From merope@Radix.Net Mon Mar 20 10:32:51 2000
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 10:32:49 -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.SV4.3.96.1000320064040.7057A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Any port in a storm...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Monday 20 March 2000:
Tim Stowell opens the floor for discussion on Motion 00-7, the motion to
reconsider the motion to postpone action on Motion 00-6. Tim says the
discussion period will start at 8 am this morning [EST] and end 8 am 22
Mar [EST], "unless there is a call to vote before that."
Ginger Hayes asks the Chair to rule on the validity of Motion 00-7, noting
"According to RRoR a motion to reconsider can only be introduced by
someone who voted on the prevailing side." [see below]
===
Can They Do That on TV? Corner: Over on the CC list, CC Roger Swafford
has posted an excerpt from Roberts Rules or Order [Newly Revised 9th
Edition pg. 77]:
"4) If, in the same session that a motion has been voted on but no later
than the same or the next calerdar [sic] day (not counting a legal
holiday, weekend, or other single day on which no business meeting is
held), new information or a changed situation makes it appear that a
different result might reflect the true will of the assembly, a member who
voted with the prevailing side can propose to Reconsider (36) the vote;
that is, he can move that the question shall come before the assembly
again as if it had not previously been considered"
So, let's see. Holly is not "with the prevailing side," as she voted to
abstain. She made her motion four full days after the results of the vote
were obtained. No "new information" was obtained [unless you count the
sudden slavish devotion to the 48 hour voting period and the BS ruling
that subsidiary motions don't require a 2/3 majority]. So, it appears on
first blush, that her motion is out of order. On the other hand, we were
pretty sure that the motion to postpone would fail, and look where that
got us.
Return To Sender Corner: Root$web dunning notices are now being mailed out
reminding people to send their yearly contribution to "RootsWeb.com, Inc."
===
"NAPOLEON: What shall we do with this soldier, Guiseppe? Everything he
says is wrong.
GUISEPPE: Make him a general, Excellency, and then everything he says will
be right."
---George Bernard Shaw, "The Man of Destiny"
===
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 21 12:08:20 2000
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:08:18 -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.SV4.3.96.1000321054935.6630A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Raking muck...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Monday 20 March 2000:
Pam Reid thinks there were "some special cisrcumstances [sic] surrounding
the motion to postpone 06." She notes, for instance, that Joe's vote was
possibly counted incorrectly as, "it seemed at the time that Joe thought
he was voting for 06 - no [sic] the motion to postpone." She also
believes that Holly changed her vote within the time limit, but she is not
sure she [Pam] did. [Neither changed their vote anywhere near the 48 hour
time limit.] She notes that even without her vote change "the outcome of
the motion to postpone would have been the reverse considering Joe's vote
alone." She says that according to RRoR they could move to "rescind the
motion to reconsider," noting that this is proper when no action has been
taken. [How does one rescind a motion that hasn't yet been voted on?]
Joe Zsedeny clarifies that his vote was to postpone.
Pam then says she is "completely wrong", and chalks it up to a "senior
moment."
Tim Stowell calls Holly's motion out of order based on RRoR, and notes
"Motion 00-7, in it's present form, ceases to exist."
Tim verifies that Joe's vote was counted as a vote for postponement.
Tim says that when voting began on the motion to postpone action on Motion
00-6, "most members thought that the vote would need 2/3 of those
voting in a quorum of 10 or higher to pass." [A quorum is 9. Sheesh.]
However, near the end of voting period a procedural question was asked
about whether subsidiary motions required a 2/3 majority to pass. Board
Secretary Ken Short decided that a simple majority was required and Tim
then made his ruling on the vote count. Tim now says that since this is
the first time this issue has come up and in order to be fair to all Board
members he will "entertain a motion from one of the Board members who
voted in the affirmative to sponsor a motion to rescind the results of
that motion. If that motion passes, then a new motion to postpone can be
sponsored - so that there will be no confusion as to what voting rules we
are operating under."
===
Coming To America Corner: Those of you with ancestors who emigrated
through Hamburg will be happy to know that the Hamburg Home Page is
embarking on an ambitious project to post online _all_ the Hamburg
emigration records by 2003. The first installment is expected to be
online in April 2000 and will cover the years 1890 to 1893. The
English version of the Hamburg home page is at:
http://www.hamburg.de/English/welcome.htm; follow the link "Link to your
roots (ancestry)" to read more about the passenger list project and other
interesting features about the Hamburg emigration port. The German verson
of the page is at: http://www.hamburg.de and there are additional links
to French and Spanish versions.
===
"It is [a politician's] business to get and hold his job at all costs. If
he can hold it by lying, he will hold it by lying; if lying peters out, he
will try to hold it by embracing new truths. His ear is ever close to the
ground."
---H.L. Mencken
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 22 12:44:29 2000
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 12:44:26 -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.SV4.3.96.1000322055312.18819A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Spring has sprung!...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Tuesday 21 March 2000:
Shari Handly, notes that she voted yes on the motion to postpone action
on Motion 00-6 and "was satisfied with the passing of that postponement
motion." She also notes that the results of that vote did not represent
the wishes of the majority of Board members and the outcome would have
been different "were it not for the confusion over timing and over the
number of votes needed to pass." She says she prefers to win "fair and
square. Thus, although she believes "it is most prudent to wait until a
CP rep has been chosen and seated before dealing with motion 00-6, I think
we need to do that vote over again, with all the rules on timing and
number of votes needed to pass out in the open." So, with "the desire to
fairly determine the will of all of the board members, and in hope that
the results are the same," she moves "that the motion to postpone motion
00-6 be reconsidered."
Pam Reid said she has changed her thinking on postponing Motion 00-6 and
now thinks "It would be better if the Census Project was represented while
we are discussing this motion." She would now vote to postpone action on
Motion 00-6. She says that since she abstained on the motion to postpone
previously, she is not sure that she is eligible to second Shari's motion,
but if she is she does.
Tim opens the floor for discussion on the motion to reconsider the motion
to postpone action on Motion 00-6.
Pam Reid suggests that the Board get through this discussion quickly so
that they can move on. She also asks "are we going with a 2/3s majority
on this motion?"
[So, the $64,000 question is: under what rules will this vote be
conducted? Motions to reconsider are not subsidiary motions. RRoO
specify that motions to reconsider require only a majority, unless the
group requires a 2/3 majority. Some other things about motions to
reconsider:
1) must be made by a member of the prevailing side on the vote that is to
be reconsidered;
2) subject to a time limit: in a meeting of more than a day in length,
reconsideration can only be moved on on the same day or the succeeding day
after the original vote was taken
3) takes precedence over any other motion and yields to nothing, is not
amendable, is debatable, and cannot be reconsidered
4) if it passes the effect is to cancel the original vote on the motion to
be reconsidered and reopen the matter for debate as if the original vote
had never occurred.]
===
The Past Revisited Corner: More than one year after the Board formally
requested that the admin contacts on the usgenweb.org and usgenweb.net
domains be changed to reflect the current NC, Root$web [who owns one
domain] and Megan "The Pagan" Zurawicz [who owns the other] have failed to
carry out the request. The admin contact for both domains remains Root$web
employee Nancy Trice.
===
"But the whole thing, after all, may be put very simply. I believe it is
better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it is better to be
free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is better to know than to
be ignorant."
---H.L. Mencken
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 23 13:06:22 2000
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 13:06:19 -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.SV4.3.96.1000323060315.26897A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Letting the chips fall where they may...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Thursday 23 March 2000:
Tim Stowell responds to Pam Reid's questions by saying the Board can move
on after the floor has been open for discussion for 48 hours. If there is
no discussion, he will call the vote Friday morning. He also notes that
the motion to reconsider requires only a majority vote.
===
New Zoo Review Corner: Not much of interest this week, so if you don't get
it, you aren't missing much. Still no mention of GenSoc.org or its now
two-months-old tax exempt status, although the solicitation of "donations"
for the for-profit RootsWeb.com, Inc. is still prominently featured.
Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics Corner: A reader sent me this URL, which
contains a lovely graph of WorldConnect's growth since October 15, 1999:
http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb.com/wccounts.html
Is someone out there enough of a statistician to tell me if it matters
that the units along the bottom of the graph are not the same size,
although they are depicted as if they are?
===
"Man has always sacrificed truth to his vanity, comfort and advantage. He
lives by make-believe."
---W. Somerset Maugham
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 Mar 24 11:27:55 2000
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 11:27:53 -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.SV4.3.96.1000324060159.479B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Play at maximum volume...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content, may scare the horses. Read at your
own risk!
Friday 24 March 2000:
Tim Stowell gives Shari's motion to reconsider the motion to postpone
Motion 00-6 a number: Motion 00-6b. He then opens the floor for a vote
on Motion 00-6b, but says:
"A vote of 'Yes' is in favor of postponing action on Motion 00-6 until a
Census Project Board member is seated.
A vote of 'No' is in favor of acting on Motion 00-6 without first seating
a Census Project Board member."
The voting period runs until 8 am EST Sunday. Thus far, two members have
voted "yes", and one has voted "no."
[Now we have seen everything. The Board have not yet voted on whether to
reconsider the motion to postpone and Tim has asked them to revote on the
motion to postpone. This is ridiculous. First they must vote on Motion
00-6b--the motion to reconsider. If that passes, then they vote again on
the motion to postpone. It is entirely possible that Board members are
_not_ willing to reconsider the motion to postpone, and in that case
revoting on the motion to postpone would not be correct. This is
absolutely embarrassing, but hey, at least I didn't vote for him.]
===
Mum's The Word Corner: We have it on good authority [from a Root$web
employee through an Anonymous Reader] that Root$web employees are on
strict orders from their bosses NOT to discuss GenSoc.org, Inc. on _any_
RW mailing lists. Now why do you suppose they'd want to keep it a secret
from their loyal supporters?
Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics Revisited Corner: Our question yesterday
about the WorldConnect graph garnered some interesting comments from
readers:
"From what I can tell they [the units along the horizontal axis] are close
enough to the same size, about 5.5 days for each. In any case, variable
unit size would only affect the appearance of the rate of change (i.e. the
slope of the curve) rather than the actual numbers."
"Actually there is an interconnected bit of interest in the current RWR.
A notation that indicates the WC GEDCOM has 24+ mil. names and is "right
on track to reach 100 million names by year's end.". According to the
data on the aforementioned web page the rate of growth is relatively
constant at about 144,000 per day. Using the Nov 1 at 4 Mil and the Mar
18 at 24 mil, you get 20 mil in 139 days = 143885/day. Multiply that by
the 288 days remaining this year and it = 41.4 mil. Then 41 mil + 24 mil
is only 65 mil, a far cry from 100 mil."
"It alarms me that there appears to be so much interest in gathering as
many names as possible and little, if any, interest in providing accurate
information. Ah well, it's all "free" so maybe it doesn't matter to
RootsWeb that they are actually providing the vehicle for the circulation
of so much erroneous data. As far as I'm concerned, WorldConnect rates
right up there with the Beatrice Bayley books."
In response to a question about the little "icicles" that appear on the
graph between 1/5 and 1/22, a reader told me:
"Judging by the structure of the curve, it looks like the data is recorded
at least as frequent as every 12 hours (though the abscissa is only marked
every 5.5 days). The icicle marks appear to be a large decrease (~ 1/2
million names) followed shortly thereafter by a large increase. Maybe it's
someone with an extremely large database of names who is deleting and then
reuploading them. Or maybe it's a technical glitch at their end, where
they are taking some set(s) of names off-line and putting them back up."
[Thanks, Readers! You guys are the best!]
Double Your Pleasure, Double Your Fun Corner: An alert reader has pointed
out some interesting numbers on the Cyberreps webpages pertaining to
Root$web. On http://www.cybereps.com/rootswebonesheet.html at the bottom
is listed information on ad rates for RW's two newsletters, with
"circulation totaling over 800,000!" At this page:
http://www.cybereps.com/rootswebmedia.html#demographics those two
newsletters are described. They are the RootsWeb Review and Missing
Links, and they are described as having over 400,000 subscribers each.
There is no indication I can find that these are basically the _same_
400,000 people. From what I recall from when I could sub to RW lists,
subbing to _any_ RW list gets you automatically subbed to both the RWR
and Missing Links, so the subscriber lists probably have a huge percentage
overlap. I wonder if the ad purchasers know that? A quick check of the Mar
15 versions of the RWR and Missing Links showed that both carried the
exact same complement of ads [fshstore.com, Heritage books,History
Magazine, Ameritrade]. The March 22 versions of the newsletters also both
contained the same set of ads. Its not clear from the Cyberreps pages
whether the cost is $800 for both newsletters or $800 for each, but if I
were an advertiser and I were paying for what I thought was access to
800,000 readers, I'd be kinda peeved to find out otherwise.
Labors of Hercules Corner: This is actually old news [for which I
apologize], but last week Ancestry announced a major new project: the
"reconstruction" of the 1890 Census. As anyone who has ever had an
ancestor disappear into that 20-year gap and not come out the other side
knows, the 1890 U.S. Federal census was destroyed in a fire in the early
part of this century. Only a very small portion of the records survived.
Ancestry "with the aid of the National Archives and Records Administration
and the Allen County Public Library" has created what it calls a
"substitute 1890 census." It contains more than 20 million records and
includes "fragments of the original 1890 census that survived the fire,
special veterans schedules, several Native American tribe censuses for
years surrounding 1890, state censuses (1885 or 1895), city and county
directories, alumni directories, and voter registration documents." The
url for the 1890 Census substitute is:
http://www.ancestry.com/search/rectype/census/1890sub/main.htm
===
"Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of
Congress. But I repeat myself."
---Mark Twain
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 25 08:52:22 2000
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 08:52:21 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: DBS Special Edition
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000325083906.21109A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
[Sorry for the Cliff Notes version of the DBS today...got a lot going on.
<g>]
Neck and Neck Corner: Voting on Motion 00-6b [putatively "to reconsider
the vote on the motion to postpone action on Motion 00-6", but really just
a revote on the motion to postpone] continues, and it looks like we have
ourselves a horse race. As of 8:45 am EST, 6 Board members have voted
"yes" [to postpone] and 5 have voted "no" [to proceed in merging the
Census projects without a Census Project rep on the Board]. There are 4
Board members left to vote. Of these, my guess is that two will vote
"yes" and two will vote "no".
BTW, a reader has pointed out that by deciding that subsidiary and other
types of motions require only a simple majority to pass, our esteemed NC
is effectively granting himself significantly more influence in the
affairs of the project. Should this vote come down to a tie, he will
pretty much decide whether the Census Project has a voice in its own fate
or not.
Y'all have a nice day!
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
From merope@Radix.Net Sun Mar 26 08:04:18 2000
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 08:04:17 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: DBS Lite
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000326074828.16855A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Down to the Wire Corner: All the Board members have voted on Motion 00-6b
[supposedly to "reconsider the motion to postpone" but actually a revote
on the motion to postpone itself]. The count now stands at 7 "yes" votes
and 7 "no" votes, with one ambiguous vote.
The ambiguous vote is that of Jim Powell who says he's confused by what is
being voted on, noting "Seems to me we are voting on the above motion to
reconsider. What does reconsidering the motion have to do with the
outcome of the motion. You could vote to reconsider the motion and then
vote against the motion, right? My vote on the motion to reconsider would
be to NOT reconsider the motion." Jim is one of only two Board members
who remarked on the irregularity of revoting on the motion to postpone
_before_ determining that the majority of Board members did want to
reconsider the vote on that motion [the other was Ginger Hayes].
Jim's original vote on the moiton to postpone was "yes" and it appears he
does not want Motion 00-6a [to postpone] reconsidered; if his vote is to
be counted, it should probably be counted as a "yes" vote on the
postponement. This would result in a count of 8 "yes" votes and 7 "no"
votes, passing the motion by a simple majority. However, he did not
technically vote on the Motion Tim presented to the members, so it is
possible that his vote will not be counted, resulting in a tie and
allowing our esteemed NC to cast the tie-breaking vote [something he is
itching to do]. How Tim will vote, if he gives himself the chance, is
anybody's guess.
By my clock, the 48 hour voting period closed two minutes ago. Guess we'll
find out soon!
-Teresa
merope@radix.net
From merope@Radix.Net Sun Mar 26 14:46:24 2000
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 14:46:23 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: DBS Update
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000326144450.12022A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Tim Stowell, who claims he is _not_ itching to vote, has delayed releasing
the final vote count on Motion 00-6b "until a couple of votes are
confirmed."
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net