From merope@Radix.Net Tue Feb 1 08:39:20 2000
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 08:39:18 -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.SV4.3.96.1000201063134.1428C-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
More fun than a barrel of monkeys...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Tuesday 1 February 2000:
There is no Board-L traffic on this date, thus far.
Ministry of Information Corner: A reader has reminded us that there are
already an history and a timeline for the USGW project posted online. The
history is at: http://www.usgenweb.com/about/history.html and is pretty
much the standard blurb. The timeline, however, is interesting. It was
last edited in late June 1999, and its at:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/forma1.htm., which is, curiously enough,
in the Archives directoy heirarchy, not the directory for the national
pages [in other words, its not a national page, but it plays one on TV].
Take a close look at the bizarre organizational structure of the tables.
First, in the upper table, we have the founding of KYGenWeb and USGW, and
then the Archives, under which are listed the Census, Map, and Pension
Projects. Separately listed is the Tombstone project, and the formation
of the Board. In this table Kidz and Lineages are listed under USGW. Now,
in the bottom table ignore for a moment that the listing of the Board
members fails to include the At-Large representative, but does include
"Rootsweb server". On the left hand side of this table, we find the
USGenWeb Project, with Kidz and Lineages listed under it, and way over on
the other side of the table, we find the USGenWeb Archives. Under
Archives is listed the Census, Map, and Pension projects, and then
Tombstone listed as a separate item. Not surprisingly, since this page
was created by Maggie Stewart-Zimmerman, the link to the Census Project
goes to Census I and there is no link to or mention of Census II. Given
the author, the date on this page, its placement in the Archives
directory, the organization setting up USGW and the Archives as two
separate and parallel entities, and the failure to mention Census II, we'd
venture a guess that this page isn't so much a timeline as an agenda. So
why is it linked to from the National page?
We hear from little mice that the Board is currently discussing revising
both the history page and the timeline. Perhaps this time they can post
one that recognizes all facets of the project, and doesn't exist to serve
the Archives' point of view.
Another Fine Mess Corner: Let's review Motion 99-4 [it's at:
http://www.usgenweb.com/official/boardvotes-99-1.html#99-4, if you need a
primer]. Motion 99-4, which passed, specifically directs that the first
paragraph of the resolution be posted on the "USGenWeb Project web page
concerning the special projects". Strangely enough, the paragraph no
longer appears on _any_ page associated with the Special Projects, and
especially not the one located here:
http://www.usgenweb.com/projects/projects.html, which was updated just a
couple of days ago [after the DBS pointed out how out of date it was].
Now, we could swear that paragraph used to be there; what do you suppose
happened to it? And why do you suppose that a duly voted on and passed
motion is being ignored?
"Men take more pains to mask than to mend."
---Benjamin Franklin
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
-----------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.
From merope@Radix.Net Tue Feb 1 14:14:50 2000
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 14:14:48 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: News Flash!
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000201141024.17406A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
A DBS News Flash!
Amazing Disappearances... An alert reader has notified us that the Who's
Who page for the Advisory Board located at this URL:
<http://www.usgenweb.com/about/whoswho.html> has recently been updated.
Kay Mason's name and email address have been removed and her Board seat is
shown as "Open".
Looks like they have plans for that seat after all.
There you have it, a DBS News Flash!
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
From merope@Radix.Net Tue Feb 1 21:07:26 2000
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 21:07:25 -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.SV4.3.96.1000201205900.4083B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
A DBS News Flash!
Abracadabra Corner: We've noticed that, like magic, Kay Mason has been
restored not only to the Board:
<http://www.usgenweb.com/about/whoswho.html> but to the Special Projects
coordinator page as well:
<http://www.usgenweb.com/about/whoswhocoord2.html>
This magic happened about two hours after Kay's untimely removal was made
public by the DBS. Score another one for yellow journalism!
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
From merope@Radix.Net Wed Feb 2 08:55:05 2000
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 08:55:03 -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.SV4.3.96.1000202060855.5244A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
Seeing no shadow...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Tuesday 1 February 2000:
The sleeping Board awakes!
Ginger Cisewski, saying she is "deeply saddened by what I have seen in my
tour of the USGenWeb national website this evening", notes a number of
changes made recently to national web pages without discussion or
approval. She notes first the removal of Census Project rep Kay Mason
[reported here yesterday]. She also remarks on the timeline compiled by
Maggie Stewart-Zimmerman and notes that "the ONLY link labeled as
belonging to "Census Project" leads further into the Archives Census
Project with absolutely NO mention being made of the USGenWeb Census
Project, which is the ONLY official Census Project." She describes
updates to the special projects page, including the addition of the
Pension Project and Digital Map Library, which "are displayed in such a
manner as to beguile a visitor into believing they are separate and
official USGenWeb Special Projects in their own right, which they most
certainly are not." Ginger reminds the Board that she pointed this error
out previously "but the only change made was to add those two sub-projects
to yet another "Special Projects" listing". She also notes that the
statement required by Motion 99-4 has been removed and says "I can only
assume that it was done because it was perceived by some Board members as
a bad reflection on the USGenWeb Archives Project and its non-sanctioned
Census Project, which happens to be led by one of our own Board members."
Ginger closes with by noting that it is apparent that most of her
colleagues "don't personally agree with a section of the Bylaws or it
conflicts with whatever personal agenda you have, then you can simply opt
to ignore it and do what you wish." She reminds them that a bylaw is a
bylaw and "In a democratic organization, you work within the structure of
the existing laws to change or repeal the bad ones", and it is never right
to ignore them. She states "The only "membership" I see getting any
representation from the current Board is the Archives Project, and
apparently through whatever means possible and at the expense of all
others."
Holly Fee-Timm responds by noting that since Ginger herself noted that the
changes were made with Boad discussion or approval, she should not assume
"agreement, disagreement or even knowledge of these by your fellow Board
members."
Ginger Hayes notes that GingerC is making broad statements and harsh
accusations against the whole board, and she resents it. She has no idea
what GingerC is talking about, but notes "since there is no active
representaive for the USGW Census Project since Kay Mason, in effect,
removed herself, why shouldn't the seat be listed as open?" She doesn't
think the Census Project is interested in a recall and apparently doesn't
care whether it has representation or not. Regarding the rest of
GingerC's post, GingerH suggests it mights have been "more productive to
ask about the changes and suggest some resolution instead of blasting all
the board members".
Pam Reid tells her colleagues that she's doing extensive revisions to the
website, which is large and often out of date. She notes that she made a
few changes, such as the Kay Mason issue, that were made without
direction, and some of the items mentioned by GingerC were old problems
that haven't been fixed. She says she plans to revise the Special
Projects pages "tonight" [Tuesday] but thinks its "important to have a
page to these links, but perhaps they should not be called special
projects." She does not recall removing the statement required by Motion
99-4 but will fix it; she thinks maybe the statement was never added and
that was on oversight on her part. She assures the Board that she is not
political and "only want[s] the pages to reflect what they should
reflect." She says "I wasn't aware I needed Board approval to make
improvements to the site....However, if the Board would like to approve
each and every change that is made to the site, that can be arranged."
She says she always reacts quickly when there are objections noted to the
pages.
GingerC notes that the page at
<http://www.usgenweb.org/projects/projects.html> is very misleading. In
the first paragraph the page says "Most of the Projects listed on this
page are not officially designated as USGW Special Projects", and in the
third paragraph it says "Each of the projects identified on this page is
an "official" Special Project of The USGenWeb Project." She points out
that only two of the seven projects listed are not "official" Special
Projects. She also notes that the "Archives Project" is not the same as
the "Project Archives" referred to as the "digital library" in the bylaws
and continuing to refer to the Archives Project in that way only furthers
confusion and "amounts to false representation." She says "These pages
all need to be as concise and accurate as possible to enhance a greater
understanding and appreciation of the USGenWeb Project. Sending visitors
and potential volunteers in endless circles is not the way to accomplish
that."
Betsy Mills says that she disagrees with GingerC, and believes the
Archives Project and the Project Archives are "one and the same." She
says "I was here from close to the beginning and know the intent of
the project, the archives and the bylaws." She says that "Kay's Census
Project" caused most of the confusion by breaking away from the Archives.
Pam Reid forwards a message to the Board from an author who wants to use
screen shots of the webpages in a book called "How to do Everything with
Yahoo!" She asks the Board what they think of his request. [The author
is Alan Neibauer, and a list of his previous publications is at
http://www.neibauer.net]
Joe Zsedeny notes that Mr. Neibauer's offer sounds great, but ask which
webpages he's referring to.
Joy Fisher also thinks clarification of Mr. Neibauer's offer is needed,
but also says "If it is just the National pages, I move that we allow Mr.
Neibauer permission to use screen shots of our National Pages in his book
"How to do Everything with Yahoo!"
Wednesday 2 February 2000:
In response to GingerC's concerns regarding the project pages, Pam Reid
says "I am working too quickly and not carefully enough. I reworded it
again and hopefully it will not be so confusing now." She also notes that
she also thinks that "The USGenWeb Archives is the official repository of
The USGenWeb Project."
Holy Fee-Timm also chimes to note that she agrees with Betsy that the
Archives is USGenWeb's digital library. She also notes that regarding the
Census Project "until and unless the Board resolves that situation, I
believe we must list both of them equally or else we leave the visitor
even more confused."
GingerC notes that "This is an argument of semantics. The personal
interpretation of any of us, myself included, is irrelevant and immaterial
and none of us have any justification for changing the wording on the
website to reflect our personal preferences." She quotes the relevant
portion of the bylaws and says that "Archives Project" and "Archives
Project" are not the same, and regardless of the intent behind the wording
of the bylaws it is the responsibility of the Board to uphold them as they
were written. She notes that there "There have now been multiple changes
to the wording throughout the national website where none was needed, and
much of it carries thinly veiled bias and innuendo. Links seem to pop up
daily to additional Archives sites and now there is even one on the main
page which attempts to usurp the Census Project's right to exist." She's
not upset by the cosmetic changes to the pages, but thinks that "changing
the PHILOSOPHY of the website is something that should be discussed and
voted on by the entire Board."
The Moving Finger Corner: Our webmaster has indeed been busy. The USGW
home page now has the "USGW Census Project" and the "Archives Census
Project Census Images" [that's a mouthful] linked under "USGW Census
Project" section, even though the latter should be correctly linked under
the Archives section. The contradictory info from the Special Projects
page has been removed, but the paragraph from Motion 99-4 is nowhere to be
seen. Kay Mason has been restored to the Board, and to the listing on the
project coordinators Who's Who page. Maggie's timeline and it's
misleading information regarding the Census Project remains unchanged and
the link to it from the National site remains intact.
This is not rocket science. It should be fairly easy to list each Special
Project and subproject properly, without implying anything about any of
them. For instance on the home page:
USGW Archives: The USGenWeb Archives offers actual transcriptions of
public domain records of many types. It includes several subprojects,
including the Archives Census Project, the Archives Census Project Census
Transcriptions, the Archives Pension Project, the Archives Digital Map
Library, and the Archives Special Collections Project. [with links to
appropriate pages]
USGW Census: The USGW Census Project has complete census transcriptions
as well as links to transcriptions found elsewhere on the internet.
USGW Tombstone: The USGW Tombstone Project contains transcriptions of
tombstones and other burial records
Other Projects: [lists anything not mentioned above, Kidz and Lineages,
for example]
See? Simple.
Never Give a Sucker An Even Break Corner: As of Feb 1, 2000, the
California Franchise Tax Board indicates that GenSoc.org, Inc. is not a
tax-exempt organization under 501(c)3.
Copycat Corner: NCGenWeb SC Elizabeth Harris has announced the North
Carolina Migrations page at:
http://tn-3.rootsweb.com/~ncarolina/migrations.shtml
Go check it out! Also don't forget about the Migrations Project, which is
located at http://www.migrations.org. [the NC page is not part of the
older Migrations Project, but seems patterned on it. Might this be the
template for a "new" Root$web project?]
"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."
---Charles Caleb Colton
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
------------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.
From merope@Radix.Net Thu Feb 3 08:37:07 2000
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 08:37:06 -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.SV4.3.96.1000202160109.13931A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
The future is today, worry about it tomorrow!...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Handle with proper tools and read
at your own risk!
[its another long one today, folks, but the stuff at the bottom is pretty
good, so stick with it!]
Wednesday 2 February 2000:
Joe Zsedeny says that Betsy is correct [in that Project Archives=Archives
Project]. He says "Try writing a link to each of "Digital Library",
"Project Archives" "Archives Project". In each case you link to the
USGenWeb Archives." [actually, this isn't true, since the Archives don't
include Lineages or the Census Project information] He also states that
"Someone in writing the bylaws made a simple semantic change which needs
to be corrected", but he doubts it ever will be.
In regards to the screen shot issue he sees nothing wrong with it, "Just
make it clear that the USGenWeb Project and Rootsweb are separate
entities." He says the no author needs permission to write about the
project, and they will probably not give editorial power over their
product.
Ginger Hayes responds to GingerC by asking for specifics of where wording
needs to be changed or where the philosophy of the webpage has changed.
Joe Zsedeny notes that "all Board members were attacked for something
most, if not all, were unaware of. Then Pam was attacked for an innocent
attempt to do her job as Webmaster..."; he thinks the paranoia is getting
extreme. He stresses that "there is no conspiracy afoot to put spin on
anything" and that he himself is too open to conspire. He guesses that
"things have been so quiet that some are getting nervous", but he likes it
that way. He thinks a private message to Pam would have sufficed, and
asks everyone to calm down so he can go blow snow.
Pam Reid says that she was unaware that she had changed the wording on the
national site to a large degree and that she just made small changes she
thought would be helpful. She says she'll fix it if she made any errors.
She also states "I KNOW for a fact that the authors of the Bylaws
considered the Project Archives and the Archives Project to be one and the
same." [Pam is extremely fond of the "I was there" approach to
interpreting the bylaws.] Pam also says that the changes she made were
what she thought was requested and suggests that Perhaps the Board needs
to discuss which Census Project we link to and how we do that." She closes
with an assertion that she didn't make any changes that she considers to
be philosophical in nature and asks for them to be pointed out to her. She
says "I have only tried to improve our site and our image on the Web.
There have been MANY compliments about the new look and I do believe that
people feel it presents a more professional appearance. THAT was ALL I
was trying to do!!!!!!" [emphasis hers]
Teri Pettit seconds the motion to allow the use of screen shots in Mr.
Neibauer's book. She also asks if "everything we do requires an official
motion and vote, or whether some things can just be taken care of as
ordinary business."
Teri notes "Taken exactly as they are worded, the Bylaws are often
ambiguous and sometimes contradictory, so determination of the intent is
an inescapable prerequisite of any attempt to abide by them." She points
out various places the words "USGenWeb Archives Project" and "USGenWeb
Project Archives" are used in the bylaws and describes two plausible
scenarios for the "dual terminology": 1) "Project Archives" refers to "the
directories, their file contents, the search engines which access them,
and the web pages which index them" and is essentially equivalent to the
digital library. "Archives Project" refers to "the team of volunteers who
have responsibility for maintaining those directories and indexes, and for
coordinating transcribers"; or 2) It was a careless oversight, and the
terms "The USGenWeb Project Archives" and "The USGenWeb Archives Project"
were meant to be entirely synonymous." [there's a third possibility: it
was neither careless nor an oversight, but was done deliberately to
justify the presence of a representative for each of the Big 3 on the
Board or maybe just to soothe the respective egos of the Project
coordinators. Now that some people aren't happy with the consequences of
that decision they are trying to convince us that really isn't what they
meant at all.] Teri says she leans toward option 1 because of the
different way the dual terminologies are used and because "The Tombstone
Project and Census Project are everywhere listed as parallel to The
USGenWeb Archives Project, with no hint that they are in any way
subsidiary in terms of project hierarchy." She notes, however, that "
This is not, however, to suggest that The USGenWeb Project Archives are
not wholely under the management of The USGenWeb Archives Project
volunteers. The Bylaws are silent on that matter. This is where original
intent must come under consideration, in that the Bylaws were in most
cases codifying the status quo at the time they were written." She
concludes by saying " the term "The USGenWeb Archives Project" is the
phrasing used in Article XIII on Special Projects, so it is the more
appropriate term under the Bylaws to use on a page describing Special
Projects to our volunteers. "The USGenWeb Project Archives" is the more
appropriate phrase to use on a label for a link to the Archives'
directories, search engines, or index pages."
Pam Reid notes that she has added the statement from Motion 99-4 to the
Projects page of the national website, and asks the Board if there's
anyplace else they'd like to see it.
Pam also asks the Board to "discuss and solve" the issue of the two Census
projects and decide how it wants to handle listing them. She feels it
would be wrong not to link to Census I, since it would hurt researchers,
but she notes "I need the Board to discuss how we handle this situation."
Pam says she's written to Mr. Neibauer and told him that if he wishes to
use shots from state or county the "Board does [not] have have
authorization to grant that permission". She also told him "the idea of
using shots from the National Site had been fairly well receieved, but
that we would like to know in advance which pages he plans to use." She
will keep the Board informed when she hears back from him.
Better Late Than Never Corner: An alert reader has brought to our
attention an interesting thread on alt-genealogy from the beginning of
January. The thread began with Cyndi Howells' annual post regarding her
webpages and eventually morphed into a discussion of Root$web, profits,
and management practices [in one of the messages in this thread, the RW4
figured prominently]. The most interesting comment made, though, was by
Margaret Olson, an employee of RW. In response to concerns about
RootsWeb.com, Inc's status as a for-profit corporation she said:
"RootsWeb.com may be "for profit" but it is not profitable. It has
investors, but it is a long way yet from being profitable."
So. Root$web has "investors". We do wonder who all was invited to
"invest" and what these folks expect as a return on their "investment".
[this entire thread can be viewed at www.deja.com; go to the "power
search" link and search for "rootsweb" and "profit". We apologize for
being so late in reporting this, but we haven't been reading the
newsgroups lately.]
Today's quote is from a reader:
"The best decision would be to decree that the census site be house with
the archives and the files as well. This will ensure that the majority of
volunteers will be happy. Also, it must be decreed that the Coordinator
not have the ultimate control to "fire" people or alienate them in any
way. This serves only the purpose of coordinator and not of the USGW
Project as a whole."
---Stacy Orchard, Archives Census Project Coordinator emeritus, to the
Board, 17 Feb 1999
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
---------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.
From merope@Radix.Net Fri Feb 4 17:51:13 2000
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 17:51:11 -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.SV4.3.96.1000204075406.16894C-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Can they do that on TV?...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Thursday 3 February 2000:
Shari Handley asks "Why do we even need a motion for this? As "the public
representative for the project" (Bylaws Article VI, Section 2), the
National Coordinator should be able to field an inquiry such as this and
give an answer." She says Tim can ask for the Board's input if he feels
he needs it but he should be free to make decisions on such day to day
business as this and she trusts that he would take to make sure that the
project will be portrayed accurately. She also says "To make the guy wait
around while we hash out every niggling detail and examine every possible
angle . . . ad nauseum . . . makes us look bad, and he's liable to just
say "forget it!" . . ." [the ellipses are hers]
Pam Reid corrects her earlier message to add in the word NOT in the
sentence "I told him in the message that if he wanted to use shots from
State or County pages, the Board does NOT have authorization to grant that
permission."
Ginger Hayes replies with a fervent "Amen!" to Shari's post.
Pam notes that she doesn't disagree with Ginger and Shari. She thought
she should run the request by the Board but figured it would be an easy
decision to make. She feels "it is an honor we were asked and that it
can only be good for us to be included in the book."
Teri Pettit agrees with Pam but says she would like some clarification on
"what kind of things require official motions and voting (thereby needing
2/3 approval to pass), what kind of things should be run by the Board but
it's OK to just say "I'm thinking of doing this, any objection?", and what
kind of things the National Coordinator or the Webmaster can just do on
their own without asking the Board."
Ginger H agrees with Pam is an honor and doesn't think the Board needs to
review galley proofs. She also apologizes for sounding frustrated but she
thinks some things don't need motions, and that the Board is "getting too
caught up in trivial matters that should be no brainers while important
things just hang in limbo and aren't addressed."
Joe Zsedeny also agrees with Pam but notes that "unelected individuals are
injecting themselves into our deliberations and confusing the issues." [my
god no! Not constituents talking to the reps!] He thinks requests for
interviews, books, etc., should be passed by the Board for comment but a
motion is not required. He notes that "these things have been rare in the
past so it is difficult to make a list of things that might require a
motion. I think we will have to take it on a case by case basis." [Its a
pity Joe doesn't like hearing from project members; he might learn
something.]
Friday 4 February 2000:
Tim Stowell says he did not see the request until Pam forwarded it to the
Board, but he says that for similar things in the past, he's run them by
the Board for comment. He notes that "other than Holly and myself, no
other Board member is responsible to more Project members interests.
Therefore it seems to be in the best interests of the Project to at the
very least, pass along such requests to the rest of the Board." He agrees
with Ginger that they shouldn't leave Mr. Neibauer waiting overling, but
he says that Pam has already contacted him to confirm which screenshots he
wants to use.
Tim asks the Board Secretary to address Teri's question on what Board
business requires motion and what does not.
Tim reminds the Board that Motion 00-2, to allow the use of screenshots of
the National pages in a book, has been made and seconded and is currently
open for discussion.
Pam suggests amending the motion to read that the Board is "ONLY granting
permission for Mr. Neibauer to use screen shots from The USGenWeb National
site and that this permission does NOT extend to USGenWeb State or County
sites."
Joy Fisher accepts the amendment to the motion
Adieu Adieu Corner: We are very unhappy to learn that Elizabeth Harris, SC
for the NCGenWeb since July 1998 will be stepping down in July 2000. The
NCGenWeb is currently planning for an election to replace her; we wish
them luck in finding someone with her skill and expertise.
Coming and Going Corner: Elizabeth Harris has written to stress that the
NC migrations project was not meant in any way to compete with or copy the
Migrations project located at http://www.migrations.org. She says that
she, Marceline Beem, and Betsy Ross began working on the idea months ago.
She also stresses that "Our project is most assuredly NOT a political move
on the part of RootsWeb to counter or compete with Patrick's non-rootsweb
migrations project." [Fair enough, but neither was GenConnect, originally].
[note to Elizabeth: I generally do not respond to people who write to ask
me the names of my sources.]
We've also been told a similar project may be in the works for Florida,
interestingly enough, designed by the same former RW employee, Marceline
Beem.
"I was on IRC a while back.. just before B banned the RW 4... and he was
all upset about the stuff on the ALL list... Betsy, Randy Winch and
either Elsie (Leigh Compton) or GenConnect Pam were also there(all RW
staff members).. and They were telling me that Brian was threatening to
kick USGW off RW because of all the problems with the ALL list.. I asked,
the States, counties and SPs? and they said yes.."
---Anonymous, 3 Mar 1999
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
-------------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.
From merope@Radix.Net Sat Feb 5 09:37:26 2000
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 09:37:25 -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.SV4.3.96.1000205082656.17742B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Monster, John, monsters from the id!...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Friday 4 February 2000:
Pam Reid posts that she has made a few changes to the USGW home page and
the Special Projects page "that hopefully will solve the semantics
problems that we are experiencing now." She asks the Board to let her know
what they think of the changes. [Unfortunately, Pam's changes are a little
confusing; under the heading "The USGenWeb Archives Census Projects" she
has listed onot only Census I, but the Map, Pension, and Special
Collections projects as well.]
Pam informs the Board she has uploaded changes to the "Researcher
Information" page of the website
[http://www.usgenweb.com/researchers/researcher.html] and asks the Board
for their opinion. She has added a great deal of new information in many
categories. She notes [both in her mail to the Board and on the page
itself] that it is a work in progress and she's open for suggestions. She
also says she won't have much time this week for further updates to USGW
pages, as she has other obligations.
Broken Corner: We hear that Root$web's Surname Express has not been
indexing surnames since December; reportedly they are "looking into it."
The auto-moderator for the soc.genealogy.surnames newsgroup hierarchy must
be out of service again as well, as the only posts going through to it are
the RSL updates.
On the Move Corner: The Migrations project at http://www.migrations.org
has formally announced it is out of the beta test phase. Please visit and
help this site to grow! Incidentally, for those of you who wish to link
directly to the Migrations search facility, we understand that there are
currently buttons and coding you can add directly to your page that will
allow people to search the database from your page. Currently, buttons for
county and state searches are available; a button and coding will shortly
be added for surnames. Buttons and coding may be obtained at:
http://www.migrations.org/graphics/codingfaq.htm
"Be careful that what you write does not offend anybody or cause problems
within the company. The safest approach is to remove all useful information."
---Scott Adams
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
-------------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Llindquist, all rights reserved.
From merope@Radix.Net Sun Feb 6 08:51:56 2000
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 08:51:54 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: Daily Board Show
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000206075620.14561B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Daring to eat the peach!...its your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Saturday 5 Feb 2000:
Pam Reid notes that she has implemented a suggestion sent by a member to
help alleviate the semantic confusion caused by the national web pages.
She notes that the link from the index page to the Archives page now goes
to a page with the heading "USGenWeb Project Archives", with the
Motion 99-4 statement, and "an explanation of the "The USGenWeb Project
Archives (the correct name per the bylaws). From there, there are links
to the Archives page and to the search engines." [Unfortunately, she has
linked to a page that equates the "Project Archives" with the "Archives
Project"; see below]. She says that she might consider doing the same for
the Tombstone and Census Projects, or put all of the SPs on the same page,
making it clear which are official SPs, which are part of the Archives,
and which are conducted by individuals. The format of the Projects page
would remain as is, and Archives Project subproject would be bulleted
under the USGenWeb Project Archives.
Pam informs the group that she feels the section on Wars in the revamped
Researchers section is weak and she will be adding to that page as she is
able. She asks people to send her links to War and Military sites that
should be included.
Ginger Cisewski says she appreciates all the work Pam has put into
reworking the national pages; she finds the new look more professional.
However, she objects very strongly to wording on the new Projects page.
She says "The wording of our Bylaws, which was reiterated in Motion #99-4,
makes it very clear that the "Project Archives" is NOT the same thing as
the "Archives Project" and reserves the name "Digital Library" for the
"Project Archives." There is absolutely NOTHING in the Bylaws that
mentions or justifies a person as being the Coordinator of the "Project
Archives."" She notes that it is important to follow the bylaws
regardless of personalities and loyalties. She notes that the new page
presents "the Archives Project as being the "Project Archives" with Linda
Lewis as the Coordinator. Unfortunately, according to the Bylaws that
position simply does not exist." She feels the page is an "exercise in
misrepresentation" and it should be taken down. She also says that the
project page is misleading in that the subprojects are misnamed, since the
bylaws refer to official special projects as "The USGenWeb XX Projects, so
that the subprojects should be named "USGenWeb Archives Census Project,"
"USGenWeb Archives Pension Project," etc. She notes that the other two
Special Projects aren't even listed on the page. GingerC suggests the
following: "why not go "back to basics" and eliminate links to ALL the
Special Projects from the main page altogether. Provide one link only to
"The USGenWeb's Special Projects" which would take you to the Projects
Page. All the Projects page needs is that required statement, and one
link each to the main page of each Official Project". She notes that
simplification will avoid confusion and misrepresentation. A simpler
version of the page would also eliminate maintenance work and be less
confusing for the visitors.
Confusion Corner: If you look at the page now at:
http://www.usgenweb.com/projects/archives.html, it is apparent that Pam
has taken the blurb for the Archives Project, and replaced mentions of the
"USGenWeb Archives Project" with the phrase "USGenWeb Project Archives".
Otherwise, the description, history, personnel, and submission
instructions are all those of the Archives Project. The page now at:
http://www.usgenweb.com/projects/projects.html lists the subprojects of
the Archives and the Kiz and Lineage progects. This page only briefly
mentions the Tombstone and Census Projects. The Tombstone and Census
Project links on the main page go directly to their home pages. The net
effect of these changes, which I am reasonably sure Pam did not intend, is
to equate the USGenWeb Archives Project with the USGenWeb Project
Archives. The latter, as mentioned in the bylaws and as delineated in
Motion 99-4, is the _combined_ material in all official Special Projects.
The former is a subset of the latter. To equate them essentially drops
the Tombstone and Census Projects from the USGW Project Archives.
Update on the News Corner: A quick search of WHOIS at
http://www.networksolutions.com reveals that Root$web employee Nancy Trice
is still listed as the Administrative Contact for usgenweb.org and
usgenweb.net domains. It has now been 11 months since the Board passed a
motion directing Brian Leverich to have the contacts changed to Tim
Stowell's name, and at least six months since Brian actually publicly
agreed to do it.
"False opinions are like false money, struck first of all by guilty men
and thereafter circulated by honest people who perpetuate the crime
without knowing what they are doing."
---Joseph Marie De Maistre
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
-----------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.