From merope@Radix.Net Mon May 22 13:31:21 2000
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 13:31:16 -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.SV4.3.96.1000522060634.10016C-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
On the other hand...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Sunday 21 May 2000--Monday 22 May 2000:
Voting continues on Motion 00-12. Thus far, 9 members have voted "yes"
and 4 have voted "no". This makes a quorum, and since the last "no"
vote came outside the 48hr window, the "yes" votes have a 2/3 majority.
Scrub those pages!
Teri Pettit notes that regardless of what Joe Zsedeny meant when he
implied that a "no" vote on Motion 00-12 meant that the Board member was
iinterpreting the bylaws however it convenienced them, she sees "I see no
reason to suppose that EITHER the protest logo displayers OR those who
vote against the motion OR those who support the motion are ignoring the
Bylaws when it's convenient for them...Respect for our peers demands that
we assume we all have the integrity to follow the Bylaws according to what
we believe they say. Those who display the logos are doing it precisely as
a way of expressing their fervent support for the Bylaws. And those who
are voting to prohibit those logos are likewise doing it in support of the
Bylaws as they see them." In a side note to Tim Stowell, Teri grants him
the assumption that he honestly believes "that the Bylaws allow delinking
Projects to be consumed under the heading of "day-to-day business", even
though it is far beyond the kind of trivial non-controversial actions that
I would interpret such a phrase to ever be intended to cover. I would not
suggest that you were "ignoring" the Bylaws when it was convenient for
you, only that you have an unusual interpretation of what "day-to-day
business" is."
Teri also points out to Tim that she cannot find any mail sent to her that
discusses "whether the appropriate way to call for volunteers would be to
use a private email address vs volunteering through some more public
forum, nor any msg that mentions who reads email sent to that address, nor
anything that says what will be done with email sent to that address, nor
any messages that have been sent to that address and then forwarded to the
Board." She does not one email sent to Board-Exec on 17 May in which Tim
announced that he asked Board Secretary Ken Short to issue a call for
volunteers and requested the closing date of May 21. She notes "An
announcement of something that has already been arranged does not make the
recipients of the announcement parties in the decision." Teri also cannot
find any mail inviting her to the MSGW chat, but notes that since she
doesn't have access to IRC she does not object to not being invited. She
says she is willing to sit on the "Committee" [presumably the election
committee] but can only do so if she is allowed to be uninvolved until
after June 1, as she is extremely busy at work.
Ginger Hayes notes that she does read her mail and saw nothing about an
invitation to the MSGW chat and only knew about it because she was invited
directly. She notes "There's nothing like a smart-mouthed know-it-all.
What is that Proverb?......better to be thought a fool and be silent than
to open your mouth and prove it." She suggests that Tim owes Teri an
apology and says "If you want to ban me from this list have at it. The
only business done isn't done here anyway!"
Joe responds to Teri that his comments referred to "to those who are upset
about the delinking and now post the logos." He notes "If a black, blue,
red or whatever color ribbon were displayed on a page it would not be
cause for a motion. But defacing the USGW logo is worthy of the motion
because, to put it nicely, it results in an unofficial logo." He says "I
also know that this whole sorry mess is being milked by some for all the
venom that can be produced to satisfy selfish and mean spirited ends." He
has personally refrained from getting into "asinine arguments" on the
topic because he doesn't have time to waste changing people's minds. He
also says "I don't participate in any special project and after going thru
this will NEVER participate in a special project except my own. It was a
mistake to include them in the ByLaws and was done in my opinion for
selfish reasons. The ByLaws should be amended to delete mention or
sanction of special projects. Any CC, state project or the USGW Archives
should be able to field a special project with only the few requirements
now mentioned for the pages." [Odd thing for someone who represents a
Special Project to say.] He notes that he also did not receive an
invitation to the MSGW chat or any notice about the election committee,
but notes he is not offended and suggests "Let's just get on with the
elections."
In response to GingerH, Tim Stowell notes that the MSGW chat invite was
sent to Board-Exec and notes "Personally I don't think about members who
may/may not be subscribers to that list. The invitation was a private one
for the Board that did not need to be published here." [Actually, the B-E
message Teri referenced concerned the election committee, not the MSGW
chat, and last I checked GingerH was subbed to B-E. Methinks Timmy has
his Gingers confused.]
GingerH responds "Does that mean you've unsubbed me to Board-Exec? I just
checked it for the whole month and have no such message." She notes that
Teri also searched her mail and quotes ""Oh what tangled webs we
weave.................."
Gloria Mayfield agrees enthusiastically with Joe's comments about the
Special Projects. She says "Our concern should be with the actions of the
States and Counties. The Archives, Tombstone and Census Project should
not be our problem....Now we are talking of Kicking out and Delinking the
XXXState GenWeb Site, a site that believes that the NC and the Advisory
Board has failed and the DEATH of the USGenWeb is coming soon. Is that
Defacing or is it Mourning? WHY don't we get down to business and let the
Archives, Census Project and the Tombstone Project RUN themselves....I
don't think that any of the projects is the business of the Advisory
Board, #1 if we can't advise them, why do we make it our problem? #2
If they do not listen, why talk. I do not feel that Linda Lewis or Ron
Eason needs the Board's Approval, Assistance, or Blessings. Let us Butt
out!!!! If it doesn't concern the USGenWeb, it isn't our business. Do you
think that we need to Delink a State Site that is our Business???? Don't
think so! They ARE the USGenWeb and we ARE the USGenWeb Advisory Board.
If they have a problem , so do we."
Shari Handley forwards a message from MSGW SC Linda Mason to the Board.
Linda says in part:
"I sent the original invite to Tim. When I didn't hear from anyone. I was
afraid it had gotten lost as emails sometimes do. So I resent it and CC'd
My SC rep Shari. I was remiss in not just sending it to each Board
Member but I thought just one note to one person to forward would be
easier than if I sent it to each person. I apologize and should the need
ever arise in the future I will take the time to invite everyone
personally. I want to thank again each person who did participate in the
official chat. I came away from that chat with a new respect and
perspective towards those board members and appreciate their candor and
honesty. I know that things got a little heated after I left, which was
why I ran the Official chat as I did. ..The CC's deserve answers but our
guests don't deserve to be mistreated either...We can speak effectively at
the ballot box, and I intend to encourage that as a way to change what
they are unhappy with as opposed to attacking the individuals in a mean,
nasty way."
===
"Laws are only words words written on paper, words that change on
society's whim and are interpreted differently daily by politicians,
lawyers, judges, and policemen. Anyone who believes that all laws should
always be obeyed would have made a fine slave catcher. Anyone who believes
that all laws are applied equally, despite race, religion, or economic
status, is a fool."
---John J. Miller,
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
-------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.
From merope@Radix.Net Tue May 23 08:51:53 2000
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 08:51:52 -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.SV4.3.96.1000523060509.14861A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Getting the lead out...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Monday 22 May 2000-Tuesday 23 May 2000:
Teri Pettit tells the Board that Jim Powell is unable to access the email
account that is subbed to Board-L and thus is unable to vote on Motion
00-12. She also occasionally is unable to use her regular email address
and asks if the Board can determine policy for these situations. She
suggests three possible solutions: "1. Tough cookies. If you can't access
your subscribed account, you can't vote. 2. Let Tim and/or Ken accept
votes from your alternate account and forward them to BOARD-L, as long as
some prior email from you using the officially subscribed account has
mentioned the alternate address as belonging to you...3. Let Tim & Ken
accept votes from any old account, if they contain some other secret
identifying information that has been agreed upon beforehand. Forward the
votes to BOARD-L only after deleting the identifying information."
Joy Fisher tells Teri that Jim can send his vote directly to Tim or to
another Board member who can forward it; she herself has done this when
her mail system was down. Maggie Stewart Zimmerman also says she's sent
her vote directly to the NC when she couldn't use her regular mail.
Tim notes that Teri's "option 2" has been the usual way of handling these
occurrences in the past, but notes "Of course if no one lets anyone know
that they'll be gone or can not contact someone, it unfortunately falls
into option 1."
Gloria Mayfield says she received nothing in her mail about the MSGW chat
or the formation of the election committee. [Its beginning to look like
Tim didn't invite _anyone_ to that chat.]
Tim posts a list of 27 people who have volunteered for the election
committee [an excellent turnout, btw. I won't reprint the list here, but
if you'd like a copy, let me know. Yes, my name is on it.]
Tim appoints Roger Swafford to be the Chair of the Election Committee [an
_excellent_ choice; I've worked with Roger before and he is more than
competent to run the EC.]
Tim recommends that the Board create the Election Committee with the
following structure" "Chair - 2 AB members - 1 SC/ASC member - 5 CCs - 4
alternate CCs to fill any position that opens. This would make it a
committee of 8 plus the chair. This way the committee would be 2/3 CCs,
1/3 AB and SC/ASC." He notes this would be a "bottom up approach." [Hey,
he would know.]
===
An Embarrasment of Riches Corner: Wow! _27_ volunteers for the Election
Committee! This is, by the standards of previous election committees and
the USGW, an amazing response, and all who volunteered are to be
commended.
Of course, nothing in USGW can be without its problems. A few project
members who claim to have submitted offers to volunteer within the alotted
time frame but whose names do not appear on the list have surfaced. There
is also some little disgruntlement by some Board and project members
regarding Tim's idea of "bottoms up" management. They wonder why
"bottom's up" management includes: 1) Tim selecting the EC Chair [the
Board's always voted on it before]; 2) Tim proposing the structure of the
committee [never been any particular structure before]; and 3) Tim
limiting the size of the committee to some arbitrary number [if 27 people
want to serve, why shouldn't they?]. Given the history of this project,
any elimination of anyone will be met with scepticism as to motives, and
may serve to discourage people who wish to serve the project. There is
certainly enough work to go around. No mention is made as to how the
winnowing of 27 volunteers down to eight will be accomplished, nor of how
the two Board members will be selected, or even whether Tim will be one of
the two. [According to the bylaws he is supposed to be an ex officio
member of all committees and as we recall, last year he behaved very badly
about it.]
We are sure that all will be resolved to someone's satisfaction. In the
meantime, Pam Reid has put up a very nice election page here:
http://www.usgenweb.com/elections/election-central.html Nominations will
be accepted starting June 1 and running through June 15. Prior to that
time, a Nominations Committee must be up and running [there's something
for some of those 27 people to do <g>] to accept nominations and certify
candidates. There are positions open in every region, and all three
Special Project representative positions and the National
Coordinatorship are open as well. Please consider running for National
office; don't let "them" have all the fun!
===
"They can't censor the gleam in my eye."
---Charles Laughton
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 May 24 14:53:24 2000
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 14:53:22 -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.SV4.3.96.1000524060402.22850A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
Just when you thought it was safe...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Tuesday 23 May 2000
Teri Pettit proposes that "the Election Committee is comprised of
everyone who volunteered, and then disqualify anyone on the Election
Committee from running for any position in the upcoming election. So if
anyone who volunteered is thinking of running for NC or the Board, they
should remove themselves from the list. And then let them pick their own
chair, with Roger to be the acting chair until they can do so." She notes
that 27 would be a large committee but not impossible and it is hard to
think of an object way of reducing the number. She's open to suggestions
on now "to construct a smaller committee without allowing anyone's
personal biases or any political factors to enter into the selection
process," but is unable to think of one herself."
Holy Fee Timm thinks there should be at least a couple of Board members on
the committee.
Ginger Hayes thinks Teri's idea is not bad and notes that there is also a
Nominations Committee to think of, unless "the thing will be handled
differently this time."
Tim forwards a message to the Board from Roger Swafford in which he notes
that his appointment as Chair of the Elecions Committee came as a surprise
to him and "Provided the AB does not exercise their authority to overturn,
I accept." He says "I urge the AB to act post-haste in selecting the
remaining members. The recommendation of the NC for 9 members total is
large enough for the task and small enough to be efficient in operation.
It is refreshing to see the large number of volunteers willing to
participate."
Tim publishes a second list of corrections to the volunteer list he
published previously.
Tim notes that he had previously asked several Board members to serve on
the committee; Barbara Dore and Ginger declined and Teri Pettit is not
available until after June 1. That said he proposes his suggestions for
the Election Committee members:
"For the AB members: Tina Vickery, Shari Handley
For the SC/ASC member: Marti Graham - SC OK
For the 5 CCs and 4 alternates:
NW region - Jerimiah Moerke (MN - SD)
SW region - Shirley Scott (MO), Carolyn Ward (KS)- alternate
NE region - Alice J. Gayley (PA), Kristen Howell (NY), Carol Montrose
(OH)- alternate
SE region - Vicki Shaffer (TN), Gerald Westmoreland (MS)- alternate, Diane
Montgomery Parsons (KY) - alternate"
Tim's selection process was thus: "In reviewing the names from the
previous list, trying to be fair between the knowns and unknowns, those
some may like, those that some may dislike,..." [Its apparently also based
on the number of people that volunteered from each region.]
[Interestingly enough, one of Tim's picks noted _two days ago_ that she
had been picked to be on the EC; our Smooth Operator has been busy working
from the bottom up again.]
Ginger Cisewski reminds the board that both Shari and Tina [Tim's picks
for the Board reps on the EC] are currently the subject of grievances
submitted by project members and suggests that "Having either of them
serve on the Election Committee will further the growing belief that this
Election will somehow be manipulated by the Board." She also notes that
there needs to be only one Board member on the EC to act as a liaison, and
recommends Teri or Gloria, saying "Neither is included in the group
mentioned in the outstanding grievances, and since the elections are over
well before our terms expire, being an outgoing Board member shouldn't be
an issue." She also does not understand why the NC or Board needs to
"micromanage" the committee; in the past the EC Chair chose the committee
members. She moves "that we appoint Roger Swafford Chairperson of the
Election Committee, and further that we provide him with the list of
volunteers and let him choose his own committee members as has been done
in the past."
===
That Girl Corner: Yesterday, the acting SC for the NCGenWeb published a
message to the SC's mailing list in which he asked whether the following
conditions would disqualify someone from running for SC:
"1. Little or no experience in the State Project from which the candidate
seeks nomination.
2. Worked within another XXGW organization outside of the State Project
from which the candidate seeks nomination.
3. Worked in various and sundry special USGW Projects but not in County
level.
4. A genealogical and organizational background but has never been in a
USGW state project."
He also asked for any examples of SCs who met any of the above. We
thought he was trying to disqualify someone from running, but we were
wrong. It turns out that there is only one credible candidate for that
race, Diane Mason, who is a vocal advocate of county-centric organization
and a dedicated opponent of the Archives. Derick [who is acting SC while
Elizabeth is out of town] can't get anyone to run against her and wants to
bring in a ringer, someone who is not involved in NCGenWeb or, if
necessary, someonewho is not even involved in USGW.
Big Announcements Corner: Ron Eason, National Coordinator of the USGenWeb
Census Project has announced that the CP has incorporated as a non-profit
public benefit corporation in the state of Michigan. Documents showing
the articles of the new corporation and the filing papers can be viewed at
the CP's new home page: http://www.us-census.org. The CP has also issued
a "Proclamation and Resolution" of its mission and goals; it can be read
at: http://www.us-census.org/resolution.htm
Also on the topic of the CP, PAGenWeb conducted an informal poll of its
members, asking "Do you support the action of the USGenWeb Project
National Coordinator and Advisory Board to de-link the USGenWeb Census
Project?" Only 20 of the 53 members responded, but 18 of them said they
did not support the delinking of the CP.
She's Baaack Corner: We hear that Linda Lewis, who resigned in a
huff only few short weeks ago because she could't get her way, is back as
VAGenWeb Asst State Coordinator. She's already managed to scare off one
CC, who published a moving resignation letter to every project list she
was subscribed to. The CC says, in part:
"After much prayer and soul searching, I have decided that I will no
longer maintain the [deleted] County VAGenweb page. I am telling you, the
volunteers first, because you are the ones where my loyalty is. I have
removed my own work, including backgrounds and graphics from the website,
because it seems apparent, that the county pages are being eroded and
absorbed into a larger data base (the archives) that is controlled by a
single individual... All of the archives pages are on Rootsweb, and
Rootsweb is now a for profit corporation. I have read on the
"administrative" mail lists that the individual who has control over the
archives is a paid staff member of Rootsweb... Most of the time, I have
felt like a hypocrite taking your work, because county coordinators are
not allowed freedom of speech to let volunteers know the actual
politics, so the volunteers can make INFORMED CHOICES...There are many
wonderful, dedicated people in the USGenweb project who keep "hanging in
there" but if they speak out, they are "severed" from the project....If I
am not kicked out of the project for allowing you to CHOOSE whether to
maintain control over your own work, then this letter will be sent to all
the USGenweb "administrative" mail lists that I am on, as my official
resignation and as a protest, that we are not allowed freedom of speech
nor the right to know, nor the right to choose. The entire Ohio Genweb
project was threatened with "severance" just the other day, because they
believe the public has a right to know what is happening and and the right
to make choices."
The CC says that she's removed all her own work from the page, and
gone off to work with Jeff Weaver. [Which really ought to push Linda's
buttons.]
===
"Where ignorance is our master, there is no possibility of real peace."
---Dalai Lama
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 May 25 06:54:34 2000
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 06:54:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: News Flash!
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000525064804.24601C-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
Tim has asked for unanimous consent on Motion 00-13:
"I move that we appoint Roger Swafford Chairperson of the Election
Committee, and further that we provide him with the list of volunteers and
let him choose his own committee members as has been done in the past."
If no Board member objects by 7:00 am EST today, it will be declared
passed.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
From merope@Radix.Net Thu May 25 08:49:44 2000
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 08:49:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: News Flash! [or, I'm an idiot]
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000525084540.28671E-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
Sorry, folks, due to completely being confused as to what day it is, I
mistakenly reported an incorrect date by which Board members must object
to Motion 00-13 [see below]. The correct time frame for response is
Friday 26 May, 0700 EST.
I do apologize for the confusion.
-Teresa
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 06:54:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: News Flash!
Tim has asked for unanimous consent on Motion 00-13:
"I move that we appoint Roger Swafford Chairperson of the Election
Committee, and further that we provide him with the list of volunteers and
let him choose his own committee members as has been done in the past."
If no Board member objects by 7:00 am EST today, it will be declared
passed.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
From merope@Radix.Net Thu May 25 19:47:07 2000
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 19:45:33 -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.SV4.3.96.1000525084436.28671D-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
Have at it...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Wednesday 24 May 2000--Thursday 25 May 2000:
Jim Powell seconds GingerC's motion to "appoint Roger Swafford Chairperson
of the Election Committee, and further that we provide him with the list
of volunteers and let him choose his own committee members as has been
done in the past."
Tim Stowell gives the Motion number 00-13 and in order to save time asks
for "unanimous consent on the motion so that Roger can form the committee
and begin its work. Tim describes "unanimous consent" thus: "We can skip
discussing this for 48 hours and then voting for 48 hours. There will not
be a vote as such. If not more than 2 members object to the motion, it
will automatically pass."
Tim corrects himself on what "unanimous" means: "if the motion has no more
than 1 member objecting to the motion as of (07:00 EST, 5/26,Friday), the
motion will be considered as having been passed."
===
A Hot Time In The Old South Corner: Well, NCGenWeb is certainly a hot
place these days. Apparently, SC Elizabeth Harris is out of town until
this weekend. In her absence, her Asst. SC Derick Hartshorn is calling
himself the "Acting SC", has "assumed the SC chair", and is apparently
trying to force certain events to occur before she returns. According to
sources on the ground, he is trying to 1) close the nominations process
for the upcoming SC election early; 2) force the bylaws committee to issue
a report early; 3) eliminate candidates from the SC race based on dubious
qualifications; 4) bring in a ringer from outside NCGW to run for NCGW SC;
and 5) eliminate opposition by threatening to unsub anyone who broaches
any topic he deems unsuitable on the state mailing list [and apparently
discussing _any_ national business, including the upcoming national
election, is forbidden]. One NCGW member has already been unsubbed from
the mailing list apparently for comments made on another list and we hear
that a grievance has been filed with the Board concerning this and his
other recent actions. According to the complaint, Derick has arbitrarily
unsubbed the CC while allowing other members of NCGW to continue to attack
her publicly and continue political discussion that he has previously
indicated would result in removal from the list. The grievant also notes
that relevant list rules currently under consideration but not ratified
would allow only for a set period of "time-out", but this consideration
was not followed in this case of unsubbing.
In an announcement to the NCGW, Derick says "was taken administratively
and came after repeated requests and warnings relating to messages deemed
offensive, divisive, abusive and, in my opinion, detrimental to the
overall harmony and well-being of the list and the NCGenWeb Project...
This action has not been taken lightly and comes, not just after
communications of the past week but after many, many months of abusive
behavior by [name deleted].. The question of whether this action is
appropriate and merited has been sustained by the National Coordinator
as well as the SE Advisory Board in their personal communications to me.
It will stand in place until the State Coordinator either upholds my
actions or rescinds them." He also notes that ""While a pending list
policy has been announced and posted on the web, its lack of adoption does
not preclude further disciplinary action being taken to those that abuse
the list or those that post to it...disruptive behavior and actions deemed
to be detrimental to the NCGW and its volunteers will not be tolerated
and perpretators will not be permitted to continue further agitation."
[The Board now has anywhere from 5-9 grievances on its plate; we here
another one involving possible irregularites in an election held
previously in the NCGW has also been forwarded. I am not aware that any
of these grievances have been addressed or responded to by any person on
the Board, including the so-called Ombudsman, Kevin Fraley.]
===
"In every government on earth is some trace of human weakness, some germ
of corruption and degeneracy, which cunning will discover, and wickedness
insensibly open, cultivate and improve."
---Thomas Jefferson
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
-------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.
From merope@Radix.Net Fri May 26 22:28:01 2000
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 22:28:00 -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.SV4.3.96.1000526075845.1197A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
This ain't no disco...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Thursday 25 May 2000:
Joy Fisher notes ""... because we've always done it that way." is the
lamest reason for doing something," but notes she has no objections to
allowing Roger Swafford to select members for the Election Committee with
whom he is comfortable.
[Since no one publicly raised any objections to Motion 00-13 and the 0700
EST response deadline has passed, it looks like Roger Swafford is our new
EC chair. Congrats to Roger!]
===
Oops, What I Meant To Say Was... Corner: King For a Day Derick Hartshorn
has retracted his assertion that his action in unsubbing a NCGW CC "has
been sustained by the National Coordinator as well as the SE Advisory
Board in their personal communications to me." As it turns out, one of
the SE representatives supports his actions, and two do not. One of these
two made the point that Derick's own posts on the topic violate his list
rules. Our Esteemed National Coordinator also supports Derick's actions
[natch, Derick is practically a chip off the old block.]
===
"We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a
false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still."
---John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
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 May 27 07:56:56 2000
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 07:56:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: merope@radix.net
Subject: Daily Board Show
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000527075328.16672B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
[Sorry, yesterday's DBS was again delayed by ListBot. For those of you
who are wondering why you are getting these twice, I am both sending it
individually to your inbox and also to ListBot so it will go into the
online archive. When ListBot catches up, you'll get this a second time. I
apologize for any inconvenience.]
---
This ain't no disco...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Thursday 25 May 2000:
Joy Fisher notes ""... because we've always done it that way." is the
lamest reason for doing something," but notes she has no objections to
allowing Roger Swafford to select members for the Election Committee with
whom he is comfortable.
[Since no one publicly raised any objections to Motion 00-13 and the 0700
EST response deadline has passed, it looks like Roger Swafford is our new
EC chair. Congrats to Roger!]
===
Oops, What I Meant To Say Was... Corner: King For a Day Derick Hartshorn
has retracted his assertion that his action in unsubbing a NCGW CC "has
been sustained by the National Coordinator as well as the SE Advisory
Board in their personal communications to me." As it turns out, one of
the SE representatives supports his actions, and two do not. One of these
two made the point that Derick's own posts on the topic violate his list
rules. Our Esteemed National Coordinator also supports Derick's actions
[natch, Derick is practically a chip off the old block.]
===
"We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a
false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still."
---John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
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 28 18:27:43 2000
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 18:27:42 -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.SV4.3.96.1000528080326.12012C-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
Better late than never...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Friday 26 May 2000:
Tim Stowell says that since no opposition was voiced to Motion 00-13, "it
automatically passes by unanimous consent as of 7 AM 5/26 EST."
Tim forwards a message from new Election Committee Chair Roger Swafford in
which Rogers accepts the recommendations of the NC for committee
membership, and the Election Committee will be as follows: Tina Vickery,
Shari Handley, Marti Graham, Alice Gayely, Kristen Howell, Jerimiah
Moerke, Shirley Scott, Vicki Shaffer. Alternates; Carolyn Ward, Carol
Montrose, Gerald Westmoreland, Diane Montgomery Parsons.
===
Alternate Reality Corner: We have suddenly become the focus of quite a
bit of mail from North Carolina. Although the majority of it does not
support Derick Hartshorn's unsubbing of Diane Mason [currently the only
candidate for SC in the upcoming NCGW election], there is one person who
would like the other side of the story presented [the following has been
edited for clarity and brevity]:
"I have read what you wrote about NCGenWeb project and you must not know
what is going on here or else you did this for Diane....I am a cc here and
you are not. You do not know what she does and whats happened. You should
get your facts straight before you go writing things....You must be trying
to get Diane elected, or you would not be writing those things. Do you
know if she is elected what will happen? Everybody will quit except the
people she has just brought in who are helping her do this thing right
now....Diane's rights have not been violated she has violated everbody
else's rights. Do you know what she does now when somebody writes
something she does not like? She sends letters to their internet service
to try to get them disconnected...That is when Derick removed her because
there was no call for that. The person she did this to did not do anything
to her, Diane just wants to get rid of that person because she is on a
committee writing bylaws and Diane wants her off...Do you know who has
started all this trouble? It was Diane and the people she just brought in
mostly Terria. They are the only ones causing trouble except for a few
people who already were Diane's people. I dont believe for one minute
Derick is trying to bring in somebody from outside like you say. Who told
you that, Diane or some of her people? Do you know who her people are?
Terria is one of them and she is the head of the committee to write the
bylaws. Diane brought her in in April and firs [sic] thing she started
saying we had to have bylaws before our election and would not quit until
Elizabeth finally let her write them. Elizabeth made a committee and
Terria said I want to be chairman so Elizabeth let her. She is the one
wanted the committee to finish early while Elizabeth was away not
Derick...Would you come into a new project for only two weeks and start
saying everything is wrong and saying the vote was not legal and making
everybody stop the project so you can write bylaws?...Diane has 7 counties
and just lately she started bringing in people to be co-hosts and to act
like they've adopted some of her other counties but they are not. Diane is
still doing those counties....Why don't you write about real things that
happen like how we have some new person Diane brought in who hasn't even
done a website who comes in here saying how we ought to run things and
then gets herself chairman of a commitee thats supposed to write the rules
for who can run as SC. Then she gets her co-cc to nominate her for
SC....That is a real conflict of interest but you don't write about
that...Every list has rules and listowners remove people from lists all
the time for flaming other listmembers and for stirring up trouble. Why
should our list be any different? You may not want to tell the truth but
now I know for sure you know it. Other people will to. [sic]"
[The author, who sent this anonymously, is assured that 1) I speak to many
people on these issues; not all of them support Diane, not all of them
support Derick; 2) my information that Derick is considering bringing in a
ringer and close the bylaws committee early comes from sources other than
current candidates; 3) regardless of how I personally feel about the
qualifications of any candidate in any race in any project in the USGW, it
is wrong and always will be wrong to arbritrarily enforce _unpublished_
rules of conduct against any person or set of persons and not against
others who are essentially guilty of the same offense. The two people
involved in this issue have gone at each other for a long time, and one of
them finally has the authority to shut the other one up. As Will said,
"It is excellent / To have a giant's strength, but it is tyrannous / To
use it like a giant."]
Of course, now that Elizabeth is back, Derick is claiming that resolution
of this problem is out of his hands, saying "I no longer have the
authority to influence the outcome of the situation." He suggests that
those who still take issue with his actions forward their opinions to
Board member Jim Powell.
As a minor aside to this controversy, our Esteemed National Coordinator
has written privately to inform me that he does support the expediency of
censorship of unpopular persons and views, noting "I support him [Derick]
to the point that listowners make the rules and are charged with the duty
of maintaining decorum on lists. It is ridiculous to allow one person to
make everyone else uncomfortable on a list."
===
"If I lived in China or even Russia, or any totalitarian country, Maybe I
could understand some of these illegal injunctions. ... But somewhere I
read of the freedom of assembly. Somewhere I read of the freedom of
speech. Somewhere I read of the freedom of the press. Somewhere I read
that the greatness of America is the right to protest for right.
---Martin Luther King jr. [who made a whole lot of people very
uncomfortable indeed]
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
-------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.
From merope@Radix.Net Tue May 30 14:17:53 2000
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 14:17:52 -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.SV4.3.96.1000529080507.2740A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
Making everyone uncomfortable...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Saturday 27 May--Monday 29 May 2000:
There was no public Board activity on these dates.
===
Bigger and Better Corner: The weekly newsletters for the respective
Census Projects are out, and it appears that the Census Project is
whipping the Archives Census Project's hind end. The Census Project
[http://www.us-census.org] reports 21 state/county/year transcriptions
uploaded, while the ACP [a wholly-owned subsidiary of Root$web.com
at http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/census/] reports only 12. There's no
overlap between the two, so at least the ACP is apparently no longer
helping itself to the CP transcribers' files.
My Inbox Floweth Over Corner: Following publication a few days ago of
Anonymous' letter about what is "really" going on in NCGenWeb, I have
heard from several members of Diane Mason's alleged posse, and all assure
me, NCGW, and the USGW in general that 1) they are not "pawns" of anyone,
they serve the USGW and NCGW because they want to make a contribution to
online genealogy, not because they want to forward anyone's agenda; and 3)
they are dismayed in the extreme at the treatment of the newbies in this
project. Some excerpts from their comments:
"For the record, I am NOBODYS political pawn...I deeply resent the
implications and accusations that were made against the Newbies Diane
brought to NCGenWeb. and now have to wonder if all the time I have put
into my county over the last six months was for naught. I have not gotton
involved in what is going on in North Carolina, I have not taken sides. I
have not thrown my hat behind Diane or Derick. I tried to go on about my
own business. Yet even keeping my mouth shut, it seems I was not safe from
the accusations of others. Makes me wonder what I am even doing here
anymore."
"I would like to make it perfectly clear...that, I asked Diane to stay on
as co-host for Pasquotank and Albermarle County... it was in the best
interest of our patrons that visit our sites, to have someone that can
respond to, when necessary, without undue delay...it was not Diane that
'brought' Terria onboard...I had a large hand in that. In conclusion, I
would like to mention that, Terria, B J, and myself have our own websites,
that we have designed and maintain without any outside assistance. I would
appreciate anyone that seeks to criticize us, please get your facts in
order first."
"Diane Mason is no saint, as are none of us, but to put her on "read only"
status is a violation of her right to free speech and an act of hypocrisy.
I feel people should know that others were in violation too. What is more
of an insult, is that after putting her on "read only" status, more
degrading, insulting accusations was hurled at her and she could not
respond. Is this the way candidates for office are treated in this
project?...I was recruited in April by Diane Mason, and I have no
experience doing web pages, that is true. She has been gracious enough to
show me how to edit html. I am still learning and I have much left to
learn...Are all new volunteers expert in Web design? Were they when they
first signed on to this project? I think not! Now, you ask am I Diane's
pawn that she can jerk and I will do whatever she wants? NO ABSOLUTELY
NOT! If this is the way "newbies" are treated in the project I am
wondering if I may be wasting my time here. The other thing is that I
didn't see anyone else stepping up volunteering to work on the committee.
It took a "newbie" who was too ignorant of the politics to realize that it
can't be done!"
Piling On Corner: The USGenWeb Advisory Board has received [so far]
_five_ grievances from TnGenWeb member Carole Hammett, variously naming
Our Esteemed National Coordinator Tim Stowell, Pam Reid, and Linda
Lewis as . The topics range from inappropriate commercial activity and
adverstisement on the USGW main pages to appropriated files in the
Archives. This brings the known number of grievances up to about 15, with
no end in sight and no indication as to what exactly the Board will do
with them. [The full texts of the grievances will follow in separate
messages; some are quite lengthy and include extensive supporting
documentation. The one involving Linda "Never Let Go" Lewis is particulary
amusing. If you subscribe to the CC-L list, you've already seen these.]
Big Kahuna Corner: Dick Eastman notes in his weekly newsletter that
FamilySearch.org "received its three billionth hit on Saturday, May 13, at
11:45 P.M. The milestone was reached less than a year after the site was
first launched on May 24, 1999...FamilySearch continues to receive as many
as 8 million hits a day." Happy birthday, FamilySearch!
===
"Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of
truth is useful... Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial
of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of
the people, and entombs the hope of the race."
---Charles Bradlaugh
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 May 31 13:14:17 2000
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 13:14:13 -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.SV4.3.96.1000531063254.8611A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
Wasted days and wasted nights...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Wednesday 31 May 2000:
Tina Vickery posts a message from Board Secretary Ken Short regarding a
proposed amendment to the bylaws [see below for a discussion of this
amendment; its roiled the waters quite a bit]. Ken's got his shorts all
in a knot over it, and unapologetically states "I am writing this note to
warn all parties of (as I see it) the impending takeover bid of usgw by
http://www.usgennet.org/ and Fred Smoot, Carole Hammett, Ron Eason, Sue
Soden, Teresa Lindquist and others who seem bent on destroying the USGW."
He notes that "When you have an organization, even a local one, someone
has to be in charge. If you don't you have anarchy. I believe this
particular amendment was put forth simple because a few malcontents do not
like the way things are run, because THEY are not the ones in charge...If
the above amendment passes, the current USGW Project as we know it will
cease to exist. Mr Smoot and his cronies at http://www.usgennet.org/ will
have what they want. They for what ever reason, want the USGW Project off
of the RW server, and on theirs...Also, why do the folks who proposed the
amendment not have the courage to sign their names to it. It was sent out
from "a few concerned CC's". That tells me that whoever wrote it has
something to hide, and do not want to be questioned. I could care less
where an individual CC or an entire State chooses to house their pages, as
long as it is voluntary, as it currently is now. And I have nothing
against http://www.usgennet.org/ as long as they mind their own business
and stay out of the business of USGW. However, when they have their Board
Secretary submit 5 grievances against the AB, I personally think that is a
conflict of interest. Even though she submitted them as a CC. Mr Smoot
has stated he did not write a single word of the amendment, and I happen
to believe him, he probably didn't. But I would bet my last dollar that
he had some input and he is actively encouraging other states to go along
and sponser it, as is his right. Therefore as is my right, I am sending
this to try and counter and defeat this particular amendment."
Maggie Stewart forwards a message from Carson Turner who runs the NCGenWeb
Military Project. On May 14, the NCGWMP--Korean War "was recognized by
the US Department of Defense as a Commemorative Community of the 50th
Anniversary of the Korean War. The program was establish to "ensure our
Korean War Veterans and their families know 'A Grateful Nation Remembers'
their service and sacrifices 50 years ago." The 50th Anniversary
commemoration officially begins on June 25th, 2000 and closes November 11,
2003." Mr. Turner has put up a new page for the Korean War at
http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncmil/koreanwar.htm
===
Something Has Hit the Fan Corner: As announced last night a new proposed
amendment to the bylaws is making the rounds; its posted at:
http://www.geocities.com/usgenwebamend/index.html. From its precis, this
amendment accomplishes the following: "All authority is vested at state
(XXGenWeb) and local levels, including Special Projects; all grievances
handled at XXGenWeb and local level only; prohibits national sanctions;
does away with all national positions other than a national webmaster and
national special project webmasters, each elected by the membership, and
each with no authority other than website maintenance; all national list
managers (State-Coord, USGW-CC-L, etc.) elected by subscribers; adds
perpetual prohibition against commercial activity." The amendment was
written by an anonymous group of "concerned CCs" and propagated by Board
member Ginger Cisewski.
Some provisions in the amendment are interesting. First, the amendment
tries to force the current owners of the usgenweb.com [RW employee Dale
Schneider], usgenweb.net [RW employee Megan Zurawicz] and usgenweb.org
[RootsWeb Genealogical Data Cooperative] to turn them over to the project;
failure to do wo will result in the project acquiring new domains.
Whether or not this is a good idea is debatable. The USGW currently has
NO control over the domains [witness the refusal of RW to change the admin
contacts over to Tim Stowell's name even though the Board requested the
change 15 months ago]. If USGW were to move its pages elsewhere and use
other domains, there is no guarantee that RW will not continue to use the
current domains to its own ends [they are, after all, linked to from
everywhere]. The management of RW has a history of using the
usgenweb.org/xxgenweb domains for its own purposes when a SC decides to
move a state page off of RW; there's no reason to believe they wouldn't do
the same with the main domains. If they simply refuse to register them as
described in the proposed amendment, are we really prepared to give up our
"web identity" over it?
The amendment also appears to make the National Webmaster and
State-Coord-L list manager financially responsible for registering said
new domains and potentially for hosting costs as well, should that be
necessary. The amendment also enjoins the project from incorporating in
perpetuity; I am not at all sure what the reasoning is behind this.
However, should this amendment pass, the project will be fixed as an
"unincorporated non-profit association", thus ensuring that it could not
incorporate or register as a for-profit business in the future.
The biggest change that the amendment proposes is the entire abolishment
of the national government and the reverting of the national pages to a
"hub" that contains little more than links to the state and special
projects. While I have advocated that that is exactly what the national
pages ought to be and the national level organization should do little
more than ensure that state pages are in compliance with the guidelines of
the project, update links, and handle requests for information about USGW,
I'm not sure that eliminating the representative governing body is the way
to go about making that happen. In the proposed amendment, a "national
webmaster" elected by the majority of project members will manage the
national pages. Let's say, for ease of argument, that this person is Tim
Stowell, duly elected. Let's say he gets up on the wrong side of the bed
one morning and decides he doesn't like Texas, never has liked Texas, and
is tired of looking at Texas. *Poof* There goes Texas. And what can the
project do about it? Nothing. Vote him out of office? Sure. But he has
the passwords to the website. Take the passwords away from him? Sure. But
that requires the compliance of the server. Suppose the server operator
doesn't like Texas either, or doesn't want to get involved in the internal
squabbles of the project. Then what? Move the project? That could get a
little confusing, what with our original domains over on RW being used to
sell underwear and enhance the value of Brian's stock portfolio, and our
new domains registered to the National Webmaster. Get new domains? Well,
that's expensive and time consuming and confusing to our visitors. And of
course, this cycle could repeat with the next National Webmaster, who may
decide they don't like Vermont, never have, and are tired of looking at
it...
Despite rumors to the contrary, there is nothing in the amendment that
would force the project to move from to to any particular server. Although
in some quarters, the dreaded spectre of USGenWeb, Inc. and the Dills has
been resurrected, there is also no evidence as to involvement of any of
the persons involved in that incident, nor is there any evidence as to the
involvement of any other particular server in the amendment. A common
thread in the posts against this so-called "States' Rights Amendment" is
that it was written by a small group of people who want to control and/or
destroy USGW. This group includes Carole Hammett, Fred Smoot, Ron Eason,
Sue Soden, and myself. The amendment was posted without attribution; and
assumptions as to its authorship are just that, assumptions. However, I
will state now and for the record, I had nothing to do with it. <g>
Anyways, read it yourself, decide for yourself. It has some merits, some
flaws. Are you tired enough of the crap at the top of the heap in this
project to vote the lot of 'em out of existence? Then make sure your state
votes to support this so it gets on the ballot. Otherwise, like in most
things in USGW, you'll never get the chance to have your voice be heard.
As might be expected, a radical proposal of this nature has mixed things
up quite a bit, although the "pros" and "cons" are sorting out into their
usual groupings. Here's some comments from the proletariat:
"Sounds like the first POSITIVE action to come out of USGENWEB in several
years."
"I also say approve to this, this should have been done a long time ago."
"I cannot agree with the alleged "dangers" outlined in the introductory
paragraph to this whole proposal. In my view, the "danger" of dictatorial
control at the national level is greatly increased by this proposal, which
replaces 13 persons (National Coordinator and three Advisory Board
representatives from each of four regions) with 1 person. That one person
could choose to delink KSGenWeb (or any other state project) and/or
replace the link to a "competitor" KSGenWeb (on RootsWeb or any other
server) and could ignore the wishes of the electorate (should a majority
from the other 49 states even be rallied to vote against the national
Webmaster's action, which is a risky proposition anyway)."
"This amendment is very close to the way the USGWP was conceived. I feel
strongly that authority at the state and local level is all that is
needed. I would certainly vote for the amendment."
"Now I don't agree with everything that the National Coordinator and the
Advisory Board have done. But I believe they are clearly more
representative of the many, many volunteers in this project than would be
the small group of people who have proposed this amendment in a cynical
attempt to portray it as a greater empowerment of USGW county coordinators
and co-coordinators. So, if we vote for this amendment, let's be
clear-eyed and honest about what this amendment is all about, and let's
state what we really mean by our vote: (i.e., "Yes, we believe it's time
for the national USGW pages to be moved from RootsWeb").
"It could just be that lowly project members are bleeding tired of being
told what to do and how to think by Tim Stowell and his band of merry
yes-men. It could be that they see the danger in Tim's definition of "day
to day" activities, and recent attempts to delink entire state projects
because the Board doesn't like a single graphic displayed on one page
...Maybe it has nothing to do with the CP, or USGenNet, or RW. Maybe it
has to do with the fact that every single member of this project lives
every single day with the knowledge that at any time someone they've never
even heard of at the national level might take a disliking to something
they've said or done, or they might support the wrong side in a
discussion, and they will find themselves "not in good standing",
delinked, and out in the cold."
---various KS CCs
"When you have an organization, even a local one, someone has to be in
charge. If you don't you have anarchy. I believe this particular
amendment was put forth simple because a few malcontents do not like the
way things are run, because THEY are not the ones in charge."
Ken Short, Board Secretary [USGENWEB-DISCUSS and various other lists]
"IAGenWeb will hold a referendum on the "States' Rights Amendment" as part
of its June election, but this does not imply that I or the IAGenWeb
leadership or the IAGenWeb CCs support the proposal. It will be on the
ballot because one CC requested it. Although some in IAGenWeb may favor
the proposal, I strongly oppose this absurd amendment and hope that it is
soundly defeated."
Richard Harrison, IAGW SC [STATE-COORD-L]
"This I can assure you will require destruction of the USGenWeb Project
itself because you are forgetting what is needed to keep the Project
together....Election of list managers by subscribers - OVER my dead body.
If the politics is any indication like that - it might as well be best
interests to KILL THE PROJECT OVERALL. We do NOT want political fanatics
to take over the managements of lists. And YOU BLOODY HELL forgetting
something else - the grievances do CUT across the state lines - and under
the proposed amendment - might as well in best interests to start kicking
out any county coordinators who have counties in more than one state
because the grievance process will ABSOLUTELY will NOT be same in every
state whatsoever. To each State coordinator is what you are asking for."
---David Samuelsen [USGENWEB-ALL]
"What I'm hearing from the folks behind this amendment is: We don't like
the project as it has always existed...And since we don't like it, we have
to destroy it, in complete disregard for the people who *do* like it... in
any genealogical society or other organization I've ever dealt with or
seen, the rule is: if you don't like how we do things, then go away and
start a competing organization."
--Megan Zurawicz, Root$web employee [USGENWEB-DISCUSS]
"Anybody considered abandoning the notion of "authority" all together?
Rather than "transferring" authority from one level to another, why not
just go to the webring concept?"
---Sandy, [CC-L]
"Whatever happened to trying to change the organization from within? As
much as I don't like what has happened on the board lately, it seems a
little early to try to completely dissolve the board. This is something
that you do when you've concluded that the organization doesn't function,
and I'm far from that conclusion. We haven't even had an election yet to
see if we can replace the offending officers!"
---Scott [USGENWEB-DISCUSS]
"I am not endorsing the proposed amendment, I am simply saying that all
proposed amendments should be brought to the attention of the members of
the USGenWeb for consideration and that due to the recent hapenings of
the AC and the AB a change is in order...I know that the researcher who
comes to the UsGenWeb Project looking for resources does not know or care
about the inner workings of said Project. However if those inner workings
are corupt the Project soon loses credibility. I would ask that we all
consider all of the proposed amendments, investigate the past and vote
with a good conscience for the good of the Project. "
--Sandra [CC-L]
"We have been here four years, working on this project. We don't
leave......Tim and his subservient board leaves. That is much more fair
than to see the people who built this project bullied and pushed out of
the project.
--Don [CC-L]
===
More About Amendments Corner: The proposed "recall amendment" has been
sponsored by the OHGenWeb and sent to the Board. It is now posted at:
http://www.usgenweb.org/official/amendments.html. COGenWeb has also
sponsored it, so two of the required five co-sponsors have been acquired.
The "Archives Amendment" [that would eliminate two board seats and place
all "special projects" under the control of the Archives coordinator] is
also currently being voted on in several states, but does not yet have a
sponsor. We hear that in the fine state of Georgia, the SC is
"encouraging" his CCs into voting "yes" on this amendment with subtle
reminders of unpleasant consequences if they do not. Ain't politics
lovely?
All In The Family Corner: Kevin Fraley, HWGW SC and erstwhile USGW
Ombudsman has announced on the SC's list that Board member Maggie
Stewart-Zimmerman will be the new Asst. SC for HWGW and will also be
taking over one small county there. If we are not mistaken, Maggie is now
eligible to vote in the elections in _every_ region.
Return to the Fold Corner: We hear that Diane Mason has been removed from
the "reject" list on the NCGenWeb mailing list. However, her return to
the list has some restrictions: "NCGENWEB is not an appropriate venue for
discussion of USGenWeb politics, and... reposting messages from
USGW-CC-L, the Daily Board Show, or other lists will result in your being
returned to read-only status, as will personal attacks on other CCs."
Diane is instructed to take her personal issues with other CCs private and
to keep her SC apprised of them.
===
"We have the power to do any damn fool thing we want to do, and we seem to
do it about every ten minutes."
---Senator J. William Fulbright
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
-------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.