Feb 7-13 2000

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

--------

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

-----------

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

--------

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

------------

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

------------

=================================

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

-----------

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

------------