Jul 17-23 2000

From merope@Radix.Net Mon Jul 17 15:24:33 2000

Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:24:32 -0400 (EDT)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

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

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

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000716080533.9640A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: RO

X-Status:

Taunting you a second time...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Saturday 15 July 2000--Sunday 16 July 2000--Monday 17 July 2000:

Betsy Mills, Maggie Stewart-Zimmerman, and Pam Reid second Joy's motion to

table Motion 00-21. Barbara Dore gives the motion to table number 00-21a

and calls for a vote. Thus far, five Board members have voted yes.

Ginger Cisewski raises a point of order concerning Motions 00-21 and

00-21a, noting that she called for the question on July 13th. She points

out that "A call for the question is non-debatable... On that basis, the

Motion to Table and subsequent vote on it are both improper under accepted

rules of Parliamentary procedure." Barbara notes that she "heard no

second to the calling of the previous question, which is one of the basic

requirements." [As we recall, Joy ruled the call out of order which may

have discouraged anyone from seconding it.] Barbara rules that the call

for the previous question fails for lack of a second and overrules the

point of order. She again calls for a vote "to begin at 8:00am CDT,

July 17th and to continue until 8:00am CDT, July 19th or until such time

as said motion has passed or failed, which ever comes first."

GingerC moves that "the USGenWeb Project's domains usgenweb.org,

usgenweb.net and usgenweb.com be immediately registered to reflect these

changes: Registrant: The USGenWeb Project; Administrative Contact: Holly

Timm; Billing Contact: Ginger Hayes." In support of this, she will

herself donate the necessary funds to make the changes and re-register the

domains "as a goodwill gesture and in a continuing effort to support the

membership of the USGenWeb Project to the best of my ability." Jim Powell

seconds this motion.

===

Closing the Barn Door After the Chickens are Gone: As it turns out, the

registration on the usgenweb.com domain [the one owned by Root$web

employee Dale Scheider] expired 6 days ago. [.org and .net both expire in

September.

===

"If voting could change anything it would be illegal."

---Unknown

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Wed Jul 19 11:51:44 2000

Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:51:43 -0400 (EDT)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

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

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

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000718063457.13583A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

Giving away the store...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Monday 17 July 2000-Tuesday 18 July 2000:

Voting continues on Motion 00-21a [to table Motion 00-21]. Thus far 8

Board members have voted "yes". [Unless I miss my guess, this motion has

failed for a lack of a quorum. One of the voters was Barbara Dore, acting

NC]

Joe Zsedeny says his "personal feelings" on the recently introduced motion

to register the usgenweb.* domains in USGW's name are that it is

premature. He has heard that Dale Schneider [owner of usgenweb.com] "said

that he would turn the USGenWeb.com domain over to the Project when the

Project incorporated." Joe recommends ascertaining Dale's current

position on the disposition of the domain name and reminds the Board that

Tim Stowell is due back today [July 18]. Joe believes this issue "is too

important to rush into during the heat of an election. The Board has the

right and the duty to set it's own agenda for acting on any matter called

for in the Bylaws. And I for one will not yield to pressure from those who

clearly have another agenda in mind."

Ginger Cisewski says her agenda is that she cares about the project and

wishes to see it prosper for many years. She asks Joe "Why are you so

opposed to having the domain registrations changed to reflect that they

are owned by the USGenWeb Project?"

Joe asks GingerC if she is implying that USGW will not prosper if the

domain issue is not resolved "during the heat of [her] reelection." He

says he is not opposed to the USGW having ownership of the domains but it

is not clear to him that the USGW does have ownership. He says "There

needs to be some groundwork done then proceed with a motion. We have

plenty of time to do it right, so let's do it right."

GingerC points out the section of the bylaws regarding the domains and the

Board's responsibility for administering them and notes "The registration

on one domain has already expired, which makes this an URGENT matter, not

one you put off for some other day. Check with a legal expert about "doing

it right" and they will tell you the best insurance the USGenWeb Project

can have is for the Registrant to be "The USGenWeb Project."

Joe replies that "The project does not have ownership of the USGenWeb.com

domain, Dale "Doc" Schneider controls it...The other two, .net and .org

are as safe now as they were a year ago. This is politics on your part,

Virginia, pure and simple." He reminds her that the members of the

project are not the "official licensees" and claims "only individuals can

own the domains because the Project has no legal ownership of anything."

He asks her why she wasn't concerned about when she first joined the Board

and suggests it might just be "politics" on her part. He notes that has

re-registered the usgenweb.com domain and asks her to explain to him

"Please explain how the USGenWeb Project can legally own the domains?"

GingerC forwards a message/grievance from Carole Hammett to the Board

regarding the recent attempt by Linda Lewis to register "USGenWeb

Archives" as a service/trademark with the U.S. Patent Office. [see below].

Carole requests that the Board do the following:

"(a) remove Linda Lewis as Coordinator of the USGenWeb Archives (aka

Digital Library, aka USGenWeb Project Archives); (b) rescind all of her

Archives FTP privileges and passwords; (c) declare her a member NOT in

good standing of the USGenWeb Project (d) notify her employer,

Rootsweb.com, Inc.; (e) notify the U. S. Trades and Patents Office; (f)

notify all other appropriate authorities/agencies; and (g) remove the

proposed Archives Amendment from the USGenWeb Project ballot."

She notes that "Failure of the USGenWeb Project Advisory Board to act

swiftly and promptly in this matter will "open the door" to use by anyone

of all service and trademarks of the USGenWeb Project, including all marks

currently assigned to the State Projects..." Carole also notes that "In

addition to several apparent violations of federal statutes, Linda's

application also VIOLATES the USGenWeb Project Bylaws, and is a TOTAL

BREACH OF TRUST."

===

Election News: Roger Swafford has released the following message to the

project membership:

"The EC began operations over the Memorial Day holiday. Almost immediately

discussion revolved around adopting a primary and an alternate means of

conducting the elections. The EC was advised on 5/28/00 that Rootsweb

would not be supporting the elections process this year. Numerous web

based voting sites were investigated including Votebot, however, according

to their own information pages their site is not a substitute for

elections software or other procedures. Discussions then covered either

creating and sending ballots via email or using an online form. When a

volunteer to create online forms (ballots) with server was obtained and

proposed, the EC accepted by unanimous consent. The present system is not

perfect, there have been mistakes which were corrected when discovered.

The voter ID's were automatically generated by computer software after all

voter lists had been either imported or hand-keyed. There are some errors,

some caused by the use of multiple addresses and/or last names, shortened

first names, some due to typos. Thus far, members have been very

cooperative in correcting these errors. Once a master list was created it

was then split for the regional races and the EC teams given a regional

list with addresses and voter #'s. Initially the NC ballot with amendments

was only being sent to one person to be validated against the server log.

Two EC members volunteered to assist by taking on even more work so now

all ballots are sent to three persons for verification and tabulation. As

Chairman, I have recommended that all voter ID's with votes be listed on a

web site as part of an EC final report, the due date for which is yet to

be determined, hopefully not later than 30 August."

So, basically there is _no_ guarantee that votes will be publically

verifiable, and if it does happen, it will be too late to prevent the new

Board from being seated, should there be discrepancies.

All Mine Corner: For those of you wrote offering to buy the recently

expired usgenweb.com domain on behalf of the project, sorry. Betsy Mills

has indicated that "The usgenweb.com domain has been paid for and the

check cashed." She also stresses "That domain belongs to Dale Schneider

and therefore the motion on the floor can not be passed as it is stated

now. The board can not change anything on the usgenweb.com domain."

[There you have it, right from the horse's mouth.]

In the meantime, Linda Lewis has registered the name "USGenWeb Archives"

as a trademark and service mark with the United States Patent and

Trademark Office. The original application was made in her own name on

May 1 2000 [as opposed to the USGenWeb Project's name]. According to the

online application information, the application status is "newly filed

apllciation, not yet assigned to an examining attorney". Registration

info is as follows:

Word Mark USGENWEB ARCHIVES

Goods and Services IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: Free transcribed genealogy

data online

Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING

Serial Number 78006402

Filing Date May 1, 2000

Files ITU FILED AS ITU

Owner (APPLICANT) Lewis, Linda R. VOLUNTEER GROUP VIRGINIA 531 Queensway

Rd. Richmond VIRGINIA

Type of Mark SERVICE MARK

Register PRINCIPAL

Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

Current status is:

Serial Number: 78006402

Registration Number: (NOT AVAILABLE)

Mark (words only): USGENWEB ARCHIVES

Current Status: Newly filed application, not yet assigned to an examining

attorney.

Date of Status: 2000-05-05

Filing Date: 2000-05-01

Registration Date: (DATE NOT AVAILABLE)

Law Office Assigned: TMEG Law Office 102

CURRENT APPLICANT(S)/OWNER(S) 1. Lewis, Linda R.

GOODS AND/OR SERVICES Free transcribed genealogy data online

PROSECUTION HISTORY (NOT AVAILABLE)

CONTACT INFORMATION Address: LINDA R. LEWIS 531 Queensway Rd. Richmond VA

[Note that the date on the "current status" is May 5; Linda may have

already been granted this trade/service mark]

This is kind of interesting. Should this trade/service mark be registered

with the USPTO and should Linda Lewis ever leave the Archives or be

removed from it, the USGW would have no rights to continue to use the

name. However, Her application may be of questionable legality. The

USGenWeb Project is an "unincorporated non-profit association", a specific

legal status recognized in many states. We have been assured numerous

times that the Archives are indeed part of this projecct, and USGenWeb has

used the name "USGenWeb Archives" to refer to them for four years, thus

probably establishing rights to the trademark. Note that Linda applied

for the trademark _personally_; it would be her property, not the property

of USGW, should it be granted. If this state of affairs distresses you,

contact the USPTO about it; they do welcome comments on pending

trade/service mark applications. [http://www.uspto.gov/web/info/index.html

for phone numbers]

[http://www.uspto.gov/web/menu/tm.html, select TESS, enter "usgenweb

archives" in the search field for info about the application]

Sauce for the Goose Corner: Ron Eason, coordinator of the USGenWeb Census

Project, has filed a grievance with the Board regarding its apparent

double standard in issues involving the Archives. He notes in particular

the issue of copyrighted pages created by Sue Soden for the USGW CP which

the Archives is continuing to use without permission even though they have

been requested to stop. He also notes Linda's application for personal

ownership of the service/trademark "USGenWeb Archives" and the apparent

refusal of Maggie Stewart-Zimmerman to respond to communication from him

regarding Sue's pages, both of which have parallels to reasons cited for

delinking and removing the CP. Ron asks that the Board reconsider its

actions in regards to the CP, but requests that "if you should decide to

let stand your ruling, then I request that the same measure and standard

be held for the Archives Project and Linda Lewis and that the same actions

be taken against her and her Project. To do otherwise is contrary to what

is right and just."

Joke Of The Day Corner: In one of those fun twists that make life

humorous, Tim Pierce [the "Chief Hacking Officer" of Root$web] has

purchased an item at auction on Ebay. The seller is Billie McNamara's

mother; as some of you may remember, Billie was banned last year and can

neither send nor receive mail from Root$web accounts. Apparently, RW

considered Billie enough of a threat that it also banned several of her

family members, including her mother. So, you guessed it, attempts to

notify Tim of the shipping costs for his item are bounced and Billie has

needed to resort to using the non-RW mailing lists to find someone to

forward the information to Tim on her mother's behalf.

===

"The arts of power and its minions are the same in all countries and in

all ages. It marks its victim; denounces it; and excites the public odium

and the public hatred, to conceal its own abuses and encroachments."

---Jeff Cohen

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Thu Jul 20 07:56:37 2000

Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 07:56:28 -0400 (EDT)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

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

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

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000720065316.28146A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: RO

X-Status:

Butter would't melt in its mouth...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Wednesday 19 July 2000-Thursday 20 July 2000:

Joe Zsedeny reports that Robert Maley has agreed to turn over the

usgenweb.ws domain to the project and notes "However, in the future there

are going to be many more suffixes. Because we cannot cover them all I

would suggest we at least consider trademarking our name so that it can't

be used for domains or any purposes but those we deem appropriate."

[Interesting. Mr. Maley conducts a business at that URL] . In a second

message, Joe adds that he should hav said that "this domain could be held

until trade marking is complete if it is decided to do it."

Ginger Cisewski posts information regarding the application for trademark

status for the "USGenWeb Archives, including the information that three

Board members signed the application [Barbara Dore, Joy Fisher, Maggie

Stewart Zimmerman. She moves "that The USGenWeb Advisory Board find Board

members Barbara Yancey Dore, Maggie Zimmerman and Joy Fisher, as well as

Archives Project Coordinator Linda Lewis not members in good standing in

the USGenWeb Project." Jim Powell seconds this motion in the hopes that

Barbara, Maggie and Joy "will explain themselves."

Barbara Dore claims that she did not know "one way or the other" that she

was listed on the application [although she, Maggie, Joy and Linda all

apparently signed it]. She says "If I recall when the possible registering

was discussed there were several that agreed it needing doing and offered

to help. Linda has not ask me for any funds as of yet nor had it been

mentioned between us again until last night." She also notes that she is

not a contributor to the Archives and joined the Archives Census Project

in January or February.

Ginger Hayes asked Barbara, Joy, and Maggie if "their names were listed

with or without their consent." In a separate message, she notes "The

silence around here seems to speaking volumes."

Pam asks GingerC and Jim whether they intend to "to rectify an injustice

by giving a similar injustice back" and notes that if they really believe

that Ron Eason did no wrong in incorporating the Census Project then they

"obviously should not find Linda, Maggie, Barbara and Joy in the wrong."

She says that the only way they can justify the motion to declare them not

in good standing "is to admit that the action severing the Census Project

was the right thing to do." [Actually, finding people not "in good

standing" and severing relations with an entire project and its members

are not equivalent.]

Jim replies that "This Project is going from bad to worse at the moment"

and if Pam really believes that the new motion evens things out, she

should make a suitable motion to that effect and find a second, and then

he will withdraw his second from GingerC's motion. He notes "For the

record, I want the truth. I do not support finding them not in good

standing at this time. In fact there has been more than enough division

lately." He further requests that anyone who might support him for NC

"drop all criticism of this Project and any members of this Project until

after the election is finalized. Let the chips fall where they may. If

anyone steals away with the Project, Domains or Word Marks in the

meantime, we will do our best to recover." He asks Barbara, Joy, and

Maggie to bring the service mark idea to the Board so that they can work

as a team.

Tim Stowell declares Motion 00-21a [motion to table Motion 00-21] failed.

Pam Reid notes that the bylaws call for 9 members to constitute a quorum

but thinks "since we are down a Board Memeber (Census Project), wouldn't

eight members then constitute a quorom?" She notes that Motion 00-21a

would pass if that were the case.

Tim Stowell calls for a vote on Motion 00-21: "I move that henceforth in

all instances where an Advisory Board motion has been made and seconded,

and is followed by at least two independent calls for the question: (1)

that voting can proceed, with or without discussion, with or without a

numbered motion and with or without the approval of the National

Coordinator; (2) that said motion shall be automatically approved should

it receive the number of aye votes necessary under the Bylaws; and (3)

that the only exception shall be when the Bylaws call for a 48-hour

membership notice period."

Tim gives GingerC's motion to reregister the domains number 00-22 and

opens the floor for discussion. ["I MOVE: "That the USGenWeb Project's

domains usgenweb.org, usgenweb.net and usgenweb.com be immediately

registered to reflect these changes: Registrant: The USGenWeb Project

Administrative Contact: Holly Timm Billing Contact: Ginger Hayes"]

===

Conspiracy of Thieves Corner: In a message to her Archivists, Linda Lewis

says:

"As some of you already know, I've registered "USGenWeb Archives" with the

U.S. trademark office. This was done to protect the Archives...There are

three other USGenWeb volunteers on the application, but I will not reveal

their names at this time to protect them from flaming...They were added in

case something were to happen to me. Please note that *my* name is on the

application, not Rootsweb, not MyFamily. I think, legally, I am the only

one that could have done it. Also note that I did not incorporate, but

only registered for a trademark. There are several reasons I made this

decision, one being that I suspected someone else might do it, knowing the

tactics used by some volunteers....If anyone looks at the last four years,

they will see that I've never done anything wrong, and anything I have

done was to protect the USGenWeb Archives and the data contained within

for researchers...I apologize for not bringing this before you prior to

the filing, but under the circumstances, and the time it takes to finalize

the application, I felt it was best. This does not change the goal or

purpose of the USGenWeb Archives, nor does it change any of the guidelines

or promises we've made to submitters and researchers."

Following the publication of the inclusion of the three Board members in

the application for service mark status, Carole Hammett has revised her

currently pending grievance to include the following: "1. Removal of

Barbara "Rootslady" Dore, Maggie Zimmerman and Joy Fisher from the

USGenWeb Project Advisory Board 2. Declare Barbara "Rootslady" Dore,

Maggie Zimmerman and Joy Fisher members NOT in good standing of the

USGenWeb Project 3. Removal of Maggie Zimmerman as Coordinator of the

"Archives Census Project" and Joy Fisher as Assistant Coordinator of both

the USGenWeb Archives Project and the USGenWeb Archives." She reminds

the Board that parties named in grievances are precluded from

participating in their resolution due to conflict of interest.

Freebies Corner: from now until July 31, Ancestry.com is offering free

memberships. You can signup at:

http://www.ancestry.com/subscribe/freepromo.asp?sourcecode=A11AF

===

"Since the very beginning of this project there has been those hollering

"conspiracy this" and "conspiracy that". Conspiracy is like beauty, it is

in the eye of the beholder, and you must take those that holler

"conspiracy" and analyze to see if they are the ones that might benefit

from causing chaos in the project."

---Bridgett Smith Edwards Schneider, USGENWEB-ALL, 19 July 2000

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Fri Jul 21 19:07:45 2000

Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 19:07:41 -0400 (EDT)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

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

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

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000721174720.10772A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: RO

X-Status:

As seen on TV...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Thursday 20 July 2000:

Ginger Hayes notes that "If it was wrong for the CP to incorporate using

the USGW name 3 months ago then it is still wrong today, and Ms. Lewis'

actions, with or without the consent and aid of 3 members of this board,

are also wrong. If the 3 members of this body had full knowledge of these

actions then they are also wrong." She suggests that the "double

standard" employeed by the Board is inappropriate and that policy

decisions should be made based on "what is done" rather than "*who* is

doing it."

Pam Reid reiterates that she does not understand how Jim Powell and Ginger

Cisewski "could make and support this motion, given their adamant

objections to The Census Project Actions." She says her comments "dealt

with that issue - not at to whether anyone was right or wrong, but that

the act of giving similar treatment to Linda, Maggie, Joy and Barbara for

something they so adamantly opposed for Census seems, to say the least ,

unjustifiable."

GingerC notes that if she had intended to enact a "similar injustic" she

would have moved to remove the entire Archives Project. She notes that

although Ron Eason was wrong to incorporate the Census Project as a

for-profit incorporation, he did dissolve the corporation immediately and

apologized. She points out out, that "The AB did wrong by ousting the

entire Census Project for an action of Ron's, done without their

knowledge or consent, The AB did wrong by not waiting the 48 hour period

specified in the bylaws." GingerC notes that the big difference between

the CP incorporation and the "USGenWeb Archives" trademark application is

that "this time it involves 3 current Board members and all 4 people are

in leadership positions of one type or another in this Project. There is

also the fact that the PTO may see this as a conspiracy to commit fraud

since all 4 people were well aware that the USGenWeb Project had the name

"USGenWeb Archives" in use in 1996, and therefore had ownership." She

suggests that a just outcome would ensue if the Board did the following:

" 1. Publicly censure Ron Eason for his singular actions 2. Reinstate the

Census Project and restore their voting rights for this election 3. Find

Barbara, Joy Maggie and Linda not in good standing in the USGenWeb

Project"

Barbara Dore suggests the Board read the following website:

http://floridalawfirm.com/iplaw/ip-intro.html

Barbara notes that it did not bother Jim and GingerC that USGenNet, Inc.

"Funny thing, it didn't and doesn't seem to bother you one little bit that

USGenNet, Inc. has chosen to use the name USGenWeb on a non-approved logo

and effectively changed the name of our organization." [she gives the

example at http://www.usgennet.org/usgenweb.html, but it is not clear what

she means by changing the name of USGW]. She asks them if they now "see

things differently" and whether they "are now ready to fully

support a cease and desist motion against USGEnWeb, Inc., possibly laying

the groundwork for any necessary legal action to prevent further

misrepresentation?" [again, not clear what she is talking about here.

USGenWeb, Inc. has been dissolved] She also asks them if they are "also

ready to declare Fred Smoot & Carole Hammett as members not in good

standing?" [There has been a directed effort in the last few days to

direct attention away from Linda Lewis's action to some supposed

similarity between the names of the USGenWeb Project and United States

Genealogy Network, Inc.]

Barbara also suggests the Board look "at one of the latest look-a-likes"

[http://www.usaroots.com/] and asks them to note the used of the terms

"US GenWeb" and "US Archives". [Babs must be losing it. This site looks

_nothing_ like USGW. It has prominent links to both the USGenWeb and to

the Archives, although it misnames the Archives. So what? Is she actually

suggesting that it is wrong for other online genealogy sites to link to

us or that its some kind of violation of our service mark?]

Barbara notes that her previous message was not intended for BOARD-L and

apologizes [hmmm...wonder who it _was_ meant for?]

Barbara asks a series of questions and answers about the recent service

mark application by herself and the others. She notes that according to

the USPTO an application for a service mark "must be filed in the name of

the owner of the mark; usually an individual, corporation or partnership.

The owner of a mark controls the nature and quality of the goods or

services identified by the mark." She asks: "Does anyone or any other

entity or project have the right to use the name "USGenWeb Archives"

Project or the associated logos other than the project located at

http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/ ?? Does the NC control the nature and

quality of the goods and services identified with the name USGenWeb

Archives Project?? Does the Advisory Board control the nature and quality

of the goods and services identified with the name USGenWeb Archives

Project?? Is Linda Lewis Coordinator of the USGenWeb Archives Project??

Has there ever been anyone other than Linda Lewis who was Coordinator of

the USGenWeb Archives Project and might therefore have a right to claim

"first-use"?? Did Linda Lewis have permission to use the "USGenWeb" part

in the naming of the project she started?" [She conveniently doesn't

answer any of these questions, however]

Teri Pettit says she will try to get an amended motion posted "today"

[Thursday]. She asks if they can hold off on voting on the amended motion

until August, since she will be unavailable until then. [apparently she

did not get an amended version posted; none has come over the list.]

Joy Fisher finds it interesting "interesting that these board members wait

until someone is gone to propose a motion to drum then out of the group."

[No such motion has been made. The motion to find the four not in good

standing would have no material outcome other than making them ineligible

to run for office.]

Teri says she has no problem with Linda Lewis trademarking "USGenWeb

Archives", as she is sure she is doing it on behalf of "the USGenWeb

Archives as a sub-project of The USGenWeb Project." She also notes that

"The fact that several Board members are also listed on the application

should be taken as an indication that Linda recognizes that the USGenWeb

Archives is part of the USGenWeb Project, rather than being assumed to

show some kind of nefarious collusion." [Except that is not why Linda says

they are there]. She does think "that this indicates a somewhat of a

double-standard in the same Board members getting so upset about Ron very

briefly incorporating The USGenWeb Census Project." Teri says "It is my

opinion that EVERY Special Project and EVERY State Project has the full

right to trademark or incorporate their sub-project without asking the

permission of the Advisory Board or anybody outside of their

sub-project...I'm simply in favor of the right of ALL sub-projects,

whether State, Special or Local, to run their own affairs, with the

national level assisting them in voluntary joint operations, not telling

them what they can or can't do, beyond a very minimal set of rules

necessary to maintain project identity. And those rules are already in the

Bylaws, none of which prohibits subprojects from incorporating or from

registering the names of their subprojects as trademarks."

Teri says she did not receive a voter ID either [Gloria Mayfield did no]

and notes that since she will not be able to read her mail until July 31,

she very well may not be able to vote. She notes "It doesn't seem fair to

stretch the voter id notification so close to the end of the voting

period. It's summer, when lots of people take vacations of two weeks or

more. Getting your id less than two weeks before the polls close may

prevent a lot of people from being able to vote."

Teri also asks for a longer voting period for Motion 00-21a, since several

Board members are away. She notes "The voting period should be flexible,

depending on circumstances such as how many members are available, how

active the ongoing discussion is, whether there is substantial desire for

more time, whether delaying a vote would have a material difference on the

effect of the motion (such as when the motion concerns an action with a

specific deadline), how close the vote is running (if the members not

voting could not change the outcome, then there is no reason not to close

the voting as soon as a quorum is reached), etc."

Richard Howland votes "yes" on Motion 00-21a.

Pam Reid notes that she's never seen an apology from Ron Eason for

incorporating the Census Project, but she doesn't think this issue is

really about "Ron's apologies or lack thereof." She thinks it would be

improper for her to move to reinstate the Census Project and notes "I

don't believe that the wrong "evens" things out and actually, don't find

them comparable" and suggests that someone who does should make the

motion. She thinks the situations are not comparable because: "When the

Census Project incorporated the name, they precluded anyone else from

incorporating the name, right? Did they clearly have the right to the

name?...it was certainly debatable who the "real" Census Project was.

There was another Census Project that was as viable by that time, and they

had a potential claim to the name. And the Board had not ruled as to which

was the legitimate Census Project. Now, when Linda trademarks the Archives

name, she has precluded any other group from using it. Is there another

viable group that has a possible claim to the USGenWeb Archives name?"

She thinks it would be a "grave mistake" to find Linda, Barbara, Joy and

Maggie to be not in good standing.

Pam also notes she considers this to be a "similar injustice" not "the

same injustice" [comparing removing the CP to declaring the four to be not

in good standing]. She says "These Project leaders and Board reps cannot

function if they are declared "not in good standing." Pam notes that the

Board voted to waive the 48 hour period, which may not have been a good

idea, but it did not violate the bylaws [actually, the Board voted to

waive their _own_ traditional 48 hour discussion period, not the 48 hour

period required in the bylaws for member comment]. Pam agrees with

GingerC that the two issues are dissimilar and she believes "Linda did

nothing wrong because she was trying to protect the USGenWeb Archives from

possible identity theft." [Which was what Ron was trying to do by

incorporating the CP] Pam also says she considers reinstating the Census

Project and restoring its members' voting rights to be an injustice and

reiterates that she doesn't think Linda, Barbara, Maggie and Joy did

anything wrong.

===

Election News: Roger Swafford, Chair of the Election Committee, has

announced "The voter IDs have been issued, anyone who may have missed or

haven't received one please send a message to your EC area rep...Please

provide the following information; Full name E-mail addresse(s) if more

than one is used. The name and URL of the sites and/or projects that

qualify for voting. The length of service with USGenWeb if recently

starting with the project a date would help."

Closed Discussion Corner: Rita Maggard, dominatrix of the

USGENWEB-DISCUSS mailing list, has closed it to anyone who is not a member

of the USGenWeb Project. On Wednesday, she informed the list that "This

list was set up for members of the USGenWeb Project to discuss project

business and happenings in a respectful, polite manner. It is NOT not

discussing other organizations. By the same token, it is NOT for other

organization's members to discuss the USGenWeb Project. This list is now

CLOSED to all but current members of the USGenWeb Project." She

instructed all list members to send her email including their names, email

addresses, the URLs to their USGenWeb pages; anyone who failed to do so

was unsubbed at 6:00 pm EST yesterday.

===

"You are officially on the record for your opinion."

---Linda Lewis, USGENWEB-ALL, 20 Jul 2000

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Sun Jul 23 17:57:01 2000

Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 17:57:00 -0400 (EDT)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

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

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

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000723083459.8332A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: RO

X-Status:

Livin' la vida loca...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Saturday 22 July 2000:

Tim Stowell declares Motion 00-21 failed. Once again, not a single Board

member cast a vote of any type.

===

Trust In Us Corner: Tim Stowell has posted the following message to the

State Coordinator's list:

"Please inform your CCs that they may vote with confidence that their

ballots are secret. According to the EC - the script tallys the vote and

then the committee members verify it. The verification process makes sure

that the vote tallied for x ID goes to y member."

Our NC has an interesting idea of "secret". The ballots are still being

mailed to individual members of the the EC with names and email addresses

attached. The nine people on the EC will know how each member voted.

Leigh Compton, ALGW State Coordinator and owner of the server on which

the ballots reside has full access to all voter logs, including

indentifying information. Can we trust those 10 people to keep our votes

confidential?

We've heard that the EC is more than a little worried about a large influx

of votes at the last minute. Apparently, a fairly small proportion of

voters have cast their ballots. At least 6 SCs have openly told their

CCs not to vote until the serious problems with the election process have

been addressed [witness Tim's not-very-reassuring missive above]. Since

the votes will be hand-counted, a big pile of votes at, say, 15 to

midnight on July 31 would seriously impact the vote tallying and

announcement of the winners.

===

Today's quote was sent in by a reader:

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry

about the answers."

---Thomas Pynchon

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------