From merope@Radix.Net Mon Jul 24 20:46:26 2000
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 20:46:25 -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.SV4.3.96.1000724070526.833A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Don't look now...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Sunday 23 July 2000--Monday 24 July 2000:
Regarding the issue of what constitutes a quorum, Tim Stowell tells the
group "Regardless of how many members may or may not be present, the
number is still 9, as per the Bylaws, until the Bylaws are amended."
Since no Board members voted on Motion 00-21, he calls a "roll call" and
notes "If there is not a quorum present, it would seem to me that there
would be no reason to call for any more votes until a quorum does in fact
exist."
Thus far, Maggie, Holly, Shari, Betsy, Pam, Joe, Jim, Richard, Ginger
Hayes, Tina, Ginger Cisewski and Barbara have all answered the roll call.
[That easily makes a quorum, so let's get cracking on Motion 00-22 and
then let's move on to the motion to declare Linda Lewis, Barbara Dore,
Maggie Stewart Zimmerman, and Joy Fisher not in good standing. For some
reason, Tim seems to be ignoring that one.]
[For those of you that don't recall, Motion 00-22 is the motion to
re-register all the usgenweb.* domains.]
Joe Zsedeny reports that Linda Lewis "has decided to remove her name from
the trademark filing and attempt to have just "USGenWeb" placed on the
application." Because the USPTO may need a name a address to replace
hers, Joe suggests that they use the name and address of the National
Coordinator. He also suggests that "If Linda is successful in doing this
we should include in a future amendment to the Bylaws a provision that
each NC pass the TM on to his/her successor."
Jim Powell thanks Linda and Joe and asks "Can't we create written
operating procedures that would include such things as transfer of
trademarks and domains?"
===
"I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many
parasites living on the labor of the industrious."
---Thomas Jefferson
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 Jul 25 10:26:53 2000
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 10:26:52 -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.SV4.3.96.1000724223313.3198A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
Not to put too fine a point on it...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Monday 24 July 2000:
Tim Stowell calls for a vote on Motion 00-22, "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" Tim adds that "no change can be made to usgenweb.com as it
is privately owned by Doc Schneider." [Tim also notes that a quorum is
confirmed.]
Tim gives the motion to "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" number 00-23
and opens the floor for discussion.
Barbara Dore demands "to know the "specific" charge/s under which this
motion has been made and seconded." [Don't you love those ironic quotes
around the word specific?]
===
Election News: Some project members who have not yet voted are reporting
receiving "reminder notices" from the Election Committee. Over on the
State-Coordinators-L list, Tim Stowell is asking if his fellow SCs have
remembered to notify the EC when CCs leave the project during the election
season.
Take the Files And Run Corner: We hear through the grapevine that
there is yet another episode in the seemingly endless saga of
misappropriated files in the Archives. This one, not surprisingly,
concerns the Archives Census Project and one very large set of
transcriptions originally done for the Census Project, but copied over
into the ACP without the transcriber's permission. The tale starts in
1998, when the transcriber submitted a file to the CP and it was uploaded
into the ACP with incorrect information attached. The submitter requested
that the information be corrected and although she was assured it was, the
file is still online in the ACP with the incorrect information included.
[The version in the CP is correct.] In 1999, when she was ready to submit
her second transcription, she _specifically_ requested that it not go into
the ACP, but by then the ACP was running its clandestine mirror script and
her file made it into the ACP directories anyways. The ACP version of
this file also contains incorrect information. When her third
transcription was ready for submission, the transcriber tried once
again to get the incorrect information in the previous two corrected.
However, she was not successful, and because she was never given the name
of a person to contact regarding these problems, she had her State
Coordinator intervene. Her SC's email insisting the files be removed was
cc'd to a handful of people,including Tim Stowell, Linda Lewis, and
Maggie Stewart Zimmerman, but to no avail. The files were left online and
on July 10, 2000, the following header information was added to them:
"This Census was transcribed by Name Withheld Per Transcriber Request and
proofread by Name Withheld per Proofreader Request for the USGenWeb Census
Project, http://www.usgenweb.org/census. Copyright 1999 by Name Withheld
Per Transcriber Request"
The transcriber again wrote to the National Coordinator and the Archives
representative requesting that her transcriptions be removed immediately
and entirely. On 23 July 2000, Ron Eason attempted to intervene on her
behalf with the Board, asking them to "Please help her regain the rights
she deserves." The Board's responses were generally supportive of the
transcriber [although one Board member took the opportunity to take a
swipe at Ron]:
"In my opinion, [name deleted]'s info should be removed from the
Archives. Whatever the reasons are for her unhappiness about having the
files in both places don't really matter. We have an unhappy volunteer and
we should do what we can to fulfill her request. The "no removal" policy
of the Archives does occasionally have to be overlooked and I believe this
is one of those cases."
---Pam Reid
"Linda, in the interest of goodwill and fairness to Ms. [name deleted]...
please consider acknowledging her request and removing her transcript."
---Holly Timm
On July 23, the following message appeared on the top of the disputed
transcriptions, which were still posted in full and available online in
the ACP:
"We are currently looking for someone to retranscribe this census record.
If you are interested please contact the USGenWeb Census Project
http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/census"
The Archives and the ACP have had little to say on the matter. Linda
Lewis wrote that she had directed all the files to be removed and
referred further inquiry to Kevin Fraley. Kevin, who now calls himself
the "Administrative Coordinator" of the ACP wrote to the transcriber,
telling her:
"As I understand it...you have had a transcription online for quite some
time, but have since decided that you no longer wish this....I understand
that you or your representative have requested that this material be
removed from its longtime placement in the USGW Archives. I also
understand that, despite its own policies and its agreement with this
project, the USGW Archives has completely removed this work from its
online files and its tables of contents...I understand that despite the
total removal of this material from the USGW Archives, you were in need of
further satisfaction, and demanded that your name not be associated with
the USGW Census Project any longer in any way. Despite this being a
somewhat unusual demand, as I understand it your wishes were honored and
your name and e-mail address removed from all locations, which it now
appears you disagree with, despite your earlier demands. It was at this
point only a few days ago that the matter came to my attention. I
immediately ordered a review of the files in our possession by our staff.
By the time I received the results of this review...I concluded that you
were not placable no matter what was said or done at that point. I
therefore ordered that our staff remove all notes and any other original
authorship from the files, and with it any possible claim of copyright
protection, and I understand that this has been completed. What remains
in our hands is purely in the public domain. Naturally, it is our
intention to find another volunteer (if you remain opposed to our efforts
and unwilling to participate) to properly complete this work including
proofreading to our standards."
[Note Kev's admission that he did not remove her transcriptions, but
merely removed her name from them.]
He similarly wrote to the Board:
"Not only are all [name deleted] files out of the Archives, but within the
USGW Census Project we have removed from our internal directories all
[name deleted]-authored material, this being in our possession over two
years without incident until the "politics of agitation" practiced by some
demanded that there be conflict. At the present time we have nothing
whatsoever of [name deleted] in our inventory, and consider the matter
closed."
Despite Kevin's assurances, as of this morning, the transcriber's first
set of transcriptions are no longer accessible, but the second set is
still online with the notice attached that the ACP is looking for a new
transcriber. The transcriber's name has been removed from the ACP census
assignment lists and both census dates and locations reassigned to someone
else.
How much do you want to bet those transcriptions are reposted in record
time, under someone else's name?
A Question of Ownership Corner: Over on the -ALL list an interesting but
rather pointless thread has been ongoing for the last day or so. Ellen
Pack asked Linda Lewis to answer an apparently simple question: "who owns
the USGenWeb Archives Project?" Once the question was asked, Linda's
minions began their usual flurry of redirections, demanding that Ellen
tell them "who owns the XXGenWebs?". Linda herself, although active in
the thread, has not answered the question, did take pains to point out
that Ellen has been opposed to the Archives since 1996 and noted that
"This latest attack by Ellen Pack is not her first." [And it seemed like
such a simple question...]
Rhetorical Question of the Day Corner: Why is it that some people in this
project only do the right thing AFTER they get busted?
===
"Few men have the virtue to withstand the highest bidder."
---George Washington
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 Wed Jul 26 14:43:57 2000
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 14:43:56 -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.SV4.3.96.1000726060634.8981A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
The devil you know is better than the devil you don't...its Your Daily
Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Tuesday 25 July 2000-Wednesday 26 July 2000:
The vote on Motion 00-22 proceeds. Thus far, 8 Board members have voted
"no" and two have voted "yes".
Joe Zsedeny notes that when the Board does vote on a motion to register
the domain names, he believes "that the NC should be the billing contact
and the USGenWeb Member-At-Large the Administrative Contact. The NC could
more aptly solicit donations for the yearly fee." He suggests this motion
should wait until after the election for NC is over. Shari Handley agree
with him. Pam Reid also agrees and reminds the group "there isn't much we
can do with .com at this point anyway." Betsy concurs with Pam's
statement.
While making her vote, Shari notes "The domains need to have the contacts
changed, but I believe we should wait until after the election is over,
and that Joe's suggestion of using position names...instead of
individuals' names should be looked at." [Wonder if Tim will toss out her
vote for making a comment with it.]
After voting, Jim Powell notes that he believes that the Board needs to
stress the Project's claim to the domain names, but that it "seems silly"
to change them now only to change them again after the election. He notes
"We could however leave them in Holly and GingerH's names."
Shari Handley's only comment on Motion 00-23 is "Ridiculous!" Pam Reid
says "Ditto!"
Joe notes that GingerC and Jim did not ascertain whether Barbara, Joy
and/or Maggie knew their names were on the application. He notes " Seems
during election time all it takes is an accusation to indict and try
someone."
GingerC reminds Joe that Jim Powell did ask for explanations, but none
have been forthcoming. She notes that the application has four
signatures, and asks "Would you rather I assume that all four people were
somehow involved, or would you prefer to have me assume that Linda Lewis
forged their signatures?"
GingerC includes the latest information from the USPTO on the service mark
application and notes "Since the status report from the PTO now contains a
section marked "Prosecution" it would appear that the matter is now under
investigation." [That section was there previously, but was empty.
However, the current status date has changed to 19 Jul 2000.]
Betsy Mills notes that she "refused to vote to find Jim Powell not in good
standing when that was brought up" and she will do the same now.
Joe tells GingerC he'd rather have her personally contact the USPTO and
verify that there are four signatures, rather than just four names. He
notes "I think in your haste to take political avantage of this you are
repeating what you have heard."
Ginger Hayes says that "If the three members state that they were not
aware of Linda's scheme and that their names were added without their
knowledge and consent I would have no reason to disbelieve them." She
wants to hear from them whether or not they were involved and notes "I
don't think that is an indictment or a trial, neither do I have a
political agenda in this."
Jim Powell notes that he "was asking for answers as to why they were part
of this without bringing it before the rest of the board." He also notes
that none of the three Board members involved has bothered to respond and
reminds them " When I was on the other end of a similar motion, I stood up
and gave my reasons for what I was doing. Maybe, we are just different
that way."
Joe states "This is clearly a personnel [sic] issue but it has been put
on public display to become an issue for political advantage before any
kind of investigation worthy of the name...Virginia points out a part of
the form that contains "Prosecution" and immediately draws the phony
conclusion that this is under investigation... Poppycock, that is a
standard part of the form and implies only that if a prosecution has taken
place the reviewer need be aware of it. Virginia futher states that
"signatures" are on the form. Again, poppycock, it was an electronic
filing. Signatures must be cybersignatures. She has clearly taken her
information second hand and in a rush to gain political advantage done a
miserable job of Board work. And Jim has allowed himself to be drawn into
this political charade." He suggests the Board conduct further inquiry on
the secret list. He notes "When something like this occurs the first
course of action is to quietly get the facts, talk to the parties
privately and if their actions are wrong point it out to them and try to
get a change that will solve the problem without an uproar. But we have
people who only want to gain the upper hand on an old enemy or score
political points to get elected and the Project be damned. Too many
motions are rushed to the table, poorly thought out or written and wind up
wasting time and further fueling the contining feud that has become akin
to a soap opera."
Pam Reid has discovered that a TNGenWeb CC is using the official USGenWeb
logo to link to the USGenWeb Census Project and says "This is quite
obviously incorrect use of the logo." She asks the appropriate
representatives [Jim, GingerC, Shari] to contact the CCs and "let them
know that the USGW logo is to be used ONLY to link to the National USGW
site." [The offending item was actually typo in a link; it was corrected
prior to press time.]
===
"Little wonder that not one aspect of this project has created more concern
and anguish, more maligning and flames, more false allegations and
accusations, more problems and difficulties, and more division, than has
the Archives."
---Ellen Pack, USGENWEB-ALL, 25 July 2000
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 Jul 27 15:13:38 2000
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:13:37 -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.SV4.3.96.1000727061311.7902C-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Cuidado! Hay llamas!...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Wednesday 26 July 2000 Thursday 27 July 2000:
Voting concludes on Motion 00-22. 9 Board members voted "no" and 4 voted
"yes". [Shari Handley voted twice; Tim must have reminded her about the
"no comments" rule]. Tim Stowell declares the motion failed.
Pam Reid apologizes for publicly embarrassing two TNGW CCs over a typo in
a link on their webpage [reported yesterday].
Tim opens the vote on Motion 00-23: "I hereby move 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." Thus far, 6 Board
members have voted "no" [including two of the three people mentioned in
the motion.]
Ginger Cisewski formally requests that the motion be restated in its
entirety, since the clip that Tim included does not include any of the
documentation she presented.
GingerC notes that parliamentary procedure mandates abstention or recusal
from voting when a conflict of interest exists. She notes "Clearly,
allowing those parties so named in Motion 00-23 to cast votes on the
motion is a blatant conflict of interest," and she requests that their
votes be set aside.
Joy Fisher quotes RRoO "...It is a general rule that no one can vote on a
question in which he or she has a direct personal or financial interest.
However, a member can vote for himself or herself for any office or other
position. A member can also vote when other members are included with him
or her in a motion, even when the member has a personal or financial
interest in the outcome, for instance a vote on charges made against more
than one person...."
Pam Reid says she also looked this up and concurs with Joy that "all three
Board members DO have the right to vote on this issue."
===
We Get Mail Corner: Following Joe Zsedeny's suggestion the other day that
when an issue arises, the Board "quietly get the facts, talk to the
parties privately and if their actions are wrong point it out to them and
try to get a change that will solve the problem without an uproar", a
reader writes:
"Reminds me of a not-too-long ago incident involving the "acceptance of
resignation" of OHGenWeb. Good thing the AB member [Tina Vickery] "quietly
[gathered] the facts, talk[ed] to the part[y] privately and [...] try to
get a change that will solve the problem without an uproar." Of course, we
all know the board says one thing and does another. That's become both
status quo and modus operandi."
New Zoo Review Corner: Careful readers of today's Root$web Review will
have noticed that the address for advertising is now:
sbrenay@myfamilyinc.com
===
"A committee is a lifeform with six or more legs and no brain."
---Robert A. Heinlein
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
-------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.
From merope@Radix.Net Fri Jul 28 13:23:43 2000
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 13:23:42 -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.SV4.3.96.1000728064306.18517A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
I used to be disgusted, now I'm just amused...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Thursday 27 July 2000--Friday 28 July 2000:
Voting on Motion 00-23 proceeds. Thus far 3 Board members have voted
"yes" and 9 have voted "no".
In regards to the not unreasonable suggestion that the three Board members
mentioned in Motion 00-23 recuse themselves from voting on it, Shari
Handley notes that would be very convenient and remarks "This whole motion
stinks to high heaven."
GingerC notes "Linda Lewis has publicly admitted to filing for the
trademark of "USGenWeb Archives" in her own name. Barbara Dore has
publicly admitted it being discussed by a group prior to the filing. Joy
Fisher and Maggie Zimmerman have ignored repeated requests that they offer
some explanation." She reminds the group that the Board is required to
protect the assets of the project "irrespective of personal loyalties,
personal preferences,friendships or a potential loss of popularity." She
notes that failing to protect the project and its assets may leave Board
members financially and legally responsible and furthermore "is a
violation of the trust placed in each of us by the electorate." She
states "As there have been no explanations offered and no mitigating
circumstances found, I have no choice from either a legal or ethical
standpoint in the casting of my vote, which follows this post."
Tim Stowell says he will not honor GingerC's request to post her motion in
its entirety, saying "The Board doesn't vote on support documentation. If
you wanted it included in the motion, then you should have put the 'I
move' above your other material."
Barbara Dore bestirs herself long enough to ask GingerC to provide proof
that she "ever stated that there was a "group" discussion!" of the
trademark application.
GingerC reposts a message from Barbara that was originally sent to Board-L
as well as to other lists in which Barbara states "If I recall when the
possible registering was discussed there were several that agreed it
needing doing and offered to help." [This is the same post in which she
claims that she didn't know she was a signatory to the application.]
Barbara responds, telling GingerC that discussions on the topic of
trademark go back to 1998 and provides a post from the era of bylaws in
which the lack of registration of the USGenWeb service mark is discussed.
She also helpfully provides a definition of "group discussion": "(1) I
certainly wouldn't consider talking to myself a "group" discussion. (2) I
would consider a conversation between myself and another individual a
discussion, but not a "group" discussion. (3) I would consider a
conversation between myself and more than one other individual a "group"
discussion. I have not been in a "group" discussion, by my definition,
about this specific subject during the year 2000..." [Heh. Someone ought
to ask her what the definition of "is" is.]
Ginger Hayes notes "Linda Lewis' part in this is indefensible. The three
board members involved I'm not so sure about. My vote there has to be
based on the fact that they appear to be holding themselves unaccountable
to, and above, the members of this project. If they have commented on
their part in this then it has not been to all the members of the board
and/or to the membership of the project. They were asked and they did not
deign to answer." She notes that the vote is very painful for her, but
she states "If I truly believe that this action was wrong, if I truly
believe that all members should be held to the same standard, regardless
of who they are, and if I truly believe that people, especially those in
leadership positions, are answerable to the membership of this project
then I am left with only one choice."
Jim Powell asks "Why hasn't anyone stepped up to explain?...If it was just
to protect the trademark, why not do it with the Board's knowledge in the
Project's name? If Linda is going to change the registration to list the
Project as owner as Joe has reported, why hasn't she told us so? If Joy,
Maggie or Barbara didn't know that the actual registration was
progressing, or hadn't given their explicit permission, why haven't they
told us so?" He notes that his vote will be made "upon principle, not on
personalities or politics."
Shari notes "It is always amazing how some politician-types speak out of
both sides of their mouths," and reminds Jim that he previously said he
did not support finding Linda, Barbara, Joy, and Maggie not in good
standing. She says "Apparantly, you've changed your mind. Not quite
enough division lately, after all, eh?"
===
Ignorance is Bliss Corner: Over on the -ALL list, Joy Fisher has _finally_
clarified her role in the trademark application: "For the record, I knew
that Linda was going to file for a service mark. I did not know anyone
else was going to be on the application or how she was going to word the
application. I have never signed anything, had anything notarized, or
mailed anything."
Apparently, two of the three "signatories" to Linda's application were not
aware that they were being included on it, although their legal
responsibilities as signatories are not negligible. A USPTO employee that
I discussed this was was very suprised that anyone would include others as
"signatories" without first obtaining their permission.
Alternate Reality Corner: As has been pointed out elsewhere, at the _very
time_ that Joy was proposing to sever our relationship with the USGenWeb
Census Project for [among other things] "using the reserved term
"USGenWeb" without the advisory boards's knowledge or approval" she was
aware that Linda Lewis was about to do the exact same thing.
===
"What I have done is thrown a wrench in plans by other organizations that
have tried to take or destroy the USGenWeb Archives."
---conspiracy theorist Linda Lewis, USGENWEB-ALL, 27 Jul
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
-------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.
From merope@Radix.Net Sat Jul 29 19:36:23 2000
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:36:23 -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.SV4.3.96.1000729065027.12643A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Part and parcel...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Friday 28 July 2000--Saturday 29 July 2000:
Jim Powell responds to Shari Handley, by noting that all he wanted from
Barbara, Maggie and Joy was an explanation and that his main concern was
that they didn't bring it to the Board in the first place. He notes that
if his vote had been the deciding one, he would have voted no to avoid
more division. He notes that "I really wish this could have come out
differently. I wish this trademark would have been registered in the name
of the project. I wish as a Board we could have discussed it. I wish
Joy, Barbara, Maggie and Linda had stepped up and said this is what we did
and this is why. It of course would have been even better if they had of
offered at the same time to place it in the name of the project. Yes, I
have lots of wishes, but I have to live with what I get, as we all
do....You will not see "LOL" or anything similar in my messages that
relate to my fellow Board Members votes or opinions on issues as they are
expressed here. Even if I disagree with you, I respect you as a person
and as a member of this board."
Joy Fisher proposes to delete the two amendments from the current ballot
and "either have a special election -- or if there is a run-off for NC,
to include the amendments at that time," based on information received
from a CC that the ballot appears to be defaulting to a "yes" vote if one
does not check off any of the radio buttons on the form. [see below]
Shari points out that the appearance of an incorrect vote is due to the
format of the script that generates the "thank you for voting" page and
there is not need to take the amendments off the ballot.
Tim Stowell declares Motion 00-23 failed. 3 members voted yes, 9 voted
no, and 3 did not vote. He also notes that based on RRoO, "Maggie and Joy
had every right to vote on this motion."
Ginger Hayes moves that "using the applicable portion of the below
quoted, and passed, Motion #00-10 as having set the precedent, that Linda
Lewis be declared a member not in good standing of the USGenWeb Project,
and that she be asked to resign from the USGenWeb Project, for applying
for a trademark using the reserved term "USGenWeb" without the knowledge
and approval of the full Advisory Board." She cites the following portion
of Motion 00-10 as applicable: "I move that the USGenWeb Project sever its
relationship with the USGenWeb Census Project, Inc. headed by Ron Eason.
This Census Project has incorporated as a FOR PROFIT corporation using the
reserved term "USGenWeb" without the Advisory Board's knowledge or
approval." GingerH also says "In the event that Ms. Lewis claims that she
is the owner of the Archives Project and that it is not...the digital
library maintained by and for The USGenWeb Project then this motion may
need to be amended to contain a severance of the relationship between The
USGenWeb Project and Ms. Lewis' Archive Project....This motion is born out
of my personal belief that all members of this project should be treated
equally. I am not so naive as to believe that is how world really is, but
I am idealistic enough to believe that is the reality we should all strive
for. I make this motion with great regret in view of Ms. Lewis many
accomplishments during her time with The USGenWeb Project. Those
accomplishments, however, should not make her exempt from the rules and
standards the rest of the project members have to live by." GingerC
seconds this motion, "In the firm belief that all persons must be held
equally accountable under the law, as well as under the Bylaws of the
USGenWeb Project"
Joy Fisher notes that Ron Eason was never declared not in good standing
and notes "If you are going to declare Linda Lewis not in good standing,
then Mr. Eason et. al. should also be included in the motion. The
Archives should be de-linked and banished, to complete the analogy with
Motion #00-10." She also reminds them that it would take a 2/3 vote of
the Archives files managers to remove Linda.
GingerH tells Joy "If you would like to make a motion declaring
Mr. Eason not in good standing for his unauthorized use of the reserved
term "USGenWeb" without approval by the AB then I will support it" [and
expresses some surprise that the CP members were severed as members in
good standing]. She also suggests that if Joy feels that the Archives
volunteers are culpable with Linda's actions that she can amend the motion
"to include severance of the Archives Project." Ginger also notes "I
would however hope that if this board advocated fair treatment for all
members and passed this motion that she [Linda] would put the best
interests of both the USGenWeb Project and the Archives Project above her
own self-interest and gracefully resign."
Jim Powell posts a listing of the various online genealogy projects
in which he is involved: "I host 3 FLGenWeb counties and I am an ASC of
FLGenWeb...I still help the CC that adopted the KYGenWeb site that I
formerly coordinated. I support the Archives with donations...I have
transcribed several censuses, all of the complete ones resided in both
projects and as part the county pages....I do pages for the General Samuel
Hopkins D.A.R. of Henderson Co, KY and the Gainesville Florida Chapter of
the D.A.R. I also do pages for the Henderson County(KY) Historical and
Genealogical Society. I do the pages for the Alachua County Genealogical
Society and I serve on their Board. I have 4 ALHN pages. They are also
affiliated with AHGP....Migrations Project, I feel that I was into this
one from the beginning and do the Florida portion of it." [He also lists
mail lists, board, etc]. He notes that USGenWeb is closest to his heart.
===
Appeance of Impropriety Corner: Carole Hammett posted information
yesterday that appears to indicate that when a person casts a vote for NC
but does not check _any_ of the boxes for the amendments, a default "yes"
vote is sent to the EC [see
http://www.mindspring.com/~carhammett/elections2000/forvoting.gif] Leigh
Compton says this is "an unfortunate artifact of a script which wants to
insert a word between "voted" and "for". The script is coded as:
<p>You voted <b>@recall@</b> for the proposed Recall Amendment and
<b>@archives@</b> for the proposed Archives Amendment. Where @recall@ is
expected to take one of the values YES, NO, or ABSTAIN - same for
@archives@. The vote as tabulated simply has ,, instead of ,YES,
recorded."
What Is A Picture Worth? Corner: Lauren O'Donnell has made an interesting
graphic and posted it at: http://www.holyokemass.com/gen_orgs.gif. Known
errors so far: USGenWeb and RootsWeb/MyFamily/Ancestry were inexplicably
left out; ALHN, USIGS, and USGenNet all contain old and no longer
accurate information; and, my name is spelled wrong <g> If you can find
any more errors let us know!
===
"To reach the heart of the issue, we >have to go back to 1996, when
Linda's Archives were presented to the membership, and to the public, as
an official national level product belonging to the USGenWeb Project,
coordinated by Linda Lewis, one of the Archives founders. In fact,
substantiated by both word and action, it is a privately conceived,
operated and controlled entity free to act autonomously without regard to
how its operation impacts the rest of the project, the states, the
members, researchers, submitters, or even the By-Laws. This is the
reality, and we are suffering immensely from the effects."
---Ellen Pack [who has been waxing poetic lately]
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 Jul 30 15:40:46 2000
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 15:40:45 -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.SV4.3.96.1000730063010.10849A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
You better watch out...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your risk!
Saturday 29 July 2000-Sunday 30 July 2000:
Richard Howland moves to amend the motion to declare Linda Lewis to be not
in good standing, so that it reads as follows: "I move that, using the
applicable portion of the below quoted, and passed, Motion #00-10 as
having set the precedent, that Linda Lewis be declared a member not in
good standing of the USGenWeb Project, and that she be asked to resign
from the USGenWeb Archives Project, for applying for a trademark using the
reserved term "USGenWeb" without the knowledge and approval of the full
Advisory Board."
Ginger Hayes says she has no objection to the amendment.
Pam Reid says "the censure of Ron and the Census Project was quite
different from what it being proposed here as treatment for Linda
Lewis." She suggests that if the author and second of the motion believe
that Ron's and Linda's actions are similar, then the consequences should
also be similar. She also says "Ron was not found to be a member in good
standing. His Project was delinked and its association with USGW was
severed." [No vote was _ever_ taken finding Ron Eason to be not in good
standing. The Census Project was delinked and severed without even the
slightest nod to form.]
Jim Powell says he doesn't really agree with anyone. He doesn't believe
anyone is anything but misguided. He suggests we "stop comparing "crimes"
or "sins" and give amnesty to everyone. Start with a clean slate. Maybe
instead of asking Ron to drop his NonProfit Incorporation, maybe we should
request that Linda do the same with the Archives."
Joe Zsedeny says Linda has "already agreed to do that." [do what?
incorporate the Archives? Now, THAT would be news!]
Richard does not think Ron Eason should be included in the motion, but he
thinks "it would be fine to make the motion to declare Ron as not in good
standing next." He suggests the Board not "pile items on motions" and
notes "Motions need to be to the point and not include second, third, and
fourth points. These extra points can keep us from getting results."
Joy notes that she is just pointing out "the inequity of the punishment
since the motion maker and seconder feel that the infractions were the
same."
GingerC says she cannot accept the amendment for the following reasons:
"this Board has no authority to determine what constitutes "good standing"
in a sub-project...If the Archives Project's members wish to deal with it,
that's entirely up to them and not this Board...Second, the trademark is a
USGenWeb asset, not an Archives asset. The action was taken against the
entire Project, not just one portion of it. This Board has a legal
obligation to protect the assets of the Project. Third, this Board only
has the authority to declare a member as "not in good standing" in the
USGenWeb Project as a whole." She says if GingerH accepts the amendment,
she will have to withdraw her second.
===
Election News: The end of the election draws near. Polls close at 23:59
CDT July 31 [that's one minute before midnight tomorrow night <g>]. If
you need to vote and haven't yet, the polls are at:
http://elsi123.august.net/~usgenweb/
A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words Corner: As we've recently seen, any
fool can spend a few hours making a nifty chart. As proof of the
observation, here's another one:
http://www.radix.net/~merope/bighappyfam.gif
===
"The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it."
---Flannery O'Connor
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 Mon Jul 31 13:31:31 2000
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 13:31:30 -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.SV4.3.96.1000731060343.18664A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
On top of things...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Sunday 30 July 2000:
Richard Howland notes that with his amendment to the current motion, Linda
would be declared not in good standing in the USGenWeb Project but asked
to resign only from the USGenWeb Archives Project, "the part of Project
that she had applied for a trademark on!" Richard also notes "There is a
very major difference between Linda's and Ron's actions. When you Inc.
You declare ownership of a entity, its assets, and debts. When you Trade
Mark a name, you only claim ownership of the name. While both are wrong
without USGenWeb approval. They are not the same."
Ginger Cisewski says she misread Richard's amendment the first time and
she withdraws her objection to the amendment and reinstates her second.
[and where has Tim been the last few days?]
===
Election News: Polls close at 11:59 pm CDT tonight. If you've been
holding off on voting, don't delay!
http://elsi123.august.net/~usgenweb/
Storming Off _Again_ Corner: Declaring herself "tired of the lies, the
accusations, and the non-facts", Linda Lewis has once again unsubbed
herself from the -ALL and -DISCUSS lists. She never did answer the
question Ellen Pack put to her a week ago or so [the one about who owns
the "USGenWeb Archives Project"].
===
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you
end up being governed by your inferiors."
---Plato
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 Mon Jul 31 14:35:30 2000
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:35:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: Asleep at the wheel
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000731143039.6067C-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
To all of you who wrote to ask why I did not include Ginger Cisewski's
closing paragraphs [see below], for some reason unknown to me I just did
not see them. I blame the cheap coffee. My apologies for any confusion
and/or despair. <g>
Anyways, here's GingerC's response to Richard's statement about
incorporation and trademarks:
===
Richard said:
> There is a
> very major difference between Linda's and Ron's actions. When
> you Inc. You declare ownership of a entity, its assets, and debts.
> When you Trade Mark a name, you only claim ownership of the name.
Ginger replied:
"Yes, there is a very major difference here. The USGenWeb Census Project
is a nonprofit public benefit corporation. It is owned by no one, not
even its directors and members. It cannot be dissolved without first
transferring all its assets to an IRS approved nonprofit public benefit
corporation or a government entity. Its assets may never be used
commercially or even leased for commercial purposes. On the other hand,
Linda has applied to register a trademark that does not belong to her.
But, if she is successful it can be sold, leased, transferred or otherwise
assigned, put to commercial use, or anything else she chooses."
===
And we hear our own Esteemed National Coordinator has been busy visiting
chat rooms and mailing lists asking people to vote for him, rather than
tending to Board business.
-Teresa
merope@radix.net