From merope@Radix.Net Wed Dec 1 08:37:48 1999
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 08:37:47 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: Daily Board Show
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.991130061121.11584A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
A Scotsman on a horse...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Sunday 28 November 1999:
There is no Board-L traffic on this date.
Monday 29 November 1999:
There is no Board-L traffic on this date.
[We hear the Board lists have been silent as the tomb these days....]
Winds of Change Corner: An anonymous correspondent brings to our
attention to some minor changes on the USGW homepages. Apparently the
USGW Archives is now styling itself "The USGenWeb Digital Library",
according to its blurb at http://www.usgenweb.com. On the "Other Special
Projects" page [http://www.usgenweb.org/projects/projects.html] the
Archives still calls itself the Archives, but also asserts that it is the
"Digital Library" of the USGW but the page also notes that "The USGenWeb
Census Project is a part of USGenWeb Project Archives" [which is
apparently not the same as the USGW Archives. Its no wonder our visitors
get confused.] This page also mistakenly notes that Kay Mason is the
coordinator of the Census Project and also lists the Lineages Project,
which has not accepted new submissions for several months.
It may just be early in the morning, but all this is confusing.
So please follow carefully along as we explore the tangled mess of the
Special Projects. According to the bylaws, the USGW shall provide a
"digital library" called the "the USGW Project Archives". Linda Lewis'
Archives call themselves _either_ "The USGW Digital Library" _or_ "The
USGW Archives", depending on which page you are on. Neither of these
names is in compliance with the wording in the bylaws. The Census Project
[Census II], on the other hand, is apparently part of something called
"The USGW Project Archives" to which no links can be found anywhere on the
USGW home pages. There is also something called the USGW Archives Census
Project [Census I], which is not the same as the USGW Census Project
Archives. The USGW Archives Census Project is apparently part of the USGW
Archives and may be part of the USGW Digital Library, but is apparently
not part of the USGW Project Archives. Now, the other "Special Projects",
such as the map, pension, kidz [sic], and tombstone projects, are
variously listed as part of the USGW Archives but not as part of the USGW
Project Archives. From past correspondence with Linda Lewis, we know that
the USGW Archives [now the USGW Digital Library in some places] is _not_
part of the USGW project, but just uses its name. The USGW Project
Archives, wherever they may be located, are apparently part of the USGW
Project, as required in the bylaws. So, on the face of it, it appears
that we have 1) The USGW Archives/USGW Digital Library which is an
independent project outside the control of the USGW, but which project
members are feeding data to at an impressive rate under the impression
that it _is_ part of the USGW Project; and 2) The USGW Project Archives,
which at this time apparently consists solely of the Census Project
Archives [not to be confused with the Archives Census Project]. Is this
beginning to seem a little like a shell game?
Today's quote is from a reader:
"Truth may be stretched, but cannnot be broken, and always gets above
falsehood, as oil does above water."
---Miguel de Cervantes
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
-----------
Daily Board Show, (c) 1999 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.
From merope@Radix.Net Thu Dec 2 19:25:24 1999
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 19:25:20 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: Daily Board Show
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.991202060154.5495A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Hoody hoo!...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Tuesday 30 November 1999:
There is no Board-L traffic on this date.
Election News: We've received word that the amendment to limit MIGW CCs
to three counties [originally proposed by Jen "Spare Change" Godwin] has
passed, with 15 yes votes and 10 no votes.
Blast From the Past Corner: In digging through voluminous archives, I
came across a post with great historical interest. It's from July 17,
1996, was originally posted to the alt.genealogy newsgroup, and apparently
constitutes the first ever world-wide notice of the USGW Archives project.
Here's what Linda Lewis had to say about it way back when:
"The USGenWeb is currently organizing its ftp site, donated by RootsWeb,
to store data files contributed by volunteers. Files will include
transcribed wills, census, marriages, cemetery listings, etc....Visit the
USGenWeb site at http://www.teleport.com/~jmurphy/states.html to see
the how we can use the Internet for genealogy in an organized way."
At least once upon a time, the Archives [or at least its ftp site] did
belong to the USGW project. I wonder when that changed.
"It is a fool's prerogative to utter truths that no one else will speak."
---Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night's Dream
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
========
Daily Board Show, (c) 1999 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.
From merope@Radix.Net Fri Dec 3 10:50:57 1999
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:50:56 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: Daily Board Show
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.991203061522.22870C-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
To infinity and beyond!...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Wednesday 1 December 1999
There is no Board-L traffic on this date.
Tomorrow's News Today: On Friday morning [Dec 3, 1999] the NC opened the
floor for voting on Motion 99-28, "that Megan [Zurawicz] be accorded full
membership priveleges [sic] on the State Coordinator List for as long as
she desires to remain there." We hear that nine members have already
voted; five "ayes", two "nays", and two abstentions. [We here at the
newscube are curious as to how the Board intends to implement this motion,
should it pass and should the SC list protest this intrusion.]
Backtracking Corner: It seems that the results of the recent election in
the MIGW are being questioned by some of its participants. We are told
that then-SC Joan Brausch had notified her troops that the amendment to
limit CCs to three counties needed to pass by a "simple majority", and
specifically that 29 votes were needed to pass the amendment.
Unfortunately, only 25 CCs voted, and Joan declared the amendment passed
by a simple majority, with 15 yes votes. Now at least one CC has
questioned whether Joan is changing the rules on them, and Joan has opened
discussion on the new MI list as to whether the amendment should be
dropped since not enough people voted to make a majority of CCs.
Whither the Archives? Corner: A reader writes [and thanks to all you
USGW-ALL members that forwarded it to me!] regarding yesterday's news item
about the Archives: "I am curious as to the source of your frequent
assertion that the Archives is not part of The USGenWeb Project. So far as
I am aware, it has been ever since the date you mention, and still is."
Its apparent that, from nearly the beginning at least, the Archives were
envisioned as part and parcel of the USGenWeb Project. Linda's post in
July 1996 makes it pretty clear that the ftp space on which the Archives
reside was in fact donated to the USGW Project by Root$web, not to Linda
Lewis and not to her "time to do" project. Linda fought very hard to get
the project into the USGW and her insistence that it be a part of the
project and bear its name was at least one cause of the resignation of
the found and first National Coordinator, Jeff Murphy. At least in the
early days, state file managers were recommended by the state coordinators
and were usually someone involved in USGW as a state and/or county
coordinator; giving some project members the impression that they had some
say in the management of the Archives. The Big Three Special
Projects [Archives, Tombstone, Census] were even granted Board seats and
file managers vote in USGW elections. The Board, at least, operates as if
the Archives were indeed part of the project, and has considered a number
of motions pertaining to the Archives since Sept 1998 [Motions 98-10,
99-4, 99-5, 99-12, but see below].
The USGenWeb home pages list the Archives Project as one of the Special
Projects that were "created to collect and disseminate data that goes
beyond county and state lines" [although the actual focus of most the the
SPs, especially the "Big Three" is state and county level data]. The
project bylaws direct the project to "provide a "digital library" called
The USGenWeb Project Archives". Motion 99-4, passed by the Advisory Board
on Feb 16, 1999, states that "all original records that are transcribed
and submitted to any special project whether it be "The USGenWeb Archives
Project," "The USGenWeb Census Project," "The USGenWeb Tombstone
Project,"or any other special project, they are a part of The USGenWeb
Project's "digital library" known as "The USGenWeb Project Archives."
Linda promptly reminded people that "Only data submitted to the USGenWeb
Archives and uploaded to the USGenWeb Archives directory is "part of" the
USGenWeb Archives [message to USGW-SE, 24 Feb 1999]. She also chose at
that time to ignore the other directive of the motion, that "the special
project, named in the bylaws as "The USGenWeb Archives Project," leave the
job of transcribing original US census records and recruiting volunteers
for the same purpose to the special project named in the bylaws as, "The
USGenWeb Census Project," and that "The USGenWeb Archives Project" should
otherwise direct their efforts to transcribing the other vast volumes of
original records that need to be transcribed in this country." The
Archives continues to maintain its own separate Census project [Census I,
http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/census/].
On 26 Feb 1999, in response to motion 99-4 and to a series of emails
on the topic on one of the regional lists, Linda sent a message to
all the Board members, in which she stated,
"The USGenWeb Archives is not "owned" by USGenWeb. It is a project
started to support the county coordinators, back when people only had 2
megs of space from their ISP. It does not belong to anyone except the
submitters, who have agreed to allow their files be stored there
permanently as long as there is free access. A few hours before the
announcement about the Archives went out in July 1996, it was almost
named the Rootsweb Archives, but with the same goals and strict
guidelines. It was still going to be a support project for county
coordinators, but I had to obtain permission from the then national
coordinator to use the name "USGenWeb."
Thus, by Linda's own words, the USGW project does not own the Archives,
and has no control over them. [Her claim that the submitters own the
Archives is interesting; try to get one of "your" files removed and you'll
find out just how far your ownership rights go.]
Later, in the summer of 1999, a long conversation took place between Linda
Lewis and some CCs on the USGW-CC-L list regarding the agreement that the
Archives had signed with Root$web, an agreement that has changed a number
of times, most recently to include the statement that the Archives can
reside on no server but Root$web. Although the original agreement with
Root$web predates the Board [but not the National Coordinatorship],
the last statement was added during last year,without seeking the advice
of the Board or notifying it in any way. Linda has asserted, that like any
State Coordinator, she has the right to enter into any agreement she
pleases with whomever she pleases, and that is not disputed. However,
since she asserts total control over the disposition of the collection of
files known as the "USGenWeb Archives", the USGW project itself cannot
direct in any way the fate of these files. They cannot prevent offensive
commercial advertisements from appearing over its search engine and
results [as has recently happened]. They cannot prevent inappropriate
activities such as stripping an original contributor's name off of a file
and re-submitting it under another person's name [as the Census I
coordinator claims Linda Lewis told her to do when someone asked that
their files be removed from the Archives]. They cannot prevent behavior by
the file managers that could expose the project to legal threat, such as
the posting of copyrighted files without the owner's permission [as has
happened in the past]. Should the current or new owners of Root$web, which
after all is a for-profit corporation, decide to alter substantially the
agreement under which the files are housed, the project would be powerless
to protect the files from any effects of this, including
commercialization. The Archives Coordinator is a paid employee of
RootsWeb.com, Inc., the server on which the files reside, and thus has a
personal financial incentive in keeping the collection there regardless of
the wishes of the contributors or of the USGW project in general.
Interestingly enough, should Root$web cease to exist suddenly, for
whatever reason [bankruptcy, earthquake, stark fist of removal], Linda is
prevented by the terms of her personal verbal agreement with Mr. Leverich,
which both claim has the force of a written contract, from placing the
files anywhere else. [Come to think of it, has anyone ever seen a
statement from RW regarding their Y2K readiness?] Since the files don't
belong to USGW and USGW presumably has no mirror or backup of them, they
would again be powerless to arrange for alternate storage and
presentation. States and counties can be rebuilt if lost; the Archives
cannot.
It might seem only a semantic difference, but the USGenWeb Project
Archives and the USGenWeb Archives are clearly not the same thing, and
while the Board may feel that it is meeting the intent of the bylaws by
affiliating with these independent projects and calling them collectively
"The USGenWeb Project Archives", it in fact has no control over them, as
has been amply demonstrated by the split between Census I and Census II.
Linda Lewis apparently considers _all_ the Special Projects to be under
the umbrella of the USGW Archives Project, and although at least two new
Special Projects have been founded since the bylaws were adopted, neither
was formed in accordance with the provisions of Article XIII, Section 1
["Special projects shall be established by The USGenWeb Project to promote
the gathering of information in specialized areas. A coordinator shall be
appointed by the Advisory Board to organize the project and enlist
volunteers."] At the time, the argument was made that these new Special
Projects were not part of the USGW Project Archives but were subsets of
the USGW Archives Project, and thus not subject to these provisions of the
bylaws.
Many, if not most, persons who donate files to the USGenWeb Archives are
under the impression that they are donating them to the USGenWeb Project,
and not to a privately run project which merely affiliates with the USGWP
in order to use its name and reputation in order to collect files. No one
denies that the Archives are a valuable contribution to online genealogy
or that much of their success is due to the dedication of their
coordinator. It just should be clear to all contributors from the outset
that they are not contributing their work to "the USGenWeb Project" but to
an independent project called "the USGenWeb Archives", over which the
USGWP and its volunteers have not even the merest hint of influence.
[As a side note, for those of you who do not know this, the Archives now
has a newsletter: http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/newsletter/index.htm.
Nowhere in the description of the Archives does it say they are part of
the USGW Project. In fact, the USGWP is mentioned exactly once; Root$web
actually gets more mentions than the Archives' supposed parent
organization.]
[Since yesterday's DBS was excerpted in several places, readers are
welcome to forward today's to whatever lists they deem appropriate.]
"Things do not pass for what they are, but for what they seem. Most things
are judged by their jackets."
---Balthasar Gracian
This has been your Daily Board Show. God speed, Mars Polar Lander!
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
-----------
Daily Board Show, (c) 1999 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.
From merope@Radix.Net Fri Dec 3 13:37:13 1999
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 13:37:11 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: News Flash!
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.991203132351.796B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Daily Board Show News Flash!
This Just In... Someone has checked and reported to the DBS newsstaff that
the name of the founder and coordinator of the USGenWeb Archives Map
project has been removed from the project pages. In response to
inquiries, the former coordinator of the Map project, Fred Smoot, informs
us that he resigned, effective yesterday, in an email to Linda Lewis. He
has resigned as coordinator because he "has other endeavors that are
taking up [his] time." He will continue to participate in the project as
a contributer of Indian Territory maps, but the project is now in need of
a coordinator, preferably one who knows about maps [according to Mr.
Smoot].
Oh, and one more Board member has voted "nay" to Motion 99-28.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
From merope@Radix.Net Fri Dec 3 16:22:51 1999
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 16:22:49 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: News Flash!
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.991203161711.14033C-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
This Just In...Two more people have voted on Motion 99-28. One has voted
"no" and the other has abstained. The count stands currently at 5 yes
votes, 4 no votes, and 3 abstentions. A quorum has been reached; unless
a number of members change their vote, and since even if all the remaining
members vote "yes" the 2/3 majority won't be reached, this motion has
failed.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
From merope@Radix.Net Sat Dec 4 09:34:25 1999
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 09:34:24 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: Daily Board Show
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.991204083222.26761A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
MPL, phone home!...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Thursday 2 December 1999:
There is no Board-L traffic on this date.
Getting Confusing Corner: Prompted by some questions from a Board member,
the DBS news staff has researched parliamentary procedure on the issue of
"abstentions", particularly as it relates to the current Motion 99-28.
According to a 1915 version of RRoR with 1996 revisions found online at
http://www.sudval.org/~sdg/rror/, abstentions should not be counted toward
attaining the 2/3 majority of members voting as required in the bylaws.
This forces some recalculations in yesterday's News Flash stating the
motion was defeated. As it stands at last report [5 yes votes, 4 no votes
and 3 abstentions] the motion is defeated. If all three remaining Board
members [not counting Kay Mason] vote and vote yes the motion can pass.
If one votes no, the motion will not pass. If all three abstain or don't
vote, the motion does not pass. If two abstain or don't vote, the motion
does not pass. If one more abstains or doesn't vote, and the other two
vote yes, the motion can pass only if you consider 7 to be 2/3 of 11
rather than 8. [I'm not always real good at that figgerin' stuff, so if
someone comes up with different results, let me know.] Since I have not
received reports of further votes on this motion, this is still a horse
race.
Its an interesting motion, though, whatever the outcome. It seems almost
entirely pointless. If it wins and the SCs don't want Megan subbed to
their list, what can the Board do? I understand that Tim Stowell is the
listowner of SC-L and he can presumably sub whomever he pleases, so that
would be one way of dealing with it. However, overriding the SCs' wishes
concerning their list hardly seems appropriate. If the motion does not
carry, the SC list is in no way prevented from inviting Megan to remain on
the list. If the intent, as one Board member mentioned while casting her
'yes' vote, is to pass the motion and then let the SCs decide, what's the
point of the motion in the first place? Wouldn't it have been easier,
quicker, and more appropriate for Joe to have proposed his idea to the SCs
directly?
Adios Corner: We hear that the long-time State Coordinator for WYGW,
George Langston, has retired. The Acting SC will be Carol Haagensen, and
the new acting ASC will be Suzanne Leonard, both well-known and
well-respected in the WYGW.
End of An Era Corner: Root$web has notified its paying customers that it
is discontinuing the popular Surname Notification Program in favor of the
new, paying-customers-only Personalized Mailing List. The final run of the
SNP will be sometime today. Although this is presented as a "good thing"
by Root$web, a number of subscribers have already expressed unhappiness
with RW's decision. One, who signs themselves "a very unsatisfied Rootsweb
Donor", says, "I'm really disappointed that Rootsweb is doing away with
the "Surname Notification Program" I really liked it and so far have been
totally unsatisfied with the PML program for the following reasons: Two of
my surnames...are not only common surnames but commonly used words in
posts as well... This means that using PML for those two surnames
generates HUNDREDS of emails a day...While with the SNP I only got
notified on specific entries for MY surnames, ...With PML I get an email
EVERY TIME someone posts one of those words...why was RNP [sic] was put on
the removal list and who do I need to send this to to make it seen that
this system is not, as the email said, "Much, much, much better" than SNP
and what can I do about it???" Root$web's response to this was
essentially "you are doing it wrong and here's the address for the
Genconnect Board where you can discuss it."
"If you don't like someone, the way he holds his spoon makes you furious;
If you like him, he can turn his plate over in your lap and you won't
mind."
---Irving Becker
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
-------
Daily Board Show, (c) 1999 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.
From merope@Radix.Net Sun Dec 5 07:42:49 1999
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 07:42:48 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: Daily Board Show
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.991205064244.21350A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Robbing Peter to pay Paul...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Friday 3 December 1999
The NC asks the Board members to vote on Motion 99-28, tellingly entitled
"SC Membership List Priveleges [sic]".
By the end of the day, 5 members had voted "aye", 4 had voted "no", and 3
had abstained. [Since 12 members have either voted or abstained and thus
are "present" a quorum has been obtained.]
Here are some of the various comments attached with votes and abstentions:
"While I can appreciate the philosophy behind this Motion, I believe
we are overstepping our bounds. The SC list belongs to SC's and if this
gesture is to be made by anyone, it should come from them and not from the
Board in this somewhat dictatorial fashion. [Ginger Cisewski]
"I"m not sure that this motion is within the bounds of our
authority...Until, and unless, the SC's decide that this is something they
wish to do to honor Megan I regretfully have to vote NO." [Ginger
Hayes]
"I do not believe that the Board should vote on this, I believe the SC's
should honor their own (maybe a Hall of Fame) and in this case, I believe
that she should have the full priveleges but I don't think it is the
Board's Business to yea or aye." [Gloria Mayfield]
"Yes, although I do realize that we do not dictate to the SC list. It is
a nice gesture and then will be up to the SC's to make a final decision."
[Betsy Mills]
"I not being a SC feel that the Board does not have the right to accorded
FULL membership privileges to the SC's List." [Richard Howland]
"I appreciate the sentiment, and agree, that it is a wonderful gesture of
respect that Megan richly deserves. But, this gesture should be extended
by the participants of the State Coordinators list." [Tina Vickery]
"I think abstaining is a better way than voting no to express the feeling
that this gesture should be initiated by the SC's... If enough of us
abstain that a quorum cannot be reached, then it better expresses the idea
that we have nothing against the motion except that it is not within the
proper jurisdiction of the board." [Teri Pettit]
Going About it the Right Way Corner: After a week and half, one of the
Board members has finally decided to ask the SCs whether or not they would
like to extend permanent membership privileges on the SC list to St.
Megan. Yesterday, Shari Handley posted a message to the list which
contained the following: "The AB has been discussing a motion to accord
Megan full membership priveleges [sic] on the State Coordinator List for
as long as she desires to remain here. However, the feeling of the Board
seems to be that this is something that should come from the SCs
themselves, and not the Board. I do feel that Megan should be invited to
stay on here. What do *you* think?" So far, a number of SCs and ASCs
have written to support this notion, among them at least three Board
members.
Taking Candy From A Baby Corner: A Root$web user has written to inform us
that the recently demised Surname Notification Project was available to
everyone, not just to people who give Root$web at least $24 a year. The
new Personalized Mailing List, on the other hand, is available only to
paying customers.
"There's a sucker born every minute"
---P.T. Barnum [attributed, may have actually been said by Barnum's
rival David Hannum]
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
-----------
Daily Board Show, (c) 1999 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.
From merope@Radix.Net Sun Dec 5 10:54:55 1999
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 10:54:54 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: News Flash!
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.991205104718.4738A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
DBS News Flash!
This Just In..We've received reports of two new votes on Motion 99-28.
One member has voted "yes" and one has abstained. Additionally, one
member has switched her vote from "yes" to abstain.
Current count: 5 yes votes, 4 no votes, and 5 abstentions. 2 Board
members have not voted.
-Teresa
merope@radix.net