From merope@Radix.Net Tue Mar 7 11:53:57 2000
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 11:53:46 -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.SV4.3.96.1000307055528.23337B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
When the cat's away...its Your Daily Board show!
*warning* Here they go again--contains editorial content. Read at your
own risk!
[Rather than summarize the last three very busy days post by post, I will
give a quick summary of events; I believe most of you are subbed to
Board-L anyways and have probably already seen the carnage. If anyone
wants more detailed coverage, just let me know.]
The following events occurred during the period from Friday March 3 to
Tuesday March 7:
Motion 00-4 is declared passed by the NC with 12 yes votes, 1 no vote, and
1 abstention. Two Board members did not vote.
Motion 00-5 [to appoint Ron Eason to the seat recently declared vacant by
the Board]:
Ron Eason was recently selected by the voting members of the USGW Census
Project [CP] as their choice to fill the vacant seat. However, in short
order Shari Handley suggested that the Board solicit opinions from the
voting members and possibly the transcribers [who do not get to vote, per
the bylaws] of the USGW Archives Census Project [ACP] as to who they want
to fill the seat. Ginger Cisewski challenged this, noting that the CP
members do not get to vote for the Archives representative. [Much
bickering ensues over which is the "real" census project and what the
voteless transcribers think of all this and the history of the respective
projects and who tricked who and who is really thumbing their nose at the
Board and bylaws, yadda yadda yadda]. Joe Zsedeny finally notes that
first order of business should be to seat Ron so the CP has a
representative on the Board, and then then the Board needs "to get down to
business and work out an enforceable solution to this mess." Joy Fisher
moves to appoint Ron Eason to fill the vacant seat, Joe seconds it, and
Tim opens the floor for discussion on Motion 00-5.
More bickering ensues, which now includes publicly publicly denigrating
the CP's choice of candidate. He is accused of not responding quickly
enough or at all to email, not following directions given by the NC and
the Board, making "velied threats" and derailing the recent failed merger
talks, among other things. About this time, personal comments from
outside the Board supporting one side or the other begin to appear on the
Board list, and Tim decides to forward them and to solicit further comment
from project members on the issue, and a message indicating this is sent
out to the various project lists. [At least one of these comments had
previously been discussed privately by the Board and they had decided
that since it contained a "grievance" it would not be made public. Guess
they changed their minds. Extensive and increasingly nasty
correspondence between the participants in this "grievance" is also
forwarded to Board-L]. A number of Board members [among them Betsy Mills,
Shari Handley and Ginger Hayes] begin to hint that they will not vote for
Ron, as they find his mail to the Board to be "filled with derision,
vitriol, and inflexible demands," [Shari] and Ron himself to be "largely
hostile and hard to communicate with" [Ginger]. Barbara Dore posts an old
[Jan 2000] email conversation with Ron which clarifies some of his
positions on the recent failed merger talks. Joe, noting that he has
served as liason between Linda Lewis [head of the USGW Archives Project]
and Ron Eason, and sets forward a number of proposals to facilitate a
merger, which by and large agree with the CP position on a merger. Tim
sends a message to the Board and the SC lists [where he asks the SCs to
send it to their state lists; a number of them refuse] enhancing his own
minor role in the failed merger talks and encouraging the project to work
together to merge the census projects and "move the project forward." [He
neglects to mention that when the merger didn't work out, he washed his
hands of the whole thing, saying he had better things to do with his
time.]
Around this time, Board members begin asking for an extension on the
discussion period as the issue is too important to be forced to a vote,
and Holly Fee Timm moves to table Motion 00-5; the motion is seconded by
Shari, and the Board discusses at length the utility and appropriateness
of tabling the motion. Ginger Hayes boldy moves to amend the motion to
fill the position with Sue Soden, who had recently declined to a
nomination for the position, but now says she will take the seat if
appointed [odd that someone who was not willing to take her chances with
the electorate is now willing to be appointed]. It is pointed out that in
previous similar situations that Board "decided it was important to honor
the request of the Archives Project in spite of any reservations among
Board members." Joy Fisher, noting that she moved to appoint Ron to the
seat "in the spirit of compromise and good will" and being now of the
opinion that he is unwilling "to reciprocate either the compromise or the
good will" calls for a vote on Motion 00-5. Tim asks Holly if she will
withdraw the motion to table 00-5 and the Board secretary is asked to
address the motion to amend and Holly says she is not willing to withdraw
her motion to table. There is extensive discussion on the intent of the
members of the bylaws committee in listing three "separate but equal"
Special Projects, with Pam Reid reiterating that the USGW Archives Project
is actually not a Special Project at all regardless of what the bylaws
ended up saying. In short order, Joy withdraws her motion [00-5].
About this time the Board decides to move a discussion from the secret
list onto Board-L; it involves a mechanism to poll the file managers
and transcribers of both census projects on their opinions on a merger.
Its originally Rich Howland's idea and he offers to privately accept the
responses and keep identities secret. Tim says he can set up a secure web
poll and asks for questions to ask of the transcribers, which Rich
provides. But then, appropos of apparently nothing, he writes "I apologize
to the Advisory Board and Tran-scribers and withdraw my questions." Some
questions are asked about how to ensure that only the transcribers respond
to the poll and it is determined that in order to keep non-transcribers
from loading the responses anonymity would have to be sacrificed.
Ginger once again nominates Sue Soden to fill the now vacant seat and
notes that "in the interest of fairness it behooves" the Board "to seat
someone from the CP that considers itself non-Archives at the present
time." [just not Ron Eason, who the CP members actually elected for the
position.]
Joe caps the day off by noting he has to get a tooth pulled.
[Again, I do recommend reading the original traffic on this issue, if you
can bear to wade through the invective. I particularly recommend posts by
Teri Pettit, Jim Powell, and Joe Zsedeny.]
===
And that, folks, is where it stands right now [noonish, EST, 7 Mar 2000].
For those of you who haven't been able to follow the bouncing ball [and I
don't blame you], the bottom line is this: Motion 00-5 has been
withdrawn, but the motion to table 00-5 has not been withdrawn. Sue
Soden has been nominated to fill the vacant CP representative seat, but
the CP coordinator, who was actually elected by CP members in a race in
which Sue declined to participate, is not currently an active nominee for
the position. Wacky world we live in, isn't it?
Oh, and before I forget, the wind is whispering that just in case the
attempt to seat Sue Soden instead of Ron Eason fails, some Board members
are discussing reviving a tabled motion from last year that would dissolve
the CP and close its files.
===
In Other News Corner: When asked directly what the status of "RootsWeb's
501(c)3 application" on LISTOWNERS-L the other day, listmanager and
Root$web employee Vicki Lindsay told the poster to address the question
directly to Brian Leverich. How's that for avoiding the issue?
===
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
support of Paul."
---George Bernard Shaw
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 8 15:13:06 2000
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 15:13:05 -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.SV4.3.96.1000308055944.23565A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
From a whisper to a scream...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Tuesday 7 March 2000-Wednesday 8 March 2000:
Joe Zsedeny remarks that he's been thinking and is of the opinion that the
transcribers, being merely transient workers, should _not_ have an opinion
in this issue after all, "unless they are at least CCs."
Barbara Dore, saying she will focus on the projects and not persons,
forwards her comments regarding the Census Project (CP) and the Archives
Census Project (ACP) to the Board. She notes that "One side asks us not
to look back at the history of Census transcriptions and the USGWP and the
other says without looking back we would be cheating the top management of
both projects, the State Census Coordinators, the file managers, the
transcribers and most importantly, the researchers." She also notes that
many of Ron's comments regarding the CP and the USGW Archives Project
disturb her greatly, particularly comments pertaining to storing files
outside of the USGW Archives Project. She asks "HOW can any one person or
small group of persons who are collecting data in the name of The USGenWeb
Project just decide, on their own, to change to [sic] promises made to the
transcribers and public at large???" She notes that Ron made several
changes to the CP web pages after their conversation and prints several
examples from various web pages [the last one mentions the "USGW
Project Archives"] and then says "FALSE ADVERTISING?? FALSE PRETENCES??
BETRAYING THE TRUST?? What will this do the reputation of the USGWP??"
She notes that Maggie Stewart-Zimmerman and others in the ACP "all seem to
have the same goals and ideas that were the basis of the Census Project in
1997." She thinks that if the goals of the CP have changed then "at the
very least, [they] should be forced to live up to the promises made to the
transcribers and general public if they wish to continue to be a part of
and use the USGWP name." [Note to Babs: Maybe next time it would help if
you'd list the promises made to transcribers, researchers, etc, and list
how they were broken and by whom, and exactly how the members of the CP
are engaging in false advertising and betraying the trust of whomever. I
know you are trying to make a point here, but I'll be damned if I can
figure out what it is.]
Shari Handley says she doesn't necessarily agree with Ginger that the
person who fills the vacant Board seat should be filled with someone not
affiliated with the USGW Archives Project. She notes that many USGW
members wear many hats and says she'd like to see a "a CP rep who is
involved as a volunteer with the CP *and* the ACP. Someone who is not
necessarily "for" one side or the other, and who can help to bridge the
gap between the sides."
Tim Stowell and Ginger Cisewski forward messages from project members to
the Board on the issue of the CP and the ACP. [Its pretty much the same
as we've heard before; the Board is called dictators, Kay is called a
thief, the Board is chastised for putting its personal likes and dislikes
ahead of the desires of a local project, etc.]
[The status of this issue remains essentially unchanged from yesterday.
Motion 00-5 has been withdrawn, but the motion to table it has not. Sue
Soden, who declined nomination for the seat during the recently concluded
election, is thus currently the only nominee for the vacant Board seat.]
===
"You can't use tact with a Congressman! A Congressman is a hog! You must
take a stick and hit him on the snout!"
---Cabinet member, 1906
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 9 07:54:31 2000
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 07:54:29 -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.SV4.3.96.1000309060845.25117A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Where angels fear to tread...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Wednesday 8 March 2000-Thursday 9 March 2000:
Joy Fisher reminds the Board that "the previous board refused to seat a
project's replacement choice? When Pam Reid resigned as Tombstone Project
representative, Linda Lewis was chosen by the Project." She also notes
that when Pam rescinded her resignation the issue became moot and that "It
is not about likes and dislikes -- it is about cooperation and respect."
Ginger Cisewski forwards a message to the Board from former Board member
Bill Oliver, who says that Pam's seat was never declared vacant nor her
resignation accepted. Although the Board may "not have accepted Linda
Lewis," it never got to that point, because Linda jumped "right in to the
position before any procedure was established to handle it," and seating
her became an issue. He also reminds the Board that there was a question
of Linda's good standing within the project, and notes that "respect and
cooperation" are earned, "not elected or appointed."
Ginger Hayes replies that since the Board itself does not appear to have
earned Ron Eason's respect and cooperation that "is all the more reason to
seat someone else." She notes that the Board does not need "another
silent, uncooperative representative from the CP", and if any sort of
resolution to the situation is to be achieved, the Board needs
"representatives from BOTH sides that are willing to dialogue and
compromise in order to achieve what is best for ALL of the USGW Project."
GingerC forwards another message from Bill, who says that it appears that
the only way to achieve harmony would be to "eliminate any democratic
procedure and only allow clones to apply and be appointed to the board."
He notes that whether or not the Board has earned Ron's respect is not at
issue; the issue is that the CP chose him to fill the term. And he notes
that Ron is hardly the silent type.
GingerH replies that Ron's "my way or the highway" attitude does not
"indicate a willingness to work with the board toward the best interests
of the USGW Project." She says she doesn't care about egos on either side
but does care about the project and its visitors.
Bill asks [through GingerC] how refusing to seat the CP's chosen
representative will serve to bring the two sides together, and wonders
"Why are 15 folk afraid to seat one?"
GingerH replies that Bill's last question "seems like on old childish
tactic me. If you don't do what someone wants then it must be because
you're afraid." She cannot speak for the rest of the Board but she wants
someone in the seat who will "will engage in dialogue and try to help find
compromise," and Ron hasn't demonstrated willingness to do this. She
wants what is good for USGW, "Nothing more, nothing less." [The person
who fills that seat is there to represent the interests of the members of
the CP, not to facilitate the Board's wishes to resolve the census
problem.]
Bill replies [through GingerC] that GingerH's attitude won't solve the
issue and may cause bitterness. Bill has seen Ron be reasonable and Bill
notes he would think less of Ron "if he didn't stick up for his volunteers
and the project he has help build."
GingerC asks GingerH "Do you honestly believe that refusing to
seat someone who was quite properly elected to represent a group of this
Project's members is in the best interest of the Project as a whole??" and
reminds her that previous ABs have gone "to great lengths" to approve
local choices "regardless of personal likes or dislikes of any
individual." She is concerned that the CP may interpret a refusal to seat
Ron as a "callous disregard of their wishes." GingerC believes that what
is best for the USGW "is for all regions and Special Projects to be able
to select their Board Representatives irregardless of Board members'
likes, dislikes, and personal beliefs."
Teri Pettit notes that she share's GingerH's concerns about Ron, since "he
certainly has shown himself prone to issuing ultimatums." She wishes that
the CP had chosen someone else, or given the Board a multiple choice
option, but thinks "if we seated the world's best diplomat, if that person
isn't the choice of the Census Project we are not going to be able to get
anywhere." It is likely the CP would consider any other person to be not
their true representative, and she notes that although the Board does not
need an uncooperative member, they also "don't need a repeat of a Special
Project Coordinator ignoring a Board resolution on the grounds that they
had no true representation in the decision." She thinks the Board "will
have more success dealing with a potentially prickly Board member who at
least has the backing of the Project they represent, than we would trying
to deal with someone who may be great at compromising, but who isn't
accepted as speaking for the group we need to compromise WITH." She
thinks "out of the realistic choices we've got, what is best for USGenWeb
is going to have to be hoping that Ron will chill out a little when he
isn't being shut out."
Shari Handley makes a long motion concerning merging the census projects
[text in full below, and which really ought to wait until the CP has
representation on the Board]
Linda Lewis forwards a message to the group she originally forwarded to
GingerC, who apparently decided not to forward it on. She notes that
GingerC was part of a small group of Board members who "who blocked the
acceptance of another special project representative who was selected by
that special project to represent them on the Board." GingerC later
apologizes for not forwarding Linda's mesage; she said it was an oversight
on her part.
Tim Stowell notes that Board-L mail from nonsubscribers will no longer be
automatically forwarded to the Board and encourages members to make
comments through their representatives.
In regards to Shari's motion, GingerC notes that the Board has no
authority to order any project to put their files anywhere.
[The status of the CP seat is unchanged from yesterday. Motion 00-5 has
been withdrawn, but the motion to table it remains. Sue Soden remains the
only active nominee for the seat. Although there is unresolved business
on the floor, a new motion has been introduced. This motion profoundly
affects a project that currently has no representative on the Board, and
it gives the Board the authority to delink that project should the motion
pass and should the project fail to comply with the Board's directives.]
===
PayBack is a Bitch Corner: Mention has been made in the last day or so of
the previous Board's refusal to seat Linda "Ghosts Clean My Fishtanks"
Lewis as the Tombstone Project rep after Pam Reid's resignation in late
January 1999. Linda was subbed to the Board lists by Tim Stowell, without
the Board going through the process of appointing her. According to some
TP members, Linda joined the TP days before she was "selected" as their
representative, and their was no formal election to choose her for the
position. According to a note forwarded to the Board on 16 Feb 1999 by Sue
Baker, then the head of the Tombstone Project, "
"Since the nomination period has now expired and we have only had one
nominee, I believe that we can delcare there is no need for an election
and we proudly place Linda Lewis on the board as our representative."
Without consulting the Board, Tim subbed Linda to the lists on 17 Feb
1999. This was during the time that Motion 99-4 was being discussed and
voted on, and some people believe that Linda was rushed onto the Board in
an effort to defeat that motion. Linda was removed from the Board on March
23, 1999, so that the Board could follow through on the appointment
process, as required by the bylaws. After much discussion, which did
indeed touch on Linda's unsuitability for office on a Board whose
directive [Motion 99-4] she blithely ignored, a vote was held in the
beginning of April, 1999. On 9 April 1999, Tim declared the motion failed
"for lack of interest". Rather than vote their convictions, a number of
Board members boycotted the vote in protest. There was a quorum present
and all who voted voted in favor of her appointment, but Linda was not
seated. Pam Reid, whose resignation had never been formally voted on and
accepted, promptly rescinded it and resumed her seat on the Board. [This
is not the Board's finest moment.]
Shortly thereafter, the Board did vote to appoint Joe Zsedeny as the
Archives Project representative [to fill the seat vacated by Jan Craven].
Joe was "chosen" by the Archives file managers to represent them in a
manner similar to how Linda was "chosen" by the TP file managers, by
default as the only nomimee.
There are some interesting "compare and contrast" moments in this history:
1) The CP did actually hold an election for the position, and there was
more than one candidate, so CP members did have a choice [unlike in the
other two projects] and did in fact choose Ron;
2) Questions about Ron's "good standing" in the project have not been
raised thus far, and objections to him are essentially based on the mutual
antagonism that obviously exists between him and some of the Board members
[and may relate more to Ron's less than diplomatic way of phrasing things
in his emails];
3) As previously, the Board is apparently willing to conduct business
involving a local project without that project having representation on
the Board.
====
"If those in charge of our society - politicians, corporate executives,
and owners of press and television - can dominate our ideas, they will be
secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets.
We will control ourselves."
---Howard Zinn
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 Shari Handley's motion on the census projects [read it
carefully; the last point is the kicker]:
"I move as follows:
For clarity, the term "Census II" refers to the project currently known as
the Census Project, and "Census I" refers to the project currently
known as The Archives Census Project.
In order to bring the two census projects currently operating in the
USGenWeb Project together,
1. The name of the project will be "The USGenWeb Census Project"
2. Census files to be housed only in the
ftp://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/census
directory. The directories that are currently being used by Census II to
be purged. All database files are to be stored in an appropriate
Archives/Digital Library directory.
3. The census files will be formatted and uploaded to the appropriate
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. The Census directories will have separate
password access from the rest of the Archives/Digital Library.
4. Personnel from both Census I and II to be combined. In cases where
there ends up to be more than 1 state census coordinator/FM for a combined
state, the coordinators/FMs for that state will be given the opportunity
to become co-coordinators.
5. An election to be held *as soon as possible* (not wait until July) to
elect a Census Project Coordinator. Staff from what *was* both Census I
and II to be eligible to vote, including state census coordinators, FMs
and current management teams and supportive personnel.
6. Autonomy, as laid out in the bylaws, for the integrated Census
Project.
7. Regarding the national and state tables of content (TOC) and adjacent
or related Census Project pages: After the special election for Census
Project Coordinator has taken place, and a new Census Project management
team is in place, a determination will be made by the new mgmt team as to
whether to use the existing TOC style from Census I, Census II, or to
come up with something completely new.
8. The USGenWeb Project Advisory board will have the authority to de-link
either project if that project fails to act in good faith.
=============
From merope@Radix.Net Fri Mar 10 10:27:26 2000
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 10:27:25 -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.SV4.3.96.1000310082051.5791B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
The devil in the details...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Thursday 9 March 2000-Friday 10 March 2000:
Ginger Hayes responds to Ginger Cisewski that, yes, sometimes refusing to
seat a properly elected representative is in the Project's best interest,
and reminds GingerC that the previous board also blocked the appointment
of a representative. She notes that she is "concerned about about the CP
volunteers, and their wishes, but sometimes you have to let your
conscience be your guide." She also notes that "this has nothing to do
with personal likes and dislikes, and I really fail to see why some
folks can't understand that."
GingerH tells Bill Oliver that she will not continue to discuss the issue
with him further, since "It has reached the point of being totally
non-productive." She notes that she has stated clearly that her
objections to Ron have nothing to do with her "personal likes and
dislikes" and that "Facing the issue and dealing with it is exactly what I
have in mind." She doesn't think that will be possible with Ron in the
seat.
In regards to Shari's motion from yesterday, GingerH moves "that any
further action on this motion be postponed until the matter of seating a
representative from the Census Project is resolved." [OK, so we now have
_three_ unresolved pieces of business on the floor.]
Joe Zsedeny lets the Board know that his efforts at getting an agreement
between the two sides are stalled, and he'll keep the Board posted if that
changes.
Joe thinks the Board should proceed with the appointment. He notes that
"Ron should be seated for these reasons. The CP Volunteers chose him in
what seems a fair election and anyone else will simply have to filter
information to him and than back. And, he will be elected in sep anyway."
Joe doesn't buy the arguments regarding precedent "and some other
baloney" and says "The Board can seat whomever it chooses." He says he
wants the issue settled because "we cannot have a viable USGW project with
this thing festering." [why not? Its been this way for over a year now
with no obvious detrimental effect on the project.] He notes that he and
Ron have been able to discuss the issue without getting personal, although
it has been difficult at times. He also notes that Ron has agreed to give
up the CP directories and to put the census files in a directory offered
by Linda Lewis, so long as the CP staff is guaranteed unfettered access by
the Board [but Linda has ignored the Board before, remember?]. Joe says
"once the CP Board seat is filled we should return to this and only this
as a first step." He suggests building trust step by step but also says
"If the time comes that we have to decide between two options and force
it, we can." [Who was it that used to be described as having an iron fist
in a velvet glove?]
Jim Powell says he agrees with Joe about seating Ron.
Noting that GingerC's point is a good [that the Board has no authority to
tell projects where to put their files] Shari Handley withdraws her
original motion and replaces it with a new one. [text below; the only
thing that has apparently changed is point 2, which instead of listing a
specific directory for housing the files, now just says the Archives gets
to decide where they go. So essentially Shari is now proposing that one
project gets to tell another where it may store its files. Imagine what
would happen if it were two states involved, or the Board was trying to
tell a state or county it had to put its files in a place "of the
Archives' choosing."]
GingerH moves to postpone this motion until a CP representative is seated.
GingerC seconds GingerH's motion.
===
New Zoo Review Corner: This week's Root$web Review is pretty bland.
There's still no mention of the new tax-exempt status of GenSoc.org, Inc.,
but our favorite ad rag is still soliciting funds for the for-profit
RootsWeb.com, Inc. Apparently the only "new" thing is the revamped
"what's new page". There is also something that purports to be a
"water-cooler exchange" between RW minions Joan [Young?] and Pam
[Durstock?] in which contributors are urged not to remove information on
the living from the GEDCOMs they upload to Root$web's WorldConnect
project. [Removing the living cuts down on the number of names they can
claim have been uploaded]. They swear you can trust them to keep the
info private _for_ you. Really.
The Sincerest Form of Flattery Corner: According to a recent update sent
out to GenExchange staff, the Genexchange is about to formally organize as
a non-profit and will shortly be applying for tax-exempt status. The
Genexchange has always been noncommercial and according to the newsletter
is taking this step so that people/organizations can make tax-deductible
donations and to lessen the tax burden on the organization. The
organizational structure will be expanded [there is already a new
Assistant National Coordinator] and bylaws will be written. They have
also signed up with three affiliates to help with the costs of improving
service and have placed links to them on their home page. It would be a
pity to see the Genexchange go down the same road as Root$web [with an ad
on every page, practically]; hopefully their new direction will forestall
this. The Genexchange is located at: http://www.genexchange.org
===
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being
attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger."
---Hermann Goering
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 Shari's revised motion:
I move as follows:
For clarity, the term "Census II" refers to the project currently known as
the Census Project, and "Census I" refers to the project currently
known as The Archives Census Project.
In order to bring the two census projects currently operating in the
USGenWeb Project together,
1. The name of the project will be "The USGenWeb Census Project"
2. Census files to be housed in a directory chosen by the
Archives/Digital Library staff, according to their guidelines. 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 an
appropriate Archives/Digital Library directory.
3. The census files will be formatted and uploaded to the appropriate
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. The Census directories will have separate
password access from the rest of the Archives/Digital Library.
4. Personnel from both Census I and II to be combined. In cases where
there ends up to be more than 1 state census coordinator/FM for a combined
state, the coordinators/FMs for that state will be given the opportunity
to become co-coordinators.
5. An election to be held *as soon as possible* (not wait until July) to
elect a Census Project Coordinator. Staff from what *was* both Census I
and II to be eligible to vote, including state census coordinators, FMs
and current management teams and supportive personnel.
6. Autonomy, as laid out in the bylaws, for the integrated Census
Project.
7. Regarding the national and state tables of content (TOC) and adjacent
or related Census Project pages: After the special election for Census
Project Coordinator has taken place, and a new Census Project management
team is in place, a determination will be made by the new mgmt team as to
whether to use the existing TOC style from Census I, Census II, or to
come up with something completely new.
8. The USGenWeb Project Advisory board will have the authority to de-link
either project if that project fails to act in good faith.
====
From merope@Radix.Net Sat Mar 11 09:58:43 2000
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 09:58:41 -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.SV4.3.96.1000311080726.24627A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
You get what you pay for...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Friday 10 March 2000-Saturday 11 March 2000:
Pam Reid posts that she has been busy and has become confused about the
status of the various issues the Board is discussing. She asks for
clarification on Motion 00-5, asking "Is Motion 00-5 tabled or are we
still discussin it? Are we considering another motion to merge the two
Census Projects?" She says she would feel better if "someone out there
could shed some light as to exactly where we are on this whole thing." She
notes, "Right now, I feel as if notes are coming from several different
directions and that several different things are under consideration. I
am CONFUSED!!!" [You aren't the only one.]
Betsy Mills says she's not sure either, but says "the CP merge motion has
not been seconded and so is not really a motion on the floor yet. The
motion to postpone (table) this motion is out of order because there is no
motion to table." She recommends that people wait to discuss issues until
after they've been seconded and given a number by the chair [who has been
noticeably absent the last couple of days].
Barbara Dore finds that she can "I can strongly support the revised
motion." [no big surprise there]. She notes that it "favors neither side
exclusively, it serves the support personnel of both projects without
shutting out one or the other. It supports the desire of one side to have
access control of their own directories. It will make searching all the
census transcription text files possible via a single search engine." [it
gives one independent project the _board-sanctioned_ right to tell another
where it must keep its files.] She also notes that it addresses the issue
of files being placed in the "Digital Library (USGW ARCHIVES)" [sic; she
misquotes the bylaws, which refer to the "USGW Project Archives", but we
are sure it's an honest mistake.] The motion also, she says, corrects
"some of the wrongs that were done by the previous head of the Census
Project, who left all those working on census projects without board
representation and it will allow all those working on census projects
today a voice in their own future." She thinks it will be impossible to
make both sides completely happy but thinks this is the best the Board can
do under the circumstances. She seconds Shari's revised motion.
NC Tim Stowell reminds that group that "Motion 00-5 was withdrawn by Joy,
who first proposed the motion and is therefore dead." [I had no idea that
was a capital offense, but it does explain why she's been so quiet
lately.] He also says that the motions to table Shari's motions are out
of order because Shari's motions were never seconded and are no more than
proposals. He says "it's impossible to table something that doesn't exist
as a numbered motion. A motion is not given a number until someone
seconds the original motion and it is opened for discussion."
Ginger Hayes says that since Shari's revised motion has now been seconded,
she would like move to table it as soon as it is given a number. She also
reminds Betsy and Tim that motions to postpone and to lay on the table are
not the same thing. She notes that the order of precedence of subsidiary
motions would be, 1) lay on the table; 2) postpone definitely; 3) postpone
indefinitely.
Pam Reid notes that she feels better now that she knows that others are
confused too, and says "Maybe someone will fill us in."
[Cheat sheet for the confused:
Motion 00-5 made by Joy, seconded by Joe, GingerH moves to amend by
replacing Ron's name with Sue Soden's, Holly moves to table the
motion, Shari seconds the motion to table, Ken Short declares the
motion to table out of order, the motion is withdrawn by Joy;
Sue Soden nominated by GingerH for the CP rep position;
Shari's motion made, GingerH moved to table, Shari withdrew the motion;
Shari's revised motion made, GingerH moved to table, Barbara seconded,
GingerH says she'll move to table as soon as Tim gives it a number.]
====
Meanwhile Back on the Ranch Corner: We hear that interest in merging the
two census projects is not high over on the Archives Census Project side
of the fence. For example, former Archives representative on the Board
Jan Craven says:
"I honestly don't care what the CP does. This is just another in the long
run of games these folks play...I do not trust them as far as I can throw
them... This has ALWAYS been about power and about attacking Linda. Kay
couldn't get her way so she split...taking the files with her. She didn't
go anywhere else with them cause she knew she couldn't get away with it at
that time. The CP has no intentions of compromise. I just ignore them."
David Morgan, also a member of the Archive Project, says in responsed to
Joe Zsedeny's merger proposal:
"They don't want the archivists. And I will not be a transcriber for
Ron Eason."
There are currently at least four members of the Board who are affiliated
with the Archives Project [Tina Vickery, Joe Zsedeny, Joy Fisher, Maggie
Stewart-Zimmerman] and several others who have indicated a willingness to
ignore the wishes of the of the Census Project in the matter of its
representative [Shari Handley, Ginger Hayes]. A handful consider it OK
to proceed with forcing a merger while the CP has no representation [Shari
Handley, Barbara Dore], while several are opposed to this approach [Joe
Zsedeny, Ginger Hayes, Ginger Cisewski]. The unifying feature among these
various positions is that everyone wants what is best for the file
managers, transcribers and researchers, yet during the brief time they
were accepting comments from project members, little support for a merger
was obvious. At least one member of the ACP called members of the CP
thieves and indicated that the best solution is just to let the CP do its
thing on its own. As indicated above, several ACP members do not appear
interested in a merger, at least under recently proposed terms. The CP,
for its part, wishes to preserve its autonomy, and appears willing to
concede on the issue of file storage, but there's been no indication that
this is acceptable to the management of the Archives Project. In its
current version, Shari's motion proposes that the Board delink a project
if it is not acting in "good faith", but what constitutes "bad faith"
is open to interpretation, and does anyone believe for a second that this
Board would have the votes necessary to delink the Archives, should it
decide to ignore this motion the way it ignored Motioin 99-4? [On the
other hand, I bet at least four of them would be more than happy to see
the last of "Ron's Renegades".]
How can the Board even consider forcing a merger when it is possible
that members of both projects do not wish it and will not honor it? And
how can they consider supporting the precedent of allowing one project the
right to tell another where it can keep its files [or worse, letting the
Board decide where independent projects may keep their files]?
Joe Zsedeny, who has gotten remarkably conciliatory in the last several
days [at least he's not talking about censuring his fellow board members
anymore], has proposed that the Board seat Ron, and has correctly pointed
out that Ron is really the only acceptable alternative, as anyone else
they seat will be viewed as a imposter by the CP members. Once Ron is
seated, the Board can begin to address the issue of merging the two
projects. Joe has also correctly pointed out that it is best to start
small, perhaps on the issue of file storage, and deal with other issues,
such as merging staff and web pages, as trust is built up over time. This
might also be a better way to proceed than holding the ultimate threat of
delinking over project members' heads for failing to act in some undefined
and amorphous "good faith."
Although, a little bird tells me that _all_ the Archives Project is
interested in is getting its hands on those files and having the CP
directories closed and purged. Once that has happened, the CP has no
bargaining chip left whatsoever, and there will be no further negotiations
on anything.
====
"It is not the writer's task to answer questions but to question answers.
To be impertinent, and, if necessary, subversive."
---Edward Abbey
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 11 10:27:38 2000
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 10:27:37 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: Correction
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000311102545.623E-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
The following was sent to me regarding today's DBS. My apologies to
Ginger for misunderstanding her motion.
-Teresa
merope@radix.net
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 09:20:33 -0600
From: Ginger <gingerh@shawneelink.com>
To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Subject: Re: Daily Board Show
Please get it right. My motion is a motion to postpone
definitely, NOT a motion to table. It is NOT the same
thing.
If you're going to attempt to report things you should at
least strive for a tiny bit of accuracy.
Ginger
gingerh@shawneelink.com
[snip today's DBS]
From merope@Radix.Net Sun Mar 12 08:47:47 2000
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 08:47:46 -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.SV4.3.96.1000312074211.18908A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
Double your pleasure, double your fun...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Saturday 11 March 2000:
Pam Reid thinks she is now clear on everything, and she is now waiting for
Shari's motion to be resubmitted and reseconded.
Pam asks if she understands correctly that "we are going to deal with
Shari's motion about the New Census Projece [sic] (which has to be
resubmitted) before we start nominating people to fill the vacant board
slot."
Pam says she's sorry so send so many notes, but wants to make sure she
should list Motion 00-5 on the "votes page" as withdrawn.
Tim Stowell says yes, she should.
Tim tells Pam that Shari's motion has been resubmitted and seconded by
Barbara Dore, and awaits only numbering for him to open the discussion
[which he inexplicably fails to do]. He says "There are no nominations
for appointments ...the name(s) of a person or persons to fill the seat do
not need a second as nominations do." He points out several ways the
Board could choose to proceed in this situation:
"1. members of the Project could/would submit names to be considered for
the job - from which the Board could decide to appoint by a vote.
2. Board members could sumbit names to be considered and voted upon.
3. honoring the choice of the CP for their Board representative
4. choosing a person that would be acceptable to both census groups."
[Well, we should be thankful he didn't list the correct choice dead
last, at least. Shari's motion does not address the issue of Census
Project representation on the Board, although she does indicate that once
the two projects are forced by the Board into merging, "An election to be
held *as soon as possible* (not wait until July) to elect a Census Project
Coordinator," with staff from both former projects eligible to vote in the
election to choose a new CP coordinator. Ginger Hayes has nominated Sue
Soden, who was not elected by the CP staff, for the Board seat; that
nomination remains unaddressed by the NC.]
===
Today's quote is from a reader:
"One wishes folks would be consistent and intellectually honest."
---Brian Leverich, ARCHIVES-L, 5 Oct 1998
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
----------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.