From merope@Radix.Net Mon Feb 7 11:38:36 2000 Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 11:38:34 -0500 (EST) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Tripping the light fantastic...its Your Daily Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Sunday 6 February 2000: Pam Reid discusses further web site revisions with the Board. She suggests eliminating links to the individual SPs from the main page, and instead linking to the a single "Projects Page", which will contain a list of each special project, with Archives' subprojects bulleted under the Archives section. She notes that bulleting them under Archives would not mislead anyone into thinking they were separate special projects. She asks the Board to please discuss this issue as she "would be interested in the opinions of everyone on the Board on this issue." Ginger Hayes notes that she thinks Pam's idea is good and should work. She'd like to see all the SPs listed to better serve the researchers. She notes that in her own surfing, she doesn't always delve too deeply into sites that has nothing listed of interest to her. Ginger Cizewski notes that both Pam and Ginger are missing the point. She points that in the Motion 99-4 statement, the Archives Project is listed as a co-equal Special Project with Census and Tombstone. She again points out that the bylaws make no provision for a "coordinator" of the "Project Archives, and says "What you are both agreeing to amounts to an illegal circumvention of the Bylaws as they stand today. In order for it to become legal, the Bylaws would have to be amended." GingerH replies that they are talking about page listings for researchers, not who is in charge. GingerC notes that that is exactly what she is talking about. She notes that the new version of the page at: http://www.usgenweb.org/projects/archives.html, includes a statement noting that Linda Lewis is the coordinator of the "USGenWeb Project Archives", and GingerC notes this is "simply not legally possible!" Joe Zsedeny notes that from a researcher's standpoint, the page looks fine. Joe Zsedeny claims that "The Archives were grandfathered into the Project when the ByLaws were written along with the coordinator." He says that if the Archives were started today the Board would appoint the first coordinator and succeeding coordinators would be elected by the project membership. He notes "Selectively reading the ByLaws can lead one to believe almost anything." [its apparently done so for him ] GingerC notes that she has never found any mention of a "grandfather clause" in the bylaws. She says "In the absence of a "grandfather clause," everything that "was" prior to the adoption of the bylaws becomes immaterial, and ceases to "be" and henceforth the organization is structured according to the framework set forth in the newly adopted bylaws." She challenges Joe to point out the grandfather clause in the bylaws. Joe quotes Art XIII, Sect 3 of the bylaws and says "How can reference be made to the Archives if they were not grandfathered?" GingerC points out that the Archives Project staff is mentioned similarly to the other Special projects, but that "There is nothing in those Bylaws however that gives the Archives Project the right to claim to be the managers of or ultimate authority over the Project Archives." She asks Joe to find her a section that says the "Project Archives" have a manager. Joe [apparently running out of good arguments] says to show him a section that says they don't, and says GingerC's "argument is so devoid of merit that only a phrase I once used here before can describe it." GingerC prefaces her next remarks by noting she will not trade insults with Joe. She draws his attention to Article II, Section 2 of the bylaws, Article V of the bylaws and Motion 99-4, which together support her position that the ARchives Project, Tombstone Project and Census Project are co-equal parts of the Project Archives. Pushing Up the Daisies Corner: Genealogy.com has announced its new "Virtual Cemetery", an online depository of images of tombstones with transcribed inscriptions. As an inducement to people to submit images, they are running a contest to win a free digital camera. I gave it a whirl; one of the nice things about it is you can search by any field on a tombstone [name, dob, dod, pob, pod, etc.] Its free, the photos are nice [although they took awhile to load], and there is contact info on submitters provided. Although this has been referred to elsewhere as the "first online tombstone archive", we know our own Tombstone Project beats it out by a number of years. The images are, however, a nice touch. You can check it out at: http://www.genealogy.com/vcem_welcome.html "Please! Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who..." ---Egbert, "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net -------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved From merope@Radix.Net Tue Feb 8 08:17:10 2000 Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 08:17:08 -0500 (EST) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: More of the same...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! [picking up where we left off...] Monday 7 February 2000: According to Joe Zsedeny, "Any common sense interpretation shows Digital Library=Project Archives=Archives Project." He feels he represents all three and, although volunteers may store documents on their own websites, they are encouraged to give them to the "Digital Library=Project Archives=Archives Project". He contends that CCs come and go, but the "Digital Library=Project Archives=Archives Project" remains. [Hmmm...where have I seen this mystical "three in one" idea before?] Ginger Cisewski says that this is not a discussion of "common sense", they they are discussing the bylaws, which "must be adhered to until such time as they are changed through legal means, and nobody's personal "common sense" interpretation matters one iota." [although, when facing the bylaws, "abandon common sense, ye who enter" seems to work pretty well.] Joy Fisher states that if it will make things easier her name can be removed from the special projects, and notes that she doesn't understand the problem. She says "All of the Special Projects existed before there were By-laws or an Advisory Board. None of them have ever held an election for a Coordinator", and once again points out that the Archives began before or around the same time as USGW. GingerC replies to Joy that the point is not who's name is on the page, the point is that the page equate "Archives Project with "Project Archives". She also points out that "The bylaws make no allowance for anyone, ever, to be "in charge" of the Project Archives." She asks further "if there has never been an election for Project Coordinator, how did Tim Kirkham get to be head of the Tombstone Project?" She notes that the fact that the Archives is at least as old as USGW is irrelevant because of the lack of a grandfather clause in the bylaws adopted by the membership. She states "What was before the Bylaws ceased to be the minute the Bylaws were voted into being. The only legal way out is to bring the website back into compliance with the Bylaws until such time as the Bylaws can be amended through proper means." Joe [in an apparent fit of out-of order pique] motions to rescind Motion 99-4, noting that it was, in his opinion, "ill conceived when passed and has since served to divide and obscure rather than to assist the development of the Project and to enlighten." It has also "tries to legitimize actions which have caused the Census Project files to be unsearchable and not under the USGenWeb directory system but rather under a Rootsweb directory." He says the wording of motion 99-4 has been used to obscure the poor wording of the bylaws regarding certain phrases, which "some of the ByLaws arthors have attempted to clarify to deaf ears." GingerC notes that even if Motion 99-4 is rescinded, the bylaws remain unchanged, and that the author of Motion 99-4 [Trey Holt] was also a member of the original bylaws committee. She points out that both Census II and the Archives reside within www.rootsweb.com/pub/ subdirectory, with the only difference being further subdirectory division. She asks "Are you now proposing that this Board has the authority to control which server a Project places its files on??" She doubts the project membership will go for that. Holly Timm asks GingerC to explain what the Project Archives is if it is not the Archives Project. Teri Pettit says she also disagrees with Joe about it being "common sense" that the Archives Project and the Project Archives are equivalent. Her reading of the bylaws indicates that the USGW Project Archives is the collection of files, while the USGW Archives Project is the group of volunteers. She notes "It doesn't seem like common sense to me, or even possible, that if the files stored by distinct projects 1, 2, and 3 are all part of library A, that library A can equal one of those projects." She also disagrees with GingerC's interpretation that "statements to the effect that the Archives Project manages the Project Archives are contrary to the Bylaws." She notes that the bylaws are not specific about many things, including the purposes of the various projects, and says "what would one imagine the area of responsibility for the USGenWeb Archives Project to be, if it were not organizing volunteers to manage the files, directories and indexes of the USGenWeb Project Archives?" She believes that "The USGenWeb Archives Project does not EQUAL the USGenWeb Project Archives, and should not be casually referred to as if it did. But I believe that it is, and was always intended to be, responsible for maintaining them." She notes that the bylaws are not very specific about the responsibilities of any of the special projects, and expecting them to be more specific about the Archives Project is "analogous to expecting the Bylaws to proclaim that the Census Project is responsible for census transcriptions or the Tombstone Project is responsible for tombstone transcriptions, before you will allow those projects to assume those duties." Ginger Hayes says she's been reading the bylaws and asks that since the bylaws are silent on the issue, is she correct in assuming that the Board could propose an amendment and ask for the required co-sponsorship from 5 state projects. [yes, there's a punchline...wait for it.] Teri notes that any individual can suggest an amendment but according to the bylaws only a state can propose an amendment under the normal amendment procedures, so the Board would need to find a state willing to sponsor its proposed amendment. She also notes a couple of deficiences in the bylaws in the area of amendments: 1) it is not clear if the proposing state counts as one of the 5 co-sponsors, and 2) it is not stated how states should decide to sponsor an amendment, whether by a vote or by the decision of the SC. She thinks that most SCs would rather not make the decsion without a vote of the SCs, but that they are also probably reluctant to go through numerous elections in order to get an amendent on the ballot. She notes "I seriously doubt it is possible to get five states to agree to cosponsor any amendment, no matter how good it is, in the time between when it is first proposed and the next national election." GingerH notes that here again it is a matter of interpretation, since what the bylaws "actually says is "any", not "only"". She notes that with the Constitution or any other law or code interpretation plays a roled. She says "The original intent of any document of this kind is a factor in the intrepretation", and notes further that "Questions of intrepretation of the Constitution are decided by the Supreme Court all the time." [Told you there was a punchline.] She is quick to point out that she is not equating the Supreme Court with the Board, but is illustrating her point. Tim Stowell pops in to point out that grandfathering, of a sort, is mentioned in Art. XII, Sec 8 of the bylaws, where it notes that State Coordinators in place at the time the bylaws were adopted can stay in office until such time as they resign or can't fulfill their duties, and do not need to go through an election. He also claims that "Since Article XIII on Special Projects does not mention such a clause - then it would seem to accept the status quo in effect at the time the bylaws were adopted." [actually, wouldn't the absence of "such a clause" mean their coordinators weren't grandfathered in and should all stand for election?] [to be continued, no doubt....] "That's what I like -- little things, hitting each other." ---Napoleon, "Time Bandits" This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ----------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Tue Feb 8 10:13:31 2000 Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 10:13:28 -0500 (EST) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, part deux Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: Ad nauseum...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content, I can't help it. Read at your own risk! [Yeah, I know, you already got one today. What can I say? There's a lot of news today.] Tuesday 8 February 2000: Tim Stowell asks Pam Reid to let the Board know Mr. Neibauer's response to her email regarding the screen shots, and notes that once that reply is received they will vote on Motion 00-2. Tim notes that as of today [Feb 8] there are 138 subscribers to Board-L. Tim asks for a second on Joe's motion to rescind Motion 99-4. Board Secretary Ken Short responds to Teri Pettit's request of a few days ago regarding what the Board needs to vote on and what it does not. He says that the request to use screen shots does not need to be voted on and to do so "is micro-management in the extreme." He says that Pam should have notified Tim of the request, and then Tim could decide whether or not it was OK and notified Pam of this. Although he is free to ask the Board for input, "he should be free to make decisions on items like this." Ken considers that this sort of thing falls under the "day to day business" provision of the bylaws and notes "If the National Coordinator cannot make a decision on such minor matters, why do we have a National Coordinator?" GingerC notes that she believes Joe's motion to rescind Motion 99-4 is out of order, as they already have an active motion on the floor. Caveat Emptor Corner: We hear through the grapevine that our own Representative At-Large, Holly Fee-Timm, is the focus of some controversy on some of the mailing lists. According to a complaint sent to the NC of the USGW, the KY SC [Nancy Trice], and to Root$web, Holly has been using her web pages and mailing lists "to collect money in exchange for materials related to her Eastern, KY pages...Holly never sends any material even though she cashes everyone's checks. Last year we had to go through Internet Fraud, Ohio postal authorities, BBB of Ohio and rootsweb to get back almost $1200 in orders that were never delivered over a long period of time." One listmember noted that she has been waiting over _six_ years for something she ordered and paid for. The complainant also notes that Holly does not respond to customer complaints and was reprimanded by Root$web last year for similar concerns. According to RW employee "Donna" Holly has not been selling things on her site since she was reprimanded by RW, but they are concerned if this is an ongoing problem that might involve their lists or webpages. To date, the complainants have not received a response to their letter to the USGW NC, although they have been given to understand that the USGW is interested in further information on this problem. Nancy Trice, KY SC, is also interested in further information, and so is RW. A variety of CCs and mailing list members are collecting information on these occurrences to present to the BBB and state attorney's offices in OH, KY, and NC [states where Holly is known to have counties and/or mail lists]. The Better Business Bureau has a very brief file on Holly's business, Footprints Publications and Research online, located at: http://search.bbb.org/bbb/plsql//bbbweb.reportShow?sessid=5083567844&AddrId=312000000135019 [you can also get here by going to the main search form at: http://search.bbb.org/bbb/plsql/bbbweb.consumer_searchForm, and typing in "footprints" in the Company Name field. The Business of Business is Business Corner: According to the Secretary of State of Delaware, RootsWeb.com, Inc. filed for incorporation on May 28, 1999 in the state of Delaware. The CEO is Robert Tillman. Their registered agent in Delaware is The Corporation Trust Company [HTTP://www.cchlis.com/]. Their corporate file number in Delaware is #3048050. They are a "general corporation" and their total authorized stock is 20 million shares of common stock, with a current $0 par value. Yes, that is twenty MILLION shares. If Brian can sell it for even one dollar a share, he's got a lot of money, even assuming that Karen and old school chum Bob Tillman each have sizable chunks of stock [but not as much as Brian, I'll bet]. They could also be using a portion of the booty as stock options for their employees, in lieu of part or all of their salaries, and of course RW employee Margaret Olson mentioned recently that RW now has "investors". Stock is of no value unless you sell it or trade it for other stock with value. So, which do you think it will be--IPO or buyout? Where's Waldo? Corner: Info from Dun and Bradstreet's web page [www.dnb.com] indicates that Root$web has one main office, in Sausalito, and two branch locations, both in Frazier Park, CA: Headquarters: 14 Sunshine Ave., Sausalito, CA Branch 1: 2125 Birchwood, Frazier Park, CA Branch 2: Teton Way, Frazier Park, CA Root$web's mailing address according to the CA Secretary of State is at 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA, although the agent for service of process [Robert Tillman] is at the Sausalito address above. GenSoc, on the other hand gives a mailing address of PO Box 2797, Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA, and its agent of process [Brian Leverich] is at 2121 Birchwood Wy, Frazier Park, CA [which must be right next door to Root$web's second branch office; what a coincidence.] [for those of you interested in geography, Sausalito is slightly north of San Francisco, just the other side of the Golden Gate Bridge. Palo Alto is about 30 miles south of the city, maybe an hour on a good day. Its the home of Stanford University, Bob Tillman's alma mater. Palos Verdes Peninsula is south and a bit west of Los Angeles, not too far from the beach, and IIRC its some pretty ritzy real estate. Frazier Park is north of LA on I5 quite a bit, near the area known as the Grapevine, up in the mountains. Rootsweb and GenSoc are, literally, all over the map.] "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!" ---Sir Walter Scott This has been your Daily Board Show. Too much is always better than not enough! -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net -------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Wed Feb 9 09:27:47 2000 Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 09:27:45 -0500 (EST) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: DBS Special Report Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: Putting the $ in Root$web--A DBS Special Report! As you will recall, yesterday the DBS reported on an interesting and extensive set of addresses that are associated in some way or other with RootsWeb.com, Inc. and/or GenSoc.org, Inc. We have since learned that the address listed with the California Secretary of State as the mailing address for RootsWeb.com, Inc. [650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA], is the address of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Attorneys at Law. [http://www.wsgr.com] WSGR is a 40 year old firm with over 600 attorneys, and four branch offices, in Palo Alto, Austin TX, Kirkland WA, and Reston VA. They describe themselves as "the leading law firm representing technology companies at all stages of their growth, as well as the investment banks and venture capital firms that finance them." They have an impressive list of clients, including [but not limited to] Apple Computers, Disney Online, 3com, Sun Microsystems, InfoSeek, TicketMaster Online, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Dean Stanley Witter, The Home Depot, etc. The firm also lists as clients about 35 venture capital groups. RootsWeb.com, Inc. is not currently listed as a client, but there is no indication that the client list at http://www.wsgr.com/clients/index.htm is exhaustive. One of their clients is The Learning Company, which owns Broderbund and Genealogy.com, both of which advertise on RootsWeb.com, Inc. As some of you may recall, Broderbund bought out Palladium, which was RootsWeb's first corporate sponsor and the purveyor of the first commercial advertisement ever seen on RootsWeb's pages. An anonymous correspondent has informed the DBS that Mr. J. Casey McGlynn is the WSGR partner who handles RootsWeb.com, Inc.'s account with the firm. According to his profile, he heads "one of the largest new venture practices at the firm" and specializes in "the organization, funding and corporate representation of companies in the information technology and life sciences industries." He also "assists emerging growth companies to meet their financing needs through introductions to an extensive network of angel investors, financiers, venture capitalists, corporate partners and investment bankers" and has experience "representing dozens of companies that have made successful initial public offerings and secondary offerings." [If you'd like to read more about Mr. McGlynn, his web page is at: http://www.wsgr.com/attorneys/bio.asp?Empl=127] The DBS has also learned that RootsWeb.com, Inc. has recently worked with Greg Martin, an Associate with Redpoint Ventures, a Los Angeles venture capital firm. Prior to joining Redpoint, Mr. Martin worked with an "Angel Investor" in southern CA who focused on internet investments. During this time, one of his clients was RootsWeb.com, Inc. So, it looks like its going to be an IPO. This has been a Daily Board Show Special Report. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net From merope@Radix.Net Wed Feb 9 13:18:52 2000 Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 13:18:50 -0500 (EST) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: In for the long haul...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Tuesday 8 February 2000: Ginger Hayes asks where in RRoR does it say there can be only active motion on the floor at a time. Joe Zsedeny says they've discussed it in the past and decided they could have multiple motions active. He says that unlike most groups that use RRoR the Board is in permanent session and "If we conduct business end to end, so to speak, less of substance will be accomplished than is already the case." Ginger Cisewski cites two separate RRoR editions that say that only one main motion can be active on the floor at a time. GingerH thanks her for the info. Richard Howland seconds Joe's motion to rescind Motion 99-4. He then apologizes for the delay in seconding the motion; apparently it was sent first to Joe privately. He also thanks Ken Short for his comments on the screen shot issue. GingerC reminds the group she has called a point of order that must be addressed before other business can take place. Tim Stowell opens Motion 00-3, to rescind Motion 99-4, for discussion. Wednesday 9 February 2000: Tim rules on the issue of having more than one motion active at a time. He says "Joe's motion is not out of order as we have already set precedent earlier this year when we had 4 or 5 motions made by Teri all open on the floor simultaneously. While we haven't quite reached the 21st century, we sure are no where near 1915's ancient ideas for running a meeting." [If he actually _read_ RRoR, he'd realize they haven't changed all that much; good manners is still good manners.] He thinks that given the "virtual space" the group uses for meetings, it should use more liberal interpretations of the rules, and notes that most Board members probably routinely hold "multiple conversations with dozens of folks at the same time." He says "we can certainly discuss multiple issues at once - if they are prefaced in subject lines as different issues." [And it would have been more appropriate for the BS to rule on this issue; that's why they have one.] GingerC again reminds Tim that his opening the motion for discussion is out of order according to parliamentary procedure, and says "this Motion has not yet received a proper second and we cannot proceed with ANY further business until such time as a ruling on the Point of Order." [looks like her message and his crossed in the mail ] GingerC notes that the USGW Census Project [Census II] currently has no representation on the Board and the Board has not sought to declare her officially "Missing" or allowed the Census Rep's position to be filled." She states that to proceed with the motion [which specifically mentions Census II] under these circumstances "is a subversion of the democratic process." She moves to table the motion. Joe, ever charming, says that the trouble with selective reading is that people have to repeat themselves. He, for instance, has personally and publically "chided" Ron Eason [interim coordinator for Census II] for not holding an election to replace both the coordinator and the Board rep. He also notes that the Board is not empowered to declare people "officially missing" as it is not a missing persons bureau. He then notes "As for tabling anything, read your sacred 1915 Roberts and learn that a motion is only tabled until the next session. Since we are always in session how can anything be tabled including the one that is tabled, M99-12." He notes that although he let that one slide, it's technically "still with us." [So, the precedent exists and since this Board clearly, by the statement of its NC, operates by precendent _and_ motions have been tabled in the past without challenge, Ginger's motion to table is clearly legitimate.] He closes by saying "Your dilatory tactics only impede the work of this Board, not stop it. If the same energy were put into trying to find solutions I would not be wasting my time answering such foolishness." Above It All Corner: In response to some concerns raised in recent discussions over the upcoming election for the NCGenWeb SC, Linda Lewis has clarified to her file managers that "we do not vote in any state elections, unless we are county coordinators for that state. In that case, we vote as a county coordinator, not as an archivist/file manager." [Interesting. We seem to recall a recent SC election in which an archivist/file manager ran for SC of a state in which she had no counties. So they can _run_ in the elections, but not _vote_ in them?] Cramping Their Style Corner: An alert reader has pointed out an interesting occurrence with our favorite ad rag, the Root$web Review. Two issues ago, in Vol 3, No 4, 26 January 2000, Root$web CEO Robert Tillman made an emergency appeal for funds following a problem with its internet connectivity provider that had RW off the air for 5 1/2 hours. At the time, Bob noted that "Your contributions now literally can help RootsWeb to stay online", and he pointed folks to RW's contributions page [which we hear is in the process of being "updated"]. Now, we've heard that this particular issue of the New Zoo Review made its way to a number of State's Attorney General offices and guess what? The very next issue of the New Zoo Review had absolutely no requests for contributions to RootsWeb in it at all. Missing in particular is the little "DONATIONS HELP ROOTSWEB HELP YOU AND ARE GREATLY APPRECIATED" blurb that has been in every issue of the RWR since at least June 1999. Turns out that if you are going to solicit "donations" and "contributions" you have to register in every state; since its not a non-profit RootsWeb can't actually file the necessary documents to get approval on a state by state level to ask people to give them money. "I didn't invent this buzzing confusion. It's all around us." ---Samuel Beckett This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------------ Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Thu Feb 10 11:14:12 2000 Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 11:14:11 -0500 (EST) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Lions and tigers and bears, oh my...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Wednesday 9 February 2000: Ginger Cisewski reminds Joe that she was not talking about Census II electing a replacement coordinator, since "That is not a concern of the Advisory Board any more than an election to replace a State Coordinator would be. She does point out that the Board was informed in November that Kay's email no longer worked and she could not be reached, yet the Board has failed to declare her missing, "and pave the way for a new Rep. to be appointed, effectively disenfranchising the entire Census Project." She tells Joe that as Archives Rep his job is to represent the Archives Project. She also notes that "the Archives Project's Census Project Coordinator is a member of this Board, as is the Assistant Archives Coordinator. The Archives Project is already over-represented here, with 3 Board members holding management-level positions within the Archives Project." She feels that failing to allow Census II a voice in the vote to rescind Motion 99-4 could be categorized as a "steamroller tactic". Teri Pettit says that when current activity is resolved she would like to propose an emergency amendment to the Bylaws. She notes that "the Bylaws make no provision for declaring a Board member missing. They say that the Board "will appoint a replacement" if a member is "unable to complete his/her term", but not how that inability is to be judged." She reminds the Board that the last they heard from Kay, she was planning to complete her term. She thinks this requires emergency amendments because "it keeps us from making any decisions that might have an impact on the Census Project without those decisions being very much under suspicion due to the Census Project having no active representation." [The wording of her proposed amendement is at the end of today's DBS.] Joy Fisher says she is willing to withdraw Motion 00-2, since she only proposed it because the author noted he was on deadline. She does not object to the Secretary's ruling that a motion was not needed. Teri agrees with her and says she seconded the motion in order that the Board might act quickly. She asks the BS for a weekly report on tabled motions so they don't "fall through the cracks. She also asks for "an opinion on how tabled motions are to be handled when a meeting is perpetually in session". Joy withdraws Motion 00-2. Ginger Hayes says she remembers a previous discussion on the topic of the missing Census II representative, and the Board's consensus was that the Board "can't remove Kay as a board member. The Census Project will have to have a recall election to straighten this mess out." She doesn't understand why they haven't done that, and says "either the members of the CP don't care or there is some other reason I'm not aware of." She notes the Board cannot force them to have representation. Thursday 10 February 2000: Tim Stowell acknowledges that Motion 00-2 has been withdrawn. === If You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em Corner: Brian and RW weren't always so interested in venture capital as they appear to be now. Back in the day [right around Dec 1998, when Ancestry got 10 million dollars from venture capital firm Venture III, part of CMGI, in fact] Brian said ""tens of thousands" of genealogists are contributing to Ancestry.com, a company that is dedicated to making *spectacular* profits for its venture capitalist investors. So it's OK for those guys to make spectacular profits for their investors by soaking the genealogical community, but it's asking too much to expect RootsWeb's users to make modest contributions to support a community resource?" [TEAM-ROOTSWEB, 7 Jan 1999]. Now, when Ancestry got its venture capital, Venture III/CMGI got something in return: 30% of the company and 2 seats on Ancestry's Board. At the time, Brian noted: "Ancestry just sold 30% of their company to CMG (a venture capital company) for $10,000,000. This is money on top of the $60/year they get from "tens of thousands of subscribers" (from the Wall Street Journal). That means that Ancestry has more than $10,000,000 to spend, and they expect to make a *lot* of profit off the community because venture capitalists don't make investments unless they believe they can score some thing 400% or higher profits within a 3-5 year period." [TEAM-ROOTSWEB, 31 Dec 1998] As it turns out, Brian is the Chairman of the Board and largest shareholder in RootsWeb.com, Inc., and some portion of the 20 million shares of stock they are authorized to issue were "unassigned" at the time they incorporated in Delaware. Enticement for a venture capitalist, perhaps? New Zoo Review Corner: Today's issue of the Root$web Review is once again free of blurbs requesting funds for RW, but is chock full o' commercial ads for other companies. Of interest this week, it appears that RW is switching their "you don't do enough for us" rhetoric from money begs to begs for data. CEO Robert Tillman notes that, "only about 7,000 GEDCOMs have been uploaded to WorldConnect.... With the circulation of RWR approaching 400,000, this means that fewer than two percent of you reading this article have uploaded a GEDCOM to WorldConnect. RootsWeb has set a goal of reaching 100 million names uploaded to WorldConnect by the end of 2000. Based on the average number of names uploaded in a GEDCOM to date, if about 40,000 of you (or about 10% of RWR's readers) upload a GEDCOM to WorldConnect before the end of the year, this goal will be achieved." Doesn't this sound familiar? In other New Zoo Review news, if you are at all interested in seeing what the staff at Root$web looks like, you can visit http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/gentech/, where you will see many pictures of a remarkably svelte looking Brian "King Of the Mountain" Leverich, and a most CEO-ish Robert Tillman, in an unfortunate choice of tie. Today's quote is from a reader: "I'm beginning to understand why companies screw the bejesus out of their customers whenever they get a chance; users will cheerful screw the bejesus out of companies whenever they have a chance." ---Brian Leverich, 7 Jan 1999, TEAM-ROOTSWEB This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------------ Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. ================================= Text of Teri Pettit's proposed emergency amendment to the bylaws: Current wording: Section 8. In the event a board member is unable to complete his/her term, the Advisory Board will appoint a replacement to serve until the next scheduled election. Proposed addition: Failure to respond to email, physical mail, and phone for a period of one month (not including scheduled absences of which forewarning was given and a date of return specified) shall constitute proof of inability to complete a term. Failure to take part in any votes or board discussions for a period of three months shall also constitute proof of inability to complete a term, even if responses were made to private correspondence. In appointing a replacement, the Advisory Board should attempt to ascertain and follow the will of the Region or Special Project represented by the member being replaced, but a formal poll shall not be required. From merope@Radix.Net Sat Feb 12 12:48:37 2000 Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:48:36 -0500 (EST) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: When pigs fly...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Friday 11 February 2000: Webmaster Pam Reid asks if any of her colleagues knows of a good online source of information on family crests and coats of arms. She is planning on doing a page on the topic sometime in the future. [if any readers know of such a site, you can reach Pam at pamreid@home.com] Ginger Hayes provides an url for information on heraldry: http://www.looksmart.com/eus1/eus141561/eus71960/eus271049/eus271051/r?l&pin=000211x4 edb31b20a4bcdaeac1& [There is no activity on the motion to table Motion 00-3, and as yet no opinion from the Secretary on how tabling motions works since the Board is in permanent session.] Fingers in the Pie Corner: We've heard from a member of Census II that behind its mild exterior of the last day or so, the Board [or at least the NC] has been busy meddling in Census II's affairs. My correspondent reports that he "found out in private that Tim [Stowell] took discussion to the private Board list to discuss his concern with the Census Project trying to vote for a Board Rep. He wants the Board to be able to appoint one and when one is elected, he wants the Archvies [sic] Census to be able to vote as well." The DBS has also received, from a member of the "Election Committee", a copy of a message the NC sent to the Committee yesterday [and cc'd to Board-Exec], in which he states, 1) there is no such position as "National Coordinator" for any of the Special Projects and the proper term is "Project Coordinator"; 2) according to the bylaws the Board will appoint a replacement representative and since Kay Mason's position has not been declared vacant, any election to replace her is moot; and 3) based on Art VI, Sec 3 of the bylaws, the Board must oversee any election for a Board representative. Well, isn't that special. First off, I would imagine that if Census II wants to call its coordinator The Great Kazoo that is well within their rights and that's certainly none of the Board's business. Second, several Board members have expressed some dismay and concern that Census II has not acted to replace Kay, and now that they are acting to replace her, the NC wants to give them grief over it? Finally, while the concern over proper representation on the Board for all Census project members is admirable, Census I already has a representative on the Board; his name is Joe Zsedeny. [Come to think of it, when Joe was elected by the Archives Project to fill out the unexpired term of Jan Craven, I don't recall any concern on the Board's part about "overseeing the election".] Tim's reading of Art VI, Sec 3 is, not surprisingly, a little thin. All that section says is "The responsibilities of the Advisory Board shall include: addressing any problem issues as they arise, aiding the state projects upon request, overseeing elections, advising and mediating, if necessary, any grievances or appeals, and appointing a Webmaster to maintain the national website." While one could interpret this to mean anything from "the Board oversees _all_ elections" to "the Board oversees only the national elections", I doubt it was intended to mean "the Board oversees only those elections it wants to meddle in." It is correct that the Board appoints replacements for vacant seats, but if the state or special project in question wishes to hold an internal election to choose a candidate to forward for the Board's consideration, that election is the state or special project's business, and not the Board's. If the Board has doubts about either the election or the putative appointee they are free to vote against appointment. "The President doesn't want any yes-men and yes-women around him. When he says no, we all say no." - Elizabeth Dole, referring to Ronald Reagan This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ----------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Sun Feb 13 18:09:47 2000 Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 18:09:46 -0500 (EST) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Faster than a speeding locomotive...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Saturdya 12 February 2000: Teri Pettit forwards a letter from Elizabeth, SC of the NCGenWeb, in which Elizabeth asks her Board reps and the NC for an interpretation of the bylaws. NCGW is currently planning for an election to replace the SC and she would like to know if Art XII, Sec 8 [along with several other sections of the bylaws she quotes] implies either or both of the following: "a) that each local-level coordinator will have one, and only one, vote in the election of the state coordinator" and " b) that local-level coordinators are defined as *only* those volunteers who are hosting pages that "reflect whatever divisional structure is appropriate for that state", in our case counties." She also asks " if we are bound by the by-laws to a specific rule for the election of the state coordinator...are we necessarily bound by the same rule in other statewide elections or referenda?" Teri responds to Elizabeth's questions by noting "the Bylaws are very vague on the definition of a project member or who is on the "staff" of a Special Project." In her opinion Art XII, Sec 8 leaves the definition of "local-level coordinators" up to the state as well as the determination of how votes should be distributed, as long as each person who is a local-level coordinator gets at least one vote. She points out that the bylaws are notably lacking in "any description of who actually IS a member," since Arv IV, Sec 1 seems rather to describe who is eligible to become a member. She notes that the restriction of voting rights to members other than lookup volunteers and transcribers has been interpreted to include Assistant Coordinators as members. She notes that "each county has been allowed to specify up to two coordinators (whether they call them Co-Coordinators or Coordinator and Assistant Coordinator is up to them), and each person who fills at least one of those positions in any county (or other primary local division) within any state of the region has been given exactly one vote for CC Representative, regardless of how many such positions they fill." She thinks that "the fair way to deal with state- level special projects would be that before an activity could be classified as an official "state special project", the CC's and assistant CC's of the state should have to vote to recognize it as such, rather than volunteers just having a cool idea and the SC being able to say "sure, let's make it a state special project."" CCs could also vote to decide if the managers of such project would get a vote in the state level elections. Teri is also in favor of the "one vote per person" rule, both because county management is often fluid, and because "having multiple counties should be discouraged, rather than rewarded," and limiting people to one vote removed at least one incentive to take on many counties. "Remember: blaming the mass media for reporting political foibles is like blaming the weatherman when it rains." ---Mel Walker, keeper of the Dan Quayle quotes page This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------------ Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.