Wednesday, December 29, 2004
The Color of Jerk
First digusted, then amused...its Your Daily Board Show!

TIDYING UP: A full seven days after she called the vote, Shari Handley finally declared Motion
04-24 passed with 12 YES votes, and it looks like we will be having a logo contest after all.
Immediately after declaring the motion passed, Shari adjourned the regular meeting until January
3. The Board thus managed to get through a mere two items on its ambitious agenda for the
December meeting before calling it a day and slipping off to drink champagne and congratulate
itself on a job well done.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS: As we recall, one of the items on the ambitious December agenda
was the ongoing trial of Richard Pettys [and yes, we do note that Shari specifically adjourned the
"regular" Board meeting; presumably the secret ones are still going strong]. Richard was forcibly
removed from GAGenWeb approaching seven months ago and is still in Board-imposed limbo as
he waits to find out if his crimes warrant expulsion from USGenWeb. The Board of course
conducts its trials in deepest secrecy and other than a handful of Board reports from Darilee
Bednar there has been no public mention of the progress of the trial. Apparently even Richard
doesn't know what is going on in his own trial. Yesterday Richard sent us this and insisted that we
publish it in order to keep the project updated on the current non-status of the trial. The proposal
was submitted via Richard's representative Paulette Cooper to Shari Handley and Greta
Thompson on 27 December:

"The charges against Mr. Pettys have been pending for almost six months, with this situation
having been initiated almost seven months ago. At the moment, there is no end in sight. To that
end, Mr. Pettys is making the following offer to resolve this matter: The AB dismisses the charges
against Mr. Pettys with prejudice, meaning that these charges can never again be raised. In
exchange, Mr. Pettys agrees not to seek restoration to his previous position as ASC of
GAGenWeb. He is, however, immediately restored of his counties and his name cleared. There
shall be no sanction imposed upon him and he is free to seek election within the USGWP with no
restriction set forth therein. While Mr. Pettys would like a statement from the AB that the charges
were brought in error, he knows that the same is not possible. As such, he will accept a statement
that the charges were not sustainable. This offer shall remain open until 12:00 P.M. EST on
December 28, 2004, response is expected."

From the tone of this "offer" we imagine that Mr. Pettys must be more than a little frustrated with
the glacial pace of justice indulged by the Board and has decided to try and provoke some action
[apparently any action] out of them. A simplified reading of the above would be that Richard will
graciously accept it if the Board is willing to admit it was wrong and restore his stolen Georgia
counties to him along with all the privileges of USGenWeb membership. We doubt that the Board
would have considered this a good deal; after all they do not ever admit they were wrong about
anything. The deadline was high noon yesterday and since the Board scooted out the door
yesterday evening without a peep about resolving the issue our educated guess is that they
round-filed the proposal and will proceed with the trial at their own pace. We also predict that
they will propose and pass punitive actions against Richard for merely suggesting that they settle
out of court, just because they can.

THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS: Ever wondered what happens to folks who file grievances
before the Board? Well, in general, you get ignored. Once in a great while, they will go through
the motions of hearing a grievance and voting on it, but unless the person filing a grievance is a
great friend of theirs it will be denied, usually on the grounds that the Board has no power to
intervene in local disputes. Occasionally they will actually attack the person filing the grievance, as
they did long ago when Diane Kelly filed a grievance against her SC and in denying it the Board
went so far as to suggest that other project members enact reprisals against Ms. Kelly. Once in a
blue moon, you get what we like to call the "Betsy response." This you apparently get when you
forward your grievance to the Representative At Large and she doesn't like you. While we agree
that there isn't a very good job description of the RAL's job, we note that usually the position is
voted on by all Project members, so one might reasonably assume that the RAL therefore
represents all project members. However, since Betsy was appointed by her good friend Shari
Handley rather than elected, perhaps Betsy feels that she does not actually need to represent
anyone she doesn't personally care for.

Now here's the story. A former GAGenWeb CC who was forcibly removed from his county when
the Board staged its coup in that project later reapplied for his old county, which was then up for
adoption. After a brief period of email exchanges with the new Board-approved State
Coordinator, he was denied his counties for reasons unrelated
to his fitness to serve as a CC [although the SC dressed it up in fancy language, the reasons boiled
down to "I don't like you."]. The CC then contacted his elected representative Bettie Wood, who
flatly told him she would not represent him and to send his grievance to the RAL. He then
forwarded his grievance to Betsy Mills. Betsy acknowledged receipt of the grievance but did not
communicate further with the CC. After Tim's trial was concluded, the GAGenWeb SC adopted
out the CC's former county to someone else and he posted some messages about it to a Yahoo
group called the "CC Council." And lo and behold, Betsy roused herself to send him this:

"...I submitted your grievance to the AB. It is not my place to "keep you updated" as to the
status. I believe you could/should have submitted that grievance to all your representatives and
that would have included two other persons...It is not my sole responsibility to receive grievances.
I will report to you that your grievance was submitted to the AB and that it was placed in the
queue of other grievances. I believe you have been a member of this project long enough to know
how long that queue is...The AB has no way to force an SC to accept a CC against their
will...This is an all volunteer organization and therefore there are no recourses for not being
accepted as a volunteer...There is NO contract that guarantees [a CC] any rights...We are all
volunteers and should only continue as volunteers if we agree with the purpose of the
organization. If we don't agree, then we need to leave and go volunteer somewhere else...Your
racism/blacklisting charges are absolutely ludicrous. The internet is the greatest equalizer in the
history of racism...There are only TWO colors on the internet -- "nice" and "jerk" -- and those
colors shine through every note you write. The great thing about these colors are that you have
the ability to change your color anytime you want to. Which color are you?"

Well, we can certainly tell what color Betsy is, can't we?

This is just an amazing communication to receive from one's representative in a volunteer project.
All the way from "its not my job to talk to you" to "you have no rights as a CC" to "you're a jerk,"
Betsy epitomizes the contempt the Board and its members obviously feel for the membership of
the project. [We note that back when Betsy was a SC rep she once "divorced" this author when I
caught her in a public lie.] We have no idea where Betsy got the idea that the CC was accusing
the SC of racism. In his initial grievance he suggested that he was being blacklisted, based on the
uniformly negative responses he received from other SCs when he tried to adopt counties in other
states. Blacklisting is certainly a form of discrimination, but we've seen his initial complaint and it
pretty strictly adheres to the issue of being denied counties based on who he is rather than his
ability to be a good CC. It appears that Betsy willfully misread the CC's grievance and thus
managed to avoid the real issue of suspected blacklisting by making a straw man called "racism"
she can easily knock down. Its just a bonus that she can call a volunteer a jerk at the same time.

Its a little late, but really, this is the best Christmas present ever.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Divining the color of jerks since 1998


posted by merope at 11:10 AM 3 comments   
Saturday, December 25, 2004
God Bless Us, Everyone!
Let nothing you dismay...its Your Daily Board Show!

HOLIDAY CHEER: Sorry for being gone for a few days but we've been spending Christmas
holiday with our two nephews (ages 5 and 2). Its loud, messy, confusing, and absolutely joyous.
In the interim between opening presents and eating breakfast, we just popped in to wish all our
readers a peaceful and happy Christmas day. There's no news worth reporting, so get out there
and make some serious Merry!

Got to run...the hot chocolate is ready...

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Naughty & nice since 1998

posted by merope at 7:51 AM 0 comments   
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
The Ravel'd Sleeve of Care
So close and yet so far...its Your Daily Board Show!

EVERYBODY'S DOING THE LOGOMOTION: Discussion seems to have stalled a bit on the
new logo motion (Motion 04-24). Yesterday, Larry Flesher pointed out that the motion was
perhaps a bit sloppily worded, noting "The "contest" cannot be held in conjunction with the
elections." He then suggested some tighter wording for the motion: "At the conclusion of the poll,
a logo contest will be held to select proposed designs for an official logo and/or alternatives. Final
selection of the official logo and/or alternatives will be made by the membership in conjunction
with the 2005 national elections." Betsy posted a proposed schedule from the EC that would have
the initial poll in February, the solicitation for logo submissions in March, another poll to cull out
excess submissions in April if needed, and the final selection in July. She also noted that if Larry
doesn't like the present wording he needs to submit an amendment to change it. And last [but
certainly not least] Don Kelly committed more drive-by avant garde poetry: "This version seems a
little more clear...I agree the voting or preference poll should not be part of the normal election
cycle...I favor a special preferance poll be taken before the normal election cycle, WELL before is
mo betta." [mo betta? The dude is missing his calling.] As is not uncommon, Don's words seem to
have stunned the rest of the Board into silence and there has been no further discussion [and more
importantly, no amendment].


DAMN, I'M GOOD: A little bird tells us that on Sunday last, Tina "Fair and Balanced" Vickery
sent a short note to Shari and the Board, resigning her position as Dominatrix of the
USGENWEB-DISCUSS list. In brief, it said:

"...I feel it in the best interests of the USGenWeb Project to resign as USGENWEB-DISCUSS
list administrator. I...hope that respectful, productive and constructive discussion can continue on
USGENWEB-DISCUSS, but my new role as Elections Committee Chair leaves the list
continually open to questions of my partiality and that of the Elections Committee...That would
not benefit the project. Therefore, consider this my resignation as USGENWEB-DISCUSS list
administrator. I will serve until January 1, 2005."

Alas, a mere five hours later, she reconsidered and informed the Board that she would indeed
continue as DISCUSS list whip cracker for the foreseeable future:

"...I have been consistent with my administration of USGENWEB-DISCUSS list. I have tried...to
separate my roles, think about the posts and promote a productive, constructive and respectful
discussion and have admitted when I erred in my judgement. I will continue as
USGENWEB-DISCUSS administrator mindful of the mission and goals of the USGenWeb
Project and its commitment to our visitors and greater genealogical community."

D'oh! Talk about a patting your own back, tooting your own horn, and feathering your own nest!
At least someone in this project has a healthy sense of their own magnificence. [Who was it that
said that no man is impartial when he looks in a mirror?]

Yes, there is some backstory to this. There has been some friction between Tina and Keith
Giddeon on IRC and privately over her perceived lack of partiality and the high potential for
issues involving the EC to appear on DISCUSS. Keith sent a message to "selected Board
members" a couple of days ago asking them to seek a replacement for Tina, and shortly thereafter
she very reasonably resigned. But then apparently she reconsidered, decided she really IS the best
person for both jobs, and withdrew her resignation.

Ah well, its probably for the best. As the Dominatrix of DISCUSS Tina has pretty much managed
to redefine the word "discussion," but we have absolutely no doubt that the Board would find
someone even worse to put in her place. They are not particularly interested in open and free
discussion and would have no conflict whatsoever putting some small-brained syncophant in
charge of the list and giving them a mandate to terminate anyone who doesn't shower rose petals
upon every emission from the Board. Tina at least goes through the motions before she imposes
ridiculous and arbitrary rules, moderates erratically, or unsubs only one half of an argument.

Always remember, the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.

BIG BROTHER LOVES YOU: For a glimpse of what Board moderation might look like, we
turn now to TXGenWeb. We've heard through the grapevine that the TXGW state mailing list has
gone to full moderated status following a posting by David Morgan of a proposed new Archives
policy. The policy regards births, deaths, marriages and privacy issues (here) and was posted for
comment to several lists back in mid-December. As it turns out, Board member Bettie Wood is
the SC of TXGenWeb and here is what she had to say about discussing the Archives on the state
mailing list:

"...This list is for TXGenWeb business and TXGenWeb members to discuss TXGenWeb issues.
The TXArchives is not a part of the TXGenWeb...in order to keep there from being more
problems, the list is temporarily on a moderated status...as soon as things seem to have gotten
back to the issues and discussions of TXGenWeb business, I will put the list back to normal
posting status."

One other list that is possibly moderated although apparently no formal statement has been made
to that effect is the USGENWEB-SW-L list and the moderation may extend only to David
Morgan [That boy does seem to get himself moderated a bit. Must be the sarcasm]. Board
members usually moderate the regional lists, so if a full or partial secret moderation policy is in
effect, it is most likely a Board member that instituted it. The Board's motto must be: "What they
don't know can't hurt us."


-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Hiding in plain sight since 1998

posted by merope at 7:05 AM 0 comments   
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
Deja Vu All Over Again
Dangerously delicious...its Your Daily Board Show!

IF AT FIRST YOU DON'T SUCCEED: The "new logo contest" motion yet lives. When two
days had passed since Shari "My Way" Handley rewrote Jan's motion for her and it failed to get a
second, Shari asked Jan to withdraw the motion and asked someone else to put forward another
motion, presuming of course that the Board is still interested in a logo contest. Jan did so, noting
that the rewritten motion had apparently died from lack of support. Betsy, noting that the first and
second iterations of the motion "were trying to cover too much," then moved "that the AB
conduct a poll of the membership to establish the wishes of the membership as to whether one or
multiple logos should be used by the Project. The Poll is to be conducted by the EC at their
earliest convenience. The voting period will be two weeks. At the conclusion of the poll, a logo
contest will be held in conjunction with the national elections, 2005, to select an official logo
and/or alternatives." Jan seconded the motion and Shari opened it for discussion. Thus far the
only comment has been from Don "Babelfish" Kelly, who noted "One upside is greater
participation by the general membership. We will then know what percentage of the overall
membership cares pro or con." [We might ask, "pro or con what?" but we know it would get us
nowhere.]

We will note that Betsys' motion locks the Board into having a logo contest regardless of the
outcome of the poll. Apparently, the Board has decided that there WILL be a logo contest
regardless and the only poll question is whether there should be one official logo or more than one
official logo. We think a better question for the Board to ask in its poll [binding of course only in
Georgia] is whether or not the original logo ought to be changed at all. If the membership says
"yes" then they can go from there. If the membership says "no", well, its certainly less work for
the EC.

We are still confused though by the idea of having more than one official logo. We envision a
situation in which the EC conducts its poll [binding...Georgia] and the membership, in its wisdom,
decides that three logos ought to be a good thing. So then we have a contest and just for
argument's sake say we get ten proposed logos submitted. Since this is my fantasy, we'll even say
that voter turnout exceeds the usual 25%, indicating relatively high interest. The vote is held and
one logo clearly stands out as the favorite; it gets 80% of the vote. The next runners up get 15%
and 5%. But the Board is locked into having 3 official logos. So, even though the third logo was
beloved by a mere 5% of the population that bothered to vote, it will be ensconced as just as
official a logo as the one that got 80%. And if the voting outcome is any indication it will be
displayed on some 5% of webpages. Hardly seems worth the effort, does it?

QUOTE O' THE DAY: This is from Board member David Morgan, who has a reputation for
witty repartee:

"Maybe you can get a rule so that the NC can both write and second motions. That will make
things easier, I am sure."

We hear Her Highness was not Amused.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
A bit of a sticky wicket since 1998





posted by merope at 6:25 AM 0 comments   
Sunday, December 19, 2004
Decking the Halls
Wake me when its over...its Your Daily Board Show!

SENSE AND NONSENSE: After an action-packed week of training in obscure federal
procurement regulations followed by a fun-filled weekend of holiday festivities, we find ourselves
back at our computer staring at the Board's latest this-n-that. We see for instance that DISCUSS
Dominatrix Tina Vickery will be riding herd on the Election Committee and by extension the
voting public of the USGenWeb Project. Tina has of late cracked a vicious whip over the heads of
would-be participants on the DISCUSS list [a name that just bleeds irony these days], and we will
be interested to see how sharply she reigns in any unsavory displays of independent thinking on
the EC. Or for that matter, in the electorate. Although partisanship of the basest sort is nothing
new in USGenWeb or on the EC [recall the halcyon days of Linda Haas Davenport?], Tina is an
unusually accomplished practioner of the art of favoring one side over the other and will no doubt
bring her skills to bear on the delicate task of putting just the right sort of person into elected
office. It should be interesting.

Speaking of the EC, it apparently will be shortly required to run a "poll" of the electorate to find
out if the project members want one logo or more than one and then also run a vote between
proposed logos. [But remember "polls" are only binding in Georgia.] Yesterday Jan Cortez
proposed a motion that would direct the NC to establish rules for and conduct a contest to select
a new logo. Although details are lacking, the EC would be directed to "poll" the electorate in
February or March 2005 to determine if the project wants one logo or several. Then apparently
the Board will solicite candidate logos from the membership and the EC will then include a choice
of these logos during the regular summer election period. Shari, however, didn't like the wording
of Jan's motion, and suggested "better" wording. Funny thing, though...Shari's wording requires
the EC to run a poll "in early 2005" [which in USGenWeb time could take us right up June] in
which the membership would indicate whether we want one logo or more than one and also to
pick the 10 favorite of any submitted designs. Then in the summer elections "the membership will
choose the official logo from among the ten most popular entries, as determined by the preference
poll. If the membership requested more than one official logo in the poll, the three most popular
entries in the national election will be selected as official logos."

Now, I don't object to having a poll [binding only in Georgia] to narrow down the field of
candidate logos, presuming of course interest is high enough that we get more than a handful of
submissions and that those submissions are basically acceptable [proper use of the project name,
for instance]. Although...what if they don't get 10+ submissions? I don't object to the handful of
specific rules that each version of the proposed motion sets out. But more than one "official"
logo? In fact, three official logos? Does this not strike you as perhaps a bit silly? We could end up
with three entirely different logos that use different iconography, have dissimilar color schemes,
have no relation to the historical logo, and in general bear no resemblance to each other. Talk
about confusing the public.

We think what the Board is getting at here is "member choice." No matter what logo the members
end up choosing, there will be someone somewhere who will eventually design something way
cooler and some portion of the project will whine if they can't use it. So the Board would like to
allow some latitude in logo choice to accomodate design issues and perhaps forestall the
whingeing of people who can't manage to work red, white and blue into their personal design
schema. But a logo is a logo and should serve to identify project pages without fail. Having three
logos, some of which may be used far less frequently than others, does not promote brand
recognition. It promotes confusion.

If the Board, and the members, want multiple logos, there might be a better way to do it than the
crap shoot they have proposed. They could, for instance, have the EC conduct its
binding-only-in-Georgia poll to find out how many logos the project should have, perhaps limiting
the choices to five or fewer. Once they determine the number that will make most project
members who vote happy, they can direct submitters to the logo contest to include that many
logos in their submission, with a stipulation that they must submit one main logo and then
additional alternate logos that bear some relationship to the main one, something similar to how
the Millenium logo bore a relationship to our current logo. This way, there would be a main logo
and official alternates that would be similar enough that they would evoke recognition as
"USGenWeb" when they were used in place of the official logo.

Personally, though, we still miss the old spiderweb logo.

AND IN THIS CORNER: Roger Swafford, who herds his own set of unruly cats on the Bylaws
Revision Committee, has announced that after several weeks [yes, weeks] of discussion, the BRC
has come up with a proposed revision of Article I of the bylaws, to whit:

"ARTICLE I. NAME
The name of this organization shall be "The USGenWeb Project." The name of associated state
projects shall be "The XXGenWeb Project" (where XX is the two-letter postal code abbreviation
for each state)."

Short and suitable and far preferable to the current version. But of course, no one likes it. This is
after all USGenWeb, where argument for the sake of argument is apparently some kind of parlor
game.


Yes, this was the eggnog talking...

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Putting our best foot forward since 1998




posted by merope at 6:12 PM 1 comments   
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
A Day Late And A Dollar Short
Short and sweet...its Your Daily Board Show!

THE LAST NAIL: This will be a brief report today, since there's pretty much nothing going on.
Since our last report, Linda Blum-Barton posted a YES vote on Motion 04-23 and Shari Handley
declared the motion failed. The final vote count was 8 NO votes and 5 YES votes. There has been
no further activity on the public Board list and no further word on the supposedly ongoing trial of
Richard Pettys. The DISCUSS list is rehashing the same arguements and the bylaws discussion
list has been fairly quiet.

Maybe next time there will be News...

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Having a cow since 1998



posted by merope at 5:38 AM 0 comments   
Sunday, December 12, 2004
Once Over, Lightly
If at first you don't succeed...its Your Daily Board Show!

ALL OVER BUT THE SHOUTING: Motion 04-23, to approve alternate logos, has failed,
although the obituary hasn't been published yet. With more NO votes last night and early today
the current tally stands at 4 YES votes and 8 NO votes, and the motion cannot get the 2/3
majority required in the bylaws.

Another couple of Board members share their thoughts on the logos and the motion itself. Larry
Flesher notes "...I was prepared to vote YES for the logos to be used as alternatives...when more
discussion appeared about the originator of the logos being prepared to change them and offer
more variants of the designs, so I voted NO.
Let's first get the situation completely set up, then vote on whether to permit alternative use of a
specific set of logos" He also suggests starting the process to officially replace the current logo.
Don Kelly, cryptic as always, says "My district is split on the vote so I will have to be the tie
breaker...we should have one logo with optional backgrounds...the subject banner is beautiful and
if we can't have a national logo, a very nice alternate. So...I have to vote NO." [He really should
consider writing for avant garde film.]

If our memory has not failed us completely, we believe that the last time the Board approved
"official alternate" logos was way back in 1999, when the Millenium Logo was approved for use.
IIRC, the Board has tried a couple of times since to approve official alternates and each attempt
has failed, and each time they have failed for basically the same reasons: Board members want to
give project membership a vote on any new logos, the general feeling is that "alternate logos" just
dilute our identity, and there are worries over the rights to the logo. The Board has never
demonstrated a convincing need for alternate logos, other than "they are nice and people want to
use them," [which isn't necessarily a bad reason; its just not a compelling one], but they've also
never been able to get the votes together to foster a new logo competition, which has also been
discussed previously. I doubt that many visitors to USGenWeb really care what logo they find
there, if any, but just from a branding perspective, any visitor to any USGenWeb page should find
the same logo, no matter where they go. Whether or not that logo makes any statement or
guarantee about the quality of the pages our visitors find is another matter entirely.

Until the next time.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Nothing up our sleeves since 1998

posted by merope at 7:00 AM 0 comments   
Saturday, December 11, 2004
Comfortably Numb
When you want to send the very best...its Your Daily Board Show!

ROCKY ROAD: After conversation on the logo motion slows down to nothing, Shari calls for
the vote. Midway through the voting, and after several NO votes, Shari gives the Board additional
information about what they are voting for:

"...what we're voting on is the general design of the USA shape and flag colors as designed by
Julie. She has indicated that, should this motion pass, she will gladly produce additional sizes and
transparent versions. It seems pointless to have her bust her butt to create umpteen million
versions while the outcome of this motion is
uncertain."

Betsy is not at all pleased by this and notes "This should have all been clarified before the voting
started. Once this motion is adopted, it stands as written. The motion needed to be re-written and
the corrections made before the voting started." She suggests that Shari ask the Board's
uncredentialed parliamentarian about it, but as far as she is concerned making changes to
approved logos or making new versions shouldn't happen without a new motion to approve them.
[We are reasonably sure that Shari posted her "clarification" in order to convince any Board
members that might be sitting on the fence to vote in favor of the motion.]

Thus far, voting stands at four YES votes and six NO votes. They have a quorum and unless I
miss my guess, this motion has failed [they do still honor the 2/3 majority rule in the bylaws,
right?]

Ah well, on to other things.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Keeping a stiff upper lip since 1998

posted by merope at 6:30 PM 0 comments   
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
Too Much Is Always Better Than Not Enough
Monkeys typing randomly...its Your Daily Board Show!

LEGO MY LOGO: Well, we are bowled over by the sudden outburst of independence on the
Board. It appears that the most common concern expressed by the peanut gallery to the elected
representatives about the proposed logos is along the lines of, "we'd like to have a vote on this
too." And at least a handful of Board members are taking that message to the Board. Thus far,
Board opinion itself is split along the same lines. Angie Rayfield, for instance, doesn't think the
proposed alternate designs differ all that much from the official logo and notes "I don't think it's a
bad thing to say that we're going to permit members to use an alternate that's available to them
right now. It's an alternate that fits in well with the national page design, but isn't such a radical
departure from the official logo that it sticks out like a sore thumb." Jan Cortez insists she loves
the proposed logos, but that she'd still like to see the membership have a choice and a vote:
"Many people that have responded to me would like to see one logo, choices from other designs,
possibly something incorporating a genealogy theme, etc...this project is the CC's who provide all
the wonderful information online. *They* should be given the opportunity to decide on one logo
or several logos and what that logo will look like. I'm afraid that if this motion goes thru, that
their opportunity may be lost and the whole matter pushed aside." Teri Brown makes a quibble
about the use of CAPS in the proposed logo instead of the official name of the project, but she
also notes that her mail is in favor of allowing the CCs a vote and that would be her preference.
Noting that times and tools have changed, Gail Meyer-Kilgore wants standardization and more
input from the membership. She says, "I would like to see uniformity and that being we update
our web pages to coincide with the national pages...When the old national web page was created
back in 1996 and a logo was chosen, computer technology wasn't what it is today, software for
graphics has improved ten fold, our web pages have become more professional in their
appearance. I really think we all need to take a good look at what we have for logo's and voice
your opinions on the regional mail lists."

Shari steps in to chastise Jan: "If the opportunity is lost due to the passage of this motion, it will
be the fault of the AB. If the matter is just pushed aside, that'll be the fault of the AB...you have
the option, and the power, at some point after this motion is (hopefully) passed, to bring a motion
to have the very project-wide vote you're talking about." Shari reminds the Board that she does
intend to run a logo contest, but that she hopes this one either wins or is retained as an alternate
since it works so well with the redesign of the home page. She'd also like to see someone clean up
the current official logo.

Jan reiterates her point: "I also see no reason why the current motion cannot be restructured to
read, that the...logos offered by Julie could be used as aceptable alternatives, pending a logo
contest, and project wide vote of the members of this project...I also fail to understand why, when
we are receiving email that call for a vote, call for one logo, ask for transparant backgrounds, ask
for more of a genealogical theme to be incorporated, that we are wanting to ignore the thoughts
and wishes of those who have worked to make this project what it is...Use the logos
temporarily...but, put it all in this one motion to have that vote, and listen to the members of this
project, because what I like and what I want is not what this project is about...Start the ball rolling
and let the members decide this matter once and for all."

After I wrote the above this morning, both Jan and Bettie posted feedback from their regions.
Bettie's apparently was uniformly in favor of approval, and Jan's was apparently uniformly in favor
of not approving the logos. [Its very noticeable in USGenWeb that feedback received by any
representative tends to support their position. I've always found that interesting.] Jan asks "Is
there any reason why this motion could not be amended to read, temporary alternative until a vote
of the members, with a cut off date for use, say by the 1st of September, at which time a vote
could be held in conjunction with the regular elections?" She also points that not only do the
proposed logos leave out Alaska and Hawaii, they also "have obliterated Michigan and the north
shore of Ohio?"

This is what happens when you don't hash these things out on the Sekrit List first. We suggested
earlier today that Jan [who is not our representative but what the heck] amend the motion to
make it more acceptable to her; apparently she is taking this suggestion under consideration. Its
now early December. If the Board were on the ball they could have a logo competition announced
by the end of the month and have a logo question on the ballot for the membership in the summer
election. Although most people seem to find them pleasant enough, I'm not actually seeing
exuberant out-and-out support for the proposed logos on the several lists. So perhaps it would be
better to give the membership a chance to come up with alternatives or to express its support for
our current logo. This project is, after all, approaching its 10th year and a wee bit of a face-lift
may be in order.

In Other Board News: Shari posted the minutes of the November meeting. They managed to
accomplish nothing in November but hire a new Board Secretary.

BONUS QUOTE: "...a great deal of people seem to be in favor of adopting an alternate logo and
the advisory board is even going to consider adding more alternative logos. So I think now that
more logos the better. In fact if we can get enough alternatives I'm just gonna write a java script
that will rotate them so that every time some one comes to the Brazos County Texas site they can
see a different one." --Trey Holt

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Making hay while the sun shines since 1998

posted by merope at 5:22 AM 0 comments   
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
Trouble in Paradise
Short and sweet...its Your Daily Board Show!

ROCKY ROAD: It appears there are a few bumps along the predicted path to easy passage of
Motion 04-23 [the McGrew-Ayres 'alternate' logos]. After a couple of false starts, Darilee
managed to get the motion phrased properly and after some prompting by Shari, it got seconded.
Shari opened it for discussion and for a short while it appeared there would be none. But then
Betsy Mills stepped to the plate and told the Board she couldn't vote for it: "I believe...that the
membership should be the ones voting to approve any logos....How many logos are we going to
approve? There is no reason to be pushing this motion through so quickly...I believe we should
ask for other submissions and then let the membership vote...I also do not think we should be
even considering another logo unless the creator releases all "ownership" of the logo...We will
have no way to control what everyone in the project does with the logo once it is approved for
use."

Jan Cortez also thinks the project membership should have a say in the approval of new logos:
"While I would probably be one of the first to change all my logos to the first one on the page that
Julie designed, I cannot support the motion as written...the members of this project should be able
to look at new designs, including the old logo, choose what they would like, by a project wide
vote, and then move on from there."

Betsy is correct to be concerned. Although Ms. McGrew-Ayres did irrevocably grant permission
for USGenWeb to use the logos, there are a few stipulations. It is not clear who would be
required to enforce the stipulations she requested or what would happen if they were not honored.
Betsy is right; if Nancy Volunteer decides the logo looks better in slightly different colors or
greyed out or distorted in some way, that violates the terms of use that the Board will have agreed
to with passage of the motion. What then?

The other issue of course, is that our logo is our brand identifier. Ideally, it quickly identifies
pages as being part of USGenWeb, along with all that stands for. So, we should have one logo.
Not an "official" logo, and then a handful of "official alternates" that don't look anything like it.
And if we are going to change logos [and face it, it might be time to do that], then as Jan and
Betsy pointed out, the project membership should be the ones making the decision. Since the
McGrew-Ayres logos fit so nicely with the redesign of the home page, it would be ideal if the
project membership would choose them, as there would then be continuity between the various
local pages and the national page. But having what amounts to several different designs [the
proposed alternates take several different forms] will just be confusing and will dilute our identity.

Finally, and refreshingly, a couple of Board members have indicated that they would like a few
days to gather opinions from their constituents in order to assist them in their decision. I'm sure
they are getting an earful, judging from the volume of traffic on the several lists over the last
couple of days. Summarizing them to some sort of general consensus will be difficult. In general,
pro and con seem to be running about 50/50. And you know, since the stakes are so small, its
USGenWeb's usual life and death struggle. People, they are logos. If you don't like them or like
them but think having alternate logos is a bad idea, suggest to your Board reps that they vote NO.
If you like them and think having alternate logos is just what the doctor ordered, suggest to your
Board reps that they vote YES. And if your side loses, try to keep perspective. There are bigger
battles to come.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Gilding the lily since 1998

posted by merope at 8:34 PM 0 comments   
Monday, December 06, 2004
Bright and Early
Rainy days and Mondays...its Your Daily Board Show!

FLAGWAVING: While the Board has been more or less inactive since Shari asked Darilee to
restate her motion [which Darilee has not yet done], commentary on the DISCUSS list regarding
the proposed alternate logos runs rampant. The discussion thus far has two basic prongs:
"Oooooo, aren't they pretty!", and "using the flag in advertising is crass and offensive." Buried in
there somewhere is the excellent point [made by Trey Holt, if my brain has not numbed to the
point of forgetfulness] that the Project really ought to have one logo, not an "official" logo and a
handful of other dissimilar logos, regardless of how pretty they are. He suggests that the project
conduct a logo competition and then the project be allowed to vote on their favorites. If you can
stomach the patriotic drivel [yes, people do fall all over themselves to get it on record how much
they Love the Flag] and the incessant discussion of the code of regulations that covers the use of
the symbol of our country, the thread is worth it for two things. 1) Jana Black obsesses about the
number of *asterisks* on the proposed logos; and 2) David Samuelsen gets shown the door for
calling someone a Canadian.

A PLUG FOR THE COMPETITION: My esteemed and much admired colleagues over at
GenSuck have managed to lure the reclusive Dr. Brian "Skidmark" Leverich out of hiding. Now,
normally, I would think this is a troll, but if it is the person doing it is brilliant. They have managed
to capture that certain je ne sais quoi that IS Dr. Brian "Its All About Me" Leverich. First, he
shows up in a thread that has nothing to do with him and manages to slip in a commercial for his
new project. [We're actually pretty sure all the increased traffic to his new site is just people
stopping by to stare at the train wreck.] When an astute reader points out that the good doctor's
name is mud in most sectors of the genealogy world and his new product "isn't worth its weight in
crushed animal crackers", the Mighty Morphin Dr. B pops back in to crow about his many, many
accomplishments and keep us all up to date on his personal life. Along with this is his usual, "what
we are doing is so amazingly fabulous, but what we are going to do will be the most amazingly
fabulous thing ever! Just wait and see!" [Remember when Root$web was going to be non-profit
any day now?] Brain does promise to have a better business model this time; hopefully it won't
involve using deception and sleight of hand to separate well-meaning people from their cash, so
that he and his wife can afford the really good climbing gear. Anyways, its an amusing thread.
You can find it at GenSuck, and the thread name is "where is everybody?"

[Speaking of climbing gear...has anyone here seen "Touching the Void?" If you haven't, rent it
immediately. You will never, ever bitch about a minor injury again.]

THAT EMPTY FEELING: Here would be the spot I usually put Tim's trial update. Alas, it is
finished, but yay! we have something new we are working on. Watch this space for future news!
In the meantime, if you are joining the DBS already in progress, you can read all about the trial
here:

WE ARE NOT AMUSED

Be prepared, its a long, long slog, and doesn't have a happy ending. Unless you've set your heart
on being SC of TNGenWeb or OHGenWeb or WYGenWeb...

BONUS QUOTE: "I spent twenty years of my life planning the nuclear annihilation of the human
race..." ---Dr. Brian Leverich, waxing nostalgic

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


posted by merope at 5:20 AM 0 comments   
Sunday, December 05, 2004
Tempest In A Teapot
The calm after the storm...its Your Daily Board Show!

PRETTY PICTURES: The Board is currently working on passing a motion that will allow the use
of webmaster Julie McGrew-Ayres' designs as "officially acceptable alternatives" to the actual real
USGenWeb logo. The logos that Julie has designed is similar to the "waving flag" design at the
top of the new USGenWeb home page, although she's tarted it up a bit. There are several
examples of logos in different sizes, colors, and design arrangements here. We note that the little
(r) sign that would indicate we have a registered service mark is not included. According to Shari,
Julie "has offered irrevocable use of these logos to the project with the
stipulation that they are not to be altered or resized or otherwise changed...she hopes to maintain
the quality of the image she's created wherever it is displayed."

While we like Julie's designs and think our current logo leaves a lot to be desired, it does not seem
very wise from a "branding" perspective to have "official alternates" that do not look anything like
the current logo. At least the "millenium" logo actually incorporated the official logo so there was
some continuity. People could look at it and say "oh, yeah, USGenWeb!" These new ones (and
there are several different versions) are very different from the official logo. Oh well, its a minor
thing. Having one logo or the other on your page won't save you when the Board comes
a-knockin' on your door! We predict this motion will pass by tomorrow, and there will be flurries
of page redesign across the land.

BROKEN RECORD: We've finished up the supplemental materials for Tim's trials and they are
now online. There isn't much, but what there is will amuse you. Whatever were they thinking,
coming down so hard on poor Mari Byers? What did she ever do to them?

Behind Closed Doors

Honestly, we don't know what we are going to do with our time now that we don't have this trial
to occupy it.

Au demain,

Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Paving the road to Hell since 1998

posted by merope at 7:00 AM 0 comments   
Saturday, December 04, 2004
WOO HOO!
Very pleased with itself...its Your Daily Board Show!

AT LONG LAST FREEDOM: We are pleased to announce that we have completed the transcript
of the Trial of Tim Stowell. Although the outcome was predetermined and the process of getting
there was interminable, we hope that loyal readers and casual passers-by alike have found it
entertaining, instructive, and perhaps a bit scary. [We love a good scary story!]

The DBS newsbunker would like to thank the anonymous someone who made the transcript
available in the first place, Tim Stowell for being the sacrificial lamb, Linda Blum-Barton for being
the perfect villain, Jana Black for *showing* up just when comic *relief* was desperately needed,
the handful of folks who have contacted us to correct errors and adjust timelines, the readers who
have stuck with us to the bitter end, and of course the USGenWeb Advisory Board, who put on
the show for all of us. We couldn't have done it without you guys, really. And now...on with the
show!

The Whole Enchilada

We aren't entirely done...there is a small amount of supplemental material we will post tomorrow.
But right now we are off to buy our Christmas tree.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Going through the motions since 1998

posted by merope at 11:12 AM 0 comments   
Friday, December 03, 2004
Angels Dancing on the Head of a Pin
Having a bad hair day...its Your Daily Board Show!

EASING INTO IT SLOWLY: There has been no traffic on the Board's public mailing list since
our last post, save for a message from Shari Handley noting that

"...The USGenWeb Project's national web site has been chosen for inclusion as an example of
excellence in a lesson on evaluating web site content being developed as a part of a US Dept. of
Education Grant. It is part of a FIPSE (Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education)
Grant for the Academic Advanced Distributed
Learning (ADL) Co-Lab, based at the University of Wisconsin-Madison...The aim is to
improve the efficiency and quality of online learning, and our web site is being used as an example
of a web site that meets the "Coverage" criteria."

Shari thanks both of USGenWeb's new webmasters, Mike Jarvis and Julie
McGrew-Ayers for their "excellent national web site."

No action, at least publicly, on any of the items on their December dance card.

SLOGGING THROUGH: We made a big push today and have gotten through Day 51 of the
hearing. In this set, Tim and Ginger present their response to the Board's evidence and some
evidence of their own, but alas, on Day 50 the Board finds Tim guilty of all charges against him,
and begins work on an appropriate penalty. A highlight of this set of transcripts is a brief walk-on
appearance by Jana Black, who admits to having been nurturing a years-long grudge against Tim
but to have sadly lost all the evidence she was collecting to a hard drive crash just before the trial
started. [Really, we don't make this stuff up.]

Hang 'em High

Gotta run...the cats are hungry...

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, The Daily Board Show
Tastes great, less filling since 1998

posted by merope at 6:10 PM 0 comments   
Thursday, December 02, 2004
Justice Outranks Time
Throw that dog a bone...its Your Daily Board Show!

CHRISTIAN CHARITY IS NOT ON THE LIST: Well, as of sometime last night, the Advisory
Board is now in session for the December meeting. Shari Handley posted the following agenda:

1. Call to order
2. Continue with closed-session hearing
3. Reading, correction, approval, or disposition of minutes (when
available)
4. NC Report
5. New business
a. McGrew-Ayers logo design
b. Possible contest for design of additional alternative logo
c. Non-responsive State Coordinators
d. Policy Statement: County sites vs. Archives as repository of
collected data
e. Evaluation of special projects
f. Application received for possible new special project
g. PR committee
h. other
6. Begin Grievance Hearing in Closed Session when disciplinary hearing
complete
7. Announcements
8. Adjournment

The Board has set itself a full table this month. Lots of big ticket items that are bound to get the
membership in a tizzy, which is interesting for a month in which most people have other things on
their minds, including lots and lots of travel. So we will be interested to see how long Richard's
trial takes up [item 2] and how many of the other items they actually get to before they all adjourn
to go stuff themselves on roasted goose.

We'll be interested in what sort of policy statement they've hammered out about where volunteers
may post their data. Its unlikely it will rock the boat too overly much; we will go out on a limb
here and guess that they are trying to avoid another fiasco like Georgia where the state
organization was trying to tell people where to put data and it led to a big and embarassing
dustup. So they will say that its up to the submitter where the data go and that the states or other
projects cannot determine otherwise. If they really wanted to make a policy statement, they'd get
their cojones together and tell the Archives to quit stealing people's hard work and "retyping it for
the web", but its unlikely they will ever go out on that shaky limb.

We have no idea what the "McGrew-Ayers logo design is, except to go on record that _anything_
would be better than our current logo. And we think a logo contest is a fabulous idea.

SAME OLD SAME OLD: For those of you interested in the state of the bylaws revision
committee, the revisions are posted here. Unless I am mistaken, the BRC is tasked to complete its
revisions by March 2005, which seems an awfully short time. To refresh your memory, our Board
is requiring them to present the revisions so that the volunteers can vote on them article by article.
Which is so unbelievably silly. Wait...this is the Board...of course its believable...We'd actually be
surprised if they did the sensible thing.

KEEP ON KEEPING ON: We have updated Tim's trial through Day 42. This set includes David
Morgan's notorious comment that the Board should finish up with Georgia and then move on to
Ohio and Wyoming, an offhand comment that probably had more than a few SCs obsessively
checking the links on their county tables and making sure that all their CCs are subscribed to a
mailing list. On Day 43, Tim and Ginger will start their valiant if ultimately fruitless defense.

Board To Tears


As a treat, we have a bonus quote culled from the trial transcripts. No we cannot tell you what it
means, but we really wish we had some of whatever is that Don smokes.

"Time is important, but justice outranks time."
--Don Kelly, September 2004

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Never failing to be amused since 1998

posted by merope at 6:15 PM 0 comments   
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
When In The Course of Human Events
Off the wall...its Your Daily Board Show!

RED LETTER DAY: So many important things today... The Board comes back into session
minus Darilee, who is road-tripping until the end of the week, and possibly minus David Morgan,
who has elected to remove himself from the Board's Sekrit lists and confine himself to Board-L.
We hear, though, that David unsubbed himself not for any stand on principle but because Shari
was moderating him on those lists for excessive sarcasm and ridicule and it was just a matter of
time before she unsubbed him anyways. He is apparently moderated on Board-L as well, so
perhaps we will see yet another circumstance of the NC using their list manager power to silence
an elected representative [its surprisingly common: Holly and Richard silenced me and possibly
Tim; Richard Harrison silenced Tim and Richard Howland; Shari silenced Tim, Rich Howland,
and now David. Its good to be king.]

In other news, today marks the last day of Tim Stowell's suspension from active membership in
USGenWeb. Except for the proscription against holding any position above that of Local
Coordinator for five years, Tim is once again a full-fledged member of USGenWeb, presumably In
Good Standing. So, as of today, those brave State Coordinators that refused to fire Tim at the
Board's behest can breathe a little easier.

WILD SPECULATION: We imagine that the Board is in a bit of a quandary with the lifting of
Tim's suspension. They now have very little in the way of meaningful punishment to mete out to
Richard Pettys. Once they find him guilty of all charges, they could of course suspend him as they
did Tim, but it would be unsupportable to give him a longer suspension than they gave Tim since
the charges against Richard are minor compared to those they trumped up for Tim. So, what are
they going to do, suspend him for 6 months minus time served as they did for Tim? The six
months is already up. Put him on probation for five years as they did Tim? Given the minor nature
of the charges they can sustain against Richard [mainly that he convened and then terminated an
unofficial committee and was inconsistent in the application of state guidelines, both of which are
common occurrences in USGenWeb] that would seem akin to squashing a gnat with an anvil.

Of course, the Board could demonstrate a little Christian charity at this festive time of the year
and drop the charges. They have already dragged out the proceedings an ungodly long time,
especially since it took them months AFTER they suspended Tim and Richard to even decide
what the charges would be, and its now looking like they will be carrying the proceedings into the
New Year. We are aware from other sources that Richard is currently unavailable for a trial due
to a pressing family situation and may not be available for some time, and surely the Board would
not proceed against him without him being present to answer their evidence [such as it will be].
While dropping the charges might make it appear that the Board has no case against Richard, the
Board has already accomplished its true objectives, which were to permanently remove the
management of GAGenWeb so they could hand it over to more "friendly" project members, and
to publicly humiliate Tim Stowell. Cutting their losses at this time would cost them relatively little
and would allow them to move to things that might actually benefit the Project. Do you suppose
that "Christian charity" is on the Board's secret to-do list for this holiday season? [ref:
DISCUSS-L]

UP FOR GRABS: An alert reader pointed out to us that Linda "Its All MINE" Lewis apparently
does NOT own the "USGenWeb Archives Project" service mark after all. So we went off to
USPTO to check on it and sure enough, the service mark is dead and the application is marked
abandoned. Way back in 2002, Linda was apparently four days late in filing required paperwork
and wouldn't you know, USPTO takes that sort of thing seriously and won't let her reactivate the
application without paying a fee. So apparently the service mark was never formally or finally
registered. Whether or not it is now "up for grabs" is debatable. We note that three other service
marks: "USGenWeb", "USGenWeb Project" and "USGenWeb Census Project" have all been
granted and this may preclude someone from just being able to resubmit for the Archives one and
obtain it. Plus, I am not a patent attorny [don't even play one on TV] and as far as I know, the
mere fact that she attempted to register it may give her first rights to it for some specific amount
of time. Still, I find this very amusing. I guess that USGenWeb is once again in Linda's debt. If not
for her secretive, backroom attempts to steal the project name [with the help of Board members,
we might add], we might never have moved to registering our own service mark.

A LITTLE ECHINACEA GOES A LONG WAY: We may or may not get an update to Tim's
trial online today. If we do we will let you know. We are still bogged down in Linda's reams of
irrelevant evidence [why did someone not put a stop to it? it was clearly in violation of Shari's
dictate not to discuss anything but Charge #3] and as we are weakened by a cold, we are not sure
we want to risk the adverse effect on our health that wallowing in endless drivel might cause.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Fighting the good fight since 1998




posted by merope at 6:23 AM 0 comments