From merope@Radix.Net Mon Mar 8 19:22:56 1999
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 19:22:55 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: usgw_all@listbot.com
Subject: Daily Board Show
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.990308181029.26547A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Where do you want to go today?...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* venting spleens area, contains editorial content. Read at your
own risk!
Saturday March 6 1999:
Regarding Motion 99-5:
A Board member says that although she agrees with parts of the resolution,
she "will not support this motion as written."
The NC posts a comment, stating, "that unless someone can demonstrate
under which Bylaws the Board has the power to effect such a radical
reorganization of the Special Projects that this Motion is in effect
illegal."
The NC posts further comment on the motion, referencing the bylaws Article
XVI, Section 5 [this is teh section that allows for "emergency amendment"
of the bylaws.] He asks the following questions and makes the following
points, based on this article:
"Is this an urgent matter? This is an urgent matter - for some on the
Board it seems but not to the public at large. It is up to the Board to
learn facts, discuss issues, study consequences and to make decisions
wisely. Does this affect the well-being of the Project? If this motion
moves forward and is approved then yes it will affect the well-being of
the Project as hundreds will leave, taking a lot of work and materials
with them. Who approves these changes? Since this would be a major
reorganization and thus fall into the Bylaws area then the membership at
large would have to approve this change. At this juncture, I certainly
don't see that happening."
The original motioner states that the motion is not intended to rewrite
the bylaws but to reinforce existing bylaws. She states that the bylaws
recognize three special projects, and "These projects already have their
own separate coordinators, directories and infrastructures, so the
Resolution is proposing no vast, sweeping changes - merely a reiteration
of what already is, and is certainly open to amendment." [Then why propose
it?]
A Board member requests that the motion be withdrawn "motion
beforeany more harm is done", since his constituents are almost
unanimously against it and the 2/3 majority to pass it is plainly not
going to happen.
A Board member notes that he appreciates the lively discussion and thinks
withdrawing or tabling the motion would "push the topic into the
background where it will fester until it surfaces again." [Hmmm...I had
no idea such discontent was festering in the hearts of Archives file
managers. They've done a remarkable job of hiding it all this time.] He
goes on to say that "I represent only 12 state SCs and their ASCs and in
the short time this has been out on various lists, there has not been
enough expression for me to say I represent more than my own mind."
The Tombstone rep points out that the Tombstone project does not have its
own separate directories and files are uploaded into the same sort of
directory structure as all other Archives files.
Regarding Motion 99-3: (domain names)
The NC posts a message from him to Brian Leverich requesting that the
admin contacts for the USGW domains be changed to the current NC.
Happening Elsewhere Corner: Linda Lewis rebuts Kay Mason's description of
the problems that led her to split the Census Project off from the
Archives. Linda states that she was the only Archives person uploading
census project transcriptions and has never heard of a transcriber's name
being incorrect; existing file managers were not allowed to volunteer to
help with uploading files; she has never been given information as to
where and when files were combined or renamed or uploaded to other
directories; she says Kay has "disregarded guidelines, mislead [sic]
volunteers, and did not respect the works of transcribers, by moving the
files to wherever she wants"; that the Census II files will not be
included in the search engine; and she does not know which Census II
transcribers have given permission to put their files in Census I.
A couple of Census II members rebut the rebuttal, and play "she said, she
said" for awhile. One points out the the whole thing [two Census
projects] is working fine and says all the distress is just a "witch
hunt". [I could buy this if a very real attempt to force the other Special
Projects to go the way of Archives II wasn't underway. I confess to being
mystified why the authors of that motion felt it was needed.] Anyways,
the discussion proceeds from there in basically predictable directions.
Linda is challenged to produce contracts, Kay is accused of being on an
ego trip, the RW search engine is questions, and folks wonder where their
files are today.
Bet You'd Forgotten Corner: One of the banned Rootsweb Four has taken it
on herself to discover under what conditions they would be allowed back
into the genealogical fold. Her SC was informed that under the
"arrangement" with RW [What arrangement? I was never even personally
notified!] certain conditions would need to be met before any of the Four
would be allowed back into the Sacred Search Engines and the Most Holy
Mailing Lists. Unfortunately, it seems that Brian "Its My Toy" Leverich
isn't responding to his mail. [*sigh* what's an evil sinner to do?]
Always A Bridesmaid Corner: According to Dick Eastman's newsletter, Media
Metrix, a company that compiles web usage statistics, has found the most
visited genealogy site on the web to be -- Ancestry.com. Congrats to
Ancestry, and better luck next time to all the worthy genealogy sites out
there.
"Never offend people with style when you can offend them with substance."
--Sam Brown, "Washington Post" (1977)
Write your Board members! This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
-----
Daily Board Show, (c) 1999 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.
From merope@Radix.Net Tue Mar 9 20:58:00 1999
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 20:57:58 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: usgw_all@listbot.com
Subject: Daily Board Show
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.990309200139.17825A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Like dinner with the Donner party...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* since I don't suffer fools gladly, this contains editorial
content. Read at your own risk!
Sunday 7 March 1999:
Board Secretray Bill posts his "Summary of USGW Advisory Board Business.
[You've all seen it, or should have, so I won't repeat it here.]
Tomorrow's news today: The group starts voting on tabling the motion;
based on the votes so far, the group does not want to table the motion
[good thing, too. Tabling it won't make it go away. They need to drive a
stake through its foul heart. And maybe bury it with a rope of garlic.]
Fighting Dirty Corner: The "discussion" of the Census Project has erupted
in open partisan fighting on the SC list, even as its dying down on the
Board list. Names are being called, honesty is being challenged, and
history is being rewritten. Two of the more vicious pitbulls in USGW
are battling it out! Who will get to write the official history of the
USGW/Archives/Census split? [Who cares? A pox on both your special
projects!]
"BULL!!!!"
--Linda Lewis (in response to Ron Eason's version of recent Census
events)
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
-------------------
Daily Board Show, (c) 1999 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.
From merope@Radix.Net Wed Mar 10 17:53:31 1999
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 17:53:29 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: usgw_all@listbot.com
Subject: Daily Board Show
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.990310173025.18484A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
A whiter shade of pale...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Monday 8 March 1999:
The NC asks for a vote on the motion to table Motion 99-5 ["Digital
Library" resolution] and requests that the voting be accomplished with 24
hours if possible so that the Board can move on to dealing with the actual
motion.
By the end of the day, 6 Board members had voted "no" to tabling the
motion.
Tomorrow's News Today: The NC declares the motion to table defeated; the
author of Motion 99-5 withdraws it [we hear after a masterful display of
authority by the NC!].
USGW Celebrity Deathmatch Corner: We hear through the grapevine that
Linda has requested a face to face meeting with Kay to "discuss the
census problem." Apparently no word from Kay, but if this meeting comes
off, my money's on Linda to take her in 3 rounds [and I get the popcorn
and t-shirt concession. Fight fair, ladies!]
[On a serious note...shouldn't this discussion have taken place somewhat
earlier? Seems a little late for it now.]
Kudos Corner: The DBS would like to take this opportunity to thank the
Board and the NC for vigorously debating Motion 99-5 publicly, and for
equally vigorously soliciting public comment. We've seen much productive
debate and discussion on this issue on a wide variety of lists [SC-L
notwithstanding <g>], and its been most enlightening. I know a lot of
discussion went on privately, but thanks for affording the project your
thoughts on this important issue. [I think all three of my Board reps
agreed with me on this one; that HAS to be a sign of good things ahead!]
A quote from a reader, and a particularly pertinent one at that:
"For every vision there is an equal and opposite Revision"
---Nate Gruber
This has been your Daily Board Show. Happy days are here again!
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
---------------
Daily Board Show, (c) 1999 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.
From merope@Radix.Net Thu Mar 11 20:13:45 1999
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 20:13:44 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: usgw_all@listbot.com
Subject: Daily Board Show
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.990311193031.8545A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
I like you, you're not like the others...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Tuesday 9 March 1999:
The NC posts the "final" count on the motion to table Motion 99-5: 11
nays, 0 ayes, and declared the motion to table defeated
A board member votes "aye" on the motion to table
A board member votes "nay" on the motion to table [bringing the final
count to 12 nays, 1 aye]
The NC posts his reasons for believing that Motion 99-5 is illegal. He
states, "The Motion as now written 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." He
also lists the option he feels are available to the Board: "The Board
could leave the Bylaws as they are and work within the framework
provided therein. The Board could encourage the separate parties in this
matter to meet, work out differences and let the Project move on. The
Board could ask for volunteers for a committee to either make
recommendations to the Board or to be a body unto itself with the end
result being that Kay and Linda would agree to abide by the decision of
said group. The Board could ask for suggestions from the Project at large
on how to address this problem." He opens the floor for discussion of
these ideas.
Linda Lewis, Tombstone Project rep and National Coordinator for the
Archives points out, "Any "power" the Board tries to use to reorganize a
Special Project, could eventually be used to reorganize any state XXGenWeb
project.... very dangerous and potentially hazardous to the health of The
USGenWebProject." She also posts her invitation to meet personally with
Kay, "It's been suggested that this (census problem) is mainly between two
people, Kay and me. Since Kay and I have met in person a couple times,
and live rather close to each other, I'm inviting Kay to meet for lunch
or dinner to discuss the problem." [hmmmm...could this be, dare I say it,
a day late and a dollar short?]
Ladies, Take Your Corners: A little bird tells us that Brian "Are you
Ready To Rumble" Leverich has agreed to referee the upcoming
USGW Celebrity Deathmatch between Kay Mason [in the left corner,
representing Census II] and Linda Lewis [right corner, representing Census
I]. This would be at Kay's request, apparently. I'm still laying odds on
Lewis in three rounds, but incoming mail slightly favors Kay. We'll keep
you posted as we know more!
"When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public
property."
--Thomas Jefferson
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
------------------
Daily Board Show, (c) 1999 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved
From merope@Radix.Net Sat Mar 13 11:38:45 1999
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 11:38:43 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: usgw_all@listbot.com
Subject: Daily Board Show
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.990313081518.680A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
One more for the road...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Wednesday 10 March 1999:
Kay Mason [Census II] indicates that she would agree to a face to face
meeting with Linda Lewis [Census I] if such a meeting would resolve "the
problem of all the special projects" [which would be none of the Census II
coordinator's business]. However, she points out, "it would appear that
Motion 99-4 is being completely ignored and there has been no indication
that it will be honored in the future. That doesn't seem to be an
attitude conducive resolving this issue." [Motion 99-4 essentially
supported Census II and encouraged the Archives projects to focus its
efforts on other types of records.] Kay requests an agenda for the
meeting and wonders what assurances she has that any agreements they reach
would be sanctioned by the Board [The Board would be sooooo happy if they
could reach an agreement, I doubt they'd interfere. But even if they
wanted to, would it be appropriate?] Kay thinks that under these
circumstances a meeting would be a waste of time, but she would meet with
Linda "Should a plan be forthcoming which exhibits a chance of resolving
this problem". Finally, she states, "If such a meeting should take place,
Dr. Brian Leverich has agreed to be present."
Linda responds to Kay, wondering why two former friends should need an
agenda in order to have an informal discussion about the Census project.
Linda indicates that she trusted Kay to take over the Census project and
still trusts her to discuss this issue civilly.
Thursday 11 March 1999
Jan Craven resigns from the Board, effectively immediately, stating "I do
not feelthat my being on the board is contributing significantly to the
project and thus does not justify the time and energy that it takesto
serve." She notes that her first priority has always been her state
Archives and helping researchers, she has a large backlog of work that is
not getting done, and she requests to be removed from the board lists.
The message from Board Secretary Bill outlining recent Board activity
concerning Motion 99-5 is posted to Board-L. It notes that the motion was
withdrawn on Wednesday March 10, but that withdrawal has not yet appeared
on Board-L [and my copy of it is mysteriously dated March 9; you don't
suppose the Board could be using its secret list again, do you?]
Linda Lewis posts a sham motion, apparently to make a point that it is
improper for the Board to interfere in state or special project business.
the "motion" points out that since the the bylaws for a state that has
incorporated misrepresent the USGW project's name and the bylaws do not
give the Board the authority to manage the states or special projects, it
is resolved, "That the [name deleted] project revise or dissolve their
by-laws, and That before adoption, any XXGenWeb by-laws be approved by The
USGenWeb Project Advisory Board, and That The USGenWeb Archives Advisory
Board be given authority to force XXGenWeb's and Special Projects to make
any changes as so desired by the majority of the Advisory Board, without
input from or discussion with volunteers of said projects."
Linda Lewis posts an apology to the State Coordinator of the project used
as an example in the above sham motion, stating "I only used the
[name deleted] bylaws because they were "there".. and I tell you.. I had a
hard time trying to find something to use as an example... The only thing
I could find was the "the" instead of "The". Those bylaws are
well-written."
Pat on the Back Corner: A brief article about The USGenWeb Project written
by Jo Anne Matthews is available at
http://www.starnewspapers.com/star/allinsde/111niz1.htm. Starring Board
member Megan Zurawicz and Cook county coordinator Sharon Dickson, the
article appears to have been written for a community newspaper in the
Chicago area and repeatedly misidentifies the project's name ["GenWeb
Project", "the USGenWeb project"]. It also manages to incorrectly peg the
beginning of the "genealogy boom" to the Bicentennial when it can be more
properly attributed to the broadcast of the television miniseries based on
Alex Haley's "Roots." However, it does give a good but very generic
description of the project and the correct URL, along with local resources
for people near the Cook County area.
The Power of Publicity Corner: Seems another project volunteer has
discovered the value of going public with problems they have with the
Archives. A certain volunteer has been attmpting for some months now to
have changes made to files they submitted over a year ago. Despite
assurances that the changes would be made and the submitter contacted by
the appropriate file manager, nothing has happened. The submitter had
their State Coordinator post a formal request for the removal of their
files to the SC list, and voila! like magic the files were removed in one
day _and_ the submitter got some very nice apologies.
Moving Right Along Corner: As might be expected, the Archives files
managers are busily discussing the replacement for their recently resigned
representative. Most file managers seems to feel that they must move
quickly to elect someone or the Board will appoint the replacement itself.
File manager Joe Zsedeny has been nominated and this nomination has been
seconded, and he has kind sorta accepted [unless someone else wants the
job]. Of course, according to the bylaws, the Board must appoint the
replacement for the resigned representative. They are certainly free to
appoint the choice of the Archives file managers, but they are just as
free to ignore it and appoint someone else. Given the Board's
disregard for the formalities of the bylaws the last time they
replaced a replacement, I'm sure we'll be seeing Joe on the Board
shortly. [oh, and the fairy godmother's threat to Little Bunny Fru-Fru was
"I'm going to turn you into a loon". How...appropriate.]
Rules and Regs Corner: Someone has forwarded to me the newly posted
"RootsWeb Listowner Guidelines" sent to all RW listowners by Tim "Mighty
Mouse" Pierce. Among the usual "tend your bounces, help your subscribers
sub and unsub, and answer your email" admonishments common to any
listmanager guidelines are some interesting things that RW expects of its
listowners, including allowing RW to conduct fundraising on lists,
allowing RW to approve posts to your list that might be of a commercial
nature, and keep RW informed of your whereabouts and intended absences
away from your computer. Along with nearly every one of these guidelines
is the explicit threat that RW will be forced to "intervene" should a
listowner fail to comply. [I swear, RW has to be the most micromanaging
list provider in my experience. Where DO they find the time? And, you
know, if someone pays for a list, shouldn't they be able to do what they
want with it? If a listowner doesn't want RW pimping for dollars on a list
they paid for why should they have to allow that? A note to the innocent:
they can and have taken lists away from paid in full sponsors on the
slightest whim, so beware. They are serious about these guidelines.
Remember, if you've been treated unfairly, the FTC accepts complaints
about improper business practices at http://www.ftc.gov. There are
already complaints lodged against RW under File# 444020. See
http://www.radix.net/~merope for details.]
"Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth."
"Or by misleading the innocent."
---Spock and McCoy, "And The Children Shall Lead", stardate 5029.5.
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
--------------
Daily Board Show, (c) 1999 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.