From: merope Date: Sun Mar 3, 2002 8:03 am Subject: Daily Board Show, 3/3/2002 Like white on rice...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! 28 February-3 March 2002: Motion 02-05 (Standing Rule): Voting proceeds on this motion. Thus far 10 Board members have voted yes and one has voted no. Other Business: Appeal of Chair's Ruling (On Committee Formation): On March 2, Phyllis Rippee makes the following statement: "I am withdrawing my appeal of the chair's ruling. I am withdrawing my point of order. I am withdrawing my second of Kathy's motion," apparently out of fear that people were not voting on Motion 02-05 because of the pending appeal. She encourages people to vote immediately if they want the motion to pass. [It is amazing how fast our righteousness flies out the window when its in conflict with something else we want. Apparently, protecting us from the whims of a dictator takes back seat to having more than one motion on the floor. Phyllis' abandonment of the appeal did have the desired effect however; after she withdrew the appeal, five more members voted, assuring both a quorum and passage of the motion.] EC Poll (for Nate Zipfel's replacement): The "preference poll" of the NE/NC region SCs and ASCs opened on March 1 and continues through March 7. There have been scattered reports of the polling mechanism not working properly and of people not receiving passwords. If you are having problems with the ballot box or did not receive a password, please contact Linda Haas Davenport directly . The list of candidates is here: http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/nominees.html The polling form itself is at: http://www.indiana.edu/~riskmgmt/Forms/poll.html --- In Executive Session: no activity === Hard Work Pays Off Corner: Tired of banging your head against that genealogical dead-end? Just absolutely sure you come from blue-blood, landed gentry but sadly the documents proving your vast inheritence were lost in some flood or fire or something? Well, your troubles are over! Now you can buy yourself an impressive ancestor and the necessary paperwork to prove it! See http://home.attbi.com/~apr1jan/buyanancestor.html for details. Act now; there are only so many famous people to go around! === "Being in politics is like being a football coach. You have to be smart enough to know the game and stupid enough to think it's important." ---Eugene McCarthy This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2002 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From: merope Date: Sun Mar 3, 2002 12:21 pm Subject: Fwd: [USGenWeb-SW] Reminder: Volunteers for Committees Wanted Just a reminder. -Teresa >Resent-Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 07:50:19 -0700 >X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Sun Mar 3 07:50:19 2002 >X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 >Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 09:53:00 -0500 >Old-To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com, USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com, > USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com, USGenWeb-NE-L@rootsweb.com, > USGenWeb-NW-L@rootsweb.com, USGenWeb-SW-L@rootsweb.com, > USGenWeb-SE-L@rootsweb.com, BOARD-L@rootsweb.com >From: Holly Timm >Subject: [USGenWeb-SW] Reminder: Volunteers for Committees Wanted >To: USGENWEB-SW-L@rootsweb.com >Resent-From: USGENWEB-SW-L@rootsweb.com >Reply-To: USGENWEB-SW-L@rootsweb.com >X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/310 >X-Loop: USGENWEB-SW-L@rootsweb.com >Resent-Sender: USGENWEB-SW-L-request@rootsweb.com > >Please forward this to all state lists, and any other appropriate project >lists, so all project volunteers are aware of this call and have the >opportunity to volunteer. > >-------------------------- > >Volunteers are wanted for the committees listed below. Please send your >name and project position and location (i.e., CC for xxxxx county in >XXGenWeb, etc) to Holly Timm, National Coordinator for the USGenweb >Project at hollyft@bright.net. > >Deadline for volunteering is Friday, March 8, 2002 - 3AM EST (2AM Central, >1AM Mountain, midnight Thursday March 7 PST) > >Barring unforeseen circumstances, committee appointments will be announced >Sunday March 10, 2002. > >ByLaws - to study the current USGenWeb Project Bylaws to determine which >portions need revising, including deletion of unnecessary sections; >clarification or strengthening sections; new articles that may be deemed >necessary. > >Guidelines - includes studying updating the Guidelines page the USGenWeb >Project presently has, to better assist both State >Coordinators and County Coordinators, inclusive of not only requirements, >but recommendations, suggestions and resources for the Project's volunteers. > >Publicity/Promotion - to constructively promote and publicize the USGenWeb >Project internally within the project, and to the greater >genealogical community, both online and off-line, such as but not limited >to newsletters, brochures and web pages to accomplish their purpose and >will be available to work with all committees and organizations within the >USGenWeb Project to assist and advise them with publicity and promotion. >This is a standing, ongoing committee. > > > > >==== USGENWEB-SW Mailing List ==== >The CC representative for the SW-SC region are currently Jana Black and >Phyllis Rippee. The SC representative is Betsy Mills. From: merope Date: Sun Mar 10, 2002 6:50 pm Subject: Daily Board Show, weekly edition, 3/10/2002 Sufferin' succotash...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! 3 March-10 March 2002: Motion 02-05 (Standing Rule): This motion is declared passed on March 3 with 10 yes votes and 1 no vote. After this motion is passed, Holly publishes the following "instruction" for the Board on how it is to function under the new rule: "Motions will be numbered when they have rec'd a second. If a second is not forthcoming within a reasonable amount of time (approx. 24 hours but allowing for holidays or weekends) I will ask if there is a second and allow approx. another 24 hours before declaring a motion dead for lack of a second. We may also discuss topics prior to making any motion. To do so, please describe the topic BRIEFLY (a paragraph or two at most should suffice) and request discussion on it. Topics also should be 'seconded' although it does not have to be a formal "second", simply say yes, let's talk about it or words to that effect indicates agreeability to discussing something...Sometimes we may end up with one too many complicated subjects on the table at once. IF this seems to be occurring, I will ASK if we could hold off a bit on the more recent or less pressing of the complicated subjects. When possible, brief delay of discussion should be done by consensus rather than having to go through a vote...In both informal and formalized face-to-face meetings, people take runs speaking...What has occurred several times is that a small number of us are available during the day and discuss a subject and are already impatient for a decision or have even made up their minds before the rest of us get the opportunity to read, digest and respond. Please, I want to be very clear, I am not at all criticizing the intent. Just asking that those who do have such access slow down just a bit so that the others get a chance to join in before you make up your minds" Motion 02-06 (Board Secretary): On March 3, Holly asks for a motion and a second to approve her choice of Alice Gayley as the Board Secretary. Ron Eason moves "that the National Coordinator's selection of Alice Gayley, for Board Secretary, be approved." Diane Parsons seconds the motion. Holly asks for discussion on Feb 4; several Board members indicate that no further discussion is needed. Teresa asks for the qualifications of the candidates to be posted; Holly refuses. The vote is called on 5 March. 7 Board members vote yes and 6 vote no. One no vote is withdrawn after Holly reposts Alice's application to the secret list. Holly declares the motion failed on March 6. Teresa points out that the motion establishing procedures for appointing a Board Secretary require only a majority, but Holly determines that the bylaws' definition of a majority as 2/3 of those voting is applicable reiterates that the motion has failed. 02-07 (Vacant NE/NC seat): On March 8, Teresa Lindquist moves "that the Board appoint Ginger Hayes to the vacant NE/NC State Coordinator representative seat." Robert Bremer and Kathy Heidel second this motion. The motion is numbered and opened for discussion on March 8. For a few moments all looks well; several Board members indicate that Ginger would bring welcome experience to the Board and others note they have no comment. The Vicki Shaffer reposts Ginger's resignation letter from a year ago and says she "would like to hear what has changed her mind and made her feel like she is a good candidate for this job. And if it's adding unasked for negative, derogatory comments, then that's NOT what we are looking for." [Vicki seems very distressed by the idea that someone who resigned from a different Board Session may be now willing to come back.] After first noting that he is ready to vote, Richard Harrison then also posts an old Board message from Ginger and asks her to tell the Board how she anticipates "influencing the Board in what she considers to be a positive direction rather than just sitting back and criticizing?" Tim Stowell also notes that he'd like to ask Ginger "if the candidate's position has changed since this post of hers and if so, what's changed?" Phyllis Rippee wants to know if Ginger "is still determined to "get" Linda Lewis." [A little history here: Vicki Shaffer is the representative for the Archives project and takes her marching orders from Linda Lewis. Tim Stowell has long been an Archives supporter, going so far as to use his power as NC to promote Linda's personal vendetta against the Census Project. Ginger Hayes has been an outspoken critic of Linda Lewis and the Archives for as long as I can remember. Its not surprising that the Archives and its flunkies would like to derail her appointment to the Board.] Ron Eason responds to the questions from these Board members with an impassioned and long letter. He starts off by informing the Board that Ginger will not be replying to any of the questions asked of her. He then goes on to say: "This is not a Spanish Inquisition or any other sort of Inquisition where we have a right to try and smear someone before they are even allowed to be on the list as a member to defend themselves personally. These are not questions of concern, these are feelings that you harbor against her...You Richard...post when you have something mean to say and you have no questions except what sort of evil you can bring to view...I could get plenty on the ALL list to agree that they would fully believe you hate CC's by the way you talk to them...I try very hard not to make actual personal assaults against anyone on these lists so as not to further the view of what the CC's must already think from those that have no problem doing so, but it is very hard not to respond to the high level of arrogance that is shown from quite a few on this list...If you want to see stupid posts that defy explanation, try going through the archives and looking at some of your own...There is plenty of dirt that can be dragged up on everyone that is a member of this list. You can whine and complain and try to block everything that is trying to be done by this Board, but you can better believe that eventually you all are going to face re-election, just as I will. And you are going to find it increasingly hard to keep getting your little power jobs back because whether you like it or not, there are things changing and as hard as you try to stop it, there are even more that are becoming more and more aware that your worn out, brain dead ideas are going no where and leaving this project on the back burner while all other entities are moving ahead...it is the people who nominated and voted for the candidate that you should be basing your vote on. They overwhelmingly picked this person...Apparently you think that your other SC peers are not smart enough or knowledgeable enough to choose their own Representative, but that you think you need to try and hand pick someone for them...I thought our part, when a poll was conducted was to try and allow the will of the people who participated to have their choice?..the arrogance and the stupidity is getting worse not better. In a weeks time we have not only managed to hurt one CC who was trying to help, but they are working on an SC, they have treated you with utter disdain and disrespect, and it is geting a little too obvious for someone not to stop and take notice. Richards latest demands are rude and uncalled for. And Phyllis's question is also suggestive and slanderous...None of the questions, from Vicki, Richard, Tim or Phyllis have focused on anything but what can be catagorized as their own personal biases and they have no reason to put this Board through this continually...Berating Ginger by this type of questioning will not change the minds of those SC's that have asked the Board to allow her to be their Representative." Other Business: Reconsideration of Board Secretary: On March 7, Kathy Heidel moves "that we reconsider Alice Gayley for the position for Board Secretary." This motion is seconded by Phyllis Rippee. Teresa Lindquist raises a point of order, noting that "Motion 99-25...states specifically that upon rejection of a nominee for the Board Secretary position, the National Coordinator is required to forward another name for consideration. It would thus appear that not only is Holly precluded from submitting the same person for consideration, other Board members are also precluded from submitting a candidate." On March 8, Holly informs the Board that this motion is moot, as Alice Gayley has withdrawn from consideration for the position. Despite Holly's order suspending discussion of this topic for 48 hours, Richard Harrison publicly notes "As Alice is out of the running, Kelly seems the most qualified for the Board Secretary position" and asks Holly to state publicly her reasons for not selecting her. Board Member Appointment: On March 3 Holly reminds the Board that the Election Committee is currently conducting a preference poll for the replacement of Nate Zipfel. Richard Howland withdraws from the poll on March 6. The results are forwarded to the Board by Teresa Lindquist and Holly Timm on March 7. Publicity/Promotion Committee report: On March 3, Holly asks for a motion to accept and file the report submitted by the Publicity/Promotion "starter" committee. New Committees: On March 3 Holly sends out a reminder of the new committees she will form and reiterates the call for volunteers. Members will be able to volunteer uptil March 8; Holly plans to announce the committee membership rolls on March 10. If you wish to volunteer, please contact Holly directly at hollyft@mail.bright.net. The following committees will be formed: Reconsideration of Motion 99-25: After noting that under the provisions of Motion 99-5 , the proposed candidate for the Board Secretary position does not appear to be qualified for the position because no information has been provided for her or any other candidates on knowledge of parliamentary procedure or the bylaws. She is instructed to take the discussion to the secret list.On March 7, Teresa Lindquist proposes that the Board revise and/or amend Motion 99-25 (which established procedures for appointing a Board secretary), noting that it is very out of date. She suggests using Sturgis as a starting point. "ByLaws - to study the current USGenWeb Project Bylaws to determine which portions need revising, including deletion of unnecessary sections; clarification or strengthening sections; new articles that may be deemed necessary. Guidelines - includes studying updating the Guidelines page the USGenWeb Project presently has, to better assist both State Coordinators and County Coordinators, inclusive of not only requirements, but recommendations, suggestions and resources for the Project's volunteers. Publicity/Promotion - to constructively promote and publicize the USGenWeb Project internally within the project, and to the greater genealogical community, both online and off-line, such as but not limited to newsletters, brochures and web pages to accomplish their purpose and will be available to work with all committees and organizations within the USGenWeb Project to assist and advise them with publicity and promotion. This is a standing, ongoing committee." Procedural Issues: On March 4 Jana Black suggests that the Board begin to discuss "a way to be more efficient in time management." Her idea is to assume consent when there is an absence of discussion on an item. Teresa points out that some Board members may prefer to make their comment with their vote and therefore "assuming consent on anything that would commonly require a vote [motions, amendments to motions, etc.] is inappropriate." Phyllis notes "There are times when silence means consent and times when it does not...When Holly has asked if there is any more discussion before voting, silence could be interpreted as meaning "no" because if there are no replies, she knows to move on to the vote. Then, there is the general consent question as in "Shall we move on.....?" and in that case no reply could be interpreted as being "yes."..where we, in the virtual realm, cannot see who is present and who is not, I cannot see how a determination can be made that silence means anything except "I'm not here." BECAUSE the bylaws require a quorum (defined as 9) before any business of the AB is "legal and binding." And, the only way of knowing if that quorum is present is to have something besides silence." Jana claims to be interested only in speeding up the voting process and notes "Given our virtual environment, it seems to me we could be far more efficacious in handling and completing business (as in a regular board meeting) by eliminating unnecessary delays to voting...as a simple matter of consideration for all other AB members, it would take only a moment for all AB members to simply say "no discussion" or to offer their items for discussion and perhaps speed up the process to less than 2 days..." Teresa suggests using the rules for requesting and receiving general consent as outlined in Sturgis. Jana notes again "The question is *how* to determine in a virtual environment whether there are "objections" or not, which of course is the basis for general consent...I agree that when the NC asks if there are objections, she is seeking general consent. In an actual meeting, this would take very little time. In our setting, by simply offering a "no objection" statement or whatever our objection actually is, we can be proactive rather than passive...If we each volunteered that we are present but without comment it seems to me we would accomplish far more than we currently have been accomplishing." Teresa points out that even using Jana's suggestion, Holly will still have to wait 48 hours before calling a vote to determine if there is no comment so her idea will save no time whatsoever [and will serve only to fill the Board's inboxes with more useless mail]. Phyllis agrees with this assessment, but Jana [forwarding a message from a constituent] points out that Holly could use a 2/3 "no comment" response rate to proceed to a vote. After some discussion of various schedule issues and time constraints, Phyllis suggests that Jana is free to "you are free to propose a standing rule, or a motion, that we must all log on at least once every 24 hours and give some kind of response." Jana denies this is what she is suggesting we do. On another "procedural" topic, more or less, Kathy Heidel decides on her own initiative to take some stuff from the secret list public. In her response to a post made by Ginger Hayes [originally on the -ALL list, but forwarded to Board-L by Kathy], she notes the confusion over emails that weren't received by some Board members [this is true, my Board list mail is often very late or comes not at all; I just figured it was Root$web messing with me, but maybe not]. She also refers to Teresa putting out information on Board-l about the secretary vote [I have no idea what she is talking about, other than that I publicly asked Holly to post Alice's qualifications after Holly asked for public comment]; she says she tried to correct the damage but was unsuccesful [don't know what she's talking about here either]. She then makes a lot of incorrect statements, which are corrected by Teresa in a later post, suggesting that Teresa is somehow being dishonest regarding her use of the secret list. Kathy then reposts her threat to foward all secret list traffic to the -ALL list "if *ANYTHING* leaves Board Exec and is posted on Board or ALL or DBS without the approval of each of us." [Kathy seems to have convinced herself that there have been massive Board-Exec leaks, but there's no evidence of any.] In a later message, Kathy reposts Holly's message inviting Board members to propose action against Teresa for "her refusal to participate directly and her actions to attempt to participate indirectly only on this list." Kathy suggests that the discussion be moved to the public list, noting "I do not mind doing business in the open, in fact I would much rather do so, then everyone will be aware and can make up their mind if there is something wrong. And I am quite certain that Teresa will agree with me since she is unwilling to respond to this list and will only use Board List." Teresa offers to bring the marshmallows to the burning at the stake. In the evening of March 8, Holly suspends further discussion of the issues surrounding the Board Secretary motion until 6 pm EST 10 March. --- In Executive Session: 3 March: messages from Holly Timm, Jana Black, Ron Eason, Betsy Mills 4 March: messages from Phyllis Rippee, Ron Eason, Jana Black, Richard Harrison, Betsy Mills, Holly Timm 5 March: messages from Jana Black, Holly Timm, Vicki Shafer, Phyllis Rippee, Ron Eason, Tina Vickery, Tim Stowell, Kathy Heidel 6 March: messages from Holly Timm, Tim Stowell, Kathy Heidel, Betsy Mills, Phyllis Rippee, Pam Reid, Jana Black, Vicki Shaffer 7 March: messages from Tim Stowell, Kathy Heidel, Phyllis Rippee 8 March: messages from Holly Timm, Kathy Heidel, Betsy Mills, Phyllis Rippee, Diane Parson, Jana Black, Richard Harrison === Opportunity Missed Corner: The only real objection to Alice Gayley was that she was Holly's choice for the Board Secretary position. A substantial number of Board members are still pissed off at our beleaguered NC over her temerity in bypassing them in the establishment of the proposed Bylaws, Guidelines, and Publicity committees. Remember the recent characterizations of Holly as a "dictator" and an "usurper"? Plus they are bent out of shape at her over something else that cannot be discussed here because it is still Sooper Sekrit. Sadly enough, enough of them viewed the Board Secretary motion as an opportunity to slap Holly down hard and "teach her a good lesson" [direct quote, thanks to a little bird]. Shortly before voted against the candidate, on one of them even complained to me privately about "Tina, Sunny, Holly and maybe a couple of others" running the Board. While there may or may not have been discussion on this topic on the secret list [YOU are not privileged to know these things], does it really seem likely that Holly would have brought this matter to a public vote if she was not reasonably sure that it would pass easily? It became painfully obvious early in the voting that Motion 02-06 wasn't going to pass, although if Holly had suspended the voting while the discussion of qualifications was proceeding, I can guarantee you it would have. As far as the rest of the Board is concerned, I would venture a guess that Alice is now the best thing since sliced bread. This is the kind of people we are. Alice would have made a wonderful secretary, "qualified" under Motion 99-25 or not. She's bright and engaged and she's been around for a long time and managed to keep herself out of the fray. Its more important to a handful of us, though, that Holly knows who is the boss and who works for who. Its just a bonus that this little come-uppance both embarrassed and humiliated her. And in our neverending war with each other, the identities of the collateral damage are irrelevant. Invitation to a Witchhunt Corner: Well, since Kathy Heidel let the cat out of the bag, you are all now aware that Holly has invited the rest of the Board to propose some sort of sanction on me for failing to spew garbage on the secret list with the rest of them. Apparently there is some unwritten rule somewhere that Board members are _required_ to make posts to Board-Exec. [Incidentally, it is not true that I have never posted to the list; I did respond to a roll call there and made one or two other posts.] I suppose the concept that any of us has a right to _reserve_ comment as well as to make it is beyond them. My guess is that my silence appears righteous and makes them uncomfortable with their own failure to act professionally and dispassionately in what is presumably our Executive Session. Or perhaps they are worried that I am somehow setting them up. But its nothing so sinister as that; I just haven't seen anything there worth commenting on. When I do, I'll make a comment. ;) I'll have to leave the rest of the story to your imagination. Not to worry though though. I doubt that anything will come of this, even though pitchforks and marshmallows have already been issued; I haven't done anything wrong or broken any rules and they know it. And its not like they can force me to get down in the dirt with 'em and roll around in it. Its just another way to amuse themselves at the expense of the Project's reputation. === "The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act. A general association takes place, and common interest produces common security." ---Thomas Paine This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2002 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From: merope Date: Sun Mar 17, 2002 12:10 pm Subject: Guidelines Committee, weekly report for the week ending 3/16/2002 Permission to forward is granted GUIDELINES COMMITTEE WEEKLY REPORT, for the week ending March 16 2002 === On March 10, Holly Timm announced the formation of the Guidelines Committee. Teresa Lindquist called the meeting to order on March 11. These are the 10 committee members and a bit about each one: Teresa Lindquist (Chair): with USGW since August 1996, coordinator for two Kansas counties and a co-coordinator on another; currently serve as the Representative At Large on the Advisory Board; publisher of the Daily Board Show; formerly served on the Election Study Committee and on the predecessor to this committee, the Guidelines "starter" committee. Alice Allen: CC for 4 counties--1 in KS, 2 in OH, 1 in WA Jan Cortez: WI Census Project; CC for NY, WI, MI, IA,VT,PA, and OH. Morgan Johnson: county coordinator for two parishes in Louisiana and one county in Illinois since 1996. Rich Howland: [did not respond to roll call] William David Samuelson: Baker and Grant County, Oregon Don Tharp: CC for three Kansas counties and have been with the project since 1996. Cheryl Parker: hosts 3 counties in Indiana, one being the Unknown County page; also hosts 2 county biography pages in Indiana Cheryl Rothwell: CC for Logan County, IL Lorraine Newsome: CC in Ohio, SD, AR, MI, WI, NY (also ASC), and IL (also ASC); on the EC as a rep for the NE/NC Region --- The Chair announces that the order of discussion will be to proceed through the current guidelines for Local Coordinators, State Coordinators and Special Projects and recommend revisions. Then additions to the guidelines will be discussed. The Chair also announces that a weekly report will be filed to the Project outlining progress. --- First topic opened for discussion on March 11 is the title of the revised guidelines. After some discussion, the title "Guidelines for Local Coordinators" was selected on March 14. This title is recommended both because the term "Local Coordinators" is used throughout the bylaws, and because it covers a wider base of volunteers than the more commonly used "County Coordinators". --- Second topic opened for discussion is the "requirements for Local Coordinators". This topic was opened for discussion on March 13. There are currently 2 requirements for Local Coordinators: 1. All websites shall include prominent display of The USGenWeb Project logo on the home page. 2. Solicitation of funds for personal gain is inappropriate. This is defined as the direct appeal on the home page of any of the websites comprising The USGenWeb Project for funding to do research, to pay for server space, to do look-ups, etc. These cannot be changed by the Committee, but will be listed for recommendation for inclusion in updated guidelines. In the current Guidelines there are three other requirements: 1. requirement to join the state mail list; 2. requirement to have a query page; and 3. requirement to link to the county selection list for their state. State Mail List: It was noted that the current requirement for CCs to join a state mailing list contradicts a requirement in the current guidelines for State Coordinators. It is suggested that the requirement to join a state mailing list be retained and the SC guidelines updated to match that requirement. It is also suggested that a notice informing the volunteers of a mandatory subscription to USGENWEB-NATL-L, the Election Committee's announcement list, should be included in the guidelines. Queries: It is the decision of the group to retain an amended query requirement. Local Coordinators will be required to provide a mechanism by which visitors to their pages can submit and view queries, but the specific method shall be left up to their discretion. It is also suggested that LCs add disclaimers to their sites when they are linking to outside query resources and that they provide instruction on how visitors may return to their pages after visiting them. --- On March 16, Teresa Lindquist posts a "working document" of proposed revisions. It is available at http://www.radix.net/~merope/lcguide.txt and will be updated as needed. Any comments on this report may be sent to Teresa Lindquist at merope@radix.net === -Teresa Lindquist Chair, Guidelines Committee Representative At Large, USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net From: merope Date: Sun Mar 17, 2002 12:19 pm Subject: Daily Board Show, weekly edition, 3/17/2002 She drives me crazy but I can't help myself...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! 10 March-17 March 2002: Motion 02-07 (Appoint Ginger Hayes to NE/NC SC rep seat): The discussion of Ginger's suitability for the vacant position continues. On March 13, Mary Ann Hetrick calls the question, Kathy Heidel seconds, and the Board begins to vote on whether to end debate. The motion to end debate passes with 13 yes votes on March 14 and a vote on the main motion is called. The motion is passed with 10 yes votes and four no votes on March 15. Ginger is subscribed to the Board lists and welcomed by several members. Motion 02-08 (Rescind Motion 99-25): Noting that it is obsolete and hindering the selection of a Board Secretary, Teresa Lindquist moves to rescind Motion 99-25 on March 16. Ron Eason seconds this motion; Holly numbers it and opens the floor for discussion on March 16. Kathy Heidel is concerned about what will replace Motion 99-25 if it is rescinded and she does not understand "how rewriting this motion will help Holly replace the BS." Teresa notes again that "the current motion limits the position to certain people, and excludes a whole set of people who might be interested in the position. It ties the hands of the NC regarding how she may choose people and put their names forward. It includes requirements for the position that are not really necessary and fails to elucidate the positions's responsibilities. It specifically refers to "Board II" which was two Boards ago." Teresa notes that the Board can either use the requirements in Sturgis, which she thinks are excessive for the Board's needs, or rewrite the motion after it decides what it wants in a Secretary. The consensus among those that have participated in the discussion thus far is that the Secretary does not need to know parliamentary procedure but should have the time and ability to keep track of motions and votes and to create and upload simple webpages. Several Board members (Phyllis, Kathy, Diane, Ron) speak out against allowing current Board members to fill the position. Diane feels that Board members cannot be impartial in the conduct of the Secretary's duties, Ron cites the other constraints on Board members' time, and Phyllis just says she won't ever support it. Diane, Kathy, and Phyllis are opposed to using Sturgis to determine the duties of the BS, noting that "this would put too much clout & power in the hands of a voting Board member" [Diane] and "this gives more authority to a secretary that what I, personally, feel should be given to the USGW P Board Secretary." [Phyllis] Teresa agrees that the list of duties in Sturgis is too extensive for the Board's needs and suggests a list of qualifications that includes membership in the project, knowledge of basic html, reasonable availability, and willingness to sub to many project lists. She suggests that the position be appointed by the NC, with the concurrence of a simple majority of a quorum of the Board members. Diane and Phyllis think the 2/3 majority should be maintained if the Board is allowed to vote on the NC's choice of secretary; Ron does not think a 2/3 majority vote is necessary, noting "This is a term person with limited, non-voting, capabilities that can not affect the outcome or future of this Project. It is not a situation that will dictate in any way the actions of future Boards." Phyllis suggests amending Motion 02-08 "to state the qualifications of Board Secretary and end with a statement that it takes precedence over any previously established qualifications." Ron and Pam also think that amending the motion to include new qualifications and requirements and giving it precedence over previous motions is a good idea. Other Business: New Committees: On March 10, Holly announces the membership of the new committees, as follows: Bylaws Committee: Phyllis Rippee (Chair), Marion McReady, Jimmy Epperson, Jeff Scism, Roger Swafford, Kelly Blizzard, Charles Barnum, Dennis Muncrief, Ginger Hayes also volunteered for this committee and will be added if the board does not approve her as Nathan Zipfel's replacement) Guidelines Committee: Teresa Lindquist (Chair), Alice Allen, Jan Cortez, Morgan Johnson, Rich Howland, William David Samuelson, Don Tharp, Cheryl Parker, Cheryl Rothwell, Lorraine Newsome Publicity/Promotion Committee: Tina Vickery (Chair), Alice Allen, Jan Cortez, Marion McReady, Jimmy Epperson, Darilee Kathy Heidel, Shelta Shrum, Jana Black, Lorraine Newsome, Alice Gayley, Joe Markovich On March 13, Teresa forwards information to the Board from the Bylaws Committee [it was inexplicably forwarded everywhere else but the Board]. The message notifies the project that the BC has begun its work and has a webpage located at: http://members.getgoin.net/~wchs/Bylaws.htm Project members are invited to provide "non-frivolous" comments, which the BC will post it at its own discretion. [Note that they will only post your suggestions if the committee decides that a particular section needs revision.] In a second message to the Board, committee Chair Phyllis Rippee announces that Kelly Courtney Blizzard has agreed to serve as committee secretary and solicits comments on Article II of the bylaws. [And in a message to the -ALL list the first committee member, Jeff Scism, has resigned. We hear through the grapevine that things have gotten a wee bit hot on the BC already and a gag order has been imposed on the committee by its Chair. So if you see anything coming out of the BC, its only because Phyllis wants you to see it. In the meantime, the "grassroots" bylaws revision process proceeds on the -ALL list; apparently the BC is not interested in the work done thus far. If you are interested, the current proposals are online at http://www.rootsweb.com/~nvchurch/proposedbylawschanges.htm] After the committees are announced, Tim Stowell asks "Will any new Guidelines or revisions suggested by the Guidelines Committee be posted for a vote of the membership to decide?" Birthday: Phyllis Rippee celebrates a birthday, and several Board members congratulate her. --- In Executive Session: 10 March: messages from Jana Black === "Things alter for the worse spontaneously, if they be not altered for the better designedly." ---Sir Francis Bacon This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2002 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From: merope Date: Wed Mar 20, 2002 6:46 am Subject: Daily Board Show, midweek edition, 3/20/2002 A hard rain is gonna fall...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! 17 March - 20 March 2002: Motion 02-08 (Rescind Motion 99-25): Discussion on this motion continues. Jana thinks it would be a bad idea to allow Board members to serve as Board Secretaries because it would "politicize" the position. Repeated requests for clarification of how allowing Board members to serve as Board Secretary would "politicize" the position are met with non sequiters and attempts to redirect the issue to one of "controversial" persons in the position. Jana first states it is because "Board members vote." Then she states it is because Board members are busy and she feels "it will make the job easier to keep job focus and positions separate." This discussion culminates in Jana's posting a year old, out-of-context snip from the DBS regarding Tim Stowell's attempt to appoint Roger Swafford to the Board Secretary position. [As you may recall, Roger had recently been embroiled in a rather suspicious election that put Tim Stowell back in the NC seat for another term. The quote was an odd choice, since it didn't support Jana's position; Roger was unsuitable for the position because he was currently controversial and his appointment smacked of quid pro quo, not because he was a Board member. The idea seemed to be that because I once objected to someone having access to a powerful position because they were controversial, my current position that Board members should be allowed to serve is contradictory. Even allowing for the sometime occurrence of a change in opinion following experience, an occurrence with which Jana is apparently unfamiliar, the situations were quite different. Roger wasn't a Board member at the time. He'd made it very clear in a post to the Board that he intended to use the position to its fullest extent and I wasn't the only one that thought the choice smelled bad. The appointment eventually failed.] After this exchange, Jana offers Teresa the following deal: "I will agree to support your position that Board members not be excluded from consideration as Secretary, if you will publicly state that you would refuse to accept the Board Secretary position if it were offered to you. At the same time, I will publicly state here and now that I would reciprocally refuse to accept the position as well." [Ah, now we see what the distress is about. They want to keep _me_ from being the Board Secretary. And what a lovely quid pro quo too! I can have Jana's support [oh joy] _plus_ her promise to not be Board Secretary just so long as I promise to not be Board Secretary either. Poor Holly. Apparently she is left out of the equation on this one. The entire point of the point I'm trying to make is that the NC should be available to choose the Board Secretary from the widest possible pool; believe me, its not like people are choking the internet to apply for the job. Saying Board members can't be Board Secretaries is like saying Archives members can't be Board Secretaries, or people from NVGenWeb. It is assuming at the outset that by definition someone in that position is just not suitable. If the Board Secretary position is a secretarial one with no power to determine Board business, outcomes of votes, or the like, it should not matter that they are also a Board member. It has struck me as odd that the usually very articulate Jana cannot coherently state her opposition to the idea. But now I see clearly why the discussion has trended the way it has. They think I want the job and they think Holly wants to give it to me. Silly, silly people. At least there's an upside to this: now I know that Jana's support on an issue can be bought. ] Holly Timm sees no problem with including Board members and says she is sure that "that possible perception of the Board Secretary being a board member as politicizing the position would be taken into account, just as it would if a non-board member was a vocal *political* figure. It is just one of many factors the NC should take into account when choosing a nominee and the AB should take into account when approving." She also notes that requiring the 2/3 approval of a quorum to approve the NC's choice essentially allows a minority to control Board business. Holly laters asks the Board members to indicate whether or not they support the idea of having Board members eligible to serve as the Board Secretary. Thus far 8 Board members have indicated that they think Board members should not be allowed to serve as Board Secretary; three have indicated they should not be restricted from doing so. On March 19, Teresa moves to amend the motion as follows: "I move to rescind Motion 99-25 and replace it with the following procedures for appointing a Board Secretary: The Advisory Board will appoint a secretary for the term of the current Board [ie, to serve from when they are appointed until August 31]. The candidate will nominated by the National Coordinator and appointed by a simple majority vote of a quorum of the Board. Secretaries may be retained by the incoming Board if the NC so desires and a simple majority of Board members agrees. Candidates for the Board Secretary position must be selected from among the volunteer membership of the USGenWeb Project. They must have the time available to read Board mail on a daily basis. They should have familiarity with basic HTML coding and the uploading of files and they should be willing to subscribe to several project mailing lists in order to properly perform duties of the position. The duties of the Secretary will be as follows: 1) Maintaining a current agenda for the Board; 2) numbering motions; 3) counting votes on motions, 4) compiling and disseminating reports of Board activity to the Project membership; 5) maintaining the sections of the national webpages dealing with Board activity; and 6) any other duties as required by the National Coordinator." Holly requests that this amendment be withdrawn while the Board responds to her question [above], but Teresa declines to do so. Other Business: Guidelines Committee: Teresa Lindquist posts the first weekly report of the Guidelines Committee, which includes a link to a "working document" of the committee's proposed revisions. It is located at: http://www.radix.net/~merope/lcguide.txt [Thanks to the project member submitted comments!] Holly responds to Tim Stowell's question about the membership voting on the revised guidelines by noting "The results will be brought before the Board which is then in a position to decide if the changes are substantial enough to warrant being brought before the project as a whole." Point of Order: On March 19, after a series of exchanges that featured Teresa reminding the Board that Roger Swafford had "thrown an election for Tim [Stowell]" and Tim lobbing a number of painfully inept barbs at Teresa [which implied that I am unAmerican], Jana issues a point of order, asking the NC to declare Teresa's comments about Roger and Sundee Maynez [a former Board Secretary] out of order and direct her to make public apologies. Holly response was as follows: "some of Teresa's recent statements were out of order, so were some of Jana's, and some of Tim's and some others...Those of you participating in the personal insults and derogatory comments can clean up your act and behave from here on out or I can moderate this list and posts will have to wait until I get home from work and read through them and post them minus the personal insults. If this truly were just one person it would be simple but it is not, approximately half of you have been sniping at others, making insults or derogatory implications and otherwise not acting in a manner appropriate to your position...I will allow for a short, very short time frame to allow for crossing this message in the mail but then ANYONE on this board who includes insults or derogatory remarks (and that judgement is mine) will lose their posting privileges and all their posts will go through me to be edited by deletion of said insults or by being returned for rewriting if deletion is not simple. The magnitude of the offense, attitude towards the action taken and frequency of offenses will affect the length of the moderation of said individual(s)." After Jana, Vicki Shaffer and Richard Harrison continue to pursue the issue, Holly orders them to "CEASE AND DESIST" and return to Board business. [Next of course will come the sitting in the corner until we have realized the error of our ways, and if that doesn't work, the going to bed without our supper.] Teresa later clarifies that her statement about Roger Swafford was her opinion. --- In Executive Session: March 17: messages by Holly Timm, Ron Eason === "Just because everything is different doesn't mean anything has changed." ---Irene Peter This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2002 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From: merope Date: Sun Mar 24, 2002 7:58 am Subject: Daily Board Show, weekly edition, 3/24/2002 You have been warned...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! 20 March-24 March 2002: Motion 02-08 (Rescind Motion 99-25): On March 21, Teresa's proposed amendment to Motion 02-08 fails for lack of a second. Almost immediately Tina Vickery proposes a slightly altered version of it, and moves "to rescind Motion 99-25 and replace it with the following procedures for appointing a Board Secretary: The Advisory Board will appoint a secretary for the term of the current Board [ie, to serve from when they are appointed until August 31]. The candidate will nominated by the National Coordinator and appointed by a simple majority vote of a quorum of the Board. Secretaries may be retained by the incoming Board if the NC so desires and a simple majority of Board members agrees. *Candidates for the Board Secretary position must be selected from among the volunteer membership of the USGenWeb Project, excluding current Advisory Board Members.* They must have the time available to read Board mail on a daily basis. They should have familiarity with basic HTML coding and the uploading of files and they should be willing to subscribe to several project mailing lists in order to properly perform duties of the position. The duties of the Secretary will be as follows: 1) Maintaining a current agenda for the Board; *2) assists the NC in numbering motions; 3) assists the NC in counting votes on motions;* 4) compiling and disseminating reports of Board activity to the Project membership; 5) maintaining the sections of the national webpages dealing with Board activity; and 6) any other duties as required by the National Coordinator." [asterisks indicate Tina's revisions]. This amendment is seconded by Kathy Heidel and opened for discussion. Phyllis Rippee notes that she is not in favor of allowing a simple majority of Board members to appoint the NC's choice of Board Secretary, and later notes "I believe that the NC should appoint the Board Secretary...I believe that the skills required for doing the job are obvious by the duties that will be assigned to him/her...I do not believe in giving the NC a blank check on assigning duties to the Board Secretary." Several Board members are confused by this and note that they find it odd that Phyllis supports giving carte blanche to the NC to appoint the BS without a confirming vote by the Board but then doesn't want the NC to decide what the BS will actually do. [Its doubly odd coming from someone who so recently voted down the NC's excellent choice because she wanted to teach the NC a lesson. The Board would do well to remember that Phyllis ran for NC once, was very disappointed that she lost out to Holly, and may very well be planning for the future.] Teresa notes that allowing the Board to confirm the NC's choice is a compromise, but Phyllis seems unfamiliar with the concept of "advise and consent." Pam Reid also supports allowing the NC to appoint the Board Secretary and thinks that "some basic duties that we all consider necessary for smooth operations should be spelled out." Phyllis is also not in favor of a term limit, noting that new NCs get to pick their Board Secretaries anyways, and is concerned that there is no way to remove a BS who is not doing their job. Teresa suggests including both a term limit and a method to removed BSs for cause, requiring 2/3 of the Board to vote to do so. Phyllis says she will never agree to this and Teresa has to explain that having a simple majority confirm the NC's choice prevents a small handful of vengeful Board members from preventing the appointment of a perfectly suitable candidate but requiring a 2/3 majority agree to remove a BS will prevent a BS from being removed for personal or frivolous reasons. Other Business: Guidelines: After some back and forth on the issue of whether or not the Project will get to vote on new guidelines, Holly tells Tim, "If the changes are basically updates and clarifications there is nothing substantive to require putting it through a project wide approval process. But if there are substantive changes, particularly to requirements as opposed to suggestions and recommendations, then yes it should go before the entire project for approval. This Board will be the ones to decide if the changes are substantive ... to determine if the guidelines should go before the entire project or not." Election Committee: The Election Committee forwards a list of several items on which it would like clarification from the Board. After some discussion from the Board members, they are split into separate items and posted for individual response on March 22. [Each is listed below with a summary of Board members' responses so far.] "(1) Just prior to the close of nominations 2001, Tim Stowell, submitted a nomination for "none of the above". Since "none of the above" did not appear to qualify as a volunteer under the USGenWeb By-Laws the Election Committee declined the nomination. However, after the election the EC hosted an opinion poll and the majority of those responding were in favor of either "none of the above" or "abstain" appearing on the ballot of all races. QUESTIONS: (a) Should either of these items appear on the ballot? (b) If either is included must the "vote" cast for "none of the above" or "abstain" be included in the vote count to determine the 51% majority that a candidate must have to win?" Betsy: "I don't have a problem with "Abstain" on the appearing on the ballot, and if it does, then it should count in the vote count...don't really see the need for it." ". I change my opinion to agree with Tina. I liked her write-in idea." Ron: "I don't think it should be an option." Phyllis: "As a matter of personal preference, I do not like the phrase "none of the above." I believe that "abstain" is more business-like...it is a vote and therefore should count. The same way that "abstain" counts to determine a quorum in a meeting." Tina: "No. [To both questions] The more inclusive avenue to explore would be that of write-in candidates." Ginger: "I see no reason for either of those items to appear on the ballot." Jana: "I do not agree with "None of the Above" however, I think "Abstain" is viable as it allows no vote either way but inclusion in the total vote count." Richard: "I don't think it's necessary, however a majority of those responding to the poll did. I think we should continue to operate without this option and refer the idea to the EC or BC to investigate whether or not it has support from a majority of the membership...If we must do something now, I would favor "abstain" over "none of the above" and don't believe these votes should be counted to determine the majority." Kathy: "I don't believe so. Imo it just confuses the voters who are not accostumed to this option." Teresa: "Neither. Its silly." Mary Ann: "(a) Abstain if either is used. But they can just not vote if they want to express the same. (b) No, It should only be a way for the voter to express thier opnion." Tim: "Abstain is goofy - one might as well not vote. None of the above tells the other candidates that the constituents to a certain percent don't wish to have said candidate(s) as their representative." "(2) Tim Stowell has brought up several times that volunteers were not allowed to change their vote during the election. At the time of the election the software was returning unreliable results when multiple votes were cast . Larry Stephens thinks he can fix the software to handled multiple votes but before he spends the time doing this the EC would like clarification from the AB. The consensus of the EC is that volunteers only be allowed to vote once. QUESTION: Should volunteers be able to return to the poll and change their vote?" Betsy: "voters should NOT be able to return to the poll and change their vote." Ron: "It is not done in public voting and we shouldn't feel the need to do it either." Phyllis: "I am opposed to allowing a voter to change a vote after having already verified the vote was cast the way he/she wanted it the "first" time." Pam Reid: "I really do think it is a good idea to allow people to do that. Sometimes I do change my mind if issues come forward that weren't known before." "I have seen several people object to allowing voters to change votes since this isn't allowed is Presidential elections, etc. To me, there is a difference...USGW elections are held over a period of time and are therefore different, IMO." Tina: "I don't think that volunteers should be able to return to the poll and change their vote." Ginger: "No. If they are undecided then the voting period is sufficiently long enough that they do not need to make an instantaneous decision the moment the polls open." Jana: "No, a vote needs to be well considered before it is made and not a willy-nilly thing that can change as the wind blows." Richard: "Yes. The system was originally set up to allow for this and it was permitted up until the most recent election and was one of the criteria included in the original instructions to the EC for choosing voting software." Kathy: "No. If a voter is not certain whom they would like to represent them, perhaps they should wait until they gather enough information and then vote." Teresa: "Yes they should." Mary Ann: "No, the voting period is quite long enough to allow for someone to make up thier minds before they actually vote." Tim: "Until this last election voters were allowed to change their minds as often as they chose to as new information was received about a candidate or if a voter decided on listening to others that they wanted to change their vote...That 'fault' did not change the charge to the EC for I don't believe the AB ever saw this topic come up from the EC to them to decide. If we are going to change the charter of the EC, I would think it would need to be done in motion form." "(3) The By-Laws include a seat for a representative of the Census Project. Prior to and during the nomination period the EC asked the AB what to do about the nominations for this seat. The EC's questions did not get answered. After the election there was a lot of discussion about the fact that "Maggie's" CP volunteer's got to vote and "Ron's" CP volunteer's didn't. These two issues need to be resolved. QUESTIONS: (a) What is the AB going to do about the open, unfilled CP Representative seat? (b) Which Census Project Volunteers are allowed to vote? Both? Neither?" The general consensus seems to be that the Board will do nothing about the CP Board seat and it will remain vacant. Betsy: "Neither group should vote." Ron: "Since there is no recognized Census Project, neither should be allowed to vote. And if one is, the other should be as well, until a final disposition is ironed out." Phyllis: "Neither....unless they qualify in some other way." Pam: "Both sets of project volunteers should be allowed to vote." Jana: "Since there is *no* official census project, we do not need to fill the seat nor should either group vote." Kathy: "I believe that nominations for the seat should come from either/both CP Groups and the person with the majority, no matter which group, would fill that seat. If we eliminate one group then I believe neither group should be represented...If we have a CP Rep then the CP Volunteers should be allowed to vote." Richard: "Agreed." [with Betsy] Teresa: "Neither." Mary Ann: "(a) At this point in time we don't have an offically recognized CP. So how can we fill it? (b) Neither" Tim: "As CCs - they vote in their region(s) and for the National offices. As CP members only - the USGenWeb Census Project is recognized by the Bylaws; whether or not the AB recognizes them is moot." "(4) During this election there were several two seat races. The EC was told that the candidate with the highest vote got the 2 year seat and the runner up got the 1 year seat. There were a lot of complaints about this and it was pointed out that the By-Laws require a majority decision. After the Election was co mpleted the EC discussed this and the consensus was that in the future each seat should be treated separately. QUESTION: How should races with 2 seats be handled/ determined?" Betsy: "the candidate should file for the seat they want to run for." Pam: "in the future each seat should be treated separately." Phyllis: "Separately." Ron: "By including them together, everyone has an equal chance. If you separate them, people will be forced out by having to chose one length race or the other??? I think it is best, left as is." Tina: "as one of the AB members affected by this situation, I had no problem with it." Ginger: "Each seat should be handled seperately." Jana: "Seperately." [sic] Kathy: "I believe the seats should be staggered and the vacant seats should be from now on filled for 2 years." Richard: "Separately." Teresa: "Absolutely do not care." Mary Ann: "separately" Tim: "As it currently is...If it is done seperately - and candidates have to choose which seat to run for - the vacant seat or a full term seat - it would appear that we would limit voter's choice of who they want to serve them." "(5) The By-Laws state that every volunteer (excluding those who do only look-ups or who only transcribe material) are eligible to vote. During this past election the EC included all volunteers of the Special Projects who met this criteria. However, we were told to exclude the KS Archive volunteers because they did not submit their material to "Linda Lewis'" Archive Project. QUESTION: What group of volunteers, if any, are to be excluded from voting?" Betsy: "Following the bylaws, only members of the USGenWeb Archives (Linda's), the Tombstone Project, and the Census Project (there is not one sanctioned by the AB at this time) may vote. I would say that excludes all others." Pam: "I say allow any and all Project volunteers to vote." Phyllis: "If the Kansas Archives are not recognized as a Special USGW Project, its members should be excluded from voting." Ron: "If the state of Kansas is considered to be a part of the USGW, then their Archives Rep, should have an equal vote for NC as does the Archives Rep's for Linda's Project, except in the case where that person may already have a vote as a CC in Kansas or another state." Ginger: "The current Bylaws prescribe who votes." Jana: "All groups that are not recognized Special Projects." Kathy: "No one SP should be excluded. If one is excluded the rest should not be allowed to vote." Richard: "members of State Projects, members of the USGenWeb Archives Project (and its subsidiary Projects) and members of the USGenWeb Tombstone Project are eligible to vote. Members of other projects, no matter how worthy the project, are not eligible to vote." Teresa: "No one should be excluded from voting." Mary Ann: "Other than what is now in the bylaws, groups of volunteers should not be excluded. But each State and SP Coordinator are the ones to varify who is a voting member of their part of the project." Tim: "I agree with Betsy on this." "(6) Larry Stephens has requested the EC to post a list of volunteers (name only) by Region to the EC website. This will eliminate the majority of e-mails he received from volunteers during the last election. A similar suggestion was made by a member of the ESC and was voted down. The reason given was it would be an invasion of privacy of the volunteer to have their name listed. The EC is of the opinion that all volunteers must list their names on their web sites and the listing of their names on the EC website would not invade anyone's privacy. The EC would appreciate permission from the AB to post a membership list. QUESTION: Will the AB allow the EC to post Regional membership lists (name only) on the EC website?" Betsy: "I think this would be good, too. Then the CCs can verify that they are listed. This would cut down on accusations that the SC left their name off on purpose, etc." Pam: "I have no problem with listing volunteers names on the EC site." Ron: "I don't have a problem with this...Having a list of names should not be an objection for anyone, since most states already list them on one page anyway." Phyllis: "Unless I have misunderstood the question, I think that to allow the names only list to be posted would enable a person to determine if he/she has been omitted." Ginger: "I see no reason not to. It would most likely be helpful in keeping the lists updated." Tina: "I agree that their acceptance of their role within the USGenWeb Project gives the Project, for administrative purposes the right to at least post their names to facilitate ease of Project business." Jana: "I think this is a good idea and if any of us did not want our names out there, we made a mistake becoming a CC." Kathy: "Yes" Teresa: "No." "I absolutely disagree with this. The Project has no such right, it is neither implicit nor explicit in any of our bylaws or guidelines. There is NO requirement that LCs place their name on their website that I can find, unless it is a state requirement...Posting everyone's name on an easily accessible web page without their permission is a HUGE violation of privacy and runs a risk of causing harm to someone...If the EC is going to insist on this violation of privacy, the page needs to private and not accessible to nonproject members." "If [Larry] has it then there is no need to post it publicly. I want to know a compelling reason why such a list, already available privately to Larry and members of the EC, must now be posted publicly....I have spent some time searching nonprofit websites. I can't find one, large or small, that makes this information generally available. I don't see why the EC is willing to do the work necessary to keep and maintain a list of over 2000 people publicly available but they aren't willing to do the work to make sure each of them gets a ballot." Richard: "YES!" Mary Ann: "If we don't have the permisson of the volunteer to post their name, we don't have the right to post it on the list. I have no problem with allowing a membership list of volunteers who give permission to have their names posted." Tim: "Perhaps this would best be phrased - will the members allow the EC to post their names on the EC website?..doesn't it really fall to the individual members rights of privacy whether or not they will agree to such?..what will the EC's response and/or the AB's to a CC who requests to have their name removed from the site?" "(7) This Election Committee is a standing committee and as such maintains a year around web site. The EC has the means for a volunteer to Register to Vote. The EC spends an unbelievable amount of time and effort trying to get membership lists verified, e-mails corrected and dealing with SCs who won't send us lists. After every Announce Only mailing the EC ends up with hundreds of e-mail addresses that bounce and receives several dozen e-mails from members who demand that their name be removed from the membership mailing list. The opinion of the EC is that only volunteers who Register to vote may vote. QUESTION: Shall only those who register to vote be allowed to vote?" Betsy: "If a system could be set up so that the SC for the person registering could be asked to verify these, I think this could be a good thing." Pam: "I think it would make things easier for the EC if only registered voters could vote. The system should be simple and the info that registration is needed must be widely disseminated." Ron: "I would think that if anyone wants to vote, they should not have an objection to registering to do so." Phyllis: "It would be okay to go with registered voters only, but the problem is getting the word out to every eligible voter that they have to register." Jana: "Yes." Kathy: "Yes, I should think that if the EC were to post to all of the Mailing Lists that the Registration Books are open say every month or two. And send reminders to the SC's to inform their CC's to register that should be sufficient information for the voter to get registered...If they miss out and not be allowed to vote. I would say they likely will remember to do so the next time." Teresa: "No. This will result in even fewer voters than we have now, and I don't see how it will result in less work for the EC. All names still have to be verified via the SC, and since not all SCs forward information to the EC, the EC will still have to obtain full member lists from the SCs in order to send emails out to people to ensure they know to go to register. So they might as well just let everyone vote." Richard: "I'd like to see the EC propose a more detailed and specific program to insure that every eligible voter is adequately informed of his right to vote and what he needs to do to activate it." Mary Ann: "No, even if we have only registered voters, people do change email addresses. Not everyone will keep their registraion up to date. I see no real advantage to this method, because the SC still has to validate the registration." Tim: "No. The opportunity to vote should be available to every eligible member." There are some miscellaneous comments on these items. Ron, Tim and Pam discuss the Census Project issue a bit. Ron Eason forwards an email from Project member Ken Hollingsworth regarding keeping mailing lists updated more or less automatically. Kathy Heidel suggests that Project members be required to subscribe to the regional lists. Teresa Lindquist points out that many of the EC's requests are in violation of its current guidelines, namely #2, #6, and #7. --- In Executive Session: no activity === "If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance which does harm." ---Marcus Aurelius This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2002 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From: merope Date: Sun Mar 24, 2002 8:23 am Subject: Guidelines Committee weekly report for the week ending March 23, 2002 Permission to forward as appropriate is granted. GUIDELINES COMMITTEE WEEKLY REPORT, for the week ending March 23 2002 === On March 17, the weekly report is submitted to the Project and three comments are received from Project members. One of these addresses a grammatical error in the working document, which is corrected. One concerns the management of state mailing lists and is deferred until the Committee is discussing State Coordinator guidelines. The third contains several questions, as follows: 1. "The suggested requirement that Local Coordinators provide a link on their home page to the main USGenWeb Project page is a new requirement, correct? I don't recall hearing anyone make suggestions along this line prior to this report, so I am curious as to whether this is something that most Project members want...if compliance with a logo requirement is not currently being attained, how will Local Coordinators react to an additional link requirement?" The Committee discussed this comment for a couple of days. We agree that this would constitute a new requirement, but feel that it would not put an undue burden on the LCs, nor would it unduly infringe on a LC's right to determine their page design. Providing a link back to the USGenWeb Project not only makes sense, since the LC's page is part of the Project, but would be a boon to visiting genealogists. We have thus decided to keep this in as a new requirement. As part of this discussion, we also discussed logos. Project members are required to prominently display an official USGenWeb Project logo, but "prominent" is not defined. A Committee member noted that her state defines "prominent" as "near the top" and this has worked well in that state. Another Committee member discussed the proliferation of banners, ads, and other logos on Project web pages. After some discussion, several Committee members noted that in many cases these banners and ads might be required by the hosting server, and in any case there is little that can be done about it without getting into very subjective areas of design and creativity. A recommendation that the logo be placed near the top of the LC's main page is suggested and agreed to by a majority of Committee members. This recommendation is limited to the "home" or "main" page of the local website. "2. Probably not important, but I couldn't figure out what the contradiction referred to by the following is -- State Mail List: It was noted that the current requirement for CCs to join a state mailing list contradicts a requirement in the current guidelines for State Coordinators." A Committee member provided the answer for this question: "the contradiction is in the way the sentence was written. SCs are required to maintain a state mail list and have all LCs subscribed. The CC previous guidelines indicated that the State might "NOT" have a mail list and if that were so they should contact their SC." The Committee will revise the Guidelines to address this discrepancy. "3. Regarding disclaimers that USGenWeb is not affiliated with non-USGenWeb message systems, I'm not sure the definition of "non-USGenWeb" is entirely clear. For example, is a query system maintained by the local genealogy society in the county which I coordinate a "non-USGenWeb" system? Would I need a public disclaimer that USGenWeb is not affiliated with the local gnealogy society? Are Query Express/Surname Helper "non-USGenWeb" systems?" There was much discussion on this issue, including a description of Query Express and a description of the extent of control LCs may exercise if they manage Ancestry message boards. The Chair of the Committee pointed out that the USGenWeb itself does not have a query system and that even a system managed entirely by a LC is technically a "non-USGenWeb system." The Chair thus suggests changing the wording of the recommendation to read "If you choose to use a query system that is managed by someone other than yourself, such as a commercial company, its is recommended that...etc." The general consensus is to leave the disclaimer in as a recommendation only to LCs and to word it more generally to refer to query systems that are not controlled directly by the LC. After further discussion, the recommendation to add a disclaimer regarding off-site query systems was temporarily removed from the working document. As noted above, most Committee members are in favor of recommending to LCs that they include such a disclaimer, but it has been suggested that since LCs link to many places and resources that are out of their control, a more generic disclaimer that a LC could add to their home page might be more suitable. The Committee will explore this issue further. === The current version of the working document is posted at: http://www.radix.net/~merope/lcguide.txt Please address comments to Teresa Lindquist -Teresa Lindquist Chair, Guidelines Committee Representative At Large, USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net From: merope Date: Sun Mar 31, 2002 8:18 am Subject: Daily Board Show, weekly edition, 3/31/2002 Nostalgia isn't what it used to be...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! 24 March-31 March 2002: Motion 02-08 [Rescind Motion 99-25]: As there has been no discussion for several days, Holly Timm calls the vote on the current amendment to this motion on March 26. On March 27, Holly declares the motion passed with 11 yes votes and asks if there is further discussion on the motion. Both Phyllis Rippee and Kathy Heidel ask if they may amend the motion. On March 28, Teresa moves to end debate on the amended motion, Tina Vickery seconds the call of the question, and Holly opens the vote. The call of the question passes with 11 yes votes, but Holly then asks that the motion be amended to read "The candidate will be nominated by the National Coordinator and appointed by the Board." She notes that this "allows for conforming to the present Bylaws but leaves the matter open to being handled by a simple majority if the 2/3rds requirements are altered at any time in the future." Teresa notes that debate on this motion has closed; Holly then threatens to kill the motion if it is not amended as she suggests. On March 29 Betsy Mills moves to adopt the amendment Holly proposes and Kathy Heidel seconds the motion to amend. Holly asks the Board to immediately indicate whether or not discussion is desired and to vote on the amendment. Thus far, four Board members have voted yes on the amendment, 2 have voted no, and one has abstained. Before the voting could finish, Holly declared the motion out of order [see below]. Holly also indicates she will resume the call of the question immediately if the amendment passes. Phyllis objects, noting that if one sentence is opened for amendment, the whole amendment must be opened for amendment. She suggests letting the Board vote on the current version of the amended motion. Jana Black also objects, suggesting that Holly kill the motion so the Board can start over. She complains that the motion is "very poorly worded" and notes "I do not think voting on it as written without discussion is in the best interests of this Project. I think you should QUASH the motion and let us begin again, even if we have again wasted time. It will be bad enough to be remembered as the AB who accomplished little. Let's not also give ourselves an identity as the AB that not only got nothing done but also passed ill-informed motions." [She also notes that she's remained quiet every since Holly's 'cease and desist' order; apparently she doesn't think she can debate in anything other than a "heated" manner.] She goes on to say in another message that she' rather "get it right than get it done" and suggests the Board "discuss, discuss, discuss until we agree upon proper wording, then to pass motions we really can feel proud of for the Project!" [Oddly enough, in a later message, she says she voted yes on the "very poorly worded" amendment "to move things along".] Kathy points out that we _have_ been discussing it for a month and are no closer to having a Board secretary. She remarks "Let's just agree to get a BS and get on with living, I have lots to do and want to enjoy life, not work at it like my life depended on this one motion." Betsy Mills recommends that Holly "Appoint a blasted secretary and get on with life and business. We do NOT have to go back and rewrite history just to appoint a secretary. This mess is just being created to slow down the work of the Advisory Board. I for one refuse to take part in it any more." Betsy then tries to withdraw her motion to amend, noting "I believe it would be best for you to declare the current motion invalid. Then we can either start over with a new motion OR you can just appoint a Board Secretary following previously adopted procedure...This is actually a formality and I believe much ado is being made over nothing." Holly declares the motion out of order and quashes it on March 29, noting "As of now, there is no motion. It is fatally flawed as it stands and since some of this board refuses to allow correction of the flaw by amendment I have no choice but to declare the motion out of order." On March 30, Teresa raises a point of order, noting that very little time was given for the Board to vote on the amendment and that is premature to declare the motion out of order. Holly responds that "it was clear that some board members were prepared to make an issue of it so I was forced to choose the only other option available and quash the motion itself as it was out of order as it stood...I tried to streamline the correction so we could actually vote on a viable motion whether other parts of it were agreed with or not...and whether it would have passed or not being entirely separate issues." Also on March 29, Ron Eason moves "to rescind and replace Motion 99-25 with the following: The National Coordinator will appoint a secretary for the term of the current Board [ie, to serve from when they are appointed until August 31]. Secretaries may be retained for continuous service if the NC so desires and agrees. Candidates for the Board Secretary position must be selected from among the volunteer membership of the USGenWeb Project, excluding current Advisory Board Members. They must commit the time available to read Board mail on a daily basis. They should have familiarity with basic HTML coding and the uploading of files, via FTP. They must be willing to subscribe to numerous project mailing lists in order to properly perform duties of the position. The duties of the Secretary will include, but may not be limited to, the following: 1) Maintaining a current agenda for the Board; 2) Assist the NC in numbering motions; 3) Assist the NC in counting votes on motions; 4) Compile and disseminate reports of Board activity to the Project membership; 5) Maintain the sections of the national webpages dealing with Board activity; Any additional duties as may be required by the National Coordinator and/or Advisory Board shall be approved by the Advisory Board, according to proper and current procedure." Diane Parsons seconds this motion. Holly opens it for discussion on March 30. [Amazing what's happened to a motion that started out with less than 10 words in it.] --- Other Business: EC Request: More Board members respond to the several requests made by the EC last week and on March 26 Holly posts her determination of the status of each item. Of note, Vicki Shaffer responded privately to Holly and to the ARCHIVES-L mailing list; Holly did not originally include Vicki's responses in the "final" tallies: Item #1 [none of the above]: Robert Bremer: "Although I'm cetain we would have all liked to have voted "none of the above" for some position in a past election, I see no need for an "abstain" or "none of the above" categories on the ballot because these categories do not serve any useful purpose...I object to "abstain," "none of the above," and "write-in" categories on the ballot." Vicki Shaffer: "a) NO - COMMENTS: It is against bylaws; b) NO - COMMENTS: against bylaws" Holly Timm: "Q1 - (a) 13 responding: 8 No, 2 abstain, 1 None of the above and 2 say abstain if we must use one of them (b) 13 responding: 10 No, 3 yes The majority clearly feel that even if a choice of abstain or none of the above is placed on the ballot, it should not be counted in determining the winner. The results of the (a) response is only slightly less clear in that 7 say an outright "No" and 3 choose one of the expressions. But, two choose abstain conditionally, if a choice must be used but are comfortable with not doing it at all. A few discuss briefly the possibility of having a write-in option with a couple having some interest in pursuing this possibility in the future. This Question is declared answered." Item #2 [vote changing]: Robert Bremer: "People should be able to change their vote if they want to in our current set up where the campaign and voting periods coincide." Vicki Shaffer: "all candidates should have their positions posted before the election begins." Holly Timm: "14 responding - 9 no, 5 yes Not quite 2/3rds but this isn't a motion. The question is declared answered, no" Item #3 [CP rep and CP voting]: Robert Bremer: "Unfortunately, the CP Rep seat should remain unfilled and there should be no votes from either census project for the various reasons already stated on this list." Vicki Shaffer: "a) NA; b) NEITHER" Holly Timm: "12 responding: on (a) 11 basically said leave it unfilled although several said in one way or another that we do need to resolve this situation it was not tied to this immediate response, 1 said fill it from both (i.e., involving both CP's). (b) 9 said NEITHER, 1 said BOTH, 1 specified "Maggie's" and 1 said either BOTH or NEITHER (i.e., do not choose just one). Clearly the majority feels that until and unless the CP dual project situation is resolved (including the CP seat), the seat should remain unfilled and that NEITHER project should have voting privileges (other than any votes individuals have as participants elsewhere). This question is deemed answered." Item #4 [two seat races]: Robert Bremer: "This situation should most definitely be handled together as it has been in the past...Exactly how many complaints constitutes a "lot" of complaints? How many did the EC actually receive? And of those how many came from members of the EC itself?" Vicki: "TWO SEPARATE SEATS" Holly Timm: "14 responses: 8 said Separately; 4 said Together; 1 doesn't care and 1 said Staggered (which the seats are now). Separately has an edge over the other responses but I am not sure the issue is fully understood and would like to see further discussion." Item #5: [SP exclusions]: Robert Bremer: "I see little difference between the KS Archive volunteers and the coordinators of Civil War or African American or Native American research pages that exist as part of other state projects. Since those coordinators have been treated like CCs in the past, KS Archive volunteers ought to be able to vote in the same way for NC, RAL, and their regional CC representatives." Vicki: "THE "LINDA LEWIS" ARCHIVES SHOULD BE REPLACED WITH THE USGENWEB ARCHIVES PROJECT IN THIS QUESTION QUESTION: NONE - COMMENTS: All eligible to vote at state level should be able to vote at national level." Holly Timm: "The preface to this question spoke specifically of the Kansas Archives volunteers but the question itself was general and the comments made were wide-ranging. I think this needs further discussion" Teresa Lindquist wants to know how the KSGenWeb Archives members were not allowed to vote in the last election since the EC Guidelines clearly explain that state level special projects members should be allowed to vote. Mary Ann Hetrick explains that they should only have been excluded from voting for the open Archives representative seat and Teresa suggests that the request should be reworded to make this clear. Item #6 [posting membership lists]: Robert Bremer: "I'm unable to respond to this issue without more information...At this point I don't agree with posting even a name only list of the project membership." Vicki: "YES COMMENTS: Stay in bed if you're afraid of having your name posted" Holly Timm: "14 responding - 11 saying some variation of yes (from definite support to lukewarm okay with it), 3 said definitely NO and Tim brought up a very good point which has not been in most of the discussion, a part of the issue I think needs further discussion" Teresa: "Robert Bremer also asked some good questions that should be addressed...I think we should request further information from the EC on both Tim's question and Robert's questions before we proceed on this item. And I also think that the entire membership should be polled on this issue. It affects every single one of them and they have a right to register their opinion on it before we decide to violate their privacy in such a cavalier fashion." Item #7 [registered voters only]: Robert Bremer: "No. All eligble voters should be on a master list. Yes, it is a lot of work to do, but the alternatives would seem to require nearly as much effort and does not result in a voter being excluded because they missed seeing a message about registering." Vicki: "YES (I broke the tie here because I feel that registering to vote makes the EC job easier" Tim Stowell: "Forcing folks to join a mailing list other than their state list is not in our best interests." Holly Timm: "12 responding 6 yes (2 conditionally), 5 no and one wanting more information about how this would be done to give all eligible voters the opportunity to register" Following Holly's action in declaring several of these items resolved with benefit of full Board participation and without a formal vote, Teresa raises a point of order, pointing out that "Our bylaws do not specify "motions" but require a 2/3 majority on "issues". These requests by the EC are certainly "issues"." She goes on to note that "anything that alters the voting rights of members of this Project is worthy of a full and formal vote of this Board. We do not have general consensus on _any_ of these items and declaring them "answered" is not appropriate without a vote...nowhere is it clear that you would be declaring these issues finally answered based on the "brief answers ... without ... lengthy arguments and opinions" that you requested of us...had votes been taken, or had it been made clear that the responses would be counted as if they were votes, perhaps they would have participated and the outcome would be different." Kathy Heidel and Tina Vickery object; Kathy [as usual] does not want to be "hobbled" [and apparently doesn't understand the issue] and Tina says the intent of Holly's instruction was clear to her. Teresa remarks that "The issue here is not simple majority vs 2/3 majority...The concern here is that far-reaching decisions were made unilaterally by the NC after minimal discussion and after unclear instruction and without the benefit of a vote of any kind by the Board." Richard Harrison agrees with this but notes "I believe the EC is clever enough to see it for what it is--preliminary discussion with no real conclusions, only the MC's [sic] opinion. If the EC requires definitive answers on any of the discussion points I hope they will individually submit the questions to the Board." Tina however hopes "that we trust the NC to report consensus, and that the EC will use that as a directive to continue their work." Holly informs the Board that "These are questions from the EC for inclusion in how they revise their guidelines which will then be brought before us for discussion and approval so this is not a final decision on an issue just an answer to a question. The EC has also seen most if not all of the individual responses which will I am sure influence their revision of their guidelines." Teresa offers to withdraw the point of order if the Board is assured that "the EC will not implement any of these changes prior to an Advisory Board vote on their proposals for revised guidelines." [This assurance has thus far not been forthcoming.] Teresa later points out that it is not clear from the EC request to the Board that they want our advice solely to assist them in revising their guidelines. Teresa remarks that "Our decisions on these items will make policy that will affect voters for the foreseeable future and we really should be allowed to cast formal votes on each of these items before the EC is allowed to alter its proceedings in these matters. Once we have determined how the EC is to proceed, perhaps we can add them as addenda to the current EC guidelines." There is no further action on the EC's request. - Guidelines Committee: The Guidelines Committee weekly report is forwarded to the Board by Teresa Lindquist on March 24. - Bylaws Committee: On March 29, Phyllis Rippee announces her resignation from the Bylaws Committee [Heh, we saw that one coming. Phyllis doesn't handle conflict well at all.] Holly appoints Ginger Hayes to replace her as committee Chair. [The committee's work thus far has been removed from where it was formerly posted; no additional information has been received from the committee.] - Time Out: On March 24, Tim Stowell is placed on "moderated" status on the Board list for an indeterminate length of time following some comments directed to Teresa Lindquist. --- In Executive Session: March 29: messages by Jana Black, Kathy Heidel === Sour Grapes Corner: At some point during the flurry over the Board Secretary motion, Jana asked if perhaps past Boards had done what they did because they couldn't care less "if a future AB laughs at me because I didn't do this properly." This comment elicited some apparently long standing unhappiness from some of the veteran Board members: Betsy Mills: "I don't care anymore about what future or past boards think of my actions. It doesn't matter what I have helped to decide, it has all been cast in an evil light by those that DO NOT care about this project. I am sick to death of it all. I want to go back to working with a group of people who care about this "hobby" and who will quit trying to turn it into a corporate business that has to follow the rules to the letter or everyone comes unhinged. The past ABs had problems, but we never got to the point we are at now -- unable to conduct business because of being hamstrung by rules that folks twist to suit their purpose. When a hobby takes over a person's life and becomes "unfun" there is something really wrong with the world. Every one of the past AB board members were folks who cared about the future of this project. I don't think I can say that about this AB." Pam Reid: "I would have said EXACTLY what Betsy said in this note. This has really moved beyond the point of absurdity. Put me into the "I for one refuse to take part in it any more" category." Kathy Heidel: "you have summed up my feelings and I am beginning to think the Links look better and better. I am the one that suggested a PA and I am so sorry for that. I thought that it would be use for reference not a battering ram. I have never been so close as to toss in the towel as I am right now. Can you give me any reason to not do so?" Betsy: "The only reason I can give myself or anyone else not to throw in the towel is that it would leave this project wide open to those who seek to destroy it. That is the ONLY thing that is keeping me from resigning right this minute. My next motion will probably be one to disband the AB and to return to an elected NC who maintains the national pages, nothing more. We do not need an AB. This project is a page of links -- nothing more, nothing less...All these people working themselves into a tizzy trying to protect the data are the ones trying to figure out a way to make money off that data...that was my other purpose for staying on this board for all these years. If there is ever a vote to incorporate this project, I wanted to be here to vote against it...The games that are being played this year are sickening and shameful..." Phyllis Rippee: "if you can figure out how to do away with the national structure since the general membership adopted a set of bylaws that set said structure in place......then I will throw my silent support behind you 100%." This is the usual "blame the messenger" approach to unpleasantness on the Board. If you disagree with me you are "seeking to destroy" the project. If you try to follow the rules, you are playing "sickening and shameful" games. If you propose a change in procedure in order to make the Board better, you are just "trying to slow down the work of the Advisory Board." Past Boards [which as I recall had no problem with publicly attacking Project members in the course of their duties] were composed entirely of the saintly and the wise, who considered each action professionally and dispassionately and made all decisions for the good of the Project. Current Board members [with the exception of those brave enough to stick around to stave off the barbarians at the gate] are just here to ruin the project and find a way to make money off it. Disagreement becomes persecution at the drop of a hat. We decide what to support based on who else is supporting it. If we can use the power of our vote to harm someone over petty differences, we will do it. We are incoherent, we contradict ourselves from day to day, and we show no real desire to make USGenWeb better. Like Betsy we all have our agendas and are here to protect them and to prevent others from realizing _their_ agendas. Even attempts to actually incorporate discussion into motions and amend them to fit the stated preferences of Board members is met with suspicion and derision. It is a blessing that most of the rest of the project has no idea we exist. Whatever she may now think, Kathy was absolutely correct to push for a parliamentary authority and the Board was absolutely correct to adopt one. I would imagine a transition period between chaos and order is to be expected. We are none of us experts in parliamentary authority, and mistakes will be made. This is not a tragedy or a plot or an attack on the fiber of the project; they are just mistakes. But even with an accepted authority to guide us our "meeting" devolves into verbal fisticuffs as soon as someone feels their precious opinion has been ignored. We couch our opinions in the most confrontive terms possible, painting ourselves as "doing what's best for the project" and accusing our colleagues of the worst sort of perfidy. We speak in absolutes and eliminate the possibility of compromise at the outset of every discussion. It is as if no one understands how human nature works. What ends up happening is that Holly tries to fix the damage and generally only makes it worse. But she is as new at this as any of us, and has done remarkably well in keeping focused. Some of the Board appear willing to ascribe _all_ the Board's current problems to the adoption of rules of procedure. They seem naively to believe that we'd all get along better if we did business the way the old Board did business [secretively and by collusion]. But we won't like or respect each other any more if there were no accepted authority [and of course the bylaws require that we use one]; the chaos would only increase. The Board only operates collegially if 2/3 of its members agree on everything. Now that that is not the case, we fight like cats and dogs and believe that each and every failure to get our own vision of USGenWeb across to the Board constitutes the beginning of The End. Apparently we will soon be discussing a motion to disband the Board entirely because a handful of atavisms find it difficult to play nice with the new kids on the block. This would of course represent failure on an almost visceral level; we are so incapable of working together for the benefit of the project that we must disband ourselves. It is always to be preferred that everyone we work with holds the exact same opinions that we do, but in the real world that doesn't happen. And in the real world, adults don't threaten to take their toys and go home when the game isn't going their way. In some respects, I guess, it would be a fittingly ironic ending if the Board finally blew up over something as simple as how to appoint office staff, but that's the way we are. - Archives Escapades Corner: You know that long periods of silence from the Archives usually bode no good. We heard today about a transcriber who found out that approximately 75 of her transcriptions regarding biographies, obits, and newspaper extractions from Wallowa county, OR had been "donated" to the USGenWeb Archives (tm) when it was announced by W. David Samuelsen on an AHGP mailing list. When we first heard about this yesterday morning, all items were online and clearly showed the transcriber's name and a current copyright. By yesterday afternoon they were all removed. As it turns out, someone else "donated" the records to the Archives (tm) in the transcriber's name. Apparently David Samuelsen told the transcriber that her work was fair game because the sources from which she transcribed were in the public domain. After some casual mention of legal action against USGenWeb, Root$web and Ancestry.con the misappropriated transcriptions were removed quietly and without apology by an Archives staff member. === "If you don't want it printed, don't let it happen." ---Motto of the Aspen Daily News This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2002 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From: merope Date: Sun Mar 31, 2002 9:17 am Subject: Guidelines Committee weekly report for the week ending March 30, 2002 Permission to forward as appropriate is granted. GUIDELINES COMMITTEE WEEKLY REPORT, for the week ending March 30 2002 === On March 24, the weekly report was submitted to the Project and one comment was received from a project member. The member is concerned that wording in the current working document regarding display of the logo might be misinterpreted by some members. His comment was forwarded to the Committee for its consideration. Committee members noted that the placement of the USGW logo on hard-to-find pages is common, as is the practice of framing pages, providing "gateway" pages that are linked to from the state page and which in turn link to the main page for the locality; all of which make defining a "home page" difficult. The discussion thus far is tending toward not revising the wording in the working document. - Pursuant to an ongoing discussion on Board-L regarding the Election Committee and its mailing list, the Committee Chair forwarded the following suggestion by Board member Kathy Heidel: "Why not require that the CC's and other volunteers be to be subbed to the Regional lists. This has been an ongoing problem with all USGW P announcements and such. The Regional lists were set up for this purpose and if mandatory then the SC's would not have to disseminate this information to their CC's." This suggestion is open for discussion on March 24. It is pointed out that the regional lists were not ever intended to be mandatory nor were they set up for Project announcements; however they remain an option. Several members note the resistance of many Project members to be subbed to even one mandatory list, and it is noted that if this idea were instituted, it could require that some project members be subbed to as many as four lists. One Committee member suggested as an alternative that an EC mailing address be subscribed to each state list with send privileges in order to facilitate distribution of EC mail. Although generally positively regarded, there was some concern that it would only work if all 50 states agreed to it. Discussion on this suggestion is deferred until the SC guidelines are under discussion. - On March 24, the Committee began to discuss the topic of "county resource page and lookups". The Chair suggested splitting the current topic into two basic items: "local resources" and "lookups". "Local" [meaning county, parish, township, etc. resouces] would include listing items such as Genealogical and Historical Societies, county clerks, libraries, etc. As part of this discussion, the Committee also discussed the disclaimer issue and the copyright issue: Lookups: The Committee is in general agreement that the option of providing "lookups" should be retained and recommended, but not required. Several members noted that their offer to do lookups is well utilized by visitors and they would like to retain the recommendation. Some members commented that lookups generally are limited to providing information on individual names or summaries of information, but that LCs willing to do more should not be limited. After some discussion, the current suggested wording for the Lookup recommendation is as follows: "A Lookup is a service provided by a volunteer who will search through their personal or county resources for basic facts (name, birth date, birth place, parents, marriage date, spouse, place of marriage, death date, and place of death, etc.) of a specific person's life needed by the requestor which are not copyrighted. Since Lookup Volunteers are very important to online genealogy research, Local Coordinators are encouraged to provide a webpage listing contact information for volunteers and the resources they will search. The Local Coordinator may list themselves in the lookups list, but you are not obligated to do lookups for the areas you host. If a lookup volunteer wishes to provide more than public facts, then the lookup volunteer is responsible for ensuring either that 1) the material is not copyrighted; 2) if copyrighted, permission has been obtained from the copyright holder allowing the volunteer to extract and pass on creative information from the material." As part of this discussion, it is also suggested to delete the page currently online at: http://www.usgenweb.org/volunteers/querylookup.html and incorporate the information on it into the revised Guidelines. The Committee agrees to recommend deletion of this page entirely and to incorporate the wording currently on it into the main guidelines. Copyright: In the context of the lookups discussion, specific concerns about copyright and the USGenWeb Copyright Policy were raised and it was decided to review that policy and suggest revisions as part of the Committee's duties. A number of Committee members recommend that lookups in copyrighted material be limited to non-copyrightable facts and information that would fall under the "fair use" provision of copyright law. Cheryl Parker, Cheryl Rothwell, David Samuelsen, and Richard Howland are asked to review the USGenWeb Copyright policy and prepare a report for the full committee on suggested revisions. Disclaimers: The Committee is currently working on the wording for a general disclaimer for Local Coordinators to put on their home pages if they choose to do so. The Committee is currently considering the following wording for the disclaimer: "Links to sites that are not part of the USGenWeb Project are provided for your convenience and do _not_ imply any endorsement of the sites or their contents by the USGenWeb Project or its members. Neither the USGenWeb Project nor its members are responsible for the contents of any "third party" site which you may access from a link on this page." === The current version of the working document is posted at: http://www.radix.net/~merope/lcguide.txt Please address comments to Teresa Lindquist -Teresa Lindquist Chair, Guidelines Committee Representative At Large, USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net