From merope@Radix.Net Mon Mar 13 11:58:50 2000
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:58:49 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: Daily Board Show
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000313061456.16831I-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Just a spoonful of sugar...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Sunday 12 March 2000:
Tim Stowell numbers Shari Handley's revised motion [forcing a merger on
the two census projects] Motion 00-6, and says that the floor opens for
"formal discussion" at noon EST 13 March and closes at noon EST 15 March.
Ginger Hayes moves to postpone "any action on Motion 00-6, including the
discussion period of the motion", until the Board appooints someone for
the vacant Census Project representative seat.
Shari Handley seconds GingerH's motion to postpone action on Motion 00-6
until a CP rep is appointed.
===
The Past Revisited Corner: A week or so ago, one of the Board members
recommended untabling Motion 99-12. This motion, originally made by Joe
Zsedeny and seconded by Yvonne James-Henderson on May 21, 1999, reads:
"Whereas directories are being inappropriately used for unintended
archival purposes it is hereby resolved that all archival data directories
not under the USGW XXGenWeb Archives and containing census data be purged
immediately of all such data and the census data placed in the appropriate
XXGenWeb archives. This includes but is not limited to the
ftp://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/census/ directory. It is further resolved that
Dr Brian Leverich be requested to return the USGW Census Account(s) to the
USGW Archives Census Accounts."
There are two key points in this motion: 1) that all census data files not
in the USGW Archives be placed within the USGW Archives; and 2) that
any non-Archives directories containing census data be purged. Notice that
until the _very_ last sentence of the motion the CP is not mentioned by
name, and the motion specifically states it is not limited to the
directories the CP uses. Thus, a literal reading of this motion would have
also required that _any_ USGW affiliated state or county harboring census
data that is not in the Archives turn over their census data and purge
their own files of any such data. This motion was tabled on May 24 1999.
Motion 00-6 specifically refers to the Census Project and the Archives
Census Project, and retains the two key points of Motion 99-12: that the
Census Project's files be turned over to the Archives, and that the Census
Project's directories be purged. We have all heard, over the last year or
so, that the bylaws protect the Special Projects from external meddling
and grant them the same status as states in terms of local control. We
have been assured that this was the original intent of the bylaws
committee when the bylaws were written. Yet Motion 00-6 clearly grants
the Board the authority to dictate to the special projects [and by
extension any other local project] how they are run, who gets to vote for
their coordinators, and where they may keep their files. For an idea of
how inappropriate this is, replace all mentions of "Census II" and "USGW
Census Project" in Motion 00-6 with "TNGenWeb" [a state that keeps its own
archives]. Pretty appalling, isn't it? Now, replace all references to
"Census I" and "USGW Archives Census Project" with "KSGenWeb" [another
state that keeps its own archives]. Pretty ludicrous, yes? If the
Special Projects are afforded the same protections in the bylaws as the
state projects, then Motion 00-6 cannot be legal under the bylaws, unless
of course someone wants to argue that the bylaws afford some projects more
protection than others.
Those of you who think this is farfetched are reminded that not so long
ago, KSGW members were publicly and privately accused of all sorts of
perfidy for choosing not to put their files in the USGW Archives. More
recently, there has been extensive discussion in TNGW over where files
submitted to TNGW should be placed, with some members arguing that they
should _by default_ be placed in the USGW Archives rather than TNGW's own
archives. Several Board members, SCs, CCs, Archives file managers,
Root$web employees, etc., have gone on record that all data files donated
to or transcribed for any component of the USGW should be placed in the
Archives. It is not at all outside the realm of possibility that, "for
the good of the project", or "to benefit the researchers" any state or
local projects that are keeping data locally rather than in the Archives
can be brought into line using a mechanism similar to Motion 00-6.
Once upon a time, there was another motion that sought to "reorganize" the
Special Projects; it was called Motion 99-5
[http://www.usgenweb.com/official/boardvotes-99-1.html#99-5], which
stated specifically that "each Special Project will maintain their own
directory and infrastructure, separate from any other Special Project."
Back then, our NC said: "The Motion...usurps the Bylaws by trying to take
authority not given the Board in the Bylaws. Since a reorganization of the
Special Projects is a major change in the way the Bylaws read." [Tim
Stowell, Board-L, 9 March 1999]. Tim actually declared this motion illegal
based on Article 16, section 5 of the bylaws [emergency amendment
procedures]. Only a year ago our NC felt it was contrary to the bylaws
for the Board to interfere with the business of the Special Projects. So
what has changed?
===
"In my opinion the board does not have the authority to direct any state
or special project to anything as long as they are in compliance with the
bylaws. If they are not we do have the authority to delink the entire
state or special project but I do not believe the census project is in
noncompliance.... The only way to restructure the special projects is
through an amendment to the bylaws and if such an amendment is proposed it
should have considerable input from the volunteers of the special projects
who the restructuring will effect the most."
---Trey Holt, 23 May 1999, BOARD-L, regarding Motion 99-12
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 Mar 14 16:57:55 2000
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 16:57:52 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: Daily Board Show
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000314060811.106A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
This ain't no party, this ain't no disco...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Monday 13 March 2000:
Tim Stowell calls for a vote on the motion to table Motion 00-6, then
corrects himself and calls for a vote on the motion to postpone Motion
00-6 [I wonder if he got a nastygram from GingerH too? <g>]. So far there
are two "yes" votes, one "no" and two have abstained.
Joe Zsedney believes the Board should seat someone from the CP "so that
they can participate in the discussion of Shari's motion and have a change
to offer amendments just as the ACP members will have that chance thru
me." It seems unfair to him to "ignore the wishes of 20 people whose
project will dissolve into a new project without giving them a
voice." He suggests the Board "bring them along into it and give
them a fair hearing," and notes "Their cooperation is important to a
smooth transition." He says he's received support for Shari's motion from
Archives FMs and has received suggestions for amendment which he will
forward "when the floor clears." He also says that if a CP rep is not
seated "keep an open mind on any suggestions the CP members may have," and
that they send him. He notes "In some manner they must be represented."
And then he votes "yea" on Motion 00-6. [There's nothing like a Board
member that pays attention.]
Ginger Cisewski points out the Board is currently voting to postpone and
asks Joe to clarify his vote. Then she notes that he's raised a question
she's also been pndering: "How do we get around the fact that autonomy of
each project has been a basic guarantee since the founding of USGenWeb,
and the fact that the Bylaws do not give us the power to force one Project
to become part of another? We also have no power to tell a Project where
they will (or will not) keep their files." She wonders if they can
accomplish all this legally.
Joe says to ignore his first attempt at voting on Motion 00-6 and he
doesn't agree on tabling, only on postponing. He notes that "If there are
any other versions of this motion floating around out there rest assured I
will run them down before the day ends." Then he posts the same message
he sent previously, and once again votes "yea" on Motion 00-6.
Joe responds to Ginger's questions first by noting that the Board should
"clear M00-6 before discussing Shari's motion" and then by saying, "When
Virginia and I come anywhere near agreeing on something I look at the
billboard to make sure I have come to play at the right ballpark." He
goes no to say that he agrees that "M00-5 will solve the problem and
with amendment will be a good motion the thought goes thru my mind that we
are attempting to merge an Archive special project with a USGW special
project, two entirely different animals." [Joe seems confused here;
Motion 00-5 has been withdrawn.] Joe says the Board must follow the
bylaws to the letter but when they are open to interpretation, "the Board
is free, consistent, with the wishes of the volunteers, to proceed." He
urges getting the "broadest level of support possible from those
involved," but in his opinion the census issue is not of huge importance
to anyone in the project other than the two projects' leaders. He says
that based on the bylaws, which provide for a "Digital Library" [called
the USGW Project Archives] "the Board can certainly insist that the books
(files) be put in the library." He then notes that the "library system"
depends on the "librarian's perogatives [sic]" and "Each new special
project cannot redesign the library system to suit themselves. They must
use the existing structure so that special scrips [sic] written to search
the material can do their job." [This particular straw man is getting a
little old.] He says that he will post suggestions for amendment for
Motion 00-5 when it comes to the floor again and he will "be quite adamant
that they be included." He then notes "As for autonomy, the ByLaws do
provide autonomy, but autonomy for each special project one from the
other. Not autonomy from Board directives." [Funny, we've always been told
that control in this project moves from the bottom up. Now we're told
that VT can't tell CA what to do, but the Board can tell us _all_ what to
do.] Joe says that "we have three autonomous special projects, Archives,
Tombstone and Census. The Archives Project has no business telling the
others how they will organize or manage their day to day projects." But
he then says that the Archives _does_ have the business of "insuring that
ftp files be formatted in text format and be placed in specified
directories."
[Joe's understanding of the bylaws is a little scary. Even more scary is
that it seems to be shared by several other Board members.]
===
Smoke and Mirrors Corner: Joe's argument about libraries and librarians
only works if one thinks that the USGW Archives Project and the Digital
Library are synonomous. The bylaws in their current form do not support
such an interpretation. Under the bylaws, which all three heads of the
Special Projects helped to write, the Archives are a specific Special
Project, as is Tombstone and Census. Joe explicitly supports the
interpretation of the bylaws to read that these are three separate and
autonomous projects. The Digital Library/Project Archives can encompass
all of these without interfering with each project's management or file
storage. It could even encompass such diverse entities as the TNGW
Archives or the KSGenWeb Digital Library. The Archives cannot do that and
has made it clear that it will not.
Essentially Joe is arguing that every project can be independent until it
comes down to storing things the Archives considers to belong to the
Archives, and then it comes down to the "librarian's perogatives", where
and when the files are stored. That's clearly not what the bylaws say;
all the bylaws say is that "The USGenWeb Project shall also provide a
"digital library" called The USGenWeb Project Archives." They are silent
about where files may be kept, who is in charge of them, what form they
shall be in, etc. In the absence of any specific delegation of authority
to the Board, or to anyone else, local control should trump all other
interpretations.
By the admission of its founder, Pam Reid, Tombstone _chooses_ to put its
files in the Archives, because that is where she feels they should be.
Likewise, TNGenWeb and KSGenWeb choose to maintain separate archives
outside the Archives Project. Why is the Census Project, an independent,
autonomous project just like any state or other Special Project, not
afforded the same right to choose where they store their files? Why do
some on the Board feel that the Board should decide, or that the Archives
should decide? [What if Tombstone someday decides _not_ to put its files
in the Archives; is the Archives then going to argue that the files
_still_ belong, by right, to it?]
The argument that the files have to be in the same place to be "searched"
is not incredibly compelling either. Where I live, there is a county
library system. It has dozens of libraries. Each maintains its own
catalog. However, it is possible to do a "master search" of all the
catalogs for _every_ library in my county; if a book is not on the shelves
at the library near my house, but I find it in the master search, they
will send it to my local library, where I can pick it up. If my cheesy
local government with its pitiful resources can manage to do this, surely
the mighty Root$web can figure out how to have its search engine index
more than one directory tree.
===
"Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad with power."
---Charles Beard
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 Mar 15 06:57:12 2000
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 06:57:11 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: Daily Board Show
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000315055713.1832A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Preaching to the choir...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Tuesday 14 March 2000-Wednesday 15 March 2000:
Voting continues on the motion to postpone Motion 00-6, albeit slowly.
There are now 3 yes votes, 1 no vote, and three have abstained.
Tim Stowell clarifies some things for Joe Zsedeny, to wit: 1) "Motion
00-6 is Shari's motion. What is before the Board at present is whether
or not to postpone Motion 00-6 until the Board can instead appointment
someone to fill the Census Project's Board seat or go ahead and handle
Shari's motion."; 2) Motion 00-5 has been withdrawn and will not come to
the floor again, although a similar motion may come to the floor.
Pam Reid asks Jim Powell if he is sure of his vote as she thought he was
against postponing Motion 00-6. She later tells everone, "never mind my
crazy brain." It was Joe who is against postponing Motion 00-6 [she might
be confused here as well; Joe may not have a clue which motion is which,
but he's pretty clearly stated that he would like Ron seated before any
action is taken that involved merging the census projects.
Pam has updated the "Board votes" web pages, but called the motion to
postpone Motion 00-6 a motion to table. She has corrected the pages, but
at least as of last night was not able to upload the pages.
Ginger Cisewski says she has always seen the "Project Archives/Digital
Library" as a collective term encompassing "all the archived data within
the USGenWeb Project "regardless of where that data is stored." It
includes state projects as well as the Special Projects and whatever
control over it exists rests with the Advisory Board and the bylaws. She
envisions the Project Archives as similar to the National Archives, which
has branches all over the country, which work independently but are linked
[and I might add, regional NARA branches often have a _lot_ of data that
is not held at the main NARA facilty in D.C.]. She asks Joe to put
himself in the Census Projects's shoes and asks how he would feel if the
Board told him to give all ND's files to MN and then ordered that all of
ND's directories be purged. She thinks such an action would lead to
states leaving the program. She argues that if "this Board to order such a
thing as Shari's motion proposes, it would succeed in causing a gigantic
rift in the USGenWeb Project itself which might never be healed, not to
mention the numerous dedicated volunteers who would leave in
disillusionment and disgust, never to return. The passing of Shari's
motion would do much greater harm to USGenWeb than just allowing the
two Census Projects to co-exist and come to whatever working agreements
they can among themselves, of their own volition."
Joe Zsedeny responds that the "common thread" [of NARA? of the USGW
Archives Project? of the Project Archives?] is "that the librarian
assigns the directory and the password," and reminds her of what the Sioux
did to Custer [no, I have no idea what analogy he is trying to make,
unless he is trotting out his boss' old "they are trying to destroy the
Archives" mantra. Frankly, Custer deserved it.] Joe agrees that the two
projects should merge on their own, but they haven't done so in the last
couple of years [its been about 16 months since the two split]. He notes
that the one thing that bothers him is "the ACP is a special project under
the Archives. Does the Board have the right to dissolve an Archive special
project?" He says "the Board does have the right and responsibility to
seek a remedy to a problem that causes confusion to researchers, turns
away volunteers and causes discord within the Project," and notes that if
he and GingerC cannot come up with a better solution, "we will probably
have to dance with the ones that brung us."
===
Out of the Woodwork Corner: All this yammering about the Census Project
has finally spooked USGW's resident control freak out of her hole. Linda
Lewis, head of the USGW Archives Project, has used the Board's Secretary
to post an open letter to the Board to all the regional lists and the -ALL
list, which says, in part:
"None of the negotiations, and there have been several attempts, have
worked out since the census project was split from the USGenWeb Archives
in November 1998. It is time for the USGenWeb Advisory board to publicly
support and recognize the USGenWeb Archives Census Project, a special
project of the USGenWeb Archives (Digital Library), as the "Special Census
Project" as named and described in the bylaws. As coordinator, and one of
the founders, of the USGenWeb Archives Project (Digital Library) since
it's inception, I have watched as the Census Project (CP) has been
spirited from under the Archives by deception, and mismanaged by some at
the top while dedicated volunteers labor to achieve the original goal of
getting census records transcribed and online. This problem has festered
long enough."
She goes on to present the usual argument that the Census Project was
formed before the bylaws, that Kay "spirited away" the Census Project
using deception, and that the Archives Census Project formed in response
to her action is in fact the "original census transcription project." Not
only is she asking the Board to recognize the ACP as the Census Project
named in the bylaws, but she is also requesting that the CP take the
February 1997 founding date off its pages, and that the passwords for
their accounts be returned to her.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'm guessing this means that the
Archives is less than interested in the Board's grand plans for solving
the problem by forcing a merger on the two census projects. Unless of
course, that merger results in one Census Project under the Archives,
forever and ever, Amen.
===
Today's quote is from a reader:
"I'll be the odd person out again - even though the Board may have the
right to appoint a Board member, I believe the CCs should have input into
who it is - even if it's just for nominations."
---Tim Stowell, TN-ALL, 4 Oct 1999
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 Mar 15 16:29:26 2000
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 16:29:25 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: Daily Board Show
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000315113743.792A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Too much is always better than not enough...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* Contains a double dose of editorial content today. Read at your
own risk!
Wednesday 15 March 2000:
[Too much interesting stuff to wait 'til tomorrow]
More votes are in on the motion to postpone Motion 00-6. The count is now
4 yes votes, 4 no votes, and 3 abstentions. [Its going to be really hard
to pass this one. If all 5 remaining Board members vote, all five will
need to vote "yes" to make the 2/3 requirement. Unless I've done the math
wrong, which is always a possibility.]
Betsy Mills, who we never hear too much from, sends a most extraordinary
message to Board-L [although I'm guessing it was supposed to go somewhere
else]. She asks what the Board Secretary is doing forwarding email to the
projects lists that looks as if it is coming from the Board. She tells
Tim Stowell that the whole thing has gotten out of hand, and if it keeps
up she is going to request "the board list become moderated -- but
unfortunately, I will ask that it NOT be you [Tim] that moderates it." She
indicates that she's very angry this morning. She complains that she
can't post messages to BOARD-EXEC [the secret list] because "some jerk on
there keeps forwarding everything to the DBS," and says if it happens
again she will request that the suspect be removed from the list. She
claims that "There is nothing underhanded about having a list where we can
talk without some idiot taking every word, placing it under a microscope
and twisting it into squabbling and dissention." [ouch.] She thinks they
seriously need to consider whether "there is a need for bylaws and/or an
advisory board" and notes that people "scream" about using parliamentary
procedure until people want to say things that are out of line. She asks
"What is the point anymore????????" [appended to her post is Linda's
"open letter" from earlier today.]
Ginger Cisewski says Betsy's questions are excellent and she would like to
know the answer herself.
In voting on the motion to postpone Motion 00-6, Rich Howland says he sees
"no way out of this," he's been told that "not to vote or abstain is
chicken's way out," and he considers a yes vote to be a vote for the
status quo. He says he doesn't understand why anyone on either side would
want that.
[Gad, this is nice bunch of people. "jerks", "idiots", and "chickens",
all in one day!]
===
Hell Frozen Over Corner: Linda Lewis has written to say that should the
Tombstone Project ever decide to store its files someplace other than the
Archives, the Archives will not claim the TP's files belong to it.
So, apparently, the Tombstone Project is free to come and go as it
chooses, as far as file storage goes. But not the Census Project.
Interesting.
Meaningless Speculation Corner: Someone pointed out to me today that this
whole thing could get _really_ interesting. Since it does not appear that
the motion to postpone Motion 00-6 will pass, the Board will need to take
up the issue of merging the census projects as their next order of
business, without either a CP representative on the Board [the ACP is
represented by Joe Zsedeny] OR the support of the USGW Archives Project.
Now consider for an instant, given item #8 of Motion 00-6, what could
happen if the Board passes the motion, and _both_ projects refuse to
comply. The Board could find itself in short order having to delink both
the recalcitrant Special Projects. This is probably not the intended
outcome of the recent push to "resolve" the census issue.
===
"When the least they could do to you was everything, then the most they
could do to you suddenly held no terror."
---Terry Pratchett, "Small Gods"
This has been your Daily Board Show, redux!
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.
From merope@Radix.Net Thu Mar 16 08:21:52 2000
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:21:51 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: Daily Board Show
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000316061728.2625B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
Whassup?...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Wednesday 15 March 2000-Thursday 16 March 2000:
Voting proceeds on the motion to postpone Motion 00-6. The count is now 5
yes votes, 6 no votes, and 6 abstentions. [I have not been including
Joe's vote in this county; if one assumes he meant to vote "yes" to
postpone, rather than "yes on Motion 00-6", the yes vote tally is 6, with
but one Board member left to vote. Interestingly enough, once it became a
concern that the motion to postpone might pass on a simple majority, Holly
Fee Timm changed her vote from "abstain" to "no", noting that "appointing
representation for the Census Project without determining (finally) who is
the Census Project is putting the cart before the horse." It looks like
that remaining Board member's vote is going to be very important, and if
she doesn't vote, our esteemed NC may get to determine whether the CP has
a voice in its fate or not. Scary thought, no?]
Pam Reid disagrees with Rich, and says "We aren't voting to table the
motion - we are voting to put it on hold until a Census Rep is seated on
the Board." She assures him the Board will deal with the motion regardless
of how the vote goes. She abstained because she doesn't "feel it matters
much. This is going to be a bloody battle, whether a Census Rep is seated
or not." She says she "probably should have voted NO, since I figure we
may as well get on it the battle." She hopes that if Motion 00-6 is
postponed they can seat a rep quickly and get going on it. [Great. The
Board is girding itself for battle. You know people, this doesn't have to
happen.]
Teri Pettit notes that all motions must pass by a 2/3 majority, per the
bylaws. She says she has never liked that rule, since "whether or not a
change is made can depend on how the motion is phrased. It allows the
tricky strategy of phrasing your motion so that the results you want
happen if the motion fails." She asks "do votes to postpone or table
count as "motions" for the purpose of the 2/3 rule, or are they just
"votes", which would therefore go by a simple majority?" [Interesting
question. Our bylaws say "2/3", RRoR says "majority" but also says "if
the postponement is to a later time in the same meeting, the effect is to
amend the agenda of that meeting, and the motion therefore requires a
two-thirds majority vote." Essentially, I think the motion to postpone is
doomed. The bylaws say a 2/3 majority is needed to pass motions and do not
discriminate between main and subsidiary motions. RRoR says a "majority"
is needed to pass any motions other than those that materially affect the
rules of the meeting or of the organization; RRoR generally defers to
rules enumerated in bylaws though. If a 2/3 majority is required, the
motion has already failed. If only a simple majority is required, it gets
more complicated. At best, the motion to postpone has one more _possible_
vote; should the remaining Board member vote to postpone, either Pam or
Maggie can change her vote from "abstain" to "no", thus forcing the NC to
cast a vote. If both change, of course, or the remaining Board member
votes "no", the motion has failed.]
Pam tells Teri "You think WAY too much for your own good <grin>!" and says
her question is a good one, but she doesn't know the answer. According to
her RRoR requires a majority and "if the Motion to Postpone passes, the
other motion is called up automatically when the time to which it was
postponed arrives." Pam says a simple majority should be sufficient, but
notes "there are those who will disagree." [which is why they have a
Board Secretary.]
Tim responds to Betsy's angry screed from yesterday by pointing out that
Ken Short was not forwarding mail "as coming from the Board." Tim was one
of three Board members that received the mail [along with Ken]. According
to Tim, Ken forwarded the mail everywhere _but_ Board-L because Tim had
indicated in IRC that no more constituent mail was to be forwarded to the
Board lists. Tim notes that he can't stop people forwarding mail and
Ken's action were not out of order, "unless you consider that Ken sent it
as Board Secretary." Tim agrees with Betsy's sentiments about BOARD-EXEC
being private as opposed to secret, and says "just because the Daily BS
says it's Secret doesn't make it so." [no, its "secret" because you use it
to talk nasty about your fellow project members, and to hide activities
you don't want us to know about.] On her other points, Tim notes that
some constituents also wonder whether a Board and bylaws are necessaary,
that things do seriously stink, and only time will tell if there's any
point to any of this.
===
500 Hats Corner: From CC-L, here's a list of Board members known to be
affiliated with the Archives Census Project:
Joe - ACP Coordinator for ND, ACP's rep on the Board
Maggie - ACP Coordinator
Joy - ACP Coordinator for SD
Tina - Part of ACP Mgmt Team, also host for NH,
WI, ME and others
Barbara - ACP Coordinator for TX
Holly - listed as a co-copyright holder on the ACP web pages
Joe has apparently voted yes on the motion to postpone and Maggie has
abstained. Joy, Tina, Holly and Barbara, on the other hand, have voted no
on the motion postpone, apparently feeling it is OK to discuss the fate of
the census projects without a CP rep sitting on the Board.
Backpedalling Corner: Ken Short has responded [on ALL and other places] to
Betsy's complaints that he forwarded mail as if it were from the Board by
saying that he forwarded Linda's "open letter" as a member of USGW, not as
Board Secretary. He says "Since the NC had asked that no more
messages be forwarded to Board-L and this was an open letter to the Board,
I decided posting it here was the best way to insure it would be seen by
the largest audience, including Board members." He also says that several
messages have been posted to the lists "touting the virtues of CP II," but
no one has complained about those messages. He felt it was only fair that
the ACP have its side of the story aired, and notes "If you were upset
with what was contained in the message, maybe it is time you stepped back
and took a look at what happened in the past and what is happening now."
But of course no one has complained about the ones in favor of the ACP
either, _and_ no one complained about Linda's message except for Betsy,
and her complaint had nothing to do with the fact that the message was in
support of the ACP. It had to do with the fact that it appeared to have
come from the Board. Perhaps the Board Secretary could better spend his
time ruling on whether the motion to postpone Motion 00-6 requires a
simple majority or a 2/3 majority.
===
"We didn't send you to Washington to make intelligent decisions. We sent
you to represent us."
---Kent York
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
--------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.
From merope@Radix.Net Thu Mar 16 11:11:20 2000
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:11:18 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: News Flash!
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000316110910.28330A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
For those of you are keeping track, Pam Reid has changed her vote from
"abstain" to "no". The count now stands at 5 yes votes [6 with Joe's
vote], 7 no votes, and one abstention.
Did we see this coming or what?
-Teresa
meope@radix.net
From merope@Radix.Net Thu Mar 16 14:40:51 2000
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 14:40:50 -0500 (EST)
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.SV4.3.96.1000316143501.19087H-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
The Board Secretary has just forwarded a message that appears to be from
Tim Stowell to Board-L. It contains the final count for the vote on the
motion to postpone Motion 00-6:
6 yes votes, 5 no votes, 3 abstentions [1 board member did not vote]
The motion carries, and action on Motion 00-6 is postponed until a CP
representative is seated.
It appears that for motions of this nature, only a simple majority is
needed to pass. It also appears that Tim sent the vote count without
checking his mail; two of those three abstentions have changed to "no"
votes, which would alter the outcome of the vote. [Yes, changing one's
vote is allowed under RRoR.] I'm personally kinda surprised that the BS
didn't catch this, but there you go.
So, now we apparently go back to the original question: Ron or not Ron?
-Teresa
merope@radix.net
From merope@Radix.Net Fri Mar 17 17:19:55 2000
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 17:19:54 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: Daily Board Show
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000317072132.14044A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
Pickin' and grinnin'...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Thursday 16 March-Friday 17 March 2000:
There has no public Board activity since the final result was announced on
Thursday.
===
Anatomy of a Vote Corner: Although the Board is apparently not commenting
on the result of the motion to postpone Motion 00-6, some USGW members
have made some observations. One has recommended that someone [Board
member, volunteer?] immediately appeal the ruling, stating "The bylaws
specifically state a 2/3 majority is required for motions to pass. The
motion to postpone even though subsidiary in nature is still a motion."
We have always been in favor of interpreting the bylaws exactly as they
are written, but the Board has generally favored "original intent"; we
know of no public record as to what "original intent" might have been in
this case [if they even thought of something so nuanced as subsidiary
motions]. RRoR itself generally defers to specific written rules and
bylaws of an organization, so any references in it to "majority" would
defer to a requirement in the bylaws for a "2/3 majority". Under this
requirement, this motion should not have carried. However, and here's the
kicker, the bylaws do _not_ say that motions require a 2/3 majority to
pass; they say "Issues shall require a 2/3 majority, of those board
members voting, to pass." [Art VIII, SEc 2] Apparently not all "motions"
are "issues."
The failure of the final result to take into account some votes [which
would alter the outcome] has also troubled some readers. The "48 hour"
rule on voting has always been a rather flexible standard. Generally, Tim
includes votes made up until the time he produces the final count, and no
specific voting time-frame was stated when he called for a vote. Tim
called the vote on Monday, 13 Mar 2000 19:36:32. Voting should have ended
15 Mar 2000 at 19:36:32 [Tim is on EST, I believe].
A reader has put together this chart of when Board members voted [I've
added last names when needed; please remember not all Board members are
in the same time zone]:
Barbara Yancey Dore nay Tue, 14 Mar 2000 00:40:30
Maggie Stewart abstain Tue, 14 Mar 2000 02:05:06
Ginger Hayes yes Tue, 14 Mar 2000 04:44:49
*Joe Zsedeny yea Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:03:52
Virginia (Ginger) Cisewski aye Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:29:59
Pam Reid abstain Tue, 14 Mar 2000 15:10:54
Holly Timm abstain Tue, 14 Mar 2000 17:42:56
Jim Powell yes Tue, 14 Mar 2000 17:49:21
Betsy Mills no Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:09:17
Richard Howland no Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:30:17
Tina Vickery no Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:42:26
Shari Handley yes Wed, 15 Mar 2000 10:07:50
Teri Petitt yes Wed, 15 Mar 2000 18:33:18
[* Joe voted "yes on Motion 00-6" and not specifically on the motion to
postpone; we are not aware that he made any clarification of his vote.
However, the BS has included his vote as a "yes" vote on the motion to
postpone.]
Joy Fisher voted "abstain": 15 Mar 2000 21:57:30
Joy changed her vote to "no": 15 Mar 2000 21:59:44.
Pam Reid changed her vote from "abstain" to "no': 16 Mar 2000 10:06:29
Holly Fee Timm changed her vote from "abstain" to "no":16 Mar 2000
07:13:31.
Tim's last post to the list: 16 Mar 2000 02:44:43.
Ken Short posted the final vote count: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:15:30 [Ken
is also on EST, I believe]
So it appears that Tim must have last checked his mail at 2 am [EST,
11pm PST] on Thursday 16 March; although he could not have seen Pam's and
Holly's votes, he should have seen Joy's. Joy's vote would not have
changed the outcome, but combined with the other two changes would have.
Was a conscious decision made to only include votes received within the 48
hour window? If so, this hardly seems fair; I don't recall that there has
been such rigor applied previously to this time frame, and Board members
may be forgiven if they assume they have extra time if Tim fails to tally
the votes during one of his brief forays into his inbox. Perhaps he just
didn't see Joy's votes. On the other hand, no Board members have publicly
challenged the final ruling, so perhaps they 1) are too stunned to
respond; 2) knew this was going to happen so changed their votes for show,
knowing it would not matter; or 3) don't care. The choices made in this
particular instance set a number of precedents; we would hope the Board
members would at least care enough to ask Tim and/or Ken to clarify their
reasoning in this case.
This is a curious situation. We obviously approve of the outcome but we
are not sure we approve [or understand] how it came to be.
===
Today's quote is from a reader:
"Which way did they go?
How many were there?
How fast were they going?
I must find them,
I am their leader!"
---Anonymous
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 Mar 18 16:01:37 2000
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 16:01:35 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: Daily Board Show
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000318075751.9672A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Where the inmates are in charge of the asylum...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Saturday 18 March 2000
Tim Stowell explains his final tally on the vote to postpone Motion 00-6
thusly, "According to Ken, Board Secretary, this postponement action is a
subsidary motion and therefore does not require a 2/3 vote to pass. As for
the changed votes - as I understand it - members votes can be changed as
long as a vote is ongoing and/or up until the time the results are
announced. I sent my notice to Ken before Holly and then Pam did a vote
change." [Well. If they can vote up until the "results are announced"
then any votes prior to Ken's posting of Tim's count should have been
included, now shouldn't they?]
Holly Fee Timm responds by noting first that 1) the motion to postponse
was never defined as a "subsidiary motion" [the distinction is based on
RRoR, I believe] although a ruling was requested [on 15 Mar by Teri
Pettit]; 2) it was not made clear to the Board prior to the vote that a
2/3 majority was not required on subsidiary motions; and 3) no such
distinctions have been made in the past. Holly notes "This smacks of
procedural manipulation to achieve certain results." She also notes that
if voting closes at a certain time [such as when Tim makes a vote count
that is not released to the Board for _hours_], "a post to this list
stating voting is closed would probably help avoid this problem."
Tim replies that although she may think his decision in this matter
"smacks of procedural manipulation", it was not. He notes that Teri asked
the question, he consulted with Ken, and "only after he told me that it
did not require a 2/3 vote did I make the results known." In addition, he
reminds Holly that voting periods have customarily been for 48 hours, and
"At some point after that time is passed the results are made known."
[Hmmm...guess the Board is on notice: don't dawdle with getting that vote
in.]
===
"I am a Bear of very little brain, and long words bother me."
---Winnie the Pooh
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 Mar 19 18:09:05 2000
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:09:04 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: Daily Board Show
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000319175919.15182A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
By hook or by crook...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Sunday 19 March 2000:
Holly Fee Timm moves to reconsider the motion to postpone action on Motion
00-6.
Rich Howland seconds Holly's motion.
[My stars! A mutiny!]
===
"When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you
find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite
different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at
it."
---A.A. Milne,"The House at Pooh Corner"
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
-----
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.