Sunday, January 29, 2006
Tangled Up In Blue
Powered by Krispy Kremes and caffeine...its Your Daily Board Show!

THE GIANT PINK SNAIL: The Board hummed along yesterday, suddenly all-fired up to
discuss the proposed Bylaws Committee. Sadly other than NC Linda's game attempt to spur
discussion by posting a misreading of the motion and Jeff's long-winded explanation of what
such a committee would do, most of the discussion was people wondering why we would need
such a committee, discussing the fate of the last bylaws committee, and noting that the Board
cannot amend the bylaws as Jeff proposes to do. [It would be nice if someone who is so all fired
up to change the bylaws actually read them first.] Only one member, George Waller, has
expressed support for the proposed committee, but interestingly enoug, couple of Board members
have begun to push for updating the proposals made by the last committee and putting those
before the membership for a vote.

ACCOUNTING CRISIS: Coincidentally, shortly after publication yesterday, NC Linda finally
got around to answering Bettie's several questions about her votes. After a bit of back and forth,
Linda told her that her vote on the GPC extension would be counted as a late vote, and Bettie told
her "I am now hanging on to my votes until you announce the vote. What I need for you to do is
say who all has voted so I can then clean out my sent box. You have not done that the last 2
times."

CIRCULAR LOGIC: So, let's look at the suddenly urgent need for a standing Bylaws committee.
In the eight years since the current bylaws were adopted, people have indeed complained a lot
about them. They are indeed poorly constructed, lacking detail where crucially needed and
larding it up where it is not. They are for the most part open to multiple interpretations, and
redefining the bylaws has become a parlor sport among the idle classes and a blood sport when
necessary to get rid of an inconvenient member [as in GAGenWeb]. But in all that time we've
had only a very few actual attempts to amend them. The one official attempt via a committee
charged with revising the bylaws was a rank failure and one independent attempt was successful.
The other couple of tries have died on the vine for a lack of interest at various points in the
process. Thus, all the "coordination activities" that Jeff proposed are almost entirely unnecessary.
At best, they would be needed once a year, if even that.

Jeff, of course, intends for his committee to actually propose amendments itself, which may be
one of the more important thrusts of his proposed new bureacracy. He has wanted to revise the
bylaws for years now and has been rebuffed at every level, mostly because his proposals so
radically altered the basic structure and nature of USGenWeb that they were unpalatable. In some
cases they scared people because, IWRC, they transferred a great deal of power to the Board.
Jeff, however, has never given up on his dream, so it actually might be the case that the proposed
Bylaws Committee will exist solely to generate work for itself.

But, you say, what about all those differing interpretations of the bylaws? Wouldn't such a
committee help with that? Maybe, maybe not. For one thing, we have had Parliamentarians for
years to assist the Board in interpreting the bylaws, and by and large they have done a decent job.
For another, when the Board's handpicked minions rule that whatever the Board wants to do is
bylaws-approved, do you believe that anyone else will buy it, especially when they deny the
obvious wording of the bylaws to do so? And really, why should interpretation of the bylaws rest
on a majority of what a committee thinks? Other than the Parliamentarian, who presumably has
his/her office by virtue of actual qualifications and not nepotism, no other proposed committee
members are guaranteed to have any better understanding of the bylaws than the average Jill on
the street. In fact, given the weirdness we've seen come out of the Board over the years, they
might actually make the situation worse by overriding the Parliamentarian's learned counsel.

In any case, establishing a committee has never before required amending the bylaws, and it
doesn't require amending the bylaws now. We suppose that the Board, if it wanted such a
committee but was uncomfortable with violating the bylaws to get one, could split the motion
into two parts or amend it by substition to whack out the bylaws amendments part. But again, we
just aren't seeing much interest in any of this, so perhaps it will just wither away.

It does strike us as odd that Jeff, who has always wanted to pull all the procedural minutiae out of
the bylaws into easily changeable "subdocuments", now wants to lard up the bylaws with very,
very detailed instructions for his pet committee. Hmmm.

VOICE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS: Apparently, as several readers have informed us,
AOL has yet to re-whitelist Root$web and so AOL members are not receiving mail from
Root$web's mailing lists. We would cry, but our tiny violin is in the shop.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Changing with the times since 1998

posted by merope at 8:10 AM 1 comments   
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Bull In A China Shop
Abusing the privilege...its Your Daily Board Show!

SINKING SHIP: In the face of overwhelming apathy about his proposed standing Bylaws
Committee Jeff Scism proposed the following motion:

"I move that the Advisory board authorize and form a Standing Bylaws Committee under the
parameters as specified in "The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure" 4th edition, by Alice
Sturgis: which states on page 193 the following under the heading "Bylaws Committee". I further
move that The USGenWeb Project Bylaws be amended to reflect these changes; and that the
issue be referred to the membership for ratification (Referendum)."

The motion includes suggested amendments to the bylaws which are basically the points from his
original message enumerated with some managerial direction tossed in.

The only comment thus far came from David, who pointed out that they can't amend the bylaws
this way. Jeff countered with a two-year old motion from Dick Harrison's reign in which the
Board voted to put the old Bylaws Revision Committee's proposals up to the membership in a
special referendum. At press time, no one else has commented, and as we all know, silence
speaks volumes.

We might point out that just because a bunch of maroons passed a motion to put bylaws revisions
before the membership for a special referendum, [which, based on a careful parsing of its
convoluted and unintelligible wording, Motion 04-13C didn't actually do], that doesn't make it
legal. After all, having bylaws would be pretty pointless if you could just vote around them
whenever it suited you. Anyways, as numerous people have pointed out before, the bylaws are
pretty clear on how they may be amended and the only process for bypassing the sponsorship and
publication requirements and having a "special referendum" is to declare the amendments an
"urgent" matter. Oddly enough, we don't exactly sense any urgency on this matter by anyone
other than Jeff.

IS THIS THING ON?: And on the formal list, Bettie Wood asked for the third time for a list of
the members that indicated "no objection" to the recent actions to appoint Mike Jarvis as
Assistant Webmaster and to grant a 60-day extension to the Grievance Procedures Committee.
Her request has thus far been ignored.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Talking head since 1998

posted by merope at 6:50 AM 2 comments   
Friday, January 27, 2006
A Day Without Sunshine
Running into the wind...its Your Daily Board Show!

PSA: Before we jump into the fray this morning, we will take a moment to apologize for not
getting an issue out yesterday. Its not that things haven't been cooking, but blogspot was offline
yesterday morning and due to our rich and varied social life we didn't get a chance to get back in
the newsroom until just right now. Thanks to the several of you that wrote us about the outage.

NOW BACK TO THE SHOW: The Board has a bit subdued the last few days. NC Linda
formally appointed Mike Jarvis to the position of Assistant Webmaster. Bettie Wood asked [for
the second time, we believe] for a list of those who "voted" in favor both of the GPC's time
extension and Mike's appointment. There's been no response on that so far.

NC Linda then opened discussion of Jeff's proposed standing Bylaws Committee on the informal
list by asking Jeff to share with the group just why he thinks USGenWeb needs more entrenched
bureaucracy. Here's what our boy came up with:

"...a 'standing' Bylaws Committee should be in place to manage our amendment process, and
coordinate the required adjustments, in advance of our membership voting process. Such a
committee would...fine tune proposed amendments, investigate areas affected by the passage of
the amendment, and recommend the best way to implement the amendent...The Committee
would...coordinate and adjust proposals, with the proposer's permission, to enable a smooth
implementation upon passage, and have the ability to combine or adjust the proposal to be
presented for a vote. The committee should...be empowered to suggest Amendments on its own,
and recommend that such be placed up for a membership vote...The Bylaws Committee should be
empowered to "clarify" bylaws issues...and report such results to the Advisory Board for their
action, and possible member approval...The Bylaws Committee should also be the point of
contact, and verifying entity, for submitters and co-sponsorship. The Committee should be
empowered to make the decision of whether a amendment or revision of the whole is required,
and recommend such to the Board."

Jeff suggested that the committee consist of the following members: the Representative at Large,
the Parliamentarian, the National Coordinator, a Special Projects representative, and one
Representative from each voting region. [Its not clear if he meant for the latter five members to
be from the Board or from the general volunteer population.] He also suggested that non-Project
members could be on the committee to serve as consultants. This was the only part of his
recommendation that warranted a comment from any Board member, so we are not sensing much
enthusiasm for this proposal.

The biggie in Jeff's proposal is tucked away behind all the blather about "coordinating and
adjusting" proposed bylaws revisions. It's that little throw away statement about "empowering"
the BC to "clarify" "bylaws issues." After all, we don't really do bylaws revisions all that often,
certainly not enough to establish a standing committee to centralize the process or manage the
tiny little bit of work they cause. And Jeff does not seem to be proposing that this committee
itself undertake to revise or amend the bylaws. [Been there, done that.] But wouldn't it be mighty
nice if the Board had a spiff committee, made up of itself, to rubberstamp any questionable
assaults on the memberships' rights under the bylaws?

ONE WOMAN CRUSADE: Meanwhile over on the State Coordinators' list, NC Linda continues
her mission of single-handedly rewriting the Project's rules. Yesterday, she notified the SCs that
it's time to update the SC guidelines and asked them for their comments and suggestions. Some
of the things our masters have suggested for us so far include:

-Requiring the states to post public and current lists of CC names and email addresses (many SCs
left off doing this once it became obvious that spammers were harvesting the email addresses)

-Requiring regular policing of county websites with stiffer penalties for counties that don't pass
whatever muster deemed appropriate

-Removal of the link to the WorldGenWeb

Here in the newsroom we are not at all surprised that no similar request for comments has gone
out to the CCs. We imagine when they figure out what hoops they want us to jump through,
they'll tell us.

THE PETER PRINCIPLE: NJGenWeb progresses on its path to a new State Coordinator. Board
reps Linda Barton and Suzanne Shepard opened the call for nominations and will be accepting
candidates' names until February 1. The EC is not running this one; instead dashing
man-about-town Scott Burrow will be firing up his very popular voting software to manage the
votes and a couple of independent vote-counters from outside the state will verify the results.

A MARRIAGE MADE IN HEAVEN: Several readers, some quite distraught, have written to us
about a proposed merger between the American Local History Network and the American
History and Genealogy Project. The DBS investigative team has spoken with principals in both
groups and all say that no merger is planned and there have been no formal talks between the two
groups. Apparently, ALHN recently elected a new set of directors and the idea of possibly
merging the two projects was floated on one of their project lists for a brief time. The idea gained
no traction and was shortly dropped, but not apparently before a few tempers flared and some
threats of mailing list moderation went out.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Partying it up since 1998

posted by merope at 6:45 AM 0 comments   
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Through Being Cool
Get it while its hot...its Your Daily Board Show!

GET TO WORK: NC Linda posted the results of the latest vote on the GPC's requested
extension. It passed with 10 members indicating they have no objections to the extension and the
GPC now has a new deadline of March 24, 2006. A few more votes came in after the results were
announced, bringing the total up to 13 members in agreement about the extension.

A few more members also indicated they have no objection to Mike Jarvis rejoining the web
team as Assistant Webmaster. The tally thus far on that is 11 members in agreement; we expect
Mike will be welcomed back with open arms in short order.

LIKE PULLING TEETH: NC Linda also finally deigned to answer the question of why the
Voter Fraud Committee warrants its own sekrit sandbox, and the answer basically sums up to
"because that's how I want it." [See below.] This caused Jan and David to publicly remark on the
values of openness and how times have changed, and Jeff to apparently go off the reservation.
Jeff, who from all appearances has no trouble just making stuff up and talking about it in public
places, told the alternate CC list that the committee was working under deep cover because of
privacy issues. He noted, "...privacy is the reason for having closed discussions, not the privacy
of the members of the committee, but the potential privacy issues of those whose alleged actions
of the past may come up in the discussion of developing processes and preventive actions."
Apparently he didn't get the memo.

BONUS QUOTE: "I'm not a fan of open lists for committees. I believe the work of a committee
will go quicker and better if every word is not open to public scrutiny. When the committee
presents its recommendations the discussion by the AB will take place in public." --Linda Haas
Davenport, finally answering a simple question

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Cyber-bullying since 1998

posted by merope at 5:50 AM 0 comments   
Monday, January 23, 2006
Here We Go Again
Twice as good the second time around...its your Daily Board Show!

OVER AND OVER: Although NC Linda granted the Grievance Procedures Committee its 60
day extension [sort of], those of you read the Board list directly know that the Board is now
reconducting the vote. This time, however, they are doing it on the official Board list. Although
NC Linda noted that "This is a simple request and I really don't see any reason to tie the board up
in another motion," Angie pointed out that "ABCHAT is *not* the formal business list...it's for
informal discussion, and that all "business" will take place on the BOARD list. This could be
decided by concensus, but not based on ABCHAT discussion." [We guess one of the
disadvantages of having both a formal and an informal list is that once you get consensus on the
informal list you then have to redo it on the formal list for it to be official.]

Thus, the Board is now formally voting on the extension of time as a procedural matter. Although
Linda framed it as being necessary due to "objections" being filed, she failed to note that the
objections were not to the extension, but to her attempt to bypass the formal list to conduct
official business.] Jan also got Linda to concede that the 60 day extension will begin the day the
final consensus vote is reached. At press time, 10 Board members had indicated no objection to
the extension and none had registered any concerns about it. [If even one members objects, then
the matter has to go to a motion and a formal vote.]

SIDE BY SIDE: NC Linda also called for general consensus on the appointment of former
webmaster Mike Jarvis to the vacant Assistant Webmaster position [this time on the official
Board list]. Seven Board members indicated no objection, but the consensusing was derailed
when a couple of Board members indicated they wanted to give due consideration to the other
candidates. Those candidates turned out to be Janice Brown, Charlie Hartley, and someone who
wanted the job only it came with a salary. Linda didn't provide the qualifications of either of the
two volunteer candidates.

REWRITING HISTORY: NC Linda announced that she had incorrectly counted Bettie Woods'
vote on Motion 06-01b as a NO vote when it should have been counted as a YES vote. Bettie had
actually voted "YES" on the amendment [which had already been passed], but "NO" on the
committee [which Motion 06-01b formally and finally established]. We understand the
confusion, but Bettie wasn't voting YES to establish the committee, so perhaps a correction of the
correction will be forthcoming.

This reminds us that it has now been six days since NC Linda commenced to ignoring our public
inquiries as to why the sooper sekrit Voter Fraud Committee is meeting on a secret, unarchived
list to do the same business that she was willing to have the Board do in public. Since Linda
won't answer, maybe someone else out there who is privy to the Sekrit workings of our elected
representatives could clue the rest of us poor saps in.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Fighting off Monday since 1998

posted by merope at 6:10 AM 0 comments   
Saturday, January 21, 2006
On The Sunny Side Of The Street
Like a terrier on a rat...its Your Daily Board Show!

CARRY ON: NC Linda granted the Grievance Procedure Committee its requested 60 day
extension. Unfortunately, she calculated the 60 days extension from the committee's start date of
November 1, 2005 instead of the date they were granted the extension. Since the Board took well
over a week to get around to even acknowleding the GPC's request and the NC tacked another
few days on before she actually granted the extension, time the GPC spent mostly wondering if it
should bother to proceed in the face of the Board's apparent apathy, that's nearly two weeks time
already gone. That's tacked on to the nine days the GPC waited before even requesting the
extension. The GPC's new deadline is March 1, giving the GPC 40 more days.

ALL IN THE FAMILY: Former USGenWeb Webmaster Mike Jarvis has volunteered to return
as the assistant webmaster, and NC Linda asked if there were any objections to his appointment.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Casting pearls before swine since 1998

posted by merope at 7:10 AM 1 comments   
Friday, January 20, 2006
Take As Needed
Skipping over the boring parts...its your Every Other Daily Board Show!

PROGRESS OF SORTS: Yesterday the Board voted on Motion 06-01b, the fourth iteration of
the motion to seat the Voter Fraud Committee. As expected, the motion passed with a
comfortable margin: 11 YES votes to 1 NO vote. Last night, Linda announced that the "Fraud
Committee" will start its work today and have a report to the Board by February 18. Since the
committee is essentially packed with members who can be counted on to bring back EC-friendly
policies, we imagine their work will be quite easy.

MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH: The Grievance Procedures Committee is actually
humming along. Co-Chair Scott Burow posted a nicely detailed summary of the progress to date
[which we found a tad rosy, but what the heck] and Angie has begun to repost the procedures the
previous committee members had worked up. Several members have pitched in to discuss the
size of the committee and the compliance issue, which most seem to agree is the biggest gorilla in
the room. As Jan noted, "I do think that this is *THE* most important part of this type of
committee to handle grievances. If there isn't binding agreement - then this committee could
continue to spin its wheels as the AB has in the past."

Jeff Scism's latest brilliant idea to address the compliance issue is to form self-policing panels of
SCs "to hear issues and decide if they ARE unjust decisions or not." [He likes it so much he's
shopped it on both the GPC list and the Board's informal list.] The idea is that since almost all
grievances are filed by a CC against an SC, the SCs would themselves decide if an SC's action
against a volunteer was warranted. He seems to feel that somehow having a panel of your peers
tell you you've messed up will go over better than having someone on the Board or a
Board-established committee tell you that you've messed up, and that you will suddenly see the
light and walk the path of righteousness henceforth. [Or something like that.] This process, of
course, doesn't deal with the Special Projects at all, doesn't address CC vs. CC grievances, and
entirely ignores complaints that involve Board members. It doesn't address the very real concern
that very few CCs will feel they can possibly get a fair shake from a group of SCs, nor does it
explain how SCs will be motivated to rule against their peers, especially when they know they
may be on the block themselves some day. It also fails to recognize one of the more salient
features of USGenWeb history, which is that in a system where there are almost no consequences
for thumbing your nose at someone, a lot of noses get thumbed. At least one other committee
member has pointed out the folly of this approach, and none have so far leapt on the "let's give
the SCs even more candy" bandwagon. We imagine this idea will die a quiet and well-deserved
death.

BONUS QUOTE: "The answer...would be to get teh SCs involved in developing the process and
have them run it by peer review. THAT way thyey self police and the further appeals if any could
go to a totally unbiased Board if needed." --Jeff Scism

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Laughing at the notion of a "totally unbiased Board" since 1998

posted by merope at 6:15 AM 1 comments   
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Neither Here Nor There
Like winning the lottery...its Your Daily Board Show!

MARCH OF THE PENGUINS: On the formal list, the Board discussed the faintly absurd
Motion 06-01b, the primary purpose of which is to redo something already done. Most Board
members indicated that they had no comment on the motion, but a few got a tad snarky. Mike
"Mild-mannered" St. Clair implied that Motion 06-01b was little more than a delaying tactic and
wondered aloud if "any board member intends to bring other parliamentary challenges to stop us
from proceeding." Mike backed off his comment after The Other Linda took him to task for it
and claimed that his only intent was to prevent any more unnecessary votes. George and David
resumed their squabbling over the proposed EC guidelines for handling suspected aliases, with
George playing his forgetful old fogey routine to David's grumpy curmudgeon. Jan, who has
recently had some severe computer issues, wondered why the Board was having yet another vote
on the committee, when "it would appear the whole thing is out of the hands of the AB now."
When the Other Linda explained the whole silly situation to her, she included this interesting
procedural tidbit: "Jeff's motion 06-01b would accept our vote on 06-01a as the approval of the
amended version as an amendment by substitution and we will then vote on the motion itself to
accept or not accept which will seat the committee if approved."

[As a side note, NC Linda informed members of the SW/SC regional list that although her secret
little committee has been seated it is not working but is awaiting the outcome of Motion 06-01b.]

THE SILENT TREATMENT: Well over a week after GPC co-chair Angie Rayfield asked the
Board to approve a 60 day extension, and only after several GPC members wondered aloud why
the request was being ignored, NC Linda finally got around to opening the topic on the informal
list. After posting a short recap of the committee's history, she asked for comment from the
Board. Thus far, all reps who have commented are in favor of granting the extension and a
couple have commented on the important nature of the committee's work. With any luck, their
extension will be granted sometime in this Board's term.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Exercising futility since 1998

posted by merope at 5:40 AM 0 comments   
Monday, January 16, 2006
Making Magic
Charmed, I'm sure...its Your Daily Board Show!

BECAUSE I'M THE MOM: Motion 06-01 and its various permutations have turned into quite
the diverting entertainment, and has permitted the Board to once again showcase a few of its
more spectacular tricks. [Running in place, pulling rabbits out of hats, and making things
disappear come immediately to mind.] After several Board members complained that the vote on
an amended Motion 06-01a was a tad premature, NC Linda came up with this: "Josh...told me
that the way [we] handled this particular motion has resulted in the use of consensus to be the
best way to finish it. The amendment was so different from the original motion that it wasn't
really an amendment but rather a new motion...I should not have accepted it until the original
motion was either withdrawn or voted on...I think everyone's intent was to get this item out of the
way and handled quickly...The 48 hours voting time as specified in our voting SOP has expired. I
will post the results in a separate e-mail. The results post was worded by Josh so that should
address your concerns about it being within PP." In short order she sent her decision on the status
of the motion, which can be summed up as "the amendment passed, the motion passed by general
consent, and George, Mike, Darilee, Cyndie, and Suzanne are now the Voter Fraud Committee.
They will be working in secret on a private, unarchived list." Thus did our National Ringleader
determine that a motion that received three [count 'em] "NO" votes was determined passed by
general consent and the discussion was moved to yet another sekrit sandbox where a committee
with a majority of EC apologists will be deciding just what to do with those poor saps who run
afoul of the Election Committee.

There was some mild protesting from the Board members who opposed the formation of the
committee, but nothing that rose to the level of an actual challenge or point of order. David asked
why the list was secret, a question that NC Linda neatly sidestepped. Jeff moved "that we accept
the just voted issue of the revised motion (#06-01a) as an Amendment by Substitution, (replacing
the original), and now vote on it as the new main motion (after further discussion if needed)."
[This message appears to have been forwarded from the Sooper Sekrit Sandbox, where once
again the Board is apparently conducting business without the promised notification.] Jeff's
motion was seconded by Bettie, numbered 06-01b, and opened for discussion. There hasn't been
any thus far. [We have to admit, we are kind of curious as to what will happen if this motion
fails. The committee is already formed and already working. We are actually rather surprised that
Linda didn't just declare the motion out of order.]

A TOUGH JOB, BUT SOMEONE HAS TO DO IT: Following a query by David on the informal
list, NC Linda allowed as to how she is the only person working on revising the CC and SC
guidelines. Here's what she had to say about it: "Since Sep I have received many e-mails from
people about the SC and/or CC guidelines found on the national site. I complied a rough draft of
updated CC guidelines that addressed most of the items in the e-mails...The rough draft will be
posted here for discussion and also on the project lists...As for the SC guidelines I will ask the
people on the SC for their opinions and thoughts and come up with a rough draft for them to look
at." We think this is very big of her, and are at least marginally thankful that there isn't another
secret cabal off somewhere making up new guidelines for those shamefully slacking volunteers.

BACK FROM THE DEAD: The Grievance Procedures Committee has sprung back to life, but
thus far, all they have really discussed is whether or not they should proceed with their charge.
Since their request for a time extension has been wholly ignored by the Board, they are
understandably reluctant to expend much effort if they are only going to be disbanded. Jeff has
apparently annointed himself the spokesperson for the Board, and has been both reassuring the
committee that the Board is fully behind them and urging them to get back to work. It's kind of
interesting, because Jeff is not actually on the GPC [the two Board members are Angie and Jan],
but he appears able to post directly to the GPC list. We don't recall an announcement to the effect
that the list was changed from read-only status, but apparently that has been done since several
other non-Committee members are also posting directly to the list.

OUT THE DOOR: Long time NJGenWeb SC Christine Goff, who has had some trouble keeping
the state page online in recent months, has notified NC Linda that she wishes to resign as SC.
SE/MA reps The Other Linda and Suzanne Shepard are arranging for an election for a new SC
even as we speak.

BONUS QUOTE: "Most of these people will never make the headlines and their names will not
appear in Who's Who. Yet when years have rolled past and when the blazing light of truth is
focused on this marvelous age in which we live -- men and women will know and children will
be taught that we have a finer land, a better people, a more noble civilization -- because these
humble children of God were willing to suffer for righteousness' sake." Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Preaching to the converted since 1998

posted by merope at 1:45 PM 1 comments   
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Betting The Farm
Keep on truckin'...its Your Daily Board Show!

RUNNING IN PLACE: The vote on Motion 06-01a seems to have stalled. On Friday, Angie
posted a message noting, "Sturgis clearly lines out several ways in which a motion may be
amended/edited/changed...the maker of a motion may modify or withdraw it at any time before
the presiding officer has stated it to the assembly for consideration. But motion 06-01 (or 05-25)
had been presented as a motion...And Linda did not request to withdraw or modify the motion,
instead there was a motion to amend, with a second. And a motion to amend requires a vote to
accept the amendment." Suzanne disagreed and said "By responding, I feel that we accepted the
amended motion and stated our willingness (or not) to serve on the committee. It may not have
been worded as precisely as Sturgis would like but I believe it meant the same thing." All voting
on the motion ceased at that point, and very early this morning The Other Linda asked NC Linda
to please let the group know what is going on with the motion. She agrees with David, Bettie,
and Angie, and noted "...an amended motion should be voted on as whether to amend or not and
then put forth for a vote on the motion. If it can be done by general consent, that's fine but I don't
think we need to go against PP or past precedent in the formal meeting here on Board-L. We
have spent enough dead time on this during the week that we could have held both votes by
now."

OUT OF THE BLUE: During the course of converstion on the propriety of mailing-list snatching
on the alternate CC list, NC Linda let this little bomb drop: "The SC Guidelines (and the CC
guidelines) are in the process of being updated." No further information was forthcoming and
Linda pulled another of her disappearing acts as soon as the questions started. Apparently,
though, someone somewhere is secretly working up new SC and CC guidelines for us.

ANIMAL PLANET: An intrepid little birdie sent us the following pic of the Weird Sisters (+1)
in their natural habitat:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0688177026/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-7069489-7081501#reader-lin
k

We'll let you figure out witch one is witch.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
The hostess with the mostest since 1998

posted by merope at 6:00 AM 0 comments   
Friday, January 13, 2006
Picking A Peck Of Pickled Peppers
Upside the head...its Your Daily Board Show!

FITS AND STARTS: Yesterday, NC Linda called the vote on Motion 06-01a and also asked the
Board members to indicate whether or not they would be willing to serve on the CC
Abuse...er...Voter Fraud Committee. Thus far, 8 Board members have voted YES and 2 have
voted NO. The Other Linda, Mike, Darilee, George, Cyndie, and Suzanne have indicated they
would be happy to serve on the committee.

After the voting was underway, Bettie objected to the improper procedural nature of the ongoing
vote. Per Sturgis, amendments to motions are voted on first [and require only a majority] and
only then is the main motion officially amended and voted on. The Board then diverted into a
short discussion of expediency vs. procedure. NC Linda said "I believe we can vote on an
amended motion without without having to first vote to accept the amended motion. If anyone
has an objection to doing it this way please let me know and we can do it the long way." Bettie
and David both requested some sort of documentation for this procedure, Suzanne and George
said they were both fine with doing it NC Linda's way, and Darilee played coy with her opinion.
NC Linda then noted, "I don't know that it is written or has been done this way before...Normally
rather than amend a motion I ask for it to be withdrawn so that we do not have to spend the time
voting on whether to accept an amended motion and then turn around and vote on it. If you want
to object then I'll need to restate the call to vote and we can do this in the two stages. Or we can
simply vote on the amended motion and if it passes I can ask for general consent to accept the
main motion as amended." Bettie responded, "I wish for it done the "proper" way so that there is
no questions later. If that's by general consent, then fine. That is still voting the way we're
supposed to."

And that's where they left off.

IN OTHER NEWS: A few days ago, NMGenWeb welcomed its new State Coordinator, Karen
Mitchell. She's a nice lady; we think the state will be most happy with her at the helm.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Raining on the parade since 1998

posted by merope at 6:25 AM 1 comments   
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Dropping The Ball
Better late than never...its Your Daily Board Show!

THERE AND BACK AGAIN: After some little discussion on the Board list and elsewhere, The
Other Linda proposed to amend Motion 06-01 thus:

"I move that a Voter Fraud Committee be formed by the Advisory Board immediately upon
passage of this motion. The Voter Fraud Committee will be five volunteers from the Advisory
Board who are committed to this issue and will have 4 weeks to accomplish the following two
tasks: 1 - Review the changes to EC Procedure presented to the Advisory Board by Tina Vickery
on October 27, 2005. Incorporate any needed revisions to those procedures suggested by
Advisory Board members during previous discussion or that the committee feels are necessary.
The revised EC Procedure will be returned to the full Advisory Board for a vote and if approved,
returned to the EC for implementation. 2 - Develop procedures for use by the Advisory Board
when suspected cases of voter fraud are brought to it's attention. These procedures will be
returned to the full Advisory Board for a vote immediately after the EC Procedures are voted on.
Please indicate your willingness to commit to this committee at the time you offer your vote on
this motion. The NC will immediately choose five volunteers from those willing at the passage of
this motion and set up a mailing list for these five volunteers to use during the following four
weeks. This needs to be accomplished within 48 hours after the passage of this motion."

This new version essentially doubles both the time given to the NC to set up the committee and
the time the committee has to do its work. It also clarifies the duties of the committee and sets up
two basic charges: create guidelines for the EC and create guidelines for the Board. It
incorporates many of the suggestions the Board members have made, with the exception of
including Tina "My Way Or No Way" Vickery on the committee and permitting line item
discussion of and vote on any forthcoming procedures.

The amended motion was seconded by both Karen and Suzanne and given number 06-01a by NC
Linda. There has been only a little discussion thus far. Darilee still does not like the name of the
proposed committee and prefers the members work via chat rather than an email list. David
thinks this should be two motions, one for each objective. Five other Board members have
indicated that they see no need for further discussion and are ready to vote and none of the others
have spoken at all, at least publicly. [Verily, there has been almost no interest in this issue
expressed off the Board either. Even on the usually voluble SW regional list less than half a
dozen people have expressed any sort of opinion, and most of those think this whole issue is a
waste of time.]

BACK TO THE FUTURE: The minutes of the December Board meeting are up, but they aren't
yet actually linked to the Board minutes page. If you want to read them before they are carved in
stone, you can find 'em here:

http://www.usgenweb.org/business/AB-12-2005.shtml

FINAL RECKONING: Since our NC [who just the other day sent us a long letter explaining that
when she is ignoring us she is not really ignoring us] has ignored our questions about the large
discrepancy in the funds she reported as leftover from the FGS 2005 and the figure produced by
actually doing math, David Samuelsen has stepped up to the plate and provided the missing
figures. According to David, $32.45 [for candy buyback] and $2.53 [interest] should be added to
the 547.01 figure we got when doing the math on the figures Linda provided. The leftover funds
now total to the $581.99 balance initially reported and David says the account has been closed
and the funds are on their way to the FGS 2006 committee. However, as David noted, the bank
statement also contains almost $10 worth of extra money that David has been unable to account
for after several months of trying to figure it out. David assures us, however, that "I'm not going
to sit and do nothing until I find where that extra $9.76 come in."

NC Linda is also still ignoring our questions about Sekrit Sandbox topics, but that's not really
news, now is it?

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Sitting in the corner since 1998

posted by merope at 5:45 AM 0 comments   
Monday, January 09, 2006
One Tin Soldier Rides Away
Skipping right to the funny pages...its Your Daily Board Show!

AN ARMY OF ONE: Erstwhile Motion 05-25 was renamed to Motion 06-01, and the Board
commenced to sort of discussing it. David said he was confused by the wording in the motion
and The Other Linda said she worded it that way because she assumed that "the EC needs to
approve those procedures and then the AB would vote on whether or not to accept those." After
David pointed out to her that "If the AB approves changes, it is the job of the EC to follow them,
not vote on them," Linda said she would amend the motion to reflect this and other suggestions.
George suggested that the motion be amended to include Tina "I hope you rot in hell" Vickery,
increase the time available for the committee to do its work to six weeks, and permit the Board to
discuss by line item any recommendations put forth by the committee.

In other Board news, Grievances Procedures Committee chair Angie Rayfield told the Board that
the GPC had been on hiatus during the holidays and requested an extension of 60 days in order to
complete its work.

SNATCH 'N GRAB: We heard yesterday of another of those little behind-the-scenes shenanigans
that so plague USGenWeb. TNGenWeb, as many of you know, doesn't use Root$web for its
websites or mailing lists. Once upon a time though, it had three state level lists on Root$web.
Two of them [TNGENWEB, TNCHAT] were inexplicably given by Root$web to resident flake
Chip Brown, most likely to irritate the rebels who moved TNGenWeb out of the Evil Empire's
clutches. The third [TNGEN] was, until a few days ago, administered by TNGW Technical
Coordinator Nancy Cole and was inactive. A few days ago, however, NC Linda Haas Davenport
announced to the few remaining members of that list that "The TN e-mail list has been turned
over to me as the NC of the USGenWeb Project because the prior list manager gave it up." She
then re-opened the list archives and tried lamely to jump start some genealogy discussion. Nancy
Cole, who had not in fact given up the list and who had not apparently been contacted by either
Root$web or NC Linda before the land grab and who had not had her admin privileges revoked,
went into the list management pages, set herself back as list admin, and removed Linda from the
subscriber list. When she notified the TNGW state list that she had done so, some mole, er, we
mean good samaritan on that list sent her message to Linda, who promptly reported Nancy to
Root$web for "playing games". Only then did Linda contact the TNGW SC Mari Byers to find
out what TNGW might want done with the list and to give her side of the story. In her message to
Mari, Linda said, "I do apologize for not writing to you sooner about this list but the AB has been
trying to decide what to do with it and I hesitated to write to you until a decision was reached."
[Imagine that, the NC and the Board deciding in secret what to do about a state list without the
barest hint of the courtesy to notify the SC or involve her in the discussions until they were over.]
Linda also said she only decided to contact Mari at all because one of her peeps [in Exec, natch]
told her that Mari is "a fine lady who could be trusted." Linda also told Mari that the Board has
decided to keep the list inactive for now, so everyone currently on it has been unsubbed and the
archives have been turned off.

Aside from the general snarkiness of reporting someone to Root$web instead of actually just
discussing the situation with them and the general bass-ackward approach to notifying the State
Coordinator, this little tempest in a teapot is interesting for other reasons. Its mildly disconcerting
to discover that any state level lists created by Root$web "belong" to the Project, which can
apparently take them back and reassign them at will. More importantly though is that is just more
of the same old same old. Despite the high falutin' promises of openness from back in the day, its
apparent that this topic has been discussed in the Sekrit Sandbox for some days now while the
Board tries to figure out what to do with someone else's list, yet we haven't seen any sort of
notification of this issue come over any of the Board's myriad discussion lists. Apparently Linda's
old promise to only use Board-Exec sparingly and to notify the membership of when and why the
Board was going into executive session was just so much belly gas.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Zippety doo dah since 1998

posted by merope at 6:20 PM 0 comments   
Sunday, January 08, 2006
The Sharpest Tool In The Shed
Ahead of the game...its Your Daily Board Show!

RUSHING INTO THINGS: In the midst of all the flurry around what turns out to be a
surprisingly large amount of money left over from the FGS 2005 convention, NC Linda
recognized the Voter Fraud Committee motion, numbered it [05-25; although it should be 06-01
since we are theoretically in a new year], and opened it for discussion. Thus far, Darilee, George,
Suzanne, The Other Linda, and Jeff have indicated that they see no need for any further
discussion.

A couple of people, including at least one Board member, have elsewhere indicated that the name
of the committee is somewhat harsh. Although a rose by any other name would still have thorns,
we do note that renaming the proposed committee to the "Vote Fraud Commmittee", or "Voting
Fraud Committee", or even "Election Fraud Committee" would reduce the appearance that the
Board is promoting the establishment yet another way to attack the members.

We also find some of the wording of the motion confusing, since it appears that it will require the
Board to simultaneously vote on the VFC's suggested changes to the EC's proposed procedures
and on the EC's original proposed procedures. Hopefully this will be cleared up before they vote
on the motion.

NC Linda also posted the 4th quarter Election Committee report. This report was submitted in
record time, but then Tina "I Have More Important Things To Do" Vickery isn't the chair of that
committee anymore. We are also happy to report that all the 2005 reports but the last one are now
posted to the EC's website.

LIKE PULLING TEETH: Since last we published, the following has occurred in the saga of
David "Light Fingers" Samuelson's attempt to force the Board to form a financial procedures
committee by holding the FGS 2005 funds hostage:

1) We wrote to all the Board members individually. Three responded. David and Bettie indicated
that they had no idea how much money remained. George told me he'd inadvertently deleted the
email. None of the remaining Board members said anything. It appears, however, that the Board
was also in the dark as to how much money was being held over their heads. The two Board
members who did know the amount, because they did the audit, were Darilee and Mike. We are
curious as to why they apparently did not share the results of the audit with their colleagues [or
with the membership, for that matter].

2) NC Linda made an effort to point out that she wasn't ignoring our questions, but she's been too
busy to post anything else other than a snarky email about DISCUSS list rules [priorities, don't
you know]. She then found herself too busy to post the promised report.

3) A few hours later NC Linda finally posted a summary of the funds donated to the FGS 2005
conference, and promised a more detailed accounting would be forthcoming. For now, however,
we are told the following: neither of the committees representing USGenWeb at the FGS
conventions are official committees and the Board has no oversight of them or the funds they
collect [we've been told the FGS 2006 team made it very clear that they would not do the work if
the Board had any oversight at all]; donations to the FGS 2005 meeting were solicited by David
"Mine" Samuelsen as an individual and not as a representative of the Project [although his
website certainly implied differently]; and although David told Linda immediately after the close
of the 2005 meeting that he would be forwarding the paperwork and the remaining funds to her
for the FGS 2006 meeting, he did not do so until yesterday, some five months later, and only
after a public outcry had been raised. Linda provided the following accounting of the funds:

Donations: 2,005.00
PayPal Fees: 46.84
After Fees: 1,958.16
Expenses: 1,411.15
Leaving a balance of 581.99

[When we do this math we get a balance of $547.01, but what's $43 bucks among friends?]

First off, wow. Over two thousand bucks raised to support USGenWeb. That is awesome and we
tip our ink-stained hats to the generous folks of USGW. Second. Wow, that was nearly a
thousand dollars raised after David decided to stop publicly accounting for the money. Third,
wow, conventions are pricey. We can't wait to see what they spent 1400 dollars on, since the
proposed expenditures David admitted to on his website only totaled about 700 bucks. Can they
really have spent $700 on brochures and candy? Maybe they hired a Booth Babe after all!

4) NC Linda notified the DISCUSS list that David is sending the remaining funds to her via
certified mail [however much it ends up being]. We are very glad to hear that David's bank
apparently was able to revoke its restrictive policies about sending money to other people, and on
a weekend too.

Does this end this matter? Yes and no. There is still the matter of a pending agenda item,
although we would not be at all surprised if the proposed "financial procedures committee" never
even makes it to the discussion phase and disappears from future agendas. As long as the Board
considers "convention committees" to be independent and outside their oversight, there is not
much of a need to have financial procedures in place. They will just need to think a little more
carefully about who they approve to use the USGenWeb name to promote the project. Maybe at a
minimum they should at least insist that flaky people not be put in charge of the money.

RANDOM NEURAL FIRING: Does anyone know what is going on with the Grievance
Procedures Committee? The last activity on the mailing list was nearly a month ago, and they
have got to be coming up on their 60 day window, if they aren't actually already past it.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Making things happen since 1998

posted by merope at 10:00 AM 5 comments   
Saturday, January 07, 2006
The Money Pit
Cat got your tongue?...its Your Daily Board Show!

GOOD WORK IF YOU CAN GET IT: The Board has been quiet on both its lists since the news
of the hijacked FGS 2005 funds hit the airwaves. In the interim however, the following has
happened:

1. W. David Samuelsen, former co-chair of the FGS 2005 committee and keeper of the moneys,
took down the the sole public accounting for the funds after he was asked about the remainder of
the money.

2. Project member Keith Giddeon graciously reposted the webpage here:

http://www.giddeon.com/FGS/fgs2005.html

Upon re-reading it, it is clear why David removed it. According to the page, he collected $1025
and spent just a little over $200, leaving about $820 unaccounted for. [His page says that $874 is
unaccounted for, but that math doesn't work.] The page mentions only that the funds were being
collected on behalf of the Project to "to pay for the booth's necessities," and not that they would
be used to force the Board to acquiesce to David's demands, whatever they are. David actually
promised on that site, which was used to solicit funds, that remaining money and materials would
be turned over to the NC and the next FGS committee chair, neither of which have been done.
According to the website, the funds were originally in a Paypal account, but according to David
they are now in his personal bank account. David also stated he will not release the funds until
the Board has procedures in place nor will he release the amount left over after the convention.

However, we note that based on the expected expenditures (phone and internet hookups, banner,
brochures, etc), there simply cannot be that much money left over. Certainly not enough for the
Board to sell its integrity to someone like David Samuelsen.

3. FGS 2006 Committe chair Josh Taylor published a statement, parts of which are excerpted
below:

"As chair of the FGS 2006 committee I can say that we have received no funds, nor an
accounting of those funds that exist to further our preparations. We have selected a treasurer,
and...have been in the process of creating a budget, which will be available to all USGenWeb
members, including detailed monthly financial reports. We have setup a PayPal account
specifically for USGenWeb at FGS 2006, and...this account is in no way connected to a personal
bank account. We plan on asking for donations to the FGS 2006 account, but are waiting to do so
until a firm budget is established, and we receive the FGS 2005 funds...the establishment of a
financial procedures committee creates legal, and other situations that USGenWeb should not
have to deal with. The FGS 2006 committee has been making expenditures in recent months, and
we are in fact now waiting to confirm our booth at the conference for the FGS 2005 funds."

So David's refusal to part with his ill-gotten gains is actually hampering the work of the FGS
2006 committee, which apparently needs the money to confirm our booth and plan its budget.

3. George Waller has amused himself by hiding behind the oath of confidentiality he took in
order to be allowed to play in the Sekrit Sandbox. Apparently this topic has been discussed there,
and we are curious as to why this wasn't announced to the Project. When our current NC took
office she assured us that the Board would be using Exec only in limited circumstances and that
we would be told when and why the Board was going into executive session. So much for that.

Most other Board members have been noticeably quiet on this topic, although a couple of them
have tried to drum up interest in the alias issue on their regional lists. NC Linda still hasn't
recognized The Other Linda's committee motion in any way.

BONUS QUOTE: "An oath of confidentiality prevents me from revealing the amount." --George
Waller

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Hitting a brick wall since 1998

posted by merope at 6:55 AM 2 comments   
Friday, January 06, 2006
Thick As Thieves
When in doubt, follow the cash...its Your Daily Board Show!

MILDLY DIVERTING: NC Linda solicited input from the rabble regarding the issue of a
committee to explore the alias issue on a variety of lists. She got a bit of feedback, but not a
whole lot. One of the usual suspects suggested that the committee include Board and EC
members and operate in utmost secrecy, but that idea didn't gain a whole lot of traction. On the
informal list, three more Board members threw their hats in the ring in favor of forming a
committee, and George Waller admitted as to how he'd be pleased to serve.

Over on the formal list, The Other Linda took the bull by the horns and moved,

"that a Voter Fraud Committee be formed by the Advisory Board immediately upon passage of
this motion. The Voter Fraud Committee will be five voluneers from the Advisory Board who are
committed to this issue and will have 2 weeks to develop procedures concerning this issue and
make recommendations concerning the proposed procedural changes submitted by the Election
Committee in 2005. The Voter Fraud Committee will return their recommended procedures to the
full Advisory Board within the time frame stated above for an immediate vote. The proposed
procedural change submitted by the Election Committee will be returned at the same time for a
vote by the Advisory Board and be immediately submitted to the Election Committee. Please
include your willingness to commit to this committee or not at the time you offer your vote on
this motion. The NC will immediately choose five volunteers from those willing at the passage of
this motion and set up a mailing list for these five volunteers to use during the following two
weeks. This needs to be accomplished within 24 hours after the passage of this motion."

This motion was immediately seconded by Karen, but has not as yet been recognized by the NC.
[Good for them, by the way. None of this shilly-shallying around.]

SHOW ME THE MONEY: Acting on a tip from a righteously pissed off little bird, we went off
today and visited David Samuelsen's FGS 2005 web page, which used to be at:

http://www.sampubco.com/fgs/fgs2005.htm

but which David promptly removed once we asked him about it. This was the page that used to
show a partial accounting of the funds David collected for the FGS 2005 conference. When we
got there, we found that the page hadn't been updated since August 17, 2005 [before the
conference], and there was still slightly over $1000 [yes, one thousand dollars] still unaccounted
for. Since we visited the page, we asked a few questions of a few people, and it turns out that the
remaining funds have never been turned over to the NC or to the FGS 2006 committee and no
Board member [including the two who ought to know since they allegedly did the audit of the
funds] will admit to exactly how much money David is hanging onto. Its also become clear from
conversations with David that the money, which according to the now conveniently disappeared
website was originally in a Paypal account, has apparently been transferred to an account at
David's bank, where he retains complete control over it.

So what was the little bird so upset about? Well, it turns out that Mr. Samuelsen is refusing to
hand over the remaining funds to the Board or to anyone else until the Board forms a financial
procedures committee. [We were wondering why that keeps showing up on the agenda month
after month.] The little bird originally accused Mike St. Clair of colluding in this, but we spoke to
him and he reminded us that he has never had direct control over or involvement with any of the
funds collected for the convention. All the money went directly to David. He said "David feels
strongly that USGenWeb should have some formal financial procedures and has asked that these
be set up before he passes on the funds." David's response was even more succint: "The AB is
dragging foot on getting one simple procedure online before transfer can take place of funds.
Been pestering the AB to get it done asap. It's been on agenda 2 months and going 3rd month
now." After some more questioning, David denied he is refusing to transfer the funds, but
claimed his bank is forcing him to do this. We are personally unfamiliar with any rules at Paypal
or at any bank that requires us to transfer money only to entities that have financial procedures
committees, but then this wouldn't be the first time David was pretending to have knowledge he
doesn't actually have. Really, it ought to be as simple as writing a check or making a Paypal
funds transfer. So, you know, basically, David is holding some unknown sum of money that
doesn't belong to him hostage to force the Board to form a committee that we don't actually
appear to need. We could be talking about chump change, or it could be hundreds of dollars.
Whichever, you and I aren't entitled to know until the Board bows before David and he decides
we are worthy.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the Board members that hang out on the various discussion lists
managed to clam up right quick when this hit the airwaves. NC Linda was extremely timely in
chastising us for posting a personal email to the DISCUSS list, but made herself extremely scarce
when the tough questions started. George Waller made a point of publicly stroking David and
then refused to answer any questions about the matter, although he did make the incredible
observation that "the FGS money is not part of USGenWeb since the people acted on their own."
[We wonder if that disclaimer will be included in the next solicition for funds that goes out.]

Back in the day, when the membership pressed David and Mike for an accounting of the funds
solicited for the conference, we were assured by Mike that the money would be passed on to NC
Linda and that a full and complete accounting would be made when all the checks were cashed
[ref. DBS, Sept 13, 2005]. Apparently that won't be happening after all or at least not until the
Board jumps through some unexpected hoops. Mike stated that he does not have custody of any
of the financial records, and David has removed the only public accounting that existed, so
apparently this is now entirely Mr. Samuelsen's show. We'll be curious to see what will happen if
the Board is unable to come up with financial procedures that meet with his approval.

THAT WAS THEN BONUS QUOTE: "Full financial accounting report will be sent to the
current NC after the convention. Any leftover funds will be rolled over to the next person in
charge for the FGS - Boston convention 2006 along with the banner and remaining brochures."
--W. David Samuelsen, circa Aug 2005

THIS IS NOW BONUS QUOTE: "It is ONE procedure that is needed and required by my bank -
a written procedure for transfer of funds, to protect me, my bank and the Project. As for amount
leftover, it will be made known after additional procedures governing the information of the fund
raising are in place. Not before...Rest assured, the money is safe and very secured as ever." --W.
David Samuelsen, January 6, 2006

ENTIRELY GRATUITOUS BONUS QUOTE: "I hope you rot in hell." --Tina Vickery to a
fellow volunteer, #gagenweb, Sept 20, 2005 [yes, a day without Tina is indeed a day without
sunshine]

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Keeping an eye on our wallet since 1998

posted by merope at 8:10 PM 0 comments   
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Spinning Wheel Got To Go Round
Getting back up to speed...its Your Daily Board Show!

WHAT GOES UP: On the formal Board list, NC Linda adjourned the December meeting,
opened the January meeting with the previously reported agenda, indicated she had received the
December minutes from the Board Secretary, notified everyone that the Board was continuing to
play around with grievances in the Sekrit Sandbox, and reopened the discussion of the Captain
Alias issue and moved it to the chatty list.

MUST COME DOWN: After a brief recap of their progress on the alias issue over the last four
months [which could have more succintly summarized by a single word: "none"] Linda decided
to hold yet another "quick straw poll" on the issue [the first one apparently not being good
enough]. This one presents the Board members with the option of forming some undefined
committee or dropping the issue entirely. [This is rather an odd dichotomy: either have a
subcommittee of some sort or completely abandon the issue. It leaves no option for those who
want to continue discussing the issue, but who don't want to form yet another committee to do it.]

The new straw poll provoked a brief outburst from David, who pointed out that they had already
done a straw poll on this issue. This moved George to ask David to vote "instead of griping." The
Other Linda noted that she feels uncomfortable voting for a committee when she has no idea
what kind of committee it will be [and also reminded NC Linda about the previous straw poll]
and NC Linda admitted that the most basic details about the committee would have to be worked
out after the decision to form a committee is made. There was a great deal of discussion around
the issue, but not much actually on the issue, although both David and NC Linda took some pains
to clarify that the EC did inform the Board of its actions, albeit after the fact. [See the bonus
quote.]

By press time 4 members had voted in favor of a committee and 2 had voted in favor of dropping
the issue. David, however, clarified his "drop" vote to mean that he wanted to drop the idea of a
committee, not the alias issue itself. There was also one cryptic "NO" vote from Bettie, who does
not appear to want to drop the issue, but who also made it clear that she will only vote for a
committee made up solely of Board members. So, if you create a couple of extra response
categories to handle the various nuances in members' votes, you end up with three definitely in
favor of some kind of committee and not too particular about the details [Jeff, Darilee, Larry],
two who are in favor of a committee of Board members only [Mike & Bettie, although Mike,
being an agreeable sort of guy, would probably agree to a committee that included non-Board
members if push came to shove], and one who is not in favor of a committee but who does not
want to drop the issue itself [David]. The Other Linda might fall into this last category as well. Is
that clear as mud?

No other Board members commented on the issue before we went to press.

CHATTERING CLASS: Over on the alternate CC list, a longish discussion [which is now
essentially over since some idiot decided to invoke the Nazis] has been ongoing for a day or so.
It's just the usual back and forth between those who think the Board is just peachy and stands as a
protective barrier between the CCs and the SCs and those who want to abolish the Board and the
bylaws entirely, with a smattering of the anti-Archives crowd thrown in for extra flavor, but at
least now we know who invented WorldGenWeb. It was George Waller. Who knew?

Speaking of George, another thing we noticed during this far-ranging but ultimately circular
discussion is that he always goes to very great pains to note that he isn't going to speak ill of the
dead whenever Jeff Murphy's name comes up, and yet he always manages to do just that. He is so
cute when he's disingenuous.

We don't actually agree with going all the way back to "the Founder's vision" [we are far more
centrist on these matters than you might think], but it is also the case that George, Linda "the
Loon" Lewis, and a handful of others essentially hijacked the Project out from under Jeff when
he refused to take it in the direction they wanted it to go. For years now we have heard [and quite
often from the hijackers themselves or their supporters] that people who don't like USGenWeb
should leave USGenWeb and form their own project. It is mildly amusing to speculate what the
online genealogy world would look like today if the hijackers had followed that advice 10 years
ago and left USGenWeb to form their own project. Would USGenWeb be a peaceful oasis full of
happy souls who worry not about politics and work merrily on their pages? Would it be an
afterthought like ALHN and AHGP? Or would it have failed entirely like USIGS, IIGS, and the
GenExchange? Would the Archives [which never having been a part of USGenWeb in this rosy
scenario would presumably have been the alternate project favored by the hijackers] now be a
wholly-owned and revenue producing subsidiary of BigGenealogyMonopoly.com? Think about
it. If those were unhappy with Jeff's vision a decade ago had packed up and left instead of
stealing his project and running him off, we'd have had no problems with the Archives, probably
not nearly the involvement with Root$web and its mercenary founder, and none of the problems
with the Census projects. We'd have no secret trials, no Members Not In Good Standing, no
Sekrit Sandbox, no secretive and all-powerful Election Committee, and no national stage for
vicious people to play out their control fantasies. And probably no DBS. [See, every silver lining
does have a cloud.]

BONUS QUOTE: "The EC did not originally ask for help from the AB...and in fact handled it on
their own...I believe the current issue was kinda leaked to the AB." --Darilee Bednar

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Speaking in tongues since 1998

posted by merope at 6:20 AM 1 comments   
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
They're Baaack
And so are we...its Your Daily Board Show!

NEW YEAR, SAME STUFF: The Board is almost back in session, but not quite. Yesterday NC
Linda suggested immediately adjourning the December session [which possibly could have been
done back in December], and opening the January meeting. Jeff "so moved", apparently to
adjourn the December meeting, but no one seconded the motion.

NC Linda also posted a tentative agenda for the January meeting [see below] on the informal list,
which a couple of Board members half-heartedly discussed. For some reason, Darilee suggested
moving the discussion of a Financial Procedures committee to the top of the list [something for
which USGenWeb has no compelling need], and also suggested adding a "PR chair" who would
coordinate "the different groups who would like to represent the USGenWeb Project at different
conferences and conventions."

REHEATED TURKEY: Here is the January agenda. You would be forgiven if you mistook it for
the agendas from the last couple of months.

"Announcement of the posting of the minutes (approval etc)
Reports from committees (for 4th Qtr)
Unfinished business
... Decisions on pending grievances (Exec)
... Discussion and decision on Alias committee
... Discussion and decision on by-law committee
... Job Descriptions for appointed positions
... Job Descriptions for RAL
New business
... Discussion of Financial Procedures Committee
Announcements if there are any
Adjournment"

ALL IN THE FAMILY: While the Board was in recess, the rogue FGS 2006 committee
announced the sessions in the USGenWeb track for the upcoming FGS 2006 convention in
Boston. Those of you who are bummed to have missed the "early bird" registration deadline can
rest easy. No one is presenting anything that would warrant the effort of a trip to Boston, even if
you lived there. It's probably no big surprise that the list of presenters reads like a roster of the
usual suspects. It includes Josh "Boy Wonder" Taylor [whose idea this whole thing was], Holly
Timm [who apparently sold her soul to get back in the good graces of the cabal], Joy Fisher [who
will no doubt use the bully pulpit to direct submissions to the Archives], Linda Haas Davenport
[who turns out to charge real money for her genealogical services], Betsy Mills [let's hope she
manages not to call her attendees jerks to their faces], and Lori Thornton [newly ensconced chair
of the EC]. These six people account for 15 of the 19 planned presentations. The remaining
presenters [Lela Evans, Linda Geiger, and Starr Campbell] each do one presentation, and there is
a throw-away question and answer session by the "USGenWeb Team." Inexplicably, the
announcement also gives the biography of someone who does not appear to be actually
presenting anything [Chuck Knuthson].

We also note here in the DBS newsbunker that the early bird registration came and went without
FGS posting any substantial information on lectures or presenters. There's nothing quite like
asking people to buy a pig in a poke, even if it is at a substantial discount.

BONUS QUOTE: "Subject to the Genealogy.com Privacy Policy, by inputting, uploading or
posting any family tree information, data, family stories, ideas, drawings, opinions, messages,
eyewitness accounts, or any other information or materials, or engaging in any other form of
communication (each, a "Submission") through the Sites, you grant MyFamily.com, Inc. and its
Affiliated Companies a royalty free, irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, unrestricted,
transferable, worldwide license to (i) use, copy, sublicense, adapt, transmit, distribute, publicly
perform, archive, and display any such Submission in any medium now known or hereafter
developed; (ii) exploit any proprietary rights in such Submission, including but not limited to
rights under copyright, trademark, or patent laws in any relevant jurisdiction; and (iii) sublicense
to third parties the unrestricted right to exercise any of the foregoing rights." --from the
Genealogy.com Terms of Service agreement. [Genealogy.com is a subsidiary of MyFamily.com,
which also owns Root$web.com]

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Stuffed shirt since 1998

posted by merope at 6:25 AM 2 comments