns are of the volunteers who will be working for those

projects....There should be no second-class citizens in the USGenWeb

Project. The volunteers of the Special Projects are just as much part of

the USGenWeb Project as are the volunteers of the State Projects and the

Local Projects. They not only have the strongest right to make the rules

that they will be working under, they also are the most knowledgeable

about what the problems and issues are." In this message, Teri

also proposes a "Members' Bill of Right" that would lay out "what kind of

things each page owner can make decisions about without anybody telling

them what to do (what host to use for their pages being the major one),

and what kind of decisions they can't make on their own (delinking another

subproject being the major one). The latter class of decisions should be

made by the general membership, not by any elected body."

Barbara Dore dumps another load of "research" in the Board's lap. She has

"found out" that the Census Project used the name "Archives Census

Project" from circa 9 May 1997 to 28 Nov 1998. On that day, Kay Mason

instructed the web pages changed to reflect the name as it appears in the

bylaws. She also at this time announced publicly the new directory for

the Census Project files and noted that completed transcriptions were

still going to the USGenWeb Archives. [This is news?? Where has she been

for the last year and a half?] She says she has "discovered other

discrepancies" in Kay's old statements [but doesn't share them with us,

other than to say that Brian corrected her on something.] She concludes

that "It may very well be that both sides FULLY believe in what they are

saying, but the black and white FACTS have not been presented in such a

way as to convince the opposite side to alter their thinking or views."

[Dunno about that. Stacey Orchard sure changed her views quick when she

got a look at the facts.]

Ginger forwards a response from Elen to Teri wherein she clarifies her

proposal a bit. She says that she meant that only folks who had been

involved with the Special Projects at the level of a file manager would be

precluded from participating in the committee. She says "the idea is to

locate and seat on the committee USGW members who do not have a

preconceived opinion or personal interest, other than wishing to improve

on the project as a whole. The AB would be looking for team players, as

opposed to those wishing to push an agenda."

===

Good Intentions Corner: Like so many other things in the project, the

CONFERENCE-L mailing list, set up for the discussion of a CP/ACP merger,

has degenerated into a theatre of the absurd. As noted more than once,

Maggie Stewart Zimmerman, who is the head of the ACP and vital to any

merger discussions, has not participated in the discussion at all. When

Stacey Orchard noted that she felt the discussion was going nowhere fast

and suggested closing the list, a veritably flood gate of recriminations

opened. Suddenly everybody had something to say and a grievance to air.

Holly expounded on her copyright issues and accused Stacey of forming a

list to support and apologize for the CP, rather than a neutral venue. For

good measure, Pam Reid and Barbara Dore ganged up on Stacey as well. Ron

Eason told Linda that because of the tactics of Tim and his minions, Linda

would _never_ get the opportunity to control the CP. Linda Lewis asked

Stacey Orchard repeatedly if she could forward some old personal mail of

Stacey's to the list and repeatedly refused to answer Stacey's simple

question of "why?". Finally, when someone told Linda "Your black mailing

tactics have to stop", Linda got in a righteous snit and stalked off.

Again.

Don't Let The Door Hit You On Your Way Out Corner: Linda Lewis also

resigned as Assistant State Coordinator for Virginia today.

===

"I think that the NC overstepped the by-law fence. The more serious

problem I see is that 8 members of the board trampled the by-laws...

stomped those hummers flat."

---Darilee, USGENWEB-ALL

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------