From ???@??? Sun Apr 07 09:39:53 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA01086 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 09:30:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.123]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g37DUQCl007568 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 09:30:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g37DTcG23200; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 07:29:38 -0600 Resent-Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 07:29:38 -0600 X-Original-Sender: merope@radix.net Sun Apr 7 07:29:38 2002 Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 09:37:22 -0400 From: merope Subject: Re: [USGW-Guidelines] TOPIC: Local resources In-reply-to: <200204032136020080.0069DDCB@smtp.pacifier.com> X-Sender: merope@radix.net Old-To: USGW-GUIDELINES-L@rootsweb.com Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020407093131.00a6cac0@radix.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020403062808.00a53ec0@radix.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020403062808.00a53ec0@radix.net> Resent-Message-ID: To: USGW-GUIDELINES-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-GUIDELINES-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-GUIDELINES-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/369 X-Loop: USGW-GUIDELINES-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-GUIDELINES-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 26c9b65bb70dc653844d46757d24ac77 At 09:36 PM 4/3/02 -0800, DC & Alice Allen wrote: >Haven't decided in my own mind whether this should be a "required" or a >"recommended" addition. I know it's very handy to have this information, >and I have included it on my own pages. It should be fairly easy to find, >either on the 'net, or in the Handy Book or Red Book. So far the handful that have commented came down on the side of requiring the section, but not requiring any specific items to be linked. There hasn't been a lot of discussion on this, but I agree with both Alice and Morgan that this is generally easy info to get, it will be very useful to visitors, and we really require very little of the LCs as it is now. I would be in favor of requiring the section, and providing examples of recommended items to list. However, I would like to know how others on the committee feel about this. Please indicate whether or not you think that a "Local Resources" section should be "Required" or "Recommended". After we have a clear picture of where the committee stands on this, we can work on the list of recommended/required resources. BTW, I apologize for not being around much this week... I have been so busy at work I come home dog-tired and don't have the strength even to point and click. :) Thanks! -Teresa merope@radix.net From ???@??? Sun Apr 07 13:20:08 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA01463 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 09:34:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from n29.grp.scd.yahoo.com (n29.grp.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.85]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with SMTP id g37DYQCl007929 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 09:34:27 -0400 (EDT) X-eGroups-Return: sentto-3565136-132-1018186466-merope=radix.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.196] by n29.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Apr 2002 13:34:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 22643 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2002 13:34:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Apr 2002 13:34:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n4.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.88) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Apr 2002 13:34:23 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: merope@radix.net Received: from [66.218.67.146] by n4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Apr 2002 13:34:23 -0000 X-eGroups-Approved-By: merope3 via web; 07 Apr 2002 13:34:23 -0000 X-Sender: merope@radix.net X-Apparently-To: dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 7 Apr 2002 13:34:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 17826 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2002 13:34:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Apr 2002 13:34:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.comcast.net) (24.153.64.2) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Apr 2002 13:34:12 -0000 Received: from jadth.radix.net (pcp01205918pcs.nrockv01.md.comcast.net [68.50.227.225]) by mtaout04.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Feb 6 2002)) with ESMTP id <0GU7009WG9OZ2V@mtaout04.icomcast.net> for dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 09:34:12 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: merope@radix.net To: Guidelines , BOARD-L@rootsweb.com, USGenWeb list , Daily Board Show Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020407094052.00a67e50@radix.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 From: merope X-Yahoo-Profile: merope3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; contact dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 09:42:26 -0400 Subject: [DBS] Guidelines Committee report for the week ending 6 April 2002 Reply-To: dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UIDL: 4ae1e27ee2744f8519336907374b4d53 ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/k6cvND/n97DAA/ySSFAA/0csqlB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Permission to forward where appropriate is granted. GUIDELINES COMMITTEE WEEKLY REPORT, for the week ending April 6 2002 === On March 30, the weekly report was submitted to the Project and one comment concerning some typos in the working document was received. These have been corrected. One comment was received from a project member who recommended that Local Coordinators be required to provide lookups. This comment was forwarded to the committee for its consideration. - Local Resources: On April 3rd, the committee began to discuss the "Local Resources" section of the revised guidelines. This is meant to be a page or section of the site that would contain contact information for such things as county courthouses, public libraries, local genealogical societies, etc. The Committee is currently discussing whether or not this section should be required or recommended. This discussion is ongoing, but in general the Committee seems inclined at this time to recommend that the section be required but that specific items be recommended. === The current version of the working document is posted at: http://www.radix.net/~merope/lcguide.txt Please address comments to Teresa Lindquist -Teresa Lindquist Chair, Guidelines Committee Representative At Large, USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: dailyboardshow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From ???@??? Sun Apr 14 09:07:25 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA12041 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 08:57:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from n25.grp.scd.yahoo.com (n25.grp.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.81]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with SMTP id g3ECvMHh006337 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 08:57:23 -0400 (EDT) X-eGroups-Return: sentto-3565136-134-1018789041-merope=radix.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.194] by n25.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Apr 2002 12:57:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 38105 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2002 12:57:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Apr 2002 12:57:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n7.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.91) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Apr 2002 12:57:19 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: merope@radix.net Received: from [66.218.67.154] by n7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Apr 2002 12:57:18 -0000 X-eGroups-Approved-By: merope3 via web; 14 Apr 2002 12:57:18 -0000 X-Sender: merope@radix.net X-Apparently-To: dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 14 Apr 2002 12:54:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 21399 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2002 12:54:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Apr 2002 12:54:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.comcast.net) (24.153.64.2) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Apr 2002 12:54:20 -0000 Received: from jadth.radix.net (pcp01205918pcs.nrockv01.md.comcast.net [68.50.227.225]) by mtaout02.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Feb 6 2002)) with ESMTP id <0GUK000KL6IKTH@mtaout02.icomcast.net> for dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 08:54:20 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: merope@radix.net To: Guidelines , BOARD-L@rootsweb.com, Daily Board Show , USGenWeb list Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020414090152.00a809f0@radix.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 From: merope X-Yahoo-Profile: merope3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; contact dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 09:02:42 -0400 Subject: [DBS] Guidelines Committee, report for the week ending 4/13/2002 Reply-To: dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UIDL: a5f99e11aacffa7c37b0803c9dbce9ea ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/ySSFAA/0csqlB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> GUIDELINES COMMITTEE WEEKLY REPORT, for the week ending April 13 2002 === On April 7, the weekly report was submitted to the Project. A comment was received from a member who suggested that in considering the requirement of a local resources listing the committee is overstepping its bounds and that long-term members of the Project will object. This comment was discussed by the Committee and the members are in general agreement that the Guidelines Committee may need to recommend changes that go beyond the original requirements for the betterment of the Project as a whole. An additional comment discussing the lookups recommendation was received; the correspondent agreed that lookups should remain a recommendation and not a requirement. - Local Resources: The Committee continued to discuss this issue and decided that a page or section providing contact information for local resources should be a required part of a project website. The Committee is still discussing specific items to require or suggest for inclusion. === The current version of the working document is posted at: http://www.radix.net/~merope/lcguide.txt Please address comments to Teresa Lindquist -Teresa Lindquist Chair, Guidelines Committee Representative At Large, USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: dailyboardshow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From ???@??? Sun Apr 14 09:07:25 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA12048 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 08:57:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from n25.grp.scd.yahoo.com (n25.grp.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.81]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with SMTP id g3ECvMHg006337 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 08:57:22 -0400 (EDT) X-eGroups-Return: sentto-3565136-133-1018789041-merope=radix.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.194] by n25.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Apr 2002 12:57:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 38094 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2002 12:57:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Apr 2002 12:57:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n7.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.91) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Apr 2002 12:57:19 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: merope@radix.net Received: from [66.218.67.154] by n7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Apr 2002 12:57:18 -0000 X-eGroups-Approved-By: merope3 via web; 14 Apr 2002 12:57:18 -0000 X-Sender: merope@radix.net X-Apparently-To: dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 14 Apr 2002 12:51:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 50871 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2002 12:51:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Apr 2002 12:51:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.comcast.net) (24.153.64.2) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Apr 2002 12:51:05 -0000 Received: from jadth.radix.net (pcp01205918pcs.nrockv01.md.comcast.net [68.50.227.225]) by mtaout02.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Feb 6 2002)) with ESMTP id <0GUK001GH6D48S@mtaout02.icomcast.net> for dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 08:51:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: merope@radix.net To: Daily Board Show Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020414085420.00a78e00@radix.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 From: merope X-Yahoo-Profile: merope3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; contact dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 08:59:26 -0400 Subject: [DBS] Daily Board Show, weekly edition, 4/14/2002 Reply-To: dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UIDL: e8707de1c6492c7be03b0974a1546738 ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/ySSFAA/0csqlB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Never say never...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! 7 April - 14 April 2002: Motion 02-09 (Board Secretary): As part of the discussion on this motion, Kathy Heidel asks how many times a motion may be rescinded. Teresa explains that the previous motions dealing with Board Secretaries are separate motions that became policy once adopted, and that once rescinded they are no longer policy and there would be no point in rescinding them again. Kathy, Jana, Phyllis, Holly and Teresa briefly discuss the merits of rescinding motion 99-25 rather than just amending it. On April 8, Holly declares the motion to amend Motion 02-09 dead for lack of a second and calls a vote on the motion to end debate. On April 11, Holly mistakenly calls the motion to end debate dead from failure to reach a quorum; however, both Phyllis and Teresa remind her that 9 members constitutes a quorum and thus a quorum was reached. Holly reverses her ruling, declares the motion passed with 9 yes votes, and calls for a vote on the main motion on April 12. Thus far, 8 Board members have voted yes and 5 have voted no. --- Other Business: EC Questions: Teresa Lindquist is required to explain the nature of the EC's question regarding two-seat races in the election to Kathy Heidel. Kathy is conflating the common practice of giving the full term seat to the highest vote-getter and the shorter term seat to the runner-up with the bylaws-mandated appointment of interim Board members. Toward the end of the week, Phyllis asks if the EC still requires answers to their questions. - Guidelines Committee: Teresa Lindquist forwards the weekly Guidelines Committee report on April 7. - Domain Name Registration: Holly Timm informs the Board that the registration for the usgenweb.org domain has not been changed by Tim Stowell, the current administrative contact. Phyllis reminds Holly that he had suggested changing it and had asked for the Board's recommendations, but the Board had not responded. - Bylaws Committee: On April 8, the Bylaws Committee asks the Board to "make a determination on the status of the Special Projects." Committee Chair Ginger Hayes notes: "The Bylaws Revision Committee has run into a major stumbling block that only the Board can address...Are the Special Projects, (Archives, Tombstone, Census, etc) part of The USGenWeb Project and subject to same rules and guidelines as the rest of the project or are they private, self-govering entities that we may or may not link to?" [If you think this would open a big can o' worms, you'd be right...still though, it wasn't as nasty as it might have been, perhaps because our Esteemed Former National Coordinator is still in the time-out box.] Richard Harrison notes that the SPs "are an integral part of The USGenWeb Project and are subject to the Project bylaws just as the State Projects are." Teresa agrees with Richard's statement, but also notes that the Bylaws Committee is welcome to change that status if it so desires. Mary Ann Hetrick notes that the SPs will go on regardless of whether or not "the Bylaws committee decides to remove them as part of our project." She suggests "Let's stop being so territorial, and try to work for the benefit of the researchers we claim to want to help. I am sick to death of all of the Political squabbling over who owns what." Ginger then suggests that the Board address the question to the Special Projects directly to determine if they consider themselves part of USGenWeb. She also notes "Either the bylaws apply equally to all or there is not point in having any. If the SP's want their status to be different then they must choose...The SP's have reps on this board, they can get clarification from their respective project and then we can take it from there." Ron Eason notes that the Census Project has always considered itself part of USGenWeb and acted accordingly, and Pam Reid asks Ginger to list the ways she feels "that SPs have a different status within the Project than any other USGW site." Ginger cites the over-representation of the Special Projects on the Board, the observation that they have historically conducted their own elections and resisted Board "encroachment" into their "operational realm," and the perception that the SPs have "historically thumbed their nose at any perception of the AB having authority regarding them.." She states further, "whether or not XX SP is part of the project or not depends on which day you ask (the coordinator). It has been stated when the Bylaws were mentioned that their guidelines precede the Bylaws. If one can infer from that they do not feel bound by the Bylaws for that reason then they must not consider themselves be part of the project because the project voted to adopt the Bylaws. The point is that the situation is a mess...It is way past time to address matters by issues instead of personalities and to work to reunite a project that is slowly being fragmented by this constant internal striving...If the SP's are seperate entities from USGenWeb then all mention of them needs to be removed from our Bylaws. If they are part of the USGenWeb then the Bylaws revisions need to be written with that in mind." Tim Stowell does not think the Special Projects are over-represented on the Board and notes that the Special Projects are like the state projects and conduct their business accordingly. Kathy thinks that making the Special Projects "stand alone" projects is a "radical but sensible idea." She asks Ginger to verify if that is what she is suggesting. Ginger states that she is not proposing anything and notes, "Those projects have reps on this board and they need to decide if they are a part of USGW or not...my only interest is an answer to the question so our committee will know how to proceed with the revisions...If any of the SP coordinators feel their project(s) or positions need to be protected from USGW then they need to proceed along those lines but they need to give a clear cut, once and for all answer." On April 10, Pam Reid posts a long discussion of the Tombstone Project, which she started on Memorial Day ini 1996. She notes that it has always been clear that the Tombstone Project would put all data that it accepted into the USGenWeb Archives, although it is not a part of the Archives. She offered the TP to USGenWeb shortly after it was founded [during John Rigdon's tenure as NC], but now says "If I had it to do over agai, seeing how things have turned out and knowing what I know today, I would never have allowed the TP to become an official part of USGW." Pam feels very strongly that the Archives is "OUR digital library" and that all records should be stored there, but notes "I decided early on to provide links to transcriptions that were on websites that people did not want to have copied to the Archives. This was done strictly as a service to researchers, even though it went against what I was trying to acheive. You see, I always thought that making information easily and freely available online to researchers was our MAIN goal." She also notes "The USGW Archives is NOT a Special Project. The Archives is our digital library and that is how it should be used. The only "official" SPs, under the bylaws are Census, Tombstones and Archives. The Archives doesn't belong there and the Census Project, for all intents and purposes, no longer exists as part of USGW...Tombstones has operated under the same guidelines as those used for State nd County pages. That leaves the Archives, which should not even be lumped in with SPs. It should be a separate entity whose sole function is to archive, for the sake of posterity, records that might otherwise be lost to future generations." In short order this conversation becomes a discussion of the Census Project and eventually turns to the USGenWeb Archives (tm). None of the discussion brings up any new points in either of the threads. ["The Census Project was wronged." "No it wasn't." "The Census Project stole data." "No, they were the original Project and the data were donated to it." The Census Project stole USGenWeb's name." "So did the Archives, so what's the difference?" yadda yadda yadda...] On April 13, Vicki Shaffer finally states that the Archives _does_ consider itself part of the USGenWeb Project. - Standing Rules: Toward the end of the week, Phyllis, Kathy, and Tim begin discussing the formation of standing rules under which the Board would operate. Again. Kathy appears to want to institute some mechanism whereby the Board could intervene in the case of disputes between other project members and notes "whether it is a State or SP there should be in place a set of Standing Rules, by which the AB has the ability to regulate how these various groups affect the Project...As it is now we can't do anything, no one is held accountable for their actions and this is wrong. I wish to address this issue and attempt to correct problems before they arise. I believe that we should take the necessary steps to form a Standing Rules committee to form these guidelines now." Phyllis notes that the Board already has a way to discipline the various sub-projects; they can be delinked. She agrees however that "that we ought to seriously consider adopting some Standing Rules that would establish courses of action to be followed by the Advisory Board." Tim notes that states and SPs can only be delnked for not meeting the page requirements in the bylaws [hmmm...he just admitted the Board's delinking of the Census Project was illegal under the bylaws] and asks if the proposed standing rules would be placed before the membership for a vote. --- In Executive Session: April 7: message from Diane Parsons April 8: messages from Jana Black, Holly Timm April 9: messages from Richard Harrison, Phyllis Rippee, Jana Black, Betsy Mills, Ginger Hayes, Mary Ann Hetrick, Holly Timm, Tina Vickery, Diane Parsons, Ron Eason April 10: messages from Holly Timm, Phyllis Rippee, Tim Stowell, Kathy Heidel, Ron Eason April 11: messages from Kathy Heidel, Ron Eason April 12: messages from Tim Stowell, Ron Eason April 13: messages from Tim Stowell, Ginger Hayes, Ron Eason === "It is an inevitable defect, that bureaucrats will care more for routine than for results." ---Walter Bagehot This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2002 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: dailyboardshow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From ???@??? Sun Apr 21 09:10:05 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g3LCpQFs012022 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 08:51:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from n1.grp.scd.yahoo.com (n1.grp.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.64]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with SMTP id g3LCpOlZ018976 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 08:51:25 -0400 (EDT) X-eGroups-Return: sentto-3565136-135-1019393486-merope=radix.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.201] by n1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 21 Apr 2002 12:51:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 51940 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2002 12:51:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Apr 2002 12:51:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n4.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.88) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Apr 2002 12:51:22 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: merope@radix.net Received: from [66.218.67.172] by n4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 21 Apr 2002 12:51:22 -0000 X-eGroups-Approved-By: merope3 via web; 21 Apr 2002 12:51:22 -0000 X-Sender: merope@radix.net X-Apparently-To: dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 21 Apr 2002 12:50:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 10984 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2002 12:50:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Apr 2002 12:50:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.comcast.net) (24.153.64.2) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Apr 2002 12:50:50 -0000 Received: from jadth.radix.net (pcp01205918pcs.nrockv01.md.comcast.net [68.50.227.225]) by mtaout45-01.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.3 (built Apr 8 2002)) with ESMTP id <0GUX0084N50L6V@mtaout45-01.icomcast.net> for dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 08:50:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: merope@radix.net To: Daily Board Show Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020421085808.00a6e020@radix.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 From: merope X-Yahoo-Profile: merope3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; contact dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 08:59:15 -0400 Subject: [DBS] Daily Board Show, 4/21/2002 Reply-To: dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UIDL: EaF"!M~["!\S@!!gA9!! ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/k6cvND/n97DAA/ySSFAA/0csqlB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Move aside and let the big dog eat...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! 14 April - 21 April 2002: Motion 02-09 (Board Secretary): On April 15, Holly declares this motion failed with 8 yes votes and 6 no votes. Kathy Heidel then immediately moves "that the Nation Coordinator appoint a Secretary to fill the vacancy of Board Secretary. The Board Secretary will assist in the posting of Motions and Board Business to the Board Lists Provide the membership with the exact wording of a pending motion or of one previously acted on. Post voting information for the membership. Search the minutes for information requested by officers or members. Provide a weekly Agenda of Motions before the Advisory Board. And assist the National Coordinator with Correspondence, recording Board information and Website maintenance And that this person is to be approved by the Advisory Board." Diane Parsons seconds this motion. Phyllis asks Kathy to "tweak" the motion a bit to correct "Nation" to "National" and Kathy says she will comply, provided that Phyllis promises to vote in favor of the motion. Kathy then reposts a corrected version of the motion. However, a point of order is raised by Teresa, who notes "I don't believe that re-submitting essentially the same motion is allowed under parliamentary procedure. However, the rules for reconsideration on page 38 may cover this situation." Kathy then professes amazement that "something as simple as having a Board Secretary is so mind boggling to so many members." She notes "Do you all realize how silly this is? I do and I am not the smartest page in the book! It is not surprising that nothing can be accomplished with this group, I am very frustrated and ashamed." Pam Reid agrees with Kathy and notes that she misses having a secretary to help her with her duties as webmaster. Richard doesn't think a motion is necessary and thinks the NC should just appoint someone of their choice and ask the Board to confirm. He notes "Had I been elected NC, I would have done that in the first week. If my appointment had not been approved, I would have appointed someone to carry out the duties without the title on a temporary basis while the Board and I worked out our differences." He says that if Motion 02-09 is reopened for discussion, he will amend it to include a requirement that the Board confirm the NC's appointments. Holly rules that the new motion is out of order on April 15 and asks the Board members to indicate whether they want to proceed without a Secretary, start a new discussion of the issue, or reconsider Motion 02-09. Teresa suggests that discussion of what the Board wants in a secretary would be preferable to posting and reposting motions that cannot pass. She notes that she will not vote for a motion that does not provide for Board approval of a suggested candidate for the position, and "The position should be term-limited, as previously described, with the option available to the incoming NC to retain the BS if they so desire and the Board agrees. I have no objection to any of the duties that have been proposed for the Secretary thus far, but agree that any additional duties of the Secretary should be approved by the Board. I also have no objection to any of the qualifications that have been proposed, but would not object to removing the qualifications (other than project membership) entirely." Jana agrees and suggests that "we determine that we have a quorum present for the discussion and hear from everyone before a motion is made so that it cannot be claimed we are only hearing from those who choose to comment and that those voices do not constitute enough voices to become consensus." Kathy accuses Jana of having decided "Holly is to not have a Secretary, no matter that there is a definite need for one!" She states further "I need to understand the mindset on this farce, why is it necessary to continually disrupt? You accuse everyone else of do just that very thing and that is kinda like what Holly said about someone else on this Board." Jana claims however that she has only the long term interests of the Project at heart, and reminds Kathy that she voted for Alice Gayley as Board Secretary during the first round of voting. Phyllis notes "We are all frustrated at the lack of accomplishment, but lack of a Board Secretary is not the reason. I won't accept any more than my share of guilt, but I can tell you EXACTLY why we haven't accomplished any more than we have." [She does not elaborate further.] In a separate message, Phyllis notes that her objection to the previous motion was the list of requirements; she notes "All that I feel is necessary is that the B.S. be a member of the USGW P, the duties will define the skills." Robert Bremer notes, "I think we're beating a dead horse and that there will never be any consensus on this issue...my advice to you is to create a new position called "Assistant to the National Coordinator" and appoint whoever you please...If some members of this board do not care for your choice, then we can spend additional time coming up with reasons to get rid of that person afterward, or at least exchange messages on Board-Exec to that effect." Ron Eason objects to Phyllis's suggestion of removing requirements for the position, believing that some minimal requirements are necessary and that it will not be fair to members who wish to apply for the position but who may not have those skills. Tina Vickery and Pam Reid are in favor of starting discussion anew. On April 15, Phyllis Rippee moves to reconsider Motion 02-09; Richard Harrison seconds her motion. On April 15, Diane Parsons moves to reconsider Motion 02-09; Ron Eason seconds her motion. Pam Reid also notes she is in favor of reconsidering Motion 02-09. On April 16, Holly combines these separate motions into one and opens the floor for discussion. Ron Eason discusses the need for a motion for the Board Secretary position and the need for that motion to list requirements for the position: "1...without a list of basic duties, we leave the door open to misunderstanding, confusion, and eventually someone will get their feelings hurt...Someone will have to end up telling someone they are not qualified. It is just as the Bylaws are now, vague and open to interpretation...2. I can think of no good reason that the selection of a Board Secretary, who's job it is to help the National Coordinator, cannot be the responsibility of the NC...If the NC so desired, he/she could name any individual they wanted, sub them to the Board list and instruct them to do what they wanted, without even asking the Board for permission and have that person serve as their "Secretary" and totally bypass the vote process. I assume this is not what the Members want, so why would we think we can absolutely control the process by mandating a vote...3. Not having a motion is all well and good. However, that leaves the process in the hands of the National Coordinator to do as they will no matter what. By having a good, sound motion that has basic instructions and is properly structured, allows for continued use for years to come until such time as a future Board, sees the need to adjust it to fit the need of the day...Most of the problems that have arisen in the Project and in the Boards has been due to a lack of sufficient guidelines and a very wide gap in the individual interpretation of the Bylaws...it is very possible that by allowing the NC, the latitude to chose their own help-mate in a Secretary may possibly allow things to start smoothly and efficiently, and save some CC, somewhere the frustration and hurt, that was recently exhibited by certain Member of this Board who chose to use ther vote as a weapon, rather than an instrument of service." Tina Vickery notes that "This all comes down to a matter of trust, plain and simple, putting away all of the correct, incorrect, perceived, misconceived, whatever adjective you choose appropriate, of this issue, it is a matter of trust in the National Coordinator." Richard Harrison believes that "Motion 02-09 can be easily amended to be acceptable to a 2/3 majority of the Board." On April 16, Teresa calls the question on the motion to reconsider Motion 02-09. Phyllis notes that this will require an extra vote and suggests "if there is no second to the motion to call the question and no discussion of pros and cons in regard to reconsidering motion 02-09 during the same 24 hours......IF we are not hamstrung by Sturgis, may we proceed immediately to a direct vote on the motion to reconsider?" Holly says she will call for a vote on the motion to reconsider within 24 hours of the motion to call the question if there is no second and will open the vote on the motion to reconsider by the following evening if Board members vote quickly enough. She also notes "Motions to call for votes should be used sparingly, generally when discussion has gone far afield or is traveling in circles...If there had been no motion calling for the vote on the motion to reconsider and no discussion I would have called for the vote on it this evening and by tomorrow evening if nto sooner we could have been discussing the motion." Noting she was just trying to speed things up, Teresa withdraws the motion to end debate on April 18 and Holly calls for the vote on the motion to reconsider shortly thereafter. Although discussion has not stopped on the motion to reconsider and the calling of the vote is protested, Holly allows the vote to proceed and on April 19 declares the motion to reconsider passed with 13 yes votes. Phyllis Rippee expends considerable ink defending Holly's decision to call a vote during ongoing discussion and her own behavior in ensuring that Motion 02-09 failed in the last go-round. Discussion begins on Motion 02-09 yet again. [The latest fad on the Board is lecturing each other on why we may not question each other's votes. This has extended to the -ALL list, where Jana just recently blew off a constituent's question about why she voted "no" on Motion 02-09 by citing Sturgis at him.] Jana Black uses the re-opening of discussion to go off on a tangent regarding "Corresponding Secretaries", and notes "our job is to establish procedure that will work under all conceivable circumstances, offering both authority and protection in the best interests of the Project as a whole. I think it is very important to view this prospective action as if it had been written back in 1996 and ask, "Would this action still suffice today with all the water under the bridge that we have seen in this Project, regardless of who the NC was and regardless of who was on the AB?" Until the answer to this question is "yes," we have work to do." She then proposes a motion not different in substance than the current Motion 02-09. She also believes that adding the word "Corresponding" to a motion will leave us with something "that will withstand all time." [Yes, I did fall down laughing when I read this.] Teresa suggests that the National Coordinator should not be the person to appoint or otherwise control the selection process for the Board Secretary position, since the position is not "Assistant to the NC." [This causes Kathy Heidel to freak out and tell Teresa to stop posting discussion items. Apparently even the starving will reject food for thought.] Holly, however, does consider that "the main purpose of a Board Secretary is as assistant and support to the NC which is indirectly supportive and of assistance to the entire board." Betsy Mills suggests that the Board should keep the motion very simple, and after several Board members agree with her, Teresa posts the following amendment to the motion, based on Betsy's suggested wording: "I move to amend Motion 02-09 to read: The National Coordinator will appoint a Board Secretary, subject to the Advisory Board's approval, with duties to be determined by the National Coordinator and Advisory Board, and to serve until the end of the National Coordinator's term." Robert Bremer seconds this motion. Shortly after Teresa, Richard Harrison posts his own version of Betsy's wording: "I move to amend Motion 02-09 to read: I move that the National Coordinator appoint a Board Secretary, subject to the Advisory Board's approval, with duties to be determined by the National Coordinator and Advisory Board, and to serve until the end of the National Coordinator's term. The Board Secretary will not be a current member of the Board of Directors. This motion rescinds all previous motions of the Board regarding the Board Secretary." He later amends the wording to replace "Board of Directors" [nice freudian slip there, Rich!] to "Advisory Board." Betsy seconds Richard's version of the proposed amendment [The fun thing about _this_ is that Betsy's second of Richard's motion is time-stamped prior to his motion. How do you figure that was arranged?] Kathy Heidel suggests that Richard's and Teresa's motions be combined into one that reads: "The National Coordinator will appoint a Board Secretary, subject to the Advisory Board's approval, with duties to be determined by the National Coordinator and Advisory Board, And the Secretary's term to run concurrently with the NC's term, but subject to termination by the NC and Advisory Board. The Board Secretary will not be a current member of the Advisory Board." Richard does not think the phrase regarding terminating the BS's appointment is necessary and notes "If the secretary does not perform to expectations, it is simple enough for the Board to request their resignation and to move to dismiss them if that resignation is not forthcoming." Tina Vickery wonders how we will know they are not performing to expectations if no duties are articulated and Diane Parsons agrees with her position. --- Other Business: Guidelines Committee: Teresa Lindquist posts the weekly Guidelines Comittee report on April 14. Robert Bremer posts a message taking exception to the Committee's decision to require that Local Coordinators provide contact information for local resources of interest to genealogists. He notes "I think that a requirement as opposed to a recommendation will mostly definitely cause a lot of turmoil with some people yet again leaving the Project...CCs have a better handle on local resources, what works and what does not work in gaining access to genealogical and historical information...the local CCs should be the ones to decide what is appropriate to list, what not to list, without any sort of mandate from their state...What I think is needed here are solely recommendations. I might add that in polling CCs last summer, a number of people responded complaining about a lack of guidance within their state for new CCs...something for the committee to possibly recommend would be the selection of a group to set up and, mostly importantly, maintain a more detailed CC help site with an extended, comprehensive outline of what one could include on a local website with links to examples...Encouragement via help pages and discussion will go a lot further to accomplish that than additional requirements for which some CCs feel they will be policed." - Trademark Committee: Tim Stowell informs the Board that "the PTO, will be publishing the mark USGENWEB in the Trademark Official Gazette" on April 16. [According to the USPTO website, "USGenWeb" was published on April 16, 2002; "The USGenWeb Project" is still unpublished.] - Root$web: On April 18, Richard Harrison announces that Time magazine has listed Root$web as one of the "50 Best Internet Sites for the year." According to Richard, "Sites were chosen by Time based on which will be the most useful for Internet users during the upcoming year, rather than focusing on site traffic." [Hmmm..Root$web's traffic must be slipping. The full article is here: http://www.time.com/time/2002/tech/best/; the list of 50 sites is here: http://www.time.com/time/2002/tech/best/complete.html ] - Proposed Bylaws amendments: After numerous failed tries [Root$web is incapable of handling large emails], Teresa Lindquist is successful in posting the full set of 26 proposed bylaws amendments, sponsored by the CCs of NVGenWeb. They can be viewed here: http://www.rootsweb.com/~nvchurch/proposedbylawschanges.htm --- In Executive Session: Apr 16: message from Tim Stowell === "Bureaucracy is a giant mechanism operated by pygmies." ---Honore De Balzac This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2002 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: dailyboardshow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From ???@??? Sun Apr 21 13:47:43 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g3LDKeFs013672 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 09:20:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from n9.grp.scd.yahoo.com (n9.grp.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.93]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with SMTP id g3LDKclZ021572 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 09:20:38 -0400 (EDT) X-eGroups-Return: sentto-3565136-136-1019395237-merope=radix.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.198] by n9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 21 Apr 2002 13:20:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 20731 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2002 13:20:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Apr 2002 13:20:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n6.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.90) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Apr 2002 13:20:35 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: merope@radix.net Received: from [66.218.67.178] by n6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 21 Apr 2002 13:20:35 -0000 X-eGroups-Approved-By: merope3 via web; 21 Apr 2002 13:20:33 -0000 X-Sender: merope@radix.net X-Apparently-To: dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 21 Apr 2002 13:20:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 38907 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2002 13:20:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Apr 2002 13:20:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.comcast.net) (24.153.64.2) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Apr 2002 13:20:07 -0000 Received: from jadth.radix.net (pcp01205918pcs.nrockv01.md.comcast.net [68.50.227.225]) by mtaout01.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.3 (built Apr 8 2002)) with ESMTP id <0GUX00IDN6DI6E@mtaout01.icomcast.net> for dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 09:20:06 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: merope@radix.net To: Guidelines , BOARD-L@rootsweb.com, Daily Board Show , USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020421092703.00a5d2a0@radix.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 From: merope X-Yahoo-Profile: merope3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; contact dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 09:28:33 -0400 Subject: [DBS] Guidelines Committee report for the week ending 4/20/2002 Reply-To: dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UIDL: !NO"!m(J!!WM Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/k6cvND/n97DAA/ySSFAA/0csqlB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Permission to forward where appropriate is granted. GUIDELINES COMMITTEE WEEKLY REPORT, for the week ending April 20 2002 === On April 14, the weekly report was submitted to the Project. A comment was received from Advisory Board member Robert Bremer. He is opposed to making the "local resources" section required and suggested that this information be recommended and a help page be provided for LCs. After some discussion, the Committee was still in agreement that requiring the Local Coordinators to provide this information will benefit genealogical researchers, although Robert's suggestion of a help page was positively received and will be considered. - Local Resources: The Committee continued to discuss this issue and come up with a list of sugggested items to include in the Local Resources section of the local webpages. The current proposed wording of this section is as follows: "Each Local Coordinator is required to provide a page or section listing contact information for local resources as part of their USGenWeb site. "Local Resource" is defined as a place located in or near the area covered by the webpage and contact information should include an address, telephone number, email address and/or website, if available. Additionally, you may provide information on the type of records held by each resource. Examples of local resources that should be included if available are: county courthouse, public library, genealogical society, and historical society. You may also provide information on churches, cemeteries, the local newspaper, museums, funeral homes, regional archives or historical societies, or any other locally available resource that may hold material of interest to genealogists." - Additional State Requirements: On April 20, the Committee began to discuss the item in the current Guidelines suggesting that LCs read the FAQ for their state to see if there are additional guidelines specific to the state. Discussion on this item continues. - Recommended Links: On April 20, the Committee began to discuss "Recommended Links" as they are listed in the current Guidelines. It was suggested to drop the recommended link to USGenWeb.org, as it is included in "Required Links" in the proposed new guidelines. It was recommended to retain the suggestion to link to the Archives, but to update the link to its search page. It was recommended to retain the link to WorldGenWeb. It was recommended to remove the link to Gene Stark's Gendex, as it is believed to be outdated. Discussion on this item continues. === The current version of the working document is posted at: http://www.radix.net/~merope/lcguide.txt Please address comments to Teresa Lindquist -Teresa Lindquist Chair, Guidelines Committee Representative At Large, USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: dailyboardshow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From ???@??? Mon Apr 29 07:34:29 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g3TBPhFs014956 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 07:25:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from n15.grp.scd.yahoo.com (n15.grp.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.70]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with SMTP id g3TBPdHw002374 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 07:25:41 -0400 (EDT) X-eGroups-Return: sentto-3565136-137-1020079539-merope=radix.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.200] by n15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Apr 2002 11:25:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 35361 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2002 11:25:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Apr 2002 11:25:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n30.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.87) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Apr 2002 11:25:38 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: merope@radix.net Received: from [66.218.67.147] by n30.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Apr 2002 11:25:37 -0000 X-eGroups-Approved-By: merope3 via web; 29 Apr 2002 11:25:36 -0000 X-Sender: merope@radix.net X-Apparently-To: dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 29 Apr 2002 11:09:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 37694 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2002 11:09:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Apr 2002 11:09:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.comcast.net) (24.153.64.2) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Apr 2002 11:09:58 -0000 Received: from jadth.radix.net (pcp01205918pcs.nrockv01.md.comcast.net [68.50.227.225]) by mtaout45-01.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.3 (built Apr 8 2002)) with ESMTP id <0GVB0055ATOH2C@mtaout45-01.icomcast.net> for dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 07:09:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: merope@radix.net To: Daily Board Show Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020429071712.00a48990@radix.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 From: merope X-Yahoo-Profile: merope3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; contact dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 07:18:29 -0400 Subject: [DBS] Daily Board Show, weekly edition, 28 April 2002 Reply-To: dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UIDL: Q@W!!%Ld"!~Ke!!%&h!! ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/k6cvND/n97DAA/ySSFAA/0csqlB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Cutting down the tallest tree in the forest with a herring!...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! 21 April - 28 April 2002: Motion 02-09 (Board Secretary): Discussion on this motion continues [ad nauseum]. On April 21, Ron Eason wonders why "an intelligent group of folks would think that by not saying what is expected, it will miraculously work itself out, is unknown." He notes: "If it isn't in the motion, it isn't covered. If it isn't covered, it isn't enforceable. If it isn't enforceable, then we are all just still sitting on our hands." He doesn't think keeping the motion simple will work in this circumstance. Tina Vickery asks if the Board has reached a consensus and notes "we have had numerous motions, calls, votes, votes, and more votes.. we have all pretty much said the same thing, with semantics being the issue, IMHO. I think it would be a very bad idea to pass a generic motion just to be done with it, and move on." Betsy says she is not advocating a simple motion just so the Board can put this behind them, but because "we can never cover all the issues for now and the future and I don't see any reason that we have to. The more words there are, the more it can and will be subject to interpretation and twisting." Tina suggests that it would be possible to define abilities without enumerating duties. Richard Harrison is in favor of a simple motion, and says that in order for him to accept a motion, it "would need to contain everything that is in my motion. If you'll post what you want to add to it, I'll let you know if I can accept it." Tina then suggests adding "that the Board Secretary shall have demonstrated knowledge of the USGenWeb Project, its mission and goals," as well as "demonstrated skills in word processing and HTML" to Richard's motion to amend. On April 22 Richard then suggests new wording for his motion to amend: "I move that the National Coordinator appoint a Board Secretary, subject to the Advisory Board's approval, with duties to be determined by the National Coordinator and Advisory Board, and to serve until the end of the National Coordinator's term. The Board Secretary will not be a current member of the Advisory Board. This motion rescinds all previous motions of the Board regarding the Board Secretary. All candidates shall have a demonstrated knowledge of the USGenWeb Project, its mission and goals, and demonstrated skills in word processing and HTML." Diane Parsons then seconds this "motion". After Tim's comment [see below] she withdraws her second, noting that more discussion is needed. Jana Black then proceeds to ask Tina some questions about her suggestions for inclusion in the motion: "1) What is a "demonstrated knowledge" and how is it measured?...2) How will you determine that a candidate has "demonstrated skills in word processing and HTML"...I think this statement is too nebulous.... Substitute "demonstrated ability to design and maintain webpages" and I can live with it." She notes "The trick is to add the wording that is both general enough to cover all anticipated circumstances yet specific enough to give potential candidates some kind of yardstick." Tim Stowell suggests that the phrase "demonstrated knowledge of the USGenWeb Project, its mission and goals" is not necessary if the candidate is a USGW member and also asks how "demonstrated" would be defined. He notes "If, as one would hope, a Secretary would be someone that's been around a little while - they should certainly already know what the Project is about." Richard agrees that it doesn't need to be there, but that it makes some more comfortable with the motion. He notes "The problem is that the more specific we become, the more difficult it is for 2/3 of us to agree. If we need to begin agreeing on the specific definition of every word in the motion...We're never going to get a perfect motion. Getting one on which 2/3 agree is difficult enough." On April 23, Tim Stowell notes that there appear to be three versions of the motion, and asks Holly to restore order to the process. Holly then says she is dismissing Richard's first motion to amend "as it is almost identical to Betsy's and he himself has since proposed another wording." [of course, Betsy did not make a motion; I think she is referring to my motion.] She reduces both "Betsy's" and Richard's motions to amend to "suggested rewordings" and notes "they may be referred to as Betsy's suggested wording or Richard's suggested wording." She suggests that the Board continue to discuss this issue and "and arrive at some sort of general agreement or compromise before making motions to amend." Betsy then notes that her suggestion was not a motion but "discussion of a possible wording for a motion." Kathy Heidel also points out that Holly has made a mistake in her discussion of the current "suggested rewordings", and that it was Teresa who made the motion and not Betsy. On April 23, Teresa moves "to amend Motion 02-09 by substituting for it the following motion: "I move that the National Coordinator appoint a Board Secretary, subject to the Advisory Board's approval, with duties to be determined by the National Coordinator and Advisory Board, and to serve until the end of the National Coordinator's term." This motion is ignored. After a day of discussion, a handful of Board members settle on a new wording for Motion 02-09 and on April 24, Richard moves "that the National Coordinator appoint a Board Secretary, subject to the Advisory Board's approval, with duties to be determined by the National Coordinator and Advisory Board, to serve a term concurrent with that of the National Coordinator. The Board Secretary must be a member of the USGenWeb Project; must not be a member of the Advisory Board; and must possess skills in writing reports and webpage maintenance. This motion rescinds all previous motions of the Board regarding the Board Secretary." This motion is seconded by Tim Stowell and Holly opens it for discussion on April 25 [and Jana, who often eschews discussion in favor of pouting or complaining about some slight or other, is suddenly thrilled to find herself in the midst of a "process."] On April 26, Holly calls the vote on the amendment. As of April 28, 11 Board members have voted "yes" and 2 have voted "no". --- Other Business: Guidelines Committee: On April 21, Teresa Lindquist forwards the weekly Guidelines Committee report to the Board. - Other Committees: On April 23, Teresa Lindquist asks Holly to obtain reports from the Bylaws Committee and the Publicity and Promotions Committee. This request is ignored. - Bylaws Committee: On April 23, Holly Timm releases a call for additional volunteers for the Bylaws Committee, which apparently does not have enough members, or members who participate, to accomplish its mission. Jana Black then suggests that Holly ask Jeffy Scism, who has directed the recent "grassroots" Bylaws revision effort, to provide a list of people who helped him with that process and invite them to participate in the Board's Bylaws Committee. She notes "This grass roots group of over 30 Project contributors has written up Bylaws Revisions which now have sponsorship from at least one state. Jeffery recently communicated that the reason he left the AB BRC was that those on that committee refused to even look at this grass roots effort in the review process they were using...I submit that when volunteers are treated with the level of disrespect that Jeffery has reported, it is not a surprise to see resignations...I think we would be foolish to ignore this accomplishment and I hope that you as NC will find a way to include those who worked so hard in any Revision Effort." Holly then notes that since she made the call for volunteers publicly any member is able to volunteer and that none of Jeff's group were shown any disrespect. Jana responds that the impression among the volunteers is that their efforts were ignored and not appreciated and notes "it does seem to be an ongoing problem that new volunteers feel poorly treated, give up and leave .... shrug ..." --- In Executive Session: no activity === "Liberty doesn't work as well in practice as it does in speeches." ---Will Rogers This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2002 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: dailyboardshow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From ???@??? Mon Apr 29 07:34:29 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g3TBPhFs014954 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 07:25:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from n30.grp.scd.yahoo.com (n30.grp.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.87]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with SMTP id g3TBPfHw002375 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 07:25:41 -0400 (EDT) X-eGroups-Return: sentto-3565136-138-1020079540-merope=radix.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.196] by n30.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Apr 2002 11:25:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 90643 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2002 11:25:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Apr 2002 11:25:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n20.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.76) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Apr 2002 11:25:39 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: merope@radix.net Received: from [66.218.67.147] by n20.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Apr 2002 11:25:37 -0000 X-eGroups-Approved-By: merope3 via web; 29 Apr 2002 11:25:36 -0000 X-Sender: merope@radix.net X-Apparently-To: dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 29 Apr 2002 11:25:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 5253 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2002 11:25:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Apr 2002 11:25:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.comcast.net) (24.153.64.2) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Apr 2002 11:25:05 -0000 Received: from jadth.radix.net (pcp01205918pcs.nrockv01.md.comcast.net [68.50.227.225]) by mtaout01.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.3 (built Apr 8 2002)) with ESMTP id <0GVB007LZUDBWB@mtaout01.icomcast.net> for dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 07:25:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: merope@radix.net To: Guidelines , BOARD-L@rootsweb.com, Daily Board Show , USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020429073112.00a81700@radix.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 From: merope X-Yahoo-Profile: merope3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; contact dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 07:33:20 -0400 Subject: [DBS] Guidelines Committee report for the week ending April 27, 2002 Reply-To: dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UIDL: +'X"!c:P!!@F6!!0(^!! ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/k6cvND/n97DAA/ySSFAA/0csqlB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Permission to forward where appropriate is granted. GUIDELINES COMMITTEE WEEKLY REPORT, for the week ending April 27 2002 === On April 21, the weekly report was submitted to the Project. No comments were received. - Local Resources: The Committee continued to discuss this issue and has approved the wording below for this section: "Each Local Coordinator is required to provide a page or section listing contact information for local resources as part of their USGenWeb site. "Local Resource" is defined as a place located in or near the area covered by the webpage and contact information should include an address, telephone number, email address and/or website, if available. Additionally, you may provide information on the type of records held by each resource. Examples of local resources that should be included if available are: county courthouse, public library, genealogical society, and historical society. You may also provide information on churches, cemeteries, the local newspaper, museums, funeral homes, regional archives or historical societies, or any other locally available resource that may hold material of interest to genealogists." - Additional State Requirements: The Committee continued to discuss this item and has approved the following wording for this section: "In addition to the The USGenWeb Project requirements, some of the states have additional requirements for their county pages. Please check with your State Coordinator for additional requirements or a FAQ for your state." - Recommended Links: The Committee continued to discuss this item. It is suggested that including links to any outside projects on this page will constitute an endorsement by USGenWeb and cannot be inclusive of all useful online genealogy sites. It is also suggested that the Guidelines recommend only links to USGenWeb-related sites and sister projects, and should not link to for-profit sites. The current suggested wording for this section is: "The primary purpose of the USGenWeb Project is to provide information and assistance to researchers and Local Coordinators should include a page or section of links to any useful genealogical resources that will assist researchers in their area. This listing may include, but is not limited to: the USGenWeb Archives (tm) (ulr); the USGenWeb Census Project (urls), the Tombstone Project (url), and the WorldGenWeb Project [url]. You are encouraged to seek out and link to any source of information that includes information on your local area, or that may be of general use to researchers in your area, such as message boards, general search engines, federal and state archives, commercial online genealogy companies, etc." === The current version of the working document is posted at: http://www.radix.net/~merope/lcguide.txt Please address comments to Teresa Lindquist -Teresa Lindquist Chair, Guidelines Committee Representative At Large, USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: dailyboardshow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From ???@??? Sun May 05 07:48:32 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g45BcdFs029711 for ; Sun, 5 May 2002 07:38:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from n20.grp.scd.yahoo.com (n20.grp.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.76]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with SMTP id g45BccHw011736 for ; Sun, 5 May 2002 07:38:38 -0400 (EDT) X-eGroups-Return: sentto-3565136-139-1020598717-merope=radix.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.198] by n20.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 May 2002 11:38:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 93802 invoked from network); 5 May 2002 11:38:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 May 2002 11:38:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n29.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.85) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 May 2002 11:38:37 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: merope@radix.net Received: from [66.218.67.152] by n29.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 May 2002 11:38:36 -0000 X-eGroups-Approved-By: merope3 via web; 05 May 2002 11:38:35 -0000 X-Sender: merope@radix.net X-Apparently-To: dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_2); 4 May 2002 12:41:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 99035 invoked from network); 4 May 2002 12:41:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 May 2002 12:41:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mtaout06) (24.153.64.2) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 May 2002 12:41:09 -0000 Received: from jadth.radix.net (pcp01205918pcs.nrockv01.md.comcast.net [68.50.227.225]) by mtaout06.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.6 (built Apr 26 2002)) with ESMTP id <0GVL00CJD78K9H@mtaout06.icomcast.net> for dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 04 May 2002 08:41:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: merope@radix.net To: Daily Board Show Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020504084924.00a4f4b0@radix.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 From: merope X-Yahoo-Profile: merope3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; contact dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 08:49:44 -0400 Subject: [DBS] EC quarterly report Reply-To: dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UIDL: !=d!!G!F"!n@?!!U1b"! ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/0csqlB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> The latest from the EC. -Teresa >Resent-Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 06:47:51 -0600 >X-Original-Sender: rainelane@earthlink.net Fri May 3 06:47:48 2002 >X-Sender: rainelane@earthlink.net >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 >Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 08:48:59 -0400 >Old-To: usgenweb@cox.net >From: Lorraine Sonnenberg Newsome >Old-Cc: ELECTIONS-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: [EC] EC quarterly Report >To: ELECTIONS-L@rootsweb.com >Resent-From: ELECTIONS-L@rootsweb.com >Reply-To: ELECTIONS-L@rootsweb.com >X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3619 >X-Loop: ELECTIONS-L@rootsweb.com >Resent-Sender: ELECTIONS-L-request@rootsweb.com > >Holly, > >Would you please forward this to the Board. I'm sorry it's late. > >Sunny > > >> The following Quarterly Report is submitted to the Advisory Board of the >> USGenWeb Project: >> >> During the period from January 1, to March 31, 2002, the following has >> occurred: >> >> New replacement members were selected and seated. Marge Reid and Diane >> Parsons Montgomery were selected. >> >> There was an election of the Chair of the EC. Linda Haas Davenport was >> elected Chair. >> >> There was an election of the Secretary of the EC. Lorraine Sonnenberg >> Newsome was elected Secretary. >> >> Work was done on getting updated voter lists from the various State >> Coordinators. There are still SC's that have not responded with updated >> lists. >> >> Upon working on updating and revising the EC Guidelines, seven questions >> were formulated and forwarded to the Advisory Board for clarification. >> >> Upon the resignation of Nathan Zipfel from the Advisory Board, a poll was >> held to select a replacement. The poll was held from the last of February >> to the beginning of March. Ginger Hayes was voted in as replacement. >> >> By the request of GAGenWeb, a poll is being prepared to assist them in >> their state. >> >> At the time of the end of this quarter, the questions for clarification >> submitted to the AB is still under discussion. > > >============================== >To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, >go to: >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: dailyboardshow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From ???@??? Sun May 05 08:04:08 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g45BqeFs000314 for ; Sun, 5 May 2002 07:52:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from n10.grp.scd.yahoo.com (n10.grp.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.65]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with SMTP id g45BqcHw012922 for ; Sun, 5 May 2002 07:52:39 -0400 (EDT) X-eGroups-Return: sentto-3565136-140-1020599557-merope=radix.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.193] by n10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 May 2002 11:52:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 92404 invoked from network); 5 May 2002 11:52:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 May 2002 11:52:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n20.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.76) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 May 2002 11:52:36 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: merope@radix.net Received: from [66.218.67.139] by n20.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 May 2002 11:52:36 -0000 X-eGroups-Approved-By: merope3 via web; 05 May 2002 11:52:35 -0000 X-Sender: merope@radix.net X-Apparently-To: dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_2); 5 May 2002 11:51:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 70181 invoked from network); 5 May 2002 11:51:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 May 2002 11:51:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mtaout01) (24.153.64.2) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 May 2002 11:51:07 -0000 Received: from jadth.radix.net (pcp01205918pcs.nrockv01.md.comcast.net [68.50.227.225]) by mtaout01.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.6 (built Apr 26 2002)) with ESMTP id <0GVM00D72ZL4A5@mtaout01.icomcast.net> for dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 05 May 2002 07:51:07 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: merope@radix.net To: Daily Board Show Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020505075841.00a9ee10@radix.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 From: merope X-Yahoo-Profile: merope3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; contact dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 07:59:42 -0400 Subject: [DBS] Daily Board Show, weekly edition, 5/5/2002 Reply-To: dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UIDL: gb9"!C)@"!3)=!!`1p!! ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/0csqlB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To sleep, perchance to dream...its Your Daily Board Show! [Note to readers: My ISP lost a whole bunch of mail during a time that spanned April 29/May 30. I think I managed to retrieve everything, but the discussion below may not be complete.] *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! 28 April - 5 May 2002: Motion 02-09 (Board Secretary): On April 29, the amendment to Motion 02-09 passes with 12 yes votes and 2 no votes. After several Board members indicate that they do not wish to discuss the motion further, Holly calls the vote on the amended motion on April 30. This motion passes on May 1 with 13 yes votes. [With the exception of the list of specific duties, what eventually passed is essentially unchanged from the various permutations of this motion proposed over the last two months and several hundred messages. Go figure.] One Board member, Robert Bremer, sent his vote to Holly Timm to post; this stimulated a discussion on proxy voting [see below]. --- Other Business: Standing Rule [Proxy Voting]: On May 1, Holly initiates a discussion of a new standing rule allowing proxy voting, noting "I have nothing against permitting proxy votes BUT I think there must be a procedure...Mr Bremer's method of sending a clear vote on a specific matter to both myself and the RAL seems acceptable." Kathy Heidel thinks that only the NC should exercise the proxy in the event of a member's absence and Teresa suggests that at least one other member receive the proxy vote for confirmation purposes. Teresa also notes "proxy voting is not allowed unless we are headquartered in a state which allows it, and our bylaws and/or charter provide for it. However, what Robert did was not proxy voting...He cast his own vote on a specific issue. Holly merely informed us of it..I do not have any objection to allowing Board members who will be away for a few days to leave a vote on a specific motion that they know will come to a vote while they are gone to leave their vote with Holly and myself (or another Board member)." She asks if the ability to use proxy voting will extend to both of the Board lists. [Silly me; Jana jumped on this question like a gift from the gods. She's always had a bee in her bonnet about forcing people to use the secret list, and this is her chance. She makes the most of it; see below] Phyllis would like to see a rule allowing proxy voting but notes "One Advisory Board Member is enough and in the "real" world, where proxy voting is allowed, a person may choose the one to cast the proxy vote." Teresa notes that if true proxy voting is allowed, the NC should not be allowed to vote, since "Allowing them to serve as a proxy is a round about way of giving them a vote." She agrees that Board members should be allowed to select their own proxy. Kathy asks Holly to clarify what she means by proxy voting and suggests "that stipulations such as vacations, hospitalizations or other reasonable excuses should be considered as a reason for asking this consideration. I don't believe that passing on a vote when you are quite able to do so should be allowed on either list." Teresa notes that this provision will be impossible to verify and requiring members to indicate why they are unavailable is an invasion of privacy. Holly clarifies her position on proxy voting by noting "Proxy votes technically give someone else the power to decide your vote..An absentee ballot is the actual vote sent in ahead of time because one is going to be out of touch when a specific item or motion comes to a vote...absentee ballots should be permissable but not proxies...It should definitely be sent to the NC as that is who should post it when the vote is actually called (and the entire message should be posted, headers and all) and in case of straying mail, to one other designated person, probably the board secretary if we have one or the RAL." On May 2, Jana suggests that "If any AB member knows they will be out of town and wants to inform us what their vote would be "in absentia," they can post an "absentee ballot" to Board-Exec where we will all see it and the Secretary can include it in the vote results. The fact that it is posted on Exec serves like a PIN in identifying that the email indeed came from the Board member so named. The fact that we will all see it evidences that its intent is as suggested and the person makes their own vote." Several Board members agree with her (Kathy, Richard, Diane, Mary Ann, Vicki, Pam), but a few dissent. Tim suggests forwarding votes to the NC and the Board Secretary [an apparently mythical creature] in order not to violate the confidentiality of the secret list. Teresa notes that not all Board members may be subbed to Board-Exec, but all are always subbed to Board-L. Phyllis agrees with her and remarks "If an AB member does not choose to use Board-Exec and all AB members are aware of this fact, to make the use of Board-Exec necessary to vote, that member is being denied the opportunity to vote. Until a provision is written into the bylaws making the use of Board-Exec one of the qualifications for becoming an AB member, I do not see how we can "FORCE" any AB member to use that list....and we definitely DO NOT have the right to deny any AB member the opportunity to vote...An AB member should have the right to choose which AB member he/she wishes to forward his/her vote to Board-L. It may be difficult to "fathom" the possibility that one could be without access to a computer..and still be interested enough in Project business that IF telepone service is available, an AB member would call another AB member and ask "Whaz Up?" But, it does happen and if a vote were in progress, the contacted AB member should be allowed to cast the handicapped AB member's vote......to be verified as soon as computer access is available." Jana responds that "Using EXEC to inform our AB colleagues that will be gone and to post an absentee vote not only informs everyone but is common courtesy shown to colleagues...The argument Teresa used about "not choosing to sub" is absurd as *every* elected AB member is automatically subbed to EXEC as the result of being elected!...Anyone who is removed from EXEC would only be removed because they broke list rules - their choice, their consequence...To be blunt, in fact, we are *only* talking about Teresa here as everyone else has used EXEC...If a member chooses *not* to use EXEC, they deny themselves the choice to vote, that's all...I have no problem with a telephone request to a fellow AB member cast a vote in absentia, verified by the AB member themselves as soon as computer access is available." [Yes, it is gratifying to have one's hypotheses confirmed so succintly. But Jana should not be making policy for this or any other Board solely to force me to do something.] Teresa points out that "1. Any Board member can choose to unsub from the secret list at any time...we are all subbed when we take our office, but we can also choose not to be subbed. I don't see any reason for us to deny anyone the opportunity to vote because they do not wish to participate in a secret list. 2...requiring people to post their proxy to the secret list has two advantages: a) all Board members are currently subbed to it; and b) it is confidential...it may not always be the case that all Board members are subscribed, but all Board members will be subbed to Board-L...if someone is willing to post information that they are not available to Board-L that is their business and I don't see any reason to deny them that forum. If you allow the proxies to be posted to _either_ Board-L or the secret list (member's choice), you have resolved the problem of Board members who may not be subbed to the secret list, yet retain the confidentiality option for those who do not wish to broadcast that they will be out of town." She wonders however if this is merely an "attempt to force members to use the secret list." On May 3, Jana moves "I move that the Advisory Board adopt a Standing rule to allow Absentee Ballots to be cast as follows: Any AB member who knows they will be out of town may post an Absentee Ballot on the USGW Project Exec-L where it can be included in a vote should the vote come up during the course of their absence. In the event of inaccessibility to a computer, any AB member may telephone another AB member and ask that member to cast a Proxy Vote in their name. This vote will be verified by the AB member when the AB member is able to contact the AB upon return." [It'd be nice if she could get the name of the secret list correct.] Phyllis notes "I still do not think that someone ought to be forced to use Board-Exec if said someone doesn't want to.....especially since someone who has been hammered over the head by an "act of God" can phone a choice colleague, have a proxy vote cast and verify it later. I think that a member who may need to vote absentee should have the choice of posting to a choice colleague, OR to Board-Exec." Jana doesn't think the use of the secret list is "forced" and invokes the Amish to make her point. Tina Vickery thinks the motion is poorly conceived and notes "This Board and previous boards have always had the perceived veil of secrecy associated with it and its use of the Board-Exec list. This motion will do nothing to dispel that, and furthermore will cement that belief in the mind of the USGenWeb Project Community." Jana blows her off, noting "you know that regardless of the rumors, they are not true. As Kathy said and as the dbs has even shown, EXEC is infrequently used and used only to discuss that which is of a sensitive or confidential nature...I think it is a disservice for you to suggest that we submit to the perceptions rather than to stand up for the truth! Heavens, we are only talking about absentee votes that will be disclosed on BOARD-L as part of the count. So, in fact, what idea will we actually "cement?" Only that AB members care enough to be sure our votes are cast and counted at times when we know we would be unavailable." Tina notes "perception, like possession is nine-tenths of the law. I will not support something, that..is not in the best interest of the USGenWeb Community...And once there is doubt, all productivity and trust is lost." She suggests that "those board members that can anticipate an absence during a voting period cast their absentee vote with a member of their choice with a cc to the National Coordinator. The person of their choosing cast the vote, and the NC acknowledges that the absentee vote cast by x Board member for y Board member is indeed the same vote received by the National Coordinator, and the vote is counted." Teresa agrees with Tina's proposal, noting that "requiring a member to post their vote to all other Board members (on either list) may prejudice the votes of others or influence the tenor of continuing discussion." Vicki Shaffer suggests that the Board drop the discussion for now and "work on something for the project, not the AB, for a change?...Let's not turn this into another week or month long discussion that goes nowhere." Jana agrees, noting that the Board has two grievances to address and a Board Secretary to appoint. Tina notes that the discussion on the motion has stopped, "the motioner is unavailable", and wishes everyone a nice weekend. Phyllis Rippee suggests that the Board resume discussion of the questions the EC forwarded for the Board's consideration a while back. - Procedural Issues: For some reason, Phyllis Rippee revisits the issue regarding questioning votes. She notes "According to Sturgis, it is improper for a Board Member to question another Board Member about how said Board Member voted...when we are posting to Board-L, we are doing so as Board Members, which means that IF we want to question a vote by our representative (while wearing only our CC hat), we do not do it on the Board-L. As a representative form of "government", it is NOT improper for a person being represented to ask his/her representative about a vote." - Guidelines Committee: On April 29, Teresa Lindquist posts the weekly Guidelines Committee report to the Board. - Election Committee: On May 3, Lorraine Newsome (who is now the acting Chair of the EC) forwards the quarterly report to the Board. --- In Executive Session: May 3: messages from Jana Black, Holly Timm, Ron Eason May 4: Tina Vickery, Phyllis Rippee [the games people play...sometimes, ya just gotta laugh] === "Distrust everyone in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!" ---Friedrich Nietzsche This has been your Daily Board Show, (c) 2002 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: dailyboardshow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From ???@??? Sun May 05 08:33:38 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g45CDSFs001291 for ; Sun, 5 May 2002 08:13:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from n23.grp.scd.yahoo.com (n23.grp.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.79]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with SMTP id g45CDQHw014562 for ; Sun, 5 May 2002 08:13:27 -0400 (EDT) X-eGroups-Return: sentto-3565136-141-1020600803-merope=radix.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.197] by n23.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 May 2002 12:13:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 87043 invoked from network); 5 May 2002 12:13:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 May 2002 12:13:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n15.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.70) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 May 2002 12:13:21 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: merope@radix.net Received: from [66.218.67.160] by n15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 May 2002 12:13:21 -0000 X-eGroups-Approved-By: merope3 via web; 05 May 2002 12:13:20 -0000 X-Sender: merope@radix.net X-Apparently-To: dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_2); 5 May 2002 12:13:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 30573 invoked from network); 5 May 2002 12:13:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 May 2002 12:13:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mtaout01) (24.153.64.2) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 May 2002 12:13:02 -0000 Received: from jadth.radix.net (pcp01205918pcs.nrockv01.md.comcast.net [68.50.227.225]) by mtaout01.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.6 (built Apr 26 2002)) with ESMTP id <0GVN00ECD0LQAX@mtaout01.icomcast.net> for dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 05 May 2002 08:13:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: merope@radix.net To: Guidelines , BOARD-L@rootsweb.com, Daily Board Show , USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020505081955.00a99c40@radix.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 From: merope X-Yahoo-Profile: merope3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; contact dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 08:21:39 -0400 Subject: [DBS] Guidelines Committee report for the week ending 4 May 2002 Reply-To: dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UIDL: !8h!!+:?"!>nb"!\@e"! ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/0csqlB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> GUIDELINES COMMITTEE WEEKLY REPORT, for the week ending May 4 2002 [note to readers: My ISP lost some mail between April 29 and May 1. Although I believe I retrieved everything, the discussion below may not be complete.] === On April 28, the weekly report was submitted to the Project. A comment was received from a member disagreeing with the suggestion that non-USGenWeb sites not be included as "recommended links" because it implies that if a site isn't USGenWeb sanctioned, it shouldn't be on the page as a link. This comment is discussed briefly and it is felt that the currently worded disclaimer is sufficient. Another person sent a comment suggesting that including telephone numbers for local resources may lead to the loss of that resource for genealogists if the resource becomes overwhelmed with phone resources. This comment was also discussed and it was suggested that LCs can use their own discretion about providing specific information like phone numbers in situations where they feel it might be inappropriate. - Recommended Links: The Committee continued to discuss this item. There is some concern about not suggesting specific commercial sites since they often have valuable free resources and it is noted that there are many useful non-profit resources that are not affiliated with USGenWeb that could be listed as well. Committee members felt it would be impractical to attempt to list every useful link suggestion and that LCs should be responsible for tracking down links for their sites. === The current version of the working document is posted at: http://www.radix.net/~merope/lcguide.txt Please address comments to Teresa Lindquist -Teresa Lindquist Chair, Guidelines Committee Representative At Large, USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: dailyboardshow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From ???@??? Sun May 12 10:38:32 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g4CEFxFs017445 for ; Sun, 12 May 2002 10:15:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from n30.grp.scd.yahoo.com (n30.grp.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.87]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with SMTP id g4CEFuHw012428 for ; Sun, 12 May 2002 10:15:57 -0400 (EDT) X-eGroups-Return: sentto-3565136-142-1021212955-merope=radix.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.192] by n30.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 May 2002 14:15:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 3120 invoked from network); 12 May 2002 14:15:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 May 2002 14:15:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n15.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.70) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 May 2002 14:15:54 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: merope@radix.net Received: from [66.218.67.159] by n15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 May 2002 14:15:54 -0000 X-eGroups-Approved-By: merope3 via web; 12 May 2002 14:15:53 -0000 X-Sender: merope@radix.net X-Apparently-To: dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_2); 12 May 2002 14:11:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 97307 invoked from network); 12 May 2002 14:11:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 May 2002 14:11:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.comcast.net) (24.153.64.2) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 May 2002 14:11:57 -0000 Received: from jadth.radix.net (pcp01205918pcs.nrockv01.md.comcast.net [68.50.227.225]) by mtaout06.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.6 (built Apr 26 2002)) with ESMTP id <0GW000GQC4RU6M@mtaout06.icomcast.net> for dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 12 May 2002 10:11:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: merope@radix.net To: Daily Board Show Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020512101859.00a62be0@radix.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 From: merope X-Yahoo-Profile: merope3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; contact dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 10:20:38 -0400 Subject: [DBS] Daily Board Show, weekly edition, 5/12/2002 Reply-To: dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UIDL: >Cg"!k!p!!mVN"!I\0"! ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/0csqlB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Get over it...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! 5 May - 12 May 2002: Standing Rule (Proxy voting): Noting that consensus does not support Jana's proposed motion, Tim Stowell proposes the following wording: "An AB member who knows he/she will be unavailable at the time of an impending vote may pre-vote by sending their vote to the proxy of their choice to be posted to Board-L during the actual voting period." If perchance the AB member does become available during the time of voting the above proxy will be null and void." Phyllis notes "I'm not sure that we can pass a Standing Rule (should we wish to do so) in regard to absentee voting...Wouldn't an absentee ballot represent someone as being "present" to vote, qualifying in the count for a quorum, thus, perhaps violating the bylaws? I also believe that this eliminates the possibility of proxy voting, even if specific instructions were given to the one chosen to cast the vote." Tim does not agree with this argument and notes "People vote absentee ballots in real life when they know they won't be available on election day...It is not delegating someone else to vote - it is authority to pass along a vote so indicated by the person giving the vote." Jana's motion is declared dead for lack of a second on May 6 by Acting Chair Teresa Lindquist. Jana then notes "this is just not an important topic given the other things we *still* need to complete." There is no further action on the standing rule/proxy voting motion. Other Business: Acting Chair: On May 6, Holly Timm heads out for a brief vacation and appoints Teresa Lindquist as Acting Chair in her absence. Following on the heels of this announcement, Phyllis Rippee cites various passages of Sturgis and notes "Because our bylaws delegate authority to the NC and make no provision for a "second in command", we can discuss anything we wish, but we cannot take any action on anything until Holly returns. Furthermore, any "ruling" that Teresa may choose to make, will be invalid. How I wish I had known this the last time Holly vacated the throne." Following Teresa's ruling that Jana's motion is dead for lack of a second, Phyllis notes "she doesn't have any right to be "acting" on anything. Including the ruling in regard to Jana's motion, although it is an automatic thing that Holly should have and could have ruled on before she left," and decides to take a vacation herself. Jana also tells Teresa she has no authority, noting "since the bylaws specifically state that the NC shall preside over *all* meetings of the Advisory Board, under accepted parliamentary authority, the NC *cannot* delegate this authority to anyone else in lieu of a standing Rule so specifying substitute authority in absence of the NC." She notes that the entire Board appears to be on vacation. Holly returns to the Board on May 10 and immediately notes "Although it is debatable as to whether or not *rulings* and such could be done in my absence, there is absolutely no reason to cease discussion simply because I am away...I have stated previously loudly and clearly, the RAL is similar to the VP in most organizations and quite capable and appropriate a choice to chair the meeting in my absence...A few of you seem to have taken it upon yourselves to make personality-driven rulings of your own." Phyllis retorts "....when the bylaws state that the NC shall preside over meetings and Sturgis states that the authority specifically granted in an organization's bylaws cannot be delegated to someone else by the person delegated the authority by the bylaws...THAT is not making a "personality-driven ruling". THAT is sticking to the rules." Jana shares Phyllis' opinion. [Phyllis wants to be NC really bad. Its a pity the route she's taking to get there.] - Election Committee: At Tim's request, Teresa updates the Board on the current personnel status of the Election Committee. Lorraine Newsome is Acting Chair and Linda Haas Davenport is Acting Secretary pending the outcome of an election. On May 5, Ron Eason presents the four items remaining to be considered from the EC's request of several months ago. Tim addresses the questsion about the KSGenWeb Archives members being allowed to vote by wondering whether "we also include the previously included state Special Projects folk?" and noting that if so, all KS archives volunteers that do not work for the USGenWeb Archives (TM) should be excluded from voting. He also believes that two-seat races should continue to be handled as they have been in the past. Tim suggests that the EC's idea of posting a publicly accessible roster of all project members is not a good idea, and notes "While most folks would not give it a second thought don't we need to protect the members as much as we can within our power to do so from those less inclined to use the information in the way intended?" He also suggests instituting a complicated test procedure for registration during the upcoming election, but notes "all this depends on several factors - the AB approving such a plan; the EC time to set up; the CCs willingness to register; the cooperation of the SCs; and lastly and perhaps most importantly a timetable to get this done by July 1." On May 10, the EC finally decides to address the numerous questions that have been put to it on these topics and Linda Haas Davenport [who is no longer the chair of the committee, but apparently still performs all the duties of the office] has Ron Eason forward the EC's response to the remaining four items. The issue of allowing KS Archivists is explained thus: "During last yar's election the KS Archive people were excluded from voting for the Archive Representative because they did not/do not submit information to the Project's Archives...The EC's position: Any person who volunteers for the Project, excluding true Look-Up and/or Transcriber volunteers should be allowed to vote per the by-laws. This includes all volunteers who maintain local level special projects...These Local Special Project volunteers are eligible to vote for the NC and RAL AB seats... The EC needs to know what groups, if any, are excluded from voting for what positions...The EC does not want to go into this election thinking that a particular group of volunteers are eligible to vote for a particular AB seat only to find that they are not after passwords have been sent out and the EC has to scramble to try to straighten things out and handle irate e-mails." The issue of posting a public membership roster is addressed: "The EC wants to post a list of names and positions - no e-mail address, no private information, nothing except names & positions...The EC wants to post such a list for two reasons: (1) to allow anyone to see that a volunteer is not listed twice - thus able to vote twice. (2) to stop the accusations that an SC and/or the EC has excluded or included qualified/non-qualified volunteers...The EC is trying to cope with a list of over 2,800 volunteers and it is extremely difficult to weed out duplicates when a person's name and/or e-mail address is not the same on all of their sites and/or sites span states or regions...The EC wants to post a list so that each volunteer can go and see for themselves that they are listed correctly and also to let any volunteer go see who is included in the voter list." In response to a question from Tim, Linda notes that people who request it will have their names removed from the roster. Teresa asks why the EC doesn't post a list of just people who have registered. On the topic of requiring members to register in order to vote, Linda notes "the EC has no intention of NOT sending out e-mails to all volunteers announcing the opening of nominations, election, election results, etc. Nor will the EC stop working bounced e-mails nor are we trying to "get out" any of our regular duties...What we are trying to do is to make the election process run smoother...if a person wants to vote - they can come and register, if they don't want to vote they don't register...The EC would like to devote it's time and energy to PR for the national level nominations and election process to persuade more people to participate. The EC would like to be able to spend time holding state elections, hosting polls to help find out what the average volunteer wants, doesn't want, expects, needs, etc etc that will be of benefit to the entire Project rather than chasing after volunteers who just want to be left alone...the way the EC feels, is - if they want to vote they can click on the link in the e-mail and register. If they don't want to participate then they ignore the e-mails." In response to a question by Teresa, Linda notes that registrations will be valid only for the current elections. After posting these "clarifications", Linda asks Ron to forward the following request: "The EC has less than 7 days before we have to send out the first notice of the opening of Nominations to everyone. We only have 3 weeks until Nominations open. The EC presented its questions to the AB early so that the AB would have time for discussion and answers prior to June 1st. Although some of the questions were answered there are 4 that have not been. Will each of you please put aside your squabbles long enough to give the EC answers?" Teresa notes that "Perhaps if the EC had not waited a month and a half to address the Board's numerous concerns with its proposals, we could have addressed these issues sooner." - Board-Exec: Last week, Kathy Heidel made a throw-away comment that "all AB business was formerly conducted on Board-Exec." When Richard Harrison asked her for confirmation of this, she noted that it was the case when she briefly was a Board member back in 1998. Betsy Mills [a permanent Board member] takes exception to this, and notes "I am sick and tired of the insinuation that it was used for public business!" Tina Vickery and Pam Reid [another permanent Board member] support this assertion. Richard notes "I was here last year and know the list was not used for public business then, nor as a substitute for public discussion. I was not here in previous years, but doubted the list was used improperly." He also notes how important it is for the Project to have a secret list "the effective functioning of any board." Pam Reid agrees with Richard and remarks, "This isn't a matter of conducting business in secret - it is a matter to using an executive session for matters that needn't be aired for public consumption." [Which is, of course, conducting business in secret.] Jana notes that "Posting to EXEC is not illegal, immoral or a crime! It can even be very helpful," and suggests that Teresa leave off discussing the history of the secret list. She states, "You even seem to be admitting (albeit circuitously) that IF EXEC was ever misused, the misuse was very short lived and it has not happened since - except in your perception where what you deem public business went on!...Why you imply and continue to rant does far more damage to the Project than anything that ever happened in EXEC!" When Teresa suggests that the Board instead discuss the current misuses of the secret list, Jana does not respond. On May 6, Teresa forwards a quote from former NC Bob Bamford, who notes specifically in his instructions to the Board that the secret list will be used for all discussions of motions and only voting will take place publicly. After Betsy tries to claim that Bob's instructions were only in effect for two days and represented "a new AB struggling to figure out how to conduct the project's business", Teresa posts a brief synopsis of the early history of the secret list [see below] and Betsy's part in it, Betsy declines to participate further in the discussion. Further comment on the issue is declared out of order on Board-L by Teresa on May 7. - Guidelines Committee: On May 5, Teresa Lindquist forwards the weekly report from the Guidelines Committee to the Board. - Committee Reports: On May 6 Teresa, noting that it has now been a couple of weeks since she requested reports from the Publicity/Promotions Committee and the Bylaws Committee asks "Am I to understand that those reports will not be forthcoming?" [I have been notified privately by a member of the Publicity/Promotions committee that a report is currently being prepared.] --- In Executive Session: May 5: message from Tim Stowell May 6: messages from Kathy Heidel, Jana Black, Tina Vickery May 9: message from Tim Stowell May 11: message from Tim Stowell === Preaching to the Choir Corner: [Disclaimer: none of the following discussion should be taken to refer directly to anything that has occurred on Board-Exec since I joined the Board in September 2001. I have been watching Board-Exec for over three years now and have very extensive archives of its activity. The following is based entirely on those archives. Extrapolation to current events is your responsibility.] I would hate to make Betsy unwell, but public business has often been conducted secretly on Board-Exec. Two motions were discussed and voted on in their entirety on that list a couple of elections ago. Alterations to the national webpage were hatched and plotted in secret on that list. Attempts to control who can run for office were addressed in secret. The recent debacle with Maggie "One Cat Over The Line" Stewart, although already public knowledge, was conducted in secret. Votes have occurred that were never made public, in violation of the bylaws. The fact that it is not always used for business that should be public does not mean that it never has been nor that it will not be again. The rules surrounding the formation of the list and its history to date suggest nothing less than that the Board runs there to hide when it doesn't want the membership to be aware of what it is doing until its too late. And as our Tina noted, the perception of secrecy and duplicity is really all that matters. For those who may not know the general history of the infamous secret list, Board-Exec was born on Nov 27 1998 and then put to rest on Nov 28, after Betsy Mills complained that it was too difficult to follow discussions occurring on two separate lists. It was restarted on Dec 4 1998 and has continued unabated since that time. It is the heir to a list called Campaign98, a leftover election list that Kay Mason loaned the Board to use so it could dis Nancy Trice in secret after her resignation in early Nov 1998. When Bob Bamford was briefly the NC, he issued instructions to the Board on the secret list that said in part "This closed list is used for discussions and information transfer. We discuss an issue and once we reach a relative consensus, someone proposes a motion to be placed on the board list. Assuming their [sic] is a second we then call for a vote. If their [sic] is further disagreement it is discussed HERE." The Project was not informed of the existence of this list, its closing, or its re-opening several days later. Various Board members publicly denied the existence of Board-Exec on the very day it was created; attempts to deny its existence did not stop until after its records were published in mid-December 1998. It has continued to be the Board's preferred place to "let its hair down", so to speak, and its generally been used as a place where Board members can freely, openly, and with the support and encouragement of their peers, trash whomever is currently displeasing them. While it is not true to say that ALL Board business has been conducted on Exec, it is also not correct to say that no public business has been conducted there, and there have been various suggestions over the years that pre-motion discussion take place exclusively on the secret list. Bob Bamford's Board happily discussed all sorts of Project business, including preventing people from running for office, altering the national web page, member resignations, and "divorcing" constituents, out of the view of the membership. Bob Bamford reiterated his instructions to the Board regarding the use of the secret list to do everything with motions but vote on them right up to the time he resigned, at the end of December 1998, so the claim that the Board operated in secret for a maximum of two days three years ago is disingenuous at best. At least two entire motions were made, discussed and voted on there and the membership was only informed of their existence when the results were announced on Board-L. Our most recent ex-NC, Tim Stowell, was inordinately fond of proclaiming aloud that all business would be conducted on Board-L while presiding over all sorts of secret stuff and telling the Board that "the CCs don't need to know everything." It is also not uncommon for Board members to use the secret list to make comments on ongoing public discussion, apparently for the purpose of moving the conversation there or to keep other Board members from publicly addressing their statements. Why does the Board cling to the secret list so hard and deny its history so fervently? Its hard to say. The need for an Executive session of some sort in an organization like ours is not usually disputed. But the list is rarely used as an executive session; its more commonly used as a primal therapy chamber, where Board members are free to curse openly, call each other names, impugn each others' reputations and motives, play silly mind games, and generally act like two-year olds. Its not always like that of course. When the issue under discussion on the secret list is a no-brainer, discussion is generally simple, polite and professional. That's easy to do when everyone agrees on something. Generally, these discussions have tended to be on items that probably should not be on the secret list in the first place; they commonly address business offers from other companies, the permission to use screenshots in published works, etc., and are not really sensitive or involving personnel matters. However, when the issue is something on which Board members disagree, as is often the case with grievances, issues involving elections, and _anything_ having to do with the Archives, the rhetoric often heats up immediately. With a grievance, for example, the general process is to first attack whoever filed the grievance, question their "true" motives, their history in the project, their personal behavior, and whatever else can be found to defame them. Then the other party to the grievance comes in for their share of abuse. Eventually, the Board members turn to attacking each other, and once I get wind of what's going on and publish it, they turn to attacking me. Occasionally the abuse spills over onto the public list, where it serves only to remind everyone of the Board's irrelevancy and impotence. There are rules about conduct on the public list, but historically there have been none on the secret list. Anything goes, more or less, and the picture is not often pretty. As a general rule, if the Board members are disagreeing politely about something in public, the knives are out and blood is being drawn in secret. Given that the _only_ lasting thing the secret list has accomplished is the utter destruction of the Board's and the Project's reputation, it is hard to understand why it is so vociferously defended by so many Board members. Who knows? Maybe they need the outlet to let off steam. === "The more you disapprove, the more fun it is for me." ---bumber sticker I saw the other day This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2002 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: dailyboardshow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From ???@??? Sun May 12 10:38:32 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g4CEHPFs017510 for ; Sun, 12 May 2002 10:17:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from n2.grp.scd.yahoo.com (n2.grp.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.75]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with SMTP id g4CEHMHw012601 for ; Sun, 12 May 2002 10:17:24 -0400 (EDT) X-eGroups-Return: sentto-3565136-143-1021213041-merope=radix.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.196] by n2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 May 2002 14:17:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 6970 invoked from network); 12 May 2002 14:17:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 May 2002 14:17:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n28.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.84) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 May 2002 14:17:21 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: merope@radix.net Received: from [66.218.67.143] by n28.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 May 2002 14:17:20 -0000 X-eGroups-Approved-By: merope3 via web; 12 May 2002 14:17:20 -0000 X-Sender: merope@radix.net X-Apparently-To: dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_2); 12 May 2002 14:17:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 20479 invoked from network); 12 May 2002 14:17:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 May 2002 14:17:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.comcast.net) (24.153.64.2) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 May 2002 14:17:05 -0000 Received: from jadth.radix.net (pcp01205918pcs.nrockv01.md.comcast.net [68.50.227.225]) by mtaout06.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.6 (built Apr 26 2002)) with ESMTP id <0GW000GES50GVG@mtaout06.icomcast.net> for dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 12 May 2002 10:17:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: merope@radix.net To: Guidelines , Daily Board Show , BOARD-L@rootsweb.com, USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020512102445.00a63050@radix.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 From: merope X-Yahoo-Profile: merope3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; contact dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 10:25:47 -0400 Subject: [DBS] Guidelines Committee Report for the week ending May 11, 2002 Reply-To: dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UIDL: ~G,!!@9;!!=m3"!%UW!! ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/0csqlB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Permission to forward where appropriate is granted. GUIDELINES COMMITTEE WEEKLY REPORT, for the week ending May 11 2002 === On May 5 the weekly report was submitted to the Project. - Recommended Links: The Committee continued to discuss this item. A current suggestion is to direct Local Coordinators to Cyndi's List as a place to find links of local interest to add to their pages. === The current version of the working document is posted at: http://www.radix.net/~merope/lcguide.txt Please address comments to Teresa Lindquist -Teresa Lindquist Chair, Guidelines Committee Representative At Large, USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: dailyboardshow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From ???@??? Thu May 16 19:11:42 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g4GMppFs026688 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 18:51:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from n13.grp.scd.yahoo.com (n13.grp.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.68]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with SMTP id g4GMpnHw002122 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 18:51:50 -0400 (EDT) X-eGroups-Return: sentto-3565136-144-1021589508-merope=radix.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.197] by n13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 May 2002 22:51:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 87324 invoked from network); 16 May 2002 22:51:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 May 2002 22:51:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n10.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.65) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 May 2002 22:51:43 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: merope@radix.net Received: from [66.218.67.135] by n10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 May 2002 22:51:38 -0000 X-eGroups-Approved-By: merope3 via web; 16 May 2002 22:51:35 -0000 X-Sender: merope@radix.net X-Apparently-To: dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_2); 16 May 2002 22:49:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 48492 invoked from network); 16 May 2002 22:49:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 May 2002 22:49:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.comcast.net) (24.153.64.2) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 May 2002 22:49:48 -0000 Received: from jadth.radix.net (pcp01205918pcs.nrockv01.md.comcast.net [68.50.227.225]) by mtaout06.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.6 (built Apr 26 2002)) with ESMTP id <0GW8006ZD7EZQ5@mtaout06.icomcast.net> for dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 16 May 2002 18:49:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: merope@radix.net To: Daily Board Show Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020516185815.00a720b0@radix.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 From: merope X-Yahoo-Profile: merope3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; contact dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 18:58:34 -0400 Subject: [DBS] USGenWeb Publicity/Promotion Standing Committee - Report to Project Reply-To: dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UIDL: iba!!7Vk"!~CX"!URn!! ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/0csqlB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> FYI -Teresa >Resent-Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 15:24:33 -0600 >X-Original-Sender: tsvickery@adelphia.net Thu May 16 15:24:32 2002 >From: "Tina S Vickery" >Old-To: "BOARD-L" >Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 17:22:40 -0400 >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 >Subject: [BOARD-L] USGenWeb Publicity/Promotion Standing Committee - >Report to Project >To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com >Resent-From: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com >Reply-To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com >X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9440 >X-Loop: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com >Resent-Sender: BOARD-L-request@rootsweb.com > >Please forward to appropriate USGenWeb Project lists. >_____ > >USGenWeb Publicity/Promotion Standing Committee - Report to Project > >On March 6th, the USGenWeb Publicity/Promotion Standing Committee was >convened. > >The task of the committee is to develop means of publicity and >promotion, such as, but not limited to newsletters, brochures and web >pages to accomplish this purpose, and will be available to work with >all committees and organizations within the USGenWeb Project to assist >and advise them with publicity and promotion. > >The formation of a Newsletter Task Team, Brochures Task Team, and a >Help Task team has been accomplished and discussions are ongoing >within each of the teams. > >The Newsletter Team has discussed intended audience; content areas, >distribution method, and involvement of the USGenWeb Project community >in its efforts. > >The Brochures Team has engaged in discussion of content, logos for >brochures, and different programs for generating the brochures. > >The Help Team, is the latest Team to be formed and they will be >discussing preparation of pages of how to's, tips, and ideas for all >USGWeb Project volunteers. These will include technical tips on HTML, >FTP, graphics; help with design, navigation, and accessibility; page >design and where to find resources. This team will also be ready to >assist the Guidelines Committee with any subsidiary pages found >necessary or useful. > >Respectfully, >Tina Vickery >Chairperson, USGenWeb Publicity and Promotion Committee To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: dailyboardshow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From ???@??? Sun May 19 10:20:04 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g4JDvVFs001109 for ; Sun, 19 May 2002 09:57:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from n29.grp.scd.yahoo.com (n29.grp.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.85]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with SMTP id g4JDvTHw026300 for ; Sun, 19 May 2002 09:57:30 -0400 (EDT) X-eGroups-Return: sentto-3565136-146-1021816649-merope=radix.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.66.98] by n29.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 19 May 2002 13:57:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 43543 invoked from network); 19 May 2002 13:57:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 May 2002 13:57:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n18.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.73) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 May 2002 13:57:27 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: merope@radix.net Received: from [66.218.67.149] by n18.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 19 May 2002 13:57:26 -0000 X-eGroups-Approved-By: merope3 via web; 19 May 2002 13:57:24 -0000 X-Sender: merope@radix.net X-Apparently-To: dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_2); 19 May 2002 13:56:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 1258 invoked from network); 19 May 2002 13:56:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 May 2002 13:56:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.comcast.net) (24.153.64.2) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 May 2002 13:56:51 -0000 Received: from jadth.radix.net (pcp01205918pcs.nrockv01.md.comcast.net [68.50.227.225]) by mtaout03.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.6 (built Apr 26 2002)) with ESMTP id <0GWD00KBG2Q3T8@mtaout03.icomcast.net> for dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 19 May 2002 09:56:51 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: merope@radix.net To: Daily Board Show Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020519100436.00a7c7e0@radix.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 From: merope X-Yahoo-Profile: merope3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; contact dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 10:05:15 -0400 Subject: [DBS] Daily Board Show, weekly edition, 5/19/2002 Reply-To: dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UIDL: j(3!!*6>!!5e3"!EH"#! ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Take the Yahoo! Groups survey for a chance to win $1,000. Your opinion is very important to us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/NOFBfD/uAJEAA/Ey.GAA/0csqlB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Go on, take the money and run...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! 12 May - 19 May 2002: Motion 02-10 (resignation of Diane Parsons): On May 15, Holly asks for a motion to accept the resignation of Diane Parsons. Richard Harrison so moves, Ron Eason seconds the motion, and Holly asks if there is any discussion on it. There is none, although several Board members wish Diane well and one points out that the motion is unnecessary. Other Business: Election Committee: Acting EC Secretary Linda Haas Davenport responds to Teresa's note that the Board was hindered in its ability to address the EC's questions by the failure of the EC to provide timely clarifications on them. She notes "perhaps Teresa if the AB had not gotten off on board secretaries and other such matters the questions could have been finished when they were started...The EC would just like to have the AB give it a final ruling on the 4 questions left to be answered and would appreciate those rulings early enough to put them in place prior to June 1st." To make sure Teresa gets the message, Linda arranges to have two Board members forward it to the Board list. [Gad, this woman loves to whine. Linda would like very much for this to be my fault, but the sad fact is that the EC failed to respond to several Board members' requests for clarification during the original discussion and we simply moved on to other business. If the EC cannot be bothered to clarify its positions on these issues, then its hard to understand what they expect us to do, other than just rubber-stamp their opinion and wish them godspeed.] After some prodding from Phyllis Rippee, Holly asks each Board member to respond briefly to the remaining four issues that the EC presented. They follow, along with each Board member's responses: QUESTION 1: How should races with 2 seats be handled / determined? Phyllis: Continue to have the seats filled in the same way as in the past. Jana: Separately, unless it is stated clearly before the election that a second seat will go to the second vote getter. Tina: I have no problem with how it has been handled previously. Mary Ann: . I will have to say lets keep the first and second place system. Tim: As they have been. Phyllis (2nd response): Highest total = 2-year seat. Second highest total = 1 year seat. Pam: Highest vote getter - two year term - 2nd - one year term Richard: Highest vote getter - two year term - 2nd - one year term. Ginger: All advisory board seats are for a two year term...Any other opening in that region would be to fill an unexpired term, not a one year term, and should be handled seperately. Ron: Just as they have been. Kathy: This has always been handled by the one with the most votes is elected to serve 2 years. I see no reason to change this. Teresa: Same as they've always been handled. QUESTION 2: What group of volunteers, if any, are to be excluded from voting? Phyllis: Exclude from voting those who are excluded in the bylaws; those who are participating in non-officially recognized projects unless qualifying otherwise; those who are participating in State-only projects unless qualifying otherwise. Jana: Follow the Bylaws to include or exclude Tina: The USGenWeb Bylaws should be followed in determining voters Mary Ann: all elegable volunteers, who are listed in the bylaws. Tim: it would appear they can only vote for NC/RAL and any national questions that may be posted. Since the KS Archives folks aren't apparently part of/nor contribute to the USGenWeb Archives they shouldn't vote for that particular seat. Phyllis (2nd response): Those prohibited in the bylaws and those whose work goes exclusively to State Archives.....unless they qualify otherwise. Pam: All USGenWeb Volunteers should be allowed to vote. Richard: All qualified USGenWeb Volunteers should be allowed to vote. In the case of the Kansas Archives or similar groups they should qualify as KS volunteers but not as Archives volunteers as they don't participate in the USGenWeb Archives Project. Ginger: As per the bylaws, look up volunteers and transcribers...If SP volunteers are allowed to vote then I don't see how you can make a distinction between national level SP volunteers and state level SP volunteers. Ron: All USGenWeb Volunteers should be allowed to vote. Kathy: According to the current Bylaws "All members of The USGenWeb Project, excluding Look-Up Volunteers and Transcribers, shall be eligible to vote". The AB/EC should follow the Bylaws. Teresa: Lookup volunteers and transcribers, per the bylaws. No one else. QUESTION 3: Will the AB allow the EC to post Regional membership lists (name only) on the EC website? Phyllis: I see nothing wrong with having a national list of voters, as long as ONLY names and positions are posted. Jana: Regional Membership lists with Names Only is reasonable Tina: As each CC, LC, SC, FM etc. etc. are listed in some fashion on the pages they host, I find no problem with the EC listing Regional Membership lists. Mary Ann: As long as they are willing to remove them if requested. Tim: Yes. Phyllis (2nd response): Yes. Pam: Yes Richard: Yes Ginger: Yes Ron: ) I think this is best left up to the voters, so put it on the ballot. Kathy: I do not have problem with the EC listing Regional Membership lists. But if the EC is asked to not do so by the individual they should follow their wishes and omit the individual's name. Teresa: No. I think this should be up to the project membership. Let the EC make their case for listing names and positions on a public website to the voters and have the voters decide whether this is something they find desireable. QUESTION 4: Shall only those who register to vote be allowed to vote? Phyllis: Only those registered to vote, should be allowed to vote. I believe that only those who are interested in voting, will register. Therefore, we should respect the rights of those who are not interested, by not "dinging" at them to vote. Jana: It is reasonable for qualified voters to register annually and for SCs to verify their qualification. Tina: The fact that an individual takes the time to register is terrific, but should not preclude the responsibility of the SC's and Special Projects Managers from providing lists to the Election Committee. In my opinion, there are many volunteers out there that quietly and efficiently work on pages and are unaware that they have the responsibility to register, but will take the time to vote when the polls are open. Mary Ann: No! I think all who are sent in by their SC's should also be allowed to vote if they wish. Tim: No. Phyllis (2nd response): Yes Pam: I believe that it shouldn't be necessary to register. Voter lists are being compiled and that is all that should be necessary to vote. Richard: I think the EC would best be able to determine the most efficient way of keeping track of qualified voters...Any change in the method would require Board approval and incorporation into the standing rules. Ginger: This has never been required in previous elections, and while not a bad idea, should only be implemented through a vote of the membership. Ron: I don't have a problem with voter registration, but it is another item that is probably best left up to the voters, so put it on the ballot. Kathy: I believe that every effort should be made to notify the members of this group that an election is slated...I believe that the SC's should forward the names of the members of their State Group to the EC so the EC will have a current eligibility list. I believe that it should be the individual's responsibility to register and vote. Teresa: No. This is a significant change in policy and procedure and I see no real reason for it or benefit to be obtained by it After some of the comments were posted, Linda Haas Davenport takes offense at Mary Ann's observation that "As the EC has went ahead with the registration, I can see that they will do just as they want anyway" and had a rebuttal forwarded to Board-L. She notes, "The EC is NOT just doing as it want to. This accusation keeps cropping up in the AB postings and the EC is getting a little bit weary of it...the EC is requesting people to register and there are a lot of folks doing so. However, you have NOT seen one post by the EC that says ONLY those people who register will be allowed to vote...If the AB determines that the EC cannot limit the voter list to just the people who register then so be it the EC will abide by that." - North Carolina GenWeb: Acting at the request of constituents, Teresa asks someone to clarify what is going in NCGenWeb, particularly whether the state has been abandoned by its SC and whether the Board is conducting the election for her replacement. Holly informs the Board that the "SC is ill and the ASC's have now stepped in to manage the state." She also says the Board is not running an election, but that the ASCs have been in contact with the EC about it. Teresa also wonders why the state is running an election if the SC has not left, and why NCGW CCs who ask questions about the process are removed from the state mailing list. Jana Black suggests that, given the confusing nature of communication from the NCGW ASCs on this matter, that "some kind of statement needs to be made to clarify the definition of National in this case." Ron Eason notes that the proposed election was a regularly scheduled one and that the SC has been ill and incommunicado for several months. Teresa then provides a post from one of the NCGW ASCs which serves to clarify the situation and it is not discussed further. [In a nutshell: the NCGW SC, Sharon Williamson, has been unavailable for over two months due to illness. After some prodding from Ron Eason, the ASCs contacted her a few days ago, and she appointed two of them, Derick Hartshorn and Paul Buckley, to serve as Acting co-SCs. The election that is now under discussion with the Election Committee is a regularly planned election that is held every two years to select a new SC and is not a "coup" to remove Sharon while she is ill. Sharon has now returned and is posting to the state lists.] - Bylaws Amendment: On May 15, Mary Ann Hetrick forwards a new proposed amendment to Article XVI of the bylaws, sponsored by the ORGenWeb. Richard Harrison notes the amendment differes by only one word from the version posted here: http://www.usgenweb.com/official/amendments.html, but ORGenWeb "want their proposed amendment to be considered as separate and different from Ms. Scott's proposed amendment." [This amendment is not posted to the USGenWeb national page nor has it been presented formally to the SCs as required under the bylaws.] - SW/SC Representative Report: On May 16, Jana Black and Phyllis Rippee send out a "SW/SC CC Representatives' Report to CCs" to the handful of state lists that they are subbed to in that region. The report is then forwarded to the Board by Teresa Lindquist. It is riddled with errors, noting for example that "To vote, you need to register", and that Phyllis' seat will not be open if she chooses to run for office again. The report informs the region that SC rep Betsy Mills will not seek another term in office and provides a list of eligible candidates for the office. It also provides information on the bylaws amendments and on how to get rid of your SC, given the relative impotence of the Advisory Board. The report notes "About the most important thing we have learned as AB members this year is how little authority the AB actually has...SCs...do not have any obligation to cooperate with the AB should they choose *not* do so. The only recourse CCs have if they have received an Advisory Board statement after filing a grievance, or if there has been a mediation process and the SC refuses to cooperate, would be to attempt a grass-roots campaign to vote out the SC according to the bylaws...such an effort puts the burden on CCs without any enforceable support from the National Level." Both Phyllis and Jana take exception to the posting of their report to Board-L. Phyllis confirms that her seat will be available next term and apologizes "for issuing a report that does not meet with the perfection demanded by the R.A.L, who has NEVER made a mistake." Following this outburst, Holly puts Phyllis on notice, stating "The corrections were appropriate and warranted, not nitpicking...The RAL made no remarks about imperfection nor any claim to perfection herself." Jana wonders why Teresa forwarded the report to the Board list and asks "why did you choose to forward this to Board-L yourself instead us asking us to do it if you wanted to see it there, let alone asking our permission to forward? Or, why did you not reply on the lists where the posts were made? This does not seem particularly relevant to Board business." - Guidelines Committee: Teresa Lindquist posts the Guidelines Committee's weekly report on May 12. - Publicity/Promotions Committee: On May 16, Tina Vickery finally posts a report on the activities of the Publicity/Promotions Standing Committee [it has already been posted here]. --- In Executive Session: May 14: message from Diane Parsons May 15: message from Holly Timm May 17: messages from Tim Stowell, Phyllis Rippee May 19: message from Tim Stowell === Storm Clouds a'Brewin' Corner: We hear there's been a bit of a dust-up over in GAGenWeb, usually a quiet little backwater except not for the occasional rank violation of transcribers' copyright [see: http://www.radix.net/~merope/history/chapter74a.htm]. It seems that John Rigdon, second National Coordinator for USGenWeb and until recently a GAGenWeb CC was abruptly removed from his position in the state by Keith "Any Excuse" Gideon. The GAGenWeb has recently approved an extensive set of guidelines [http://www.rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/guidelines.htm], which were set to go into effect on June 1. However, Tim Stowell [who is SC by virtue of a coup], decided to postpone the date until July 1. So essentially the new guidelines are not yet in effect. A couple of days ago John received an email from Keith regarding compliance with the not-in-effect guidelines and although John told him he'd make his site compliant by the deadline, Keith removed him as CC two hours later. He also removed him from the mailing list. Interestingly enough, according to these nifty new guidelines, John should have had 30 days to come into compliance once he was warned by the "GAGenWeb Council" [which apparently is Tim and Keith]. Tim has apparently chosen to attack John publicly on the -ALL list for unrelated things involving John's tenure as NC, and has asked the Board to back off while GAGenWeb addresses the matter internally with some sort of hastily cobbled together "grievance committee". In the meantime, John's county is still up for adoption, which makes one wonder just how likely he is to get it back and how much time Tim is trying to buy so they can find a new CC and make the whole thing moot. In the meantime, over in our other volcanic hotspot, we've heard through the grapevine that several current and former NCGenWeb higher ups are facing a violation of privacy lawsuit over the public trashing they conducted of a member. There are allegations of "official inquires of a personal nature", investigations into private lives, and slander. The complainant also pointed out that his first contact with a NCGenWeb official was in the context of that official slandering another NCGW CC and providing to a stranger personal information about that CC. Apparently at this time, all that's left is the official filing of papers with the legal representative of NCGenWeb. === "Only very slowly and late have men come to realize that unless freedom is universal it is only extended privilege." ---Christopher Hill This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2002 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: dailyboardshow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From ???@??? Sun May 19 10:20:04 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g4JDvVFs001108 for ; Sun, 19 May 2002 09:57:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from n26.grp.scd.yahoo.com (n26.grp.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.82]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with SMTP id g4JDvTHw026299 for ; Sun, 19 May 2002 09:57:30 -0400 (EDT) X-eGroups-Return: sentto-3565136-145-1021816649-merope=radix.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.200] by n26.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 19 May 2002 13:57:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 12722 invoked from network); 19 May 2002 13:57:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 May 2002 13:57:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n18.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.73) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 May 2002 13:57:26 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: merope@radix.net Received: from [66.218.67.149] by n18.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 19 May 2002 13:57:26 -0000 X-eGroups-Approved-By: merope3 via web; 19 May 2002 13:57:24 -0000 X-Sender: merope@radix.net X-Apparently-To: dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_2); 19 May 2002 13:05:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 72055 invoked from network); 19 May 2002 13:05:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 May 2002 13:05:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.comcast.net) (24.153.64.2) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 May 2002 13:05:32 -0000 Received: from jadth.radix.net (pcp01205918pcs.nrockv01.md.comcast.net [68.50.227.225]) by mtaout03.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.6 (built Apr 26 2002)) with ESMTP id <0GWD00KH40D7VQ@mtaout03.icomcast.net> for dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 19 May 2002 09:05:32 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: merope@radix.net To: Guidelines , USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com, BOARD-L@rootsweb.com, Daily Board Show Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020519091303.00a7cec0@radix.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 From: merope X-Yahoo-Profile: merope3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; contact dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 09:14:21 -0400 Subject: [DBS] Guidelines Committee report for the week ending May 18, 2002 Reply-To: dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UIDL: (o/"!Q(4!!/Fl"!K$Q!! ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Take the Yahoo! Groups survey for a chance to win $1,000. Your opinion is very important to us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/NOFBfD/uAJEAA/Ey.GAA/0csqlB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Permission to forward where appropriate is granted. GUIDELINES COMMITTEE WEEKLY REPORT, for the week ending May 18 2002 === On May 12 the weekly report was submitted to the Project. Trey Holt, SC of TXGenWeb, forwarded the results of a poll regarding guidelines taken in TXGenWeb for the Committee's attention. The comments are forwarded to the Committee for discussion. - Roll Call: On May 12 a roll call was conducted. All Committee members responded, with the exception of Holly Timm. - Recommended Links: The Committee continued to discuss this item. A current suggestion is to direct Local Coordinators to Cyndi's List as a place to find links of local interest to add to their pages. - County Mail Lists: The Committee began to discuss county mail lists on May 12. The current guidelines recommend specifically that LCs contact RootsWeb for free mailing lists. The Committee questioned whether or not USGenWeb members still have priority for mailing lists and whether it is still appropriate or necessary to recommend that they use RootsWeb's mailing lists. The committee decided to encourage LCs to provide a mail list for their researchers but decided against recommending a specific provider; this suggestion was placed in a new section of the working document called "Recommended Resources". - Page Evaluations and Sample Pages : On May 12, the Committee began to discuss page evaluations. The current wording notes that LCs will have their pages checked by a state evaluation committee. The Committee discussed whether this would be better placed in the "additional state requirements" of the new guidelines or removed from the LC guidelines altogether. The Committee approved placing this section and the section on sample pages in the section of the proposed guidelines called "Additional State Requirements." Some committee members supported recommending or requiring the states to have evaluation committees and/or procedures; this discussion is deferred until the State Coordinator guidelines are addressed. - Project Policy on Code and Graphics: The current wording of this section in the Guidelines notes that it is USGenWeb policy to obtain permission when code and/or graphics is used on USGenWeb page. The Committee began discussion of this item on May 12. Current consensus is that the wording is acceptable as is, but should be included with the general statement on USGenWeb copyright policy. - Miscellaneous: During the week, the Committee revisited several older issues. It was decided that the wording in the "LOGO" section of the proposed guidelines is repetitive, and a more concise wording was accepted. The Committee discussed the need to provide a disclaimer regarding lookup volunteers and their availability and agreed to add such a disclaimer to the section on lookups. The Committee also discussed adding a new requirement that the LCs provide contact information on their web pages. The Committee debated requiring both a name and email address, vs requiring only a valid email address. Discussion on this item continues. The Committee also briefly discussed requiring SCs to add LC names to the county list on the state page, but further action on this item was deferred until the LC guidelines are complete. === The current version of the working document is posted at: http://www.radix.net/~merope/lcguide.txt Please address comments to Teresa Lindquist -Teresa Lindquist Chair, Guidelines Committee Representative At Large, USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: dailyboardshow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From ???@??? Sun May 26 08:35:55 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g4QCEZFs013114 for ; Sun, 26 May 2002 08:14:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from n36.grp.scd.yahoo.com (n36.grp.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.104]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with SMTP id g4QCEX2q014029 for ; Sun, 26 May 2002 08:14:34 -0400 (EDT) X-eGroups-Return: sentto-3565136-147-1022415273-merope=radix.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.66.96] by n36.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 May 2002 12:14:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 49306 invoked from network); 26 May 2002 12:14:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 May 2002 12:14:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n2.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.75) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 May 2002 12:14:32 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: merope@radix.net Received: from [66.218.67.164] by n2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 May 2002 12:14:32 -0000 X-eGroups-Approved-By: merope3 via web; 26 May 2002 12:14:31 -0000 X-Sender: merope@radix.net X-Apparently-To: dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_2); 26 May 2002 12:02:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 2429 invoked from network); 26 May 2002 12:02:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 May 2002 12:02:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.comcast.net) (24.153.64.2) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 May 2002 12:02:48 -0000 Received: from jadth.radix.net (pcp01205918pcs.nrockv01.md.comcast.net [68.50.227.225]) by mtaout01.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0GWP001NEW1YY5@mtaout01.icomcast.net> for dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 26 May 2002 08:01:12 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: merope@radix.net To: Daily Board Show Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020526080925.00aa23f0@radix.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 From: merope X-Yahoo-Profile: merope3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; contact dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 08:10:06 -0400 Subject: [DBS] Daily Board Show, weekly edition, 5/26/2002 Reply-To: dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UIDL: 9d4!!l(P!!6,m!!dCU"! ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/0csqlB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Every dog has his day...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! 19 May - 26 May 2002: Motion 02-10 (Resignation of Diane Parsons): After prompting by Teresa, Holly calls the vote on this motion on May 22. The motion passes on May 24, with 12 yes votes. --- Other Business: Vacant Seat: Holly asks for discussion on whether the recently vacated seat should be filled by appointment or left to the upcoming election. Teresa notes that if it is not filled now, it will be empty until September. Holly suggests that the Board appoint the winner of the election once the election is completed. Teresa notes this acceptable, since "By the time we finish conducting a poll, discussing the merits of the poll winner and voting to appoint them, it would be September anyways." Kathy Heidel notes "I would like for the Regional membership to select whom they would want ,we aren't busy anyway and filling this seat could wait 6 - 8 weeks." After noting that the Election Committee is probably stretched a little thin, Kathy suggests that the Board work on filling the Board secretary position instead. - Election Committee: Linda Haas Davenport resumes the Chair of the Election Committee, and Lorraine Newsome returns to being Secretary for the Committee. [As someone pointed out to me, what a nifty way to circumvent the requirement that the EC Chair only serve for a year. This assures that Linda will be in the driver's seat during the next election.] On May 20, Holly asks that Robert, Vicki and Betsy provide their opinions on the remaining four EC questions. Betsy provides her answers; they are identical to Richard's [posted here last week]. On May 21, Teresa forwards a message from a WAGenWeb member who asks why the EC was allowed to determine that an election is not needed for SC in that state. He notes that the bylaws require an election and the EC does not have the authority to vote on its own to declare someone the winner in the absence of votes by the state organization, even in cases where there is a single candidate. [He makes a good point. The EC, rather than itself voting someone into office, which they have done, should have contacted the state project and ascertained how they would like to handle the issue.] Teresa wonders "By what authority is the Election Committee determining not to hold elections as required by the bylaws?" In response, Kathy Heidel quotes some nonrelevant sections of the bylaws. Richard notes "we would need more information to evaluate the situation...we have no reason to interfere unless and until someone files a grievence...WAGenWeb will be able to resolve this themselves." - Bylaws Amendments: On May 20, Mary Ann requests that Holly forward the bylaws amendment proposed by the ORGenWeb to the SCs' mailing list and that it be posted to the national web page. On May 24, NVGenWeb sponsors ORGW's proposed amendment. - Mailing List Administrivia: Jana asks why the Board list cannot be "browsed" like other Root$web lists and notes "It does not work for folks only to have the search function available." [hmmm...works fine for me.] Holly informs Jana that she will take care of it and her assistance is not required. Holly asks the managers of the regional lists to change her mailing list address and several of them note it has been taken care of. Several members ask her if this email change is permanent and global. Holly tells them "my plans for the handling of any other of my email is not a matter for public discussion...Your curiosity and assumptions will remain unanswered." - Guidelines Committee: Teresa forwarded the weekly Guidelines Committee report to the Board on May 19. In an unrelated issue, Jana forwards a message from a constituent asking where guidelines discussing the inclusion of advertising on USGenWeb pages might be found. Richard directs her to Article XI, section 2 of the bylaws. - NCGenWeb: Teresa forwards a message from Charles Bynum of NCGenWeb, which discusses some of the issues surrounding the upcoming NCGenWeb for State Coordinator, and his own attempts to find out the physical address of its representative. He notes "I also understand an election is in the near future which may result in some policy and personnel changes at NCGenWeb. I look forward to those changes if it reduces the improper attacks on County Coordinators by specific Assistant State Coordinators, either in public or in private. It would be most helpful to NCGenWeb if the Assistant State Coordinator (ASC) responsible for this situation resigned from the position of ASC for the greater good of NCGenWeb. That is simply my personal opinion and not a request, demand or suggestion, because I have no indication the ASC will resign, but may instead actually run for the position of SC." Ron Eason informs the Board that "the entire situation is now moot as he has decided not to pursue this particular form of action." [Derick Hartshorn, who apparently writes very bad poetry in his spare time, is indeed running for the SC seat, as is Ron Eason, and Angie Rayfield, who is _not_ apparently the Angie of "Angie's Genealogy".] - GAGenWeb: Teresa forwards a message from John Rigdon, the CC who was recently removed from his CC position by Keith Giddeon in violation of the recently passed state guidelines. In it, John addresses each of the points where he is allegedly not in compliance and notes "You fail to address the issue which is whether I or any other county link may be removed without due process - less than 6 hours notice - and AFTER I had agreed to make the requested changes...Most of the points you made in your email are irrelevant IF you address the main issue listed above. If you decide that the state coordinatOR can act in such a capricious manner, then ALL of us as county and regional coordinators are in jeopardy of having our YEARS of work trashed with no notice simply because we disagree with Tim. While I'm on the matter let me point out that Keith is not even my regional coordinator. I received his email out of the blue with no prior announcement that he was authorized to act as the page nazi." [This mail was a response to the GAGenWeb's grievance committee; more on this below.] Phyllis Rippee remarks that "the internal affairs of GA have no business being posted on Board-L." --- In Executive Session: May 19: messages from Ron Eason, Kathy Heidel, Holly Timm May 23: messages from Tim Stowell, Kathy Heidel === The Night The Lights Went Down in Georgia Corner: We here in the DBS newscube are always happy to hear from all parties in any of the numerous disputes ongoing in USGenWeb at any one time. Unfortunately, we have found through much experience that the best and quickest way to get a response from _anyone_ is to post information about the ongoing disputes. Tim Stowell for instance rarely responds to direct inquiries with anything but nonsequiters. However, any publication of information on anything in which he is embroiled usually brings quick and highly illuminating responses. Here's his response to last week's article on the recent to-do in GAGenWeb [my comments in brackets]: "Mr. Rigdon brought up the items in one of his tirades - of which I asked confirmation on on -all [moving a nonpublic discussion to a public arena while one is in the process of firing the other person certainly looks like a redirected attack to me.] I am SC by virtue of an election. [not according to the former ASC of GAGenWeb.] Keith did not removed John from the state mailing list. I did. The GAGenWeb Council members are outlined in the Guidelines. The Grievance committee members are outlined by the Guidelines. John's county is not up for adoption. We have no county named John. The county of Richmond is up for adoption. [this is my favorite response of all. The utter silliness of it leaves me breathless.] I need to buy no time. [of course not, the situation is already resolved. John is out, the county is up for adoption, end of story. Now the "grievance committee" just has to rubber-stamp the actions.] The matter is before the grievance committee of which Keith nor I am a part [at the time he sent this, Tim was claiming elsewhere that there had been no grievance filed and the grievance committee was therefore not addressing the issue. Apparently there has since been a grievance filed.]" Tim also takes the time to take another stab at John and notes "Mr. Rigdon has created his own list as an alternate GAGEN list to which he has subbed all the CCs of Georgia and refuses to unsub any of them, even at their request." While we certainly don't condone this action on John's part, we also note that while his fate is being debated on both the state list and the Richmond county list, he has been removed from the state list and is not able to defend himself. Then we have Keith "Hair Trigger" Giddeon. After the publication of last week's DBS, he posted a tirade about the injustice of it all on the -ALL list. Following the usual boilerplate about the one-sided nature of the DBS, he proceeded to thoroughly and completely confess to violating the GAGenWeb's recently implemented bylaws: "Last Tuesday evening, I emailed John Rigdon, asking what his plans were for bringing his site into compliance. I was immediately met with a condemnation of the guidelines, and a statement that he had checked his site and was only missing one small item. John stated this would be corrected in due course. Following this email, I sent John a large list of items containing areas in which his site was out of compliance. This was met with the following verbage: "Up YOurS!@@@#!!! I'll take care of the updates shortly. John Rigdon " After thinking over this reply I invoked Section 15 (which are in effect now) of the guidelines, well aware that John would not comply with the guidelines after witnessing his behavior towards me and his thoughts on the guidelines. Also taken into consideration were the comments of several former and current leadership people in GAGenWeb stating that John had been warned for years prior to this occassion." In a later message to a GAGenWeb member who challenged his assertions of righteousness, Keith noted "the fact that John was disrespectful to me had nothing to with his removal as far as my ego is concerned. It was merely used to see what was becoming a "par for the course" tactic. John would never have removed the commercial content, much of which was acceptable within the new guidelines, depending upon how his material was produced." He then denies that he was indulging in a power trip and notes "Tim, no matter what anyone would think or believe, simply would not, and never has allowed, power trips by the RCs or the ASC." [yes, I fell down laughing when I heard this one too.] So, in a nutshell, Keith is claiming to be able see the future and know that certain things will happen. He can then act on this special knowledge to inappropriately fire long time CCs from their positions in GAGenWeb, in violation of the guidelines that, as he notes, were passed by overwhelming numbers of GAGW CCs. Although Keith is claiming the guidelines are in effect now, I have heard from other CCs who were under the impression that they aren't in effect for another week, or possibly another month. All understand the guidelines to mean that they have 45 days to fix any problems the "page nazis" find and were surprised to discover that at least one of the Regional Coordinators will use his superhero FutureVision power to decide whether or not they will _ever_ be in compliance, regardless of whatever assurances they make about fixing their pages. [Keith gripes that I didn't write him asking for his side of this issue. Using his logic, why should I have bothered? I _know_ he would _never_ have responded in a timely or informative manner. Why waste the effort?] We have some experience with Keith's inability to handle conflict rationally. What appears to have happened here is that he told John to fix his pages, John sent him some salty language in reply, Keith lost his temper and summarily removed John from his position as Richmond county CC, and now that the whole sordid mess has been made public, he's trolling around for justification for his actions [I mean really...he _knew_ John would never comply with the guidelines? Please.] We have noted before that when Keith loses his temper, he's rarely man enough to admit he's in the wrong and take the steps necessary to undo it. Hopefully, the GAGW grievance committee will be able to do so. [Incidentally, the page that Keith found so repugnant is here: http://www.researchonline.net/richmond/; John may have altered it substantially from its state when it was part of GAGenWeb, but any deviations from the rather complicated GAGenWeb guidelines are not apparent.] === "I never wonder to see men wicked, but I often wonder to see them not ashamed." ---Jonathan Swift This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net Daily Board Show, (c) 2002 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: dailyboardshow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From ???@??? Sun May 26 08:36:27 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g4QCQnFs013725 for ; Sun, 26 May 2002 08:26:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from n28.grp.scd.yahoo.com (n28.grp.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.84]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with SMTP id g4QCQl2q015016 for ; Sun, 26 May 2002 08:26:48 -0400 (EDT) X-eGroups-Return: sentto-3565136-148-1022416007-merope=radix.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.200] by n28.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 May 2002 12:26:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 42976 invoked from network); 26 May 2002 12:26:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 May 2002 12:26:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n17.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.72) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 May 2002 12:26:46 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: merope@radix.net Received: from [66.218.67.147] by n17.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 May 2002 12:26:46 -0000 X-eGroups-Approved-By: merope3 via web; 26 May 2002 12:26:44 -0000 X-Sender: merope@radix.net X-Apparently-To: dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_2); 26 May 2002 12:16:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 92575 invoked from network); 26 May 2002 12:16:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 May 2002 12:16:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.comcast.net) (24.153.64.2) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 May 2002 12:16:58 -0000 Received: from jadth.radix.net (pcp01205918pcs.nrockv01.md.comcast.net [68.50.227.225]) by mtaout01.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0GWP002QFWON00@mtaout01.icomcast.net> for dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 26 May 2002 08:14:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: merope@radix.net To: Guidelines , BOARD-L@rootsweb.com, Daily Board Show , USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020526082143.00a94040@radix.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 From: merope X-Yahoo-Profile: merope3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; contact dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 08:23:43 -0400 Subject: [DBS] Guidelines Committee report for the week ending 5/25/2002 Reply-To: dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UIDL: /O2"!(Uk"!/N("!0Bl!! ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/0csqlB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> GUIDELINES COMMITTEE WEEKLY REPORT, for the week ending May 25 2002 === On May 19 the weekly report was submitted to the Project. Numerous comments were received. Several of them concerned issues more appropiately handled when the SC guidelines are addressed and were deferred until that time. Cyndi Howells, owner of the Cyndi's List website, sent a comment that noted her concern for the suggestion that the USGenWeb recommend her site. The Committee also received one comment noting the commercial nature of Ms. Howell's site. A comment was received by a member who noted her concern over the possibility that LCs be required to provide their name and email address as contact information on their USGenWeb websites. She noted in particular that she does not list her name "for privacy and security reasons" and it is not likely that the USGenWeb can legally force anyone to publish their full name. This comment was forwarded to the Committee for discussion - Recommended Links: Due to concern over the commercial nature of Cyndi's List, Ms. Howell's objection to the suggestion, and lack of interest by the rest of the Committee, the suggestion to recommend Cyndi's List as a place for LCs to start searching for links to add to their USGenWeb pages was withdrawn. - Contact Information: Last week the Committee began discussion of a requirement that the LCs provide contact information on their web pages. The Committee debated requiring both a name and email address, vs requiring only a valid email address. Discussion on this item continues. - Lookups: The Committee approved the changed wording to the lookup section of the proposed guidelines. === The current version of the working document is posted at: http://www.radix.net/~merope/lcguide.txt Please address comments to Teresa Lindquist -Teresa Lindquist Chair, Guidelines Committee Representative At Large, USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: dailyboardshow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/