Friday, April 29, 2005
Pig In A Poke
Unfit for human consumption...its Your Daily Board Show!

BOARD NEWS: The Board has passed Motion 05-08 with 11 YES votes and the EC has its new
members. Rather than taking a vote on the motion to amend 05-07 [Living Persons] Shari noted
that if there were no objections to it by 11pm last night, she would consider the motion amended
and encouraged the members to continue discussing the motion. Don Kelly considered this to be
"COOL." [This constituted the entirety of the discussion on either version of the amendment. As
there weren't any objections to the proposed amendment, the motion is now amended as
proposed.]

IN OTHER NEWS: GAGenWeb has been discussing the privacy policy worked up by Keith
Giddeon and the rest of the Privacy Committee. From the tenor of the half-dozen or so GAGen
members discussing it, the policy will probably be adopted. This appears to be because it is
essentially a feel-good, business-as-usual policy that won't actually require anything difficult of
anyone. Precisely what people like about it is, as a GAGW member put it, that it "does not require
any further rules and restrictions upon anyone [and]...is simply a list of suggestions and guidelines
at most." GAGW will vote on the policy starting next week.

Should Motion 05-07 fail, expect to see the GAGW PC's version of a policy proposed as the next
"lip service" policy for the entirety of USGenWeb. Because, you know, a long, wordy policy that
lets you post whatever you want is MUCH better than a concise policy that lets you post
whatever you want.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Cynically ironic since 1998

posted by merope at 5:41 AM 0 comments   
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Walking Disaster
It ain't heavy...its Your Daily Board Show!

CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM: Speeding things right along, Shari called the vote on Motion
05-08 [New EC Members Confirmation]. This motion looks headed for an easy and quick victory,
with 8 YES votes thus far.

The discussion Motion 05-07 [Living Persons], however, is not going so great. Angie Rayfield
noted "If we as a project believe that it's important to be responsive to the concerns of our page
visitors and researchers, then we need to have policies that SAY that." She then suggested a
policy that says "We believe that it's good public relations to give lip service to the notion of
respecting your privacy, but we don't really mean it, so don't bother asking us to. We're only
going to do it if we feel like it." [I suppose we could actually have a serious, complicated policy
and then just tell people when they ask about it "Oh yeah, we have a great policy. The best one
there is, really. Took us weeks to figure it out and we're very proud of it. But we don't enforce it.
Sadly, we can't make the CCs do anything. They just laugh at us when we try. So you are on your
own. Thanks, and better luck next time." Now, that would be lip service. She's missing the point,
probably willfully, of the proposed policy, which is not to pay lip service to anything. The point is
to recognize that the CCs are adult enough to figure this out for themselves without nannies
holding our hands.]

Bettie then moved to amend Motion 05-07 to read, "It is the policy of the USGenWeb Project to
respect the privacy of living individuals. Project members and transcribers are encouraged to
remove any data about a living person upon request of the person affected.. However, individual
webmasters and file managers are responsible for the information they choose to post on their
USGenWeb-affiliated websites." Surprisingly enough, Don Kelly seconded the motion to amend.

THE TIMES THEY ARE A'CHANGIN': Word on the street is that the OHGenWeb has "come
home" to Root$web and that the USGenWeb Census Project is noticeably absent from its list o'
links. Something extremely unpleasant happens when you try to go to the OH web page from the
USGenWeb national page, so we tried a back door. And lo! the new OHGenWeb page is on
Root$web, but the USGenWeb Census Project is clearly listed. So, its truly the end of a very long
era, and a new beginning.

LOGOMOTION: If you do nothing else today, you must go to the page for the logo contest and
check out entry AC-4. Its awesome, and has all four of our votes [if they let us vote, that is].
Even if it doesn't win...we want to find out who submitted it so we can get permission to use it.
Finally, someone is thinking outside the box. We hope we hear some singing birds soon...

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Sailing under the skull and bones since 1998

posted by merope at 5:53 AM 5 comments   
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Baggage Check
Generally speaking...its Your Daily Board Show!

TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS: Shari numbered both the Living Persons motion [05-07] and
the EC Slate motion [05-08] and opened both for discussion. She encourage swift passage of
05-08. The discussion thus far on the Living Persons motion has centered on the lack of a
provision that CCs and file managers will remove data upon the request of individuals. After
Darilee asked why she did not include such a provision in the motion, Bettie noted "we would
need to set in some kind of standard for enforcing any new guidelines we set. How would that
be?...If we have this policy in place, & someone wants to file a lawsuit for non removal of living
info, it will still fall on the CC...This motion is basically states the way things already are.
USGenWeb respects the right to privacy The CC/webmaster is responsible for content of their
site." Darilee then suggested some alternate wordings for a "removal request" clause, but Bettie
pointed out that "The CCs are the ones providing this public service. We are just the ones to
gather them together. If we think enough of our CCs to allow them to maintain web sites for us,
then we need to let them keep their driver's seat." She also noted that genealogy will continue to
be free with or without a policy. At that point, Don "We Need More Oversight Committees"
Kelly jumped in to say "Needs the wording to expedite removing material requested by the
submitters or interested relative," and that he won't support the motion without it.

CREEPING MALAISE: It is interesting to see how the proposed policy has gone from Darilee's
suggestion of removing "any data about a living person upon request
of the person effected," to Don's suggestion that any material requested by "submitters or
interested relatives" be removed. Darilee's suggestion is limited to the removal of fairly specific
information on living persons only. Don's suggestion however, would allow that any information
by anyone who can claim to be an "interested relative" be removed, regardless of the current
"living" status of the individual in question. Your long-deceased great-grandpappy was a
rum-running Communist and you don't like finding that information on the internet? Go ahead and
ask for it to be removed! You are, after all, an "interested relative." Your "Revolutionary War"
ancestor turns out to be a Loyalist who was run off to Canada? We'll be happy to erase that little
unpleasant fact for you; all you need to do is ask. Have a deserter or two in among your
WWII-era great-uncles or a few illegimate children in your family tree? Not any more!

We jest, of course. Its not likely that we'd get those kinds of requests. But we are likely to get the
kinds of requests where someone contacts a CC, or the Archives, or even the Board, and requests
the removal of themselves and their entire family from multiple sets of records. The CC may end
up having no discretion in these matters if a "specific removal" policy is passed, which is why we
prefer either no such policy at all, or a very general one that does not remove either discretion or
responsibility from the CCs. Unfortunately with Don, its impossible to tell if he's serious or just
being sloppy, and it would be too easy to pass a policy that ends up allowing virtually anyone to
request the removal of anything.

This issue is not getting any easier as time goes along. If even the simplest statement of policy
cannot pass, we have our doubts that anything more involved has even a whisper of hope.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Doing more harm than good since 1998

posted by merope at 6:00 AM 0 comments   
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Around In Circles
No new tale to tell...its Your Daily Board Show!

MOTION SICKNESS: 11 pm last night came and went with no public objections to the
withdrawal of Motion 05-06. Although Shari did not formally withdraw the motion, Bettie went
ahead and moved that "that the following policy be adopted by USGenWeb. 'It is the policy of the
USGenWeb Project to respect the privacy of living individuals. Project members and transcribers
are encouraged to limit the posting of information on living persons or persons that might
reasonably be assumed to be living. Individual webmasters and file managers are responsible for
the information they choose to post on their USGenWeb-affiliated websites.'" Shari dubbed this
the "Living Persons" motion and Larry Flesher seconded it.

The EC has also requested that the Board quickly approve a new slate of volunteers to fill a
handful of upcoming vacancies. Shari asked for a motion to approve the slate and noted that the
Board could handle the two motions simultaneously. Larry Flesher then moved "that appointment
of the slate of prospective new EC members as submitted by the EC on April 25, 2005 be
accepted."

MORE IS BETTER: Apparently the alternate SEMA list has proven to be quite popular, and a
desire for similar lists for the other regions has been expressed. Lo, it has come to pass and there
are now also lists for the NE/NC, SW/SC, and NW/Plains regions. Subscription information is
available at: http://usgwp.org/

AMUSING STORY: A friend sent me a link to a silly story yesterday, but its oddly appropriate
for the current discussion, so here it is: http://tinyurl.com/7tlx7


Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Feeling gravity's pull since 1998

posted by merope at 5:55 AM 2 comments   
Monday, April 25, 2005
Tanned, Rested, Ready
Never give a sucker an even break...its Your Daily Board Show!

SOUND OF SILENCE: The Board has been inactive since Thursday, when discussion on the
privacy policy issue and Motion 05-06 died out. During this long, silent period Shari did not call
for a vote on the motion. Yesterday evening, Bettie Wood asked to withdraw the motion and a
short time later Shari indicated it would be withdrawn if there were no objections before 11pm
tonight.

WALK SOFTLY: Bettie's request to withdraw her motion comes after several days of discussion
on the SW/SC regional list, which she moderates. The membership of that list appears to be
mostly uninterested in any sort of restrictive privacy policy, and although David Samuelsen keeps
flogging his "specific information removal" policy to anyone who will listen, interest in that has
waned as well. Don Kelly amused us all for a bit with a suggestion that 50 individual three-person
[one per state] review committees be created to investigate and determine the validity of all
requests for removal of specific information that CCs may receive. However, the spectre of even
more oversight seemed not to appeal to the list membership and the idea has since faded away.
The list membership, at least the portion of it that is vocal, now is in favor of the following simple
statement that basically recognizes the privacy issues, recommends that members use discretion
when posting information on people who may be living, and leaves responsibility for what is on a
CC's page with the CC.

"It is the policy of the USGenWeb Project to respect the privacy of living individuals. Project
members and transcribers are encouraged to limit the posting of information on living persons or
persons that might reasonably be assumed to be living. Individual webmasters and file managers
are responsible for the information they choose to post on their USGenWeb-affiliated websites."

Bettie seems quite good about listening to her constituents and acting on their wishes, and we
expect to see this or something similar on the Board list soon. We don't know how well it will do
there; there are several Board members who seem to prefer longer, wordier, and more
complicated proposals. [Disclaimer: While we wrote and posted this proposed policy statement,
we cannot take full credit for it. It sprang from and was inspired by discussion with several other
project members, all of whom prefer to remain blissfully Anonymous.]

AS THE WORLD TURNS: Meanwhile, elsewhere in the Project, the ongoing Grievance
Committee working group has made some progress. Although its hard not to note that the only
person on the committee who contributes much to the "discussion" is its Chair Angie Rayfield,
she is apparently receiving some input from the list subscribers. An updated version of the
proposed GC policy and procedures was posted Saturday at:

http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncgenweb/grievance/grievance.txt

Please note that the only portion that has been substantially updated is Section 1. This section
provides for the selection and composition of the standing committee, which will be composed of
six members, one of whom will be the Chair. The Board will select the first six members and also
choose among them for the Chair, but after that the GC will select its own members and elect its
own Chair. As has happened with the EC, we expect this will lead to a committee composed
mostly of the usual suspects, but at least under the currently proposed rules of the committee they
will have no influence on the outcomes of the grievances themselves. They are intended to serve a
more-or-less administrative function and not to actually handle grievances.

The current "discussion" centers on a proposal for two committee lists: one which will be private
and confidential where information on specific grievances will be discussed; and one which will be
open to project volunteers for read-only subscription. This second list will be archived and will
serve "to announce committee vacancies/appointments, to request volunteers for open positions,
and for discussions of policy and/or procedures. This list will also be used for Billet
Announcements." [This will be similar to the ticket number you get when you contact the help
desk of your IT department, which helps both you and them track the progress of your issue
through the system.] The second and publicly available list will thus apparently serve as a way for
project members to track the progress of their grievances, verify that they have been received and
numbered, learn of openings on the committee or opportunities to volunteer to be a mediator, and
keep up with policy discussions on how grievances are handled.

The astute reader will note that the current proposal does not mention the Board much. Although
under the current wording Board members would not be denied the opportunity to serve on the
proposed GC, the wording is not conducive to it, and it appears that any mention of the Board
itself has more or less been deliberately left out of much of the proposal. The bylaws in their
current form require that the NC be an ex-officio member of the committee; thus if this committee
gets off the ground during Shari's tenure, she will have all the rights and responsibilities of any
other committee member, including the right to vote [ref. Sturgis, 4th ed.] This is unfortunate,
since Shari apparently not only likes having a finger in every pie but in having substantial control
over how the pie is made, baked and eaten. In any event, she's just one vote among many and if
she ends up being the only voting Board member on the GC, she can't do too much damage. Can
she?

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Wagging the dog since 1998

posted by merope at 6:45 AM 1 comments   
Friday, April 22, 2005
Kick Out The Jams
You've been served...its Your Daily Board Show!

BUILDING UP STEAM: Shari Handley at long last recognized and numbered Bettie's motion to
put the privacy policy up for a vote during the regular election [Motion 05-06]. Now that the
Board has a motion in front of it, discussion is running heavy. [We were discussing this very thing
the other day with someone: how the Board bites its collective tongue until someone makes a
motion and then its like a flood gate opens.] Anyways, here are some excerpted comments:

"This motion is simply asking the USGenWeb members if we should have a policy...This vote by
the constituency would not be specifying any guidelines about anything...even...if they voted yes,
we'd still not have a policy, we'd just recognize that we need one...this will just put this topic off
unnecessarily. We do need some sort of policy or guideline or whatever you want to call it and we
should be able to come up with a wording that would work for the majority....I do think that
USGenWeb should make some statement about our desire to protect the privacy of living in our
quest to find the past...if you wanted the constituency to vote on the statement we come up with -
that I could support." --Denise Woodside

"I think we need to offer choices of possible policies." --Betsy Mills

"It is my personal opinion that this motion wording...will come back with a resounding NO
vote...with the members saying no, then we could not even begin to develop any policy...This
gives the Advisory Board to much authority to do as these please...policy should be stated as it
would affect the project, also including what will and will not have to be removed from the
websites and archives. Once known by the members, then they could vote on the policy." --Jan
Cortez

"If I said this is a terrible motion that means I don't support the CC's If I say I support the motion
it says that I don't believe the AB can do its job...we need a privacy statement/guideline...a
statement such as the one created by the Archives is appropriate...taking a poll to see if we need a
guideline is silly and if the worse case thing happened and people voted not to have a privacy
guideline I would be ashamed...If members of the AB don't wish to create the guidelines then lets
bring up 3 possible suggestions and let the CC's vote on them...we could have a poll to see if the
CC's want a guideline and then we could have a poll to see who makes up the guidelines and the
we could have a poll to see how long the members have to make up the guidelines and we could
have a poll...I guess I can't vote for the motion... Members are welcome to email me." --Darilee
Bednar

"...the CCs tell me that more guidelines/bylaws/policies we have, the more embittered the
volunteers become...What's wrong with just trusting the volunteers to use good judgment and
common sense like they've been doing so well at so far?...We gave the volunteers a poll for a
RAL...We gave the volunteers a poll on the logos...We gave the volunteers participation on the
BRC...At this point in time, we are working on giving the volunteers participation on the
grievances...But can't give the volunteers participation on this?...The most important thing in this
project is our volunteers, so let's not take their voice away." --Bettie Wood

"I am not against a poll...I think that the way this is written, it would prevent *any* policy from
being written, if the members were to vote it down...From what I've
received as feedback, the majority are against any written restrictive policy...The project as a
whole should make a statement...I am *not* trying to take the voice away from the volunteer, and
do know that those who do the work for this project are *the* project." --Jan Cortez

SMOKE AND MIRRORS: The GAGenWeb Privacy Committee announced on Wednesday that it
had finished its work on a privacy policy for that state project. The final draft was presented to the
SC, who has not yet presented it to the state membership. The final version is here:
http://www.giddeon.com/wilkes/privacy/ and oh, man is it bland. After a careful reading, one
comes to the inescapable conclusion that in the GAGenWeb Project, after careful consideration by
a hard-working committee, one will be able to post pretty much whatever one pleases. Why
having a policy that lets you post whatever you wish is better than not having a policy and posting
whatever you wish is not explained. We do note that toward the end of the discussion, several of
the PC members did balk at what they were beginning to perceive as "rules" instead of "policy";
their reluctance was addressed by adding free-pass exceptions to every part of the policy. And the
policy is also noticeable for having absolutely no cut-off dates. This is a bit surprising, but it does
have the considerable advantage of giving the appearance of having done something without
actually changing the status quo. In all seriousness, this is probably the best approach for the
national level to take as well: craft a guideline that states a broad and dateless privacy and either
write enough "exceptions" that people are not actually proscribed from posting anything, or just
say its the CC's responsibility to abide by the broad policy however they interpret it.

BONUS QUOTE: "The obvious answer is an oblique one attached to a question, like who are
we..." --Don Kelly, explaining something

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Down by law since 1998

posted by merope at 6:25 AM 0 comments   
Thursday, April 21, 2005
What Kind Of Day Is Thursday Anyways?
Like a redheaded stepchild...its Your Daily Board Show!

BOARD NEWS: Linda Blum-Barton seconded Bettie's Wood motion to put the matter of a
proposed privacy policy before the membership for a vote. Although neither the motion nor its
second have been recognized by the NC, Don Kelly voted "NO" on it already, noting "The people
who write to me are strongly opposed to the idea that they cannot post an obit 30 years old
because some of the people mentioned in the obit are still alive...There is no way worded in this
manner to vote yes on it and I believe the membership will turn it down too." [Yet, he's apparently
not willing to allow them opportunity to vote on it themselves. Odd.]

UNCEASING WONDER: A slightly new wrinkle has emerged in the public privacy policy
discussion. In the last couple of days, a few people have wondered where any proposed policy
would leave queries, which are often submitted by living people looking for other living people. In
USGenWeb these days, many many counties merely link to Ancestry's boards for their queries, so
the issue is both one of 1) will we still be able to accept these queries?; and 2) will we still able to
not link to outside sites that violate the policy but actually recommend that people use those sites
[as is the case with queries]?

We think people are reading way too much into this issue. First off, policies proposed thus far
have specifically addressed transcribed records, not willingly supplied information provided by
genealogists. Second, every CC, SC, and file manager will still be able to use discretion in what to
post as far as queries go. We not infrequently receive queries that include addresses and phone
numbers and we just strip that info out when posting them. We have a personal policy of not
actively helping people find living relatives who may not want to be found [birth parents, old
classmates, etc.] and instead refer them to organizations that do that sort of thing. People who use
Ancestry or some other sort of off-site query board don't have this luxury, but then they can easily
put up a disclaimer that the user is leaving the USGenWeb site when they go to post their query
and be done with it. Thirdly, the Board right now is either 1) vociferously opposed to any sort of
policy; or 2) suggesting guidelines rather than a strict [and unenforceable] rule; there is little
likelihood at this point that a restrictive policy will emerge from this discussion. Many posters
seem to assume that the Board is leaning heavily toward the goal of a draconian policy that will
gut USGenWeb and drive its volunteers into the wilderness, and in large part this may be due to
the Board's failed attempt to surgically remove the Texas state vital records. Fourthly, even the
Board is not likely to pass any sort of policy that obliges it to police thousands of individual
webpages and who knows how many files in the various national, state, and local archives
projects.

We feel it can neither hurt to have general guidelines and recommendations regarding transcribed
data in place for members' information, nor to place this issue before the voters in July even if its
only a preference poll. There are fewer than 20 people actively discussing this issue, and it is not
likely that they adequately represent the membership in its entirety. Besides, the outcome may be
not only illustrative, but very surprising.

SPEAK YOUR PIECE: Because we are curious as to where our readership sits on this fence, the
DBS will conduct a not-very-scientific mini-poll in the Comments section over the next few days.
If you are interested, please answer the following questions: 1) Are you in favor of or opposed to
a privacy policy [any policy at all, regardless of specifics]; 2) if in favor, please briefly describe the
sort of policy you would like to see; 3) if opposed, briefly state why; and 4) are you an LC, SC, or
file manager?. You may respond anonymously or not, as you choose. I will compile the comments
and publish the results in a few days.

BY THE WAY: The bylaws revisions blog has been updated. Go read it:
http://usgenwebrevisions.blogspot.com/

BONUS QUOTE: "We didn't suddenly become ogres when we got elected." --David Morgan

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Singing the body electric since 1998

posted by merope at 6:13 AM 3 comments   
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
This 'N' That
Wouldn't hurt a fly...its Your Daily Board Show!

SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION: Now that the Board is back in session, the discussion of a
privacy policy has stalled once again. Yesterday, Bettie Wood moved that "the following question
be added to the ballot during the next regularly scheduled election...'In an attempt to protect living
people from identity theft or embarassment, should the USGenWeb Project Advisory Board
establish a policy limiting the date and/or scope of data placed on all of its sites?'" As of this
writing, this motion has not been recognized by the Chair and there has been no second. Darilee in
turn again suggested that the Board consider the Archives' guidelines, with one modification. She
noted, "...I personally think guidelines on the privacy issue is a no-brainer...I haven't asked the
Archives permission to use these guidelines... so will not make a motion at this time."


WHEN ALL HECK BREAKS LOOSE: Among the first messages on the recently "parented"
DISCUSS list, once the time-out was lifted, were a handful taking Tina "Ms." Vickery to task for
her overly paternal approach to list management. The first one was also the best:

"The parental "I am tired of this conversation because I am in a bad mood" is
indicative of horrible people skills and management...to Stop a valid discussion with parental
mode skills is management at it's worst...If I treated my customers and guests in this manner, I
would be out of business in a heartbeat...This list is for "Discussion", and if that is something you
can't handle, then maybe you should give up the helm to someone else...Or better yet, we can all
unsub and go to a new list where the moderator isn't subject to mood spells...If you wanted the
discussion to cess, the least you could have done was put in a "Can we change the topic?' rather
than the heavy-handed militaristic maternal mode that seems to be prevalent at USGW." --Sharon
Tabor

In short order, several members posted to congratulate Sharon and support her. Tina's response?
Well, it was about what you'd expect:

"I consider the wording in your posting to be personally attacking my character and my
competence at several levels...I am willing to let you or anyone else get by with attacking me...I
will not tolerate...kind of a posting aimed at anyone else. Had these attacks been leveled at anyone
other than me, I would be placing you on moderation and subsequent suspension if the behavior
continued."

She also addressed this post to list members who supported Sharon and even managed to snark at
someone for using the honorific "Ms." And of course, Tina's supporters have risen to defend her
and praise her list management skills [which are fabulous enough to have driven off at least two
more subscribers]. But all that really matters is that she has indeed effectively diverted discussion
away from the privacy issue. Despite a couple of fitful attempts to jump-start it, most of the list
members are now focused instead on the circus that is the DISCUSS list.


-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Not quite right since 1998

posted by merope at 7:40 PM 1 comments   
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Back At The Ranch
Here we go again...its Your Daily Board Show!

NEW BEGINNINGS: In the space of a few hours yesterday, several things happened:

The Board officially came back into session late last night. Following a long message from Angie
Rayfield on the topic of a privacy policy, however, the Board once again fell silent.

The new OHGenWeb SC was welcomed to the State-Coord mailing list. [And Allen Richmond,
we hear, has jetted off to a well-earned retirement. We also hear he will be flying a blackened
protest logo on a flag over his villa in Tuscany.]

The DISCUSS list re-opened, but so far the only messages have been one in support of the
sending-to-bed-without-supper, and one that pointed out that "The name of the list is discuss-L,
not genealogy-L, isn't it?"

The Grievance Committee working group has been kick-started; the current topic is selecting
committee members. The proposal thus far is at:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncgenweb/grievance/grievance.txt If you have any comments or
suggestions, you can send 'em to any member of the working group [Angie, Betsy, Bettie, Don,
Jan and Shari]. They'll be glad to get them.

THANKS FOR PLAYING: For the two or three of you who have been following the little
catfight down in the comments section, thanks for bearing with us. Apparently our anonymous
reader can't be bothered to actually back up his/her statements, so we unfortunately are forced to
stand by our reporting, our experience, and the published EC procedures.


-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Providing lovely parting gifts since 1998

posted by merope at 5:52 AM 3 comments   
Monday, April 18, 2005
Knickers In A Twist
One lump or two?...its Your Daily Board Show!

IMPASSE: Yesterday a handful of Board members continued to discuss the proposed policy on
data on living persons. Bettie Wood has finally come out and suggested that the project
membership be allowed to vote "on whether to have "guiding lines" on adopting a privacy policy
regarding information on the living." She noted "While a good many support such a policy, more
say it is the responsibility of the USGenWeb volunteers to respect the privacy rights of the living,
& if requested to do so, they would remove the living info---so it all comes down to what the
CC/volunteers want to do." Don Kelly, however, countered that "The majority of people I have
heard from do not want guidelines nor to vote on guidelines...such matters should be handled by
the SC at the state level and come only to the AB if not resolved at the state level...I'll vote if the
majority wants it, but one problem in three years does not warrant much black ink, or a single
sleepless night...Guidelines if necessary should be at the barest minimum level of detail, no cut off
dates, cannot go there." He later noted, "The fear is guidelines will turn into rules and rules into
cut off dates...The guidelines...should be about what we are doing already...Call it a procedure if
you wish...I see no big resistance to that scope of protection." [He fails to note that "what we are
doing already" is not exactly a "procedure. Its more like "nothing."]

The Board should come back into session today, so we will see if the NC can steer this discussion
into areas more likely to produce some result other than stalemate.

EMOTIONAL ROLLERCOASTER: This topic is causing flared tempers and belligerent
declarations of principle in more than one place. Yesterday, it all became too much for DISCUSS
list dominatrix Tina Vickery, who late in the evening put the entire list on a 24 hour time-out after
a flurry of angry emails were exchanged between several list participants. [Just when the list was
getting interesting too; what a pity.]

SORE LOSER: We hear from a whole flock of little songbirds that yesterday, shortly after seeing
one congratulatory email too many from her fellow OHGW members, recently failed SC
candidate Jan Cortez unsubscribed from the OHGEN mailing list and removed herself from
OHGenWeb. [Apparently she has a history of doing this when she loses.] She then promptly
goaded Tina Vickery into moderating her on DISCUSS, shortly before Tina moderated the entire
list.

THE HONEYMOON IS OVER: Speaking of OHGenWeb's new SC, we've heard that now that
new SC Sandy Mitchell-Quinn has formally accepted the reins of the state organizations, there are
dark mutterings that perhaps the membership of OHGenWeb has been taken for a ride, and
perhaps the "new blood" is wearing sheep's clothing. The mutterings note Sandy's immediate
public declaration of her intention to make Jan Cortez and Lorraine Newsome her ASCs, as well
as to the presence of affiliate ads for Ancestry on her pages as evidence that perhaps she is a
"ringer." We personally think this is ridiculous, but conspiracy is a valued tradition in USGenWeb
and believing that "they" are capable of just about anything is a time-honored parlor game.
Apparently the fact that the woman has been SC for a day and has failed to clear the project of
Archives-groupies and Board sycophants is sufficient evidence that she's in bed with them. We
think it would be richly ironic if those who five minutes ago deliriously celebrated her victory [and
Jan's and Maggie's defeat] were incapable of controlling their suspicious natures long enough to
give her a chance and ended up driving her out of office.

OUR READERS WRITE: A comment on yesterday's DBS suggested that we get our facts
straight when reporting on the activities of the EC. Although it is apparent that the reader did not
actually read the section in question, we will clarify our report from yesterday. In order to be able
to vote, members need to do one of two things: 1) already be on the list because they were
members before 2004; or 2) register. If one registers, the EC will verify voting eligibility with the
SC personally or with a current list of eligible voters provided by the SC [or SPC, as the case may
be]. No one gets to vote just because they register. Now, we mentioned that we know of a few
people who should be able to vote but who aren't allowed, for reasons unknown. We are on the
no-vote list apparently, even though we were a member long before 2004. [And yes, we have
tried to register]. Others believe they are on the no-vote list because their SCs have refused to
verify their eligibility. But none of us know for sure why we don't receive passwords. We just
don't.

BONUS QUOTE: "I have had enough! Everyone needs to take a deep breathe This list is on
moderation until 9PM tomorrow evening...this is a volunteer organization with the mission and
goal of placing genealogical information on-line for our visitors. Let's all spend tomorrow doing
that." --DISCUSS list mother Tina Vickery sending the entire list to its room without dessert

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Refusing to eat her broccoli since 1998

posted by merope at 6:10 AM 8 comments   
Sunday, April 17, 2005
A Beautiful Day In The Neighborhood
Conserving paper but wasting electrons...its Your Daily Board Show!

SNEAKING IN: Although the Board is still technically on recess, a couple of Board members
have briefly discussed the proposed policy on posting information on living persons. Darilee
suggested adopting the existing Archives guidelines as a project-wide policy, but noted that she
does not agree with the guideline related to obituaries: "It is my opinion that obituaries since 2000
are being placed online by the newspapers and by other organizations that charge a fee for them.
It is for the benefit of FREE genealogy that the USGenWeb Project post these records and earlier
records without altering them or omitting information...I believe that is the opinion of most
people...that it was bad documentation to omit something as vital as a name or a location from an
old obituary...the people that complain are the minority and we should supply their needs by
quickly removing information as requested...we should supply the majority with good unaltered
information."

Angie also likes the Archives guidelines and noted, "They seem to be worded well, and it looks
like they strike a good balance between people's privacy concerns and the needs of the
researchers...I like the way they're referred to as "guidelines"...I don't think we've ever been
talking about establishing Page Nazis to run around nitpicking every file posted by every CC, or
creating some sort of National Review Board to come up with reasons to toss CCs out of the
project...These guidelines specifically say "should not", and "may", not "can't". There is only
"never" listed, and I'm hoping that there's no one in the project that would insist on posting SSNs,
addresses, phone numbers and such for living people...I had an email that made a comment to the
effect that the USGenWeb Project doesn't need to put guidelines like this in writing because it's
just common sense, and at first glance, that sounded reasonable. But then I thought about it a
little more...Wouldn't it be better to help educate people up front about our project's values rather
than just assume that they know the answers?"

Angie's comment on "page nazis" stems from a recent suggestion on DISCUSS that once the
Board establishes its policy it also establish a "Page Gestapo Task Force" to enforce the policy.
While we doubt that will come to pass, we are encouraged to see that at least a few members of
the Board are trending away from "rules" and supporting "guidelines" as a more reasonable
alternative. [Although we don't doubt for a minute that the next time they decide to go after
someone they'll comb through the unfortunate victim's website looking for violations of the
"guidelines" to hang them with.]

And Tina Vickery posted [apparently directly] to Board-L a reminder to everyone to register with
the Election Committee. The deadline for registering to vote in the July election is May 31. The
Election Committe no longer sends passwords to people who do not register. The online
registration form is here: http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/register.html
[Please note that using this form does not guarantee that you will be allowed to vote. The EC will
still verify eligibility with your SC, and it appears that more than a few of us who should be
registered are not, for reasons unknown.]

SECOND FRONT: A few days ago, Keith Giddeon and a few others in GAGenWeb formed a
Privacy Committee to establish a privacy policy for that state project. The committee is
deliberating more or less in public; its archives are here:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/GRP-CC
There appear to be three voting members of the committe, with Keith Giddeon as Chair and the
SC sitting in. Of note, Board member Linda Blum-Barton, who generally appears to have no
public opinion on anything at all on the Board list, is an active participant of GAGW's Privacy
Committee. You can see a summary of the group's discussion here:
http://www.giddeon.com/wilkes/privacy/;
although it does not appear that the committee has actually agreed on much other than the
statement of purpose. About the only thing of substance they have approved to this point is that
posting anything from a published United States census is acceptable, even for the 1930 census,
which is highly likely to include information on living people. The PC does, however, already have
a nifty graphic: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~robfra/privacy.jpg, and I think we can all agree
that's half the battle right there.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Archly ironic since 1998

posted by merope at 8:17 AM 2 comments   
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Good News
A DAILY BOARD SHOW NEWS FLASH!

AND WE HAVE A WINNER: Results have been announced in the OHGenWeb election for
State Coordinator, and confounding all leading indicators and most observers' expectations, the
new SC won't be Jan Cortez. Instead, relative unknown Sandra Mitchell-Quinn has captured the
SC seat, in one of the more efficiently organized and run elections in memory. [Or as one
OHGenWeb member put it: "...a really big congrats to SC Allen and the OHGenWeb Mini-EC for
pulling together, organizing, and doing a job that the USGenWeb EC was unable to accomplish."]

The Daily Board Show is happy to congratulate both Sandy and the OHGenWeb Project on this
pleasant outcome.

ALWAYS A BRIDE'S MAID: Poor Maggie. But oh well, there's always cheesecake and another
cat.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Rubbing it in since 1998

posted by merope at 5:00 PM 0 comments   
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Atheists And Foxholes
Crying over spilled milk...its Your Daily Board Show!

HEADING FOR THE HILLS: Shari Handley has recessed the Board until Monday April 18;
Betsy Mills has the Chair in her absence. There has been no further discussion on Board-L of the
proposed policy on information on living people.

NEVER THE TWAIN SHALL MEET: The discussion of the proposed policy has, as is common
in any discussion of an emotional topic in USGenWeb, split pretty much into two camps: the
"never post anything that might maybe someday possibly cause harm to any living person" camp,
and the "no restrictions whatsoever" camp. As is also common at this point in the discussion, no
one is offering up any novel ideas on the matter but appear more or less to be digging in and
preparing to defend their chosen side.

It is, we will admit, an argument with several nuances. At the one extreme, you have the potential
for nearly anything you choose to post to be used to some nefarious end, and thus you see
comments like this one from Derek Nichols: "I don't much care if it is 1 in 10 that are affected by
identity theft, or 1 in a billion, ONE is too many to that one that was affected." Whether its a
violation of privacy, an invitation to identity theft, a way for creepy creeps to find recently
widowed women with young children or lots of money, or just the embarassment attendant on
finding out that your great-great grandfather was an illegimate horse-thieving bootlegger who
abandoned his wife and children, you can easily make a case for not ever posting anything about
anyone. Or, you can make the case that it is not USGenWeb's job to protect anyone from the
harsh realities of the world. One of our purposes as an organization is to provide online
genealogical information. If we start bowdlerizing that information, then we become both less
reliable and less valuable as a resource to the genealogical community. If we end up posting edited
or incomplete information, people will just give up and open their wallet so they can buy the
whole enchilada from Ancestry [which many believe is the point of all this to begin with]. Most of
the information in question is both "public," in the sense of already being available for public use
in a variety of media [online, books, newspaper morgues, county courthouses for sale at Ancestry,
etc.], and "public" in the sense that it has no copyright restrictions. There is a mish-mash of laws
regarding public access to vital records, and any number of opinions as to what is ok to post and
what is not ok to post, depending on what particular evil one is trying to prevent or what good
one is trying to promote.

We do notice that those organizations in the business of selling genealogical information online to
the public have few qualms about posting and selling recent birth/death/marriage information, or
census information, or entire obits, or any other type of information that people will fork over
cash for. [Ancestry actually advertises its obituaries as a way to find "a recently deceased
ancestor, a living relative who might be mentioned in an obituary, or former classmates or
neighbors."] Those organizations, even genealogical ones, that either don't provide online
information or who sell real books, are more likely to have some kind of privacy policy that
discourages the general provision or broad distribution of information on living persons.

What we commonly hear in the discussion here in USGenWeb is that most folks are currently
following their conscience on the matter. Some will not post any information on people they do
not know to be dead. They edit the living out of obits, don't post births more recent than 100
years ago [or 110, or 120 years ago], or marriages more recent than 50 years ago [or 60, or 70
years ago, etc]. Some will not post census information past 1900. Others figure, hey, newspapers
publish their own obits in toto on their web pages, many counties and states have made their
probate, marriage, and land records freely available online, Ancestry sells everything it can get its
hands on, and the US federal government apparently has no qualms about releasing 72 year old
census information to the general public. Why shouldn't USGenWeb provide this information in a
centrally located, easily accessible, and free format for genealogists. No laws are being broken,
and a greater good directly related to our purpose as an organization is being served. This
approach, that of individual conscience directing individual webmasters to tailor their offerings to
the genealogical public in a way that they feel achieves a happy medium between access and
protection, has worked for USGenWeb for many years now and perhaps its best that it stays that
way.

There are many pitfalls ahead if the Board tries to pass any kind of specific policy. Already several
folks have come right out and baldly stated they will not honor any policy by the Board that
restricts what they can post. Others have noted that if the Board does institute a policy but does
not use the date cutoffs they personally prefer, they will not honor them. Although the discussion
is now tending toward a stark good vs. evil dichotomy, basically the Board is faced with the
situation that while one person may feel it is wrong to post marriages less than 50 years old,
another feels it is wrong to post marriages less than 75 years old, and yet another feels it is wrong
to deny genealogists access to any marriages, given that they are public records and in general
quite freely available. It is not possible to reconcile those points of view, nor is it possible to
enforce any policy that supports one over the other. There are thousands of local pages in
USGenWeb and many more thousands of pages of transcribed data in the various state and
national archival projects. Who will police them all? How will they force members to take down
data that is contrary to policy [or for that matter how will they force them to post data that meets
the requirements of the Board's policy but that violates the conscience of the CC or file manager]?
How can the Board force the Archives, for instance, to edit the submissions of its transcribers,
who may object to finding their hard work eviscerated?

While continuing to rely on personal conscience seems like, and probably is, a cop-out that avoids
a difficult decision, it is probably the Board's best option in this situation. This does not mean that
the Board should forego a general policy, if only to protect itself and the Project from the
consequences of its members' actions. The policy can be as simple as "It is the policy of the
USGenWeb Project to respect the privacy of living individuals. Project members and transcribers
are strongly encouraged to limit the posting of any information on living persons or persons that
might reasonably be assumed to be living. Individual webmasters and file managers are personally
responsible for the information they choose to post on their USGenWeb-affiliated websites."

HEARSAY: Incidentally, a rumor has made its way to us through the grapevine that the
proximate cause of all this hoo-hah was a complaint filed with the Board by Ellen Pack, who was
righteously tweaked when she found much personal information about herself and her family in
the now-infamous Texas vital records databases in the Archives. While a conversation on this
topic may be way overdue, it is always interesting to speculate if this would have gone so far had
the original griper not been so tight with several Board members.


-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Taking it to the streets since 1998

posted by merope at 7:11 AM 0 comments   
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Head 'Em Off At The Pass
Seeking closure...its Your Daily Board Show!

DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN: Since yesterday's edition of the DBS, there's been but one more
comment on Board-L on the topic du jour. Betty Wood said "If you're asking whether or not I/we
feel that USGenWeb should have a policy covering data on living persons, then Yes, I do feel
USGenWeb should have a policy...I have just requested input from...the SWSC region, & will let
you know what they want as soon as I can."

PEANUT GALLERY: The Board may be tiptoeing around this issue, but the discussion lists are
not. Here are a sampling of comments from the various project water coolers:

"I intend to continue to do my two sites the way I have always done the first one I began cc-ing.
That means that I will continue to post obits, cemetery records, etc...Public records are public
records. Public records are available to the public....and it would be most...difficult to prove that a
scam was run from information posted on a USGW P site...Limit us as to what we can post on
our sites and pave the way for the "BIG BOYS" to sell CDs of what we are forbidden to post?
Unacceptable!" --Phyllis Rippee, DISCUSS

"I support USGenWeb adopting a privacy policy regarding information on living people. The
genealogy world has a long tradition of respecting the privacy of living people and I do not feel
that USGenWeb is above this basic tenet of our profession or hobby.
We elect our board members and other leadership to set policies that will reflect well on our
organization. They have the duty to look out for the best interests of USGenWeb and its
volunteers...Do any of us really want to see a national coordinator apologizing in the national
media for USGenWeb's role in a huge identity theft case?...A privacy policy for USGenWeb is a
step towards our future acceptance in the higher echelons of genealogy. I urge all board members
to work towards a fair and balanced privacy policy for our organization." Keith Giddeon [who
apparently has got himself back on the DISCUSS list.]

"Should The USGenWeb Project have a policy regarding information about living people?
Certainly! But as USGenWeb is a forward-looking organization, being totally Internet based, that
policy should also be forward-looking, not backward-looking as is the one proposed...I foresee
the day when ALL public information is readily available on the Internet, whatever policies
genealogical societies or genealogy projects have. Better to prepare for that time, than to attempt
to recreate a time when public information was more difficult to obtain...Our policy should deal
with PRIVATE information about living individuals and with JUXTAPOSITION of public
information...Although in the past it was necessary for people to make a trip to some or the other
record depository to gain access to public records, that is no longer true, and in the future will
become less and less true, despite the rearguard efforts of some. Previous genealogical standards
have been usurped by technology. New definitions are necessary." Dick Harrison, DISCUSS

"I am personally against more regulations, don't necessarily think we should
be posting living peoples info, just don't want more rules." --Cliff Fargason, SW/SC

"...it's the best interests of the project, not any one individual's personal experiences or beliefs, that
should be the deciding consideration...the project looks better when we can say, "These are the
steps our project has taken in order to make as much genealogical information available as
possible while still protecting sensitive information that could be used to harm someone. These
are the guidelines that we ask our CCs to follow, and this is why the information you found is on
line. This is how we determine what is permissible to publish, and what is inappropriate." --Angie
Rayfield, DISCUSS

"I'd hate to see the results of a USGenweb policy on the posting of information on living persons.
We've seen how the USGebweb policy makers can butcher up a good idea...How about just
sending a nice reminder to all?" --Chris Meyer, NE

"I believe that we have to establish some sort of privacy policy but I don't
want to see one that is so convoluted that poeple can't understand it. Basically good common
sense should dictate what we put online - but how does one go about defining that?" --Jan Cortez,
NE

"The USGenWeb does need privacy guidelines if not policies. Next question: Will any
policies adopted also apply to the Special Projects?" --Pat Sabin, NE

CATCH ME IF YOU CAN: W. David Samuelsen has posted his "Specific Information Removal
Policy" to numerous lists, trying to drum up support and language that will satisfy everyone.
Reaction to his policy has been mixed. In general, those who support a more restrictive policy
about posting info on living people think it doesn't go far enough and that it puts the burden on
outsiders to hunt down and find instances where their personal information is posted online in
order to get it removed. Those not in favor of setting date cut-offs for such information think its
just about right.

BONUS QUOTE: "I suggest IF this policy is put in place, that whenever the logo is voted on, the
members will be told that after it is chosen, a strip depicting a gag will be placed over it. That
way, it will be truly representative of the direction of the Project." --Phyllis Rippee, advocating
protest logos on DISCUSS


-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Facetiously dripping irony since 1998

posted by merope at 5:55 AM 0 comments   
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
A Crying Shame
The second time is the charm...its Your Daily Board Show!

BACK TO THE FUTURE: The Board has again taken up the discussion of a general policy on
posting data on living persons. Shari kicked off the topic by presenting several quotations from
genealogical sources and privacy advocates warning of the dangers of posting material on living
people and asked the Board to comment. Thus far, only two Board members have. Denise
Woodside noted, "Yes, I feel we should have a policy. I feel it is naive not to...I don't feel we
need to do anything long and drawn out as far as data on peoples of unknown status. x years for
marriage records, x years for birth records, and all death records. Other items are more difficult to
decide." Angie Rayfield said, "I don't want to see a situation where CCs are expected to be
detectives to verify every bit of information, and I think we need to be a little rational when we
refer to "posting data about living persons"...I don't think we need to mandate that no living
persons name could ever be mentioned...it would be reasonable to make a cut-off of, say, 100
years for birth records, 70 years for marriage records. (Death records/notices I would hope we
could just ask people to use some common...) And I think it would be reasonable to specify that if
someone requests that their personal information be removed from a county page, that the CC
will remove it, without argument as to whether it's "public record" or not." There have no other
comments thus far and Don Kelly has not submitted David Samuelsen's suggested policy on
user-initiated removal of data.

AND THEY'RE OFF!: The voting has started in the election for the new OHGenWeb State
Coordinator. The final list of candidates includes Jan Cortez, Daryl Lyton, Sandra Mitchell-Quinn,
and late entry Maggie Stewart Zimmerman [who surprisingly enough had a campaign page ready
before she was nominated.] Our money is still on Board member Jan Cortez, but Maggie's dream
might come true after all. Whichever one of them wins, expect former SC Allen Richmond to
have a very short tenure as an OH CC. Both of them have been itching to pull the trigger on him
for a very long time.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
En garde since 1998

posted by merope at 6:10 AM 2 comments   
Sunday, April 10, 2005
Tit For Tat
A generous heaping helping...its Your Daily Board Show!

REPORTING IN: On Saturday, Angie Rayfield filed the report of the Grievance Committee
working group. It was brief and to the point:

"The Grievance Committee has gotten off to a bit of a slow start...We have a rough draft of what
we've been doing, and it's available for public viewing and/or comment. It's at
http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncgenweb/grievance/grievance.txt. We have some details to take care
of, and obviously we can make changes anywhere that seems necessary, but this draft gives an
good idea of the direction we're heading."

Shari thanked her for the report and that ended the Board's business for the day.

NOW YOU SEMA, NOW YOU DON'T: The attempt by the NC and the SEMA reps to scare the
project membership away from the alternate SEMA list has apparently backfired quite
spectacularly. The list owner reports increased interest in the list and many new subscribers since
Shari's announcement went out.

Here in the newsbunker, we have been surprised to see the interest the issue has generated. Thus
far, there have been several comments made by readers, and we've actually received some
personal mail on the topic. One of the public comments was from Board member, SEMA rep, and
signatory to the "not an official list" announcement, Angie Rayfield. Angie said:

"...for at least one of the concerned Board members, it's not a matter of a list that can't be
controlled. It's a matter of a list that holds itself out as being an unbiased place of discussion,
while at the same time refusing to subscribe people that they know disagree with their political
views. In theory, all SEMA region CCs are invited to the list, but in reality, only SEMA region
CCs that aren't known to disagree with the listowner are invited. I have no problem with alternate
lists, but I DO have a problem with lists that pretend to be something they aren't. If you want to
run a partisan list, by all means do so -- but identify it properly, and admit what you've got.
There's nothing wrong with having partisan views, as long as you don't pretend you're being
objective."

We asked the SEMA list owner, Margie Daniels, about this, and she said that she's only ever
refused to subscribe one SEMA person [a former Board member] who she did not know
personally, but who had been described to her as a "list disruptor," "hell on wheels," and as a
person used her status as a Board member and an SC to take reprisals against other project
members. [This particular person does apparently have a history of disrupting state lists of which
she is a member and some alternate SEMA members reported actually being afraid of her.] As
another commenter pointed out, Margie has also placed one member on moderated status for
making excessive off-topic posts to the lists.

It is not clear that the list claims to be "unbiased" or to be anything other than an alternate list for
SEMA members who want to discuss issues of importance to them and find they cannot do so on
the official list, which is run by Shari Handley. Shari has in the past described the official SEMA
list thusly: "This list is not the place to discuss the politics of the Project. If you want to do that,
go to some other list. Please be forewarned so that you don't get unsubscribed." We don't know
how busy the alternate SEMA list is, but the official one is moribund. Since Shari started her
tenure off in July 2001 with a threat to the list members, it's commonly had less than 10 messages
a month and most of those are announcements from Shari.

But let's take a look at the official lists and their not so unblemished histories. As official lists of
the USGenWeb project, one might assume they are unbiased, open to all eligible members, and
managed with an even hand, but that is not often what one finds.

USGENWEB-ALL--ALL was the closest thing that USGW has ever had to an official list that
actually allowed discussion on pretty much anything by anyone. Although usually controlled by
the pro-Root$web/Archives/Board faction of the Project, moderation and banning were very
uncommon. Discussion there tended to have a bit of a "wild west" flair, but it was true that
everyone could subscribe. The list was closed abruptly and apparently with great personal
satisfaction by former National Commandante Richard Harrison a few years ago and never
re-opened.

USGENWEB-DISCUSS--Easily the most ironically named list in the Project, the "Discuss" list is
currently managed by EC Chair Tina Vickery, who actually tells people what URLs they can put
in their sig files as part of her list management strategy. Entire categories of topics are banned
entirely and members are frequently moderated or banned [or not] depending on Tina's apparent
whim. There are probably a dozen or more people banned, apparently for life, from Tina's list [I
am one of them], and a fair measure of how much discussion is actually allowed is how eerily
quiet the list often becomes during periods when one would expect the more fractious members of
the project to be opining in any forum that will have them.

BOARD-L: This is not exactly a public list, but Project members are both allowed and
encouraged to subscribe on a read-only basis. But wait! As it turns out, not all members are
allowed to subscribe. We, for instance, were unsubscribed when we embarassed the NC publicly
and our attempts to resubscribe have been ignored.

State-Coord-L: This is a mandatory list for state coordinators; Shari recently moderated one of
them for publishing a version of events in the OHGW election that differed from hers, and others
have been moderated in the past by various State Coordinators for various reasons. Tim Stowell,
we recall, was moderated for nearly the entirety of Richard Harrison's tenure.

Regional Lists: These four lists are managed by Board members in the relevant regions and are
allegedly open to all regional members, but we sporadically hear of instances where regional
members are not allowed to subscribe [for instance Tim Stowell tells us he is not allowed to
subscribe to either regional list that is relevant to him.] Nearly all of the regional lists are more or
less inactive. Discussion of "politics" is expressly forbidden on at least one of them. The only
regional list that appears to not only allow relatively free discussion but encourage it is the SW/SC
list.

[These are just the general membership lists; we don't have enough lives to get into the various
state level lists, all of which are managed at the whim of the various SCs.]

Are there plenty of instances of list managers of the "official" lists denying subscription or posting
rights to people they don't personally like? Sure. Are there examples of discussion being
terminated when its not going a particular way or, for that matter, being banned entirely? You
know it. Have people used their power to thwart or terminate discussion and remove dissenting
voices from the forum? You betcha. Are there examples of some members being banned or
moderated for behavior that is tolerated in others? Plenty. And yet, the NC and the SEMA reps
felt compelled for some reason to go after the alternate SEMA list, which has denied membership
to but one person and moderated but one person in its history. It can't be because they are
opposed to moderating, banning, or biased discussion; they approve, facilitate, and applaud those
things on the official lists on a regular basis. So we don't think we are going out on a limb when
we guess that they are desperate to steer members away from any discussion that they cannot
limit or control, or just stamp out entirely when it gets too close to the bone.

BUT HERE'S THE KICKER: Of course, the best thing all around would be if the SEMA reps
supported the alternate discussion list and maybe actually joined it [or maybe even allowed open
discussion on their lists]. After all, its not really a discussion if there's only one side yammering.
But it appears that, according to the SEMA list owner, anyone on the Board will be denied
membership out of hand. This policy is allegedly to protect list members from reprisals and
intimidation by Board members. But really, since the Board can easily send spies in anywhere, this
is a meaningless policy. I would venture a guess that the Board knows exactly what transpires on
the alternate SEMA list [which might explain the sudden interest in discouraging participation in
it], and in any case, they already know who the loyal opposition is. Letting them join, and actually
welcoming them, would be a far, far better thing. But you know how it goes.

So, there's really no one standing on the moral high ground in this issue. The Board apparently
cannot tolerate alternate fora, and those alternate fora apparently cannot tolerate the Board.
*sigh* We miss the ALL list. It may have been a free-for-all, but at least it was free and actually
for all.


-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Playing with fire since 1998

posted by merope at 8:46 AM 2 comments   
Saturday, April 09, 2005
More Ridiculous Crap
Looks like we struck a nerve...its Your Daily Board Show!

HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT: There's been no Board-L traffic since Wednesday, when Shari asked
Angie for a report on the progress of the Grievance Committee working group [and there's been
no activity on that list since March 20.]

CORRECTION: We reported yesterday that Shari Handley had removed OHGW SC Allen
Richmond from the SC mailing list. We have been informed instead that Allen unsubbed himself
and Shari has declined to resubscribe him for the remainder of his term in office.

SPEAKING OUT: We've received word of a new resource for project members. This one will
include a discussion of each of the proposed revisions submitted by the Bylaws Revisions
Committee. Theoretically at least these revisions should be showing up on a ballot near you
sometime around July, but we have our doubts that they will ever leave the Board's hands.
Anyhoo, the new blog is run by a former member of the BRC and we expect some insight into its
secretive goings-on. The url is http://usgenwebrevisions.blogspot.com/ Please visit, read the
comments and leave some of your own.

WHERE HAVE YOU GONE OHIO?: Meanwhile, over in the Buckeye State, things have calmed
down somewhat. In light of Tina Vickery's peevish refusal to hold an election on behalf of the
state, outgoing SC Allen Richmond has, in record time, posted rules for the election, defined a
nominations and voting period, and formed a committee [and a backup/oversight team] to manage
the election. The nominations period will remain open until Monday and voting will commence
Tuesday and end on Friday. The winner and new SC of OHGenWeb will be announced on
Saturday and they will take office on Sunday, April 17. If this works, it will be a model of
efficiency and timeliness, with nary a snippet of cumbersome bureaucracy or condescending
attitude. How refreshing.

WHACKING THE MESSENGER: Also meanwhile, over on the State-Coord mailing list, one
"Wild" Bill Oliver has undertaken to defend Allen in the forum which is now denied to him. Said
Wild Bill:

"...the Elections Committee Chair, Tina Vickery, removed the EC from the OHGenWeb SC
election process of her own volition; therefore, the NC, Shari Handley has erroneously stated that
Mr. Richmond "has arbitrarily called off the SC election in
Ohio". In correspondence with Mr Richmond, he confirms, that this is a complete fabrication on
the NC's part, and is the second time that the current NC has made public statements with regard
to OHGenWeb without checking the validity of such statements prior to issuing
pronouncements...I forward these comments to this list in the interest of calling attention to
sequential events in this drama, as it seems that the OHGenWeb SC has been unsubbed from this
list prematurely. being that his declaration of a SC-elect has been rejected at all levels."

As you might imagine, this did not sit well with Her Supreme Highness who permits such
snarkiness on her lists only when it comes from Herself or Her friends. Shari's response to Bill
was not exactly a model of even-handed list management:

"...the EC declined to participate in the Ohio elections because of Mr. Richmond's refusal to
cooperate. The EC is NOT obligated to assist in State Coordinator elections...They certainly do
NOT have to put up with the kinds of gamesmanship, immaturity, and lack of cooperation that
Mr. Richmond has displayed. If he was unwilling to cooperate with the EC in helping him with
Ohio elections, he should have been prepared to manage and hold the elections himself or via
some other means...Instead, he chose to simply declare the election over, called the one candidate
that had been nominated so far the winner, posted his note here to STATE-COORD, and then
unsubscribed himself. In order to give the Ohio volunteers a voice in the choosing of their State
Coordinator, as is their right, his arbitrary choice to terminate the election process could not be
allowed to stand...we do need to go through the process of allowing other OHGenWeb to
volunteer or nominate someone...and then holding an election if there is more than one
candidate...Apparantly, your reading of the events wasn't quite a careful as you represented in
your note. Your insinuation that Allen was nefariously unsubscribed from this list in inaccurate, at
best. The STATE-COORD list is not here to stir up trouble. Your posts, Bill, will be moderated
for a period of two weeks."

Look at that. Badmouthing Allen and Bill in the same post she chastises Bill for badmouthing the
EC and herself, and then banning Bill for it. We sure couldn't have seen that coming, could we? If
this sort of thing wasn't such a depressingly common occurrence in USGenWeb, it would actually
be news.

[We are amused to note however, that Bill, who posted this exact same message on the DISCUSS
list apparently remains unbanned there. I suppose it would be awkward for the Chair of the EC,
who also runs that list, to start banning people who have expressed concerns about the EC. It
might restart the discussion on conflict of interest and remind people that the person who gets to
decide who votes also gets to decide who is allowed to speak publicly on the only officially
sanctioned general "discussion list in the Project.]

AND FINALLY: We've heard from a little bird that Shari and the SEMA reps' desperate attempt
to scare people off from the alternate SEMA CC list has only resulted in increased interest in
subscription to that list. You know what they say. There's no such thing as bad publicity.


-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Dancing with the daffodils since 1998

posted by merope at 6:48 AM 0 comments   
Friday, April 08, 2005
All Bent Out of Shape
Now in full color...its Your Daily Board Show!

NEXT UP: The Board is apparently still humming quietly to itself, although on Wednesday Shari
did ask Angie Rayfield to produce a report on the progress of the Grievance Committee working
group. There isn't any response to this yet, but both Shari and Angie keep odd schedules these
days [and Shari at least is busy defaming project members on other lists].

BUZZING FURIOUSLY: In the several days since Allen Richmond announced that he and Judy
will be resigning from their leadership positions in OHGenWeb, the following has happened:

1) On Tuesday, Allen asked for the EC to manage the state's election and the EC agreed. A
couple of EC representatives joined the OHGW list and the nominations process was opened. One
person, Bonnie Walsh, nominated herself.

2) On Thursday, Tina Vickery, Chair of the "nonpartisan" Election Committee, rode in on a flying
monkey and informed Allen that the EC would not be handling OHGW's election after all. [We
are not aware that this service has ever been denied to any state that asks for it.] From what we
are told, when Tina asked Allen to forward her a list of candidates at the end of the nomination
period he pointed out this was redundant, since official EC staff were on the list and could put it
together themselves. At that point, Tina [who has never much liked Allen and tends to trim her
fuse a little short when dealing with him] said "The Elections Committee will *not* assist with the
OHGenWeb Project SC Elections. I will not...subject the EC volunteers or Larry Stephens to
your condescending tone and attitude...I wish you all the best wish your future endeavors." [Tina
once tried to have Allen removed from OHGW for linking to the old RFUSGW blackened protest
logo, so the astute reader can probably imagine how "nonpartisan" she feels about him. You kinda
wonder what else she lets her personal feelings get in the way of. I, for instance, still don't receive
a password for elections.]

3) Following Tina's hissy fit, Allen notified Shari Handley that because the EC refused to run an
election, he had received only one nomination, and time was of the essence, he was naming the
sole candidate Bonnie Walsh as the new OHGenWeb State Coordinator-elect. He also posted a
message to the State Coordinators' list introducing her, and the welcome wagon there was briefly
out in full force.

4) Then all hell broke loose.

5) Several members of OHGenWeb took offense at Allen's attempt to seat Bonnie without a
proper election, although they took different approaches to the issue. Robert Bremer, for instance,
noted "I find this kind of appointment of a new SC completely unacceptable. Tina Vickery needs
to get off her high horse and do her job. There needs to a nomination period long enough to
insure that those who want to be considered for the SC position have a chance to run." In a later
message he also noted, "The problem is not with Allen or Bonnie or anybody else in OHGenWeb
that had tried to follow the process for what is typically done nowadays with SC vacancies...The
problem is with an uncooperative EC chair refusing our state project the same chance for an
election typically offered to any other state." Jan Cortez didn't "see any problem with the EC," but
complained that the election wasn't handled properly and implied that was because there was
something sneaky going on: "This certainly smacks of behind the scenes ways of putting some one
in office without letting the members know what was happening...this was not handled correctly
and I am appalled at what was done." [This put poor Bonnie in the position of having to assure
the OHGW that she had not colluded in secret with Allen to be named SC without an actual
election.]

6) Bonnie Walsh declined the position of State Coordinator-elect, although she remains in the
running as a candidate.

7) Three other candidates, Daryl Lytton, Jan Cortez, and Sandra Mitchell-Quinn have stepped
forward to run for the office.

8) Shari posted a message to the State-Coord list noting that "Allen has arbitrarily
called off the SC election in Ohio and declared Bonnie the winner because she was the only
nominee so far in the very early stages of the nomination period...this is not how a USGenWeb
SC is selected and it cannot be allowed to stand...We'll get this worked out and a bonafide
election WILL be held in Ohio." [Interestingly enough, there are no rules for the election of an
SC, other than that an election has to be held, and traditionally very wide latitude is given the
outgoing SC in determining how the election is run. Apparently that will not be the case this time.
She also failed to note Tina's part in this, which is perhaps understandable. Shari doesn't like Allen
either and she and Tina are thick as thieves.] Although Allen is still the SC of OHGW, Shari
unsubbed him from the SC mailing list.

9) Discussion about moving OHGenWeb to Root$web has already begun.

Although we don't agree with leaping to the appointment of an SC in such an abrupt fashion, we
can sympathize with Allen's desire to have a leadership structure in place prior to his last day,
which is April 17. We can also understand the EC's desire to effectively manage an election
according to a state's wishes and following its usual procedures. But we cannot understand how it
is that the Elections Committee Chair cannot keep her personal animosity for a fellow volunteer
under control long enough to do her job, which is running a "nonpartisan" committee that serves
all of USGenWeb. There is no evidence that the decision to let OHGenWeb twist in the wind
while Tina flaunted her power and a nifty way with sarcasm came from anyone but Tina. Had she
been able to keep her knickers untwisted and behave at least somewhat professionally, Allen
would most likely not have felt the need to appoint Bonnie to the position so abruptly and the
OHGW election would be humming along more or less smoothly.

Now [and get this, because its good] we are given to understand that a candidate for the position
is actually going to have a private discussion with the Chair of the Committee that is supposed to
run the election to smooth things out. How's that for a bit of the old conflict of interest? And she's
a Board member, to boot. How much you want to bet she wins?

15 quatloos on Jan Cortez as the next OHGenWeb SC!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST: Our money here in the DBS newsbunker is that Tina will
agree to hold an election, but only after Allen is safely gone. The Board will appoint someone
[probably Jan Cortez] to serve as interim SC, the state pages will move to Root$web, and an
election to the Board's liking will be held. And OHGW will become just another Board/Root$web
controlled Ancestry feeder site.

ADDING INSULT TO INJURY: Apparently our NC doesn't have enough to do. Lately, she's
been getting out the word that there is *gasp* a non-sanctioned mailing list for the members of
the Southeast/MidAtlantic region. Remember, back in the day, when they used to tell you, "if you
don't like the way I run my list, go start your own"? What they didn't tell you is that if you do start
your own list, perhaps to discuss the more embarassing aspects of USGenWeb, they will publicly
badmouth you in places where you cannot respond. Although the alternate SEMA list is run by
and for SEMA members to provide them with a place to "talk politics" [which is explicitly
forbidden by Shari on the Root$web version of the SEMA list] and its been around for months,
Shari and the SEMA reps have apparently just discovered it. Yesterday a series of messages went
out to the State-Coord list, the DISCUSS list, and several state lists noting that the
SEMA@usgwp.org list "is not an official list of The USGenWeb Project and is not endorsed by
The USGenWeb Project. Official announcements for The USGenWeb Project will not be posted
there." The notice was signed by all three SEMA reps and the National Coordinator. It is truly
heart-warming to see how afraid our elected leaders are of open discussion in forums they cannot
control.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Replacing the Sunday funnies since 1998

posted by merope at 8:48 AM 4 comments   
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Don't Try This At Home
Morning comes way too early these days...its Your Daily Board Show!

BARELY MOVING: No Board activity since last publication.

BOLD SURREALISM: Normally, if the Board doesn't work, we don't work [the practical
application of "no news is good news"] but we simply must take the time to report on a truly
remarkable discussion that occurred on DISCUSS yesterday. We could not possibly do it justice
by summarizing it here, and we highly recommend checking out the archives of the list. Its the
series of emails that starts with a post by Phyllis "Mad Chicken" Rippee on the BRC proposal and
concludes several posts later with Board member and BRC member Don Kelly concluding that
one of the proposed bylaws amendments he just signed off on "missed the mark." The route he
takes to get there, though, is just bizarre. It will make you laugh, it will make you cry, it will make
you rip your own head off in despair.

OUR READERS WRITE: The following "press release" was written by Derek Nichols, who
apparently has been trying without success to resolve the issue of Shari's publicly posted
passwords. It is posted as he wrote and with his permission:

"Shari Handley, the National Coordinator of The USGenWeb Project posted passwords to the
organizations mailing lists to one of her County Websites. Derek Nichols, a concerned member of
the organization attempted to have the situation addressed without success, at the organization
level. His concerns were not that somebody could have gotten access, but that someone in
leadership was setting a bad example. He was quoted as saying "members of an organization look
up to what their elected leaders do and the examples they set. There is no doubt that the posting
of passwords to a website, even if it is an unlinked page is not a safe practice. Attempts to get the
issue addressed even through mediation, were continually hampered with the concept that I had
no right to be concerned as it did not directly affect me, and that although the NC may have
posted the passwords, it was others that found them and leaked them." Mr. Nichols went on to
say "There were three things that I wanted addressed and fixed, but was told at all levels that I
had no right to anything. All three would have helped the organization, and shown leadership on
the part of the National Coordinator. 1. a policy that stresses security. 2. an apology to the
membership, and 3. the removal of the MYOB page." The passwords have since been removed,
and currently in place of the passwords is a dog sticking its tongue out, with the heading MYOB,
commonly interpreted to "Mind Your Own Business". Derek went on to say "this is not the
actions of a leader that respects the members under them who are concerned for the Project's
safety. That page is highly insulting, not only to those like me, who are concerned for the
organization, but any of our visitors who happen to stumble across a page that says MYOB. How
does this attract visitors who want to stay at a genealogical website". This site can be found at
http://www.rootsweb.com/~mdsomers/start.htm. Derek Nichols finished up by saying "What a
nice legacy to leave for our visitors". The USGenWeb Project is an Unincorporated Non-Profit
Association." . Derek Nichols is a member of the organization and can be reached at
breeze@nbnet.nb.ca"

ANCIENT HISTORY: Apparently old grudges die hard over on the DISCUSS list. Exactly two
years ago, GAGenWeb member Keith Giddeon was booted by List Dominatrix Tina Vickery
[who also controls who gets to vote in USGenWeb elections]. Recently, Keith reapplied to join
the list and was denied, thus finding out the hard way that banishment in USGenWeb is
permanent. Anyways, Keith has decided to take this issue "to our 'bosses' the researchers" and
posted a "welcome" page that lays out his beef with Tina to everyone that visits his page via the
GAGenWeb county list. You can take a gander at it here:
http://www.giddeon.com/wilkes/index2.shtml. Although we understand his frustration [after all,
we were also banned from DISCUSS forever, and for something we did not actually do], this
approach is likely to backfire for two reasons: 1) he will, in very short order, be the ex-Wilkes
county CC; and 2) researchers really don't give a damn about USGenWeb's petty internal gripes.
They don't care about USGenWeb one way or the other, period. They just want the data and they
are quite happy to step over the bound and gagged CC laying on the floor to get to it.

There you have it. Maybe there will be some real news tomorrow...

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Running on fumes since 1998

posted by merope at 5:44 AM 5 comments   
Monday, April 04, 2005
A Fine Mess
Always interesting...its Your Daily Board Show!

OY VEY: In Board news, shortly after the DBS hit the streets yesterday, National Coordinator
Shari Handley was moved to revise the April agenda to include, you guessed it, the final report of
the Bylaws Revision Committee. That report was received yesterday and posted to the Board-L
mailing list shortly after the revised agenda went up. The BRC's report is very short, and serves
mostly to point out that the BRC finished its work nearly a year ago, but had to disembowel it at
the direction of the Board in order to produce something which will be unpassable. The report
recommends that the Board place the amendments found here:
http://home.mchsi.com/~sagitta56/amendments.htm before the membership at the time of the
national election. Shari thanked the committee for its work, noting, "your dedication and
perseverence have been appreciated very much...I commend you on a job well done...You have
been a model for our organization - an example of how a committee of volunteers can accomplish
a goal in a very professional way." [We do not expect to ever see any of these amendments
again.]

BTW, we stand corrected. It did not take the BRC two years to produce this parody of a revision,
as we reported yesterday. It took three.

SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION: It is with great sadness that the DBS reports that the entire
leadership of the OHGenWeb project has resigned. Allen Richmond, who has been SC of OHGW
since 1999, will leave office on April 17 unless the Board replaces him sooner, and ASC Judy
Kelble [who was SC prior to Allen] resigned effective yesterday. In his resignation notice to
OHGW, Allen notes, "It's been my distinct pleasure to serve you, OHGW/USGW, and our
Buckeye researchers, as OHGenWeb's past ASC (1997-1999) and SC (1999-2005); however, my
leadership paths are taking different directions and
requiring more of my time than I can justifiably allot to everyone and maintain (my self-imposed)
high standards of quality. I've recently re-evaluated my activities and the time investments
involved, and rather than spread too thin (and potentially short-shrift someone), I'm scaling back
certain activities: my role as OHGW SC is one of those areas." The Project as a whole will miss
Allen's dedication and expertise, not to mention his wry sense of humor.

[BTW, The DBS money is on Maggie Stewart as the next OHGenWeb SC; she's lusted after the
job for a long time and used to spend considerable energy trying to get the Board to remove Allen
and make her SC by fiat. She actually maintained a "shadow" OH state page for years. Since Allen
has not held an election in OHGW since he became SC, she's never had an oppportunity to
challenge him, so his resignation is the chance she's been waiting for all these years. There's
nothing like filling a power vacuum with hot gas.]

LAME DUCK: We hear from a couple of little Birds [well, perhaps not so little] that Allen's
impending resignation has compelled the Board to move a long-standing grievance involving
Allen and a CC he removed from her county for cause nearly year ago to the top of the docket.
The Board was unable to resolve this grievance during mediation because the Sooper Sekrit
Sandbox was incapable of handling the large evidence files produced by the proceedings and Allen
last heard from the Board about this in October 2004. Now, with only a couple of weeks to go
before Allen can no longer be directly punished by the Board, Shari has rushed the Board into
handling the grievance within a very short time frame. Both parties have been told to submit their
evidence by this Wednesday so that the Board can rush to a judgement in the matter prior to
Allen's already scheduled departure. The Birds tell us that Shari was quite peeved at Allen for
reminding her that the matter at hand was resolved 11 months ago and she received all his
supporting documentation then. Of course, all the usual threats have been drug out and we
suspect another MNIGS will be shortly minted.

The Birds were also pleased to provide a URL for my readers covering the events leading up to
the renewed interest in this grievance. You can read all about it in the first person here:
http://www.scioto.org/OHGenWeb/full-documentation.txt
[This is apparently Allen's evidence file; the scioto.org address belongs to him.] We are interested
in seeing how this turns out. From the evidence presented, Allen was well within his rights as an
SC, rights that have been historically supported by every elected Board USGenWeb has had, to
release the CC. SCs have released CCs for a lot less and been upheld. But there are several Board
members who, shall we say, won't exactly miss Allen [Shari is one] and finding for him would
grate somewhat. But to find against him would gut most of the arguments they have recently
made in favor of SC autonomy. Its a tough choice.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Holding our breath til we turn blue since 1998

posted by merope at 5:37 AM 3 comments   
Sunday, April 03, 2005
Spring Forward
Doing a little spring cleaning...its Your Daily Board Show!

OUT WITH THE OLD, IN WITH THE NEW: Shari Handley has called the April session of the
Advisory Board to order and published the following agenda for the month:

"1. Call to Order
2. NC Report
3. Reading, Correction, Approval, or Disposition of Minutes
4. Grievance Procedures Committee Report - Angie Rayfield
5. Mediation of Grievance (private)
6. New Business
a. General Policy Statement: Living Persons
b. Evaluation of Special Projects
c. EC Procedure Change - Eligibility Verification
7. Old Business
a. County Sites vs. Archives as Repository of Collected Data
6. Announcements
7. Adjournment"

A more or less unremarkable laundry list, although we do note that mention of the pending
Bylaws Revision Committee report is missing [see below]. And that item about the EC is
intriguing. Shari's last brilliant idea of using the EC to determine eligibility for office based on a
"confidentiality agreement" went nowhere fast, so we doubt they will be reintroducing that. It
could be however that the EC is tired of relying on unresponsive state coordinators to verify voter
eligibility and they are requesting some procedural change that would let them bypass the SCs or
acquire the information in some other fashion. If the Board gets to that item this month, we'll find
out.

Shari also published an "NC's report" that actually reports very little, other than reminding people
that there is an ongoing logo contest and repeating a promotional blurb from Family Tree
Magazine.

MARCH SCORECARD: Since we have a new agenda, let's see how we did with the old one. As
we recall, the last agenda was published 3 months ago, at the beginning of January. No updates or
changes were added in February or March.

1. Call to order [done January 3]

2. Continue with closed-session hearing [done, February 21, by abandoning the original charges
against Richard Pettys and substituting entirely new charges at the 11th hour]

3. Reading, correction, approval, or disposition of minutes [done for the January minutes on
March 15; not done for the February or March minutes]

4. NC Report [last done January 5; not done for February or March]

5. New business
a. BRC request [done, introduced Jan 5, vote completed Jan 9, requested denied]

b. Non-responsive State Coordinators [discussion began Jan 10, not resolved before the end of
February; not taken up again during March; not on April agenda]

c. Policy Statement: County sites vs. Archives as repository of collected data [discussion began
March 3 and terminated by Shari Handley on March 14 without resolution; moved to April
agenda]

d. Evaluation of special projects [not done; moved to April agenda]

e. Application received for possible new special project [Status as a special project was granted to
the U.S. African American Griots Project on March 25; status as a special project was apparently
denied for lack of interest to the Terrell Surname Project.]

f. PR committee [not done; not on April agenda]

g. other [There were a couple of items that come under the umbrella of "other new business": 1) a
working group was established on March 6 to discuss grievance procedures and to formulate a
new policy for handling them; and 2) toward the end of March the Board considered and rejected
an emergency motion to direct the Archives to purge its directories of vital records from the
Texas State Health Department.

6. Begin Grievance Hearing in Closed Session when disciplinary hearing complete [done? not
done? We previously reported that the Board was holding off on addressing grievances until the
working group had designed a new procedure and a Grievance Committee was established. There
is an item for grievance mediation on the April agenda, but we do not know if this is the same
grievance.]

7. Announcements [The logo poll results and the logo contest rules were announced on March 10
and March 17 respectively.]

8. Adjournment [January meeting formally adjourned March 30]

We see that in April the Board intends to take up two older business items: the "data repository"
statement and the issue of a policy statement regarding data on living persons. Here's hoping they
have better luck with them the second time around.

END OF THE ROAD: Our article yesterday on the Bylaws Revision Committee, which was
scheduled for termination on April 1, has produced a small flock of birds. Apparently, Shari has
directed the committee to submit a final report and then she will formally dismiss them. The
several who wrote think that can't happen soon enough; apparently serving on the committee has
been a rather trying experience. Its apparently been wasted time as well; the bylaws revisions
eventually produced by the committee after some two years of work are almost entirely
disappointing and in most cases are actually worse than the current bylaws.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Playing it as it lays since 1998

posted by merope at 8:48 AM 0 comments   
Saturday, April 02, 2005
Back In The Saddle
All rested up...its Your Daily Board Show!

WORKING UP TO IT GRADUALLY: All Fool's Day has come and gone, but the Board has not
yet come back into session. After Shari announced the results of the vote on Motion 05-05 and
sent the Board off for a couple days of R&R, two additional Board members voted "NO" on the
motion. This brings the final tally to 12 NO votes and one abstention. We are waiting to see if
Don Kelly will make good on his threat to submit David Samuelsen's proposed motion to the
group as a suggestion for a formal policy, or if something more elaborate will eventually come out
of the Sekrit Sandbox.

LOGOMOTION: The current official USGenWeb logo has finally been added to the page of logo
candidates here: http://usgenweb.org/logos/. There've been a handful of new logos added, and its
way at the bottom.

ALL QUIET: The Project's other lists have also been quiet the last several days. We haven't seen
any activity on the Grievance Committee working group list for two weeks, so either we've been
booted or they haven't been discussing anything. The BRC is supposed to be submitting its final
report right about yesterday, but they have also been quiet as mice.

That's all there is, so go back to sleep.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Wading through it so you don't have to since 1998