JULY 2006 DBS

Thursday, July 27, 2006
Size Matters

Coffe, tea, or free genealogy...its Your Daily Board Show!

I'M BETTER THAN YOU: The Board has apparently hunkered down and is avoiding talking about the urgent bylaws amendment. The rest of the chattering class, however, is busily engaged in all sorts of discussions that also aren't about the urgent bylaws amendment. Tim Stowell continues to post more of his fascinating look at CCs who manage multiple counties in USGenWeb; one of the more prolific volunteers is our old friend Ed Black, who once upon a time was running upwards of a hundred of Root$web's mailing lists. Apparently he's just as spry as ever. Current Board member Bettie Wood is also one of the busier'n a bee members with 13 counties, one state coordinator-ship, and an ongoing position on the Board. The clear winner, though, is someone named Tami Ramsey, with 31 counties in 6 states, and 18 counties in VAGenWeb alone. You wonder how she finds the time.

In the never-ending story department, over on the DISCUSS list someone posted a copy of a statement that CAGenWeb CCs are now required to post prominently on their pages. The statement gives all rights to all data posted on any CAGenWeb site to CAGenWeb and is apparently a violation not only of our bylaws but federal copyright law [IANAL, so take that statement for what it is worth]. This has, shall we say, encouraged Sister Mary Jeff to Explain It All For You in regards to copyright law, joust clumsily with David "Who Also Knows Everything" Samuelsen, segue gracefully into the need for a total revision of the bylaws, and finish with a dramatic monologue on the general snarkiness of anyone who opposes his vision for killing USGenWeb to save it. [We'd take anything Jeff said a lot more seriously if he wasn't dead wrong at least 50% of the time. He may be right about the copyright issue, he may not be. But given his track record, we'll just withhold judgement on this issue until an actual-by-god copyright lawyer shows up and tell us what the scoop really is.]

Meanwhile, Donal O'Kelly decided to jump on NC Linda's straw man bandwagon and asked a bunch of pointless questions about page management issues. This provoked another argumentative discussion about page design, data management, project loyalty, search engines, and logo size. While several folks had quite good ideas about how to help CCs improve their pages for researchers, the talk quickly moved into "if you don't do it just exactly so you are an ingrateful, incompetent traitor who hates USGenWeb" territory. In short order we all got to participate in the continually dismaying spectacle of Don, who wants to represent us all, holding yet another volunteer's webpage up to public ridicule solely because it is affiliated with three projects, displays all three logos, and doesn't favor one of them over any other. Bad choice on his part, because in comparing it with his own admittedly not updated for 10 years page, he managed to show everyone on DISCUSS how to scare people away with poor page design. Apparently, the only objection he had to the page he disparaged was the size and placement of the logos.

We might suggest to Don that it's not really the size of your logo that matters, it's how you use it.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Happy creatures dancing on the lawn since 1998

Posted by merope at 8:15 AM 0 comments    

Tuesday, July 25, 2006
The Shape Of Things To Come

Hurry up and wait...its Your Daily Board Show!

THUMB TWIDDLING: The Board, or at least two whole members of it, continues to display [not] a desperate sense of urgency regarding the proposed emergency amendment to the bylaws. A couple of days ago Jeff asked a question about the time frame for filing a grievance which so far has gone unanswered. NC Linda posted a comment from a constituent who noted that the Board has no power to enforce the so-called "binding outcomes" of grievances. This prompted Jeff to give us all a long preview of coming attractions in a detailed message regarding discipline, suspension, and expulsion of members, which he is all for and wants to see codified in the bylaws. We can easily see where this is going and we imagine the next matter of "urgency" before the Board will be the necessity of giving the Board the power to enforce those "binding outcomes" it is currently so interested in rushing through the amendment process.

This, over the last two days, has been the entirety of the Board's discussion of this incredibly urgent [not] matter. There's been a bit of sporadic chit chat on a couple of mailing lists, but for the most part there is no real sense of urgency in the membership either. Dick Harrison challenged NC Linda's opinion that the new procedures aren't in conflict with the bylaws, implied she isn't qualified to make such a determination, and suggested she find someone who is. [We guess he missed Josh's concurrence with the opinion.] A couple of members pursued the "if it's good, it must be urgent" line of reasoning and implied that it's OK to get around the bylaws if its for a good cause. We have never understood why anyone thinks its OK to ignore or violate the letter and spirit of the bylaws to forward a particularly desirable end. Giving the Board leave to do so in one instance gives them leave to do it in others and it makes no sense to argue that putting someone's rights in the bylaws guarantees those rights when you've just given the Board permission to ignore the bylaws whenever it can determine a good reason for doing so.

SETTING UP A STRAW MAN: NC Linda, whose recent bumbling interference managed to cost CAGenWeb several of its best counties, opened an interesting can of worms when she asked the candidates what they would do about "sites within the Project that have one or more the following problems: stagnate or haven't been updated in years; contains only a handful of links; full of broken links; are shell sites leading to other Project pages, personal sites, or to for-profit sites." This leading question has prompted some interesting discussion, the most curious of which is the dismaying spectacle of elected officials and wannabe elected officials holding various USGenWeb volunteers and websites to public ridicule to make some point or other about what constitutes an acceptable site.

We've also discovered from this discussion and courtesy of Tim Stowell that the 10 people who host the most counties in USGenWeb among them host or cohost 176 counties, for an average of nearly 18 counties each. The top 5 host a total of 110 counties, for an average of 22 counties each. Among these are a sitting Board member, a current candidate, a State Coordinator, and the head of a Special Project. Yikes!

BONUS QUOTE: "The duty to advise on grievances is a discretionary power of the AB. It is more than a clerical or mechanical function. The members rely on the wisdom and integrity and discretion of the AB to properly adjudicate these disagreements." --Dick Harrison

DOUBLE BONUS QUOTE: "I am sure that the grievance/appeal procedures when applied will come up with individual solutions for each problem." --Jeff Scism, describing the past as the future

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Sorting it out since 1998

Posted by merope at 5:55 AM 0 comments    

Sunday, July 23, 2006
Roll, Tide, Roll

Standing in the path of the juggernaut...its Your Daily Board Show!

TAKING IT TO THE STREETS: Since the Board itself apparently feels absolutely no urgency for the proposed bylaws amendment, NC Linda wrote up a new version of the amendment and took it to the various mailing lists for comments. You can read her proposal here:

http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/BOARD/2006-07/1153654561

It is not too very different from Scott Burow's version. It is more specific about what text will be removed from the current bylaws and it removes the offensive "direct interest" clause. When she posted it NC Linda did note that the Board was graciously seeking the Project's input, since the amendment would affect all Project members. Although she posted her version to the "official" Board list, she has also continued to revise the amendment on the informal chat list.

Apparently the Board is intending to rush this through using the urgency clause of the bylaws, since Linda is currently making arrangements to have it on the run-off election ballot. It's interesting because she herself has noted that the bylaws don't conflict with the new procedures and the new procedures can be implemented without changing the bylaws, so the breathless sense of urgency communicated from the GPC was more or less hot air. The bylaws do allow urgent amendment in cases where something will affect the "well-being" of the USGenWeb project, but it's hard to see this having any substantive impact on anyone's well-being, good or bad. It's just an amendment that establishes a formal committee and elucidates some rights. Yes, it is desirable in many respects, but as we pointed out some days ago "Good" does not equal "Urgent." It also does not follow from the wording in the bylaws that anything that affects the well-being of the Project is necessarily urgent. We are currently awaiting the NC's and/or Scott Burow's newest reason why this just must be handled urgently.

As an aside, NC Linda also noted that all new grievances will be handled under the new procedures. However, she made her announcement on the informal list so it is apparently not official policy.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Not really impressed since 1998

Posted by merope at 8:30 AM 0 comments    

Friday, July 21, 2006
Add It Up

Catching the wave...its Your Daily Board Show!

HAVING YOUR CAKE AND EATING IT TOO: Yesterday NC Linda posted her reasoned analysis of the situation with the new grievance procedures, the bylaws, and conflict. Citing someone called "Strugis" repeatedly, she came to the conclusion that "Even without the bylaw amendment the Grievance Committee Procedures themselves are not in conflict with the bylaws. However, without the bylaw amendment any future AB can disband the Grievance Committee and without the amendment Section VI article 3 leaves open the question of whether or not a grievance could bypass the committee." So, basically, all the hoohaw over the conflict with the bylaws was merely a distraction, and the question of urgency was not really addressed.

NC Linda also forwarded a message from Parlamentarian Josh Taylor who basically supported her summary of the situation. He also noted, "Because bylaws rank higher on the hierarchy of parliamentary authority for an organization, the listing of a standing committee in the bylaws protects its existence...While I personally, from a parliamentary perspective would feel better if the GP committee was listed as a standing committee in the bylaws, there is nothing in Sturgis that claims it has to be. The fear is that an AB will be unable to seat the GP committee...and cannot be forced to do so if the committee is not a standing committee listed in the bylaws...It is my opinion that the USGenWeb Advisory Board should work to establish policies that are in line with Sturgis, but still allow for the flexibility and realistic management of the project."

Phyllis Rippee then popped in to opine that now that the conflict issue was addressed, the Board could proceed with establishing the committee. She also stated that "Since no set of procedures can be applied to what has happened prior to their going into effect any grievance filed prior to passage of the 'not in conflict' set must be handled under the 'old' set," and wondered what would happen to those grievances filed after passage of the new procedures but before establishment of the Grievance Committee. It's a good question, but people who file grievances in USGenWeb are used to waiting months for a hearing and we imagine it will be no different waiting for the Grievance Committee to get off the ground.

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

Posted by merope at 5:50 AM 0 comments    

Thursday, July 20, 2006
Hazy Days Of Summer

Hotter than hades...its Your Daily Board Show!

DOG DAYS: After a few days of mostly quiet, the Board commenced to lazily bat around the "urgent" bylaws amendment [the sheer length of time they are taking to discuss it argues against it having any urgency whatsoever]. A couple of days ago Phyllis started off the latest mini-discussion by wondering aloud if the GPC was working on rewording the amendment or if the Board should go ahead and handle the motion itself in some way or another. Scott replied that the amendment was now more or less in the Board's court and noted, "The AB can change, alter, remove, deface, or otherwise change anything it wants before it's submitted to the membership. The AB can add to it, re-word it, subtract from it, or choose not to propose anything at all...It's the AB's amendment, so the AB can propose what it likes." [If you think he sounds a little testy about the whole thing, you'd probably be right.]

After a day or so of silence, NC Linda tried to kick the discussion up a notch by suggesting rewording of the one section of the proposed amendment that has been problematic. She suggested the following, "A member may choose to act as his or her own representative at any step of a grievance. If representation is desired, the member may select a representative of his/her choice, provided there is no conflict of interest on the part of the representative." Noting that this immediately causes concern over who will be determining "conflict of interest," she suggested that this would be handled "during the initial steps in setting up the mediation," without much further detail. NC Linda got some support from Larry Flesher, but Jeff and Phyllis both suggested removing the "conflict of interest" clause and just allowing the parties to a grievance to hire on whomsoever they choose as a representative. As Phyllis noted, "Anyone chosen would have a direct interest of some kind...if nothing other than just wanting to take sides in the issue at hand."

That was pretty much the end of the discussion. The topic has died down on the chattering lists and whatever urgency the matter had seems to have more or less dissipated into the hot air.

FLYING FREE: In a brief news update, we've heard a bit more from the wandering tattler out in the Land of Milk and Honey. It seems another handful of long-time CCs have resigned from CAGenWeb citing their dissatisfaction with the current state leadership and to ice the cake yesterday CAGenWeb lost its Archives. We are told that the state management elected to address these privately sent resignations in a most public manner and that remaining CCs have been instructed to have any donated files removed immediately from the former CAGenWeb archives and turned over to the SC. Apparently, this is part and parcel of Richard's "mine, all mine" approach to state leadership, wherein "all files donated to any CAGW site belong to CAGW." Several CCs have formally withdrawn their permission for CAGW to use or copy any records from their local sites, but this has been countered by others posting wordy statements giving CAGW full permission to use their materials so long as it remains active.

We have no doubt this will all sort itself out in the end, but it is a pity that USGenWeb has to lose so many good sites in the process. Although we generally don't endorse punitive attacks on anyone, it's a pity that "National" [before it washed its hands of this matter] didn't remind the CCs of their rights under the bylaws to have a vote to retain Richard as SC. If the loyal opposition could muster enough support, they could have forced the Board to address the issue. Instead, the problem was more or less encouraged to take its ball and go play in another sandbox. Which we've heard is exactly what they intend to do.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Grateful for AC since 1998

Posted by merope at 5:50 AM 0 comments    

Saturday, July 15, 2006
Be Sure To Wear Some Flowers In Your Hair

Nothing but old news...its Your Daily Board Show!

OH YEAH, THAT TOO: The Board has been mostly quiet for a few days now. Yesterday, Phyllis asked if the proposed bylaws amendments affected any part of the bylaws other than Sections 1 and 2 of Article XIV, and Scott assured her that, "The replacement wording only affects the original wording of Section XIV (1 &2), and is not referenced anywhere else in the by-laws." Jeff pointed out, however, that it would also affect Article VI, Section 3, which lists the duties of the Advisory Board.

WANDERING TATTLER: The situation in CAGenWeb is progressing just about the way these things always do in USGenWeb. The mailing list is exploding, the accusations and resignations are flying fast, and the pleas of "can't we all just get along" are coming hard on their heels, mostly from Richard's supporters. This time, though, there is a bit of an interesting subtext. Although many of the loyal opposition are bravely risking their counties to challenge Richard publicly, there is also an apparently well-organized secret background campaign to discredit him. Several of our correspondents have reported receiving cryptic emails full of interesting insider-only details; the senders have names no one knows and AOL and Yahoo addresses with no posting history. We've gotten a few ourselves. They are not apparently written by the same person, but all make the same point: CAGenWeb=GAGenWeb. The parallels are interesting, if not exactly striking. There is an SC unpopular in some quarters but who has his fans. There are allegations of plagiarism, copyright violation, stolen webpages, "shadow CCs", and retaliation firings. There are Archives involved, although not those Archives. There is even a poll that was ignored by the management. But there is one big difference. In this case, unlike in Georgia, the NC is going out of her way to remind the CCs that the SC has rights, everything he is doing or not doing is well within those rights, and the national level will not interfere further in the situation [other than of course, getting those award-winning shell sites canned.]

Oh and by the way, that sub rosa email campaign we mentioned previously. It's apparently originating from the Board. Someone doesn't like NC Linda's take on the matter and is taking the situation personally in hand.

ZOO NEWS: We are pleased to report that the DBS has a new mascot:

http://www.birdphotography.com/species/wata.html

BONUS QUOTE: "I spent my Wonder Bread years learning about The Establishment, Social and Ecological Injustice, then moved to the Haight-Asbury district in time for the Monterey Pop Festival, and to tour with the Grateful Dead. I'm a retired Hippy who has spent 40 years fighting The Establishment and Social Injustice, and I'm only 39...I was raised on Superman, Zorro, The Lone Ranger, I Ching, Kahlil Gibran, and professional wrestling." ---the fabulously accomplished Daryl Lytton [and ladies, we hear he's single!]

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

Posted by merope at 7:05 AM 0 comments    

Friday, July 14, 2006
Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité

Storming the barricades...its Your Daily Board Show!

WHITHER THE BOARD: Other than a post by Darilee enumerating various and sundry reasons why she may be a bit uncommunicative over the weekend, the Board has been silent for a couple of days now.

MONKEY TALK: Meanwhile, over on the Discuss list, Jeff "I Don't Need No Stinkin' Dictionary" Scism has given us all a little preview of the backup argument for urgency in the case that the Parliamentarian opines that the new procedures don't conflict with the bylaws. He noted, "Whether teh bylaws amendment conflicts with teh Policy isn't as urgent in my view as the fairness of treatment for those in the process. Many urgently want to get the AB out of the grievance process, adn want the committee to be formed and handle grievances...putting the amendment on a one year hold would kill it, and forever leave the process confused and unreparible. The Urgency of the issue is that doing the amendment as soon as possible after passing the policy keeps the process in alignment, and means it can be implemented at least a year earlier...The Board will decide if it is "urgent" enough to be expedited, then the members will decide if it is made a part of the bylaws."

Even if the bylaws did leave the definition of "urgent" up in the air, most adult people have dictionaries readily available which do give concise definitions of the word. And in none of them would you find the definition of "urgent" to contain the synonyms "good" or "desirable". As we've noted elsewhere, writing and passing procedures you believe to be in conflict with the bylaws and then using that as as excuse to exploit the urgency clause of the bylaws strikes us as little more than cynical manipulation of the system, even if the underlying motives are blinding in their purity. Now that it looks like that approach has a higher probability of failure [if there is no conflict, then there is no urgency], Jeff has whipped up a fallback argument, which is that if something is really cool and he personally approves of it, it must also be urgent. His approach would, of course, give the Board some broad precedent to follow in determining the the urgency of future matters before it, but then Jeff has always believed that the Board should take a firmer hand in controlling the Project. Plus, wethinks Jeff is getting just a little desperate to amend the bylaws. Any bylaw.

THE LEFT COAST: Now comes a tale of an earthquake of a different kind, from our friends in sublime California. A few days ago we received a cryptic email from someone not known to us [or apparently to anyone else] claiming that there was some kind of coup attempt in CAGenWeb and that the SC there had fired all the participants. This sounded a bit odd to us, since in our experience, Richard is kind of a quiet, even-tempered guy, so we put some feelers out, and lo, one of California's graceful brown pelicans dropped by to give us the skinny on the lowdown. So here, with some editing to remove identifying information, is what our big brown bird had to say:

"Shortly after the episode with [name redacted], [SC Richard Wilson] apparently became ill and pretty much disappeared from view from the fall of 2005 until May of this year, responding to very few e-mails. In the meantime, in May, Linda Haas Davenport called Richard, trying to find out if he was functional as SC, and notified us that he had been ill. Unfortunately, during all those months of illness, he failed to notify anyone. After Linda's phone calls, he suddenly appeared again, on the list, after telling her that it was up to the CCs about whether he remained as SC, and we observed a sudden burst of activity. He hired on three ASCs to do the actual work. Some of the CCs wanted to start having elections in California, rather than have a lifetime "kingship," because there is so much disappointment over Richard's leadership, or lack thereof.

After Richard's return, some of the CCs started requesting that we have elections for SC in e-mails to the list. Richard has a very vocal group of supporters, and immediately they started trying to stiffle any commentary that was critical of Richard, saying that everyone should shut up and let Richard and his new ASCs do their work. The list has been repressive for a long time, and one CC wrote an e-mail pointing out the repressiveness that comes from Richard's supporters. Richard did not respond to appeals for him to resign or allow an election. He eventually responded, saying that it was a "waste of time" to have an election.

Richard set up a committee - the three ASCs and himself - to establish "guidelines" or rules in California, something that hadn't previously existed in more than a few lines of text. When we started making suggestions as to the possible content of the "guidelines," he didn't respond, although he claimed that CCs would get to make suggestions when the document was completed. Then he claimed that our suggestions weren't what he wanted, though he had never defined what he DID want or the subjects that were being considered.

Then, a CC apparently posted something on her website that was critical of Richard, the ASCs or both. One of Richard's ASCs within minutes de-linked her website, suspended her e-mail communication, and suspended her from participation in CaGenWeb. There was a big outcry from some of the other CCs over due process. The CC was returned to her position within a few days, with Richard claiming that the ASC was new and hadn't known the rules, although the ASC claimed that she had checked with Richard before she administered the suspension. Later, Richard pretty much back-tracked and claimed that the ASC had acted appropriately in suspending the CC. Due process and abuse of power became issues in posts to the list.

So, one CC found an organization on the web at Cornell Univ. that would conduct a poll to ask the question about whether we should have elections for SC in California. The final vote was 10 who wanted elections to 5 who didn't, out of some 42 CCs. Some CCs didn't get the password to vote, so there were quick accusations of fraud and deceit, although CCs on both sides of the question failed to get the password. It isn't known about why several didn't get the e-mails with the password - perhaps a glitch at Cornell, spam filters, etc. Richard pretty much has claimed that the vote was in his favor because all the people who chose not to vote discredited the poll.

Then, after the poll from Cornell, things got really heated, with verbal abuse from Richard's supporters and comments that everyone should shut up and get back to work on our sites. After a heated exchange of e-mails with Richard, one CC resigned. Since the CC who resigned shared three counties with another CC, she was de-linked too, as she had also written e-mails critical of Richard and the repression on the list. Then followed finger-pointing between Richard and the ASC over the de-linking, which was done again without due process. This happened just a couple of days ago. She resigned also, last night, in an absolutely scorching post sent to the list. Another CC resigned minutes thereafter. I strongly suspect that others will follow.

Richard also threatened to de-link the several CCs who have what Linda Haas Davenport calls "shell" sites, but at least two had created "shell" sites because they wanted to remove themselves from Richard's server and his control over their files...Linda also told us in an e-mail that she had gotten an e-mail from a California CC asking for an election to remove some of the CCs who have been most vocal in complaining about Richard...There is disappointment among some CCs about Linda Haas Davenport's part in this. The conflict has become intractable, in part because of her inability to mediate a satisfactory resolution. Richard was inactive for 6-9 months and should have been removed from his lifetime position, allowing for free and open elections.

This situation has gotten really nasty. My personal opinion is that CaGenWeb is so dysfunctional that it isn't something I want to do."

[We looked into this "shell site" business and it turns out that NC Linda did indeed advise Richard to remove these sites from CAGenWeb, citing the portion of the bylaws that says the counties should be the central repositories of data. These sites, one of which we are intimately familiar with, generally have a home page on Richard's server which links offsite to the main data repository site. Various state projects have these pages, usually when the entire state has made the decision to use a single server but some of the CCs wish for whatever reason to use a different server for their site. In other words, it is a compromise between the CCs' right to store their pages wherever they wish and whatever arrangement the SC has made with a particular server. Similar accomodations have been made in CAGenWeb, KSGenWeb, TNGenWeb, and other states, and until now we had no idea they apparently stick so bad in NC Linda's craw. At least not so much that she'd meddle in state business to the point of making a bad situation worse. The CAGenWeb site we visit frequently meets every requirement of the USGenWeb bylaws. It is full of data, it is regularly updated, its CC is always available to help researchers; in general it is a credit to the Project. And as of yesterday, it is gone from CAGenWeb.]

BONUS QUOTE: "My horse may be a little high; but I thank God daily that I have one to ride and it keeps me out of life's gutters where a lot of people travel." --Jackie Rhodes, not actually getting the point

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

Posted by merope at 6:40 AM 0 comments    

Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Manufactured Crisis

Sure didn't see that coming...its Your Daily Board Show!

RIGHT ON SCHEDULE: NC Linda announced the passage of Motion 06-13 and, citing the confict with the bylaws, immediately placed the proposed bylaws amendments before the Board for discussion. Thus far, only the amendments' papa has appeared inclined to discuss them at all, and he is making an obvious effort to ignore the 500 pound gorilla sitting in his lap. The Board simply should have waited until the Parliamentarian was available to opine on whether the procedures conflict with the bylaws. But of course, that's silly of us. If the bylaws do not conflict with the new procedures, then there is no need for an urgent amendment and this will have to wait a whole year before it's a done deal.

[We imagine that Scott found himself in a bit of a conundrum when contemplating his pet amendments. In order to be able to amend the bylaws in anything like a timely fashion, i.e., before he is the new NC, he needed to find a way to make the amendments an urgent matter. Voila!, an instant made-up crisis created by deliberately writing procedures that conflict with the existing bylaws. Then all he needed to do was convince the Board to pass them, perhaps by a little of the old quid pro quo he's so fond of, even though they are in conflict and then claim to need to urgently amend the bylaws because, omg! they are in conflict. Good work if you can get, eh? Its no wonder he's a proponent of keeping the Sekrit Sandbox just as it is. How else do you do your backroom dealing?]

OUR READERS WRITE: Chill, people. You are reading way more into it that is there. All the article says is that he's unavailable. It doesn't impugn his motives. That he happened to need to leave town at a time that is convenient to the Board's current inexplicable hell-or-high-water agenda is an unfortunate coincidence, but that doesn't change the fact that the timing was indeed fortuitous to certain pending pet projects. What, did you all go to public school or something?

BONUS QUOTE: "All previously issued warnings and cautions to list members are hereby cancelled sine die." --George Waller, apparently opening a free-for-all on DISCUSS

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Enunciating clearly since 1998

Posted by merope at 6:00 AM 0 comments    

Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Brave Old World

Same as it ever was...its Your Daily Board Show!

SAINTS BE PRAISED: With 10 Board members voting YES and one abstaining, Motion 06-13 has passed and the USGenWeb finds itself in possession of a brand spanking new set of grievance procedures. Still no word from our conveniently absent parliamentarian as to whether the procedures conflict with the bylaws but that is now entirely beside the point.

We are not sure just exactly how long it will take for the membership to discover that no matter how much frosting you put on a cowpie it is nothing but a tastier cowpie. We imagine this will happen the first time a CC wins a grievance against their SC and discovers that the Board still finds itself powerless to enforce a "binding" outcome. Or perhaps it will come when the Board slaps together a grievance committee composed of the usual suspects and they hire more of the usual suspects as mediators and those not fortunate to be in the club once again find themselves on short end of the beat stick. But it will be better because instead of the Board on the other end of the beat stick it will be their hand-picked team of trained beaters.

YOUR SLIP IS SHOWING: Perhaps the revelation will happen with a grievance currently before the Board. This grievance, filed over a month ago, was put on hold by the NC because one of the parties to the grievance [the SC] alleged that the other party intended to use any materials from the grievance in a lawsuit. The other party [the CC], meanwhile, has been attempting to ascertain the status of the grievance for over a month without success; although recently told by one Board member that the mediation would proceed shortly, the CC was later informed that the mediation was actually on hold due to the unverified allegations of the SC, who happens to be a former Board member. Yes, the NC apparently placed a hold on the grievance without first discussing the allegations with the CC and from what our little bird tells us she had no real plans to ever discuss them with the CC. They aren't too thrilled with having to handle this particular grievance, since the CC in question is distasteful to them and the SC in question is one of them and was basically cheered on by most of them when they fired the CC. They cannot allow the CC to win and they know they will look bad no matter how they manage to let the SC prevail, and they are having some trouble finding frosting for the cowpie.

THE RABBLE QUIETED: With the discussion of Motion 06-13 now moot, at least until the bylaws issue comes up again, conversation on the chatter lists has smoothed out a bit. The EC announced some unspecified "voting glitch" in the NENC race; voters in that region should now be able to vote without problems. The main election-related topic has been membership meetings, which are a major theme of Fred Smoot's campaign. The discussion is an interesting one, but since none of the usual suspects favors giving the membership a chance to reject any of their policies or procedures [particularly when they discipline members] we doubt it will ever come to pass. Don "Living In The Past" Kelly and Jeff "OCD" Scism [who has written 9 sets of bylaws in five years] are still griping about bylaws amendments from years ago. There's also been a disheartening suggestion that now that it has a new set of grievance procedures, the Board form yet another committee to look into the matter of disciplining members. With all this focus on voter fraud and grievances and discipline, you'd think USGenWeb was more about jurisprudence than genealogy.

CAFFEINE DEFICIT: Thanks to the several of you who wrote us yesterday about our mistake with Paulette Carpenter's name. As we explained on the DISCUSS list, we happened to be reading an article about someone named Paulette Cooper recently and we goofed. We've edited the original post to correctly reflect Paulette Carpenter as our choice for NC and we apologize for any confusion.

BONUS QUOTE: "Your proposals taste YUKE! YEECH! Puking, puking. Plain and simple." --W. David Samuelsen, providing insightful commentary on something or other

Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Plain and simple since 1998

Posted by merope at 6:20 AM 0 comments    

Sunday, July 09, 2006
When The Cows Came Home

Wrapping up...its Your Daily Board Show Special Edition!

SOMETHING IN THE WATER: Anyone in the Project who cares about these things has now had more than ample opportunity to see most of the candidates in action on the various lists. Here, as a bit of a public service [or nuisance, as the case may be] is the Daily Board Show Election Rundown. All opinions are those of the author; as always, you are cautioned to read at your own risk.

We'll start with the Big Kahuna, the race for National Coordinator. Unfortunately, it's not really much of a race. The only one of the three who has a novel idea in her head is Paulette Carpenter, but we fear she is too nice for the job. We'd like to see some of her ideas on managing Board business, Exec, national meetings, come to fruition, but we doubt we'll get that opportunity. For all his studliness in a kilt, Bill Oliver would just be more of the same in the office; he'd just favor the other side of the fence. He's a sweetie but it's fairly obvious that his kilt's wrapped around a few oddball philosophies and little else. Also, as he's made abundantly clear, he has no problem with SCs violating whatever rules necessary to get rid of problem members. Now, on to the juggernaut. If you told us this time last year that Scott Burow would end up being the establishment candidate, we'd have laughed heartily and asked for some of whatever heady brew you were snorting. But it turns out that ole Scott likes the whole Board power trip thing just fine and after watching his bravura dance performance this week, we think he will fit right in with the usual suspects. And no, we haven't forgotten his attempt to bribe us last year when he was trying, with the help of a couple of Board members, to maneuver his way into George Waller's seat. Pretty much status quo, as far as we can see.

Our choice: Paulette Carpenter (and we apologize for our earlier error with her name. -Ed.)

In the RAL race, we have three non-incumbents, relative unknowns Bobbie Dunn and Mike Peterson, and the very well-known Fred Smoot. While we admire Fred's spunk and enjoy some of his ideas, we doubt he wants the job to do anything but make trouble. We also doubt he'd last out a full turn. Bobbie Dunn didn't speak much but when she did she clearly had no clue how she'd even gotten to be an ASC; we think it's likely that national level politics would eat her alive. Mike Peterson, also an unknown, talked alot and talked competently, managed not to put his foot in his mouth, and answered some difficult questions in an even way. He'll probably disappoint us horribly eventually, but we can always hope. Plus, he calls himself "Dino" and that is just so cute.

Our choice: Mike Peterson

NENC CC rep (1 year): In this race, you have status quo candidate Jan Cortez. In recent months she's become an unlikely advocate of CCs, especially given the cavalier way she's treated her own CCs over the years. She's an SC running for a CC seat and she's been on the Board for far too long. Her opponent, Debra Beheler, is also an SC candidate for a CC seat, but she seems nice enough, so if for no other reason than to get Jan's hinder finally off the Board, she should be given a chance.

Our choice: Debra Beheler

NENC CC rep (2 year): The jousting in this race is between Alice Allen and Jeff Scism. After watching Jeff's performance on the Board this year, we have to conclude that he could best serve his constituents by unplugging his keyboard. His obsession with the bylaws has become scary, and his ability to whip "facts" out of thin air is without doubt unsurpassed in the Project by anyone but David Samuelsen. [Incidentally, Jeff's campaign page claims that we invited him into the project. We have no recollection of that, and if we did, the Project has our deepest apologies.] His opponent, Alice Allen, has been around the Project longer even than we have and we have never seen her, in public or private, speak a harsh word against anyone. We have no doubt she would carry that decency into office.

Our choice: Alice Allen

NWPL CC rep: Jason Mendenhall, who is nearly silent when he runs for office and who has never posted a campaign page that we recall is contesting this race against establishment candidate Greta Thompson. Greta's a Board member wannabe from her days as Board Secretary. We've never been overly impressed or unimpressed with her, but we do know she's tight with the usual suspects [otherwise they'd have never let her play in their sandbox]. And you know, sometimes you gotta bet on the dark horse.

Our choice: Jason "Enigma" Mendenhall

SEMA SC rep: There are five people running for this position. One of them is former Board member Heather de George, who we do not recall distinguishing herself during her term of service. Paul Buckley is Crazy Derick Hartshorn's successor in NCGenWeb and Freddie Spradlin is Linda Lewis' proxy in VAGenWeb [and most likely on the Board, if he's elected]. Mari Byers is the SC of TNGenWeb and some claim Fred Smoot's puppet. Darrel Bell we don't know at all; she didn't post a web page. We think the likely winner of this race is Heather, but we are going to plunk down on Mari. She's also just a nice, nice lady and she would bring some badly needed class to the Board.

Our choice: Mari Byers

SEMA CC rep: We've got Linda "Crack Investigator" Blum-Barton and Donna Allen up in this race. Linda is mostly famous for her expert use of the Wayback Machine to make the rope the Board hung Tim Stowell with. After she finished making up evidence about his crimes, she turned around and voted on his fate, proving that in USGenWeb, you can be cop, judge, and jury all at the same time. Donna Allen is active in several states and does not appear to actually have a political agenda of any kind, which would be a refreshing breath of air in the stale back room the Board has become.

Our choice: Donna Allen

SWSC SC race: There's no race here, folks. Larry Flesher is unopposed and has already won.

SWSC CC race: At last we come to the freak show. In one corner, we have Fightin' Phyllis Rippee, who once told us in excrutiating detail how every single person in the county she lives in was trying to get her. [Apparently they couldn't touch her because whatever her job is gives her dirt on a lot of people.] She's given to bizarre non sequiters, strange little tales, folksy cornpone, rapid mood shifts, abrupt mind changes, and what generally appears to be the first signs of rapid onset OBS. She has only rarely actually asked her constituents their opinion on anything, although she usually claims to be voting however they tell her. Perhaps, among her many other talents, she reads minds. And then we have Don Kelly. The man, shall we say, speaks for himself. Usually unintelligibly; the term "word salad" could have been coined to describe his ramblings. He's been on the Board before and mostly just served as a foil for other, smarter people, although he's often proven a useful vote for the usual suspects. His stubborn obtuseness [or obtuse stubborness] has usually done nothing but tie the Board into knots, although we will admit to now and again having a good laugh or two at his antics. All in all, though, we'd rather someone with a clue sit in the seat.

Our choice: You are on your own for this one. We are sitting this race out. As far as we are concerned, both of these candidates should gracefully retire to the private sector.

So, there you have our choices. At least on one of the ballots we'll be casting this round. Vote wisely and vote often!

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Pulling legs since 1998

Posted by merope at 10:57 PM 0 comments    

Among Other Things

How convenient...its Your Daily Board Show!

GETTING ON WITH IT: Earlier, at our request Bettie Wood asked the parliamentarian to rule on whether or not the proposed GPC procedures are in conflict with the current bylaws. The Chair of the GPC had once commented that the proposed procedures conflict with the bylaws in at least two areas; we could not fathom how it could be legal to approve procedures that conflict with the bylaws. However, as NC Linda announced after she opened the vote on Motion 06-13, Josh is unavailable for comment and probably will be until after the vote is a done deal. This does not seem to perturb many of the Board members, four of whom have already voted YES on the motion.

YOUR PAPERS PLEASE: Meanwhile over on the DISCUSS list, EC Chair Ellen Pack and her attack poodles have spent much ink praising Ellen and the EC and attacking anyone who would even hint at error or impropriety on any of their part. Nola Duffy [who IWRC is alleged to be managing three regions for the EC] spent a good deal of ink trying to get people to talk about genealogy instead of the EC's mistakes, and also claimed the mistakes were of no consequence. David Samuelsen tried to lay the blame on hackers and bad hardware, although why hackers would break into a system and add email addresses with incorrect names attached to them is unexplained. As several members have noted, the lack of EC forthrightness on the cause of the recent election delay does indeed lead to random speculation that the problem and the multiple password situation are somehow related, and sending out the poodles to yap about how fabulous the EC is does not really address the situation.

Here's the deal. Some number of people claim to have received two or more passwords under two or more names [not their own or variations of their own] based on two or more email addresses. The email addresses are real and so are the names [i.e., they are names of apparently real USGenWeb volunteers]. Some of them claim they have never used one or more of the email addresses for USGenWeb business and to certainly have never registered under them. One or more of them claim they intend to take advantage of the gift the EC has given them; one or more are just befuddled by the whole thing. We admit to being befuddled by it ourselves; it's hard to see how names and email addresses could mixed up like they apparently did, although hackers are indeed wily creatures with sometimes arcane motives.

And for those of you who have written us asking how we can let this happen, here's how. We will not turn over the information to the EC because 1) we will not expose members to the EC because we [and our correspondents] think it is likely they will be made to pay for the EC's mistake; 2) no crime has yet been committed and it is possible no crime will be committed [people do sometimes talk big]; and 3) if a crime is committed, we have every faith that the EC's crack investigative team will uncover it and correct it with no harm done to USGenWeb.

OPEN AND SHUT: The rabble on DISCUSS is also discussing the utility of holding secret meetings. There are the usual pros and cons for the extremes of doing everying and nothing in secret, but what has fascinated us in particular is the duelling descriptions of what actually transpires behind the green door. For instance NC Linda told us a week or so ago,

"When I was seated I wanted to have all AB discussions out in the open unless the discussion involved an individual. I thought most of the AB's discussion would be in the open. What I found out is, contrary to often repeated charges of secret decisions and plotting going on in Exec, there is almost no discussion of any issue in Exec that doesn't concern a problem involving individuals."

Jeff Scism now tells us:

"The Board-exec list allows us to "let our hair down" make our points to the other Board members, and organize our thoughts, get rid of some misconceptions, and poll each other. We also use it on occasion to compare what our members are responding, to better meet what they want. If a member sends a private email to the Board, we discuss it there as needed. If it needs to come to the Agenda IT DOES...Opening Board-exec to public viewing and archiving will disable the ability of the Board to function civilly, and will make a LOT of people choose not to serve...discussions from Board member to Board member need to be facilitated, and if it requires a private way to work things out, it will be done that way. Board-exec is a TOOL for the process...It is CONVENIENT to discuss in a place where all representatives may participate, excluded from outside kibitzing, informally and without disrupting the peace...On Board-exec there is no need to find a place to have discussions, it is available, and needed."

It amazes us that two people, apparently on the same list, can have such different ideas of what actually goes on there.

SAY WHAT?: In one of his toss-away comments defending Board-Exec, Jeff noted "Anything the Board acts on is done on Board-L except grievance discussions, which have lately been sent to another Private list for the Grievance committee to hash out...The issues in that case are amongst the individuals concerned in the grievance, and the new GPC procedures will move those to the Grievance committee, reducing the Board's involvement."

At first we wondered when the Project acquired a Grievance Committee, but upon reflection we now understand why the Board doesn't really want to wait for Josh to render an opinion on the conflict between the bylaws and the GPC procedures. They need a GC to handle Darilee's grievance against NC Linda.

BONUS QUOTE: "Fret not further on this. I got the private reply and I will defer to the EC to make that information known at proper time." --W. David Samuelsen, privy as always to confidential EC business that apparently none of the rest of us are worthy to know

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

Posted by merope at 7:45 AM 1 comments    

Friday, July 07, 2006
Hold Your Breath And Turn Blue

Hardly appropriate...its Your Daily Board Show!

DONE WITH IT: Amid all the cacophony on the DISCUSS list, not much happened on the Board's list. Scott finally tore himself away from DISCUSS to answer Phyllis' questions. She thanked him, said she had no further questions, and turned around and posted a scathing, if slightly off-base, summary of the proposal on DISCUSS and SWSC. NC Linda also announced the opening of the election today. There was no other Board business.

BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD: As noted, the "discussion" on DISCUSS has cranked up a few decibels. In response to our concerns, Scott suggested modifying the bylaws amendment to give the parties to a grievance an unrestricted right to the representative of their choice, on the condition that they forfeit all rights to later file a grievance against that representative stemming from their actions during the grievance. Since he expended several paragraphs of text in support of this proposal, we foolishly thought he was serious. We only found out after much back and forth that he wasn't, but apparently is not willing to accept just giving the members an unconditional right to the representation of their choice.

It also became apparent that the GPC itself never fully discussed these proposed amendments. They first appeared in the full proposal that was opened for final comment on June 1; there is no record of them in the GPC archives prior to that date. While Scott won't admit it, it's likely that he wrote them by his lonesome, which probably goes a long way toward explaining his testy devotion to them. In any case, he's stated more than once that a smooth process trumps members' rights, which is not a position we can support. The process should serve the members, not the other way around. And without a very, very good reason, we can't see enshrining this conditional right in the bylaws, particularly since this is, after all, USGenWeb and we cannot predict what circumstances might arise in the future between grievants and their representatives. A not-very-likely chance that the smooth operation of the "process" could be tangled up in grievances filed against representatives does not constitute a very, very good reason.

Perhaps sensing that the tide of public opinion is turning against him and the grievance procedures [given that several people have openly recommended that their representatives vote no on Motion 06-13], Scott has now turned to attempting to discredit the critics of his proposal. He notes, correctly, that the current discussion is centered almost entirely on the proposed bylaws amendments, which are not up for a vote before the Board at this time, and has plaintively asked members to go read the proposals for themselves rather than listening to the naysayers on DISCUSS. He apparently has not, however, noticed that many people have turned against the proposal itself not only because its provisions concern them, but because of the condescending and patronizing way he addresses people's concerns and the whole "nanny state" aura surrounding the proposal. Several have said so publicly; several more have told us privately that they just don't want to elect someone who apparently thinks he knows what's best for them, treats them like children, and appears unwilling to bend on any part of the proposal. [Remember, the one compromise he appeared willing to make was not a serious offer.] He also managed to insult everyone who has expressed concern about the proposed amendments by implying that there's really just one person who's arguing it [us] and everyone else is just tagging along.

WHAT UP?: The election finally opens today; passwords went out last night. Shortly after passwords started arriving in the mail, reports started coming in of people getting two or more passwords. Usually every year we get a handful of these, but in the few hours since passwords started hitting inboxes we got really quite a large number. Some of them are simply due to registrations under slightly different names; although the EC should have caught them [a simple pivot on email addresses should have done the trick], it's an understandable oversight when the EC is working short-handed under a deadline. Some are more difficult to explain. A few people reported that they received two or more passwords under different names and email addresses. None of them recognized the names associated with their alternate email addresses and claim to have never registered under anything but their rightful name and their most commonly used address. Some of them have indicated that they fully intend to vote with these extra passwords the EC has seen fit to give them, although they will certainly be careful to do it from different IP addresses.

BONUS QUOTE: "A member may choose to act as his or her own representative at any step of a grievance. If representation is desired, the member may select a representative of their choice who agrees to serve in that capacity. No appeal or grievance shall be allowed to any member based upon the actions of their chosen representative." --Scott Burow

DOUBLE BONUS QUOTE: "Is an outright ban on grievances against a representative the answer? Nope, no way, no how. I'm surprised that anyone would actually support such an outlandish idea." --Scott Burow

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Bony fingers since 1998

Posted by merope at 6:15 AM 0 comments    

Thursday, July 06, 2006
And Then All Hell Broke Loose

No, you can't have a pony...its Your Daily Board Show!

CHANGING REGIME: On the Board list, NC Linda explained why she did not forward the message that got Darilee's knickers in such a twist: "I...said she could post it herself if she'd agree to abide by the list rules...I hadn't heard back by the time family began to arrive and forgot to forward it." Shortly thereafter, Linda announced that she was handing the reins of the DISCUSS list over to George Waller while the grievance was addressed. [An excellent choice, although we imagine that some won't be too happy about it.]

Getting back to actual business, Phyllis asked a couple of questions about the proposed grievance procedures and bylaws amendment, but they have thus far gone unanswered. Scott is apparently too busy digging himself into a hole over on the DISCUSS list to actually tend to his Board duties.

EYE OF THE STORM: With NC Linda's departure as moderator of the DISCUSS list, the traffic on the list has shot up quite abruptly, although in truth it was tending that way even before she left. Among her last acts as moderator, apparently, were threats of moderation directed at Fred Smoot and Debra/David Crosby and possibly others who participated in Fred and David/Debra's little pissing match. [Unlike former list dominatrix Tina "Didn't Used To Be So Picky About That Mrs." Vickery, who appeared to take great personal pleasure in public smackdowns, NC Linda does her admonishing in private.]

The list spent a lot of time discussing one of Scott Burow's proposed bylaws amendments, namely the provision that restricts the right of a party to a grievance to select their representative to someone who has no "direct interest" in the outcome of the grievance. It turns out that Scott, who although just as wordy as Jeff Scism is usually more articulate, has not been able to adequately explain either the meaning of the term "direct interest" or provide any coherent explanation of who will get to decide the suitability of representatives. With every post the matter becomes more and more confusing, and at this point we are not sure how "direct interest" will be defined, who will do the defining, or why any such restriction is even necessary [although Scott will tell you it's for your own good]. None of the copious explanations, examples, or declarations of Scott's intent when he wrote the amendment have made the situation any better. What has, however, become abundantly clear is that our next NC is another proponent of a hand-holding nanny state. People don't seem to be overly happy about that. Go figure.

In the midst of all this, poor Jeff Scism gamely tried to change the topic back to his vision of the bylaws, this time discussing copyright, but his voice was drowned out in the cacophony.

And last but not least, Tina "Ms. T." Vickery has again her spread her unique brand of Christian fellowship over the DISCUSS list, first by slamming NC Linda over her list management style, then by haranguing everyone in sight over how to correctly address Herself. This would be fine, if a little snarky coming from someone who claims to want nothing more than a nice list, except the Mighty T then turned around and deliberately and publicly addressed a fellow volunteer by a name they have requested people no longer use. When called on the carpet for her hypocrisy, she was proudly unapologetic and tried to change the subject. Apparently she thinks that taking credit for someone else's work justifies petulant behavior on the discussion list. We can only guess how long she'd tolerate that sort of behavior in someone else.

BONUS QUOTE: "...you have insulted me Fred. I am either Tina or Mrs.Vickery to you. I expect you to respect my request." --Tina Vickery to Fred Smoot

DOUBLE BONUS QUOTE: "Please don't shout., Esse...Stay calm Esse." Tina Vickery, to Sarah Frye

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
On an endless loop since 1998

Posted by merope at 6:20 AM 1 comments    

Wednesday, July 05, 2006
In The Same Vein

Finding the energy...its your Daily Board Show!

TIT FOR TAT: Outgoing Board member Darilee Bednar announced that she is filing a grievance "against the current practice that allows the National Coordinator to serve as list manager to Discuss." She noted, "On Sunday I was moderated without warning for expressing my opinion to a report by another AB member. Today I sent a note to Discuss through the NC telling members about my 4th of July project...The NC has placed requirements upon my return to an unmoderated state ( that I don't believe that all other AB members have to meet the same criteria)...and though I had understood I could send stuff to list through her...she did not send my 4th of July wish to list...this is official notice of my grievance. I believe that my opinions differs from the NC... and because of the different point of view she did not follow the normal practice of a warning before moderation."

[While we think it's likely that NC Linda didn't forward the message simply because she wasn't online yesterday, we also might point out that Darilee has just submitted a grievance against the bylaws, which basically give the duty of maintaining the national lists to the NC.]

HOG WILD: Over on the DISCUSS list, which is just a tad more free-wheeling these days than usual [although apparently short one voice], Scott Burow has allowed as to how the proposed grievance procedures will most definitely not be put to a vote of the general membership, and Karen de Groote-Johnson said she would correct the mistaken impression she passed on to her region. [Scott gets as wordy as Jeff, but is generally more articulate and better informed.] A couple more people waxed eloquent on the Brave New World that will no doubt be ushered in by the procedures, and Fred Smoot and Scott jousted for a bit over the responsibility of the RAl to assist members with grievances.

In another thread, Jeff "Mylaws" Scism continued to expound at length on his vision for the project; when asked for a simple definition of "valid cause for removal from the Project," he produced first a five page response and then another full page when asked to simplify. For those who are interested, "valid cause" for Jeff equates to "a rules violation, or acting against the Project's stated purpose or goals. Violating a specific rule in the Bylaws, which would be grounds for expulsion." He went on to note that, "It is the authority for the Project to fire a volunteer...for the better health of the Project. If a persons behavior causes harm to the project they need to be disciplined, up to and including termination of services...especially if they persist and make no efforts to stop the behaviors which lead to the consideration of such action. The Project...has to have the ability to enforce standards, rules and policies, and that authority has to be in the Bylaws..." [Yep, Jeff is definitely a top-down kinda guy.]

BONUS QUOTE: "Thank you for your reply Jeff. You said a whole lot and didn't answer my question. Please simply define 'for cause'." --Karen Mitchell

DOUBLE BONUS QUOTE: "My personal belief is "less is better" but that less has to be concise, and cover what is needed." --Jeff Scism

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show

Posted by merope at 5:50 AM 1 comments    

Monday, July 03, 2006
Ducks In A Row

Line 'em up and shoot 'em down...its Your Daily Board Show!

CAPTURE THE FLAG: NC Linda gave the GPC motion number 06-13 and opened it for discussion. Thus far, eight Board members have declined the opportunity to discuss the motion.

With the vote on this motion probably less than a day away, we decided to see how many of the Board members had taken this to their constituents. As we already know, the SWSC list already vigorously discussed it earlier this week, because Bettie is pretty rigorous about taking things to her constituents. There's no sign of it on the NENC list [Jeff is too busy misreading the bylaws over on DISCUSS to bring it to his constituents] and while it's been brought to the NWPL list it hasn't been discussed much. Karen de Groote-Johnson, however, did tell her constituents on that list that "the committee is seeking a general vote (all members) on the document." This is news to us; we have seen no proposals to have the membership vote on the procedures. Suzanne and Linda tried to open discussion on the SEMA list, but so far there have been no takers. It's also not a topic of discussion on the SC list, which is odd, since they are the ones who will theoretically find their power slipping through their fingers. Perhaps they are complacent because they know they have absolutely nothing to worry about.

BRAYING OF ASSES: Over on the Project's town square, the discussion has turned in many different directions since yesterday. Outgoing Board member Darilee Bednar felt the urge to unburden herself on the topic of the OHGW grievance, and noted that basically since Daryl shot himself in both feet by 1) sending numerous snarky emails to everyone in sight, and 2) threatening lawsuits, she felt he got what was coming to him. She also made the claim that "Most of the problems we have had with SC's involve SC's that haven't stood for elections regularly or ever," but when presented with a list of the grandfathered SCs, all of which are remarkably low-key, she was unable to provide any evidence for her claim. Daryl, of course, had to have his speak over and over again, and even usually quiet Karen de Groote-Johnson got into the conversation to counter Darilee's impressions. Eventually Jeff Scism chimed in to say, "The project doesn't HAVE to accept voluntary services from a disruptive individual, and I am going to recommend that your services in the project be terminated, in the interests of the Project. This has gone on far too long." [Look at that: a sitting Board member publicly threatening a volunteer. Nice.] Shortly thereafter, Linda told them all to keep it off the discussion list. This provoked NC candidate Bill Oliver to resign from the list in the mistaken belief that some folks had been moderated and some had not.

Once he unburdenend himself of his threat to Daryl, Jeff once again turned to his obsession with the bylaws. The topic du jour was forcing states to hold SC elections because for some reason he thinks it would be better if all states were forced to do things the same way. In order to arrive at his bizarre conclusions, he engaged in some of his usual contortions and interpreted various clauses in the bylaws to claim that grandfathered SCs are somehow exempt from the removal provisions of the bylaws, even though the clause that grandfathers them specifically notes that they can be removed. Others have argued against his interpretation, but he steadfastly backed himself into a deeper corner and eventually managed to insult the members of at least seven states who have for eight years been perfectly happy with their grandfathered SCs.

Jeff is fond of noting that he once worked in a "zero error environment" writing technical procedures for the US Air Force. It comforts us greatly that he is no longer employed in this field.

BONUS QUOTE: "I am a firm believer in that you shouldn't 'read into' what isn't said directly when dealing with things as important as bylaws, you can't determine intent, and you can't fathom 'what someone really meant to say'." --Jeff Scism

DOUBLE BONUS QUOTE: "...after careful consideration of the situations that exist now on the Board, I feel my time could be better spent working on projects I have on my plate already. With the "usual suspects" in front of the scenes and behind the scenes manipulating and badgering and belittling others, I don't think I could accomplish anything on the Board...If there was a chance that something positive would come out of the Advisory Board, I would have been happy to serve...However, with the past Boards, so many injustices have been done, and not corrected, it just saddens me to see the Project treated with such disrespect. With too much time being wasted on things that apply to one CC for an infraction, but not another, I just can't see myself doing any good for anyone involved in USGenWeb." --Lorraine Newsome, resigning her candidacy

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Pretty is as pretty does since 1998

Posted by merope at 8:05 AM 2 comments    

Sunday, July 02, 2006
Up And At 'Em

Blissfully ignorant...its Your Daily Board Show!

WORKING OUR WAY UP: NC Linda adjourned the June meeting, convened the July meeting, and published the July agenda. It is quite similar to the June agenda, except for a new business item regarding our request to rescind Motion 02-12. NC Linda has told us the item has been forwarded to the Sekrit Sandbox for the Board to play with, but since the sands are running down in this Board's hourglass, we doubt they will get to it soon. It's easier to just run the clock out.

BEST THING SINCE SLICED BREAD: As July's first order of business, NC Linda published the GPC proposal to the formal Board list in pieces, since it is too wordy to be posted all at once. She asked Scott, as committee Chair, to make the appropriate motion; he did so, and it was promptly seconded by Bettie Wood. The love fest for these procedures proceeds apace on the SWSC list, with a number of members reaching heights of rhetorical eloquence not usually seen in these parts. Apparently the proposal has made several USGW members quite giddy and suddenly in possession of extra hyperbole.

BONUS QUOTE: "It's a masterpiece. It shows...that our out-dated bylaws and procedures *can* successfully evolve to keep pace with the evolution of the Project. It shows that the AB is willing to give up its stranglehold of what a particular NC or AB perceives to be justice...It shows that the AB is willing to give to the CCs, what the CCs expect of the Project. I can't help but to think that NC Linda has a part in establishing justice within the Project. Where she gets her inspiration from, I just don't know. Justice - If it's good enough for America, it's good enough for the USGenWeb!" --Daryl Lytton, jumping the gun a bit on the GPC proposal

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
More than enough hyperbole to go around since 1998

Posted by merope at 9:15 AM 0 comments    

Saturday, July 01, 2006
All In The Family

Timeliness is next to godliness...its Your Daily Board Show!

FUMBLING TO THE END ZONE: The Board sorta continued to discuss the issue of seating a replacement for Angie Rayfield, who resigned the SEMA SC rep seat nearly two months ago. Bettie has now plunked herself down in favor of leaving the seat vacant until the election is over and appointing the winner and George shortly thereafter jumped on the same bandwagon.

On a side note, NC Linda wrote to inform us that she would put our appeal of Motion 02-12 on the agenda if we would tell her how to word it. We reminded her that we are not appealing Motion 02-12, we are asking that the Board rescind it. Since we were informed by a little bird that Linda will not put the item on the agenda unless we "jump through the hoop" we submitted a formal request this morning. Why we have to request that the Board follow its own Parliamentarian's recommendation is not clear to us, but if it pleases them to have us play the game, then we are pleased to play.

DAY LATE, DOLLAR SHORT: It seems like every year about this time there is some glitch or other in the election. Last year it was some error or other in the election number; in years previous there have security breeches, missing passwords, missing personnel, etc. This year, EC secretary Shirley Cullum has announced that, due to "technical problems beyond the control of the EC," the election will be delayed for an unspecified amount of time. Passwords, which should have been sent today, will not be sent "until some time early next week." They'll let us know when they have their stuff together and the election can proceed.

ELECTION UPDATE: With the election being delayed indefinitely, we will delay posting the candidate rundown we had intended for this edition, and give the candidates a few more days to put their feet in their mouths.

BONUS QUOTE: "In plain language, I stand by what I said and did. And, when the chips fall, I hope there is some cheese to dip them in." --Bill Oliver

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Off, off, and away since 1998

Posted by merope at 7:20 AM 0 comments