From merope@Radix.Net Mon May 1 12:50:59 2000
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 12:50:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: DBS on hiatus
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000501124417.17095C-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Dear Readers,
The DBS will be on indefinite hiatus. I will update you on events as I
get the chance.
Right now, Pam Reid has notified the Board that the Census Project has
moved its files and the new url will be announced shortly. She is
planning on purging their directories once they do so. Since they tell her
that Holly's copyright concerns have been addressed [presumably her
contributions are now credited], Pam recommends restoring the links to the
CP on the National web page. Tim Stowell, ever productive, is consensus
building and fence mending by sending snotty messages to the Census mail
lists gloating about how they are still delinked.
Ellen Pack has forwarded an ...ummm.. interesting proposal to the Board;
it is forwarded in its entirely after this post. Other than that, its
been the same old he said she said back and forth, and you probably don't
want to be bored with it right now.
You all take care; I will be back as soon as I can.
-Teresa Lindquist
Publisher, Daily Board Show
From merope@Radix.Net Mon May 1 12:52:38 2000
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 12:52:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: FWI: Second Proposal re Special Projects
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000501125142.17095D-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Forwarded with permission.
-Teresa
----
[USGENWEB-ALL-L] Second Proposal re Special Projects
Sun, 30 Apr 2000 18:38:33 -0700 (PDT)
Jim Powell Jr <jpowelljr@gru.net>
I am forwarding this to Board-L although I have been warned not to
forward messages to that list. I will not be intimidated. I think
Ellen's proposal has merit. At the very least maybe it will start some
meaningful discussion.
Jim
**********
TO: Jim Powell and Teri Pettit, SE/MA County Coordinator Representatives
Linda Mason, MS SC
As my SE/MA representatives, I am submitting this note in hopes that
either or both will consider forwarding it to the Board-L. I would ask that, if
submitted, the note be posted in it's entirety.
I am also requesting that Linda Mason, MS SC, forward a copy to the SC
List.
Thank you for your consideration.
Ellen Pack
Adams Co, MSGenWeb CC
Wilkinson Co, MSGenWeb CC
Early SW MS Territory, MSGenWeb CC
Greene Co, TNGenWeb ACC
-------------
To the USGW Advisory Board Members -
Since the AB apparently chose not to consider or implement my earlier
proposal regarding placing the question of the Archives before a
committee, and ultimately the USGW Members, and which received wide favorable
attention from the general membership (witness my mailbox), and since
the situation has deteriorated further over the past few days, I beg your
indulgence in allowing me to submit a second proposal.
I'm am still optimistic (though confidence is waning) that there are
enough good people out there who will refrain from spending hours and hours
picking apart every word in an attempt to find an excuse as to why this
or that can't be done. There are enough people who understand that they
are not the only ones who can properly and effectively maintain the
Archives, and who will sincerely TRY to do something right, and in the best
interests of the project, so that this horrendous problem can be resolved once and
for all.
---------
Proposal II
Please carefully read the entire proposal before forming an opinion.
This proposal is not designed to end the Archives, but to salvage it, dust it
off, and give it fresh life.
Simply put, it is time for the Archives to be completely dismantled on a
national level, and turned over to the individual states.
One of the most potent arguments in favor of a breakup lies within the
history of individual state projects, as opposed to the history of the
Archives.
There have been sporadic (and sometimes very serious) problems within
several states. However, those problems were predominately restricted
to the states in question. They were eventually resolved within the states
themselves, and in accordance with USGW By-Laws. Residual problems are
few, and confined. Today, the states reside side-by-side, sometimes
disagreeing, but respectful of one another. The same thing can hardly
be said of the Special Projects in this endless battle.
The Special Projects must take a lesson from the States. I implore the
AB to seriously consider drawing and placing before the membership an
emergency amendment consisting of the following points:
1. Removal of the Special Projects, USGW Archives, Census
Project, Census Archives Project, Tombstone Project, et al, whatever the name, as
national entities
2. Formation of State Archives Projects [XXGenWeb State Archives
Project] that would fall under the direct auspices, responsibility, and control
of each appropriate state, as opposed to any national level person(s) or
entity. Each State Archives Project would have the responsibility of
recruiting it's own transcribers and material, and of uploading and
maintaining all archived files pertinent to it's own state, and to none
other.
3. Formation of one USGW General Archives Project to procure,
transcribe, upload and maintain general non state-specific files ONLY. Those files
would cover such things as general histories, migratory patterns and
trails, territorial information, etc. Material relative to individual
states would not be allowed to be placed in the General Archives, and
must be referred to the appropriate state Archives. Whole scale maintenance
of duplicate files should be deemed unnecessary and inappropriate. Duplication of files should
only be considered in the instances of material covering major boundary changes, and the like.
4. Continuity and quality of files and uploads would be
preserved via clearly defined policy and procedure specifications re uploading and
copyright disclaimer/info, as outlined within the By-Laws amendment.
[For the purposes of this note, consider the proposed USGW General
Archives as simply another (though unnamed) state, unless otherwise specified.]
5. Each state would be granted the right to name it's State
Archive Coordinator, and indeed the number of coordinators and/or State Archive
File Managers as befits the individual needs and structure of that
state. State Archive Coordinators would be named via either a state
election or appointment by the SC, in accordance with individual state
procedure. Each State Archive Coordinator would have responsibility
and authority to recruit individual State File Managers on an as-needed
basis.
6. In the case of the General USGW Archives, a General USGW
Archives Coordinator would be appointed by the AB, for a limited term - suggest
no more than one year. Thereafter, the General USGW Archives Coordinator
would be elected by it's own File Managers for two-year terms. The
General USGW Archives would come directly under the responsibility and control
of the AB which, in turn, is answerable to the states and to the electorate.
7. All files would be uploaded to and maintained on one USGW
Archives server
8. No person or persons, on any level, will be considered
overall SP or Archives Coordinator, or overall coordinator of any fraction of the
Archives including census records, cemetery records, etc.
9. No person or persons other than the appropriate SC, State
Archives Coordinator and/or assigned State File Managers will upload, copy,
alter, or remove any file.
10. Each state should have it's own password to the appropriate
directory. Each SC would have access to it's State Archives password,
or in the case of the USGW General Archives, the AB Secretary would be
charged with retaining the password which would be passed on to the AB or NC
only after a motion to do so has been legally entered and passed by the AB,
and not at the discretion or demand of any one individual. The General
Archives password, if used under an AB motion, will be changed, after
the specific motion has been carried out, and once again retained by the
Board Secretary.
11. No person or persons other than the appropriate SC, or the
AB acting on a legally submitted and passed motion, will be authorized to fire a
State Archives Coordinator, change a password, alter "write" privileges,
directory structure, upload, delete, or alter any archived files.
12. An Archives server change would require a special
proposition presented by the AB, voted upon and passed by the general membership in
either a special or general election.
13. The AB would have the responsibility of maintaining a USGW
Archives TOC as part of the National pages. Links should point to the USGW Index
page, each state Archives TOC, the Archives Search pages, and to a
GENERAL information page that, among other things, refers potential volunteers
to the appropriate state. The USGW Archives TOC, and any collateral pages,
must bear USGW official logo.
14. Each state would have the responsibility of maintaining
it's individual State Archives TOC, with a link to the USGW Archives TOC, the
Archives search page, and to the state index page. Layout and design of
that page would be determined by the State Archive Coordinator, but each
State Archives TOC must bear the USGW logo, and the state logo if
individual state regulations so require.
15. Each state would have the responsibility of insuring that
no Archives copyright violations occurred, just like they do now relative to the
counties. Pre-existing copyright violation allegations should be
addressed as soon as possible after acquisition of files currently residing in the
Archives or Census project (although I believe most of those allegations
would evaporate once the breakup occurred.) Copyright
allegations/infringements should be dealt with swiftly, firmly, and
appropriately on a case-to-case basis within each state responsible for
the file(s) in question.
16. State participation in the State Archives Project would be
mandatory, just as queries, and pertinent logo and links are mandatory, but would
*not* preclude a state from continuing with or putting in place it's own
state archives, if desired.
I would also strongly urge the AB to submit a second emergency amendment
to the effect that any national level action by the AB or the NC be allowed
ONLY upon a legally presented and passed AB motion, and not by arbitrary
decision by any one person, NC included. If a picture needs to be drawn,
then draw it.
-------------
I believe I have given the AB more than enough food for thought, as well
as an outstanding foundation upon which an effective, fair, and permanent
resolution can be constructed.
The States and CCs have a proven track record, and can handle things
quite nicely. Let them.
Permission is hereby granted to forward this note to any USGW member,
and to post to any USGW List.
Respectfully,
Ellen Pack
Adams Co, MSGenWeb CC
Wilkinson Co, MSGenWeb CC
Early SW MS Territory, MSGenWeb CC
Greene Co, TNGenWeb ACC
==== USGENWEB-ALL Mailing List ====
Remember the elections start July 1.
From merope@Radix.Net Fri May 12 11:09:35 2000
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 11:09:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org, Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: On a Roll
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000512105927.11631E-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
Not content with delinking the census project, the Board is now
entertaining a motion to delink the state of Ohio, basically because it is
protesting the delinking of the CP.
No evidence is provided in support of the statement that OHGW joined the
protest contrary to the wishes of its members, and no violation of the
bylaws is noted. As we've all been told many times [often by Board
members] guidelines and bylaws are not laws but merely suggestions and can
be flexible and interpreted differently based on the circumstances.
[incidentally, if anyone wishes to join in the civil disobedience, the url
mentioned in the motion will remain live indefinitely.]
-Teresa
merope@radix.net
===
Full text of motion to "accept the resignation" of the OHGenWeb, made by
Tina Vickery:
"The USGenWeb Logo on the OHGenWeb Main State Page
http://www.scioto.org/OHGenWeb/ has a link to
http://www.radix.net/~merope/usgwcd.htm. On this page is a blackened
USGenWeb Logo and the title "A SIMPLE ACT OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE". This
is a protest page that says "...all links to the USGenWeb Project have
been removed from this site. ..."
This is a blatant violation of the standards for state web sites as
outlined at http://www.usgenweb.org/volunteers/statepage.html.
The following links are required for all state pages: counties within
the state The USGenWeb Project -http://www.usgenweb.org or
http://www.usgenweb.net, and the USGenWeb Archives Project -
http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb.
An optional link to the archives search option might also be included
http://searches.rootsweb.com/usgwarch.html.
A link to The USGenWeb Project's Guidelines/Standards for county web
sites, including a link the Official Project Name/Logo page. The
USGenWeb Project Copyright Information page, WorldGenWeb Project -
http://www.worldgegenweb.org/which dates back to the earliest days of
the project and predate the bylaws.
These actions are interpreted as constituting a resignation. I,
therefore, move that we accept the resignation of OHGenWeb from the
USGenWeb Project.
This motion is made with the utmost respect for the OHGW County
coordinators, and in no way is meant to jeopardize their good standing
within the USGenWeb Project. This action was taken by the SC contrary
to the expressed wishes of the county coordinators."
From merope@Radix.Net Fri May 12 11:38:22 2000
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 11:38:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>, USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org
Subject: Class action grievance
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000512113413.14041C-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
I have forwarded the attached to each board member in order to attach my
name to the grievance originally filed by Nate Zipfel on 6 May 2000. You
are all welcome to do the same and to forward my message to any state or
other project list you may feel is appropriate so that all interested
parties may have the opportunity to join with the grievance.
[Incidentally, the Board is now apparently discussing delinking two state
projects, OHGW and NEGW, for their protest of the actions against the CP.]
-Teresa
merope@radix.net
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 11:33:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net>, jzsed@slic.com, pamreid@home.com,
hollyft@bright.net, gingerh@shawneelink.com, richpump@wf.net,
jfisher@ucla.edu, Ginger Cisewski <FEATHER2s@aol.com>,
maggieohio@columbus.rr.com, shari@klondyke.net, jpowelljr@gru.net,
pettit@adobe.com, betsym@1starnet.com, gbmayfiled@tyler.net,
rootslady@email.msn.com
Subject: Formal Grievance
[The following grievance is adapted from that filed by Nate Zipfel on 6
May 2000; I wish to join my name to his in this grievance. My
representatives are respectfully requested to forward this to Board-L.]
I wish to file a formal Grievance against the USGenWeb Project National
Coordinator for violation of the USGenWeb Project Bylaws, specifically
Article VIII, Section 3 and Article VI Section 2. I further wish to file
a formal grievance against the USGenWeb Project Advisory Board members who
supported the actions of the National Coordinator, specifically for
violation of Article VIII, Section 3 and Article VI Section 3.
The specific issues in regard to the National Coordinator are:
1 - He willfully de-linked a recognized Special Project which was outside
is authority to do.
2 - He purposefully called for votes on very important issues without
calling for a 48 hour notice for members of the USGenWeb Project to
provide comment.
The specific issues in regard to the Advisory Board members who supported
the National Coordinator that they endorsed willful violations of the
By-laws by:
1 - Endorsing the National Coordinators violation of the By-laws
2 - Violating the USGenWeb By-laws
Being that this grievance is being filed against board members and the
National Coordinator I request that neutral parties be appointed to
address this grievance.
sincerely,
-Teresa Lindquist,
CC for Johnson, Anderson, and Shawnee counties, KSGenWeb
Publisher, Daily Board Show
merope@radix.net
From merope@Radix.Net Sat May 13 12:10:54 2000
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 12:10:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: Daily Board Show, part 1
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000513103749.15965A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
Back in black...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content and righteous indignation. Read at
your own risk!
[Folks, lots has happened since I've been been away. The following is a
recap that should bring us up to date. It will come in more than one
part and regular transmission should resume tomorrow.]
30 April 2000:
When we last left the Board they were dickering about copyright issues,
mainly concerning Holly Fee Timm's complaint that the Census Project was
using her coding and design for its web pages without her permission.
[Holly has a lot of residual bitterness behind this issue and pouts about
it every chance she gets, but has apparently never bothered to file any
sort of formal complaint with the Board.] Ginger Hayes pointed out that
several members of the USGW Project have filed formal complaints about the
Archives violating their copyright and asked why the Board has not
addressed those, and notes that to failure to do so constitutes a double
standard. She says "It seems to be ok if some violate that copyright
because we "like" them and we "didn't like" the other folks. ...Do we only
hand out justice to those we "like", or are all the members of this
Project going to be treated equally?"
[Holly claims that no one from the CP has ever attempted to address the
issue with her, but a copy of a Jan 1999 email to her [and others] from
Kay Mason calling a meeting _expressly_ for the purpose of discussing the
web pages has come into this author's possession. According to the
source, Holly neither acknowldeged the mail nor attended the meeting.]
Also on this date, the Board was shocked, _shocked_ to find out that Ron
Eason has [and has had for 18 months] write access to a portion of the
USGW national website [the portion that holds the CP files]. Tim Stowell
cut off the access without notifying the CP, who discovered his actions
when they found they could no longer access their pages for editing. They
also discovered at this time that some of their pages had been altered to
make it appear that the pages belonged to the Archives Census Project, but
without access they could not fix them.
Jim Powell forwarded Ellen Pack's proposal for a committee approach to the
Census Project problem to the Board [already posted here].
1 May 2000--2 May 2000:
Pam Reid reports to the Board that Ron Eason has notified her that all the
CP files will be moved as of May 2 and that Holly has been credited on the
web pages. She says that she will restored the links to the CP from the
National page and delete all the census files and the directory from the
USGW directory.
Pam also moves to:
"Commit the question of resolving the issues regarding the USGenWeb Census
Project and USGenWeb Archives Census Project to a Committee as follows; 1)
The committee shall consist of twelve USGW members selected by ballot from
open nominations of candidates by each Advisory Board member in turn until
sufficient candidates have been elected. A plurality of the Advisory Board
shall elect. 2) The Advisory Board shall elect a Committee Chairperson by
ballot from the Committee membership. A plurality shall elect. 3) The
committee is authorized to obtain any information deemed necessary for
their deliberations and is authorized to solicit consultation from
non-USGW members insofar as related to the task. 4) The committee
deliberations shall adhere to accepted parliamentary procedures for
committees and USGW bylaws. Nine members shall constitute a quorum for the
conduct of committee business. A 2/3 majority of members voting on main
motions is required for approval. 5) The committee report shall take the
form of a Resolution for consideration by the USGW Advisory Board to
include but not limited to; a) Recommended actions necessary to facilitate
a merger of the census projects, b) Recommended actions necessary to
restore the links to the USGenWeb Census Project, c) Any additional
actions germane to the issue(s) in question. 6) Supplemental instructions
may be given to the committee in accordance with accepted parliamentary
procedures. 7) The Committee should report on their progress to the Board
on a regular basis, through the committee chairman. The Board will make
itself available to answer any questions that may arise during Committee
sessions." [This motion is almost immediately withdrawn following the
Census Project's announcement that it incorporated.]
Holly Fee Timm formally revokes permission for the CP to use her pages,
noting "I can NOT in anyway condone or give any implication of condoning a
for profit incorporation of the Census Project nor stomach the use of my
hard work within that setting. ... The design of the tables and the
concept and basic design of the buttons used are mine and they are being
used without my permission and that are to be removed immediately."
Joy Fisher moves "that the USGenWeb Project sever its relationship with
the USGenWeb Census Project, Inc. headed by Ron Eason. This Census Project
has incorporated as a FOR PROFIT corporation using the reserved term
USGenWeb" without the Advisory Board's knowledge or approval. I further
move that USGenWeb post a notice on all pages stating that USGenWeb
Project, Inc headed by Ron Eason is in no way connected with the USGenWeb
Project. I further move that the USGenWeb Project attempt to notify each
and every submitter of the fact that the USGenWeb Census Project, Inc
headed by Ron Eason is no longer associated with the USGenWeb Project."
The motion is seconded by Holly Fee Timm, and given number 00-10. Ginger
Hayes calls the question; this is seconded by Shari Handley. The motion to
call the question passes, with 10 yes votes, 2 no votes, and 3 not voting
[Tim's published count is incorrect], and Tim asks the Board to vote on
Motion 00-10. That motion also passes, with 10 yes votes, 2 no votes, and
3 not voting.
During the course of the vote on Motion 00-10, Teri Pettit asked Joy
Fisher to clarify the scope and meaning of the motion before she voted on
it. Teri noted that "Since the only for-profit "USGenWeb Census Project,
Inc." corporation headed by Ron Eason is not associated in any way with
the USGenWeb Census Project non-profit volunteer organization headed by
Ron Eason with web pages now located at http://www.us-census.org/, I am
wondering if Motion 0-10 refers only to the for-profit corporation
"USGenWeb Census Project, Inc", as the motion literally states, or whether
a vote for Motion 00-10 might also be interpreted as referring to the web
pages located at http://www.us-census.org/, and to the group of
transcribers, file managers and other volunteers who affiliate themselves
with the non-profit unincorporated USGenWeb Census Project headed by Ron
Eason?" GingerC also notes that "The USGenWeb Project has never had a
relationship with an entity known as "USGenWeb Census Project, Inc." We
have only a "USGenWeb Census Project" which is now housed on the USGenNet
server at: http://www.us-census.org/ and clearly states on the main page
that it is NOT affiliated with "The USGenWeb Census Project, Inc.," and
requests that the inaccurate motion be withdrawn. Joy Fisher responds
that "The group presently calling itself The USGenWeb Census Project
headed by Ron Eason is engaging in a shell game by re-inventing itself
after I made the motion 00-10....My motion is intended to sever the
relationship with the Census Project (whatever it is called), presently
headed by Ron Eason (or whoever he designated to be the front man of the
day) that is presently located at http://www. us-census.org and/or
http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwcens/ or wherever they choose to move it
between now and the close of voting." She also notes "The fact remains,
Mr. Eason has unilaterally decided to incorporate using the term
*USGenWeb* without Board authorization and this is the sole reason for
the motion. No amount of back tracking can change that." [After receiving
the "clarification", Teri voted "no" on the motion.]
[According to Ron Eason, National Coordinator for the USGenWeb Census
Project, the incorporation of the CP as a for-profit corporation was
simply a mistake, due mostly to his failure to completely read the
forms sent to him. The corporation was dissolved immediately upon the
realization of the error and the CP is currently in the process of
incorporating as a not-for profit organization. Ron has publicly stated
that neither he nor anyone else in the CP _ever_ intended to derive any
sort of personal benefit from the work of the CP transcribers. Was he
believed? Of course not. He essentially handed the Board the means to get
rid of the "census problem" once and for all on a silver platter and they
were not about to let that opportunity get away. They acted on it, in
fact, with most unseemly haste, not even bothering to give the project
members the required 48 hour comment period. Linda "Screaming Harpy"
Lewis noted that the Board severed ties with the CP incorporation "Almost
as fast as the board two years ago voted to sever all links and
relationships with USGenWeb, Inc., the for-profit Idaho corporation
formed in 1997, which also claimed it was faster to incorporate as a
for-profit... yada yada yada." Of course, as we all know by now, the
first online genealogy business to claim it was "easier and cheaper" to
register as a for-profit business was Root$web, but hypocrisy is a way of
life in USGW, andis just one more aspect of the "Alice in Wonderland"
experience one gets in this project.]
3 May 2000:
Pam Reid forwards a message from John Schunk regarding his decision to no
longer supply S-K Publications materials to CP transcribers. He says he
will not publicly explain why his decision was prompted by the CP's move
to USGenNet, but he does note that "my decision was *NOT* because of a
fear that Ron Eason (or anyone else who has been associated the Census
Project) might profit financially in any way from it."
4 May 2000:
Tim announces the result of the vote on Motion 00-10, and Pam Reid asks
"what does this really mean? Since Ron dissolved the corporation, it
really is a non-issue. Of course, he still has the Project housed on
USGenNet (as far I know - seems everything about this issue changes from
moment to moment) and that was a problem for some."
[But hardly a serious offense.]
[Yes, the Board voted to delink the Census Project, a valued part of the
USGenWeb Project for three years, without honoring the 48 hour rule in the
bylaws, and without giving the membership time to comment. Just more
evidence of their deep respect for our bylaws, no doubt. As someone noted
elsewhere, if they don't consider severing an entire Special Project and
all its members important enough to get input from their constituents
during the required 48 hour period, what do they consider important
enough? Some have noted that they voted to waive the discussion period,
but that is not correct. They waived their own 48 hour discussion period;
the bylaws give no provision for the waiver of the project-wide 48
discussion period and I for one most certainly do not give them the right
to waive that on my behalf.]
To be continued...
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
-------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.
From merope@Radix.Net Sat May 13 20:45:36 2000
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 20:45:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: Correction
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000513204338.22871A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
A reader has written to correct a statement made in today's DBS:
---
" On Saturday, May 13, 2000, merope@Radix.Net wrote:
> [Yes, the Board voted to delink the Census Project, a valued part of the
> USGenWeb Project for three years, without honoring the 48 hour rule in the
> bylaws, and without giving the membership time to comment.
I'm confused by this statement ... they have never voted to delink the
census project, in my tally. They:
(a) voted to sever a relationship that never existed (with "USGenWeb
Census Project, Inc.") [00-10];
(b) failed to ratify the delinking of the Census Project [00-09];
(c) failed to override the delinking of the Census Project [00-08].
In other words, in more than two months time they have done absolutely
nothing!"
---
Our reader is absolutely correct, and we apologize for the error.
-Teresa
merope@radix.net
From merope@Radix.Net Sat May 13 22:01:13 2000
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 22:01:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: Daily Board Show, part 2
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000513204611.22921A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
[continued...]
5 May 2000:
A letter from CART programm Phil Beshear is forwarded to the Board, in
which he states that CART is reserved solely for the use of the USGEnWeb
Census Project, and explicitly states that members of the Archives Census
Project are not allowed to use it or to post pages derived from it.
Tim Stowell posts the "Cease and Desist" notice he sent to Ron Eason in
which he states:
"Pursuant to action taken by the USGenWeb Advisory Board and to the
passage of Motion 00-10, the USGenWeb Census Project, Inc. and the
USGenWeb Census Project headed by Mr. Ronald Eason and housed at
http://www.us-census.org/ has hereby been severed from the USGenWeb
Project. Since us-census.org was a part of the Inc., the Motion includes
the .org even though the Inc is no longer in existance. Continued use of
the term "USGenWeb" and/or use of any USGenWeb logos is now in violation
of the USGenWeb Project's trademark/servicemark. We therefore ask that you
cease and desist displaying the USGenWeb Project (or any of it's commonly
known doing business as names such as USGW, GenWeb, etc.) name, logos,and
URLs on your pages and text files on your pages at USGenNet and Rootsweb.
We further request that you cease and desist making solicitations in the
name of the USGenWeb Project."
6 May 2000:
Ginger Hayes fowards a formal grievance from project Nate Zipfel, which
reads in part:
"I wish to file a formal Grievance against the USGenWeb Project National
Coordinator for violation of the USGenWeb Project Bylaws, specifically
Article VIII, Section 3 and Article VI Section 2. I further wish to file
a formal grievance against the USGenWeb Project Advisory Board members who
supported the actions of the National Coordinator, specifically for
violation of Article VIII, Section 3 and Article VI Section 3.
The specific issues in regard to the National Coordinator are: 1 - He
willfully de-linked a recognized Special Project which was outside his
authority to do. 2 - He purposefully called for votes on very important
issues without calling for a 48 hour notice for members of the USGenWeb
Project to provide comment. The specific issues in regard to the Advisory
Board members who supported the National Coordinator that they endorsed
willful violations of the By-laws by: 1 - Endorsing the National
Coordinators violation of the By-laws 2 - Violating the USGenWeb By-laws.
Being that this grievance is being filed against board members and the
National Coordinator I request that neutral parties be appointed to
address this grievance."
In an additioinal note, Nate states "I further wish to state that Motion
#00-04 did not have standing from the by-laws to be a legal vote. Article
III, Section 3 states: "The staff members of The USGenWeb Archives
Project, The USGenWeb Census Project, and The USGenWeb Tombstone Project
shall each elect one Special Project Representative to serve as a voting
member of The USGenWeb Project Advisory Board." The Advisory Board and
the National Coordinator has refused to allow the elected representative
from the USGenWeb Census Project to participate on the Advisory Board as
the duly elected representative."
7 May 2000:
GingerH notes that several grievances have been filed by members of the
USGW Project and have not been addressed. She says "Since most, if
not all, of those grievances are against the National Coordinator and/or
members of The USGenWeb Project Advisory Board, it would clearly
constitude [sic] a conflict of interest for the Adviory Board to address
these grievances." She then moves:
"that the USGW Advisory Board establish a Grievance Committee to be
comprised of volunteers from within the USGW Project as follows: 1 State
Coordinator from each Region, to be chosen by the state coordinators in
the respective region. 2 County Coordinators from each Region, to be
chosen by the State Coordinators in each Region. Each SC in a region will
submit one name from their state project for consideration. The following
board members to serve on the committee as non-voting members to answer
questions from the committee: Joy Fisher, Jim Powell, Richard Howland,
Virginia "Ginger" Cisweski. The committee will elect a chair from among
their members, excluding members of the AB. The committee may meet in any
manner it chooses, although an unarchived mailing list is strongly
recommended. The committee may call on anyone it deems approriate for the
purpose of interviewing and fact finding. Members of the committee,
including members of the Advisory board, are bound, both by honor and
instruction, to keep all proceedings of the committee confidential, this
includes the names, or other identifying information, of any and all
persons the committee may interview. The committee will have have 30 days
to conduct their investigation and report back to the Advisory Board with
their findings and recommendations. Such findings and recommendations
shall be published on Board-L, the State Coordinator list for distibution
to the State Project lists, USGENWEB-ALL-L, and any other USGW lists
the committee deems appropriate. The committee may find in the following
manner: Dismiss - no basis; Not guilty; Guilty - find to censure; Guilty -
find to expel. In the case of a finding of Guilty-find to expel the
question will be brought to the entire membership for vote."
Ginger Cisewski agrees with GingerH's proposal but suggests that "the SCs
and CCs chosen should have no current or previous affiliation with any of
the Special Projects. This will eliminate charges of "stacking the
committee" by this group or that." She also suggests "that the CCs should
be chosen by their fellow CCs within each state, and that name put forth
for consideration. I know of at least several instances where a CC might
not be chosen by their SC because of bias or personality issues, yet is a
member in good standing within the USGenWeb Project and is well respected
by the CCs in their state."
10 May 2000:
Tim Stowell declares GingerH's motion dead for lack of a second. He notes
further that the motion itself was out of order because "1. The Bylaws
state that grievances are to be handled by the Board 2. the NC is to be an
ex officio member of all subcommittees."
Jim Powell moves "that our NC provide a FAIR forum to hear the
grievance(s) against himself and Board Members." This motion is seconded
by GingerC.
Pam Reid posts her thoughts on copyright issues as regards the census
files. She says
"Public records are not subject to copyright protection. (from the U.S.
Copyright Office web site under the heading of what is not copyright
protected: "Works consisting entirely of information that is common
property and containing no original authorship" The Census Records put
online by The Census Project certainly are NOT works containing ANY
original authorship. It would most certainly be an interesting case if
something like a suit were brought. As far as copyright goes, I really
don't think you have a leg to stand on. I believe that making a legal
issue out of this would be interesting (not to mention ridiculous) and I
don't believe that The Census Project has a leg to stand on. And, again,
I don't believe this is an issue of copyright violation since these
records weren't copyright protected to begin with. You can put the
"copyright xxxx" on anything you want to put it on, but that doesn't mean
that it is automatically given protection, under the law. Even with
printed materials that are gleaned from public records, the only thing
that MIGHT possibly be copyright protected would be the formatting. In
the case of The Tombstone Project, almost every survey that we receive has
to be reformatted in some way, but we still maintain that the submitter
owns the copyright, when in reality, the records are not copyright
protected in the first place.legal recourse is not an option, IMO and from
what I understand of copyright law. Actually, I made a point of educating
myself pretty thoroughly on this topic when I first started The Tombstone
Project. Our decision to NOT use materials from a genealogical or
historical society publication without permission was actually one of
ETHICS and GOODWILL as opposed to one of COPYRIGHT."
[Right decent of her. I wonder if the Archives shares her philospohy on
who can and does hold the copyright to the transcribed files in the
Archives that have apparently not yet been removed as requested by their
transcribers. Or the files that have been altered without the knowledge
or permission of the submitters. Or the files that were reposted under a
different name after the original submitter asked them to be removed. It
is also refreshing to see someone who works for the Archives use the words
"ethics" and "goodwill", apparently without irony, in the same sentence.]
11 May 2000:
Tim gives Jim's motion number 00-11 and opens the floor for discussion.
Pam Reid asks if there's been any grievances files other than Nate's. She
admits to not thoroughly reading her mail, so she may have missed them.
Joy Fisher asks what the forum proposed in Motion 00-11 would have the
power to do, as it is not spelled out in the motion. She also notes, "I
am sure Nathan has already received a fair hearing from the DBS." [Well,
actually, yes, he has and he will. But oddly enough, he deserves one from
his elected representatives too.]
12 May 2000:
Tina Vickery notes to the Board that the OHGenWeb page is no longer in
compliance with the guidelines postes on the USgW national page for state
pages. OHGW is participating in the civil disobedience by flying the
"USGW in mourning" logo and linking to the Civil Disobedience page at:
http://www.radix.net/~merope/usgwcd.htm. She notes, without providing any
evidence, that the SC of the OHGW participated in the protest "contrary
to the expressed wishes of the county coordinators." [Another OH CC notes
that only 5 of some 88 OHGW CCs expressed a negative opinion of the
protest.] Tina states "These actions are interpreted as constituting a
resignation. I, therefore, move that we accept the resignation of
OHGenWeb from the USGenWeb Project." [Also of interest, although Tina
never bothers to mention it, is that neither she nor any else on the Baord
bothered to contact the OHGW SC to ask that the page be brought into
compliance, nor was the two week period observed. Her motion is also
phrased in such as way that the _entire_ OHGW would be delinked, thus
avoiding the necessity of 2/3 of the Board and 2/3 of the OH CCs voting to
fire the SC. We know that Maggie Stewart Zimmerman has been trying to get
rid of her SC ever since he moved the OHGW off of RW; what a novel way to
try to accomplish her goals.]
Tina withdraws her motion when the OHGW repairs the violations of the
state guidelines on its web page. [A brief and unofficial survey is being
undertaken of USGW state pages; thus far none, including Tim Stowell's
GAGW page, is in full compliance with the guidelines.]
Barbara Dore posts a timeline for the incorporation of the USGenWeb Census
Project, which reads in part:
"Mar 15, 2000 - A massive download of BOTH USGenWeb Census Project files
and USGenWeb ARCHIVES CENSUS PROJECT files from BOTH project's
directories, was discovered in progress by RW staff and the session was
killed and is logged.
Mar 17th, 2000 File (original) date for most of the ftp directories for
storing Census Project files on USGENNET.ORG
ftp://ftp.us-census.org/pub/usgenweb/census/ (also see below)
Mar 26, 2000 - Ron Eason registered us-census.net & us-census.org domains
April 3, 2000 - Ron Eason filled and signed a form for incorporating the
above project as a "DOMESTIC PROFIT CORPORATION".
April 3, 2000 - Name of corporation: USGENWEB CENSUS PROJECT, Inc.
April 3, 2000 - File #40950A
April 3, 2000 - Stated that the initial number of common stock is - 500
shares
April 4, 2000 - Ron Eason paid $60.00 for filing fees for the above
April 6, 2000 - The above Census Project was DELINKED by Tim Sowell,
National Coordinator of USGWP
April 19, 2000 - Official filing date due to "waiting period" in the state
of Michigan
May 1, 2000 - The Census project announced that they had moved to the
USGENNET.org server and proclaimed on their pages that they were a
corporation.
May 1, 2000 - The State of Michigan was contacted and confirmed the above
incorporation status of the for-profit USGENWEB CENSUS PROJECT, INC.
May 1, 2000 - News of the above incorporation hit cyberspace.
May 1, 2000 - Motion 00-10 to sever its relationship with the USGenWeb
Census Project, Inc. headed by Ron Eason was made.
May 3, 2000 Mr. Fred Smoot, of USGENNET, Inc., reports that .Mr. Eason has
dissolved the above domestic for-profit corporation.
May 6, 2000 - Carole Hammett, secretary of USGENNET posts a statement on
USGW-CC-L, that Ron Eason claims the State of Michigan had mailed him the
for-profit corporation forms instead of the nonprofit forms. She also
states because he did not have expertise in this field, and because the
form didn't include the phrases for-profit or commercial (Note: it plainly
says: DOMESTIC PROFIT CORPORATION in bold), Ron had no idea that he had
completed the wrong form, and was terribly upset.
[Barbara seems to be trying to make the point here that Ron's
incorporation and registering the CP domains could not have been caused by
Tim's delinking because they preceeded the delinking, and she is
absolutely correct. Ron began proceedings to incorporate the CP and
register its domains in response to Motion 00-6 which, if you recall,
included a provision for delinking the CP and/or the ACP if either
appeared to acting in bad faith during the Board's attempt to force a
merger. It had nothing to do with the delinking, but the delinking surely
reinforced the need for protection from the rapacious predations of a
vindictive and power hungry tin dictator and his herd of lap dogs.]
Tim calls for a vote on Motion 00-11.
13 May 2000:
Joy Fisher again asks "Could someone define a "fair" forum?" She notes
there is nothing in the bylaws regaring this and says the Board should be
careful of setting precedent. She notes that to her "a "fair" forum would
be held in person, with all CCs present. 12 (or a similar representative
number) of CC names are drawn from a hat -- regardless of their
affiliations within the organization. These 12 then could ask questions
of the Board, the NC, and all the folks in the census projects." She
seems to believe the forum should be held face to face rather than by
email, unless it is just for talk and posturing;" in that case, email
would be acceptable.
Thus far, two Board members have voted "yes" on Motion 00-11.
Pam Reid forwards a message from Sue Soden, of the Census Project, and
notes she will answer her questions tomorrow. Sue makes several points in
her message, which is a rebuttal to several of Pam's messages on Board-L
and in other forums:
"1) Kay Mason never refused to format the files in the set standardsPlease
remember, I was the one who formatted most of the files when Kay was in
charge.
2) Kay Mason started the second ftp directory because Linda and the
Archives would not allow the Census Project to upload to their own
password protected directory. Linda did not want the CP to have their own
file managers like the Tombstone Project either. She wanted the databases
to be sent to the Archives FM's instead of Kay and I training new file
managers for the CP. The Archives FM's did not want their passwords
handed out to another group of file managers
3) I personally offered to Linda and Brian (on the phone at different
times) to move the CP pages to a different account/server on Rootsweb.
Both Brian and Linda said it was not necessary. They also did not tell me
that the Census Project accounts were vulnerable to other account holder's
changes. I was not told that Tim could do what he did. Without our
knowledge, Tim locked us out of the account that has been the Census
Project's web pages for years.
4) It was not the Census Project who refused to participate in the last
negotiations. The Census Project was very open to working with the
Archives to find a peaceful solution. It was the Archives Census Project
who would not participate. I was told they were shy and did not want to
speak on a publicly archived mail list. Why? Weren't they able to speak
their true thoughts in the open? Why the closed door conferences? Why
shouldn't the entire USGW have access to the negotiations?
5) The national coordinator did not follow the bylaws when he unlinked the
Census Project. The board should have had a discussion and formal vote
first.
5) The CP pages were moved to a different server because the national
coordinator had tampered with our RootsWeb account and we were locked out
of our account. We could not update the Census Project web pages.
6) The incorporation was to be non-profit. Filing with the state was
necessary before federal non-profit status could be accomplished. If time
had allowed, it would have been completed as non-profit. Non-Profit status
for the Census Project was desired to protect the copyrights of the
transcriber's files. The server the Census Project is on now, is totally
non-profit, so exactly why should anyone have concerns about what our
motive are?"
Sue also asks Pam, "isn't it deceptive to tell transcribers that their
work is copyrighted and then turn around and tell them that it never was
eligible for copyright in the first place? If the transcription work isn't
eligible for copyright by the transcribers, and the USGW isn't a
non-profit inc., just who does this published work belong to? By the way,
if the USGW isn't incorporated, it has no identity and cannot own
material. Just what is the USGW doing? Can you explain?"
===
That, folks, brings us up to date. I'm sure more exciting developments
await us in Board-land. Until next time!
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
-----
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.
From merope@Radix.Net Sun May 14 16:56:27 2000
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 16:56:26 -0400 (EDT)
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.SV4.3.96.1000514144152.27969A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Go ahead, make my day...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Sunday 14 May 2000:
Voting continues on Motion 00-11, "that our NC provide a FAIR forum to
hear the grievance(s) against himself and Board Members." Thus far, 3
members have voted "yes" and one has voted "no."
In the process of voting "no", Joy Fisher notes that she feels "as though
I have been handed a blank check and asked to sign it and am being told
"Don't worry about the details, we'll fill them in later."
In response, Jim notes "it would be better than just sweeping it under the
rug. Is there another way? Or are we going to just refuse to deal with
it? Should everyone that disagrees with the way things were done just go
away?..We can not judge ourselves, so the bylaws don't apply in this
situation. If Tim and the Majority of the Board really feel that they
have done nothing wrong, let Tim appoint some volunteers to look at the
situation and make a determination...If Tim makes an attempt to appoint a
fair committee to look at each point in the grievance, I would live by
their determination, how about you?"
===
Thieves' Honor Corner: Turns out that even though CART programmer Phil
Beshear has explicitly denied permission to use the software or any
pages derived from to members of the Archives Census Project, the ACP is
still handing the software out to its transcribers, _and_ presenting it
as designed by and for the ACP. See:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/usgwcart/index.html. This page contains
the statement that "CART was designed and developed by the USGenWeb
Archives Census Project to assist its volunteers in transcribing the
census," and Phil Beshear's name is nowhere mentioned on the page. We
understand that the owner of Root$web has been contacted in regards to
this "oversight."
Slight Misrepresentation Corner: We also hear that at least one file
manager for the Archives Census Project is contacting transcription
and proofreading volunteers for the CP and representing himself as
coordinator for the Census Project. Kevin Fraley, who coordinates the
Oregon portion of the ACP has recently sent out a letter to transcribers
and proof-readers insisting that they join some mailing list or other, and
signs himself "Kevin Fraley Oregon State Coordinator USGenweb Census
Project."
Ignorance Is No Defense Corner: Finally, our somewhat-less-than-glorious
leader, Tim Stowell, has invoked a "the format is ours" defense in
response to numerous complaints about Census Project transcriptions that
were altered to appear as though they were submitted to the the ACP [the
list of 95 or so files given here a few weeks ago.] Tim, on April 26,
wrote to the complainants, "When one submits material to be added to
webpages - the material must have extra wrapping (HTML code) to surround
it so that folks can see the material online. As I understand it, the
ACP standard just means that your files met their standards. Your
copyright only extends to the data, which has not been changed. The
'wrapper' belongs to our archives..." [All well and good, but Tim seems
unaware that 1) the files in question are text files and have no HTML
coding; and 2) the files were not submitted to the ACP and the ACP has no
business wrapping its code or attaching its "standards" statement to
them. Bottom line, of course, is the files are still there, still
incorrect, still in violation of both the submitter's wishes and the
letter and spirit of the project guidelines, and still being defended by
our integrity-challenged NC.]
All in all, a stunning display of moral, ethics, and dare I say it,
goodwill, from the Archives, its staff, and supporters.
===
"Tell the truth and the world will come to see it at last."
---Ralph Emerson
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
-----
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.