From merope@Radix.Net Mon Oct 23 13:37:52 2000
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:37:50 -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.SV4.3.96.1001023063346.1695A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
Don't be fooled by cheap substitutes...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Sunday 22 October 2000:
Tim Stowell calls for a vote on Motion 00-33 [the other service mark
motion]
Tim gives number 00-33 to Ginger Hayes' motion calling for a letter of
protest to the USPTO over Linda Lewis' service mark application.
Tim calls for the vote on the proposed amendment to Motion 00-30
[grievance committee].
Tim announces the results of the vote on Motion 00-32 [first service mark
motion]. Only three Board members voted, they all voted "no", and the
motion fails.
===
In The News Corner: Time Magazine has printed an excellent article on the
pitfalls of genealogical research, both online and off. The article has
the following blurb about USGenWeb:
"This site has information on surnames that is grouped by state, county
and town. It's run by an eager squadron of volunteers who do such things
as walk local cemeteries and post copies of their surveys online."
The full article is available at:
http://www.time.com/time/digital/feature/0,2955,56764,00.html
USGW blurb is at:
http://www.time.com/time/digital/feature/0,2955,57197-4,00.html
[Our thanks to a reader for sending this in]
===
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey
to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is
eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the
consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
---John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election
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 Oct 25 13:55:30 2000
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 13:55:29 -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.SV4.3.96.1001024080104.19067A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
Any port in a storm...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Tuesday 24 October 2000:
On behalf of the Election Study Committee Holly Timm requests an
extension until October 31 for the preparation of their report to the
Board. She notes "the excellent and thoughtful discussion on the
committee has not made finalizing the details and wording a speedy task.
We are well into the final preparation of the report but do not wish to
err in any haste to complete it."
Joy Fisher moves "that we grant the Election Study Committee the requested
extension to finish their report. The new due date shall be 31 October
2000." Richard Howland seconds the motion.
Wednesday 25 October 2000:
Tim Stowell, noting there probably doesn't need to be discussion on Joy's
motion, gives it number 00-34 and calls for a vote. Thus far 8 Board
Members have voted "yes".
===
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty."
---Edward R. Murrow
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 Oct 26 14:47:39 2000
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 14:47:38 -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.SV4.3.96.1001026112222.8937A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
You are what you read...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Wednesday 25-Thursday 26 October 2000:
Voting proceeds on Motion 00-34. Thus far 13 Board members have voted
yes.
===
"Let us rise up tonight with a greater readiness. Let us stand with
greater determination. And let us move in these powerful days, these days
of challenge, to make America what it ought to be."
---Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
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 Oct 27 15:41:03 2000
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 15:41:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: Daily Board Show
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1001027153249.28985B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
While you were sleeping...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Friday 27 October 2000:
Ken Short moves "that Roger Swafford be accepted as Board Secretary."
Shari Handley seconds the motion.
===
"Our great democracies still tend to think that a stupid man is more
likely to be honest than a clever man, and our politicians take advantage
of this prejudice by pretending to be even more stupid than nature made
them."
---Bertrand Russell
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 Oct 28 11:11:57 2000
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 11:11:56 -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.SV4.3.96.1001028093902.5882A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
The bigger they come, the harder they fall...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Saturday 28 October 2000:
Tim Stowell gives the motion to appoint Roger Swafford to the position of
Board Secretary number 00-35 and opens the floor for discussion.
Motion 00-34 is declared passed with 13 yes votes. The Election Study
Committee report will now be due on October 31 2000.
[Both Motion 00-30 (Grievance Committee) and Motion 00-33 (Service Mark)
have been open for voting for nearly a week now. Neither has received any
votes.]
===
Advise and Consent Corner: Unhappiness with the prospect of Roger
Swafford serving as Board Secretary is seeping out on the project mailing
lists. Some comments:
"...it occurs to me to wonder why anyone who is even remotely interested
in a harmonious future for the USGenWeb Project would nominate an
individual, no matter how well qualified, when they knew, up front, that
the nomination of that particular individual would cause controversy and
further division within the Project. "
---Carol, USGENWEB-ALL
"I am tired of having Tim make discissions and most of the Board allows
him to do what he wants. Now we are being forced to accept Roger as a
member of the Board. May I ask why? Roger made such a mess of the
Election, and then Tim turns around and opens the door for him to go on to
the Board. not once but twice and most of the Board members jump when Tim
snaps his fingers."
Kathy, USGENWEB-ALL
"...at the present moment, there is a far more serious threat to the
Project than the mark issue.....that of having Roger Swafford, once again,
being proposed as Secretary of the AB. If you think there were problems
with the Election.........Folks, you ain't seen nuthin' yet!"
Phyllis, USGW-CC-L
"I object to having this forced on us...Can't you at least try to find new
people to help on the AB?...You know this really, really bothers me, seems
as though it is the same old song and dance....Tim and his gang will get
what they want. And we keep seeing the same people making the same
decisions...Surely there are people in this organization who have not been
in this ABClique that would be able to fulfill this position. Roger is a
nice guy but there were problems with the Election Process, and now you
want him to report about the AB meetings...Please consider others from the
project. Instead of asking for candidates, because we all know that just a
small fraction of the CC's even subscribe to these lists, much less read
them, why don't you have the SC's contact people through their state lists
and ask for volunteers to fill this position. This way more will be
involved and the Board will have more qualified people to select from."
---Kathy, USGW-CC
We will be curious to see if Roger is appointed. In other circumstances
he might be an excellent choice; he is very familiar with parliamentary
procedure and is bullish enough about enforcing it that he might actually
be able to impose some discipline on the Board and our unruly National
Coordinator. However, he carries a lot of baggage these days, and the
perception that a [notvoting] seat at the Board's table is quid pro quo
for "managing" the election to the Board's liking is very strong. His
appointment to the position may just be seen as "payment for services
rendered." And despite Tim's disingenuous comment that the Board
Secretary doesn't really do much, it is in fact rather a powerful
position. It might be better if the Board could solicit for a less hot
political potato to run its meetings, determine what motions pass muster,
etc.
Speak Your Piece Corner: Richard Howland has posted a petition for
the members of USGenWeb regarding Linda Lewis' trademark application. Its
available at: http://www.wf.net/~richpump/petition1.htm
Back in the News Corner: The trademark issue has heated up again.
Project member Don Tharp has suggested that he might apply for a service
mark on behalf of the Project, since it is apparent that the Board will do
nothing on this issue. He asked for his colleagues input and was
promptly threatened by Keith Giddeon [lately embroiled in the latest
grievance against the Archives] who pledged "monies to fight it." It is
painfully obvious that little or nothing will ever be done on this issue,
even though the Board has been ineffectually flailing around on it for 4
months now. There are enough Archives supporters and employees on the
Board to block any attempt to sanction Linda Lewis or endanger her
application and too much confusion and lack of knowledge for the Board to
make any decisions on what needs to be done and when. They can
barely bring themselves to vote on on motions regarding the service
mark issue these days. Tim's hand-picked Trademark Committee [which of
course contained a substantial number of Archives supporters and
employees] has apparently failed miserably in its mission of finding out
and explaining to the Board what it needs to to do to protect the
Project's name and identity. Project members who wish to do _exactly_
what Linda Lewis did, take the bull by the horns and register the marks in
order to protect the project, are ignored or threatened. There has been
little or no effort to ascertain the wishes of the project membership on
this matter or even to explain to them what the issues are and why they
should. While the Project burns, the Board fiddles. Which, sadly, isn't
news.
Serious Competition Corner: Project member John Schunk is maintaining an
archives of all Board-L posts since September 1, 2000. He's also
maintaining a "monthly highlights" file that he says will be free of
editorial content. [well, that's no fun!] The archive is available
here: http://home.kscable.com/jschunk/Board/ [John tells us he's not
bothered to ask the Board members or Root$web if he can repost their
emails and their digests; we wonder if he'll joint the list of people the
Board has threatened to sue for just that very thing. <g>]
===
Today's quote was sent in by a reader:
"Give us clear vision, that we may know where to stand and what to stand
for, because unless we stand for something, we shall fall for anything."
---Peter Marshall
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 Oct 29 17:34:24 2000
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:34:22 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: Daily Board Show
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1001029165922.12815A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
Justice will prevail...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Saturday 28 October 2000:
Shari Handly requests that the Board members be allowed to address
questions to Roger Swafford in order to address the concerns surrounding
his nomination, such as "how exactly does he view the role of the Board
Secretary? What, if any, impact does he see the Board Secretary having in
the operations of the Board and the USGenWeb Project itself? Does he view
the secretary as serving at the pleasure of the AB?"
Joe Zsedeny asks Tim Stowell for the status of Motion 00-30.
Sunday 29 October 2000:
Responding to an email that is over a week old, Tim notes that he does not
construe the phrase directing "the NC to apply for the Service Mark" as
meaning he should personally own the mark.
Tim replies to Joe, noting that on 10/22 he called for a vote on the
amendment to Motion 00-30 [Grievance committee] and on Motion 00-33
[Service Mark]. [thus far, no one has voted on either of these motions].
Tim notes that "Since Board members seemed to want to discuss/investigate
the service mark further before voting, I've let 00-33 dangle out there as
well as the vote or lack thereof on the amendment to 00-30." He now once
again asks the members to vote on both motions. Tim also notes that he
made an error in numbering Ginger's motion regarding sending a letter to
the USPTO. He erroneously numbered it 00-33 and has now given it Motion
00-35 [which number has already been given to the motion about appointing
Roger Swafford to the Board Secretary position. Oy vey.]
===
You Can't Keep a Good Cow Down Corner: We hear through the grapevine that
NetZero has reactivated the ncgenweb.com and ncgenweb.net domains. From
their letter to Sharon Williamson:
"This message is to inform you that the domain names ncgenweb.com and .net
have been reactivated, though they will be transferred out of Namezero's
free service. The people that registered the domain names ncgenweb.com
and .net felt strongly that they had rights to the domain names. Our
attorney, [name deleted] reviewed the facts, and Namezero decided that
this situation was too complicated to be involved with directly. Because
our members raised some valid points, and feel very committed to their
websites, Namezero respected their right to pursue their goals with their
websites. Since Namezero just started a new service that allows our free
members to upgrade to a paid service that lists them as the owners of the
domain name, we reactivated their sites so that they can technically
transfer to the individualized option. We did this so that Namezero avoids
any legal liability, and yet we are able to let our members validate their
claims in the event that you decide to pursue your legal options.
Consequently, you will notice that the domains are active, and by the end
of the week you will be able to see the owner of the domain names. I'm
sure that you will find this disappointing, and I regret that there was no
way to make everyone happy. However, there are still remedies for you, and
I'm sure that justice will prevail."
As the letter notes, both sites are now active, although both still show
NameZero as the registrant. We hear that Sharon "the Axe" Williamson is
still trying to influence NameZero with the threat of a lawsuit over these
domain names however, even though she's just effectively been told to take
a hike.
===
"I think "immoral" is probably the wrong word to use...I prefer the word
"unethical."
---Ivan Boesky
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 Mon Oct 30 17:32:21 2000
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:32:21 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: Daily Board Show
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1001030071908.10928B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Wouldn't you know...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* chock full o' editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Sunday 29 October 2000:
Joe Zsedeny asks if the amendment to Motion 00-30 [Grievance committee]
that they are currently supposed to vote on is his amendment or Maggie
Stewart's.
Voting proceeds on Motion 00-30. Thus far two Board member have voted no.
Voting proceeds on Motion 00-33 [Service Mark]. Thus far one Board member
has voted yes, and one has abstained.
Monday 30 October 2000:
Tim tells Joe they are voting on Maggie's amendment to Motion 00-30.
Joe explains his abstention on Motion -33: "I think we should file but
with Linda's filing pending we need an attorney to guide us through the
process else we might simply throw our money away...Do we intend to file?
If we do it will happen faster if a PROPOSED [motion] is put on the floor
for discussion so that the combined thinking of the Board could be
reflected in a FINAL motion...We need to cooperate in an orderly manner to
get the job done. If we keep firing motions at it, amending, rejecting and
ignoring nothing will get done. John Schunk has access to a patent
attorney and has offered to help fund the cost of some professional
advice. We could take John up on the offer and reimburse him from funds
collected for the filing. With that kind of advice to draw on we could
craft a motion with the correct procedures built in to effect a successful
filing."
Roger Swafford responds to Shari's questions: "I view the job as a
combination of Secretary and Parliamentary advisor. My intent, if
appointed, is to serve the board collectively and its members
individually. IMO, such a position requires objectivity and neutrality in
carrying out the duties...The secretary is a non-voting member, therefore
has no right to participate in discussions on motions under consideration.
I would privately offer assistance to members to put forth motions which
have reasonable expectation of adoption in order to promote collective
compromise rather than continue the recent stream of failed motions...RRoO
provides for any assembly to adopt its own "special rules of order" and or
"standing rules" to better serve the membership in conducting its
business. I would work to promote adoption of such rules as deemed
necessary for the AB to function more easily and efficiently using the
internet...Appointment requires adoption of a main motion by 2/3 majority.
If the motion is adopted then dismissal would require adoption of a main
motion to rescind the current motion making the appointment. Appointed
officers serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority, in this case
the AB." [Interesting that Roger, a non Board member, is apparently still
subbed in full read and response mode to the list.]
===
Going Going Gone Corner: Our ever resourceful friends over at
FamilyDiscovery.com are now advertising their "services" on Ebay. You can
check this out at:
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?MfcISAPICommand=ViewItem&item=484240984
[Our thanks to an alert reader for pointing this out.]
===
"There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an advantage
and security to all, but especially to democracies against despots --
suspicion."
---Demosthenes
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radxi.net
-------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.
From merope@Radix.Net Tue Oct 31 14:59:14 2000
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 14:59:13 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: Daily Board Show
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1001031062727.7593A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Things that go bump in the night...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Monday 30 October 2000:
Teri Pettit notes she is abstaining on Motion 00-33 for the same reasons
Joe Zsedeny stated. She says she hopes the group files for a service
mark, noting she "thought that was the intention of Ken's motion, to first
vote on whether we thought we should file something, and then to hammer
out the details immediately afterwards, IF the motion passed. But from the
comments that people sent with their "no" votes on Ken's motion, it seems
that many Board members feared that Ken's motion might instead be
interpreted as giving the NC carte blanche to file whatever application he
felt best, without consulting the Board on the details." Teri proposes
that "an orderly way to construct more passable motions might be for
someone to propose a straw man "draft motion"...and then take "polls" on
proposed revisions. We would then be operating under the more informal
rules for committee deliberations, and we wouldn't have to be officially
voting on amendments. We could go ahead with a revision if a simple
majority of those expressing an opinion on it were in favor...Once
suitably revised through this informal process, it would of course still
require a 2/3 majority to pass the final motion." She also strongly
recommends that all the revisions discussion take place on Board-L rather
than secretly. She is also in favor of taking John Schunk up on his offer
of his patent attorney's advice.
Teri publishes some line item comments regarding Motion 00-33 [Service
Mark]. She notes "Whatever we do about "The USGenWeb Project", I think
there should be a parallel process about "USGenWeb" all by itself. It is
more important to protect "USGenWeb" than "The USGenWeb Project", because
in practice there are more potential conflicts that use "USGenWeb" either
all by itself or in conjuction with some other words, than that try to use
"The USGenWeb Project" in its entirety....we want any mark(s) we file for
to "belong to" the organization as a whole, and for the NC or other
officials to be contacts only. What a knowledgeable attorney can do is
give us authoritative advice on just where it is "possible" to use The
USGenWeb Project as the name of the trademark holder, and what we might
have to do, if anything, to extend the realm of that possibility...we seem
to get a lot of conflicting opinions on whether it is necessary for us to
first be legally registered in some state as an unincorporated
association... I don't like this clause at all, [the one that directs the
NC to have Linda write to the USPTO] because it seems to give our implicit
consent to the notion that Linda Lewis has a personal right to the
"USGenWeb Archives" mark, and I don't think she does...While it would
probably make it smoother for us if she did file such a communication than
if she did nothing at all, it would be even better if she either withdrew
her application altogether...I would rather we leave it as "no official
comment" from the Advisory Board as to whether Linda Lewis has a right to
apply for "USGenWeb Archives", than to make an official communication that
seems to concede such a right to her when at least 7 of us have already
gone on record as believing that "USGenWeb Archives" properly belongs to
the Project....Is it possible to specify multiple addresses for the
communications from the PTO? For example, if possible, I think it would be
great if someone at the PTO could write directly to BOARD-L. This would
free the NC of the responsibility of "apprising" the Board if the Board
was in on all communications from the get-go...it seems "common sense"
that this [collecting funds for the application] would fall under the same
category as taking up a pool in your office to buy a baby shower gift for
a co-worker, something which is counted as neither "income" to the
mother-to-be nor "charitable donations" by the contributors, and that
people do all the time without the IRS caring about it. But the
law doesn't always follow common sense, and others have expressed the
opinion that collecting contributions for any expenditures would open us
up to all sorts of tax regulations. We ought to get a really authoritative
opinion before we go ahead and do it."
Teri says she prefers Joe's original formulation of the grievance
committee motion and she asks him if he is open to a "line item"
discussion of his motion similar to the one she did for Motion 00-33. Joe
says he has no problem with this and that all motions should be handled
this way.
Tuesday 31 October 2000 [boo!]:
Voting proceeds on the amendment to Motion 00-30. Thus far one Board
member has voted yes and 7 have voted no.
Voting proceeds on Motion 00-33. Thus far, two Board members have voted
yes, three have voted no, and two have abstained.
===
"It's better to be a lion for a day than a sheep all your life"
---Sister Elizabeth Kenny
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
-------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.