From merope@Radix.Net Sun Jul 1 07:45:49 2001 Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 07:45:48 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 7/1/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Tanned, rested and ready...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Wednesday 27 June 2001: George Waller agrees with Ken Short's observation that maintaining queries is easier for smaller, less active counties. Sundee Maynez publishes an update on Board activity. Thursday 28 June 2001: Joe Zsedeny notes that Joy Fisher has agreed to chair a committee that would develop a query program if she can get enough programming support. Although there are probably enough C++ programmers in the project, "To find and enlist this talent the SCs have to come onboard and forward names to Joy or whomever chairs a working committee. Board members could also send requests to all the regional lists for talent. A concerted and ongoing effort could make this a reality IF the members want it." Friday 29 June 2001: Tim Stowell calls a vote on Motion 01-23. Before it is withdrawn, it receives one yes vote [later rescinded] and one no vote. Betsy Mills asks Tim if he could ask if people are finished with discussion before he calls a vote. She "was waiting to hear if anyone was going to volunteer for this committee so we would know if it is even feasible to set one up." She also prefers that the committee see if it is even feasible to make a new or improved system as user friendly as GenConnect was. Joy notes that she is "alone, whistling in the dark, as there has been no ground-swell of support for improving QE." No programmers have volunteered. Maggie Stewart says she doesn't have the expertise to help with it and offers to see if people offering technical expertise to her Census Project [formerly the Archives Census Project] can help. She asks "Do you think maybe we should table this motion until a viable support team is in place?" Holly Timm thinks they should look at the "best route" to take and get input from the rest of the project rather than work on building one specific system. With her "no" vote, Joy Fisher notes that she does "not have the time to lead a parade, especially if no one is following..." Joy reminds Maggie that they need experienced C++ programmers. Maggie will check and get back to her. Teri Pettit thinks Motion 01-23 should be amended to "form a committee to look into what can be done to provide an alternative query system which is more under our control than the MyFamily/GenConnect boards, but less intimidating to the CC and more convenient to the end user than the current QueryExpress system. And then drop the wording about encouraging its use." She has seen "a lot of support for doing something to have a viable query system that isn't subject to the whims and needs of an external organization, and a lot of reluctance to pre-identify QueryExpress as being the solution." She notes that tabling a motion merely sets it aside for a later day and does not address any problems with the motion. She notes "we shouldn't be asked to vote on a version that a large number of us have expressed both general agreement with the goals of, and the same flavor of objections to the specifics of. It will just face us with the choice we've grown to hate, of voting Yes and getting something that isn't quite what we want but is maybe better than nothing, or voting No and being seen as a 'do nothing' who impedes progress." Richard Harrison offers to withdraw Motion 01-23. Shari Handley votes "yes" but then withdraws her vote, noting "What I'd like to see is a USGenWeb-developed query system that our CCs could choose as an alternative to GenConnect/Ancestry boards. Easy-to-use, low-maintenance, and (best-case scenario) residing on the user's own site." Saturday 30 June 2001: Maggie posts the following questions about the election: "Is it true that voters only vote once, with no option to change their mind? Does the EC have a backup plan in place, if something happens and the voting place has to be changed? I received four copies of the broadcast message, does this mean I have four votes? Are candidates screened for being members in good standing, or simply verifying membership for one year? Are voting results to be posted publicly? What are the details of the voting method for this election? Has the previously mentioned test been conducted, if so what were the results? Are the voter choices secure and confidential?" [see below for the EC's answers. For some reason, Maggie didn't actually ask these questions of the EC itself, but asked them on Board-Exec, the list where supposedly nothing every is discussed.] Joe agrees to withdraw Motion 01-23 and Tim orders it withdrawn. === Election News: With the election starting today, the last several days have seen several notices from the EC regarding procedures for voting. According to one message, we should have all received our passwords yesterday [June 30]; I have not yet received one, however, so they may have been delayed. The polls are scheduled to open today [July 1] at 6:00 pm, PDT, and a very important change from previous elections has been instituted. Voters may now only vote once with no option to change votes. A Question & Answer page has been posted at: http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/FAQ.html and a set of Voter Instructions has been posted at: http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/voterinstructions.html Read both well _before_ voting. The procedure for voting has changed a bit, but appears pretty straightforward. Linda's answers to Maggie's questions are as follows: "Only one vote may be cast. In real life people are not allowed to change their vote just because they change their mind. The USGenWeb Project's election runs for 31 days. That is ample time for people to decide who they wish to vote for. The major reason for the EC's decision to allow only one vote were the problems in the past with people believing that their LAST vote wasn't counted - or that multiple votes resulted in multiple votes being counted...there will be no reason for the server to be changed. Larry Stephens of the University of Indiana is hosting the voting software and overseeing the operation of the Voting Booth Software...Wait until you receive your e-mail that contains your voter password and them let me know if you received multiple passwords...the EC did not ask if the nominee was in "good standing". The EC's position was, and is, that every member of this project is in "good standing" unless the EC was/is notified by one of the 3 entities above. As of today the EC has not been notified that any candidate is not in "good standing"...Every member of the Project will be notified of the results of the election by personal e-mail. The EC Website will also have the total vote results posted beside each candidate's name on the Candidates Page and the winners will be listed on the main page of the EC's website. The EC will send a personal e-mail to every candidate informing them of the results of the election as it pertains to them personally. This message will be sent prior to the results of the election being posted on the EC's site and before the announcement e-mail is sent... Please read the voter instructions at: http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/voterinstructions.html...The test worked well....If you are asking if the voter's vote is secure and confidential the answer is Yes." It is worth noting again that many of these questions are answered at the two URLs above. Other than the tired spectacle of watching yet another publicly responsible USGW member [EC member Keith Giddeon, who is also famous for the sterling way he publicly treated two members of GAGenWeb] call a voter names and threaten to post their private email, that's about it for election news. Go vote, but do NOT forget, you may only vote once this time. === "It is enough that the people know that there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." --Joseph Stalin 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 Jul 2 14:08:35 2001 Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:08:34 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 7/2/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: And they're off!...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Monday 2 July 2001: Maggie Stewart tells her colleagues that there are now new domains available [.biz, etc.] and notes that the project "needs to project the USGWP in all the new domains." She asks for their opinion on this. === Election News: The polls have opened and passwords have been sent. According to the EC there were many bounced password emails; if you have not received a password by today [July 2], contact your rep on the EC so they can figure out why and get you a password. Also, do not forget, you may only vote once in this election. So think about your vote carefully. Candidate pages are at: http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/candidates.html; these should help you learn where each candidate is coming from. Also, don't hesitate to contact candidates directly with questions you have about their goals and hopes for USGW. New Faces Corner: The MSGenWeb has some new leadership. Ellen Pack is the new SC and Nate Zipfel is the new ASC. Congrats to both! Message Boards Revisited Corner: The flap over the new Ancestry message boards, which abruptly replaced GenConnect, is more or less dying down [we can hear the sighs of relief all the way from Utah]. A few minor burps have occurred in the last few days however. In one incident that has been discussed extensively on the Board-Admins list, a user has requested that _all_ her posts be removed immediately. This amounts to some 500 or more posts and thus far, the admin responsible for the boards where most of them are posted has refused to remove them. He has also publicly referred to the poster as both "disgruntled" and "paranoid." His failure to immediately remove the posts may be due to technical reasons; like GenConnect before it, the new boards are flagged for mass deletions and if admins remove more than a few posts at a time they risk losing their right to work for free for Ancestry. However, it seems pretty clear that after all the rhetoric in the last few weeks about posters owning their posts, the removal of a massive number of posts upon the user's request is a serious test of Ancestry/Root$web's stated policy, one that they have so far failed. The WorldGenWeb Project has released a public statement regarding the new boards, which is excerpted here: "...most of you all are aware of the recent changes that were made to the GenConnect at RootsWeb Message Board system...As of June 22, 2001, Rootsweb.com and Ancestry.com have merged the GenConnect message boards with the FamilyHistory.com's message boards to create a "new" message board system... The WorldGenWeb Project Advisory Board members were unaware of the scope of changes that were being made to the GenConnect system. We received information about the proposed changes at the same time that all other message board admins did. We also were not given the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes or to make suggestions as to their implementation...Rootsweb has been a provider of tools and webspace for the WorldGenWeb Project since it's inception in 1997. However, we as a project have never had a voice in nor any control over how those tools were developed or changed. It is also good to remember that as Rootsweb.com is incorporated more into the MyFamily, Inc. corporation that we can expect to see other changes as well. We have been told that RootsWeb.com will continue to remain committed to their philosophy of free access to all user submitted data. There is no need to fear that the recent changes made to the message board system will mean a loss of our website data that is housed at RootsWeb,Inc.com as we as individuals are the copyright holders to that data. The WorldGenWeb Project Advisory Board is evaluating our options and the requirements for managing a query system. As we strive on the board to reach a consensus, we would welcome your feedback regarding the new message board system." [We have always admired the professional functioning of the WGW Board. Despite the numerous internal squabbles over there, they do manage to respond in a timely fashion to ongoing issues and keep their members informed. We don't even remember the last time the USGW Advisory Board put out such a message.] Finally, Root$web Executive Producer Jake Gehring has released a statement regarding the new boards, which is excerpted here: "In an effort to improve communication from RootsWeb to you (and vice versa), I will be sending out a message every so often which addresses current issues on the RootsWeb site. The RootsWeb staff has received lots of questions since the merger of Ancestry.com and RootsWeb.com last summer, and I think there's a general need for our users to have regular information on RootsWeb's efforts to provide valuable services to the genealogical community. I also want to make a few comments about our new message boards system which was launched last week...The feedback has been generally positive when addressing the value of the combined datasets and the increased search functionality...I also recognize that any significant change...may create some temporary inconvenience and frustration. I would like to address some of the concerns we've heard from you...By popular request, we will shortly add the ability for users to filter by message category within a message board (for queries, obituaries, deeds, etc.)...There is some confusion about RootsWeb's position regarding the ownership of messages posted on the boards. Let me clarify by excerpting from the Acceptable Use Policy, which reads, "When you post messages to mailing lists, message boards, and other facilities at RootsWeb, those posts remain your property under copyright law." The same is true for those using the message boards at Ancestry.com. In short, if you posted it, you own it. As far as the message boards or any other RootsWeb features are concerned, if you're not happy, we're not happy. Please continue to give us your comments and concerns..." [This was originally in last week's New Zoo Review; we hope it signals a new openness in communcation between Root$web and its user base.] === "One of the most striking differences between a cat and a lie is that a cat has only nine lives." ---Mark Twain 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 Jul 3 15:03:19 2001 Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 15:03:18 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: USGenWeb list , USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org, Daily Board Show Subject: By popular demand Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: Earlier today I posted a couple of URLs that discussed planned changes to RW's services. Since RW moved with uncommon alacrity to take those pages [and maybe an entire server] down and since so many of you have asked what is in them, here are some fair use excerpts. If you would like to see the pages in their entirety, I do suggest writing directly to RW about it. Also, can one of our local RW employees tell us what the UCDM is? It appears that they are planning to dump a whole bunch of RW users' personal data into it. --- The first URL was http://tn-1.rootsweb.com/~randy/mf/RW%20Premium%20Services%20MRD.txt Last updated in January 2001, it discusses the "Marketing Requirements for RootsWeb Premium Services". Here are some relevant quotes: Executive Summary; Background: "Prior to the RootsWeb acquisition, RootsWeb collected contributions for financial support. In addition to supporting a valid cause, users received premium services in exchange for their financial contribution...At the time of the acquisition, RootsWeb was bringing in roughly $100,000 per month in contributions. MyFamily.com, Inc discontinued acceptance of financial contributions as previously defined with the acquisition; however, demand for premium services still exists and could produce an additional revenue opportunity on RootsWeb." Executive Summary; Objectives: "Revenue. Begin charging for and promoting premium services on RootsWeb. Continue to collect registered users on RootsWeb providing additional registered names for marketing purposes." Executive Summary; Recommendation: "Reinstate premium services with a fee based approach...It is anticipated that we will roll a base set of premium services on RootsWeb initially with the idea of expanding this concept to Ancestry.com to provide additional premium services and perks for subscribing members." Executive Summary; Risks: "RootsWeb users feel that this is an over commercialization of the RootsWeb site and a high percentage choose to cancel participation in premium services do to lack of the goodwill feeling surrounding previous RootsWeb contributions." Proposed "premium services" include: "PML Personal Mailing Lists, Tagline free mailing lists, Banner free browsing, Discounts or complementary Ancestry subscriptions packages (base on the premium service level purchased), Banner free personal domains for genealogical purposes, Discounts on products in the Ancestry store, Discounts/complementary Ancestry subscriptions". There will be multiple levels of participation where you can get some or all of these benefits. Those of you who used to be donors to RW are "key to the initial success of Premium RootsWeb Services and revenue stream" and will be specifically targetted for this new program. You can expect personalized emails on the topic whenever they decide to implement it. Apparently this was originally proposed to roll out Feb 2001, but it didn't. When this document was originally published the RootsWeb user database was "still intact and operational." It contained "30,976 registered users, with e-mail as well as some postal addresses." [this is the info they appear to be planning to include in UCDM] 19,618 of those users were still know to be active. According to this, although they still advertise free unlimited web space, the are considering "Setting an arbitrary limit or flag at some level (i.e.200 MB) where customer support is notified and must review these accounts on a case-by-case basis..." --- There you have it. -Teresa BIG thanks to the little bird that sent me these URLs ;) From merope@Radix.Net Tue Jul 3 15:47:37 2001 Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 15:47:36 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: USGenWeb list , USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org, Daily Board Show Subject: By popular demand, part 2 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: The other page that was posted was at http://tn-1.rootsweb.com/~randy/randy/wc.htm It was originally posted in August 2000, back when Charles Merrin was Executive Producer at RW, and was written by Soren Rasmussen [who I believe is no longer with MyFamily.com]. Following are some fair use extracts of this interesting document that describes RW's plans to merge its WorldConnect Project with Ancestry's World Tree. --- Product Requirements For: Ancestry World Tree/WorldConnect Executive Summary; Background: "Ancestry World Tree and RootsWeb's WorldConnect are two of our most important features, combined generating more than 1.2 million daily page views. By giving both user groups easy access to the combined pedigree depository we should be able to generate more than the combined page views. AWT has not received significant upgrades since launch, and at times users have to wait weeks before their file is submitted or removed from the AWT. However, the integration with Online Family Tree provides a submission process that is easy to use, as well as an editing tool for files submitted to the AWT. WC has better features than AWT, but the submission process is not user friendly and WC does not offer an editing tool." [The combined AWT/WC was expected to launch in Oct 2000, with a goal of reaching 120 million names by the end of 2000. In the first quarter of 2001, they planned to launch AWT/WC 2.0, with possibly a new name, and with the goal of making it a "virtual community instead of just a database" and giving users the ability to comment on files.] Executive Summary; Objectives: "Short Term. Move all files submitted to the Ancestry World Tree into RootsWeb's WorldConnect and create one database called Ancestry World Tree/WorldConnect Project. The name is a short-term solution to help prevent existing users from abandoning the site. Long Term. We should be moving AWT/WC towards becoming a true virtual community...I believe the AWT/WC is a perfect candidate for a genealogy virtual community, the AWT/WC already benefits from being a product that consists entirely of customer generated content. The opportunity for users to share, combine, and comment on data posted in a pedigree database could distinguish the AWT/WC as a living resource...A successful virtual community can be a dual weapon, as it will provide greater value to the users, which thereby attracts more users, and also creates a growing competitive barrier for the competitor that fails to move first. Users will become more active when given the ability to participate in a community, and in a commercial environment, activity translates directly into revenue." [This documents notes more than once that WC is a much better system than AWT and merging them will provide a better environment to current AWT users. They note some problems with WC, mainly that its submission process "is not user friendly". By August of 2000 WC had received only 15,000 GEDCOMs, while AWT had over 80,000. The goal was to make submission easier and quicker, to make editing tools available, increase the number of submissions from RW users, allow searching of a combined pedigree database, and provide timely indexing. The document notes that the AWT/WC "is a unique product, since none of our competitors offer the ability to edit submitted files online, and they do not offer a feature similar to Post-em Notes. By being first to market we have the chance to establish a significant competitive barrier, because users do not want to go through the process of adding all their information, notes and corrections to more than one community." No plans to charge for the combined database or to sell CDs are mentioned anywhere. However, see below.] [The document goes on to make some rather brutal comparisons to the three main competitors: KindredKonnections' Ancestral Archive, Ancestral File, and Genealogy.com's World Family Tree. Of interest, at that time, WFT had nearly as many names as AWT and WC combined [98 million, and 105 million respectively.] Some of their plans for implementation were kinda neat and included: "Move all files from the AWT into WC. If possible, submitters should be able to use their username and password from Ancestry or MyFamily to access their file on RootsWeb as well. Ability to submit OFT files to the AWT/WC...Existing submitters to WC should get access to their OFT using their existing RootsWeb username and password...The current submission process to WC should remain as an advanced submission...When a user submits a file to the AWT/WC, identify all the surnames in the file with more than n (exact number TBD) individuals per surname, and automatically submit a message to the surname message boards...In the surname community, include the AWT/WC name count for that particular surname...Submissions should be included in the AWT/WC within 24 hours...Users should wait no longer than 24 hours for their files to be removed or updated...Ability to perform an advanced search of individual files...When new information is added to a file in the AWT/WC, the submitter, and whoever signs up, will receive an email notification...Give the user the ability to email the location of a family tree to a friend. Ability to link to information in other databases..." It is specifically noted here, in a section called "Required Functionality" that "We should be able to require a paid subscription or a free guest account if the user wants to utilize...both the links to paid databases as well as the free databases. We might not want to require a subscription to use the links to free databases, but we should be able to test it. The free databases will still be free, but for the user to take advantage of all the functionality in the AWT/WC, a subscription is required." So somewhere in this thing an actual cash generator was planned. The original schedule for this was to go into alpha on October 5, 2000, beta on Oct 12, 2000, and go live on October 24, 2000 [yes, that does seem like an astonishingly short testing period]. The original project team was Product Manager: Soren Rasmussem; Development Manager: Doug Reic; Marketing; Rodger Smith; Executive Producer-Ancestry: Scott Nelson; and Executive Producer-Rootsweb: Charles Merrin. Finally, from the Executive Summary; Risks: "We risk alienating both AWT and WC users by combining the two features." --- There you have it. Is this in development? Shelved indefinitely? Cancelled? Who knows? We suspect though that the first time you hear about it actually happening will be when its a done deal and announced in the RW Review. -Teresa From merope@Radix.Net Thu Jul 5 08:51:48 2001 Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 08:51:48 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 7/5/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: What's all the hubbub, bub?...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Tuesday 3 July 2001: Tim Stowell posts a message informing the Board of the death of Board member Ken Short's daughter. He posts an URL for an article about it , and also urls for an online card and flower fund . Tim is careful to note that the flower fund is not an official function of the USGenWeb Project. === Election News: Saying that "it is distinctly unpleasant to be part of a group (the AB) that is so freely and frequently maligned", George Waller has withdrawn from the NE/NC State Coordinator representative race. The only other candidate in that race is Nate Zipfel; congrats to Nate on his early victory! We Hold These Truths Corner: The publication in this forum and elsewhere of fair use extracts from two internal Root$web documents has caused quite a furor. Mostly this is because Root$web, with its usual bone-headed response to events of this of this nature, took the pages down abruptly and without comment, causing members to wonder what exactly they weren't supposed to see. In the interim since the extracts were published, former Root$web employee Bridget Schneider has reappered on the lists to obliquely threaten anyone who reposts the information [I am sure MyFamily.com pays an expensive legal department; threats should come from them and not the wives of their subidiary's employees]. Linda "Conspiracy Theory" Lewis has valiantly attempted to direct attention away from not only the documents themselves but from the obviously lax security at Root$web by posting personal information about a Root$web user to a public list [this is itself speaks volumes about how important Root$web employees consider your privacy]. They are so busy trying to slay the messenger that they have failed to answer two simple questions put to them: 1) what is the UCDM? and 2) was users' personal information, such as snail and email addresses, sold to MyFamily.com? Something tells us that the answers to those questions will _not_ make people happy. We note with all due irony that these events transpired on July 4, the United States' Independence Day, a day on which we celebrate not only one of the most revolutionary documents ever written, but the freedoms it eventually led us to consider part of our heritage as Americans and as human beings, among them freedom of speech and freedom of the press. What I do here is not that important in the grand scheme of things. I risk very little, except for the occasional annoyances associated with inhabiting the same planet as Linda Lewis. Every person who signed the Declaration was committing treason and risked their lives for it. Their willingness to take that risk fashioned a world where I can do what I do in relative safety and with the actual protection of the government and the courts. It is always worth reading the Declaration of Independence again, thus today's quote is brought to you by 56 of the bravest men who ever lived: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." This has been Your Daily Board Show. Go vote. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Sat Jul 7 09:17:41 2001 Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 09:17:40 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 7/7/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: You know it don't come easy...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Friday 6 July 2001: Tim Stowell reposts the Election Committee's third report. [see following report] === Silence is Golden Corner: For some reason unknown to me, I have been unsubbed from Board-L and cannot get resubbed. === "There is nothing so strong or safe in an emergency of life as the simple truth." ---Charles Dickens This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Sat Jul 7 09:18:20 2001 Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 09:18:19 -0400 (EDT) From: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: USGenWeb Election Committee - Report # Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: USGenWeb Election Committee Report # 3 July 4, 2001 The Following Report is submitted to the Advisory Board of the USGenWeb Project: The Election Committee is pleased to report that the polls for the 2001 USGenWeb Project opened on July 1, 2001 at 7:00 pm (PDT). The 2001 Election is now underway. After the close of nominations on Jun 18, 2001 the EC began working on the final voter / membership list and the testing of the voting booth software. Voter/Membership List: Larry Stephens (U of IN) set up an announcement list for the EC and a test message was sent to the majority of volunteers. Due to a mis-setting on the server the announcement only list was an open list for a short period of time. This resulted in some confusion that was quickly cleared up. The test message resulted in a 159 bounced messages. The EC had already placed the procedure for handing bounced messages in place and the majority of the bad addresses were corrected within 48 hours. Keith Giddeon was in charge of this procedure and did an absolutely outstanding job. Between Jun 18th and Jun 30th several messages were posted on the ALL, DISCUSS, CC-L List and STATE-L lists by the Chair. These messages kept the membership informed about the test message and when members could expect to receive their voter password. In each instance the Chair requested that the message be forwarded to regional and state lists. The cooperation of the SCs and individual volunteers was exceptional and the EC wishes to thank each of these individuals for their help. Without them it would have been impossible to reach the majority of the members. The e-mail announcement containing the individual's voter password were sent on the morning of July 1, 2001. Many, many of the e-mails bounced. Once again Keith Giddeon handled the bounces. The Chair posted a message on the lists mentioned above asking members to contact the EC if the they did not receive their password. Once again the help of the SC's and individual members to distribute this message was exceptional. The ESC's Guidelines directed that the voter/membership list be closed 30 days prior to Jul 1st. This deadline was set because in the past it was necessary to upload a final list to the voting software server and it could not be changed afterwards. Since this year's master voter list is an actual data base, the EC, after due discussion, reached the decision to keep the voter list open until mid July. Messages were posted on all of the lists mentioned above asking that any volunteer who had not received their password to contact the EC. We are receiving messages daily. These volunteers are being confirmed as to eligibility and then added to the Voter/Membership list as quickly as possible. Voting Booth Software: There have been many questions asked of the EC about the Voting Booth Software. For the record the Chair is including this rather lengthy and detailed explanation of the software and the reasons for why things are as they are. The ECS Guidelines instructed the EC to find a 3rd party voting system. The ESC made this recommendation because of the problems with past elections. It was felt that a 3rd party voting system would satisfy those members who, in the past, felt that the USGenWeb Project's annual elections were not secure, that votes had been tampered with and that vote packing was being allowed (to mention just a few). Two months were spent by the EC looking for such a 3rd party system. Although several were found that fit the guidelines established by the ESC none of them were free, except for VoteBot. The Chair was working with the people at VoteBot when she received a message from one of her contacts stating that VoteBot was withdrawing their free system. The Chair was told that there was no guarantee "that we won't pull the plug in the middle of your election". This, of course, was unacceptable. The ESC Guidelines also suggested that the EC look into writing a voting program of our own. The EC was already in the process of trying to locate programmers who would be willing to undertake the development of a system. When VoteBot announced they could not guarantee our election would be hosted for the full 30 days the decision was made to develop a voting booth program for use in this year's election. Michael Anderson, a young man who is the son of one of a past USGenWeb volunteer, agreed to undertake this daunting task. The EC cannot possibly thank Michael enough for the hard work and unbelievable number of hours he spent developing the voting booth software for us. He is an exception young man, not to mention extremely talented. The first requirement of the voting system was that it had to be one that could be used not only this year but in the future. Therefore, the EC had to try to think of every conceivable situation that might arise and Michael had the task of trying to make the software handle all of these "might happen" circumstances. The USGenWeb Project structure makes developing a simple voting system impossible.. The EC tested the IA State Voting Software. It is an excellent system but it could not handle the number of variables of a national election. Because of the regional structure of the Project it is impossible to offer a single ballot that can be used by everyone. After much discussion Michael suggested setting up individual ballots for each item to be voted on. By structuring the voter/membership list in a particular format the voter would be presented with only the ballots for the area/item they are qualified to vote for when they enter the voting booth. Michael designed the system so that ballots could be set up each year by the EC without any code change requirements. The voting booth software is also designed to handle state, special project and special elections. The EC and Michael tried to follow the guidelines set up by the ESC. A few of the items were not workable once the development of the software was underway. The requirements of the software per the ESC's Guidelines are: The voting mechanism selected should meet at least the following criteria: 1. Accept votes (more than one per person, with the ability to drop earlier votes); 2. Display appropriate ballots depending on the ID of the person or have clear directions so a voter can easily find the correct portions of the ballot for which they are eligible to vote; 3. Send a confirmation email once the vote is accepted that includes a date/time stamp, and their votes; 4. Count votes and return reliable results within 24 hours; 5. Compile vote statistics in a way that the EC can post so that people can verify their votes; and 6. Be confidential and secure. 1. Accept votes (more than one per person, with the ability to drop earlier votes) In the past election one of the recurring causes for discontent was the belief that a person's "final" vote was not counted. As the developer of the software Michael felt that the security and integrity of the system would best be served by allowing only one vote. There would be no question as to whether a voter's vote was recorded. The point was made that in real life a person is only allowed to vote once. The USGenWeb Election runs for 30 days which is ample time for a voter to reach a final decision. 3. Send a confirmation email once the vote is accepted that includes a date/time stamp, and their votes; The EC was unable to find a program that would do this without a large outlay of cash (which the Project has none of). Larry Stephen's system does not include this type of program either. Michael designed the ballots so that once a vote is cast the voter's choice is displayed in bold print on the ballot. The voter can print this screen and keep a copy of their vote. Should a person wish to confirm their vote they need only enter the voting booth again and their choices will be displayed. If anyone should question whether or not their vote was actually recorded they may write to Larry Stephens who does have access to the voter's record and he can confirm the recording of the vote. 5. Compile vote statistics in a way that the EC can post so that people can verify their votes Once the development of the software was underway it was found that this item was ambiguous and impossible to fulfil. If the voter's vote is secret and is not available to anyone except the voter themselves then there was no way to post voter results so that an individual could verify their own vote. The way a voter can verify their vote is covered in item #3 above. 6. Be confidential and secure. This item was the prime objective of the EC and Michael. From the first day of development this directive was foremost in everyone's minds. The software is structured in such a way that only one human has access to the information on how any member voted. And, no matter how much we would all like to eliminate that one human there does have to be someone with access to all information to be sure the software is working properly, to confirm voting information and to monitor the voting process for any bugs or glitches that might arise. The search for such a human was an extremely difficult task. The person had to be willing to host the voting software at no charge; had to be willing to spend the time necessary to get the software working and to monitor the election for a month; have no connection with the USGenWeb Project or a project volunteer and be above reproach. The only person found who fit all the requirements was Larry Stephens at the U of IN. The EC cannot thank Larry Stephens enough for taking on this task for us. The EC tested the voting software and made small suggestions for changes and also caught a few bugs. As of Jul 1st when the polls opened the software was fully operational. To date the biggest problem reported by voters is the error message received if the voter does not set their browser to accept cookies before they try to vote. The Cookies that are set by the voting program contain the information on which ballot the individual entering the voting booth should see. They do not contain any information on how the individual voted and they expire the same day they are set. Information about the requirement for Cookies is explained just above the link to the voting booth. To develop a software program as sophisticated as this one required the use of a powerful PC language. The language chosen required the use of Java. The majority of the volunteers of the Project use either Internet Explorer or Netscape as their browser and these two programs support Java forms. The EC knew that there were some members who have browsers that do not support Java or have only text based browsers. For those members a "paper ballot" was offered. As of Jul 1, 2001 - 7:00 pm (PDT) when the polls opened the type of "paper ballot" had not been established and the suggested ways a voter could vote using a "paper ballot" had not been tested. The major concern of everyone involved was the final testing of the actual voting software itself so that it would be ready when the polls opened. It was also felt that the majority of people would postpone voting until they had the opportunity to view the Candidates web pages and arrive at a decision. However, before the EC had the opportunity to test the suggested "paper ballots" a Grievance was filed against the EC by David Morgan. Mr. Morgan's Grievance states: I have been able to vote in every election since 1998, the same way everybody else has been able to vote. This year, the election committee has decided to use software that will not work with a text-based web browser. So I can not vote in the same manner that everyone else can vote. I believe this is discriminatory. I hope you will think about it, even though I don't expect anything to be done Mr. Morgan is correct in his statement that the EC has decided to use software that will not work with a text-based web browser. The reasons for this are stated above. However, the EC had and has no intention of discriminating against anyone. There will be an alternate means of voting for those who cannot use the regular voting software. The alternate method will allow a member to vote for the candidate of their choice and their vote will be recorded just as surely as if they voted using the voting booth software. This alternate method will be decided on, tested, and a link will be placed on the Voter Instruction Pages as soon as possible. Other Items: There is a Voter Instruction Page on the EC web site that not only covers the instructions for voting but also addresses several voting issues. This page is being updated continuously to better serve the voter. A Question and Answer page is in place on the EC's web site. It is also being updated as new questions are received from members. The EC will now begin work on a survey form to be placed on the EC's web site. Several items will be listed and it is hoped that through the use of this survey the EC will be able to better serve the membership. Thank you for your attention to this lengthy report. Should you have any questions the EC will do our best to answer them. Respectfully submitted by: Linda Haas Davenport Chair USGenWeb Project Election Committee