From merope@Radix.Net Mon Feb 7 11:38:36 2000
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 11:38:34 -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.SV4.3.96.1000207063504.21341B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Tripping the light fantastic...its Your Daily Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Sunday 6 February 2000:
Pam Reid discusses further web site revisions with the Board. She
suggests eliminating links to the individual SPs from the main page, and
instead linking to the a single "Projects Page", which will contain a list
of each special project, with Archives' subprojects bulleted under the
Archives section. She notes that bulleting them under Archives would not
mislead anyone into thinking they were separate special projects. She
asks the Board to please discuss this issue as she "would be interested
in the opinions of everyone on the Board on this issue."
Ginger Hayes notes that she thinks Pam's idea is good and should work.
She'd like to see all the SPs listed to better serve the researchers. She
notes that in her own surfing, she doesn't always delve too deeply into
sites that has nothing listed of interest to her.
Ginger Cizewski notes that both Pam and Ginger are missing the point. She
points that in the Motion 99-4 statement, the Archives Project is listed
as a co-equal Special Project with Census and Tombstone. She again points
out that the bylaws make no provision for a "coordinator" of the "Project
Archives, and says "What you are both agreeing to amounts to an illegal
circumvention of the Bylaws as they stand today. In order for it to
become legal, the Bylaws would have to be amended."
GingerH replies that they are talking about page listings for researchers,
not who is in charge.
GingerC notes that that is exactly what she is talking about. She notes
that the new version of the page at:
http://www.usgenweb.org/projects/archives.html, includes a statement
noting that Linda Lewis is the coordinator of the "USGenWeb Project
Archives", and GingerC notes this is "simply not legally possible!"
Joe Zsedeny notes that from a researcher's standpoint, the page looks
fine.
Joe Zsedeny claims that "The Archives were grandfathered into the Project
when the ByLaws were written along with the coordinator." He says that if
the Archives were started today the Board would appoint the first
coordinator and succeeding coordinators would be elected by the project
membership. He notes "Selectively reading the ByLaws can lead one to
believe almost anything." [its apparently done so for him <g>]
GingerC notes that she has never found any mention of a "grandfather
clause" in the bylaws. She says "In the absence of a "grandfather
clause," everything that "was" prior to the adoption of the bylaws becomes
immaterial, and ceases to "be" and henceforth the organization is
structured according to the framework set forth in the newly adopted
bylaws." She challenges Joe to point out the grandfather clause in the
bylaws.
Joe quotes Art XIII, Sect 3 of the bylaws and says "How can reference be
made to the Archives if they were not grandfathered?"
GingerC points out that the Archives Project staff is mentioned similarly
to the other Special projects, but that "There is nothing in those Bylaws
however that gives the Archives Project the right to claim to be the
managers of or ultimate authority over the Project Archives." She asks
Joe to find her a section that says the "Project Archives" have a manager.
Joe [apparently running out of good arguments] says to show him a section
that says they don't, and says GingerC's "argument is so devoid of merit
that only a phrase I once used here before can describe it."
GingerC prefaces her next remarks by noting she will not trade insults
with Joe. She draws his attention to Article II, Section 2 of the bylaws,
Article V of the bylaws and Motion 99-4, which together support her
position that the ARchives Project, Tombstone Project and Census Project
are co-equal parts of the Project Archives.
Pushing Up the Daisies Corner: Genealogy.com has announced its new
"Virtual Cemetery", an online depository of images of tombstones with
transcribed inscriptions. As an inducement to people to submit images,
they are running a contest to win a free digital camera. I gave it a
whirl; one of the nice things about it is you can search by any field on a
tombstone [name, dob, dod, pob, pod, etc.] Its free, the photos are nice
[although they took awhile to load], and there is contact info on
submitters provided. Although this has been referred to elsewhere as the
"first online tombstone archive", we know our own Tombstone Project beats
it out by a number of years. The images are, however, a nice touch. You
can check it out at: http://www.genealogy.com/vcem_welcome.html
"Please! Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not
bicker and argue about who killed who..."
---Egbert, "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"
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 8 08:17:10 2000
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 08:17:08 -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.SV4.3.96.1000208062142.8321A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
More of the same...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
[picking up where we left off...]
Monday 7 February 2000:
According to Joe Zsedeny, "Any common sense interpretation shows Digital
Library=Project Archives=Archives Project." He feels he represents all
three and, although volunteers may store documents on their own websites,
they are encouraged to give them to the "Digital Library=Project
Archives=Archives Project". He contends that CCs come and go, but the
"Digital Library=Project Archives=Archives Project" remains.
[Hmmm...where have I seen this mystical "three in one" idea before?]
Ginger Cisewski says that this is not a discussion of "common sense", they
they are discussing the bylaws, which "must be adhered to until such time
as they are changed through legal means, and nobody's personal "common
sense" interpretation matters one iota." [although, when facing the
bylaws, "abandon common sense, ye who enter" seems to work pretty well.]
Joy Fisher states that if it will make things easier her name can be
removed from the special projects, and notes that she doesn't understand
the problem. She says "All of the Special Projects existed before there
were By-laws or an Advisory Board. None of them have ever held an election
for a Coordinator", and once again points out that the Archives began
before or around the same time as USGW.
GingerC replies to Joy that the point is not who's name is on the page,
the point is that the page equate "Archives Project with "Project
Archives". She also points out that "The bylaws make no allowance for
anyone, ever, to be "in charge" of the Project Archives." She asks further
"if there has never been an election for Project Coordinator, how did
Tim Kirkham get to be head of the Tombstone Project?" She notes that the
fact that the Archives is at least as old as USGW is irrelevant because of
the lack of a grandfather clause in the bylaws adopted by the membership.
She states "What was before the Bylaws ceased to be the minute the Bylaws
were voted into being. The only legal way out is to bring the website
back into compliance with the Bylaws until such time as the Bylaws can be
amended through proper means."
Joe [in an apparent fit of out-of order pique] motions to rescind Motion
99-4, noting that it was, in his opinion, "ill conceived when passed and
has since served to divide and obscure rather than to assist the
development of the Project and to enlighten." It has also "tries to
legitimize actions which have caused the Census Project files to be
unsearchable and not under the USGenWeb directory system but rather under
a Rootsweb directory." He says the wording of motion 99-4 has been used to
obscure the poor wording of the bylaws regarding certain phrases, which
"some of the ByLaws arthors have attempted to clarify to deaf ears."
GingerC notes that even if Motion 99-4 is rescinded, the bylaws remain
unchanged, and that the author of Motion 99-4 [Trey Holt] was also a
member of the original bylaws committee. She points out that both Census
II and the Archives reside within www.rootsweb.com/pub/ subdirectory, with
the only difference being further subdirectory division. She asks "Are
you now proposing that this Board has the authority to control which
server a Project places its files on??" She doubts the project membership
will go for that.
Holly Timm asks GingerC to explain what the Project Archives is if it is
not the Archives Project.
Teri Pettit says she also disagrees with Joe about it being "common sense"
that the Archives Project and the Project Archives are equivalent. Her
reading of the bylaws indicates that the USGW Project Archives is the
collection of files, while the USGW Archives Project is the group of
volunteers. She notes "It doesn't seem like common sense to me, or even
possible, that if the files stored by distinct projects 1, 2, and 3 are
all part of library A, that library A can equal one of those projects."
She also disagrees with GingerC's interpretation that "statements to the
effect that the Archives Project manages the Project Archives are contrary
to the Bylaws." She notes that the bylaws are not specific about many
things, including the purposes of the various projects, and says "what
would one imagine the area of responsibility for the USGenWeb Archives
Project to be, if it were not organizing volunteers to manage the files,
directories and indexes of the USGenWeb Project Archives?" She believes
that "The USGenWeb Archives Project does not EQUAL the USGenWeb Project
Archives, and should not be casually referred to as if it did. But
I believe that it is, and was always intended to be, responsible for
maintaining them." She notes that the bylaws are not very specific about
the responsibilities of any of the special projects, and expecting them to
be more specific about the Archives Project is "analogous to expecting the
Bylaws to proclaim that the Census Project is responsible for census
transcriptions or the Tombstone Project is responsible for tombstone
transcriptions, before you will allow those projects to assume those
duties."
Ginger Hayes says she's been reading the bylaws and asks that since the
bylaws are silent on the issue, is she correct in assuming that the Board
could propose an amendment and ask for the required co-sponsorship from 5
state projects. [yes, there's a punchline...wait for it.]
Teri notes that any individual can suggest an amendment but according
to the bylaws only a state can propose an amendment under the normal
amendment procedures, so the Board would need to find a state willing to
sponsor its proposed amendment. She also notes a couple of deficiences in
the bylaws in the area of amendments: 1) it is not clear if the proposing
state counts as one of the 5 co-sponsors, and 2) it is not stated how
states should decide to sponsor an amendment, whether by a vote or by the
decision of the SC. She thinks that most SCs would rather not make the
decsion without a vote of the SCs, but that they are also probably
reluctant to go through numerous elections in order to get an amendent on
the ballot. She notes "I seriously doubt it is possible to get five
states to agree to cosponsor any amendment, no matter how good it is, in
the time between when it is first proposed and the next national
election."
GingerH notes that here again it is a matter of interpretation, since what
the bylaws "actually says is "any", not "only"". She notes that with the
Constitution or any other law or code interpretation plays a roled. She
says "The original intent of any document of this kind is a factor in the
intrepretation", and notes further that "Questions of intrepretation of
the Constitution are decided by the Supreme Court all the time." [Told you
there was a punchline.] She is quick to point out that she is not
equating the Supreme Court with the Board, but is illustrating her point.
Tim Stowell pops in to point out that grandfathering, of a sort, is
mentioned in Art. XII, Sec 8 of the bylaws, where it notes that
State Coordinators in place at the time the bylaws were adopted can stay
in office until such time as they resign or can't fulfill their duties,
and do not need to go through an election. He also claims that "Since
Article XIII on Special Projects does not mention such a clause - then it
would seem to accept the status quo in effect at the time the bylaws were
adopted." [actually, wouldn't the absence of "such a clause" mean their
coordinators weren't grandfathered in and should all stand for election?]
[to be continued, no doubt....]
"That's what I like -- little things, hitting each other."
---Napoleon, "Time Bandits"
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 8 10:13:31 2000
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 10:13:28 -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, part deux
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000208081745.15731A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
Ad nauseum...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content, I can't help it. Read at your own
risk!
[Yeah, I know, you already got one today. What can I say? There's a lot of
news today.]
Tuesday 8 February 2000:
Tim Stowell asks Pam Reid to let the Board know Mr. Neibauer's response to
her email regarding the screen shots, and notes that once that reply is
received they will vote on Motion 00-2.
Tim notes that as of today [Feb 8] there are 138 subscribers to Board-L.
Tim asks for a second on Joe's motion to rescind Motion 99-4.
Board Secretary Ken Short responds to Teri Pettit's request of a few days
ago regarding what the Board needs to vote on and what it does not. He
says that the request to use screen shots does not need to be voted on and
to do so "is micro-management in the extreme." He says that Pam should
have notified Tim of the request, and then Tim could decide whether or not
it was OK and notified Pam of this. Although he is free to ask the Board
for input, "he should be free to make decisions on items like this." Ken
considers that this sort of thing falls under the "day to day business"
provision of the bylaws and notes "If the National Coordinator cannot make
a decision on such minor matters, why do we have a National Coordinator?"
GingerC notes that she believes Joe's motion to rescind Motion 99-4 is out
of order, as they already have an active motion on the floor.
Caveat Emptor Corner: We hear through the grapevine that our own
Representative At-Large, Holly Fee-Timm, is the focus of some controversy
on some of the mailing lists. According to a complaint sent to the NC of
the USGW, the KY SC [Nancy Trice], and to Root$web, Holly has been using
her web pages and mailing lists "to collect money in exchange for
materials related to her Eastern, KY pages...Holly never sends any
material even though she cashes everyone's checks. Last year we had to go
through Internet Fraud, Ohio postal authorities, BBB of Ohio and rootsweb
to get back almost $1200 in orders that were never delivered over a long
period of time." One listmember noted that she has been waiting over _six_
years for something she ordered and paid for. The complainant also notes
that Holly does not respond to customer complaints and was reprimanded by
Root$web last year for similar concerns. According to RW employee
"Donna" Holly has not been selling things on her site since she was
reprimanded by RW, but they are concerned if this is an ongoing problem
that might involve their lists or webpages. To date, the complainants
have not received a response to their letter to the USGW NC, although they
have been given to understand that the USGW is interested in further
information on this problem. Nancy Trice, KY SC, is also interested in
further information, and so is RW. A variety of CCs and mailing list
members are collecting information on these occurrences to present to the
BBB and state attorney's offices in OH, KY, and NC [states where Holly is
known to have counties and/or mail lists].
The Better Business Bureau has a very brief file on Holly's business,
Footprints Publications and Research online, located at:
http://search.bbb.org/bbb/plsql//bbbweb.reportShow?sessid=5083567844&AddrId=312000000135019
[you can also get here by going to the main search form at:
http://search.bbb.org/bbb/plsql/bbbweb.consumer_searchForm, and typing in
"footprints" in the Company Name field.
The Business of Business is Business Corner: According to the Secretary
of State of Delaware, RootsWeb.com, Inc. filed for incorporation on May
28, 1999 in the state of Delaware. The CEO is Robert Tillman. Their
registered agent in Delaware is The Corporation Trust Company
[HTTP://www.cchlis.com/]. Their corporate file number in Delaware is
#3048050. They are a "general corporation" and their total authorized
stock is 20 million shares of common stock, with a current $0 par value.
Yes, that is twenty MILLION shares. If Brian can sell it for even one
dollar a share, he's got a lot of money, even assuming that Karen and old
school chum Bob Tillman each have sizable chunks of stock [but not as
much as Brian, I'll bet]. They could also be using a portion of the
booty as stock options for their employees, in lieu of part or all of
their salaries, and of course RW employee Margaret Olson mentioned
recently that RW now has "investors". Stock is of no value unless you
sell it or trade it for other stock with value. So, which do you think it
will be--IPO or buyout?
Where's Waldo? Corner: Info from Dun and Bradstreet's web page
[www.dnb.com] indicates that Root$web has one main office, in Sausalito,
and two branch locations, both in Frazier Park, CA:
Headquarters: 14 Sunshine Ave., Sausalito, CA
Branch 1: 2125 Birchwood, Frazier Park, CA
Branch 2: Teton Way, Frazier Park, CA
Root$web's mailing address according to the CA Secretary of State is at
650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA, although the agent for service of
process [Robert Tillman] is at the Sausalito address above.
GenSoc, on the other hand gives a mailing address of PO Box 2797, Palos
Verdes Peninsula, CA, and its agent of process [Brian Leverich] is at 2121
Birchwood Wy, Frazier Park, CA [which must be right next door to
Root$web's second branch office; what a coincidence.]
[for those of you interested in geography, Sausalito is slightly north of
San Francisco, just the other side of the Golden Gate Bridge. Palo Alto
is about 30 miles south of the city, maybe an hour on a good day. Its the
home of Stanford University, Bob Tillman's alma mater. Palos Verdes
Peninsula is south and a bit west of Los Angeles, not too far from the
beach, and IIRC its some pretty ritzy real estate. Frazier Park is north
of LA on I5 quite a bit, near the area known as the Grapevine, up in the
mountains. Rootsweb and GenSoc are, literally, all over the map.]
"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!"
---Sir Walter Scott
This has been your Daily Board Show. Too much is always better than not
enough!
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
--------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.
From merope@Radix.Net Wed Feb 9 09:27:47 2000
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 09:27:45 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: DBS Special Report
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000209075541.5214B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
Putting the $ in Root$web--A DBS Special Report!
As you will recall, yesterday the DBS reported on an interesting and
extensive set of addresses that are associated in some way or other with
RootsWeb.com, Inc. and/or GenSoc.org, Inc.
We have since learned that the address listed with the California
Secretary of State as the mailing address for RootsWeb.com, Inc. [650 Page
Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA], is the address of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati, Attorneys at Law. [http://www.wsgr.com]
WSGR is a 40 year old firm with over 600 attorneys, and four branch
offices, in Palo Alto, Austin TX, Kirkland WA, and Reston VA. They
describe themselves as "the leading law firm representing technology
companies at all stages of their growth, as well as the investment banks
and venture capital firms that finance them." They have an impressive list
of clients, including [but not limited to] Apple Computers, Disney Online,
3com, Sun Microsystems, InfoSeek, TicketMaster Online, Lehman Brothers,
Morgan Dean Stanley Witter, The Home Depot, etc. The firm also lists as
clients about 35 venture capital groups. RootsWeb.com, Inc. is not
currently listed as a client, but there is no indication that the client
list at http://www.wsgr.com/clients/index.htm is exhaustive.
One of their clients is The Learning Company, which owns Broderbund and
Genealogy.com, both of which advertise on RootsWeb.com, Inc. As some of
you may recall, Broderbund bought out Palladium, which was
RootsWeb's first corporate sponsor and the purveyor of the first
commercial advertisement ever seen on RootsWeb's pages.
An anonymous correspondent has informed the DBS that Mr. J. Casey McGlynn
is the WSGR partner who handles RootsWeb.com, Inc.'s account with the
firm. According to his profile, he heads "one of the largest new venture
practices at the firm" and specializes in "the organization, funding and
corporate representation of companies in the information technology and
life sciences industries." He also "assists emerging growth companies to
meet their financing needs through introductions to an extensive network
of angel investors, financiers, venture capitalists, corporate partners
and investment bankers" and has experience "representing dozens of
companies that have made successful initial public offerings and secondary
offerings." [If you'd like to read more about Mr. McGlynn, his web page is
at: http://www.wsgr.com/attorneys/bio.asp?Empl=127]
The DBS has also learned that RootsWeb.com, Inc. has recently worked with
Greg Martin, an Associate with Redpoint Ventures, a Los Angeles venture
capital firm. Prior to joining Redpoint, Mr. Martin worked with an "Angel
Investor" in southern CA who focused on internet investments. During this
time, one of his clients was RootsWeb.com, Inc.
So, it looks like its going to be an IPO.
This has been a Daily Board Show Special Report.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
From merope@Radix.Net Wed Feb 9 13:18:52 2000
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 13:18:50 -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.SV4.3.96.1000209093855.15195A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
In for the long haul...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Tuesday 8 February 2000:
Ginger Hayes asks where in RRoR does it say there can be only active
motion on the floor at a time.
Joe Zsedeny says they've discussed it in the past and decided they could
have multiple motions active. He says that unlike most groups that use
RRoR the Board is in permanent session and "If we conduct business end to
end, so to speak, less of substance will be accomplished than is already
the case."
Ginger Cisewski cites two separate RRoR editions that say that only one
main motion can be active on the floor at a time. GingerH thanks her for
the info.
Richard Howland seconds Joe's motion to rescind Motion 99-4. He then
apologizes for the delay in seconding the motion; apparently it was sent
first to Joe privately. He also thanks Ken Short for his comments on
the screen shot issue.
GingerC reminds the group she has called a point of order that must be
addressed before other business can take place.
Tim Stowell opens Motion 00-3, to rescind Motion 99-4, for discussion.
Wednesday 9 February 2000:
Tim rules on the issue of having more than one motion active at a time.
He says "Joe's motion is not out of order as we have already set precedent
earlier this year when we had 4 or 5 motions made by Teri all open on the
floor simultaneously. While we haven't quite reached the 21st century, we
sure are no where near 1915's ancient ideas for running a meeting." [If he
actually _read_ RRoR, he'd realize they haven't changed all that much;
good manners is still good manners.] He thinks that given the "virtual
space" the group uses for meetings, it should use more liberal
interpretations of the rules, and notes that most Board members probably
routinely hold "multiple conversations with dozens of folks at the same
time." He says "we can certainly discuss multiple issues at once - if
they are prefaced in subject lines as different issues." [And it would
have been more appropriate for the BS to rule on this issue; that's why
they have one.]
GingerC again reminds Tim that his opening the motion for discussion is
out of order according to parliamentary procedure, and says "this Motion
has not yet received a proper second and we cannot proceed with ANY
further business until such time as a ruling on the Point of Order."
[looks like her message and his crossed in the mail <g>]
GingerC notes that the USGW Census Project [Census II] currently has no
representation on the Board and the Board has not sought to declare her
officially "Missing" or allowed the Census Rep's position to be filled."
She states that to proceed with the motion [which specifically mentions
Census II] under these circumstances "is a subversion of the democratic
process." She moves to table the motion.
Joe, ever charming, says that the trouble with selective reading is that
people have to repeat themselves. He, for instance, has personally
and publically "chided" Ron Eason [interim coordinator for Census II] for
not holding an election to replace both the coordinator and the Board rep.
He also notes that the Board is not empowered to declare people
"officially missing" as it is not a missing persons bureau. He then notes
"As for tabling anything, read your sacred 1915 Roberts and learn that a
motion is only tabled until the next session. Since we are always in
session how can anything be tabled including the one that is tabled,
M99-12." He notes that although he let that one slide, it's technically
"still with us." [So, the precedent exists and since this Board clearly,
by the statement of its NC, operates by precendent _and_ motions have
been tabled in the past without challenge, Ginger's motion to table is
clearly legitimate.] He closes by saying "Your dilatory tactics only
impede the work of this Board, not stop it. If the same energy were put
into trying to find solutions I would not be wasting my time answering
such foolishness."
Above It All Corner: In response to some concerns raised in recent
discussions over the upcoming election for the NCGenWeb SC, Linda Lewis
has clarified to her file managers that "we do not vote in any state
elections, unless we are county coordinators for that state. In that
case, we vote as a county coordinator, not as an archivist/file manager."
[Interesting. We seem to recall a recent SC election in which an
archivist/file manager ran for SC of a state in which she had no counties.
So they can _run_ in the elections, but not _vote_ in them?]
Cramping Their Style Corner: An alert reader has pointed out an
interesting occurrence with our favorite ad rag, the Root$web Review. Two
issues ago, in Vol 3, No 4, 26 January 2000, Root$web CEO Robert Tillman
made an emergency appeal for funds following a problem with its internet
connectivity provider that had RW off the air for 5 1/2 hours. At the
time, Bob noted that "Your contributions now literally can help RootsWeb
to stay online", and he pointed folks to RW's contributions page [which we
hear is in the process of being "updated"]. Now, we've heard that this
particular issue of the New Zoo Review made its way to a number of State's
Attorney General offices and guess what? The very next issue of the New
Zoo Review had absolutely no requests for contributions to RootsWeb in it
at all. Missing in particular is the little "DONATIONS HELP ROOTSWEB HELP
YOU AND ARE GREATLY APPRECIATED" blurb that has been in every issue of the
RWR since at least June 1999. Turns out that if you are going to solicit
"donations" and "contributions" you have to register in every state; since
its not a non-profit RootsWeb can't actually file the necessary documents
to get approval on a state by state level to ask people to give them
money.
"I didn't invent this buzzing confusion. It's all around us."
---Samuel Beckett
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 10 11:14:12 2000
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 11:14:11 -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.SV4.3.96.1000210061540.11738A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Lions and tigers and bears, oh my...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Wednesday 9 February 2000:
Ginger Cisewski reminds Joe that she was not talking about Census II
electing a replacement coordinator, since "That is not a concern of the
Advisory Board any more than an election to replace a State Coordinator
would be. She does point out that the Board was informed in November that
Kay's email no longer worked and she could not be reached, yet the Board
has failed to declare her missing, "and pave the way for a new Rep. to be
appointed, effectively disenfranchising the entire Census Project." She
tells Joe that as Archives Rep his job is to represent the Archives
Project. She also notes that "the Archives Project's Census Project
Coordinator is a member of this Board, as is the Assistant Archives
Coordinator. The Archives Project is already over-represented here, with
3 Board members holding management-level positions within the Archives
Project." She feels that failing to allow Census II a voice in the vote
to rescind Motion 99-4 could be categorized as a "steamroller tactic".
Teri Pettit says that when current activity is resolved she would like to
propose an emergency amendment to the Bylaws. She notes that "the Bylaws
make no provision for declaring a Board member missing. They say that the
Board "will appoint a replacement" if a member is "unable to complete
his/her term", but not how that inability is to be judged." She reminds
the Board that the last they heard from Kay, she was planning to complete
her term. She thinks this requires emergency amendments because "it
keeps us from making any decisions that might have an impact on the Census
Project without those decisions being very much under suspicion due to the
Census Project having no active representation." [The wording of her
proposed amendement is at the end of today's DBS.]
Joy Fisher says she is willing to withdraw Motion 00-2, since she only
proposed it because the author noted he was on deadline. She does not
object to the Secretary's ruling that a motion was not needed.
Teri agrees with her and says she seconded the motion in order that the
Board might act quickly. She asks the BS for a weekly report on tabled
motions so they don't "fall through the cracks. She also asks for "an
opinion on how tabled motions are to be handled when a meeting is
perpetually in session".
Joy withdraws Motion 00-2.
Ginger Hayes says she remembers a previous discussion on the topic of the
missing Census II representative, and the Board's consensus was that the
Board "can't remove Kay as a board member. The Census Project will have to
have a recall election to straighten this mess out." She doesn't
understand why they haven't done that, and says "either the members of the
CP don't care or there is some other reason I'm not aware of." She notes
the Board cannot force them to have representation.
Thursday 10 February 2000:
Tim Stowell acknowledges that Motion 00-2 has been withdrawn.
===
If You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em Corner: Brian and RW weren't always so
interested in venture capital as they appear to be now. Back in the day
[right around Dec 1998, when Ancestry got 10 million dollars from venture
capital firm Venture III, part of CMGI, in fact] Brian said ""tens of
thousands" of genealogists are contributing to Ancestry.com, a company
that is dedicated to making *spectacular* profits for its venture
capitalist investors. So it's OK for those guys to make spectacular
profits for their investors by soaking the genealogical community, but
it's asking too much to expect RootsWeb's users to make modest
contributions to support a community resource?" [TEAM-ROOTSWEB, 7 Jan
1999].
Now, when Ancestry got its venture capital, Venture III/CMGI got something
in return: 30% of the company and 2 seats on Ancestry's Board. At the
time, Brian noted:
"Ancestry just sold 30% of their company to CMG (a venture capital
company) for $10,000,000. This is money on top of the $60/year they
get from "tens of thousands of subscribers" (from the Wall Street
Journal). That means that Ancestry has more than $10,000,000 to spend, and
they expect to make a *lot* of profit off the community because venture
capitalists don't make investments unless they believe they can score some
thing 400% or higher profits within a 3-5 year period." [TEAM-ROOTSWEB, 31
Dec 1998]
As it turns out, Brian is the Chairman of the Board and largest
shareholder in RootsWeb.com, Inc., and some portion of the 20 million
shares of stock they are authorized to issue were "unassigned" at the time
they incorporated in Delaware. Enticement for a venture capitalist,
perhaps?
New Zoo Review Corner: Today's issue of the Root$web Review is once again
free of blurbs requesting funds for RW, but is chock full o' commercial
ads for other companies. Of interest this week, it appears that RW is
switching their "you don't do enough for us" rhetoric from money begs to
begs for data. CEO Robert Tillman notes that,
"only about 7,000 GEDCOMs have been uploaded to WorldConnect.... With the
circulation of RWR approaching 400,000, this means that fewer than two
percent of you reading this article have uploaded a GEDCOM to
WorldConnect. RootsWeb has set a goal of reaching 100 million names
uploaded to WorldConnect by the end of 2000. Based on the average number
of names uploaded in a GEDCOM to date, if about 40,000 of you (or about
10% of RWR's readers) upload a GEDCOM to WorldConnect before the end of
the year, this goal will be achieved."
Doesn't this sound familiar?
In other New Zoo Review news, if you are at all interested in seeing what
the staff at Root$web looks like, you can visit
http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/gentech/, where you will see many
pictures of a remarkably svelte looking Brian "King Of the Mountain"
Leverich, and a most CEO-ish Robert Tillman, in an unfortunate choice of
tie.
Today's quote is from a reader:
"I'm beginning to understand why companies screw the bejesus out of their
customers whenever they get a chance; users will cheerful screw the
bejesus out of companies whenever they have a chance."
---Brian Leverich, 7 Jan 1999, TEAM-ROOTSWEB
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
------------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.
=================================
Text of Teri Pettit's proposed emergency amendment to the bylaws:
Current wording:
Section 8. In the event a board member is unable to complete his/her term,
the Advisory Board will appoint a replacement to serve until the next
scheduled election.
Proposed addition:
Failure to respond to email, physical mail, and phone for a period of one
month (not including scheduled absences of which forewarning was given and
a date of return specified) shall constitute proof of inability to
complete a term. Failure to take part in any votes or board discussions
for a period of three months shall also constitute proof of inability to
complete a term, even if responses were made to private correspondence.
In appointing a replacement, the Advisory Board should attempt to
ascertain and follow the will of the Region or Special Project represented
by the member being replaced, but a formal poll shall not be required.
From merope@Radix.Net Sat Feb 12 12:48:37 2000
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:48:36 -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.SV4.3.96.1000211062416.19259D-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
When pigs fly...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Friday 11 February 2000:
Webmaster Pam Reid asks if any of her colleagues knows of a good online
source of information on family crests and coats of arms. She is planning
on doing a page on the topic sometime in the future. [if any readers know
of such a site, you can reach Pam at pamreid@home.com]
Ginger Hayes provides an url for information on heraldry:
http://www.looksmart.com/eus1/eus141561/eus71960/eus271049/eus271051/r?l&pin=000211x4
edb31b20a4bcdaeac1&
[There is no activity on the motion to table Motion 00-3, and as yet no
opinion from the Secretary on how tabling motions works since the Board is
in permanent session.]
Fingers in the Pie Corner: We've heard from a member of Census II that
behind its mild exterior of the last day or so, the Board [or at least
the NC] has been busy meddling in Census II's affairs. My correspondent
reports that he "found out in private that Tim [Stowell] took discussion
to the private Board list to discuss his concern with the Census Project
trying to vote for a Board Rep. He wants the Board to be able to appoint
one and when one is elected, he wants the Archvies [sic] Census to be able
to vote as well."
The DBS has also received, from a member of the "Election Committee", a
copy of a message the NC sent to the Committee yesterday [and cc'd to
Board-Exec], in which he states, 1) there is no such position as "National
Coordinator" for any of the Special Projects and the proper term is
"Project Coordinator"; 2) according to the bylaws the Board will appoint a
replacement representative and since Kay Mason's position has not been
declared vacant, any election to replace her is moot; and 3) based on
Art VI, Sec 3 of the bylaws, the Board must oversee any election for a
Board representative.
Well, isn't that special. First off, I would imagine that if Census II
wants to call its coordinator The Great Kazoo that is well within their
rights and that's certainly none of the Board's business. Second, several
Board members have expressed some dismay and concern that Census II has
not acted to replace Kay, and now that they are acting to replace her, the
NC wants to give them grief over it? Finally, while the concern over
proper representation on the Board for all Census project members is
admirable, Census I already has a representative on the Board; his name is
Joe Zsedeny. [Come to think of it, when Joe was elected by the Archives
Project to fill out the unexpired term of Jan Craven, I don't recall any
concern on the Board's part about "overseeing the election".]
Tim's reading of Art VI, Sec 3 is, not surprisingly, a little thin. All
that section says is "The responsibilities of the Advisory Board shall
include: addressing any problem issues as they arise, aiding the state
projects upon request, overseeing elections, advising and mediating, if
necessary, any grievances or appeals, and appointing a Webmaster to
maintain the national website." While one could interpret this to mean
anything from "the Board oversees _all_ elections" to "the Board oversees
only the national elections", I doubt it was intended to mean "the Board
oversees only those elections it wants to meddle in."
It is correct that the Board appoints replacements for vacant seats, but
if the state or special project in question wishes to hold an internal
election to choose a candidate to forward for the Board's consideration,
that election is the state or special project's business, and not the
Board's. If the Board has doubts about either the election or the
putative appointee they are free to vote against appointment.
"The President doesn't want any yes-men and yes-women around him. When he
says no, we all say no."
- Elizabeth Dole, referring to Ronald Reagan
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 Sun Feb 13 18:09:47 2000
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 18:09:46 -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.SV4.3.96.1000213174352.7217A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Faster than a speeding locomotive...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Saturdya 12 February 2000:
Teri Pettit forwards a letter from Elizabeth, SC of the NCGenWeb, in
which Elizabeth asks her Board reps and the NC for an interpretation of
the bylaws. NCGW is currently planning for an election to replace the SC
and she would like to know if Art XII, Sec 8 [along with several other
sections of the bylaws she quotes] implies either or both of the
following: "a) that each local-level coordinator will have one, and only
one, vote in the election of the state coordinator" and " b) that
local-level coordinators are defined as *only* those volunteers who are
hosting pages that "reflect whatever divisional structure is appropriate
for that state", in our case counties." She also asks " if we are bound
by the by-laws to a specific rule for the election of the state
coordinator...are we necessarily bound by the same rule in other statewide
elections or referenda?"
Teri responds to Elizabeth's questions by noting "the Bylaws are very
vague on the definition of a project member or who is on the "staff" of a
Special Project." In her opinion Art XII, Sec 8 leaves the definition of
"local-level coordinators" up to the state as well as the determination of
how votes should be distributed, as long as each person who is a
local-level coordinator gets at least one vote. She points out that the
bylaws are notably lacking in "any description of who actually IS a
member," since Arv IV, Sec 1 seems rather to describe who is eligible to
become a member. She notes that the restriction of voting rights to
members other than lookup volunteers and transcribers has been interpreted
to include Assistant Coordinators as members. She notes that "each county
has been allowed to specify up to two coordinators (whether they call them
Co-Coordinators or Coordinator and Assistant Coordinator is up to them),
and each person who fills at least one of those positions in any county
(or other primary local division) within any state of the region has been
given exactly one vote for CC Representative, regardless of how many such
positions they fill." She thinks that "the fair way to deal with state-
level special projects would be that before an activity could be
classified as an official "state special project", the CC's and assistant
CC's of the state should have to vote to recognize it as such, rather than
volunteers just having a cool idea and the SC being able to say "sure,
let's make it a state special project."" CCs could also vote to decide if
the managers of such project would get a vote in the state level
elections. Teri is also in favor of the "one vote per person" rule, both
because county management is often fluid, and because "having multiple
counties should be discouraged, rather than rewarded," and limiting people
to one vote removed at least one incentive to take on many counties.
"Remember: blaming the mass media for reporting political foibles is like
blaming the weatherman when it rains."
---Mel Walker, keeper of the Dan Quayle quotes page
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
------------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.