From merope@Radix.Net Mon Sep 18 14:51:39 2000
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 14:51:38 -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.SV4.3.96.1000917164641.19004A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Letting the genie out of the bottle...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
[We apologize for the lack of a DBS yesterday. Listbot was down much of
the day for maintenance.]
Saturday 16 September 2000:
Joe Zsedeny updates the Board on the status of the pledge drive for the
trademark application: "As of 9/16/00 12:01am we had 41 pledges totaling
$74 minimum and $1501 Maximum, as John is my witness. My hat is off to
everyone who has responded to this pledge drive....You folks are assuring
that the money to do the job awaits. Several people have commented that
their pledges are ONLY for costs associated with the filing for the
USGenWeb mark, but NOT for contesting the USGenWeb Archives filing. Those
comments are noted. Also, several people have commented that they believe
that costs should include consultation with one or more patent attorneys.
Those concerns are also noted. For those who have not pledged, but would
like to do so, you can send your pledge publicly to this list (ALL) or
privately to Joe Zsedeny (jzsed@slic.com). Please include the word PLEDGE
in the subject line to facilitate tabulations."
Holly Timm posts information regarding the Election Study Committee: "...I
would like to thank everyone who volunteered to serve on the committee, it
made the choosing difficult but it also gave us the ability to try to have
a broad spectrum of opinion and perspective from across the project.
Listed below are the Election Study Committee Members with their states
and regions. The committee wants to hear from anyone with thoughts ideas
and comments regarding the election process...Pease address these comments
to: ESC@timmweb.pair.com...
SC Members:
Nathan Zipfel PA NE Region
Linda Mason MS SE Region
Carol Haagensen WY NW Region
Patrick Hays IN NE Region
Mary Ann Hetrick CO NW Region
CC Members:
Robert Sullivan NY NE Region
Connie Bates connie_bates@att.net IL NE Region
Jerimiah Moerke MN, SD NW Region
John McCoy NE NW Region
Esther Frye IA NW Region
Chip Brown TN SE Region
Carol Carwile-Head GA SE Region
Teresa Lindquist KS SW Region
Bob Chada OK SW Region
Linda Hotchkiss CA SW Region
Board Members:
Ellen Pack - Southeast / Mid-Atlantic CC Rep
Betsy Mills, Southwest / South Central SC Rep
Tina Vickery, Northeast / North Central CC Rep
Shari Handley, Southeast/Mid-Atlantic SC Rep
Holly Timm, Representative-At-Large and Chair of the Committee
Ex-Officio, National Coordinator Tim Stowell
Sunday 17 September 2000:
No Board-L traffic on this date.
Monday 18 September 2000:
Joe Zsedeny moves "that the Chairman's ruling of 9/15/00 regarding Ellen
Pack's motion on trademarks be overruled and that her motion be brought
to a vote."
Joe says he's decided "that some action is needed to solve the impasse
caused by Tim's ruling on Ellen's motion." Although he would vote against
the motion, it bothers him that it was not allowed to come to a vote and
believes "that Tim acted sincerely in this matter but erred in judgment."
He notes "This Board was elected by the membership to conduct the Projects
business and cannot be muzzled by one person. In this case I think the
entire Board should vote or be polled as to whether Tim's judgment should
stand."
Ginger Hayes reminds him "There is already an appeal on the floor that is
being ignored, which, per RRoO takes precedence." She notes "I
understand Joe's frustration but am getting used to the stalling by the NC
when it's not something that is to his liking.
Joe posts an update on the trademark pledge drive: "As of this morning,
9/18/00, 48 pledges have been received for a maximum of $1756. John has a
web page at:http://home.kscable.com/jschunk/pledge.html with the names of
those who have pledged." He notes "Some general observations about this
pledge drive are that many feel that filing for TM is more important than
filing a protest to Linda's filing. And they show the Board that raising
the money for such an action shouldn't be too much of a problem. Many
people are willing to offer considerable financial support."
Joe withdraws his motion at the urging of "Ginger and others". However, he
strongly urges the Board to "get the appeal over with so we can move on. I
think the will of the majority of Board members should be heard regardless
of how I feel about Ellen's motion."
Rich Howland forwards a quite nasty post about Ginger Hayes making the
rounds on the lists [it will not be repeated here]. He strongly deplores
this attack on Ginger and calls "for any one knowing who this lowly skunk
is to make it public so we may take action against this person." [the
person posting the note did so anonymously, with an apparently spoofed
email address. Yes, this is how low some folks in USGW have apparently
sunk...]
===
Virtual Warzone Corner: Sharon Williamson, SC of the NCGenWeb, has
succesfully petitioned to have one of the CCs she whacked a couple of
weeks ago locked out of their GenConnect boards, even though the pages he
maintains for the boards is still active. Sharon is also now attempting
to claim copyright on the terms "North Carolina GenWeb" and "NCGW" [but
for some reason, _not_ "NCGenWeb"]. Horace Peele has taken down his "for
sale" page at http://www.ncgenweb.org, apparently deciding instead to run
a registry for NC genealogical and historical societies. The ncgenweb.net
and ncgenweb.com addresses are still advertising NC genealogy webrings.
Neither of them mention NCGenWeb itself.
Copyright Corner: A group of individuals and businesses, one of them is
Higginson Books, is challenging the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension
Act of 1998. Because this law prevented works published in 1923 from
entering the public domain at the end of 1998, it has negatively affected
many of us genealogists. You can read all about it at:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/eldredvreno/ and
http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/eldredvreno/ [Also check out Dick
Eastman's newsletter for a brief synopsis of this case.]
===
Today's quote was submitted by a reader:
"All adverse and depressing influences can be overcome, not by fighting,
but by rising above them."
---Charles Caleb Colton
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 Sep 19 10:25:35 2000
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:25:34 -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.SV4.3.96.1000919093137.11113B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Jeepers creepers...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Monday 18 September 2000:
Tina Vickery says she is "appalled that there is a pledge drive being
conducted." She believes that "To have an exchange of money, or even a
hint of exchange of money, enter into a discussion, whatever the
discussion, is inherently wrong, in regard to the USGenWeb Project." She
worries that "with this effort a very bad precedent is being set. A
precedent that contradicts everything that the USGenWeb Project represents
to visitors and volunteers alike...In my estimation, we have lost all
credibility." She acknowledges the importance of the trademark but says
its "Important in the respect, of providing free genealogical information
on-line. Period."
Richard Harrison points out that it often costs money to support the
provision of "free genealogical information on-line" and thinks that
"There is nothing wrong with our members voluntarily joining together to
pledge some financial resources to meet needs of the project, whether that
be filing fees to protect our name, attorney's fees to determin our rights
or another legitimate expense." He notes that not every expense can be
covered by individual CCs' willingness to fund transcriptions, space, etc,
and says "Some things you can barter for, other things people will give
you, but in some cases you must buy things with "filthy lucre"...It is not
a bad precedent. It does not taint the value of the service we still
provide free to our visitors. It, in fact, enhances our credibility
because by assessing our resources we are opening our eyes to reality--it
costs money to provide free genealogical information on-line."
Ellen Pack says the pledges are terrific and she's happy to see broad
member participation. She notes "Obviously, many think the Trademark
issue is very important - so important, in fact, they are willing to help
provide financial support, if needed."
Ken Short joins Rich Howland in asking to know who posted the nasty post
about Ginger Hayes yesterday [which both he and Richard have repeated in
full on Board-L]. He notes "to attack someone like this is below
contempt...There is no room in our organization, or any other for that
matter for bigotry."
Tuesday 19 September 2000:
Tim Stowell notes that the appeal of his ruling on the trademark issue
was answered when he noted that if certain language was removed it could
come to the floor. He suggests however "as there is now a committee
studying all issues concerning trademark - this and other motions of like
subject should be placed on hold until the committee issues it's report."
Ginger suggests that Tim check RRoO for information on how to properly
deal with an appeal. She notes "Your role in dealing with an appeal from
the decision of the chair is to define the issues involved, explain the
reasons for your decision and then bring the appeal to a vote. Since this
is a debatable appeal all members of this body that wish to must have the
opportunity to comment before the actual vote. The outcome is determined
by majority vote."
===
To The Rescue Corner: Many of you are probably familiar with JewishGen,
the nonprofit organization that supports and preserves Jewish genealogy
and history. It serves to connect Jewish genealogists worldwide via the
internet, and is a United States tax-exempt organization. The leadership
of JewishGen have announced that they have a substantial operating budget
shortfall and may need to curtail their valuable activites unless the
shortfall can be made up. They operate entirely on volunteer
contributions and donations, and ask for the community's support at this
time. You can read about it at
http://www.jewishgen.org/jewishgen-erosity/imagine.html; there is also
information on how to contribute at this address. All donations are
tax-deductible.
Under A Rock Corner: On the other end of the online genealogy spectrum,
we have FamilyDiscovery.com, which is now doing business at a new ISP
[same URL though: http://www.familydiscovery.com] Gene Olson has posted
an "all about FamilyDiscovery.com" webpage at
http://gene_olson.tripod.com; this page summarizes what is known about the
business to date and the various efforts with local law enforcement to
stop them. Mr. Olsen is asking that anyone with any information about or
experience with FamilyDiscovery.com to please contact him; he appears to
have every intention of getting this business offline. If you want to
know if your records are linked to, visit this URL:
http://www.familydiscovery.com/members/index.htm. You will be able to
view all records available in every state and some international locations
as well. There are quite a lot of USGW-affiliated records represented in
the links, including some Archives records.
===
"Such truth as opposeth no man's profit nor pleasure is to all men
welcome."
---Thomas Hobbes
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 Sep 20 12:20:19 2000
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 12:20:18 -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.SV4.3.96.1000920061215.6140A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
Contents under pressure...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Tuesday 19 September 2000:
Teri Pettit reminds Tim that requests for clarification as to what
language he finds threatening in Ellen's motion have not been answered,
and notes "Without knowing what phrases you find objectionable, it is
impossible to guess what kind of modifications would remove a "threatening
tone" that the authors don't perceive to be there to start with." She
also points out that "Since you stated that other motions of the same
nature, whatever that is, would also be ruled out of order and lead to the
disclipline of one's peers, and Ellen's motion doesn't contain anything
that we can see any threat, intimidation or hostility in, for all we know
any motion at all might be judged to be "of the same nature." She also
notes, as did Holly, that "if some of the wording of the motion bothers
some people, the proper way to change it is through amendments. Which
can't be done until it is returned to the floor"
Maggie withdraws her motion regarding application for a trademark pending
the results of the Trademark Committee.
Maggie notes that "the current pledge drive being conducted on the project
lists has not been authorized by the Advisory Board and should be halted
until such time as the Trademark Committee reports and the Advisory Board
takes appropriate action." She requests that Tim order a halt to the
pledge drive. [Well, well. Looks like Maggie doesn't want the project to
have the money available to challenge her boss' right to the trademark.
And as someone else noted, "god forbid the members of this project want to
do something and have the money to back them up. Also interesting is how
all these lists the Board won't touch with a 10 foot pole are now
suddenly "project lists".]
Rich Howland suggests the Board work through its backlog of appeals and
grievances before they "try to do something else to stop this terrible
idea of members saying protect our projects name."
Wednesday 20 September 2000:
Tim Stowell says the language that should be "removed as it is an implied
threat" is the phrase ""Failure to comply with Advisory Board
instructions, within the time specified, will result in further action by
the Advisory Board." He also notes that something happening within 5 days
with the federal government is unlikely [although this is not relevant;
the motion requires Linda to provide proof that she's filed a letter to
withdraw the application, not that the government do something.] Tim
ignores completely Ginger's suggestion that he conduct the appeal
according to RRoO.
Holly Timm notes that Tim has defined the issues and explained his reasons
for declaring Ellen's motion out of order; she asks him "now how about
following the rest of the procedure?
Ginger Hayes says she sees no threat in the motion, "unlike the obvious
threat against AB members you made in your [Tim's] ruling." She notes
that changes in wording can be addressed during the discussion. She
suggests that Tim reread the motion and notes "Since this appeal does not
deal with the Trademark itself, only with your improper ruling, there is
no reason to keep stalling it." She asks if they can get on with the
appeal procedure.
Maggie notes that she is merely stating that "it [the ongoing pledge
drive] wasn't being done following the proper procedure and since we have
bylaws that we were elected to uphold we, as the Advisory Board, are
obligated to uphold them." [she does not specify how the pledge drive
violates the bylaws.]
===
What's In A Name Corner: According to the USPTO website a "non-final
action" was mailed on 15 September; according the listing this is a "1st
action" and is "a letter from the examining attorney requesting additional
information and/or making an initial refusal. However, no final
determination as to the registrability of the mark has been made." We do
urge those Board members to whom Linda will still speak to find out from
her what is in that letter.
We've also heard that some members who sent in protest letters regarding
Linda Lewis' trademark application have begun to receive letters back
from the USPTO denying their letters of protest. The letters state:
"The issue raised in your Letter of Protest requires investigation and
production of evidence that is beyond the scope of authority of an
Examining Attorney in the Patent and Trademark Office during the _ex
parte_ examination of this application...As such, it is best resolved in
the course of an _inter partes_ proceeding. Your Letter of Protest will
be kept on file for two years by the Patent and Trademark Office and will
not be referred to the Examining Attorney. The denial of your Letter of
Protest does not preclude you from filing opposition to a pending
application after it has published in the Official Gazette or a petition
to cancel an existing registration with the Trademark Trial and Appeal
Board..."
===
"Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too
many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and
the only thing that's wrong is to get caught."
---J. C. Watts
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 Sep 21 14:25:46 2000
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 14:25:45 -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.SV4.3.96.1000921064521.13582A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Nothing ventured, nothing gained...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Wednesday 20 September 2000:
Rich Howland notes that the only section of the bylaws he can find that
may pertain to the pledge drive is the section that reads "Solicitation of
funds for personal gain is inappropriate. This is defined as the direct
appeal on the home page of any of the websites comprising The USGenWeb
Project for funding to do research, to pay for server space, to do
look-ups, etc." He says "As best I can see this pledge drive is not for
personal gain? I haven't seen it posted on any the home page of any of the
websites? I also believe Joe and John will confirm that no money has
changed hands?" He also notes that the Board has several items of
pending business that should come first.
Teri Pettit agrees with Ginger Hayes that she also does not see any threat
inherent in Ellen's motion, but suggests changing the wording anyways. She
notes "it is hard to guess what kind of wording others will perceive a
threat in when it is already apparent that their perceptions differ from
one's own." She suggests the following rewording: "If a withdrawal
request is not submitted within the time specified, the Advisory Board
will take separate action to ensure that the service mark 'USGenWeb
Archives' continues to be usable by the USGenWeb Project to refer to its
digital library and archival services." She requests suggestions for
alternate wording if this is not acceptable. She also notes that the
motion does not require the federal government to take any action at all
and says "As soon as the form is submitted by Linda, the request has been
fully complied with, even if it takes the government five years to process
it." Teri notes that although technically amendments to the motion should
not be made until it is on the floor and Tim Stowell won't let it return
to the floor until it is changed to suit him, she is more interested in
getting something done quickly. She says "What I'm not OK with is giving
up and doing nothing at all while the trademark study committee
deliberates for 30 days. The critical time frame for us to officially ask
Linda to withdraw or amend her trademark application may be over by then."
Ginger asks Maggie to point out where in the bylaws "there is anything
addressing project members needing the AB's approval before pledging
support to protect the USGenWeb Project" and asks "Don't you think that
your speaking out against this constitutes somewhat of a conflict of
interest?"
Teri Pettit points out to Maggie that "The Bylaws don't have a single word
in them that suggests that Project members should obtain the permission of
the Advisory Board before they ask their fellow Project members, using the
Project related email lists, to provide information about their desires."
The pledge drive, according to Teri, is basically a survey to find out how
many people would be willing to contribute and how much in the event the
Board decides to do anything about the trademark issue. She finds the
information very useful, and notes "even if one disagrees as to whether
some particular member-initiated poll is useful or not, the Advisory Board
has no business telling project members what kinds of information they
are allowed to ask their fellows to send to us."
Shari Handley says she likes Teri's suggested wording for an amendment to
Ellen's motion.
Tina Vickery says she is not opposed to the use of a survey to ascertain
members' wishes, but takes exception to "the
"pledge drive," and the perceived, real or otherwise, concept of money
exchanging hands to accomplish the goal of ascertaining wishes of project
members."
Holly Timm notes that Ellen's motion "can not be modified or amended or
any other action taken until there is a discussion and vote on the appeal.
If the out-of-order ruling is sustained then the motion is dead, if it is
over-ruled then the motion is on the floor and subject to discussion and
amendment." Richard Harrison agrees with Holly and suggests they "get on
with it."
Thursday 21 September 2000:
Tim Stowell says he doesn't think he has the authority to order a halt to
the pledge drive since most of the organizers are not Board members and
most of the drive is occurring on "non-project" lists. He says "I suppose
I could ask Board members to refrain from reporting on the pledge drive on
the Board list, but that's about all."
In regards to Ellen's motion, Tim notes "Since the Board knew that a
Trademarks Committee was being formed as of Sept 4, why was this motion
made to begin with if not to use as a hammer against Linda? It seems to
be rather vindictive. Don't you think asking Linda would have been better
- not in the manner of dragging her before committee or threatening her
with this or that action? I read once again somewhere today that you win
more friends with honey than with vinegar." [Yeah, I got a good laugh out
of this one, too. <g>] Tim asks Teri if she is willing to forgo the use
of parliamentary procedure "IF it goes against the way you feel things
should go?" and whether she wants to make decisions about the trademark
before the committee has finished its work.
Tim calls a vote on the motion to overrule his decision to declare Ellen's
motion out of order, asking the Board members to vote "Yes - to Overrule
Out of Order position of NC; No - to agree with the NC that the motion was
out of order; Abstain - whatever you wish it to mean". Then [and this is
rich] he also asks them to vote on a motion that is NOT on the floor, has
never been made, and apparently comes out of blue: "Please also vote on
whether or not we are going to use Parliamentary procedure as the Bylaws
state OR only when convenient to those with the most votes: Yes - use
Parliamentary procedure and the Bylaws; No - use it PP only when
convenient and/or the Bylaws; Abstain - don't care one way or the other."
[Well, I reckon we can tell where Tim stands on this issue. And he really
needs to quit deciding on his own what an abstention means.]
Ellen Pack raises some points of order: 1) "The question on the appeal is
improperly stated, and there has been no official discussion period on
the appeal;" and 2) "The second vote call is out of order. There is no
motion on the floor or second, and there has been no discussion period
regarding the question."
Ellen tells Tim "Since it is common knowledge, and repeatedly on public
record, that I personally submitted the motion in question, and that it
was seconded by Holly, I respectfully request that you clarify your
statement..." [she refers to Tim's statement that so-called "threat
against Linda" was "rather vindictive."] She cites a section of RRoO that
covers breaches of order as the basis of her request.
===
Recall Amendment Update: Richard Harrison has posted a website detailing
the current status of the Recall Amendment Discussion Group's work so far.
Comments are welcome; the website is at:
http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard/recall/group.htm
You can send your comments to any member of the group, or subscribe
yourself at: http://www.coollist.com/subscribe.html [put "recall", no
quotes and in lower case in the field for list name]
Pledge Drive Update: From Joe Zsedeny: "Pledges as of this morning,
9/21/00, are 56 pledges for a total of $1992. BTW, I have been asked to
refrain from posting this update to the Board lists as it seems to be
upsetting some members. So if you want your Board representatives to get a
copy you have my permission to forward. For anyone with doubts about the
legality of this pledge drive, John has consulted with attorneys to
confirm that these are NOT tax deductible contributions, which most of you
are already aware, and no filing of any kind to any state tax department
is necessary." [In a later message, Joe notes the correct pledge amount
is $1922]
===
"To give up the task of reforming society is to give up one's
responsibility as a free man."
---Alan Paton
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 Sep 22 13:22:34 2000
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 13:22:32 -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.SV4.3.96.1000922061558.19149A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Over and above...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Thursday 21 September 2000:
Teri Pettit reminds Tim Stowell that Ellen's motion was submitted for the
following reasons: "1. If Linda agrees to withdraw her application, there
will be no need to communicate with the Patent & Trademark Office
regarding it...The Board and the Trademark Study Committee would be spared
the necessity of deciding how we ought to deal with the trademark
application, if it no longer existed. 2. The trouble with the informal
negotiations that Joe Zsedeny has been serving as a go-between for are
that there is no proof that Joe is representing the official will of the
Advisory Board...for all WE know until we can vote on it, the request to
withdraw her application might be a minority position...
3...If the application is going to be withdrawn, the earlier it is
withdrawn the better. If we wait until 30 days from now to even ask her to
withdraw it, she could easily feel, "NOW you tell me! Why in the world
didn't you say so earlier?"" She also notes that the motion was not
submitted to be "vindictive" toward Linda but "under the hope that Linda
would prefer an amicable withdrawal to any kind of messy dispute with the
PTO." She says "The motion is no more "vindictive" than it is when we
officially make a motion to instruct Pam Reid to make some change to the
national web pages. There is no suggestion at all, either in the wording
of the motion itself or in any supporting communications, that the
"further action" would be retaliatory." She asks Tim why he persists "in
seeing antagonism that does not exist" and notes "It is just as off-base,
unfounded, and disrespectful of one's peers to continually suggest hostile
motives in Ellen's motion as it would be to suggest predatory motives in
Linda's trademark application, which none of us has done even once."
Teri lets Tim know that she may have some email trouble over the weekend.
Teri tells Tim "it is still not clear to me whether the rewording I asked
about sounds threatening to you or not. It would REALLY help if you would
just answer the questions. They are not rhetorical." She notes that the
motion is a way to determine the will of the majority of the Board on the
topic but says "without voting on the motion, we wouldn't know whether or
not most of us WANT to ask her to withdraw her application. And she
wouldn't know whether any request was official or just something that Joe,
John Schunk and the others who know her personally and who've been
communicating with her offline would personally like her to do. It is only
fair to her that she be given the opportunity to know what the majority
will of the Board is." She reiterates "THERE IS NO THREAT!!! There isn't
even anything that looks the least bit LIKE a threat to me. There is not
the slightest suggestion that the "further action" would be a punishment,
a retaliation, or anything at all like that." [Teri is beginning to sound
more than a little frustrated with Our Esteemed National Coordinator.] As
far as parliamentary procedure goes, Teri reminds Tim that _he_ is the one
who has insisted the motion be amended before it will be allowed on the
floor and notes "Holly and Ginger seem to be the ones here who are
insisting on proper parliamentary procedure, and you are the one who has
asked Ellen and Holly to do something that is technically against
Parliamentary Procedure." She notes that for pragmatic reasons, "if
somebody else wants to do something that is technically against RRoO, but
that enables us to work together more effectively and better ascertain the
will of the majority, we shouldn't stand on ceremony...The rule-of-thumb
should not be whether something is going "my way" or "your way", but on
whether Parliamentary Procedure is facilitating or hindering the
expression of the will of the majority. In this particular case, I think
ignoring RRoO and doing as YOU ask...is the most expedient way to
facilitate finding out what the majority wants us to do." Teri specifies
that she is not recommending that "further acion" be decided before the
Trademark Committee submits its report, but that the Board make a decision
on whether to ask Linda to withdraw her application before the window of
opportunity for her to do so closes. She notes "At least I'm supporting a
motion made through official channels, and will defer to whatever the
Board decides. You didn't even give the Advisory Board a chance to vote
on whether or not we should form a Trademark Study Committee or what the
committee should be charged with or what time limit should be placed on
the report, etc."
Voting proceeds on the appeal of Tim's out of order ruling on Ellen's
motion. Thus far, 1 member has voted no and 4 have voted yes.
Voting on the issue of whether or not the Board will use parliamentary
procedure and the bylaws proceeds. Thus far, 1 member has voted yes and
one has indicated "present." Three others have indicated they will not
vote on this motion.
Richard Harrison notes that his yes vote on the appeal is not meant to
construe support for the motion, but he does believe the Board should be
given the opportunity to vote on it and perhaps to amend it. As regards
the parliamentary procedure issue, he says "I am thoroughly confused
regarding this question. There has been no discussion. Of course, we're
going to abide by the bylaws and, of course, wer're going to use some form
of PP...In any case, use of parliamentary procedure is not an effective
tool to browbeat the Board members with. Perhaps it is a joke I am not
clever enough to understand." [Richard originally voted "abstain" on this
motion and then changed his vote to "present"]
In response to Ellen's point of order, Tim says "Your point of order is
moot. Ginger has asked for a vote - this gives it. There has been
considerable discussion already. If you wish to vote, do so. If you
don't, don't." [Leadership at its finest, folks] He also tells her that
asking a question or for an opinion doesn't require a motion and cites
this section of RRoO: "In ordinary meetings it is undesirable to raise
points of order on minor irregularities of a purely technical character,
if it is clear that no one's rights are being infringed upon and no real
harm is being done to the proper transaction of business."
Friday 22 September 2000:
Holly Timm notes that she will vote on the appeal, noting that "According
to proper procedure ("procedure" being what was used to club us with
originally), the appeal should have been officially placed for discussion
but in the interests of efficiency and cognizant of the fact that although
the original motion was made 9/12,declared out of order 9/13, and
appealed 9/14, it was stalled for an entire week, no action being taken
until 9/21." She will not vote on the issue of the use of
parliamentary procedure and says "Use of PP as a weapon or stalling tool
has not been limited to those with the most votes but has primarily been
used by yourself to club others into submission to your wishes. There is
no need for this question whatsoever as the ByLaws state we are to use PP
and the alternative votes have been used to insult us. Since there has
been no discussion to clarify what your intent is with this motion, I view
it as a frivolous attempt to insult the Board and will not be placing any
vote at all on it, i.e., taking a leaf out of your book and ignoring the
question." She suggests that if Tim is asking for an opinion, he should
state that clearly in the future.
Joe Zsedeny also indicates he will not vote on the parliamentary procedure
question.
Ginger Hayes tells Tim: "I asked for proper procedure to be followed for
the appeal, which, of course, was not done. The blatant threat you made
against members of this board is completely out of line...If this out of
order ruling on the motion stands then ALL board members are under threat
if they make a motion that may or may not be to your liking....Instead of
facilitating the smooth transaction of business, which is a duty of the
chair, you seem especially bent on hindering that process through improper
rulings and, now, outright threats against members of this board."
Regarding the parliamentary procedure question, she says "The second part
of your call for a vote on PP is out order. There was no motion, no
second and no discussion. Now stating that it is only a question only
makes it all the more so... Voting on it, either way, would imply that
this was a proper thing for you do, which it was not. This issue is
already addressed by the Bylaws."
===
Changes In The Air Corner: Looks like MyFamily.com is beginning to look
at making changes to RootsWeb. A survey has been mailed from the
"survey@myfamily.com " address to a select group of Ancestry and Root$web
users asking questions about the Ancestry WorldTree and the Root$web
Worldconnect project. The survey starts "You have been selected to
participate in a brief survey about your experience with RootsWeb.com.
Your responses will remain confidential and will help us gain valuable
feedback to help us enhance the site." Its a standard multiple choice
questionnaire and these are the questions: "1. Approximately how many
individuals have you entered into your family tree? 2. For how long have
you been tracing or researching your family's history? 3. How often do
you visit Ancestry.com? 4. Are you familiar with the Ancestry World Tree?
5. What do you think the Ancestry World Tree is? 6. Do you find the
name, Ancestry World Tree, descriptive of what it does? 7. How often do
you visit RootsWeb.com? 8. Are you familiar with the RootsWeb
WorldConnect Project? 9. What do you think the RootsWeb WorldConnect
Project is? 10. Do you find the name, RootsWeb WorldConnect Project,
descriptive of what it does? 11. Which of the following names best
describes this feature: A collection of family trees created by family
historians, made available free for searching and viewing in one central
location. 12. Which of the following Internet sites do you use more than
once a month? [Choices for this one are: RootsWeb.com, FamilySearch.org,
Ancestry.com, Cyndislist.com, Genealogy.com, KindredKonnections.com,
FamilyTreeMaker.com, USGenWeb.com, Other]"
===
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
---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 Fri Sep 22 15:13:01 2000
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 15:13:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: DBS--correction
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000922150731.6976B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
I have been kindly notified that I have mixed up my Richards. Both have
voted and the counts on the votes are currently:
Appeal: 5 yes, 1 no [voted so far: Ken Short, Ginger Hayes, Joe Zsedeny,
Holly Timm, Richard Howland, Richard Harrison]
Parliamentary question: 1 yes, 1 abstain, 1 "present" [responded so far,
Ken Short, Richard Howland, Richard Harrison]
I apologize for any confusion and to both Richards for mixing them up. <g>
-Teresa
merope@radix.net
From merope@Radix.Net Sat Sep 23 07:48:39 2000
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 07:48:38 -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.SV4.3.96.1000923064331.21292A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Get it while it's hot...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Friday 22 September 2000:
Voting proceeds on the appeal of Tim's ruling that Ellen's motion was out
of order. Thus far, 7 Board members have voted "yes" and 1 has voted
"no".
Teri Pettit notes that she will not be voting on the parliamentary
procedure question, but attempts to provide a useful answer to Tim's
"honest desire for clarification." She says: ""...I think we should
recognize that the traditional codifications of Parliamentary Procedure
can be unwieldly for email meetings which are constantly in session, and
that the rules should be interpreted in the spirit of enabling the
business to proceed in an orderly and expeditious manner, rather than
delaying or obstructing it. The concept of "open for discussion" is
especially vague in email meetings. For example, if messages have been
flying back and forth about a motion, I don't find it absolutely necessary
to rule the senders of those motions out-of-order just because they were
discussing something not officially opened for discussion....If there is
nothing else on the table, and the only reason the discussion hasn't been
officially opened is that the chair hasn't got around to it yet, Board
members should not feel they have to remain mum....Appeals are
particularly problematical, because of the delays that can be up to a week
between when a point of order or appeal is raised and when it is even
acknowledged by the chair. RRoO don't shed much light on this situation.
They often specify steps 1-2-3-4 that must be followed when faced with
disagreements on points of order, and don't take into account the
impracticality of trying to do that when each step may take five or more
elapsed days. I think in such situations we should nearly always rule
towards putting the core motion on the table and voting on it, even if it
means bypassing some of the steps of an appeal, such as the discussion
period...So I sometimes think we do need to be somewhat relaxed about our
adherence to the technicalities of RRoO. But the decisions should never be
based on what is convenient to those with the most votes or the positions
most similar to one's own, they should concern themselves solely with
whether the procedure makes the Project's business run more smoothly and
more democratically."
===
Off the Hook Corner: The DBS staff will be away for the weekend. Unless
we turn out to have free local phone calls at the hotel, we'll see you all
on Monday!
===
"A country is considered the more civilized the more the wisdom and
efficiency of its laws hinder a weak man from becoming too weak or a
powerful one too powerful."
---Primo Levi
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
-------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.