From merope@Radix.Net Wed Apr 11 16:30:02 2001 Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:30:00 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Morbidly curious...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Wednesday 11 April 2001: Joe Zsedeny forwards the following message from John Schunk regarding our service mark applications: "...the application for "USGenWeb Archives" service mark will enter the Opposition period in approximately two months...In consulting with the filing attorney (for "USGenWeb" and "The USGenWeb Project" marks), I was told that the typical cost for filing an opposition to a trademark/servicemark application is $5,000 to $10,000. He also said that if the mark application for "USGenWeb Archives" is approved, then successful filing for "USGenWeb" and/or "The USGenWeb Project" may require demonstration by the Project that The USGenWeb Project is a separate entity from the USGenWeb Archives -- lest consumers become confused about the identity of the two entities. The same thing would be true for the service mark application of "The USGenWeb Census Project" when(if) it enters the Opposition period. These are factors that perhaps Project members should be made aware of." [Read this carefully. It will cost the project upwards of $5000 to oppose Linda Lewis' filing for the USGenWeb Archives service mark. If someone does not oppose it successfully and it is awarded to her, we will need to prove that prove that the Archives and USGenWeb are separate, something that it will probably not be possible to do given the volumes of rhetoric on this very topic over the past several years. So our own filing is not likely to be succesful. You would think the "consulting attorney" could have figured this out for us _before_ the good people of this project sent in their dimes and nickels to pay his fee.] === Too Little, Too Late Corner: We hear the GenConnect server was offline most of the early morning hours for a "full system backup". Too bad they didn't think of that before they lost a full month's worth of posts [which are, btw, still missing]. === "Never mistake motion for action." ---Ernest Hemingway This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Thu Apr 12 13:07:32 2001 Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 13:07:31 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: Another fine mess...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Wednesday 11 April 2001: Teri Pettit suggests that "Rather than attempting to oppose the service mark applications filed by Linda Lewis for "USGenWeb Archives" and by the incorporated USGenWeb Census Project's Board of Directors for "The USGenWeb Census Project", perhaps it would be best for us to file our PERMISSION for the above two applicants to use the 'USGenWeb' mark as part of their own marks." She reminds the Board that they filed for the service mark in order to reserve it for the use of member projects and that "their right to use "USGenWeb" derives solely from their membership in our organization." She also suggests that both the Archives and the Census Project file statements with their applications that "they recognize "USGenWeb" to be a service mark of The USGenWeb Project reserved for the use of member projects of The USGenWeb Project, and that they are using "USGenWeb" as part of their own mark solely in order to identify their own organization as a Special Project of The USGenWeb Project." She notes that that "given that both applications HAVE been filed, and that neither applicant seems inclined to withdraw them, and that it would be prohibitively expensive both in terms of money and good will to oppose either of them, upholding the principle that the right to use USGenWeb derives from membership in The USGenWeb Project seems more important than the matters that we disagree on. Formally extending our permission seems to me to be the least expensive and by far the least disruptive way to preserve our claim to that right." Teri asks Tim Stowell and Holly Timm if there have been any applicants for the open Board seats. [see below] Tim says there have been several applicants, and he will announce their names after the nomination period closes [April 13, for those of you who might be interested.]. === Liars, Cheats and Thieves Corner: Our Esteemed National Commander is at it again, it seems. On March 30, he sent a solicitation to Maggie Stewart, head of the Project Formerly Known as the Archives Census Project, notifying her that the Advisory Board was seeking volunteers to fill the open Census Project seat on the Board. Maggie passed on the note to her staff with along with the following description of the Board's duties: "The Advisory Board advises the National Coordinator, Tim Stowell, on the running of the USGenWeb Project" and a note that the position's term expires August 30 2001. Holly Timm, who is listed as a contact person on Tim's message to Maggie, tells us that this "was not even discussed with me or the Board as a whole much less sanctioned." We hear through the grapevine that the Election Committee, diligently and secretly at work, is planning on accepting nominees for this position only from the PFKATACP and is collecting the names of eligible voters accordingly. Now this is an interesting situation. The National Commander apparently did not bother to notify the Board that he was soliciting candidates for the empty Census Project seat. He sent the notice out at the same time he sent out the notice for the other vacant seats. There is little doubt that with the Board's present composition, any candidate forwarded by the PFKATACP will be seated, but if he is really clever he will fill the other seats with "friendly" representatives and thus seal the deal. So to speak. Why he would choose to lend credibility to a project that violates the bylaws by its very existence and which has been caught engaging in all sorts of questionable activities by granting them a Board seat is anyone's guess. It can only reflect badly on USGenWeb as a whole, although it is firmly in the "support the Archives at any cost" tradition. Tim's little foray here may cost the project dearly though, both in terms of reputation and financially. Consider this: As we learned yesterday, Linda Lewis' service mark application will enter the opposition period in a couple of months and it may cost upwards of $5000 to oppose it, should we choose to do so. The USGenWeb Census Project [the real one] has also applied for a mark and it will also enter the opposition period before our own applications do. There's another $5000 or so we'd have to raise. If either of these marks are granted, our own applications are likely to fail, unless we can demonstrate that the projects are not affiliated. Given that both fly USGenWeb logos, prominently claim membership on their home pages and have asserted membership numerous times in email and other forums, this is unlikely. So, what to do? We will _never_ raise $10,000 through dollar pledges, and even if we did, couldn't that kind of money be better spent on the mission of the project? One obvious solution would be for both projects to withdraw their applications in support of USGenWeb's applications. This has always been in Linda's power, but she has refused to do so. The Census Project applied for its mark at least in part to protect itself from any attempt by the USGenWeb Archives and the PFKATACP to keep them from using their rightful name. If it were re-linked and given a guarantee that it was the official USGenWeb Census Project with rights to use the "USGenWeb" mark, the Census Project would most likely be willing to withdraw its application in favor of USGenWeb's. But by affirmatively declaring [without Board action of any kind] that the Census Project seat belongs to the PFKATACP, Timmy has pretty much sealed off that option. There is now absolutely no incentive for the CP to meet USGW halfway on this. Keep in mind that if we do not oppose Linda's mark and she obtains it, our own chances for obtaining our marks are substantially decreased, as are those of the Census Project. This will have the unfortunate result of putting effective control of the USGenWeb name into Linda Lewis' hands. So dig into your wallets kids. The pledge drive should be starting any day now. === "Dishonesty, cowardice, and duplicity are never impulsive." ---George A. Knight This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Sat Apr 14 17:38:36 2001 Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:38:35 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 4/14/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: No dogs allowed...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Saturday 14 April 2001: Tim Stowell posts the names of the candidates for the four open Board seats: NE/NC SC rep: George Waller, Lorraine Sonnenberg Newsome, Nathan Zipfel [congrats to George] SE/MA CC rep: Diane Parsons, John Smallwood, Ron Eason NE/NC CC rep: Lynn Conner, Sandra Mitchell-Quinn, Ron Eason, Sundee Maynez, Lorraine Sonnenberg Newsome, Dick Marston Census Project rep: Kay L. Mason [Oh, this is just too good to be true. Kay, as you may recall, was heavily implicated in the "appropriation" of Pauline Leitner's census transcriptions. She is the person who claimed to have retranscribed 600 or so hours of work in less than a month, and whose name replaced Pauline's on the files. She is not the same Kay Mason who used to hold the seat and in fact is not affiliated with the USGenWeb Census Project at all, but works for the Project formerly Known as the Archives Census Project. Given their history, I am sure she will serve as an excellent representative of that project's ethical standards.] === Secrets and Lies Corner: There's been an interesting discussion about the Board's secret list over the last couple of days. Its been the usual: "we don't have a secret list"; "well, we have one but we don't use it"; "well, we use it, but not for anything important"; "well, we use it for important stuff but only because a handful of members insist that we do"; yadda, yadda, yadda. Of interest is this quotation from Teri Pettit, who is obviously distressed by the situation: "The three people who "insist on doing USGW business in secret" are Tim Stowell, Barbara Dole, and Ken Short. They habitually send all of their questions, comments, and forwarded messages from others to Board-Exec. Actually it is Tim that introduces most of the topics, but Barbara and Ken always support him keeping them on Board-Exec when others suggest moving the conversation to BOARD-L. And Tim has made the rule that if anyone forwards, quotes, cc's, or paraphrases anything that anyone has said on Board-Exec off that list, EVEN THEIR OWN COMMENTS, then they will be unsubscribed. The rest of us try to start new topics that we introduce on BOARD-L, but if Tim has started a conversation on Board-Exec, we either have to remain silent about it altogether, or make our comments on Board-Exec. Replying to them on BOARD-L is not a permitted option." Interesting state of affairs when three people can hold the rest of the Board hostage to their whims. Perhaps they ought to consider taking a vote on where discussions should be held and see if the Gang of Three will honor it. And if they are really so opposed to the status quo, there is nothing preventing them from unsubbing from the secret list and conducting Board business on Board-L where it belongs. === "Live dangerously and you live right." ---Goethe This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.