From merope@Radix.Net Thu Feb 1 10:30:45 2001 Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:30:39 -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: The more things change...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Thursday 1 February 2000: No Board-L activity yet on this date. === The Newest Fad Corner: We've heard through the grapevine that NCGenWeb Sharon "the Axe" Williamson has not only registered the NCGW with the IRS as a nonprofit organization, but she's also planning to apply for a service mark for the term "NCGenWeb", all in order to prevent a couple of people from using the ncgenweb domains. As you may recall, she does not want the domains herself, but she doesn't want anyone else to have them either. From a message sent out to her CCs a day or so ago: "...early last fall we had a problem with some web pages and domains that were, and still are, using our NCGenWeb name...The pages in question are still there...At this point the three ASCs have been extremely useful in helping me pursue this matter. In doing so there has been some talk to some folks that have a "legal edge" and have been useful in helping us to understand what is the best way to handle this situation. One of the first points made to us from the legal side is that we needed to place the TM sign on our logo and to legally "exist" before we can effectively accomplish anything from a legal perspective...one of the ASCs spoke with the IRS and was told that aside from everything else we should have, years ago, registered with them as required...That has now been done and we are now a legal entity. However, we are told that we still need to pursue the official registration of our name with the NC Trademark office in Raleigh...In applying for the Service Mark it has to be done using someone's name as the contact person, etc. In fact the application has to be notarized stating that the person who is doing the application is the appointed person who has that responsibility of legal matters...If it is the consensus of the CCs that they want me to be the person to file, I will certainly be glad to make the application. However...The solution that has come to my mind is somewhat like the way churches set themselves up legally. The churches I have been a member of through the years usually have a board of three Trustees. These people are the ones that see to the legal issues of the church. They are usually members of long standing and are elected by the church members. I believe this is the sort of thing we should do at NCGenWeb...By doing things this way, there would be no one person who has control over the legal issues of NCGenWeb. We would still have everything just as it is now. The State Coordinator position would be essentially the same as it has always been. It is just that by doing the trustees, there would be a stability behind the scenes that there isn't now. They would not be responsible for any money or liabilities on a personal level. They would essentially be the "guardians" of NCGenWeb and would have only whatever duties along the way that the CCs delegate to them as a group." She goes on to request "positive, upbeat discussion" [hmmm...where have we heard that before?] and solicits help from any lawyers that might be on the list. This is an interesting idea, that of locally registering trademarks, but I don't think it will prevent people from using already registered domain names. And I'm not really sure what a trademark registered in NC would mean elsehwere. But still... an intriguing idea. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Anatomy Of A Grievance Corner: Folks have started sending me examples of correspondence with the Board regarding grievances. Here's an example of one grievance that took only slightly more than three months to "resolve", record time apparently for the Board: May 24, 2000: Grievance is filed May 26, 2000: Board member asks if the grievance is formal Jun 1, 2000: Filer inquires as to status of grievance Jun 2, 2000: Board member replies that the grievance was submitted to the ombudsman [Kevin Fraley] Aug 17, 2000: Filer inquires as to status of grievance Sep 2, 2000: Board member informs filer that she brought it to the Board's attention on Aug 17 and it is the Board's determination that the grievance "does not require AB intervention." All communication from the Board member in question was polite [surprisingly so, given that its the same Board member that sent the nasty-gram printed here yesterday], if not exactly timely. The object of the grievance was not a Board member, and the decision the Board made was probably the correct one in the circumstances, but did it really need to take over three months? What is apparent here is that filers need to query their Board reps regularly as to the status of their grievances if they are to have any hope of getting them resolved [even if not to their liking]. Market Drop Corner: Root$web has announced that as of today [1 Feb, 2001] it has closed its "affiliates" program in favor of the "Shops at MyFamily". They ask that all links to the Root$web Mall and Root$web affiliate vendors be removed and suggest instead linking to MyFamily's version. [Wait...wasn't the RW Mall Linda Lewis' job?] Kudos Corner: We hear that the USGenExchange's Emigrant Savings Bank project has been named Family TreeMakers's Site of the Day [this should possibly be Family Tree Magazine] for 31 Jan 2001. The Emigrant Savings Bank database should be of great interest for anyone with Irish ancestors who came into the US through New York. The database is located at: http://www.genexchange.org/esb/index.cfm === "It is not the writer's task to answer questions but to question answers. To be impertinent, and, if necessary, subversive." ---Edward Abbey This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Fri Feb 2 13:57:29 2001 Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:57:23 -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: RO X-Status: You're in our world now...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Thursday 1 February 2001: Tim Stowell calls for a vote on Motion 010-03 [to accept Standing Election Procedures and post them to the national web page]. Richard Harrison raises a point of order regarding Tim's improper phrasing of the motion. Teri Pettit suggests reopening discussion of Motion 00-30, a previously suggested Grievance Committee formation [only 9 members bothered to vote on this motion the first time around; enough of them voted after the alotted time frame that it failed to pass]. The motion in full is here: http://www.usgenweb.org/official/boardvotes-00-7.html#00-30 Teri reminds Tim that "need a ruling on Richard's Point of Order before we can vote on Motion 01-03." She asks if the Chair can just state that he accepts Richard's correction and have the group vote on the motion as contained in the Point of Order message. [Goodness, this looks like a job for Board Secretary!] Richard Harrison agrees with Teri about resurrecting Motion 00-30. He notes that "there are not adequate procedures or leadership for dealing with grievances....we need a more effective way to deal with grievances until the Study Committee's recommendations can be considered and acted on." He notes that Motion 00-30 is unclear on how the Grievance Committee members will be chosen. Joe Zsedeny says that his "unstated idea" was that the CC reps would nominate a CC from their region for the committee. He says if anyone wants to amend the motion to include that he would not object [I guess teh poor Special Projects, against whom a number of grievances have been filed, don't get represented on this committee.] Friday 2 February 2001: Tim, ever the professional, responds Richard's point of order by saying "Ok, vote on that instead." Thus far one Board member has voted "yes" on Motion 01-03. === Changing Faces Corner: A number of comings and goings have been announced recently. Bobby Edwards and Annette Womack, SC and ASC respectively, of the LAGenWeb have both left to pursue better things. Edward Hayden is the new SC there. Linda Mason has resigned from MSGenWeb; Shirley Scott is taking the helm in MSGW. Happy Trails! to Bobby, Annette and Linda; congrats! to Shirley and Edward. Tempting Tidbits Corner: Teri Pettit let slip on the CC list that the Board is currently wrangling [in secret, of course] over issues involving the Project Formerly Known as the Archives Census Project. Idle speculation makes us consider a couple of things this could be. Could it be that the Archives has created a new Special Project, something the bylaws reserve for the Board? Or are they angling for that empty Census Project Representative seat? Regrets Corner: Due to an unexpected personal emergency, I had to cancel my plans for attending the GenTech conference [so you all can breathe a lot easier]. If anyone attending wishes to let us know how its going, we'd be grateful! === "Progress is a nice word. But change is its motivator and change has its enemies." ---Robert F. Kennedy This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Sat Feb 3 14:28:04 2001 Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 14:28:04 -0500 (EST) From: 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: Little pitchers have big ears...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Friday 2 February 2001: Voting on Motion 01-03 proceeds. Currently five Board members have voted yes. [Our Esteemed National Commander apparently called this vote after the four Board members attending GenTech asked him not to.] Tina Vickery reminds the group that there are two live chats scheduled for today with the USGW members in TX. They are at 10:30 am [ongoing as I write this] and 2:00 pm CST on the Root$web IRC server irc.rootsweb.com, channel #usgw@gentech. === Reporting Live Corner: At 11:38 am EST, connection was made with the group in Texas at the GenTech conference. On site thus far are Holly Timm, Rich Howland, Lorraine Newsome, Babs Dore, Linda Lewis, and Megan Zurawicz. Reports are that our table is very popular and is getting lots of visitors. Holly and Sunny made flyers for all the state projects, so every state is represented with at least a list of urls to the counties, archives, etc. We also hear that prominently displayed on the USGW table is a big fat stack of USGenWeb Census Project handouts. [Hope our dear Linda can smile sweetly as she hands them out.] === "Our dilemma is that we hate change and love it at the same time; what we really want is for things to remain the same but get better." ---Sydney J. Harris This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Mon Feb 5 13:40:20 2001 Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:40:18 -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: Holy smoke!..its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Sunday 4 February 2001: Voting on Motion 01-03 continues, with 9 Board members voting "yes" so far. [Three of these votes came in after the 48 hour window.] === "Promote then as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened." ---George Washington This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Tue Feb 6 13:07:20 2001 Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 13:07:19 -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: RO X-Status: Pursued by a bear...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Monday 5 February 2001: Two more votes trickle in for Motion 01-03 [both well after the 48 hour window], bringing the count to 11 "yes" votes. === "Knowledge is power." ---Francis Bacon This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Wed Feb 7 13:45:16 2001 Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:45:15 -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: Everybody was kung fu fighting...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Wednesday 7 February 2001: Tim Stowell announces the passage of Motion 01-03, with 11 yes votes [at least three of which came after the end of the normal 48 hour voting period]. === Another One Bites the Dust Corner: We are sad to learn of the resignation of Board member Richard Howland, NE/NC CC representative. In a brief message to his constituents late last night, Rich apologized to them for "running and then resigning" but says he will stay on until the Board can appoint a replacement. No public reason was given for the resignation. No Surprise Corner: We've heard through the grapevine that the Abbeys' grievance against NYGenWeb SC [and Advisory Board member] Holly Timm has been resolved in favor of Holly. According to the message released by National Commander Tim Stowell "Holly Timm acted properly and within the authority granted to her, as NYGenWeb State Coordinator. As her actions were in accordance with the USGenWeb By-Laws, no further action, by this Board, is deemed necessary, and her decision will be allowed to stand." The only real surprise here was that it didn't take them 6 months to do it. Escalating The War Corner: Things are never boring over in NCGenWeb. Lately, someone has done some digging and found a number of relevant domain names have been registered to anonymous persons apparently with SC Sharon Williamson's knowledge and approval, although she is currently fighting tooth and nail to strip others of their right to use the domains they originally registered on behalf of NCGW and which she [and NCGW by vote] rejected. She is actually protecting these people by maintaining their anonymity even though she petitioned other ISPs to reveal to her the names of those who registered the ncgenweb.com and ncgenweb.net domains. She has also been taking rebuttals to her messages and reposting them with her comments to a read-only list that she maintains, a practice she says she will stop since people complained about it [something about it being a "one-sided forum for her personal views"]. It appears that very few public comments have been received regarding her announcement that she registered the NCGW as a non-profit with the IRS [what she actually did was apply for a Federal Employer Identification Number] and her suggestion that the organization apply for a trademark within the state of North Carolina, and she has been suggesting that this indicates CC compliance or approval of her plans [although we can think of other reasons for her CCs to be quiet--ignorance, apathy and fear spring to mind]. One of her ASCs has offered, originally anonymously, to fund the trademark application, ostensibly so that NCGW can legimately "solicit contributions". It will be interesting to see how this whole thing progresses. === "One of the difficulties of politics is that politicians are shocked by those who are really prepared to let their thinking reach any conclusion. Political thinking consists in deciding upon the conclusion first and then finding good arguments for it. An open mind is considered irresponsible--and perhaps it really is." ---Richard Crossman This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Fri Feb 9 13:09:22 2001 Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 13:09:16 -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: En garde!...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Thursday 8 February 2001: Richard Howland posts the URL for the revised Mediation Proposal that he and Ellen Pack have been working. He asks the Board Secretary to post the URL to all appropriate lists "to encourage members [sic] comments and suggestions" and notes "There is not one shoe that fits all. This will work in some cases; in some cases not. It is only an attempt to allow members a way to settle some of their problems in a timely manner." Check out the new version at: http://www.rootsweb.com/~ilgenweb/abm.htm === Learning From Past Mistakes Corner: The Board Secretary has, as requested, posted the above URL to a number of lists [the regional lists are not apparently among them, however]. Among the better changes in the document are: 1) The threatening language regarding public discussion of the mediation has been removed and replaced with a notice that everything connected with the mediation is considered to be confidential. 2) Provision has been made for some classes of non-members to seek mediation. Transcribers and other researchers may also request mediation. 3) "Copyright disagreements" are specifically included as a class of disagreement for which parties may seek mediation. 4) Failure of the mediation process will not preclude parties from filing a grievance with the Board . [This is a biggie, since it means the Board cannot use the mediation process as an excuse for doing nothing in the face of egregious harm to a project member.] Remaining problems include: 1) no right for parties to disputes to reject specific mediators [from the current system, only mediators can remove themselves by giving notice of a conflict 2) lack of clarity in terms [what's an "accepted contributing researcher"? "current project member"] 3) no provision for the possibility that none of the 5 mediators will agree to mediate a specific grievance, or that all of them have a conflict with at least one of the parties. Of course, the biggest problem remains: it won't work. But at least the membership is not left out in the cold when it fails. We can still file a grievance the Board can sit on for 6 months or so. They're Just Words Corner: Goaded by a NCGenWeb member who has "a very low tolerance for insubordination and disloyalty", NCGW SC Sharon Williamson has reversed her decision to discontinue reposting material to the required read-only NCGW mailing list. We hear that a number of her CCs have already pointed out to her the difference between posting "updates" [which is what the NCGW voted on a while back] and using her own private forum to criticize and negatively characterize CCs who disagree with her. === "Anytime you begin to Govern fun... fun dies." ---Darkfall, of Quellious This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Sun Feb 11 09:19:07 2001 Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 09:19:06 -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: From the ashes of disaster...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Saturday 9 February 2001: No Board-L traffic on this date. === Test Drive Corner: We've heard from a number of sources that Ellen and Rich are test-driving their proposed mediation process with a real live honest-to-god dispute. No further details are available, except that the sources agree the process is not working at all well. Consider This Corner: A correspondent writes regarding the proposed mediation proposal, raising a point that hasn't been raised before in the discussion: "...the flaws in a mediation process becomes obvious when...it is a CC against a SC...this is the first problem. The CC is subservient to the SC, but yet she is expected to speak frankly. Yet when you begin to see that the SC is always in possession of the ball, you realize that anything you say will be forever held against you by your SC. There is NO protection for the CC once she is so bold as to file a grievance against her SC. The SC can stand her ground and always be the winner. If the CC continues to object she will forevermore be the loser in the matter. Maybe even delinked!! So if the mediators have no teeth, they are a waste of your time and your reputation. You will be ruined before the SC, and the SC will continue on as usual...My thoughts are that the two involved should not be forced to "openly" go "toe to toe" in a confrontation with each other. The playing field is NOT equal. I think that the two should be allowed to complain privately to the mediators, who will interpret the complaint, and then respond to both parties. Then the two parties can again respond privately to the mediators--who again can interpret and ask further questions in this process, until they can reliably arrive at the Truth. But to have the two complainants, (CC against SC) go toe to toe in verbal accusations, is not going to lead to compromise. They will both be angry and unwilling to compromise. My suggestion is that the mediation process has to allow the parties to speak frankly and privately to the mediators." This is an interesting idea. The way the proposal is written now, it does not appear that same-level coordinators in disputes will have access to the mediation process. Thus, most disputes will involve an unequal balance of power, and in many cases one party will be in a position to cause direct harm to the other [by delinking, for instance]. Of course, in many disputes, keeping the identity of the filer confidential will not be possible, since they will involve specific actions taken against the filer [as in the case where a SC delinks a county and the CC files a request for mediation]. However, in more generic disputes [perhaps involving abuse of position or failure to observe the bylaws or election fraud for example] it would be possible to keep the filer anonymous. This may encourage more people to request mediation, since they will be less likely to face retaliation. On the other hand, keeping filers anonymous would go against the commonly held principle of having the right to face your accuser. Protecting the indentities of parties in disputes could also lead to abuse of the system, since it would be easier to hide conflicts of interest between the filer and the mediator if the accused does not know who the filer is. Tempest in a Teapot Corner: The State Coordinators have their knickers twisted up again over another site that links directly to USGenWeb material without giving sufficient credit. The site, Access Genealogy [http://www.accessgenealogy.com] has been around for a couple of years now and is managed by Dennis Partridge and Judy White. The grave sin they have committed relates to the fact that they link to most USGenWeb pages and many other USGenWeb resources but do not state they are off-site pages. They do not frame them. They have [or had] a disclaimer that they linked to USGW pages because they are the most comprehensive resources available. Their site, unlike FamilyDiscovery's, is entirely free and contains an onsite library. This has been called "thievery" by some of the more excitable SCs, although ironically enough had the folks at AccessGenealogy made a new county page for every US county they'd be accused of being copycats and needlessly duplicating our sterling efforts. After much dithering about how to circumvent "deep-linking" [which is OK when USGW does it; c.f., the GAGenWeb Talbot county website controversy] and having the National Commander write to them and tell them how we want their pages designed, one SC had this to say: "If you have links back to your main page on your site, like any good site should have, this is a non-issue and a waste of bandwidth, time and energy...Access Genealogy is an excellent resource for people who are actually doing research instead of hemming and hawing about who is linking to them. It has far more information available than most USGenWeb state pages, and if we actually start thinking about making life easier for the researchers we are here to serve, we will link back to them. If that is not our intention, we can always post a new disclaimer to each USGenWeb page: "Please do not link to my page. I only want people who know my URL to find my information. I do not want any visitors to any other internet sites to find any information on this site and possibly use it to find their ancestors. Please search engines, since you are for profit entities and are not Rootsweb/Ancestry, do not link to my pages for you are not worthy of our holiness. Please free sites, since you are not associated with the almighty USGenWeb... and even if your unpure members may be, do not link to us, for you are unworthy of our holiness. Please leave us alone because we don't need you, for you are unpure and not worthy of our information."" [Hear, hear. Is it any wonder that USGenWeb has the reputation of being absolutely the unfriendliest genealogy provider on the 'net?] === "Raw biscuits are rather tasty - they are different and not to be eaten in quantity but they do offer an alternative taste." ---Tim Stowell, USGENWEB-ALL, 2/9/01 This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.