From merope@Radix.Net Mon Mar 27 08:03:15 2000
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 08:03:14 -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.SV4.3.96.1000327075843.18513G-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
Too Good to Edit Corner: Here it is folks, the final results on the
so-called "motion to reconsider". Read it and weep:
===
"The results of voting on Motion 00-6b are included below.
When Motion 00-6a was being voted upon - that being the postponement of
action on Motion 00-6 until a CP rep was added to the Board - somewhere
near the end of that vote a member asked for clarification on what would
be considered a winning vote. They wondered if it would take the
customary 2/3 to pass or if a simple majority would be sufficient. In
subsequent conferring with the Board Secretary it was determined that
since this was a subsidiary motion that a simple majority would be
sufficient for such a motion to pass. With that knowledge I announced the
results of that vote. Those totals were - Yes - 6; No - 5; Abstain - 3;
not voting - 1. The motion carried by one vote.
After the announcement was made questions were raised as to changing votes
and changing voting rules in mid-vote. With that in mind and to be fair
to all members who voted I asked the following of the Board: "I 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."
(Please note that I asked for a motion to rescind the results.)
What I got instead of a motion to rescind the results was instead a motion
that said: "the motion to postpone motion 00-6 be reconsidered." This
motion did not say rescind the results but instead said basically let's
vote again on the postponement.
For the members benefit I posted the following when calling for the vote:
Motion - "the motion to postpone motion 00-6 be reconsidered."
With the discussion period at an end, please cast your vote. This vote
will require a majority vote of those voting to pass.
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 results of that vote are as follows:
Yes - 7; No - 8; Abstain - 0
The move to postpone action on Motion 00-6 fails.
Yes - Shari, Gloria, Joe, Pam, Ginger, Teri, Virginia
No - Barbara, Holly, Betsy, Tina, Joy, Richard, Maggie, Jim
Since the Motion to postpone fails discussion begins immediately on Motion
00-6 at 8 AM Monday continuing until 8 AM Wednesday. If members wish to
make amendments to the motion they may of course do so.
Tim
===
[Yes, I have written Jim Powell to ask if that is how he meant for his
vote to be counted. Somehow, I don't think it was.]
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
From merope@Radix.Net Mon Mar 27 19:55:00 2000
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:54:59 -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.SV4.3.96.1000327145151.28328A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Far from the madding crowd...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content and spleen venting. Read at your own
risk!
Monday 27 March 2000:
Ginger Hayes congratulates Tim on his "slick move" and requests
clarification for future reference, asking "A motion to reconsider does
not need to be addressed by itself? If a motion to reconsider Motion xx is
made and seconded the original motion automatically gets revoted without
the motion to reconsider, itself, being addressed as a seperate motion?"
[She is also apparently older and wiser now.]
Shari Handley notes that she wondered the same thing herself and "assumed
that a motion to reconsider (00-6b) would have had to be voted on itself,
and if passed, *then* the original motion (00-6a) would be re-voted." But
since Tim made it clear what was being voted on and she felt the final
result would end up the same either way, she "didn't squawk."
Joe Zsedeny presents the opinions of the Archives file managers on Motion
00-6. Basically they can "live with" the motion, but want all the files
to go into the state\county directories. He has amended paragraphs 2 and
3 to address this, noting "A separate directory is not needed for the
census project. TOC links can be made directly to the state\county
directories. This makes for a simple file structure, one upload,
and the Archive file managers have the option of joining the project or
not, an option not heretofore available to them automatically. Many do not
like someone else mucking around in their state project directories."
[Joe's amended paragraphs are included in full below. They are
interesting notably for forcing the Census Project to accept Archives File
Managers as staff members upon their request, presumably even if the area
which they want to manage is already staffed. It's also interesting that
Joe went to the _Archives_ file managers, not the Archives Census Project
members, for his amendments. If, as Motion 00-6 states, the Census
Project will remain an independent project, why should the Archives staff
have any say whatsoever in its management and personnel decisions?]
Pam Reid says her feeling is that the Board move on Motion 00-6 ASAP; they
are "going to take it in the teeth for discussing and voting on the motion
without the presence of a Board member to take Kay Mason's place. However,
this has dragged on long enough." She thinks there was some confusion as
to what exactly was being voted on but says the Board "was pretty much
split 50/50 on proceeding with or without a replacement for Kay. To do
anything else to delay action on 00-6 at this point would be
counterproductive." [Have I missed something? Is there a huge groundswell
of popular support for this action? Are project members clamoring for
relief from this situation? Is this why the Board must don its armor and
ride into battle?]
Pam has another thought on Motion 00-6, and wonders if it might be
possible to have a member of the Census Project act as a Pro-Tem member of
the Board during the discussion and vote on Motion 00-6. She asks if this
would require a motion or is it something they can just decide to do.
Ginger Cisewski suggests that, in order to make the vote impartial, "e
could request that Board members who hold management level positions in
the Archives Project and/or Archives Census Project not vote on this
motion." By her count, this would include Joy, Joe, Maggie, Tina,
Barbara, and Holly [who was an aggrieved party in the original split].
[Hmmm...this would make getting a quorum a little dicey.]
Pam responds that she doesn't think what GingerC is suggesting would be
allowed under RRoO. She again notes that she feels "that the Board is
going to take some MAJOR heat on this motion and the more damage control
done in advance the better." She notes that it might be too late for
damage control at this point and that the Board "may just be forced to go
ahead and discuss and vote on this motion and then deal with the results
when the fires start to burn!" [Actually, I think she'll find that no one
except the two census projects cares anymore. That's how they'll get away
with what they are about to do to an independent special project.]
Jim Powell tells Tim that he "voted on the motion at hand. The motion was
to reconsider." He also notes that Tim's "parliamentary procedure seems
to be lacking", but notes that if that is the way it works, and since Tim
placed his vote with the prevailing side, he moves to "reconsider the last
motion, motion 006b". GingerH seconds this motion.
===
"Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools, that don't have brains
enough to be honest."
---Benjamin Franklin
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
-------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.
===
Joe's amendments to Motion 00-6:
2. The directories that are currently being used by Census II to be
purged and made available for storage of census transcription software or
other items as deemed necessary by the merged Census Project staff and
management. All database files, new or previously existing, are to be
stored in the appropriate state\county directories.
3. The census files will be formatted and uploaded to the appropriate
state\county directory of the Archives/Digital Library by the Census
Project staff member (FM or other supportive personnel). Archives FMs
will handle only regular Archives files unless they fill the dual roll of
Census Project staff member and Archive FM. Any Archive file manager
desiring the dual roll will be accepted. The Census directories will have
separate password access from the rest of the Archives/Digital Library."
===
From merope@Radix.Net Tue Mar 28 14:29:27 2000
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:29:26 -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.SV4.3.96.1000328060137.9980C-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Jesus wept...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains righteous editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Tuesday 27 March 2000:
Tim Stowell rules that Jim's motion to reconsider Motion 00-6b is out of
order, because according to RRoO motions to reconsider may not themselves
be reconsidered.
Tim asks for a second on Joe's motion to amend Motion 00-6, and Gloria
Mayfield obliges.
Tina Vickery says that she is "so committed to doing what is right to the
USGenWeb Project I can't even begin to tell you. I am a County
Coordinator. That is the group that I proudly represent as an Advisory
Board member, and I do it with great loyalty and enthusiasm. Vote and
vote I will." [This is in response to GingerC's suggestion that Board
members with management level positions in the Archives do not vote on
Motion 00-6.] She also says she is loyal to her visitors and contributors
and notes that she is very proud of the "talented and versatile group of
individuals to carry out the task" [no idea who she is talking about
here]. She says "I will not apologize for doing that."
Jim Powell says to Tim, "Your placement of my vote was not quite fair, in
my private response to your private inquiry as to my vote, I refused to go
along with your idea of the proper answers to the question at hand without
a proper explanation. So you turned that into a "No" vote and did not
reply to my request for an explanation. The least you should have done
was throw out my vote because I wouldn't answer "your" question. I appeal
the placement of my vote, if you can't place it as you know I meant it,
toss it out completely." [Hmmm...this could get interesting. Our
prediction: Tim rejects the appeal and calls it out of order. They are too
close to go back now.]
===
Ponderables Corner: The discussion period on Motion 00-6 closes tomorrow
morning, unless someone moves to extend the discussion period length
before then.
===
"An honest politician is one who when he is bought will stay bought."
---Simon Cameron
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 29 08:45:01 2000
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 08:44:58 -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.SV4.3.96.1000329061920.27693A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
Grabbing the bull by the horns...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Tuesday 28 March 2000-Wednesday 29 March 2000:
Tim Stowell replays Jim Powell's vote on Motion 00-6b back for the Board
members [which was "My vote on the motion to reconsider would be to NOT
reconsider the motion."] and says "NOT sounds like NO to me as well as
the Board secretary." [*shrug* Simple is as simple does. He had no problem
figuring out what Joe meant when he voted on the wrong motion.]
Tim opens the floor for discussion of the "revised" Motion 00-6, including
Joe's proposed amendments [yes,_without_ voting on the amendments first.]
Joe Zsedeny says he has now heard from more [Archives] file managers who
have different views on the directories to be used for the Census Project
files. Their concerns have to do with the search engine being unable to
search only census records and he requests a response from a Root$web
staff members and notes "We have to keep the researcher in front of our
minds even if it requires actions by FMs not completely to their liking."
He also responsed to "Veda" [apparently someone contacted him/them
privately?] that he is "only prepared to defend the amendment. The
author(s) of the motion will have to defend the other portions." [Whatever
that means.]
Shari Handley notes that according to RRoO "the amendment itself must be
voted upon and passed by a simple majority before the question to be
amended (in this case, Motion 00-6) is discussed and voted upon," and it
is not proper to amend the motion just because the motion to amend was
seconded.
Tim responds that he merely meant that "Joe's amendment was open for
discussion."
Pam Reid says that Shari is right and that amendments must be voted on
before the motion is actually amended. She says that subsidiary motions
must relate to the pending motion, have a rank and must be acted on
according to their rank. She says "What I am about to do outranks Joe's
motion to amend."
Pam moves to form a Special Committee to consider Motion 00-6 [full motion
below].
Richard Howland asks if this committee will use Motion 00-6 as a guide or
will the committee actually put together a merger.
Pam replies that according to RRoO, "to commit or refer a motion sends the
question on the floor to a small number of people so that it can be
carefully studied and put into proper form for the group to consider."
It includes the motion and all proposed amendments and "prevents long and
pointless debate" and "protects the group from making a poor decision."
She says if her motion passes [by a simple majority] Motion 00-6 and Joe's
amendments would go the Special Committee. She suggests that the
committee include "members of BOTH Census Projects, a couple of Board
members and some SCs and CCs," who would "debate the question, get some
questions answered, iron out some particulars, then send the motion back
to us to be voted upon." [But her suggestions on committee membership are
not codified in the motion itself, so of course the Board will be free to
ignore them.]
Pam's motion is seconded by Ginger Hayes.
[Well, you know what they say about committees...]
===
"In politics stupidity is not a handicap."
---Napoleon Bonaparte
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.
===
Pam Reid's motion in full:
"I move that we refer Motion 00-6 to a Special Committee;
1) Committee to consist of 9 members selected by open nominations from
the floor.
2) Committee Chairman to be appointed by the NC.
3) The committee shall consider Motion 00-6 and any amendments thereto
for the purpose of merging the two census projects.
4) The committee should be selected within a 72 hour period following
passage of this motion.
5) The committee must have the report ready for Board vote within 14
days following the committee selection.
6) The committee report to the AB shall be approved by 2/3 vote."
===
From merope@Radix.Net Thu Mar 30 04:46:26 2000
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 04:46:25 -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.SV4.3.96.1000329161335.20209B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
You KNOW you want it...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Wednesday 29 March 2000:
Tim Stowell Does The Right Thing [sort of] and discards Jim Powell's vote
from the results for Motion 00-6b. The revised vote count is 7 yes votes,
7 no votes, and 1 not voting [Jim's discarded vote].
Pam asks Tim what this means, since they now have a tie vote and the
outcome is in Tim's hands. She asks him "If you vote Yes, does that mean
that we "are reconsidering motion 06-6a" and that we go back to 00-6a,
meaning that we postpone action on 00-6 until a Census Rep is seated?
And, if you vote No, then we are carrying on with motion 00-6 without
seating a Census Rep?" [Tim is mum on this thus far, some 12 hours after
Pam asked the question.]
Joy Fisher sends a message to her fellow Board members and all the CCs
subbed to Board-L. She says "It is time to put away the finger pointing
and inflammatory rhetoric. There are no winners in this mess -- only
losers." She says she's lost friends over this issue and thinks "we all"
are to blame for prolonging it for so long. She notes "The amendment
proposed by the Archives representative will satisfy some of the Archives
file managers, but make a reconciliation more difficult," and that the
standardized files are now being uploaded exactly where Kay Mason wanted
them. She notes "Kay Mason has won. She was right, but for all the wrong
reasons." Joy also does not believe that the files should be stored in
the state/county directories but stored "archivally, but away from the
prying spiders of harvesters." She asks that the amendment be voted down.
[As a side issue, Joy also presents information on a "third generation
search engine" that could be used if the census files are uploaded to
their own directory.]
Jim asks if anyone knows the true scope of the problem other than the
duplication of census projects. He notes "If we knew exactly what the
Archives Census Projects' problems with the Census project are and vice
versa, we may be able to get a better handle on a solution." He suggests
appointing someone unaffiliated with either project to work with both to
"define the scope of the problem as well as what each side would like to
see as a solution," but not to negotiate or attempt problem solving. He
also suggests that "A committee could be formed within each project to
work with our appointee. This would give both sides an opportunity to
have their say, but not in an argumentative fashion."
===
Tim's Big Adventure Corner: Tim Stowell gets to cast his very first vote.
What do you suppose he shall do with it? He can 1) vote "yes", which
under his own voting instructions would terminate the ongoing discussion
on Motion 00-6 until the Board could seat a Census Project Rep, or 2) he
can vote "no" which would more or less shut the CP out of having a vote on
whatever the "Special Committee" or the Board comes up with. Since Jim
clearly wished to seat a CP rep before continuing any merger discussions,
Tim could effectively replace Jim's discarded vote with his own; this
would result in an outcome similar to what a narrow majority of the Board
wants. However, Tim has made it clear on more than one occasion that he
doesn't think a rep should be chosen until the census projects are merged.
Plus, all his IRC buddies are in the "no" group. So, he has a tough
choice. Hopefully he won't keep the Board and the rest of the project
waiting while he decides what to do.
New Toys Corner: The Archives Census Project has announced the
availability of a new program for transcribing census data. Although only
three years [1850, 1880, 1920] are currently available, they promise to
have the rest available shortly, once the program is out of beta. It
looks pretty nice and has some cool features; if you are interested in
obtaining a copy it is available for both Mac and Windows at:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/census/help/centrans.htm
My Way or the Highway Corner: Linda has sent a letter to her staff and
to the Board explaining the Way She Sees Things on the motion currently
under discussion. She notes right off the bat that Joe's amendments were
not discussed with her, although Joe had conferred with her on some of the
issues. She basically agrees that the Census Project files should be
purged and all their files given to the Archives, but says that the
"database" files cannot be stored in the ftp directories [they aren't text
files; she can't handle anything that isn't a text file]. She notes that
she "had an account set up to store the databases (.dbf) but lost access
to that account." She also is a bit unhappy that Joe has apparently
committed Dale "Doc" Schneider to more work without asking him. She notes
that problems in the past were caused by her file managers "renaming or
moving files, resulting in broken links on the Census project recruitment
pages," and notes that they will have to be very careful how they handle
the files to avoid repeats of the same problems.
Linda disagrees strenuously with the name given to the merged Census
Project [which will essentially be the "USGenWeb Census Project"] and
_insists_ that the name be the "USGenWeb Archives Census Project". Her
reasons are 1) "From the beginning, it has been confusing to visitors and
volunteers if the project is not identified properly," and 2) If
"Archives" is not included in the name, some county coordinators think the
census transcriptions are meant to be located on their county site
server." [This is a stretch, even for Linda.] She goes so far as to ask
all the file managers "to agree that the name of the combined project be
returned to the original: USGenWeb Archives Census Project" and notes, "I
cannot say enough how important that minor issue is. If the name does not
identify it as part of the USGenWeb Archives, it's almost guaranteed there
will be similar problems to the latest fiasco, down the road." [No, it
will simply mean that its not part of the Archives.]
Linda also appears to be pretty insistent that the head of the merged
Census Project will be Maggie Stewart-Zimmerman, noting "Maggie has
worked for months getting the ACP back in order, and has built up a
wonderful volunteer staff. As far as I'm concerned, Kay effectively
resigned from the ACP in November 1998, and Maggie is her replacement. If
Maggie ever resigns, then an election can be held for a new coordinator."
After all this, and after taking some more potshots at the Census
Project and its former coordinator and reminding us all once again how
wounded and betrayed she is and how she only wants what's best for the
researchers, she says she agrees to "most" of Motion 00-6, except for the
reference to database files [and the part about the name, and the part
about the merged staff electing a new coordinator]. Its fairly clear,
though, from her message, that the only thing that will be acceptable to
her will be something that returns the Census Project to her control. She
is not someone who lets go easily.
===
"The bird of paradise alights only on the hand that does not grasp."
---John Berry
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
-------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.