From merope@Radix.Net Thu Jun 1 11:05:26 2000
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 11:04:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: merope@radix.net
Subject: DBS Readers' Poll
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000601105358.14871A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
Hi Folks,
I think the time has come to make a decision regarding distribution of
this list. It does not appear that ListBot can give me any kind of
estimate as to when these delivery delays may be resolved and I personally
am getting tired of having to send everything by hand every day, and then
having to deal with the duplicates when they eventually come through.
However, none of you have complained about it [bless you!], and since you
are affected by it as much as I, I'd like to get your opinion as to what
to do about it.
Your choices are:
1) Stick it out with ListBot. I've been happy with their service until
recently, a year and several months worth of list archives are there, and
this would avoid the minor inconvenience of getting you all resubbed to
another list.
2) move to another list: I have heard good things about Egroups; any
other suggestions? [no, I don't think RW will give me a free list <g>]
3) Don't care.
You can email your opinions to me privately. Thanks for your input on
this!
-Teresa
merope@radix.net
From merope@Radix.Net Thu Jun 1 14:48:44 2000
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 14:47:16 -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.SV4.3.96.1000601112422.17604C-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
Beyond the pale...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Wednesday 31 May 2000-Thursday 1 June 2000:
Joy Fisher fowards a message noting that the COGenWeb has voted to sponsor
the "Recall amendment", and asks "Do we need a motion or executive order
to have this placed on the national web site as per the by-laws?"
Pam Reid tells her she has posted it at:
http://www.usgenweb.org/official/amendments.html [Pam has recently posted
a disclaimer to that page as well, noting that "The inclusion of these
proposed amendments in this web page shall not be construed as an
endorsement of the amendment(s) by the Advisory Board or by The USGenWeb
Project at large."]
Ginger Cisewski posts a message noting that the ORGenWeb has voted to
sponsor the "Recall amendment".
Jim Powell posts a message noting that the TNGenWeb has voted to sponsor
the "States' Rights amendment."
Richard Howland says that the ILGenWeb will be voting on the recall
amendment and he asks "what are the requirements of the vote. Colorado
took a vote. Oregon took a vote. Was there a quorum that needed to be met?
Is it a simple majority or 2/3 majority? In Ohio it doesn't seem a vote
was taken. Can I as SC simply decide on my own as to how my state will
think?" [There's nothing in the bylaws preventing him from doing just
that.]
Shari Handley posts a message noting that the MDGenWeb has voted to
sponsor the "Special Projects" amendment.
After three failed attempts, GingerC posts a message noting that the
ORGenWeb has voted to sponsor the "States' Rights" amendment.
Ginger Hayes asks how the Special Projects amendment will affect the
Tombstone Project, specifically would "the Archives would be absorbing the
Tombstone Project?
Pam responds that the Tombstone Project has never been a part of the
Archives and she does not consider the Archives a "special project", but
rather "a Digital Library for storage purposes." She notes "I would like
to understand this before I post the proposed amendment." [Funny, I
wasn't aware that the posting of a properly sponsored amendment proposal
was predicated on anyone "understanding" of said proposal.]
GingerC posts a message noting that the NEGenWeb has voted to sponsor the
"recall" amendment.
GingerC posts a message noting that the NEGenWeb has voted to sponsor the
"states' rights" amendment.
===
Amendments 'R Us Corner: Known sponsors thus far for the various proposed
amendments:
Recall: COGW, ORGW, OHGW, NEGW
States' Rights: ORGW, TNGW, NEGW
Special Projects: MDGW
[Some questions have been raised about the OHGW's sponsorship of the
Recall amendment and their sponsorship has not been forwarded to Board-L
as of yet. However, it has been posted to the -ALL list and to the
individual Board members.]
These should all be posted at the URL Pam gave above sometime today.
Should any or all of them acquire a total of five sponsors before July 1,
2000, they will appear on the national ballot.
Election Committee News: The following announcement was made today by
Roger Swafford regarding the nominations:
---
The following AB positions shall be open for election during this election
cycle.
National Coordinator - one year term - Tim Stowell, incumbent
NE/NC CC Rep. - two year term - Richard Howland, incumbent
NWP CC Rep. - two year term - Virginia Cisewski, incumbent
SE/MA CC Rep. - two year term - Jim Powell, incumbent
SW/SC SC Rep. - two year term - Betsy Mills, incumbent
SW/SC CC Rep. - two year term - Gloria B. Mayfield, incumbent
Nominations will be open commencing 0001(CDT) June 01,2000 and continue
through 2359 (CDT) June 15, 2000. To participate, members must have at
least 60 days continueous service in good standing prior to commencement
of the election cycle, April 1, 2000.
Members are requested to submit nominations to the appropriate regional
contact as listed below. Please include the name and email address of the
nominee.
Nominations Sub-Committee Members;
NorthWestPlains ------------- Jerimiah Moerke moer0020@tc.umn.edu
SouthWest/SountCentral -- Shirley Scott shirleyscott@juno.com
NorthEast/MidAtlantic ------ Alice Gayley agayley@dgs.dgsys.com
SouthEast/SouthCentral --- Vicki Shaffer tngibson@worldnet.att.net
The above member (as applicable) shall; contact the nominee to determine
acceptance/rejection of the nomination and obtain qualifying details as
provided by the nominee. Forward acceptance and qualifying details to the
Election Committee.
---
Questions have already been raised regarding the "60 days" requirement.
The bylaws require that each nominee have a year's continuous service in
order to qualify for nomination. So, does the 60 days refer to nominees,
nominators, or voters? Its also not clear from the phrasing of the above
whether the date "April 1 2000" refers to the date by which
nominees/nominators/voters must have begun their continuous service, or
whether it refers to the start of the "current election cycle", which
would mean that people would have needed to have their service to start 60
days before that.
In The News Corner: Last but certainly not least, the SC of the ORGenWeb
has received a very nice write-up in the online Lebanon Express. The
article covers extensively her work with the USGW and with the OR
Tombstone Transcription Project. You can Read All About It at:
http://www.lebanon-express.com/leonline_news/local_news/contents.html
A big congrats to Jan!
===
"If you allow men to use you for your own purposes, they will use you for
theirs."
-- Aesop
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 Jun 2 06:51:21 2000
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 06:50:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: News Flash!
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000602064110.1154A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
DBS News Flash...Read All About It!
In news that stunned even this jaded old cynic, Roger Swafford [Chair of
the Election Committee] has announced that the "60 day" membership cutoff
applies to _voters_.
This is his message to Board-L:
"To clarify, a member must have been serving in his/her position(s) and in
good standing before April 1, 2000 in order to vote or nominate.
Qualifications for nominees as contained in the bylaws are applicable."
This is the first time in my memory that any project member in good
standing has been denied the right to vote.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
From merope@Radix.Net Fri Jun 2 13:22:57 2000
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 13:22:16 -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.SV4.3.96.1000602113724.27259A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
Beyond your wildest dreams...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content; may provoke attempts at wit from Tim
Stowell. Read at your own risk!
Thursday 1 June 2000:
Tim Stowell forwards a message from Election Committee Chair Roger
Swafford in which Roger states "To clarify, a member must have been
serving in his/her position(s) and in good standing before April 1, 2000
in order to vote or nominate. Qualifications for nominees as contained in
the bylaws are applicable."
===
A Vote Is Worth a Million Words Corner: As might be expected, Roger's
announcement that the "60 day" rule would actually apply to voters has
caused some consternation in the project. It constitutes the first time
in memory that any member of the USGenWeb has been denied the right to
vote for any reason [although some of us have to work harder than others
to get our votes to "take"]. Several Project members have pointed out
that the bylaws state that "All members of The USGenWeb Project, excluding
Look-Up Volunteers and Transcribers, shall be eligible to vote," with no
mention of any limitation upon when they became members. Roger claims
that past election committees used a 30 day cutoff. We don't recall any
such thing ever being publically announced, and we have spoken to several
members of committees past on this issue. One says the previous committee
used a cutoff date of June 1, another says that no such limitation
applied. I have spoken to two project members who joined the USGW after
June 1 1999; both were allowed to vote in the 1999 summer election.
Several members have requested that the 60 day cutoff be rescinded; there
is no word from any Board member whether this latest assault on the bylaws
will be allowed to stand.
[We here in the DBS newscube are _sure_ that this "60 day" rule has
_nothing_ to do with the fact quite a few Census Project transcribers
adopted counties after the CP was delinked on April 6. Its just an, ummm,
unfortunate coincidence.]
Pardon Me, Your Ethics Are Showing Corner: One former committee member
pointed out that a sitting Board member [Maggie Stewart Zimmerman], in
direct violation of the bylaws, adopted a county shortly before last
year's election apparently in order to run for office in that region,
because no one else had agreed to be nominated. This is confirmed by both
her fellow regional rep and her former State Coordinator. Her SC states
that Maggie joined the project less than a month before the election and
they actually altered the date in order to make her eligible to run.
In Other Election News: All three sponsored amendments are currently
posted at: http://www.usgenweb.com/official/amendments.html There
currently is neither a Nominations page nor an Elections Committee
page, although both are promised. The NEGenWeb has announced that it will
not be sponsoring the Special Projects amendment, as it received not a
single "yes" vote. Several members of the State-Coord-L list are
challenging the votes taken on the States' Rights and Recall amendments,
saying that 1) the vote period was too short for any vote to be
meaningful; 2) some people may not have been allowed to vote by their SCs;
3) any SC could claim any outcome and there is no way to verify it.
Virtual Reality Corner: Ginger Hayes, listowner of the USGENWEB-ALL list,
has been claiming strenuously that -ALL "is open to ALL members of USGW".
Last time I checked, I was still a member of the USGenWeb and I still
can't sub to the -ALL list. Do I expect her to retract her misstatement?
Not really.
Also on the -ALL list [which has devolved once again into its lovable old
feisty self] Babs "Root$lady" Dore is once again doing "research." She is
requesting information as follows: "I have heard of several who have tried
to sub to USGW-CC-L also and never made it and some who have been removed
from that list for stating their opinions in a way that displeased the
listmaster, Don Thorp [sic] and "the committee"! If you happen to be one
of those folks.... please email me.... I'm making a list & checking it
twice." In response to her request, a disgruntled TNGW member posted two
of the standard responses one gets when one subs to a moderated list. Don
"Thorp" [who in real life is named Don Tharp] has notified her that he has
unsubbed a grand total of two members since he started the list [still way
behind the -ALL list] and they are welcome to return to the list if they
agree to abide by the posted list ruled. In response to Babs' allegations
of "the committee" he responds "That isn't innuendo, that is a false
statement. You are just stirring the pot, you must be well aware, there is
no committee running USGW-CC-L. There is no one telling me, or even asking
me to do anything concerning the list or anything else that concerns USGW.
If you have information otherwise please inform this list, I'm sure they
are all dying to know, about "the committee"." [its all that conspiracy
talk--it goes right to their heads]
Still More Ethics Corner: We hear that as of June 1, the Archives Census
Project is still violating Phil Beshear's copyright and distributing his
CART program to its transcribers, in direct violation of his publicly
stated wishes. They are, however, no longer distributing John Rigdon's
CTA. We hear this is because John put a specific dollar value on output
made from his program, and one stands a much better chance of prevailing
in a copyright lawsuit if one can demonstrate financial impact. We expect
the Board to be delinking the ACP any day now for their flagrant and
ongoing violation of copyright, which is in direct violation of the
bylaws.
===
"Knowledge is power."
---Sir Francis Bacon
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 Jun 3 08:55:41 2000
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 08:55:14 -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.SV4.3.96.1000603072113.24715A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
Know the truth and it shall set you free...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Friday 2 June 2000:
Teri Pettit posts her proposal to mediate the five grievances submitted by
CC Carole Hammett. She suggests that by noon June 8 Tim, Pam and Linda
are to submit to Carole 4 to 6 mediators to serve on the mediation
committee; Carole is likewise to submit a list to them. By Friday 9 June,
Tim, Linda and Pam will pick two people from Carole's list and Carole will
choose two from theirs and the choices will be forwarded to the Board. By
Friday June 23 this committee is "to consider each grievance separately,
and for each, make a recommendation as to what should be done, with their
reasoning. If the committee cannot come to a consensus on a grievance, the
recommendation may contain a split opinion. The recommendations of the
committee to be posted to USGENWEB-ALL-L, USGW-CC-L, STATE-COORD-L,
ARCHIVES-L, USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L, and BOARD-L, and at some URL that they
determine. If the mediation process resulted in some action being taken by
a party named in a grievance (e.g., a web page being modified), that
action to also be recorded in the committee's report. The recommendations
to be non-binding, but compliance or non-compliance to them can serve to
inform voters in the upcoming USGenWEb elections."
Pam Reid says she has not seen the grievances and asks Teri to forward
them. Teri does; they are posted at http://usgw_all.listbot.com and will
not be repeated here. Pam thanks Teri for forwarding them.
Joe Zsedeny notes that by submitting these grievances to the Board, Carole
is invoking the bylaws, which empower the Board to advise on grievances.
Joe's advice is "that the grievances are purely spiteful and meant to
disrupt and cause disarray among the Project members." He moves "that the
grievances be dismissed as frivolous and purely political in nature."
Joy Fisher seconds the motion.
===
Advise and Consent Corner: Joe has come up with quite a novel way to
handle grievances: just declare them unimportant and dismiss them.
Truthfully, IMO, the first four of Carole's grievances are a little
arcane. The last one, however, concerns an alleged copyright violation.
The Board has made it very clear that copyright violations will not be
tolerated; indeed, their hands are still bloody from the last one they
handled. Of course, Joe is the Archives representative, so perhaps he is
just doing his job and protecting his boss from the unpleasant
consequences of copyright violation. [Joy, of course, also works for the
Archives.] After all, by getting rid of _all_ the grievances, they get rid
of the really threatening one.
Election Committee News: From an announcement by Roger Swafford to
various project lists:
"Plans have been implemented to hold the elections by online ballot hosted
by a non-genealogical server. Very shortly the SC's shall be requested to
furnish lists of qualifying members to the EC. As the lists are compiled
into an electorate list, each voter will be send a unique VoterID which is
mandatory for use when voting. This ID allows the EC to cross-check and
validate that votes were recorded correctly and part of the final report
of the EC shall be the posting of said ID's with vote (without member
identifying content) to a website for individual review and validation."
See, its not all bad news! The EC has, hopefully [hard to tell without
knowing what server they've chosen], eliminated one of the more strenuous
complaints about former elections: that there is an inherent conflict of
interest in having Root$web manage our elections. They have also given
each member a way of personally verifying that their vote was counted, and
a way for anyone to verify the election results.
In related news, we hear through the grapevine that Board Member Jim
Powell has been nominated to run for National Coordinator and has
accepted. No news on other nominations as of yet. The Election page is
at: http://www.usgenweb.com/elections/election-central.html
Speaking of Grievances Corner: A new grievance has been filed against
Roger Swafford and the Election Committee regarding the April 1 cutoff
date for eligibility to vote. In his explanation to the various project
lists, Roger noted that the April 1 date was instituted for these reasons:
"1 Prior cutoffs were based on the start of voting. No consideration was
made for nominations, if a member is to be a CC for 30 day before he can
vote, then the same applies to his/her eligibility to nominate. 2. The
determination of the cutoff date is simply a decision rendered by the EC
to assure as fair and equitable balloting environment as possible
considering the current parliamentary situation. There have been some
requests to rescind the cutoff. The date announced was not determined
without regard to new members. New members joining after April 1, are
considered as being in a learning mode and ill equipped to handle the
strong division of opinion present in our current parliamentary
situation."
I have spoken to other former committee members since yesterday, and they
say there was a June 1 cutoff, but CCs and many SCs were not informed of
it, and several people who had joined after the cut-off date did vote. Of
course, as was done in the case of Maggie Stewart Zimmerman, if both the
SC and the CC were willing to fudge the start date a bit, how would the EC
know?
Several project members have already likened the Committee's paternal
attitude toward new members to the "literacy tests" and "poll taxes" that
used to be familiar components of the ballot box in many parts of this
country, and which were used [coincidentally, we are sure] to prevent
certain sorts of people from voting.
A former member of the USGW who has recently returned to the project has
protested this arbitrary cutoff and has been essentially been told by
Roger that the date is nonnegotiable. She has formally filed the
following grievance:
"As much as I personally like and respect you, Roger, I must formally file
a grievance against the April 1, 2000, cut-off to have voting privileges.
This action, is imo, an arbitrary action, contrary to current USGW
policies and directly opposed to the Bylaws. I base this grievance on
Article 7, Section 6, which states: Section 6. All members of The USGenWeb
Project, excluding Look-Up Volunteers and Transcribers, shall be eligible
to vote. I wish to formally register a grievance over being deprived of my
right to vote as a member of USGW in good standing. Whether I'm informed
or not is a personal judgment call, which the elections committee has no
jurisdiction to determine for me or anyone else."
Some other comments on the cut-off date:
"Huh? They are "ill-equipped to handle the strong division of opinion."
This sounds like the rationale for not allowing women to vote in the U.S.
until the 1920s. The election committee should not be deciding whether
new CCs are able to handle the stress of voting or whether they can
properly assess the issues. And, what's to say that any new CCs haven't
been following USGenWeb politics all along while participating as a
look-up volunteer or transcriber. Sorry, this ruling really comes across
as some kind of measure to rig the election. It only penalizes new CCs
for simply being new."
--Robert [USGENWEB-ALL]
"I've been here for nearly five years, and still can't figure out the
mess. Does that mean I should still be in a learning mode?...I
respectfully submit that this is not something that should be arbitrarily
decided upon by the Elections Committee Chair, or even the AB. A member in
good standing, is a member in good standing, regardless of his length of
time with the Project. The only determining factor, re a cutoff date,
should pertain to the mechanics of putting a voter list together. I hope
Roger will reconsider his decision."
---Ellen [USGENWEB-ALL]
"With all due respect, who makes the decision that determines if a member
has served in "learning mode" long enough? Is your concept of 'learning
mode" the equivalent of a probtionary period often used by emIoyers? Would
you not agree that there are just as many members who are "ill equipped"
to handle the strong division of opinion who have been around since day
one? For one reason or another, but mainly because they could care less."
---Ginger Hayes [USGENWEB-ALL]
"If I were such a new member I would take this patronizing statement as an
insult. These aren't children for whom you have to make decisions, these
are adults who are fully capable of learning the issues at hand in the
four month period of time between April 1 and the end of voting on July
31. And let me repeat: this is counter to the bylaws in any case. How can
you deny that? It's very clearly written who can vote, and it says nothing
about a time limit."
---Scott [USGW-CC-L]
"I don't recall at all a limit for how long a person had been a CC. People
are not incapable of making a choice regardless of how long they have been
around. But it would not be in keeping with the current trend of things if
we didn't continue to change the rules in mid-stream."
-Ron Eason [USGENWEB-ALL]
"Look at it this way: This is a handful of unelected people meeting in
secret deciding who can and cannot vote."
---Teresa Lindquist [USGW-CC-L]
Amendment Update: We hear that opinion is running strongly in favor of the
States' Rights Amendment in Arkansas. Votes have been taken in the
NDGenWeb, the GAGenWeb, and the VAGenWeb on the Special Projects
amendment, but no results on those are forthcoming. Proposed amendments
can be viewed at: http://www.usgenweb.com/official/amendments.html.
===
"Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation
with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What
we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly. Heaven knows how to put a
proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so
celestial an article as Freedom should not be highly rated."
---Thomas Paine
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 Jun 3 22:21:19 2000
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 22:21:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>, USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org
Subject: News Flash!
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000603221431.6562A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
According to a recent post on the FLGenWeb mailing list, Roger Swafford
[Chair of the Election Committee] has requested that Jim Powell withdraw
from the race for National Coordinator. Jim is being asked to withdraw
because the EC is currently deciding whether or not he is in "good
standing". Grounds for thinking otherwise of Jim are not clear to this
author; Jim is one of better persons who have served this project in
elective office. Regardless, this does not bode well for the upcoming
election.
Not only is a small handpicked [by the NC, I remind you] un-elected group
of people meeting in secret deciding on arbitrary membership criteria for
voting, they are also determining who is and who is not in "good
standing".
-Teresa
merope@radix.net
From merope@Radix.Net Sat Jun 3 23:50:59 2000
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 23:50:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>, USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org
Subject: News Flash
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000603234527.13043A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
Here is what Jim Powell has to say about recent actions to get him to
withdraw from the NC race:
"The EC is deciding whether or not I am in "Good Standing". Roger merely
offered me a way out without being judged. I declined. I told him to do
what they had to do. I will abide by their decision, although I am sure
that others will not wish me to. I have been in his shoes before and
realize that it is not easy. I do my best to follow the rules, even when
I don't agree with them. I have been known to walk the line and find
myself too close to the "wrong" side of a rule at times. I took my logos
down and I requested that everyone else do the same. Because we had been
discussing my candidacy on FLGEN-L, I let them know about the potential
problem.
BTW... The current beef is that they found a link on my personal homepage
to a page I now help with. They found a link to Teresa's site under the
logo. I had intended to totally clean this site, when I passed it to my
assistant. I did not even leave the Black Ribbons. If this makes me not
in "Good Standing", then so be it. I made a mistake, my intentions were
good."
[N.B.: They found a link they didn't like on Jim's "personal home page".
Since when did what we do on our personal pages have any bearing on our
standing in the USGW?]
-Teresa
merope@radix.net
From merope@Radix.Net Sun Jun 4 14:07:10 2000
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 14:04:48 -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.SV4.3.96.1000604072622.10751A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
I got yer "good standing" right here...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Saturday 3 June 2000--Sunday 4 June 2000:
Tim Stowell opens the floor for discussion on Motion 00-14: "that the
grievances be dismissed as frivolous and purely political in nature."
Ginger Hayes asks Joe to clarify his motion as to whether all grievances
currently under considerabion by the Board are included. She notes "At the
moment the motion appears to me to be a little too broad in it's scope and
could be intrepreted to mean that any grievance submitted to this board is
frivolous and therefore should be dismissed...Each grievance should be
addressed seperately to determine the merits of each and I am still
greatly concerned about addressing grievances filed against this board or
members of it. I see no fair way we can address those ourselves. [Good
point. And any Board member specifically named in a grievance should not
vote on this amendment; it does constitute a pretty clear conflict of
interest].
Joe says in response "The grievances, if that is how some of them should
be defined, were lumped together forming a list of complaints most of
which will be resolved in the upcoming election. Hatred of Rootsweb and
the Archives motivated one complaint which disturbs me in
particular...Because Brian has retaliated to attacks on RW some will go to
any end to smear RW. Because Linda has defended the Archives she must be
dwealt with also...These "grievances" were sent with one purpose at this
time, to disrupt and make a political statement. The complaint against Tim
will be addressed in the upcoming election by a committee called the
electorate. How much fairer can that be? Pam is appointed by the Board
and, therefore, if the Board deemed her actions unsatisfactory the Board
should deal with it...This one was harassment, pure and simple...So no,
Ginger, while I respect your opinion on this matter, and happen to agree
with some of your comments, my motion covers them all. After the election
if anyone has a grievance, let's hear it with perhaps new faces to help
sort this out. But the board is charged in the ByLaws to advise on
grievances. My motion does just that along with any discussion preceeding
a vote."
Joy Fisher says she understood the motion to incompass only the five
grievances from Carole Hammett, "that were designed to use USGenWeb to
beat RootsWeb over the head." [It is so nice to see that USGW project
members can expect a fair and impartial airing of their grievances by the
Board.]
GingerH notes that they don't know what the motion covers and reminds the
Board that another grievance was recently filed regarding the Election and
there are still several the Board is sitting on. She asks if they are
going to discount all these pending grievances and notes "unless I've
misunderstood, Joe explanation said yes."
Ginger Cisewski says she also took Joe's explanation to cover all the
grievances and says that to fail to mediate grievances fairly and
impartially "without any value judgments being made beforehand," is "a
breach of the trust placed in us when we were elected to our respective
positions on this Board."
Pam Reid says she also thought the motion referred to the five grievances
submitted by Carole Hammett, which she though were "pretty petty".
Joe says to go with Joy's interpretation and says "It was the C. Hammett
laundry list of complaints that got the Irish up." [Ah, so who you are
depends on whether or not the Board will hear your grievances.'
Betsy Mills forwards an "appeal" from a CC to the Board. The appeal is for
the findings on Motions 00-11 and 00-12. [It is appended below]
GingerC asks "Can someone please tell me why the Elections Committee is
requesting candidates for the NC position withdraw from the race???"
GingerH asks for more information and GingerC tells her that "that Roger
Swafford has asked Jim Powell to withdraw his candidacy for the NC
position." GingerH says she is really struggling with and suggests that
perhaps Roger could let them know if this is correct. Joe also says they
need to "get the details on this."
Jim Powell provides them with the details: "The EC is deciding whether or
not I am in "Good Standing". Roger merely offered me a way out without
being judged. I declined. I told him to do what they had to do. I will
abide by their decision, although I am sure that others will not wish me
to...I do my best to follow the rules, even when I don't agree with
them...I took my logos down and I requested that everyone else do the
same...The current beef is that they found a link on my personal homepage
to a page I now help with. They found a link to Teresa's site under the
logo. I had intended to totally clean this site, when I passed it to my
assistant. I did not even leave the Black Ribbons. If this makes me not
in "Good Standing", then so be it. I made a mistake, my intentions were
good."
Rich Howland tells Jim "It was my understanding that you removed the
Protest USGWP Logo from your USGWP and XXGW sites. If you say you did I
will take that that as the only proof I need. If you tell me that you made
a mistake an miss one I will also except that." Then he asks Joe to
withdraw Motion 00-14 so that he can make a new motion. Joe agrees
to withdraw his motion but reserves the right to resubmit it. Richard
thanks him and says if he rewords the motion [00-14] he will second it.
Jim says that he cleaned up his page before handing it over to his
assistant. He was willing to risk being not in good standing in his own
state, but was not willing to drag another state into the issue. He
reiterates that leaving the link [not the logo, mind you, just the link,
which Motion 00-12 did not address] was a mistake. he notes "You have to
realize, that I was angry at the world. I could not believe what I had
just seen happen. It did not fit with the "Rules" as I knew them. I did
not hurl flames, or even show completely how deeply hurt I was. I
listened to everyone and tried to understand... I still don't, but that is
neither here nor there. I decided to quietly protest. I admit the venue
I chose was not the best, but it was the way I felt at the time, dark."
He reminds Richard that after the motion was made he did ask everyone to
take the logos down and his own pages were cleaned and the black ribbons
without commentary were added. Richard agreed that would be sufficient.
Jim says "I make no excuses and ask no quarter, I say again... I made a
mistake "I" left a link on a page that I intended to be squeaky clean. If
for that I am "Not in Good Standing", I will accept it and go on with my
life."
Rich moves "to Rescind, Repeal, or Annul. Motion #00-12," noting that when
he originally made the motion it was his intent to serve notice to all
"that they could not inappropriately display or be little the USGWP name
or image. It was and could be used to keep persons that would do such from
running for office. However it was not my intent to open the door to hunt
down honest protesters who attempted to correct their mistake."
Joe seconds Rich's motion.
Maggie respects Jim for putting up the black ribbons instead of the
blackened logos. She asks if he's a KY CC or not. Jim says he's not sure;
he turned over his page to someone else, but still assists her wit it. He
notes "I have said, I have no problem with you judging me on that page. I
will not protest how it was found or why. I stand here to be judged on
anything that I have done anywhere, that may have bearing on my status of
"Good Standing" in USGenWeb."
Maggie moves to adopt the following as a "standing rule": "It is the
responsibility of each member of The USGenWeb Project to demonstrate
membership in good standing by; promoting a positive public image of the
project, and working to enhance its good name and reputation, and
contributing to its operations. In addition, members must respond promptly
to email, actively support researchers' efforts to find information,
maintain their website with appropriate, up-to-date content, and serving
as a good example of the guidelines and standards of The USGenWeb
Project." [well, if they can't hunt witches one way, they'll hunt them
another.]
Pam Reid asks if webpages are available for the Election Committee and the
Nominations Committee, noting "In the past, pages have been set up for
these and we have linked to them from the National Elections Central page.
But, if URLs have been posted for these pages, I haven't seen them."
GingerH notes "If we start looking at things that comprise good standing
then a forgotten link definitely pales into insignificance. I find, what I
can only perceive to be, a blatant attempt at manipulating the election
distasteful in the extreme......but I certainly can't say I'm surprised."
She tells Jim to hang on, there are still many good people in USGW.
Gloria Mayfield asks Roger [Swafford] if he has a problem with Jim Powell.
===
Amendment Addenda Corner:
There is now an explanatory FAQ attached to the State's Rights Amendment
page. It is located at: http://www.geocities.com/usgenwebamend/faq.html
An anonymous contributor has responded to the concerns raised in some
quarters about the short time for voting on sponsorship of amendments.
Regarding the COGenWeb's sponsorship of the Recall amendment, this person
notes "There was 5 days of discussion of the edited version of the Recall
amendment and 5 days of voting. Out of all of the votes I counted (they
were public, and the list is on Rootsweb, so this can be verified, search
for "Patrick's Recall Amendment"), 90% were in favor of the amendment.
Furthermore, there is nothing in the USGenWeb bylaws that states that
there is a limit on the amount of time allowed for voting in any state
elections (which this is)."
We have been asked to correct our statement of the other day that the
votes to sponsor the Recall amendment and the States' Rights amendment is
being challenged. To clarify: the voting on the States' Rights amendment
has been informally challenged on the State-Coordinators' list due to the
extremely short time frame available to vote on it. The amendment was
distributed one day before the deadline for state sponsorship. Now
several SCs have pushed for the notion that there was simply not enough
time for any state to have properly conducted a fair vote. The TNGenWeb
vote on this amendment is being more strenuously contested, with some TNGW
CCs claiming they were not allowed to vote, not allowed to be subbed to
the list were voting was occurring, and/or not informed that a vote was
occurring. The OHGenWeb's sponsorship of the Recall amendment is
apparently being ignored because a formal vote was not held, although the
OHGW did hold extensive conversations on the amendment and no opposition
was aired. To our knowledge, no other state votes are specifically being
challenged.
We hear that Tim Stowell didn't get the results he wanted, and so has
extended the voting period on the Special Projects amendment in the
GAGenWeb.
Fallout Corner: If the Election Committee's "60 day" rule is upheld,
Linda "There and Back Again" Lewis will not be eligible to vote in this
season's election. She quit all her positions in the USGW [except for
Archives, which is not holding an "election" this year] shortly after the
Census Project was delinked on April 6 and did not return until sometime
after the Board voted to sever all ties with the CP on May 4.
Gossip Corner: A reader writes to inform us that "Charles Merrin, who
was with Banner Blue/Broderbund/Learning Co./etc. until leaving for a
non-genealogy Internet company last summer was walking around the NGS
meeting Friday with a name tag identifying him as VP of Marketing for
Rootsweb."
===
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the
people, who have...a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible,
divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean the
characters and conduct of their rulers."
---John Adams
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
-------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.
---
Text of appeal of Motions 00-11 and 00-12:
"As a member in good standing with the USGenWeb and WorldGenWeb Projects,
I hereby appeal the findings of the Advisory Board for Motion 00-11 found
May 15, 2000 and Motion 00-12 found May 21, 2000. This appeal is based
upon the provisions of USGENWEB bylaws under Advisory Board Procedures,
Article VIII, Sections 2 and 3 as cited below.
=====================================================================
ARTICLE VIII. ADVISORY BOARD PROCEDURES
Section 2. Issues shall require a 2/3 majority, of those board members
voting, to pass.
Section 3. For major issues, the Advisory Board will announce, at least 48
hours in advance, when the vote will be taken in order for members to have
the opportunity to voice their opinion.
=====================================================================
APPEAL NUMBER ONE:
Appeal of findings under Motion 00-11:
This motion was defeated by default through inactivity (members not
voting), to wit., failure to achieve a quorum. Inactivity by the board in
this matter served to deprive complainants ( The aggrieved ) of their
rights under the bylaws to complain and be heard. I respectfully submit
that refusal by the board to vote does not deprive complainants of their
right to be heard. To make the complainants whole, Motion 00-11 must be
revoted upon with a quorum. I respectfully request it be done.
=====================================================================
APPEAL NUMBER TWO:
Appeal of findings under Motion 00-12:
This motion was upheld by a quorum vote of nine to four, 55% of the voting
quorum. Article VIII, Section 2 requires a 2/3rds majority to defeat or
uphold a motion. Furthermore, the accused were not informed that a vote
would be taken on this matter in 24 hours. This is a violation of Article
VIII, Section 3 which guarantees that the accused will be heard during the
24 hours before the vote is taken. Having failed to pass by the required
2/3rds of the voting quorum, Motion 00-12 fails the 2/3rds vote standard.
In effect, Motion 00-12 was defeated, not passed. Therefore, I
respectfully request that Motion 00-12 be entered into the record as
failed.
Thank you
Don Kelly
Records of both motions are cited below."
From merope@Radix.Net Mon Jun 5 14:41:48 2000
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 14:41:48 -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.SV4.3.96.1000605061751.29154A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
You get more for your money...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Sunday 4 June 2000:
Joe Zsedeny responds to a message posted off of Board-L by Ron Eason
regarding his motion to declare 5 grievances pending against various Board
members frivolous and politically oriented. He notes "These are
"grievances" which are clearly meant to advance the agenda of those who
would destroy what they can't control. This Project was designed to
advance online genealogy and not the personal ambitions of a few or to
satisfy spiteful ambitions." He says he supports the Archives and RW and
the bylaws, "because not to do so leads to chaos and because they
represent the will of those who approved them, the volunteers." He notes
there are valid concerns about the delinking and notes that Ron had a
great deal of support on the Board until he incorporated the Census
Project. He says "If that were not insult enough you chose a server whose
owner incorporated the USGW name, literally stole it from us." [This is
not correct.] Joe tells Ron that "The Board is given the responsibility in
the ByLaws to evaluate and act on grievances if they have merit, whether
you like it or not. Grievances, as mentioned in the ByLaws, were not meant
to include complaints which if acted upon would destroy parts of the
Project. Those actions are reserved for the amendment process." He notes
that he has better things to do with his time.
Pam Reid and Joy Fisher both respond to Ron's post as well. [Both just
wordily rehash points they've made before so I'm not sure there's any need
to sum them up.]
Shari Handley forwards a message from Roger Swafford to the Board. Roger
says he has no problem with Jim Powell and has discussed many issues with
him in the past. He notes "My communication to Jim was merely a courtesy
as advised by RRoO. The link discovered caused concern within the EC, as
chairman I could not ignore that concern. I attribute Jim's disclosure of
the subject matter of my message, which was marked *Personal &
Confidential*, to an apparent lack of knowledge regarding accepted
parliamentary procedure." [Funny thing though. The rest of the EC didn't
even know about this.] Roger also notes "Precedents have been set by
recent actions of the NC and AB. It is my duty as chairman of the EC to
exercise due caution on behalf of "USGWP" to consider the "effect" of
those precedents in conducting this election with the greatest possible
degree of fairness to assure that the outcome is truly the will of the
majority. These are stressful and difficult times for both the majority
and minority. Such circumstances dictate extraordinary measures, numerous
members have expressed outrage concerning the determinations of the EC, to
those whom I have not personally responded I ask acceptance of this
message as a response and apologize for the delay. Our present situation
and the method utilized in creation of the EC imposes far greater
responsibilities upon this committee than any other of the past."
Betsy Mills forwards a message from Don Kelley in which he withdraws his
appeal of Motion 00-12 because it has been withdrawn. His appeal of
Motion 00-11 is not withdrawn.
Teri Pettit notes that "If a grievance is frivolous or without merit, any
impartial committee will recognize it as such, and so rule. We don't have
to prejudge it for them, and shouldn't." She does not think that _any_
grievance against a board member should be dismissed without submitting it
to an outside mediator, due to the inherent conflict of interest. She
then discusses her opinion of each of the five grievances to show how they
are not necessarily frivolous:
#1)"...nothing should be done except perhaps that the Guidelines for
Volunteers page should make more clear that the ByLaws do not prohibit
advertising by or on behalf of a commercial web host server. It is my
opinion that people who think that such appeals are disallowed are reading
more into the ByLaws than they say."
#2) "I see no difference between the use of the small USGenWeb logo on the
Rootsweb cluster pages to link to the USGenWeb national page, versus the
use of the same small USGenWeb logo on the USGenNet page to link to the
USGenWeb national page. If one is allowed to use it in that fashion, all
should be...a policy statement should be added to the page where the logos
appear, describing and limiting the contexts in which they can be used,
in a way that makes clear that the use as links to USGenWeb from the
Rootsweb cluster pages and from USGenNet or other genealogical
organizations are proper usage."
#3) "...seems completely valid...While space limitations make it
impractical to list every free server in the world, it makes perfect sense
to list all of the servers who specifically make provisions for USGenWeb
county sites with policies different than they have for the public at
large. Pam should be directed to add USGenNet to the same list as
Rootsweb, and with a similarly neutral wording."
#4) "...mostly do not agree with. For the same reasons of subproject
autonomy that make me believe that the Census Project was within its
rights to move the Census Project files anywhere they want, I also believe
the Archives Project has the right to make any contracts it wants with
any web host, commercial or not....The non-profit status of the USGenWeb
Project means that access to the data must be free to the end user. It
doesn't mean that nobody else can make money indirectly from the fact that
someone is accessing the data....if I were on a mediation committee I
would recommend that the facts that the Archives has an exclusive contract
to store the files permanently on Rootsweb, and that Rootsweb derives
advertising income from the search engines that are one of the primary
means of public access to those files, should be outlined in a
"permissions contract", and that all submitters should be required to sign
the contract that they understand this policy and do not object to it,
before their files would be accepted."
#5) I do not believe that there is any copyright
violation. Copyright does not give an author the right to control
where their work is stored; it only gives them the right to restrict
COPIES being made of their *original* work, and either sold by another,
or distributed in a way that would reduce their own income from
that work. However, as a matter of courtesy and good will, it would be
best if the Archives consented to remove items that the submitter later
requests removal of. The argument that the submission was made when the
submitter did not know of the profits that Rootsweb derives from
advertising has some merit for invalidating the permanent use permission.
Contracts that omit key information that might have led the signatories to
decide otherwise are often ruled null and void."
Teri notes that even though she agrees with only two of the grievances,
she finds none of the "frivolous and feels that some of them "stem from a
sincerely held misapprehension of what the non-profit status of USGenWeb
Project means, one which is so widely-spread that, while I would deny the
grievances, I would suggest taking immediate clear measures to reduce the
level of misunderstanding." She states that she believes that ALL
[emphasis hers] grievances involving Board members "are best judged by a
party that does not include any members of that leadership, and that to
avoid conflict of interest is not appointed by us. "
Jim Powell notes that as he is "hopefully running for office" he should
not be discussing the April 1 cutoff issue and asks one of his colleagues
to bring it to the table. He notes that when was Chair of the EC "most
such changes were run by the board" and that there are currently two
grievances pending on this issue.
Barbara Dore seconds Maggie Stewart Zimmerman's "Standing Rule" motion.
Tim Stowell gives Rich's motion to repeal Motion 00-12 number 00-15 and
opens the floor for discussion. He gives the "Standing Rule" motion
number 00-16 and opens the floor for discussion on it as well.
In regards to Motion 00-16, Ginger Cisewski notes that "This is something
that should be decided by the entire membership of the USGenWeb Project...
Given the fact that this Board already has an unprecedented number of
grievances filed against various Board members, I believe this is the very
last group who should be taking it upon themselves to dictate rules of
conduct....We are vastly overstepping and attempting to dictate a policy
in a top-down manner, instead of the bottom-up fashion that the USGenWeb
Project was to be."
Ginger Hayes asks: "1. Who decides if a member is promoting enough of
a "positive public image" to be considered in good standing. 2. Who
decides if a member is working to "enhance its good name and reputation"?
What does this work consist of? 3. Define the term "contributing to its
operations" please. Wouldn't you say that maintaining websites and working
to place data online is already "contributing to its operations"?" She
feels that that this motion merely repeats material that is already in the
bylaws and only serves to place a broader interpretation on it. She notes
that "This would only serve to open the door wider to potential abuse and
allow more intrepretation of the Bylaws to suit whatever the "whim" of the
moment is."
GingerH moves "that the April 1, 2000 cut off date for voter eligibility
be declared contrary to the Bylaws of the USGenWeb Project and that this
Board instruct the Elections Committee that all members of the USGenWeb
Project are eligible to vote in accordance with the duly adopted Bylaws of
The USGenWeb Project." She adds that is her personal opinion that "To do
anything less smacks of attempted manipulation of the Election by this
Board and the Election committee."
GingerC and Joe second this motion. Joe notes "I suggest that anyone with
a working website as certified by the respective SC be allowed to vote. In
other words, leave the decision as to eligibility to the SCs."
Joe responds to Teri's discussion of the grievances: "Suppose all 2100 or
so CCs filed separate complaints simultaneously. Who would have the time
to read them all and where would you find the impartial mediators? In
fact, where in this Project would you find impartial mediators? That is
why the electorate [sic; I'm sure he does not mean this] is the best
committee for hearing these complaints and making their feelings known
thru their vote to elect...I still believe that the Board has the right
(given by the ByLaws) to judge whether a complaint has merit and to act on
it or if deemed appropiate to decide on mediators. After all the Board
members were put there by the volunteers. Who better than their (the
volunteers') employees (though poorly paid) to do this job?...This Project
has spiraled into a vortex where reason has been lost and only egoism
seems to matter. Hatred and spite are rampant and growing and now manifest
in these complaints. The present situation disgusts those of us who only
want to persue the original (stated) intent of the Project, to bring
genealogy online." Joe uses quite an astonishing and graphic curse word
in this discussion, but apologizes. [Joe essentially negates Teri's
carefully thought out discussion above and her efforts to fairly mediate
these grievances by essentially stating "I don't like these people, I
think they are part of a plot to destroy the project, therefore I am going
to deny them the right to have their grievances heard and if they don't
like it, they can change the bylaws. As Joe's dad used to say...]
Shari fowards a message from Tim Stowell indicating that the GAGenWeb has
voted to support the Special Projects amendment.
===
Election News: Roger Swafford has released the names of candidates for
positions thus far:
National Coordinator -- Mr. Jim Powell
Northwest Plains CC Rep. -- Ms. Virginia "Ginger" Cisewski
Southwest / South Central CC Rep. -- Mr. Ken Short
[My name should be on the list, but it isn't]
The EC has also sent out the following request to the SCs: "The Election
Committee requests your cooperation in establishing a list of the
electorate. Please send a list of your volunteers serving in their
positions prior to April 1, 2000." The SCs are asked to furnish voter
names and email addresses to their respective area reps on the EC and to
indicate what position they hold in the project.
Unhappy Campers Corner: Yet another set of grievances has been filed with
the Board, one involving the arbitrary 60 day cutoff for voting rights,
and the other regarding the request by EC Chair Roger Swafford to have Jim
Powell step out of the race. This must bring the total of active
grievances against the Board up to nearly 20. They are going to have
quite a backlog to wade through if they don't hurry up and declare them
all frivolous.
===
"When the president does it, that means it is not illegal."
---Richard Nixon
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 Jun 6 15:38:59 2000
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:38:55 -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.SV4.3.96.1000606061033.11099A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
Where do YOU want to go today?...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Monday 5 June 2000:
Teri Pettit notes that Motion 00-16 ["standing rule"] "is an almost
identical repetition of the statement in the ByLaws, except for the part
about "promoting a positive public image of the project, and working to
enhance its good name and reputation." She points out that it will have
little effect other than to provide more people with cover for filing yet
more grievances. She notes "A whole lot of CC's feel that the NC and the
Board members who supported his actions were acting in ways which do not
promote a positive image of the project or serve as an example of the
guidelines and standards of the USGenWeb Project. And others feel that
their actions were good examples of those standards." It is her opinion
that the problem stems not from project members who are not dedicated to
USGW but from the fact that "that different project members sincerely
disagree about whether a particular action is beneficial or detrimental to
the welfare of the USGenWeb Project." She notes "We have too many vague,
subjective standards and guidelines already, we don't need to add more."
Joe Zsedeny agrees with Ginger and Teri, stating that Motion 00-16 is
"More ammunition for subjective complaints we don't need."
Joe requests that Motion 00-14 ["frivolous grievances"] be placed back on
the table to be voted on after Motion 00-15 [to repeal Motion 00-12].
Richard Howland supports Joe's request sicne he was under the mistaken
impression that the Board had agreed to only have one motion active at a
time. Tim puts the motion back on the table and notes that voting will
proceed "with 00-15 followed by 00-14, with what others exist now and in
the future after that."
Maggie Stewart Zimmerman tells Ginger Hayes that her motion [to declare
the 60 day cutoff invalid] is "is improper and out of order" and that the
Election Committee's decision is binding on the Advisory Board [!]. She
suggests that if Ginger "must act in such a partisan manner" she use the
following words: "I move to rescind the 60 date cutoff and bestow all
eligible members with the *right* to vote."
Ginger tells Maggie "The idea of you calling me partisan is too hysterical
for words...But then again, if your definition of partisan means that I'm
for an honest election and fair treatment for all members of this project
then you bet I'm partisan. I kind of think that's not the definition you
had in mind,though. I could be wrong.....but I doubt it." She asks Maggie
for a reference on her declaration that Ginger's motion is out of order.
For some reason Tim Stowell crossposts a conversation between Barbara Dore
[who suggests that Ron Eason read a certain section of RRoO], Ron Eason
[who suggests that the Board should throw away the book] and himself. He
asks Ron if he's suggesting that the Board throw away both RRoO and the
section of the bylaws that requires the Board to act using a recognized
parliamentary authority.
===
Election News: The Election Committee has released the following updated
list of candidates:
National Coordinator:
Mr. Jim Powell jpowelljr@gru.net
Mr. Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny jzsed@slic.com
Northeast / North Central CC Rep:
Mr. Bill Oliver wnoliver@worldnet.att.net
Northwest Plains CC Rep:
Ms. Virginia "Ginger" Cisewski FEATHER2s@aol.com
Southwest / South Central CC Rep:
Mr. Ken Short kshort@kroo.com
Ms. Teresa Lindquist merope@Radix.Net
[woo hoo, guess I'm certified "in good standing"!]
Here's Election Committee Chair Roger Swafford on voting rights, or lack
thereof:
"There is no contradiction of the bylaws. Article VII Section 6. All
members of The USGenWeb Project, excluding Look-Up Volunteers and
Transcribers, shall be eligible to vote. Please note "eligible" does not
infer or constitute the "right" to vote. If this article were not in the
bylaws and only the parliamentary authority used there could be NO cutoff
date."
The EC will be accepting voter lists up until July 1, 2000. More than one
SC has suggested that the right to determine who is an eligible voter
properly rests with the local projects and not with an appointed
[unelected] national level group. One of them notes:
"By this directive, you have in effect taken the job of determining
eligibility out of the hands of the State Coordinator and the volunteers
from each state where it has always been, and placed it in the Election
Committee's hands. Will you have your election committee members going out
and checking each voter that we send you to make sure that they are
'eligible' by your directives? Traditionally, the volunteers in each of
the states have been responsible for determining eligibility per the
Bylaws. I guess since more and more rights are being shifted from the
States to the National level, I shouldn't be surprised." [Connie Snyder,
STATE-COORD-L]
===
Today's quote is from a reader:
"duh."
---Tim Stowell, USGENWEB-DISCUSS, 5 June 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 Wed Jun 7 11:49:51 2000
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:49:51 -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.SV4.3.96.1000607062303.14607B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
Dancing on the edge of the abyss...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content and Board members behaving badly.
Read at your own risk!
Tuesday 6 June 2000--Wednesday 7 June 2000:
Maggie Stewart Zimmerman says she agrees with Ginger Hayes about the
cutoff date. Nonetheless, she reminds GingerH that the Board passed a
motion appointing Roger Swafford Chair of the EC and empowering him to
select his own committee members. Maggie reasons that since "This was
passed by unanimous consent by the Advisory Board. This makes the
decision of the EC binding on the AB." She quotes several sections of the
bylaws regarding elections and asks "how can "voter eligibility be
declared contrary to the Bylaws of the USGenWeb Project" when it's not
addressed in said Bylaws?"
GingerH asks if this means the EC is therefore "free to make up whatever
rules it chooses and we are bound by them?" She also notes that "The
Bylaws say all members with the exception of transcribers and lookup
volunteers are eligible to vote. There is no mention of a "probationary"
period or how informed they have to be, or how long they have to have been
members of the project." She reminds the Board "this project belongs to
the volunteers. THEY are the one's that built it. It is their right to
vote for whomever they choose, without undue restrictions being placed on
their right to vote. Anything short of that smacks of attempted vote
manipulation.......whether it is or not."
In response to GingerH's question about who would be determining
compliance with "Standing Rule #1", Maggie responds "The AB or duly
appointed authority would make determination of SR#1 compliance on a case
by case basis." GingerH notes that "on a "case by case" basis what would
apply to one might not necessarily apply to the next one."
Barbara Dore posts a message from a Census Project mailing list, noting
"Perhaps the following that was sent by a concerned CC might shed some
light on the need for an April 1st cutoff date." The message contains the
following conversation:
"Ideas [good ideas] are pouring from this group. 'Tis proud I am to be
one with you." ---Wild Bill [Oliver]
"Do assistant county coordinators have voting rights? How about
co-coordinators? How many transcribers would be interested in adopting a
county or two or three? Spreading them out across the regions, of
course!" ---Lori
Shari Handley provides the following report from the EC:
"I've been asked by a fellow AB member for a report on my opinion of how
the EC is operating, in hopes that I would be able to allay some
concerns/fears regarding some of the rumors that are flying about. When
the EC first convened, we all decided and agreed that the chairman would
be the "public voice" of the committee, providing replies to questions
after we had discussed them on our EC list. However, I have received
Roger's OK to post this. My understanding is that Roger has never asked
anyone to withdraw their candidacy. Jim's email to the BOARD-L (and
elsewhere) seems to confirm that in his case. When there was a question
of "good standing", it was because the EC was following the directions of
the AB vote regarding the protest logos. There was nothing that the EC
was unilaterally deciding there. We discussed it briefly, and the
concensus was that we felt that it was an honest oversight on Jim's part.
End of story. As you can see by Roger's recent post reporting the
current candidate list, all candidates who have been nominated and have
accepted the nomination (at the time of Roger's post) were listed.
Regarding the 60-day eligibility period. That was one of the first things
discussed, and the April 1st cut-off was also the consensus of the EC
members. Someone here made a comment about that being a manipulation of
the vote, and this perplexes me, personally. The cut-off date was
established to *prevent* manipulation of the vote by making it impossible
to pad voter lists by adding co-CCs in new states and regions, by taking
on new counties only to gain voting eligibility in that region, or by
establishing bogus identities with web-based eMail accounts. This
prevents these attempts at manipulation by anyone, of any political
stripe, not just one side or another. The EC is a group of USGenWeb
volunteers who are, like you, trying to do the best we can by and for the
Project. We civilly discuss how best to tackle the job at hand, and
continue to discuss issues as they come up, along with completing our
assigned tasks. We are committed to our goal, and that is a fair, accurate
election. In the volatile atmosphere of the USGenWeb Project, we realize
that our being on the EC makes us targets of innuendo and invective, and
necessitates our having to tolerate rudeness, sarcasm, and accusations of
corruption. Ain't that just so flippin' pathetic, though?"
[Ah, OK, so all the hooey about new members needing a learning period was
just that, hooey. Very nice. In their zeal to prevent a few partisans
from padding the voter rolls, how many innocent CCs are they depriving of
a vote? _That's_ what is pathetic.]
Tim Stowell opens the vote on Motion 00-15 "to Rescind, Repeal, or Annul.
Motion #00-12." Thus far four Board members have voted "yes, three
have voted "no", and one has abstained.
Maggie forwards her response to a constituent regarding the issue of the
60 day cutoff and violation of the bylaws. Maggie says that her main
point is " that the Bylaws don't specify membership "as of when"? So they
permit a determination of "when" -- and for the election process to verify
that voters are indeed eligible, there *has* to be some such
determination!...the *point* is that some cutoff date has to be
established in order for there to be workable, fair election." [No, I
don't follow her logic either. This is more less a case of "the bylaws
don't specifically say we can't and we found a passage in RRoO which might
support us, so we can. Live with it."]
[Tim has not yet numbered or opened for discussion the motion to declare
the cutoff date contrary to the bylaws. Do you suppose he's waiting for
an opportune time to declare it out of order?]
====
Election News: The arguing about the 60 day cutoff continues. Now it
appears that the arbitrary cutoff was instituted to prevent padding of the
voter rolls, not because of any need to protect delicate newbies from the
rigors of becoming sufficiently informed on the issues to vote on them.
It also appears the April 1 date was selected, rather than the traditional
June 1 cutoff, in order to specifically prevent Census Project members who
are also new CCs from voting. Heck, if they'd used the June 1 cutoff,
they'd only be eliminating the Archives people who've been adopting
counties in order to have a vote. Although there have been strenuous
calls to abandon the cutoff and let all eligible members vote from nearly
everyone who has weighed in on the issue, they are apparently going
unheeded. I suppose it shouldn't surprise me that people who have been
members for four months will not be able to vote in July, just because
they _might_ have taken on a county solely in order to have a vote. After
all, this project has a history of instituting cures that are worse than
the disease. Why should voting rights be any different?
Website O' The Day Corner: http://www.gensuck.com for all your beefs
about genealogy! Read the report on Root$web's slow servers. Funny
stuff. Also don't forget to read the one on "unresponsive USGW
volunteers."
===
"The thing is, if you control the Senate meetings, you control the gavel.
And the gavel is a very important instrument...an instrument of power. An
instrument that establishes the agenda."
---Dan Quayle
This has been your Daily Board Show. Now certified in good standing!
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
-------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.
From merope@Radix.Net Thu Jun 8 09:45:49 2000
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 09:45:48 -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.SV4.3.96.1000607223359.21543E-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
Is it soup yet?...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Wednesday 7 June 2000--Thursday 8 June 2000:
Voting concludes on Motion 00-15, with 10 Yes votes, 3 no votes and 2
abstentions. Tim Stowell declares the motion passed, and Motion 00-12 is
repealed [OK, folks, you can fire up those protest logos again!]
Tim opens the vote on Motion 00-14, to dismiss Carole Hammett's grievances
as "frivolous and purely political in nature." Thus far 2 Board members
have voted "yes" and one has voted "no."
In placing her vote on Motion 00-14, Ginger Hayes notes "Until the motion
is restated to only include those grievances by Ms. Hammett my vote will
have to be in the negative...I'm aware that Joe said only those 5
grievances are in question. That statement is not, however, a part of the
motion and thus leaves the door open to dismissing all grievances
submitted before the vote."
Barbara Dore forwards a message from the SC of the MTGenWeb directed to
"Fred Smoot and the Staff of USGenNet. Corky requests that USGenNet
remove all links to the MTGW immediately, noting that "Your USGenNet site
now strongly implies that it is some type of "official" server for
USGenWeb... complete with brand new **unauthorized** USGenWeb Project
Logos displaying the words "non-profit" on them - as if we haven't been or
non-profit for the past four years! The above actions by
USGenNet.org.-com-.net, along with the numerous inflammatory and
derogatory postings made to various USGenWeb mailing lists by it's
administration, are considered offensive by many members of the
MTGenWeb Project. I hereby request on behalf of 89% of the eligible voters
who voted that you remove the link to our MTGenWeb Project from the
USGenNet.org, .com, .net site. Unless at some time in the future it is
demonstrated to us that your actions and those of the USGenNet staff do
not constitute a hostile takeover of the USGenWeb Project process, we do
not wish it to appear that we are in agreement or association with your
group."
Maggie Stewart Zimmerman moves to adopt the following resolution:
"Whereas, This link http://www.usgennet.org/usgenweb.html leads to pages
hosted by USGenNet Inc., entitled ""USGenNet's Index to The NonProfit
USGenWeb Project" and contains a number of logos bearing the words "The
Nonprofit USGenWeb Project". These pages are considered an obvious attempt
to inflict harm upon the name and reputation of The USGenWeb Project.
Resolved, That The USGenWeb Project Advisory Board formally demand removal
of all references within 7 days, including index and logos, regarding any
supposed "Nonprofit USGenWeb Project", or words to that effect from
USGenNet Inc. and from any other USGenWeb Project web site on which these
items may appear; and Resolved, That failure to comply shall result in the
person(s) and/or website(s) declared as not in good standing with The
USGenWeb Project by authority of Article VI Section 9 to wit failure in
"serving as a good example of the guidelines and standards of The USGenWeb
Project". [Lovely. Now they are presuming to tell other servers how to
run their business. Didn't they learn their lession with Root$web?]
Maggie continues her conversation with a CC about voter eligibility on
Board-L [where, of course, he cannot answer her]. Maggie notes that the
bylaws section dealing with eligibility is "not quite so incredibly simple
and clear" and asks if, under Article VII, Section 6 of the bylaws, it
means "that census transcribers who become a county co-coordinator are
still not eligible to vote because they are also transcribers????? In
order to vote, they would have to give up their transcribing jobs???"
[This "let's interpret the bylaws" game is obviously immensely
entertaining.] She also points out that "residency requirements are
standard fare for U.S. elections. Seems reasonable for USGW to do the
same."
Ginger Hayes reminds Tim that she made a motion several days ago that
received two seconds. She asks "Is there some particular reason you are
ignoring?"
In regard to Motion 00-14, Joe states "no grievance is too minor to be
addressed IF the complainant truly feels agrieved. That is my criteria
for evaluating a grievance, sincerity. The grievance at hand fails the
first test, sincerity. while it perhaps contains some elements that need
to be addressed the complainant's past history of disruptive behavior
stemming from a desire to do RW in by using USGW as the hammer makes this
a political statement with disharmony as the only goal." Joe moves "that
the grievances submitted by C. Hammett be dismissed as frivolous and
purely political in nature." [Since I don't think one can amend or
withdraw a motion while it is being voted on, this must constitute an
entirely new motion. Interesting.]
===
An Offer You Can't Refuse Corner: We hear from The Usual Suspects that
Root$web has lately been making overtures to the other Big Online
Genealogy Project, The Genealogy Exchange and Surname Registry
[Genexchange]. The Genexchange, a non-profit online genealogy site, has
been around for four years, making it a contemporary of the USGenWeb and
Root$web. Originally run by Joanne and Anthony Abby and a handful of
volunteers, it has since opened nearly all U.S. counties for adoption and
is acquiring volunteers, transcribers and data at an alarming rate. Our
saga beings when Genexchange members notice that none of their email will
be accepted on RW lists; members are either unsubbed abruptly or their
posts vanish [sound familiar?]. When RW CEO Robert Tillman was contacted
by one of the Genexchange managers, he told them that RW was not accepting
mail from Genexhange members because RW considered that they were
sending unsolicited commercial email ["spam" in other words. The "UCE" in
question was a post soliciting volunteers for the Genexchange]. After some
dickering about what constitutes UCE and where it is appropriate, Bob
dropped the bomb and offered to host the Genexchange on RW. According to
the source, RW offered to provide equipment, personnel,and dedicated
connections to the Genexchange if it would move to RW. Bob also told the
Genexchange manager that if they did move to RW, then they would not only
receive coverage in the New Zoo Review, but would also be able to mention
the Genexchange on RW lists more frequently [i.e., if they allow RW to
host them, the Genexchange can spam RW list members all they want.]
However, if the Genexchange were not interested in this generous offer it
was told it would have to pay for advertising if it wishes to continue
recruiting volunteers or mentioning its services on RW-owned mailing
lists. [Remember, there are some 16,000 location and surname related lists
with many many thousands of readers. Many of those folks might be very
interested to know that RW is keeping the Genexchange from informing those
people of free online resources they may find to be of value.]
Root$web must be rolling in cash. Given the way the Genexchange is set
up, hosting it would mean purchasing three servers --NT, SQL, and a mail
server--and paying two and perhaps three people--NT geek, SQL geek,
ColdFusion geek--plus the connection costs. This is a major resource
commitment. There's also the "my server is better than yours" antagonism
that has existed for years between Brian Leverich and Anthony Abby, which
many of you have probably been around long enough to remember. A few
years ago, in fact, Anthony asked Brian if RW would be interested in
hosting the Genexchange and was essentially told to take a hike. So why
the change? Well, Bob is a businessman and the Genexchange is a
competitor. It competes with RW [or RW's hosted projects] for users,
volunteers, data, and that precious advertising revenue. And in the
finest capitalist tradition, Bob has just told the Genexchange that if he
can't buy them out, he will shut them out.
Mergers and Acquisitions Corner: We hear that Root$web will shortly begin
channeling the AOL genealogy forums.
We're In The Money Corner: According to this week's New Zoo Review,
Root$web is passing out cash. The Immigrant Ship's Transcriber's guild
has received a $20,000 grant from Root$web, which they used to purchase a
new computer suite, including a document scanner. Congrats to the ISTG!
===
"We all know what Parliament is, and we are all ashamed of it."
---Robert Louis Stevenson
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 Jun 9 09:30:10 2000
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 09:30:09 -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.SV4.3.96.1000609080307.5940A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Its a fair cop...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content, whining and grumpiness. Read at
your own risk!
Thursday 8 June 2000--Friday 9 June 2000:
Voting on Motion 00-14 continues. Thus far, 8 Board members have voted
"yes" and 3 have voted "no". [yes, Pam Reid, who is a named party to the
grievances, did vote to declare them "frivolous".]
Joe Zsedeny says "Fellow Board members and volunteers, it is hard to know
where to begin because I am deeply troubled. But I will try to get across
to you the danger YOUR Project faces because of a group whose members are
using despicable means to achieve their ends. Evidence is damning and
piling up of a conspiracy to utterly destroy this project as you know it
thru ballot box stuffing. Some of it I am not at liberty to divulge at
this time but your Board is working overtime to blunt it before the actual
election and try to ensure that a fair and honest election allows the
Project to survive in a form we can accept and to live up to the promise
that is implied in our nobel mission, free online genealogy for all. The
disheartening thing is that some of our most talented people are involved.
When their efforts are directed to honorable pursuits the results are
sometimes stunning. But once one lapses into a mindset of misconduct each
new step is easier and that is the vortex I spoke of the other day....I am
not whining about our sacrifice but asking that those who are so turned
off by all this to support us, resist the efforts of these so called
"activists" to turn the election into a circus. If you are a concerned SC
talk to your CCs, explain to them the seriousness of this situation and
encourage them to vote their convictions. You are in a leadership
position, now is the time to lead. If the name of any individual involved
in this pops up on your radar screen talk to them sternly and dismiss them
if need be after a fair hearing and don't shrink from the task. The Board
will back you to the limit allowed in our Bylaws and I will back you to
the limit with my pen. This plea will be followed by a motion to show
Board support for our NC and the Election Committee, who now stand between
this threat and an honest election. I would be heartened if the vote were
unanimous after discussion but a passing vote will do. Please hear me,
else look around for another organization in which to pursue your
genealogical interests because you may wake up some morning and not like
your bedfellows."
Joe notes "While I have a concern that a few worthy CCs may not get to
vote this time. I would bet you a dime to a bagel that if they feel as
strongly about this Project as I do they would gracefully give up the vote
so that the other several hundred voting members would feel that their
vote fell where they aimed it to fall. Tell me, dear friends, is it more
right that one voter or a few voters be denied than for the hundreds that
part with their apathy and vote be denied their due rights? I think not.
He notes that only ten votes separate the winners in last year's election
and says "Eleven more phony votes would have disenfrancised a true
majority." [One might point out as well that eleven fewer phony votes
might have actually represented the true majority.] He notes that the
Board has the "right and duty" to make motions "not specifically
prohibited by the bylaws." He then moves "that the April 1, 2000 cutoff
date be affirmed."
[Yes, you are remembering right. A few days ago, Joe seconded the motion
to declare the cutoff date contrary to the bylaws. That motion has been
thoroughly ignored. Hell, the questions as to why its being ignored are
being ignored. Joe did not withdraw his second of this motion, but it
wouldn't matter if he did, because someone else seconded it as well. But
if our Esteemed NC allows it to come to a vote, it should come to a vote
prior to Joe's new motion.]
Maggie Stewart Zimmerman seconds Joe's motion. Joe then amends the motion
to read, "I hereby move that the April 1, 2000 cutoff date for eligibility
in the july 2000 USGenWeb elections be affirmed."
Regarding the "Nonprofit USGenWeb Project" resolution, Teri Pettit asks
Maggie "why assume that there is an intent to inflict harm? Wouldn't it
be much better "public relations" to assume that any confusion is
unintentional, and that USGenNet wishes our project well? Why not just
ask nicely that the confusing wording and logos be changed, without
getting blustery?" She suggests kinder and gentler wording [see below for
full text]. She also notes that the "peppermint patty" logos did not
appear on the USGenNet page until Tim insisted they remove the official
logo and suggests "We should give USGenNet permission to use the real
USGenWeb logos to link to the USGenWeb Project, just like Rootsweb does on
its cluster pages. Rootsweb and USGenNet are both web presence providers
that generously provide free web space for USGenWeb project pages; it is
very unfair to treat the organizations differently, when they both support
us with free services. It is looking a gift horse in the mouth." She
points out that she has been a big RW support for several years but
"appreciation for Rootsweb requires us to treat any other servers like
they are some kind of enemy of the Project. To jump to the conclusion that
USGenNet harbors some kind of designs to damage or take over the USGenWeb
Project is every bit as unfair and ungrateful as it is to make those kinds
of accusations of Rootsweb." She closes "The good name and reputation of
the USGenWeb Project is best served by taking everyone who claims to wish
us well fully at their word, rather than seeking enemies under every
stone. To have friends, one must be a friend." [Sorry, hon, but I think
this is falling on deaf ears. *shrug*]
Current Board activity ['cause its confusing]:
--Motion 00-15: passed [repeals Motion 00-12]
--Motion 00-14: in voting [declares all pending grievances 'frivolous']
--Motion 00-16: in discussion ["standing rule #1]
--motion "that the April 1, 2000 cut off date for voter eligibility be
declared contrary to the Bylaws of the USGenWeb Project and that this
Board instruct the Elections Committee that all members of the USGenWeb
Project are eligible to vote in accordance with the duly adopted Bylaws of
The USGenWeb Project." -- seconded twice, currently unnumbered [should be
Motion 00-17]
--"USGenNet Resolution"--seconded, unnumbered [should be Motion 00-18]
--motion "that the grievances submitted by C. Hammett be dismissed as
frivolous and purely political in nature." --not seconded
--motion that the April 1, 2000 cutoff date for eligibility in the july
2000 USGenWeb elections be affirmed."--seconded, not numbered
===
Kill 'Em All, Let God Sort 'Em Out Corner: [Excuse me while I rant for a
moment.] Here's what we have: Rootslady ferreted out a post in which two
people discuss [perhaps jokingly, who knows?] getting folks to sign up for
counties so that they can vote in the next election. This post is taken
for evidence that such voter roll padding has _actually_ occurred and in
order to prevent its evil effects, a cutoff date for vote eligibility that
is _four_ months before the election is instituted. The date was chosen
_specifically_ to prevent disaffected USGW Census Project members from
voting. Now we have Joe stating that its perfectly all right to deny
however many other innocent CCs as necessary the right to vote in order to
avert this dire threat to the project, and even goes so far as to assume
on the voters' behalf that they will happily give up their vote in order
to thwart the conspirators' evil plan. Furthermore, and even worse, he is
basing his statements on secret evidence that he is "not at liberty to
divulge at this time" and expecting the rest of the project to go along on
his assurances of this supposedly damning evidence.
Voter fraud, if it were occurring, would of course be wrong. It does
not benefit the project to have persons adopting counties with which
they have no affiliation. But the Board has offered NO proof that any
specific persons have adopted counties soley so that they can vote. All
they have is a brief [and possibly out of context] exchange pirated from a
mailing list to which none of them belong discussing [perhaps jokingly]
the possibility. Apparently based on this and some "secret evidence", the
Board is preparing to strip fully eligible project members of their right
to vote. If voter roll padding has occurred, the Board has no way of
knowing how many people have adopted counties solely in order to vote nor
do they know specifically which people are involved. Because they cannot
PROVE anyone is guilty, they are making all suffer the loss of their
rights. Doesn't matter though. Its for the "good" of the project.
They are scared, people, scared they aren't going to win this election,
scared they will lose control of the means of communication within the
project, scared they aren't going to keep control of the Board [with its
new-found power to delink projects, empty Board seats, and stifle
grievances]. And they are apparently willing to do what it takes to
prevent that from happening, no matter how many innocent CCs they hurt in
the process.
Now, here is someone else's rant, which is much better than mine [reposted
with permission:
"So, I can't decide if Joe and his fellow travellers (especially Maggie)
sound more like: 1. Good 'ol boy Southern Democrats who used despicable
literacy tests and poll taxes to keep the riffraff (white trash as well
as all the Blacks) from voting (because they might utterly destroy the
country by not continuing the elite white power structure), or 2. Recent
despicable Republicans who wanted to outlaw easier voter registration
because they were afraid the Democrats would sign-up more union members,
and more importantly, recent immigrants who hadn't been citizens long
enough. After all, new citizens might not know enough to avoid utterly
destroying the country by not continuing Republicans in office, or 3. If
it's just that they're not quite ready to finger the despicable little
green men who turn invisible when someone else looks and have invaded the
U.S. in order to conspire with volunteer transcribers to steal the
life-energy from the members of the USGenWeb Advisory Board. For a long
time I was disgusted by this whole stinking mess; now that it's gone
beyond name-calling into conspiracy theories, I think its becoming a HOOT!
The very much for-profit Rootsweb.com owns less than 5% of the content on
its servers; the people who claim to be for non-profit genealogy are
falling all over themselves to protect the commercial potential of
Rootsweb and at the same time kill any potential non-commercial
competition. I don't see how anyone could write a better parody than the
one these folks are living."
===
Today's quote is from a reader:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it
means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many
different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's
all."
---Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass.
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
-------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.
----
Full text of Teri's suggestions for Maggie's resolution [notice there are
no sactions in it against CCs who USGenNet]:
The Advisory Board of The USGenWeb Project would like to draw your
attention to some confusing and misleading aspects of your index page at
http://www.usgennet.org/usgenweb.html , and ask for yourprompt help in
addressing these problems.
1. The term "the Nonprofit USGenWeb Project" as used on this page, with
"Nonprofit" capitalized, would appear to an uniformed reader to be the
name of a project. While The USGenWeb Project is indeed a nonprofit
organization, the word "Nonprofit" does not occur in the project's name.
The usage on your index page is therefore confusing and could very easily
mislead readers into thinking there are two separate projects, one being
named "the Nonprofit USGenWeb Project", and the other being named simply
"The USGenWeb Project".
To avoid such confusing, we ask that you please refer to the project only
by its official name, The USGenWeb Project. (A lowercase "nonprofit" is
acceptable, as long as it does not appear to be part of the project name.)
2. Similarly, to use the name of the USGenWeb Project on a logo which is
very different than the official USGenWeb Project logo could easily
confuse visitors into thinking that there are two separate organizations,
one that is identified by the logo that appears on the USGenWeb pages, and
a different project that is identified by the logo that appears on the
USGenNet index page.
The name of the USGenWeb Project should only appear on graphics which have
been approved for use by the USGenWeb Advisory Board:
http://www.usgenweb.org/volunteers/namelogo.html
We appreciate your support for the USGenWeb Project, and trust you will
act quickly to correct these misleading aspects of your index page.
From merope@Radix.Net Sat Jun 10 12:54:23 2000
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 12:54:22 -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.SV4.3.96.1000609205939.19271A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Don't touch that dial...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Friday 9 June 2000-Saturday 10 June 2000:
Voting continues on Motion 00-14. Thus far, 10 Board members have voted
"yes" and three have voted "no". [Unless Tim declares Pam Reid's vote in
favor of stifling grievances to which she is a party is declared out of
order, this motion has passed.]
Maggie Stewart Zimmerman tells Teri Pettit she will withdraw her motion
regarding the USGenNet pages if Teri agrees "to handle the negotiations
with Mr. Smoot and USGenNet." Maggie reserves the right "to put the
motion back out if those negotiations should fall through."
Joe Zsedney commends Maggie for her gesture, noting "That is a wonderful
offer, Maggie, and quite heartwarming given the atmosphere we are in." He
wishes Teri luck and hopes "Fred [Smoot] will reciprocate in like spirit."
===
Election News: The following is a current list of candidates as released
yesterday by the Election Committee:
National Coordinator
Jim Powell
Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny
Northeast / North Central CC Rep.
Bill Oliver
Richard M. Howland
Southeast / Mid-Atlantic CC Rep.
Ellen Pack
Northwest Plains CC Rep.
Virginia "Ginger" Cisewski
SouthWest / South Central CC Rep.
Ken Short
Teresa Lindquist
Unpopularity Contest: An anonymous reader writes to tell us that the
MSGenWeb did hold their planned "vote of no confidence" in the NC and
Advisory Board and the majority of MSGW voters supported the statement
of "no confidence". The statement of "no confidence" was forwarded to Our
Esteemed National Coordinator, who of course has not shared it with the
rest of the project. [Some Board members know about it, though.]
Full Plate Corner: We hear through the grapevine that Tim Stowell is
running for the Assistant State Coordinator position in the TNGenWeb. In
addition to serving as our Esteemed National Coordinator, Tim is also
the SC of the GAGenWeb and the NDGenWeb, the ASC of the WIGenWeb, and a CC
in several states, including GA, ND, TN, MN, and WI. He apparently
accepted the nomination on the same day he published a more or less
pathetic whine about how very very busy he is and how he's not having
enough fun. There are some who feel he is positioning himself for a
takeover of the TNGenWeb. However, he's actually got an opponent in this
race, and early odds indicate she's the favorite.
===
"Truth is a gem that is found at a great depth; whilst on the surface of
this world, all things are weighed by the false scale of custom."
---George Gordon, Lord Byron
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 Jun 11 17:37:29 2000
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 17:37:28 -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.SV4.3.96.1000611074832.28659A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
A terrible swift sword...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Saturday 10 June 2000:
Teri Pettit says she would like to be able to tell USGenNet that they may
use the official USGenWeb logo, providing "1. That the large-size logo is
not used, only the small or mid-sized logos. 2. That the logo not appear
in a position that seems to identify the USGenNet's index page as itself
being an official page of the USGenWeb Project...The placement and/or
caption text should make it plainly identifiable as a "courtesy link". 3.
That the USGenWeb logo link to either the official USGenWeb home page at
http://www.usgenweb.org/ , or to one of the official state link pages..."
She notes the Board [Tim, actually] backed Fred [Smoot] into a corner by
refusing them the use of the official logos; she says "Links with no
graphics look so dull, and I expect it will be much harder to negotiate
the removal of those or any other substitute graphics if they can't use
the real logo." Teri also notices that there are way too many motions
active and asks if a motion is necessary to restore permission to use the
official logos. She doesn't think she can make this decision on her own
since Our Esteemed NC already formally requested their removal. [Oh, and
its Teri's birthday. Happy birthday to Teri from the DBS staff!]
Joe Zsedeny agrees with Teri "about the motion problem" and says its fine
with him if Tim just agreed with her proposed solution. Jim Powell, Holly
Fee Timm, Gloria Mayfield, Shari Handley, and Ginger Hayes agree. Holly
notes that she doesn't see why they can't use the large logo, that
"appropriate usage" of the logo is fine with her, regardless of the size.
Maggie says she'll have to think on it for a bit as she needs "to weigh
some issues and correspond with the many CCs in my region that supported
this motion."
Teri explains why she specified the small logo: "The idea was just that a
smaller logo looks more like a link button. Large logos tend to look too
much like identifying labels for the page they are on. I'm pretty sure
that Tim's main reason for telling USGenNet not to use our logo was that
their original index page looked too much like it was the official
USGenWeb Project state links page. Now it doesn't have that problem, now
it instead looks like it is a state links page for some hypothetical other
project named "the Nonprofit USGenWeb Project."...What we are hoping to
see is a page that clearly refers to the real USGenWeb Project, and yet is
recognizable as not being an official USGenWeb Project page. It is just a
page of links, with special emphasis given to the states that are stored
on USGenNet, similar to the link pages that Rootsweb has that give special
emphasis to USGenWeb pages stored on Rootsweb."
Holly notes that Teri's last point [that the page in question not be
mistaken for an official USGenWeb page] is critical since "a page could
still be made to look/feel like a USGenWeb page using the small logo"
===
Election News: Roger Swafford has put the SCs on notice that they are to
respond promptly to the EC members' requests for state voter lists and
respect their EC liasons' deadlines for submission. He notes "It has
become clear that our EC volunteers require more time than anticipated for
the handling of the data submitted. Some of our EC volunteers are more
heavily burdened than others by various obligations. Therefore I must
allow them to set their own schedules, if a team members desires input
from you by a certain date please do so....The elections are no surprise
to anyone and voter lists have always been requested. We request your
prompt cooperation."
We Get Letters Corner: Recently Our Esteemed National Coordinator and the
TNGW SC Fred Smoot have been going rounds on the SC mailing list over the
large number of new CCs in TNGW over the last couple of months and the
very high participation rate in that state. TNGW has a very ratio of
coordinators to counties and Tim appears to view that as a bad thing. A
reader who has been following this series of events writes: "
"Fred and TNGenWeb are signing up new county-coordinators for the project.
Fred and TNGenWeb have a broad base of constituents and participation in
their project, rather than limited participation where one individual
holds many, many positions. Tim and others must think that broad
participation and increasing membership are bad. Am I reading this right?
Could this mean that one group supports wide-open public participation in,
and support for, the project, while the other desires a small, closed
clique? "
===
"I believe there's something out there watching over us. Unfortunately,
it's the government."
---Woody Allen
This has been your Daily Board Show. Hot enough for ya?
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
-------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved