From merope@Radix.Net Mon Feb 19 07:10:27 2001 Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 07:10:26 -0500 (EST) From: merope To: USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org, Daily Board Show Subject: Press Release of the USGenWeb Census Project (PR 2001-04) (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/ALTERNATIVE; BOUNDARY="part1_29.109c3728.27bf46cb_boundary" Content-ID: Status: O X-Status: --part1_29.109c3728.27bf46cb_boundary Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-ID: This is the full press release from the Census Project regarding their recent application for a service mark. -Teresa ______________________________________________________________________ The USGenWeb Census Project Press Release 2001-04 Subject: Application for Service Mark For Immediate Release, February 16, 2001 Approved for release by: The USGenWeb Census Project Board of Directors There is a new look to the logo posted on each page of The USGenWeb Census Project website which some of you may have noticed. After considerable discussion, a decision was made by the Board of Directors to apply for the registration of a service mark (SM) of THE USGENWEB CENSUS PROJECT with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The application was made in the name of the nonprofit organization that was established to ensure the perpetual continuance of the project as a volunteer-centered venture. A primary reason the Board of Directors chose to apply for service mark protection was the recent decision of the Archives Census Project (ACP) to drop "Archives" from that project's name. By applying for service mark protection, we hope that there will be less confusion among volunteers and genealogical researchers as to the identities of each respective census project. The USGenWeb Census Project has always been recognized as the standard-bearer in the transcription of historical census information. The service mark protection will ensure that the researcher and transcriber alike will now be able to easily identify those transcriptions produced by the volunteers of The USGenWeb Census Project. The continual pursuit of our mission at The USGenWeb Census Project remains the primary focus of our actions. We exist to provide genealogical and historical enumerations for public research needs freely available on the Internet. The efforts of every volunteer associated with this great project are the reasons we can continue to go forth with this activity. With the service mark protection, those efforts are protected. We welcome others to join us as we go forward in our efforts to transcribe the historical documents of the past into usable formats for use in the future. --part1_29.109c3728.27bf46cb_boundary-- From merope@Radix.Net Mon Feb 19 11:58:50 2001 Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 11:58:49 -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: Surely you jest...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Monday 19 February 2001: Tim Stowell informs us that "The qualifications for the Board Secretary position will be determined by the Advisory Board," and once they Board figures it out, "requests for applications will be posted to the various lists." Pam Reid posts a request from researcher for a Reader's Digest book to used some screenshot from "usgenweb" for a book she is writing. === Further Info Corner: Some folks over at the USGenWeb Census Project have given us more inof on their recent service mark application. The tell us "When we filed the application we included the following disclaimer: "No claim is made to the exclusive right to use "THE" OR "USGENWEB" OR "CENSUS" OR "PROJECT" apart from the mark as shown."...It was assigned serial number '78/047841'." Good Press Corner: A reader writes to let us know that the Atlanta-Fulton Public Library genealogy page has a very nice blurb about USGenWeb and GAGenWeb. http://www.af.public.lib.ga.us/internet_links/genealogy.html === "To hold a pen is to be at war." ---Voltaire 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 20 11:59:51 2001 Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:59:51 -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: Torn from tomorrow's headlines...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Monday 19 February 2001: Joy Fisher and Teri Pettit discuss the proposed USGenWeb screenshots an author has requested permission to use. Joy has no problem with nationalpage screenshots beign used but notes "Since all of the state and county sites are independently owned and operated, they should be made aware they need to get the permission of the owners if they plan to grab any deeper into our project." Teri suggests "that instead of (or in addition to) a national page, she pick a well-done county page or two and contact their county coordinators and/or their archives file managers." Joy concurs and notes that the home page is little more than a gateway page and she assumed that the author meant the state and local pages when she made her request. === Behind the Scenes Corner: An interesting conversation has ensued between outgoing Board Secretary Esse Frye and National Commander Tim Stowell. It began when Esse offered to post to the various lists the requirements for the Board Secretary position and requested them from Tim. Tim's response was pretty much the blow-off he posted to the Board list a couple of days ago. Esse responded to Tim by reminding him that he apparently never bothered to share with the entire Board what her qualifications were, even though he said he would and at least one Board member asked. His response was "I let the Board know your qualifications. That it was not done in a public forum is neither here no there..." He also informed her that her qualifications were forwarded to the Board with those of other candidates, which is interesting because I have been told by more than one Board member that they didn't even know there were other candidates. Esse also shared her perspective on being the Board Secretary, which any of you considering the position may want to read carefully: "Be aware also, even though as a secretary you have priviledge to all that is discussed and is regarded as a member, you are not to enter the conversation unless invited to do so. This means also, if you are personally attacked, you will not have the right to defend yourself. And don't count on the RRO, as it isn't recognized unless it is to the board's advantage." She also has this to say about the Board's secretive operations in general: "...the group as a whole is entitled to know what the Board has been discussing. To put fragments of what has been discussed on the Board list leads one to believe that there is a conspiracy going on. To discuss subjects privately, alienates all. The project members selected the board and yourself as leaders. If there are discussions going on concerning the project as a whole, then it should be done on the Board list and not somewhere else. What is the Board afraid of? To let the public know exactly where they stand on subjects vital to running this project? I am quite sure if the public knew where some of the board members stood, it would be quite a surprise...If the Board members cannot take the heat or stand up to their responsibilities, then maybe they had better resign and let someone else do the job they were supposed to do in the first place...I guess it comes down to being afraid to stand up for what you believe in, or stand down and go along with the flow." Esse has noted that as she is no longer a "Board member" she is available to answer any and all questions about her tenure as Board Secretary. Contact her privately if interested. Same Old, Same Old Corner: We are saddened to learn of the resignation of one of the newly chosen Election Committee members, apparently over the imposition of a gag rule on the committee members. Enforced silence must be powerful aphrodisiac for some people in this project, powerful enough to make the loss of valuable people something they can just shrug off. === "The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." ---George Orwell, 1984 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 21 13:10:36 2001 Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:10:35 -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: Spitting into the wind...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Tuesday 20 February 2001: Richard Howland moves "that the USGenWeb Advisory Board adopt and implement the Mediation Proposal http//www.rootsweb.com/~ilgenweb/abm.htm last revised February 20, 2001. Nominations for Board Mediators will take place the week following passage of this motion. In the absence of a Board Secretary, tabulation of nominations, and randomized order of assignment, will be accomplished by the National Coordinator." [Note that the URL is wrong. The correct URL is http://www.roostweb.com/~ilgenweb/abm.htm.] Ginger Hayes seconds the motion. Tim Stowell give it number 01-04 and opens the floor for discussion. Maggie Stewart thanks Richard and Ellen for their efforts, noting "A giant step forward has been achieved." [For the Board maybe, but not for anyone else.] === Rampant Cynicism Corner: Despite the disastrous failure of the test run of the mediation process recently undertaken by Ellen Pack and the apparent decision by Richard and Ellen not to bother correcting some of the more egregious flaws of the proposal, they've decided to go forward with it anyways. They already know it won't work an, they know why it won't work and they've _seen_ it not work and yet they are going to pass it anyways. No big surprise there, and I'm sure no big surprise either when the thing passes and we are all told to funnel our grievances through a flawed and biased process that was conceived, written, amended, and discussed in secret by our so-called representatives. It suits their needs and that's all that matters. I'd tell y'all to contact your reps about this, but it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. Foregone Conclusion. We are please to report that Board member Richard Howland has filed a formal grievance against the author of the DBS [me] for posting information on the recently concluded "mediation" using the system that he and Ellen have proposed and which the Board is currently discussing. He has accused me of making statements that are both "outright lies" and "libelous" and is requesting that I be found not a member in good standing. The outcome of this one is a given, but how much do you want to bet that they handle it in record time [and most assuredly before the next election]? === "The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote." ---"Kosh" 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 Thu Feb 22 14:40:42 2001 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:40:41 -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: Of the people, by the people, for the people...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Wednesday 21 February 2001: Teri Pettit reminds the group of her suggestion that they "ask the Board secretary to list all unclosed (including tabled) motions and their current status each day." She asks if they would like the BS to do this. Joe Zsedeny notes that it would help him if the proposed Board Secretary duties included listing all unclosed motions and their status each day. Tim Stowell suggests putting the current status on a web site so that anyone can check it [which will conveniently put it out of the Board's daily view]. Teri Pettit has this to say about the mediation proposal [Motion 01-04] currently under discussion: "I think that while Ellen and Richard's proposal has a lot of merit, and certainly shows a lot of work put into it, that rather than putting it out as a motion, we should form a Dispute Resolution Process Study Committee with broad project representation...and let the proposal be one of the options to be considered by that committee...The trouble with the Board voting on the proposal is that the project membership, and least those members most likely to be involved in matters requiring negotiation, is not likely to trust ANY process that is designed and chosen only by the Advisory Board I know there was input requested on the discussion lists, and many of the suggestions for improvements made on those lists were incorporated into the current draft, but still, two Board members were the final arbitors of which suggestions they would adopt. The membership is much more likely to feel that the process is "theirs" if the final decisions are instead made by a group in which the Board representation is a distinct minority. If the people utilizing the process resent how it came to be adopted, they are not going to participate whole-heartedly. They will be halfway hoping that it fails, to prove that the Board was wrong to push a Board-designed process on them. Since this mediation process depends on the commitment of the participants to making it work, it is, even more than most proposals, very important to get widespread buy-in...The Election Study Committee worked so well largely because the Board representation was a minority, and the Committee was not overly constrained. Let's not be afraid to repeat that success." Pam Reid says she'd like the Board Secretary to post motions and votes to the USGW home page. Thursday 22 February 2001: Teri asks if this would require giving the Board Secretary the password to the webpage or just having them edit html and send them to Pam for uploading. Pam says she doesn't mind if the Board Secretary has the password to the national website. === Grievous Harm Corner: Although he has repeatedly and publicly been asked for permission to post his grievance in full, Richard Howland has thus far refused to to grant permission. This is not wholly unexpected, given that most of the emails he uses to support his claim were private exchanges between us that are of the same caliber as his recent public posts on the topic. The basic substance of his grievance is that I have published "outright lies" and "libelous statements." Have I done so? Lets see... Lies: The information on the recent mediation proposal "test-drive" came from more than one independent source and the details cross-check between sources. "Test-drive" is a term I applied to the process, and it may not be the best term possible, but apparently, according to one source, had the recent dispute been mediated satisfactorily to the parties, it would have been used in support of the mediation proposal. Since it was not resolved satisfactorialy, it is now apparently being re-defined as something other than a "mediation". I've also been informed that as soon as I began writing about the mediation, the mediator began to specifically state that the process was not a "mediation". Of course, by then it was already failing. I have not lied about any information that I have received and I have absolutely no reason not to trust the sources in this situation. Should my sources prove inaccurate, I will of course publish a retraction and an apology. Unfortunately, Rich's insistence that it is a "lie" does not make it so. Libels: According to my legal dictionary, libel is a "published statement widely understood to be harmful to a person's reputation." Were this going to court, Rich would not only have to prove the statements I have made were false, but that I knew they were false when I published them. Since he is a public figure in USGW, he would also have to prove that I published them maliciously in order to harm his reputation. [Keep in mind, IANAL.] First off, I do not recall that I have said anything against Rich himself. I have not, for instance, called him a liar. We have a difference of opinion on this matter and I simply believe my sources more than I believe him. I believed when I published and still believe that the version that appeared in this newsletter is accurate. I believe his and Ellen's mediation proposal is deeply flawed and have pointed out why; this does not constitute a libelous attack on Rich personally. If that were the case, none of us could _ever_ publicly criticize anything the Board [or anyone else] does. As for malice, I hold no ill will toward Rich; I was sorry to hear that he resigned and said so. I don't like his proposal and I've been upfront about that, but my criticisms of it were not intended to be extended to its authors. So, lies and/or libel? I think not. What essentially happened here is that I published something I believe with reason to be true. Rich believes it is not true and also apparently believes that I know it is not true. He demanded a retraction. I refused to publish a retraction because I believe none is warranted. After some private exchange of emails between us in which I am accused of lying, making up stories, "spouting half fact and falsehoods," and sticking my nose where it doesn't belong, Rich apparently decided to file a grievance with the National Commander. This is nothing less than a Board member using their political power and affiliation to attack a lower ranked project member whom they have been unable to silence on their own. And again we have a situation wherein the Board will be asked to judge the merits of a grievance that involves one of its own members. [I am not unaware of the fact that the likely resolution in Rich's favor will have the beneficial side-effect of making me ineligible to run for office. This will relieve many on the Board of the worry that I may actually win and they'd have to recognize me as a peer and a colleague. For that reason alone, I expect this grievance to be decided in Rich's favor rather than on any merits it may have.] On a final note: Everything in the DBS is editorialized. There is a disclaimer at the top of each issue stating that. It is there for a reason. Those who cannot tolerate the sharp edge of that sword should not be reading this. === "Whoever fears to submit any question to the test of free discussion, loves his own opinion more than the truth." ---Unattributed 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 23 13:51:29 2001 Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:51:29 -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: RO X-Status: Sharks patrol these waters...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Thursday 22 February 2001: Teri Pettit explains why just posting the motion status to the webpage is less effective than a daily email reminder: "...first and foremost, visiting a web page takes initiative on the part of the Board member...Votes have been overlooked and failed for lack of a forum, and seconded motions have waited several days before being numbered and called open for discussion, usually because the Board lists have become heavy...If dealing with this traffic is enough to make some of us overlook ongoing votes, or for you to not notice that a seconded motion is awaiting a number, it is also going to be enough to make many of us neglect taking the time to go look at a status web page....second, sending a short simple email each day is easier for the Secretary than modifying an html page and uploading it. So it is likely to be more up-to-date...It would be helpful to have a reminder that was "in your face", and very simple for the Secretary to send each day." Tim Stowell reposts a notice from this week's Root$web Review noting that RW will be down Friday Feb 23 starting at 8 am PST for planned server maintenance. [We've heard from other sources that they will be down for at least 24 hours.] === Correction Corner: A reader has sent in a corrected version of yesterday's quote along with its attribution. The quotation is by Thomas Watson and should have read: "Whoever is afraid of submitting a question to the test of free discussion is more in love with his own opinion than with truth." Thanks! === "It is inaccurate to say I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for any public office." ---H. L. Mencken This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Sun Feb 25 08:38:12 2001 Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 08:38:11 -0500 (EST) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Take a walk on the wild side...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Sunday 25 February 2001: Due to the ongoing Root$web downtime, there has been no Board-L traffic since 23 February. === Told Ya So Corner: Richard Howland has informed the CC-L list that he cannot allow me to publish his grievance there because "if I give [Teresa] permission to post it, it would become invalid." We thank Dr. Howland for verifying what many of us have suspected to be true: that merely publicizing a grievance is enough to invalidate it. In The Dark Corner: Root$web's scheduled downtime, which has now gone well over 48 hours and is [according to sources] expected to last until at least 10pm tonight, has prompted some observations and comments. One reader writes to say "As Rootsweb's outage continues, now hours beyond the scheduled time, even the parts of the USGenWeb project that are up remain virtually inaccessible because the USGenWeb main pages redirect to an Ancestry announcement...That makes me wonder about two things: 1. Why is there no backup or mirror site for the USGenWeb main pages that could handle traffic to the parts of the network that are not dependent on Rootsweb? 2. What happens to the project if MyFamily/Ancestry should just shut down with no or a few days notice, as several parts of the CMGI family have recently?" Another reader noted that they specifically asked RW via a couple of forums how long the expected downtime would be and was utterly stonewalled. The "we'll be down about 24 hours" notice was apparently only released after numerous people asked how long the downtime was scheduled to last. RW has now been down twice that long without another word from them. Its unusual for servers to shut down in "prime time" and for such a long time without some major reason [such as moving the servers to Utah for example]; in RW's case, not only its own content is affected, but that of some of the major free genealogy projects is unavailable as well. Projects more or less crippled by this action include USGenWeb [including the Archives and Tombstone project, but not the Census Project], WorldGenWeb, CyndisList, the Immigrant Ships Transcriber's Guild, and Genealogy.org. Nearly all the moderated newsgroups are routed through RW's moderators, and thousands of genealogical mailing lists are silent. As near as we can tell, none of the heads of these projects were given any more warning than the generic blurb now posted to any page hosted on RW, nor were they informed that their visitors would be redirected to Ancestry.com while RW was unavailable. Pulling The Plug Corner: We've heard through the grapevine of a major shake-up at Sierra. Apparently, effective March 2, Sierra will be closing down GenealogyBulletin.com and ending its sponsorship of CyndisList.com Things are getting scary out there. === "I believe there is yet a spirit of resistance in this country, which will not submit to be oppressed; but I am sure there is a fund of good sense in this country, which cannot be deceived." ---The Letters of Junius 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 26 13:56:09 2001 Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:56:08 -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: Just another word for nothing left to lose..its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Sunday 25 February 2001: Joe Zsedeny updates the group on the status of the trademark application. The attorney has reviewed the applications [posted at http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/tm/] and recommends that USGW file for two marks: "USGenWeb" and "The USGenWeb Project". The latter mark is expected to have a greater chance of success, "because of previous filings from within the organization and the fact that a computer technology information firm has nailed down GenWeb as their mark." Joe and John Schunk have prepared the applications "on the assumption that the Board will pass an amended motion to include the filing for The USGenWeb Project mark." Joe requests that the Board vote quickly to approve an amended motion, so they may forward them to Holly and Tim for signatures. Teri Pettit will be managing the funds for fee payment. [According to Joe's message, a motion to amend the original motion would be immediately following, but that has not come through on the list as of this writing.] Monday 26 February 2001: Richard Howland says that the choice of the EC to replace its recently resigned member meets his approval. Attached to his message is a letter to Tim Stowell and Holly Timm from Linda Haas Davenport, the Chair of the EC. Linda informs them that Carol Carwile-Head has resigned and the committee has chosen Keith Gideon [recently embroiled in the controversy over "appropriated" Talbot county archives files] as her replacement. Linda requests that the Board confirm Keith as soon as possible. [We have heard via indirect means that there are still problems at RW; it is possible that more mail will come through sporadically as they fix the remaining problems.] === Still Waiting Corner: At this writing, nearly 80 hours into a planned 24-hour downtime at Root$web, the USGenWeb home page is still not available. Our URL still sports a suggestion that our visitors go to Ancestry.com instead. [The WorldGenWeb, ISTG, FreeBMD, and RAOK projects are also still down; interestingly enough, however, the Archives and all its subsidiary projects are up and working just fine.] Under a Rock Corner: FamilyDiscover.com is back with another "special" offer for "selected genealogists". According to their latest, you can now pay them a low price of only $43.00 for what you can get for free elsewhere by filling out the survey located at: http://www.familydiscovery.com/special.htm They've even established a Paypal account to make it easier for folks to send them money. === "Things fall apart; the center cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity." ---W. B. Yeats 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 27 15:55:12 2001 Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:55:11 -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: Piling on...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Tuesday 27 February 2001: Teri Pettit notes that she's seen very little discussion of Motion 01-04 [mediation proposal] and asks if anyone wishes to discuss it further. If they do not, she proposes taht the Board vote on it after the motion to amend Motion 00-39 [service mark] has been voted on. She says she will vote yes on Motion 01-04 "...because adopting it as written does not preclude subsequent changes, and it does present a process that looks like it could be helpful in some situations. The biggest advantage it has over the current state of affairs is that both parties to the conflict are subscribed to the entire negotiation...The biggest problem it has is that it is likely that in many conflicts, perhaps even a majority of them, at least one of the parties involved will not want to pursue mediation. That, however, is not a mark against the process itself, it is only an indication that it should be one of an array of multiple processes..." Tim Stowell asks that someone make a motion regarding replacing the recently resigned Election Committee member with Keith Giddeon so they can vote on it. Joy Fisher seconds a motion made on Feb. 25 by Joe Zsedeny to amend Motion 00-39 to read "I move that the Service Marks "USGenWeb" and "The USGenWeb Project" be applied for." Joy Fisher moves to accept the Election Committee's choice of a successor [Keith Giddeon] for a recently resigned committee member. === By Any Means Necessary Corner: The big news today is that Board member Ellen Pack has filed a formal grievance with National Commander Tim Stowell and Representative At-Large Holly Timm against this author and another project member. Ellen's grievance does not differ radically from Rich Howland's, except that it uses stiffer language and includes a threat to escalate the grievance from just finding me "not in good standing" to requesting that I "be completely and immediately delinked and removed from the USGenWeb Project" should I reveal anything about the grievance. Shortly after I posted a brief notice about the grievance to the CC-L list, she made good on her threat. In the grievance, Ellen claims that statements published in the DBS were "false, misleading, and without merit" and "amount to nothing short of injurious and malicious rumors and gross mis-characterizations deliberately and irresponsibly published as statements of fact, on a public forum." She also suggests that she believes that this incident may have been "a setup in order to defeat the current motion before the Board, a proposal/motion which Teresa has publicly denounced, and which [name deleted] denounced to me personally." She notes finally that "The result of the deliberate and irresponsible actions of both Teresa and [name deleted] have resulted in an undermining of my personal credibility and reputation, the personal credibility and reputation of fellow USGenWeb member Richard Howland, the eventual success of Motion 01-04 should it become USGenWeb policy, interference with Advisory Board Business through the publication of untruthful statements and mis-characterizations regarding a proposal/motion before it, and the demeaning of two elected representatives, potentially reducing their effectiveness as elected representatives of major portions of the membership, thereby causing harm to the USGenWeb Project, and to it's members." [You can tell she worked on this a long time. She probably feels good getting it off her chest.] She is requesting a complete retraction and apology from me and permission to forward both wherever she thinks appropriate. From the other poor CC she dragged into this, she is demanding a full admission of involvement. Upon receiving her grievance and the subsequent modification amending it to have me thrown out of USGW, I formally requested that both her grievance and Rich's be handled through the mediation process they are so hastily foisting on the project, should the Board pass Motion 01-4. Although she is an author of the proposal and presumably agrees with the idea that mediation is better than antagonism, she rejected the request out of hand. It is to be hoped that the Board members who will shortly be voting to accept this proposal note how little faith one of its own authors has in it. === "...members should be aware of the limited authority of the Advisory Board. Mediation offers the best opportunity at resolving a conflict in a manner acceptable to all parties." ---Ellen Pack & Rich Howland, "Mediation Process Information and Procedure" 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 28 13:19:57 2001 Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:19:56 -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: Poetry in motion...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Tuesday 27 February 2001: [Bear with this, some of these emails appear to be duplicates] Tim Stowell asks someone to make a motion regarding replacing the resigned EC member. Joy Fisher moves to accept the EC's choice of replacement member [Keith Giddeon]. Richard Harrison seconds it. Maggie Stewart calls the motion for an immediate vote. Tim Stowell gives the motion number 01-05 and opens the floor for discussion. Joe Zsedeny moves that Motion 00-39 be amended to read "I move that the Service Marks "USGenWeb" and "The USGenWeb Project" be applied for." [message originally sent 25 Feb when Root$web was still offline] Tim Stowell calls a vote on Motion 01-04 [to adopt and implement the mediation proposal written by Richard Howland and Ellen Pack]. Tim gives the motion to amend Motion 00-39 number 01-06 and opens the floor for discussion. Joy asks if she can amend Motion 01-05 to give the EC "complete autonomy over their membership as long as they adhere to the guidelines for the composition of the EC." She thinks the Board should take a "hands off" approach to the EC and not require it to seek Board approval each time it needs to replace a member. Tim has no objection to the amendment, so long as Richard Harrison agrees. Richard does not agree to the amendment, noting "Even though the work has been assigned to the EC, seeing that it is completed properly is still a Board responsibility. I think we need to keep an eye on who gets appointed to the committee." He does think the Board should move quickly on approving replacements. Richard Harrison agrees that an immediate vote should occur on Motion 01-05. He suggests that Joy introduce a separate motion that will address changing the procedures for approving replacements, so they can proceed with the vote. Joy says she will not amend the motion, noting that they need to approve the replacement so the EC can get on with its work. Richard Howland says he has no problem with the replacement, but notes "our bylaws feel that we have to have a hand in this." Maggie Stewart agrees with Joy and notes "The EC should be autonomous. Excellent, responsible people have been chosen to run the EC and we need to let them do their assigned duties without interference." She says will second a motion Joy makes to that effect. Ken Short moves that "Motion 00-39 be amended to read: I move that the Service Marks "USGenWeb" and "The USGenWeb Project" be applied for." Tim Stowell calls for a vote on Motion 01-05. Wednesday 28 February 2001: Tim updates the Board on the progress on motion: voting proceeds on motion 01-04 with 5 yes votes thus far; motion 01-05 is up for a vote [he shows no votes on it, but there is one]; Motion 01-06 is under discussion. After his message there are four more yes votes on Motion 01-04 [for a total of 9] and eight more yes votes on Motion 01-05 [for a total of 9] [It looks like we will very shortly have a mediation process in place; pity that its own authors --or at least one of them-- won't use it.] === Calm Before the Storm Corner: The other project member mentioned in Ellen Pack's grievance has in turn filed a grievance against Ellen for falsely accusing them of leaking information to me. The members seeks an apology from Ellen for wrongly accusing them and notes "It is a sad day when a cc can seek help from [their] representative and then all of a sudden have her turn on [them] and file a grievance against [them]." We are given to understand that this new grievance, unlike the ones before it, was forwarded on to the full Board. Gone Fishing Corner: Corky Knebel, longtime SC for the MTGenWeb, has resigned from the position to spend more time on her own genealogy, among other things. The new MTGenWeb SC will be Vicki Lindsay Thauvin, who has been the ASC there for awhile. Congrats to both! === "The first rule is to keep an untroubled spirit. The second is to look things in the face and know them for what they are." ---Marcus Aurelius This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.