From merope@Radix.Net Mon May 22 13:31:21 2000 Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 13:31:16 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: On the other hand...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Sunday 21 May 2000--Monday 22 May 2000: Voting continues on Motion 00-12. Thus far, 9 members have voted "yes" and 4 have voted "no". This makes a quorum, and since the last "no" vote came outside the 48hr window, the "yes" votes have a 2/3 majority. Scrub those pages! Teri Pettit notes that regardless of what Joe Zsedeny meant when he implied that a "no" vote on Motion 00-12 meant that the Board member was iinterpreting the bylaws however it convenienced them, she sees "I see no reason to suppose that EITHER the protest logo displayers OR those who vote against the motion OR those who support the motion are ignoring the Bylaws when it's convenient for them...Respect for our peers demands that we assume we all have the integrity to follow the Bylaws according to what we believe they say. Those who display the logos are doing it precisely as a way of expressing their fervent support for the Bylaws. And those who are voting to prohibit those logos are likewise doing it in support of the Bylaws as they see them." In a side note to Tim Stowell, Teri grants him the assumption that he honestly believes "that the Bylaws allow delinking Projects to be consumed under the heading of "day-to-day business", even though it is far beyond the kind of trivial non-controversial actions that I would interpret such a phrase to ever be intended to cover. I would not suggest that you were "ignoring" the Bylaws when it was convenient for you, only that you have an unusual interpretation of what "day-to-day business" is." Teri also points out to Tim that she cannot find any mail sent to her that discusses "whether the appropriate way to call for volunteers would be to use a private email address vs volunteering through some more public forum, nor any msg that mentions who reads email sent to that address, nor anything that says what will be done with email sent to that address, nor any messages that have been sent to that address and then forwarded to the Board." She does not one email sent to Board-Exec on 17 May in which Tim announced that he asked Board Secretary Ken Short to issue a call for volunteers and requested the closing date of May 21. She notes "An announcement of something that has already been arranged does not make the recipients of the announcement parties in the decision." Teri also cannot find any mail inviting her to the MSGW chat, but notes that since she doesn't have access to IRC she does not object to not being invited. She says she is willing to sit on the "Committee" [presumably the election committee] but can only do so if she is allowed to be uninvolved until after June 1, as she is extremely busy at work. Ginger Hayes notes that she does read her mail and saw nothing about an invitation to the MSGW chat and only knew about it because she was invited directly. She notes "There's nothing like a smart-mouthed know-it-all. What is that Proverb?......better to be thought a fool and be silent than to open your mouth and prove it." She suggests that Tim owes Teri an apology and says "If you want to ban me from this list have at it. The only business done isn't done here anyway!" Joe responds to Teri that his comments referred to "to those who are upset about the delinking and now post the logos." He notes "If a black, blue, red or whatever color ribbon were displayed on a page it would not be cause for a motion. But defacing the USGW logo is worthy of the motion because, to put it nicely, it results in an unofficial logo." He says "I also know that this whole sorry mess is being milked by some for all the venom that can be produced to satisfy selfish and mean spirited ends." He has personally refrained from getting into "asinine arguments" on the topic because he doesn't have time to waste changing people's minds. He also says "I don't participate in any special project and after going thru this will NEVER participate in a special project except my own. It was a mistake to include them in the ByLaws and was done in my opinion for selfish reasons. The ByLaws should be amended to delete mention or sanction of special projects. Any CC, state project or the USGW Archives should be able to field a special project with only the few requirements now mentioned for the pages." [Odd thing for someone who represents a Special Project to say.] He notes that he also did not receive an invitation to the MSGW chat or any notice about the election committee, but notes he is not offended and suggests "Let's just get on with the elections." In response to GingerH, Tim Stowell notes that the MSGW chat invite was sent to Board-Exec and notes "Personally I don't think about members who may/may not be subscribers to that list. The invitation was a private one for the Board that did not need to be published here." [Actually, the B-E message Teri referenced concerned the election committee, not the MSGW chat, and last I checked GingerH was subbed to B-E. Methinks Timmy has his Gingers confused.] GingerH responds "Does that mean you've unsubbed me to Board-Exec? I just checked it for the whole month and have no such message." She notes that Teri also searched her mail and quotes ""Oh what tangled webs we weave.................." Gloria Mayfield agrees enthusiastically with Joe's comments about the Special Projects. She says "Our concern should be with the actions of the States and Counties. The Archives, Tombstone and Census Project should not be our problem....Now we are talking of Kicking out and Delinking the XXXState GenWeb Site, a site that believes that the NC and the Advisory Board has failed and the DEATH of the USGenWeb is coming soon. Is that Defacing or is it Mourning? WHY don't we get down to business and let the Archives, Census Project and the Tombstone Project RUN themselves....I don't think that any of the projects is the business of the Advisory Board, #1 if we can't advise them, why do we make it our problem? #2 If they do not listen, why talk. I do not feel that Linda Lewis or Ron Eason needs the Board's Approval, Assistance, or Blessings. Let us Butt out!!!! If it doesn't concern the USGenWeb, it isn't our business. Do you think that we need to Delink a State Site that is our Business???? Don't think so! They ARE the USGenWeb and we ARE the USGenWeb Advisory Board. If they have a problem , so do we." Shari Handley forwards a message from MSGW SC Linda Mason to the Board. Linda says in part: "I sent the original invite to Tim. When I didn't hear from anyone. I was afraid it had gotten lost as emails sometimes do. So I resent it and CC'd My SC rep Shari. I was remiss in not just sending it to each Board Member but I thought just one note to one person to forward would be easier than if I sent it to each person. I apologize and should the need ever arise in the future I will take the time to invite everyone personally. I want to thank again each person who did participate in the official chat. I came away from that chat with a new respect and perspective towards those board members and appreciate their candor and honesty. I know that things got a little heated after I left, which was why I ran the Official chat as I did. ..The CC's deserve answers but our guests don't deserve to be mistreated either...We can speak effectively at the ballot box, and I intend to encourage that as a way to change what they are unhappy with as opposed to attacking the individuals in a mean, nasty way." === "Laws are only words words written on paper, words that change on society's whim and are interpreted differently daily by politicians, lawyers, judges, and policemen. Anyone who believes that all laws should always be obeyed would have made a fine slave catcher. Anyone who believes that all laws are applied equally, despite race, religion, or economic status, is a fool." ---John J. Miller, This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Tue May 23 08:51:53 2000 Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 08:51:52 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Getting the lead out...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Monday 22 May 2000-Tuesday 23 May 2000: Teri Pettit tells the Board that Jim Powell is unable to access the email account that is subbed to Board-L and thus is unable to vote on Motion 00-12. She also occasionally is unable to use her regular email address and asks if the Board can determine policy for these situations. She suggests three possible solutions: "1. Tough cookies. If you can't access your subscribed account, you can't vote. 2. Let Tim and/or Ken accept votes from your alternate account and forward them to BOARD-L, as long as some prior email from you using the officially subscribed account has mentioned the alternate address as belonging to you...3. Let Tim & Ken accept votes from any old account, if they contain some other secret identifying information that has been agreed upon beforehand. Forward the votes to BOARD-L only after deleting the identifying information." Joy Fisher tells Teri that Jim can send his vote directly to Tim or to another Board member who can forward it; she herself has done this when her mail system was down. Maggie Stewart Zimmerman also says she's sent her vote directly to the NC when she couldn't use her regular mail. Tim notes that Teri's "option 2" has been the usual way of handling these occurrences in the past, but notes "Of course if no one lets anyone know that they'll be gone or can not contact someone, it unfortunately falls into option 1." Gloria Mayfield says she received nothing in her mail about the MSGW chat or the formation of the election committee. [Its beginning to look like Tim didn't invite _anyone_ to that chat.] Tim posts a list of 27 people who have volunteered for the election committee [an excellent turnout, btw. I won't reprint the list here, but if you'd like a copy, let me know. Yes, my name is on it.] Tim appoints Roger Swafford to be the Chair of the Election Committee [an _excellent_ choice; I've worked with Roger before and he is more than competent to run the EC.] Tim recommends that the Board create the Election Committee with the following structure" "Chair - 2 AB members - 1 SC/ASC member - 5 CCs - 4 alternate CCs to fill any position that opens. This would make it a committee of 8 plus the chair. This way the committee would be 2/3 CCs, 1/3 AB and SC/ASC." He notes this would be a "bottom up approach." [Hey, he would know.] === An Embarrasment of Riches Corner: Wow! _27_ volunteers for the Election Committee! This is, by the standards of previous election committees and the USGW, an amazing response, and all who volunteered are to be commended. Of course, nothing in USGW can be without its problems. A few project members who claim to have submitted offers to volunteer within the alotted time frame but whose names do not appear on the list have surfaced. There is also some little disgruntlement by some Board and project members regarding Tim's idea of "bottoms up" management. They wonder why "bottom's up" management includes: 1) Tim selecting the EC Chair [the Board's always voted on it before]; 2) Tim proposing the structure of the committee [never been any particular structure before]; and 3) Tim limiting the size of the committee to some arbitrary number [if 27 people want to serve, why shouldn't they?]. Given the history of this project, any elimination of anyone will be met with scepticism as to motives, and may serve to discourage people who wish to serve the project. There is certainly enough work to go around. No mention is made as to how the winnowing of 27 volunteers down to eight will be accomplished, nor of how the two Board members will be selected, or even whether Tim will be one of the two. [According to the bylaws he is supposed to be an ex officio member of all committees and as we recall, last year he behaved very badly about it.] We are sure that all will be resolved to someone's satisfaction. In the meantime, Pam Reid has put up a very nice election page here: http://www.usgenweb.com/elections/election-central.html Nominations will be accepted starting June 1 and running through June 15. Prior to that time, a Nominations Committee must be up and running [there's something for some of those 27 people to do ] to accept nominations and certify candidates. There are positions open in every region, and all three Special Project representative positions and the National Coordinatorship are open as well. Please consider running for National office; don't let "them" have all the fun! === "They can't censor the gleam in my eye." ---Charles Laughton This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Wed May 24 14:53:24 2000 Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 14:53:22 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: Just when you thought it was safe...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Tuesday 23 May 2000 Teri Pettit proposes that "the Election Committee is comprised of everyone who volunteered, and then disqualify anyone on the Election Committee from running for any position in the upcoming election. So if anyone who volunteered is thinking of running for NC or the Board, they should remove themselves from the list. And then let them pick their own chair, with Roger to be the acting chair until they can do so." She notes that 27 would be a large committee but not impossible and it is hard to think of an object way of reducing the number. She's open to suggestions on now "to construct a smaller committee without allowing anyone's personal biases or any political factors to enter into the selection process," but is unable to think of one herself." Holy Fee Timm thinks there should be at least a couple of Board members on the committee. Ginger Hayes thinks Teri's idea is not bad and notes that there is also a Nominations Committee to think of, unless "the thing will be handled differently this time." Tim forwards a message to the Board from Roger Swafford in which he notes that his appointment as Chair of the Elecions Committee came as a surprise to him and "Provided the AB does not exercise their authority to overturn, I accept." He says "I urge the AB to act post-haste in selecting the remaining members. The recommendation of the NC for 9 members total is large enough for the task and small enough to be efficient in operation. It is refreshing to see the large number of volunteers willing to participate." Tim publishes a second list of corrections to the volunteer list he published previously. Tim notes that he had previously asked several Board members to serve on the committee; Barbara Dore and Ginger declined and Teri Pettit is not available until after June 1. That said he proposes his suggestions for the Election Committee members: "For the AB members: Tina Vickery, Shari Handley For the SC/ASC member: Marti Graham - SC OK For the 5 CCs and 4 alternates: NW region - Jerimiah Moerke (MN - SD) SW region - Shirley Scott (MO), Carolyn Ward (KS)- alternate NE region - Alice J. Gayley (PA), Kristen Howell (NY), Carol Montrose (OH)- alternate SE region - Vicki Shaffer (TN), Gerald Westmoreland (MS)- alternate, Diane Montgomery Parsons (KY) - alternate" Tim's selection process was thus: "In reviewing the names from the previous list, trying to be fair between the knowns and unknowns, those some may like, those that some may dislike,..." [Its apparently also based on the number of people that volunteered from each region.] [Interestingly enough, one of Tim's picks noted _two days ago_ that she had been picked to be on the EC; our Smooth Operator has been busy working from the bottom up again.] Ginger Cisewski reminds the board that both Shari and Tina [Tim's picks for the Board reps on the EC] are currently the subject of grievances submitted by project members and suggests that "Having either of them serve on the Election Committee will further the growing belief that this Election will somehow be manipulated by the Board." She also notes that there needs to be only one Board member on the EC to act as a liaison, and recommends Teri or Gloria, saying "Neither is included in the group mentioned in the outstanding grievances, and since the elections are over well before our terms expire, being an outgoing Board member shouldn't be an issue." She also does not understand why the NC or Board needs to "micromanage" the committee; in the past the EC Chair chose the committee members. She moves "that we appoint Roger Swafford Chairperson of the Election Committee, and further that we provide him with the list of volunteers and let him choose his own committee members as has been done in the past." === That Girl Corner: Yesterday, the acting SC for the NCGenWeb published a message to the SC's mailing list in which he asked whether the following conditions would disqualify someone from running for SC: "1. Little or no experience in the State Project from which the candidate seeks nomination. 2. Worked within another XXGW organization outside of the State Project from which the candidate seeks nomination. 3. Worked in various and sundry special USGW Projects but not in County level. 4. A genealogical and organizational background but has never been in a USGW state project." He also asked for any examples of SCs who met any of the above. We thought he was trying to disqualify someone from running, but we were wrong. It turns out that there is only one credible candidate for that race, Diane Mason, who is a vocal advocate of county-centric organization and a dedicated opponent of the Archives. Derick [who is acting SC while Elizabeth is out of town] can't get anyone to run against her and wants to bring in a ringer, someone who is not involved in NCGenWeb or, if necessary, someonewho is not even involved in USGW. Big Announcements Corner: Ron Eason, National Coordinator of the USGenWeb Census Project has announced that the CP has incorporated as a non-profit public benefit corporation in the state of Michigan. Documents showing the articles of the new corporation and the filing papers can be viewed at the CP's new home page: http://www.us-census.org. The CP has also issued a "Proclamation and Resolution" of its mission and goals; it can be read at: http://www.us-census.org/resolution.htm Also on the topic of the CP, PAGenWeb conducted an informal poll of its members, asking "Do you support the action of the USGenWeb Project National Coordinator and Advisory Board to de-link the USGenWeb Census Project?" Only 20 of the 53 members responded, but 18 of them said they did not support the delinking of the CP. She's Baaack Corner: We hear that Linda Lewis, who resigned in a huff only few short weeks ago because she could't get her way, is back as VAGenWeb Asst State Coordinator. She's already managed to scare off one CC, who published a moving resignation letter to every project list she was subscribed to. The CC says, in part: "After much prayer and soul searching, I have decided that I will no longer maintain the [deleted] County VAGenweb page. I am telling you, the volunteers first, because you are the ones where my loyalty is. I have removed my own work, including backgrounds and graphics from the website, because it seems apparent, that the county pages are being eroded and absorbed into a larger data base (the archives) that is controlled by a single individual... All of the archives pages are on Rootsweb, and Rootsweb is now a for profit corporation. I have read on the "administrative" mail lists that the individual who has control over the archives is a paid staff member of Rootsweb... Most of the time, I have felt like a hypocrite taking your work, because county coordinators are not allowed freedom of speech to let volunteers know the actual politics, so the volunteers can make INFORMED CHOICES...There are many wonderful, dedicated people in the USGenweb project who keep "hanging in there" but if they speak out, they are "severed" from the project....If I am not kicked out of the project for allowing you to CHOOSE whether to maintain control over your own work, then this letter will be sent to all the USGenweb "administrative" mail lists that I am on, as my official resignation and as a protest, that we are not allowed freedom of speech nor the right to know, nor the right to choose. The entire Ohio Genweb project was threatened with "severance" just the other day, because they believe the public has a right to know what is happening and and the right to make choices." The CC says that she's removed all her own work from the page, and gone off to work with Jeff Weaver. [Which really ought to push Linda's buttons.] === "Where ignorance is our master, there is no possibility of real peace." ---Dalai Lama This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Thu May 25 06:54:34 2000 Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 06:54:30 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: News Flash! Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: Tim has asked for unanimous consent on Motion 00-13: "I move that we appoint Roger Swafford Chairperson of the Election Committee, and further that we provide him with the list of volunteers and let him choose his own committee members as has been done in the past." If no Board member objects by 7:00 am EST today, it will be declared passed. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net From merope@Radix.Net Thu May 25 08:49:44 2000 Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 08:49:36 -0400 (EDT) From: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: News Flash! [or, I'm an idiot] Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: Sorry, folks, due to completely being confused as to what day it is, I mistakenly reported an incorrect date by which Board members must object to Motion 00-13 [see below]. The correct time frame for response is Friday 26 May, 0700 EST. I do apologize for the confusion. -Teresa ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 06:54:30 -0400 (EDT) From: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: News Flash! Tim has asked for unanimous consent on Motion 00-13: "I move that we appoint Roger Swafford Chairperson of the Election Committee, and further that we provide him with the list of volunteers and let him choose his own committee members as has been done in the past." If no Board member objects by 7:00 am EST today, it will be declared passed. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net From merope@Radix.Net Thu May 25 19:47:07 2000 Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 19:45:33 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: Have at it...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Wednesday 24 May 2000--Thursday 25 May 2000: Jim Powell seconds GingerC's motion to "appoint Roger Swafford Chairperson of the Election Committee, and further that we provide him with the list of volunteers and let him choose his own committee members as has been done in the past." Tim Stowell gives the Motion number 00-13 and in order to save time asks for "unanimous consent on the motion so that Roger can form the committee and begin its work. Tim describes "unanimous consent" thus: "We can skip discussing this for 48 hours and then voting for 48 hours. There will not be a vote as such. If not more than 2 members object to the motion, it will automatically pass." Tim corrects himself on what "unanimous" means: "if the motion has no more than 1 member objecting to the motion as of (07:00 EST, 5/26,Friday), the motion will be considered as having been passed." === A Hot Time In The Old South Corner: Well, NCGenWeb is certainly a hot place these days. Apparently, SC Elizabeth Harris is out of town until this weekend. In her absence, her Asst. SC Derick Hartshorn is calling himself the "Acting SC", has "assumed the SC chair", and is apparently trying to force certain events to occur before she returns. According to sources on the ground, he is trying to 1) close the nominations process for the upcoming SC election early; 2) force the bylaws committee to issue a report early; 3) eliminate candidates from the SC race based on dubious qualifications; 4) bring in a ringer from outside NCGW to run for NCGW SC; and 5) eliminate opposition by threatening to unsub anyone who broaches any topic he deems unsuitable on the state mailing list [and apparently discussing _any_ national business, including the upcoming national election, is forbidden]. One NCGW member has already been unsubbed from the mailing list apparently for comments made on another list and we hear that a grievance has been filed with the Board concerning this and his other recent actions. According to the complaint, Derick has arbitrarily unsubbed the CC while allowing other members of NCGW to continue to attack her publicly and continue political discussion that he has previously indicated would result in removal from the list. The grievant also notes that relevant list rules currently under consideration but not ratified would allow only for a set period of "time-out", but this consideration was not followed in this case of unsubbing. In an announcement to the NCGW, Derick says "was taken administratively and came after repeated requests and warnings relating to messages deemed offensive, divisive, abusive and, in my opinion, detrimental to the overall harmony and well-being of the list and the NCGenWeb Project... This action has not been taken lightly and comes, not just after communications of the past week but after many, many months of abusive behavior by [name deleted].. The question of whether this action is appropriate and merited has been sustained by the National Coordinator as well as the SE Advisory Board in their personal communications to me. It will stand in place until the State Coordinator either upholds my actions or rescinds them." He also notes that ""While a pending list policy has been announced and posted on the web, its lack of adoption does not preclude further disciplinary action being taken to those that abuse the list or those that post to it...disruptive behavior and actions deemed to be detrimental to the NCGW and its volunteers will not be tolerated and perpretators will not be permitted to continue further agitation." [The Board now has anywhere from 5-9 grievances on its plate; we here another one involving possible irregularites in an election held previously in the NCGW has also been forwarded. I am not aware that any of these grievances have been addressed or responded to by any person on the Board, including the so-called Ombudsman, Kevin Fraley.] === "In every government on earth is some trace of human weakness, some germ of corruption and degeneracy, which cunning will discover, and wickedness insensibly open, cultivate and improve." ---Thomas Jefferson This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Fri May 26 22:28:01 2000 Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 22:28:00 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: This ain't no disco...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Thursday 25 May 2000: Joy Fisher notes ""... because we've always done it that way." is the lamest reason for doing something," but notes she has no objections to allowing Roger Swafford to select members for the Election Committee with whom he is comfortable. [Since no one publicly raised any objections to Motion 00-13 and the 0700 EST response deadline has passed, it looks like Roger Swafford is our new EC chair. Congrats to Roger!] === Oops, What I Meant To Say Was... Corner: King For a Day Derick Hartshorn has retracted his assertion that his action in unsubbing a NCGW CC "has been sustained by the National Coordinator as well as the SE Advisory Board in their personal communications to me." As it turns out, one of the SE representatives supports his actions, and two do not. One of these two made the point that Derick's own posts on the topic violate his list rules. Our Esteemed National Coordinator also supports Derick's actions [natch, Derick is practically a chip off the old block.] === "We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still." ---John Stuart Mill, On Liberty This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Sat May 27 07:56:56 2000 Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 07:56:22 -0400 (EDT) From: merope To: merope@radix.net Subject: Daily Board Show Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: [Sorry, yesterday's DBS was again delayed by ListBot. For those of you who are wondering why you are getting these twice, I am both sending it individually to your inbox and also to ListBot so it will go into the online archive. When ListBot catches up, you'll get this a second time. I apologize for any inconvenience.] --- This ain't no disco...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Thursday 25 May 2000: Joy Fisher notes ""... because we've always done it that way." is the lamest reason for doing something," but notes she has no objections to allowing Roger Swafford to select members for the Election Committee with whom he is comfortable. [Since no one publicly raised any objections to Motion 00-13 and the 0700 EST response deadline has passed, it looks like Roger Swafford is our new EC chair. Congrats to Roger!] === Oops, What I Meant To Say Was... Corner: King For a Day Derick Hartshorn has retracted his assertion that his action in unsubbing a NCGW CC "has been sustained by the National Coordinator as well as the SE Advisory Board in their personal communications to me." As it turns out, one of the SE representatives supports his actions, and two do not. One of these two made the point that Derick's own posts on the topic violate his list rules. Our Esteemed National Coordinator also supports Derick's actions [natch, Derick is practically a chip off the old block.] === "We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still." ---John Stuart Mill, On Liberty This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Sun May 28 18:27:43 2000 Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 18:27:42 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: Better late than never...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Friday 26 May 2000: Tim Stowell says that since no opposition was voiced to Motion 00-13, "it automatically passes by unanimous consent as of 7 AM 5/26 EST." Tim forwards a message from new Election Committee Chair Roger Swafford in which Rogers accepts the recommendations of the NC for committee membership, and the Election Committee will be as follows: Tina Vickery, Shari Handley, Marti Graham, Alice Gayely, Kristen Howell, Jerimiah Moerke, Shirley Scott, Vicki Shaffer. Alternates; Carolyn Ward, Carol Montrose, Gerald Westmoreland, Diane Montgomery Parsons. === Alternate Reality Corner: We have suddenly become the focus of quite a bit of mail from North Carolina. Although the majority of it does not support Derick Hartshorn's unsubbing of Diane Mason [currently the only candidate for SC in the upcoming NCGW election], there is one person who would like the other side of the story presented [the following has been edited for clarity and brevity]: "I have read what you wrote about NCGenWeb project and you must not know what is going on here or else you did this for Diane....I am a cc here and you are not. You do not know what she does and whats happened. You should get your facts straight before you go writing things....You must be trying to get Diane elected, or you would not be writing those things. Do you know if she is elected what will happen? Everybody will quit except the people she has just brought in who are helping her do this thing right now....Diane's rights have not been violated she has violated everbody else's rights. Do you know what she does now when somebody writes something she does not like? She sends letters to their internet service to try to get them disconnected...That is when Derick removed her because there was no call for that. The person she did this to did not do anything to her, Diane just wants to get rid of that person because she is on a committee writing bylaws and Diane wants her off...Do you know who has started all this trouble? It was Diane and the people she just brought in mostly Terria. They are the only ones causing trouble except for a few people who already were Diane's people. I dont believe for one minute Derick is trying to bring in somebody from outside like you say. Who told you that, Diane or some of her people? Do you know who her people are? Terria is one of them and she is the head of the committee to write the bylaws. Diane brought her in in April and firs [sic] thing she started saying we had to have bylaws before our election and would not quit until Elizabeth finally let her write them. Elizabeth made a committee and Terria said I want to be chairman so Elizabeth let her. She is the one wanted the committee to finish early while Elizabeth was away not Derick...Would you come into a new project for only two weeks and start saying everything is wrong and saying the vote was not legal and making everybody stop the project so you can write bylaws?...Diane has 7 counties and just lately she started bringing in people to be co-hosts and to act like they've adopted some of her other counties but they are not. Diane is still doing those counties....Why don't you write about real things that happen like how we have some new person Diane brought in who hasn't even done a website who comes in here saying how we ought to run things and then gets herself chairman of a commitee thats supposed to write the rules for who can run as SC. Then she gets her co-cc to nominate her for SC....That is a real conflict of interest but you don't write about that...Every list has rules and listowners remove people from lists all the time for flaming other listmembers and for stirring up trouble. Why should our list be any different? You may not want to tell the truth but now I know for sure you know it. Other people will to. [sic]" [The author, who sent this anonymously, is assured that 1) I speak to many people on these issues; not all of them support Diane, not all of them support Derick; 2) my information that Derick is considering bringing in a ringer and close the bylaws committee early comes from sources other than current candidates; 3) regardless of how I personally feel about the qualifications of any candidate in any race in any project in the USGW, it is wrong and always will be wrong to arbritrarily enforce _unpublished_ rules of conduct against any person or set of persons and not against others who are essentially guilty of the same offense. The two people involved in this issue have gone at each other for a long time, and one of them finally has the authority to shut the other one up. As Will said, "It is excellent / To have a giant's strength, but it is tyrannous / To use it like a giant."] Of course, now that Elizabeth is back, Derick is claiming that resolution of this problem is out of his hands, saying "I no longer have the authority to influence the outcome of the situation." He suggests that those who still take issue with his actions forward their opinions to Board member Jim Powell. As a minor aside to this controversy, our Esteemed National Coordinator has written privately to inform me that he does support the expediency of censorship of unpopular persons and views, noting "I support him [Derick] to the point that listowners make the rules and are charged with the duty of maintaining decorum on lists. It is ridiculous to allow one person to make everyone else uncomfortable on a list." === "If I lived in China or even Russia, or any totalitarian country, Maybe I could understand some of these illegal injunctions. ... But somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly. Somewhere I read of the freedom of speech. Somewhere I read of the freedom of the press. Somewhere I read that the greatness of America is the right to protest for right. ---Martin Luther King jr. [who made a whole lot of people very uncomfortable indeed] This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Tue May 30 14:17:53 2000 Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 14:17:52 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: Making everyone uncomfortable...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Saturday 27 May--Monday 29 May 2000: There was no public Board activity on these dates. === Bigger and Better Corner: The weekly newsletters for the respective Census Projects are out, and it appears that the Census Project is whipping the Archives Census Project's hind end. The Census Project [http://www.us-census.org] reports 21 state/county/year transcriptions uploaded, while the ACP [a wholly-owned subsidiary of Root$web.com at http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/census/] reports only 12. There's no overlap between the two, so at least the ACP is apparently no longer helping itself to the CP transcribers' files. My Inbox Floweth Over Corner: Following publication a few days ago of Anonymous' letter about what is "really" going on in NCGenWeb, I have heard from several members of Diane Mason's alleged posse, and all assure me, NCGW, and the USGW in general that 1) they are not "pawns" of anyone, they serve the USGW and NCGW because they want to make a contribution to online genealogy, not because they want to forward anyone's agenda; and 3) they are dismayed in the extreme at the treatment of the newbies in this project. Some excerpts from their comments: "For the record, I am NOBODYS political pawn...I deeply resent the implications and accusations that were made against the Newbies Diane brought to NCGenWeb. and now have to wonder if all the time I have put into my county over the last six months was for naught. I have not gotton involved in what is going on in North Carolina, I have not taken sides. I have not thrown my hat behind Diane or Derick. I tried to go on about my own business. Yet even keeping my mouth shut, it seems I was not safe from the accusations of others. Makes me wonder what I am even doing here anymore." "I would like to make it perfectly clear...that, I asked Diane to stay on as co-host for Pasquotank and Albermarle County... it was in the best interest of our patrons that visit our sites, to have someone that can respond to, when necessary, without undue delay...it was not Diane that 'brought' Terria onboard...I had a large hand in that. In conclusion, I would like to mention that, Terria, B J, and myself have our own websites, that we have designed and maintain without any outside assistance. I would appreciate anyone that seeks to criticize us, please get your facts in order first." "Diane Mason is no saint, as are none of us, but to put her on "read only" status is a violation of her right to free speech and an act of hypocrisy. I feel people should know that others were in violation too. What is more of an insult, is that after putting her on "read only" status, more degrading, insulting accusations was hurled at her and she could not respond. Is this the way candidates for office are treated in this project?...I was recruited in April by Diane Mason, and I have no experience doing web pages, that is true. She has been gracious enough to show me how to edit html. I am still learning and I have much left to learn...Are all new volunteers expert in Web design? Were they when they first signed on to this project? I think not! Now, you ask am I Diane's pawn that she can jerk and I will do whatever she wants? NO ABSOLUTELY NOT! If this is the way "newbies" are treated in the project I am wondering if I may be wasting my time here. The other thing is that I didn't see anyone else stepping up volunteering to work on the committee. It took a "newbie" who was too ignorant of the politics to realize that it can't be done!" Piling On Corner: The USGenWeb Advisory Board has received [so far] _five_ grievances from TnGenWeb member Carole Hammett, variously naming Our Esteemed National Coordinator Tim Stowell, Pam Reid, and Linda Lewis as . The topics range from inappropriate commercial activity and adverstisement on the USGW main pages to appropriated files in the Archives. This brings the known number of grievances up to about 15, with no end in sight and no indication as to what exactly the Board will do with them. [The full texts of the grievances will follow in separate messages; some are quite lengthy and include extensive supporting documentation. The one involving Linda "Never Let Go" Lewis is particulary amusing. If you subscribe to the CC-L list, you've already seen these.] Big Kahuna Corner: Dick Eastman notes in his weekly newsletter that FamilySearch.org "received its three billionth hit on Saturday, May 13, at 11:45 P.M. The milestone was reached less than a year after the site was first launched on May 24, 1999...FamilySearch continues to receive as many as 8 million hits a day." Happy birthday, FamilySearch! === "Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful... Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race." ---Charles Bradlaugh This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Wed May 31 13:14:17 2000 Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 13:14:13 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: Wasted days and wasted nights...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Wednesday 31 May 2000: Tina Vickery posts a message from Board Secretary Ken Short regarding a proposed amendment to the bylaws [see below for a discussion of this amendment; its roiled the waters quite a bit]. Ken's got his shorts all in a knot over it, and unapologetically states "I am writing this note to warn all parties of (as I see it) the impending takeover bid of usgw by http://www.usgennet.org/ and Fred Smoot, Carole Hammett, Ron Eason, Sue Soden, Teresa Lindquist and others who seem bent on destroying the USGW." He notes that "When you have an organization, even a local one, someone has to be in charge. If you don't you have anarchy. I believe this particular amendment was put forth simple because a few malcontents do not like the way things are run, because THEY are not the ones in charge...If the above amendment passes, the current USGW Project as we know it will cease to exist. Mr Smoot and his cronies at http://www.usgennet.org/ will have what they want. They for what ever reason, want the USGW Project off of the RW server, and on theirs...Also, why do the folks who proposed the amendment not have the courage to sign their names to it. It was sent out from "a few concerned CC's". That tells me that whoever wrote it has something to hide, and do not want to be questioned. I could care less where an individual CC or an entire State chooses to house their pages, as long as it is voluntary, as it currently is now. And I have nothing against http://www.usgennet.org/ as long as they mind their own business and stay out of the business of USGW. However, when they have their Board Secretary submit 5 grievances against the AB, I personally think that is a conflict of interest. Even though she submitted them as a CC. Mr Smoot has stated he did not write a single word of the amendment, and I happen to believe him, he probably didn't. But I would bet my last dollar that he had some input and he is actively encouraging other states to go along and sponser it, as is his right. Therefore as is my right, I am sending this to try and counter and defeat this particular amendment." Maggie Stewart forwards a message from Carson Turner who runs the NCGenWeb Military Project. On May 14, the NCGWMP--Korean War "was recognized by the US Department of Defense as a Commemorative Community of the 50th Anniversary of the Korean War. The program was establish to "ensure our Korean War Veterans and their families know 'A Grateful Nation Remembers' their service and sacrifices 50 years ago." The 50th Anniversary commemoration officially begins on June 25th, 2000 and closes November 11, 2003." Mr. Turner has put up a new page for the Korean War at http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncmil/koreanwar.htm === Something Has Hit the Fan Corner: As announced last night a new proposed amendment to the bylaws is making the rounds; its posted at: http://www.geocities.com/usgenwebamend/index.html. From its precis, this amendment accomplishes the following: "All authority is vested at state (XXGenWeb) and local levels, including Special Projects; all grievances handled at XXGenWeb and local level only; prohibits national sanctions; does away with all national positions other than a national webmaster and national special project webmasters, each elected by the membership, and each with no authority other than website maintenance; all national list managers (State-Coord, USGW-CC-L, etc.) elected by subscribers; adds perpetual prohibition against commercial activity." The amendment was written by an anonymous group of "concerned CCs" and propagated by Board member Ginger Cisewski. Some provisions in the amendment are interesting. First, the amendment tries to force the current owners of the usgenweb.com [RW employee Dale Schneider], usgenweb.net [RW employee Megan Zurawicz] and usgenweb.org [RootsWeb Genealogical Data Cooperative] to turn them over to the project; failure to do wo will result in the project acquiring new domains. Whether or not this is a good idea is debatable. The USGW currently has NO control over the domains [witness the refusal of RW to change the admin contacts over to Tim Stowell's name even though the Board requested the change 15 months ago]. If USGW were to move its pages elsewhere and use other domains, there is no guarantee that RW will not continue to use the current domains to its own ends [they are, after all, linked to from everywhere]. The management of RW has a history of using the usgenweb.org/xxgenweb domains for its own purposes when a SC decides to move a state page off of RW; there's no reason to believe they wouldn't do the same with the main domains. If they simply refuse to register them as described in the proposed amendment, are we really prepared to give up our "web identity" over it? The amendment also appears to make the National Webmaster and State-Coord-L list manager financially responsible for registering said new domains and potentially for hosting costs as well, should that be necessary. The amendment also enjoins the project from incorporating in perpetuity; I am not at all sure what the reasoning is behind this. However, should this amendment pass, the project will be fixed as an "unincorporated non-profit association", thus ensuring that it could not incorporate or register as a for-profit business in the future. The biggest change that the amendment proposes is the entire abolishment of the national government and the reverting of the national pages to a "hub" that contains little more than links to the state and special projects. While I have advocated that that is exactly what the national pages ought to be and the national level organization should do little more than ensure that state pages are in compliance with the guidelines of the project, update links, and handle requests for information about USGW, I'm not sure that eliminating the representative governing body is the way to go about making that happen. In the proposed amendment, a "national webmaster" elected by the majority of project members will manage the national pages. Let's say, for ease of argument, that this person is Tim Stowell, duly elected. Let's say he gets up on the wrong side of the bed one morning and decides he doesn't like Texas, never has liked Texas, and is tired of looking at Texas. *Poof* There goes Texas. And what can the project do about it? Nothing. Vote him out of office? Sure. But he has the passwords to the website. Take the passwords away from him? Sure. But that requires the compliance of the server. Suppose the server operator doesn't like Texas either, or doesn't want to get involved in the internal squabbles of the project. Then what? Move the project? That could get a little confusing, what with our original domains over on RW being used to sell underwear and enhance the value of Brian's stock portfolio, and our new domains registered to the National Webmaster. Get new domains? Well, that's expensive and time consuming and confusing to our visitors. And of course, this cycle could repeat with the next National Webmaster, who may decide they don't like Vermont, never have, and are tired of looking at it... Despite rumors to the contrary, there is nothing in the amendment that would force the project to move from to to any particular server. Although in some quarters, the dreaded spectre of USGenWeb, Inc. and the Dills has been resurrected, there is also no evidence as to involvement of any of the persons involved in that incident, nor is there any evidence as to the involvement of any other particular server in the amendment. A common thread in the posts against this so-called "States' Rights Amendment" is that it was written by a small group of people who want to control and/or destroy USGW. This group includes Carole Hammett, Fred Smoot, Ron Eason, Sue Soden, and myself. The amendment was posted without attribution; and assumptions as to its authorship are just that, assumptions. However, I will state now and for the record, I had nothing to do with it. Anyways, read it yourself, decide for yourself. It has some merits, some flaws. Are you tired enough of the crap at the top of the heap in this project to vote the lot of 'em out of existence? Then make sure your state votes to support this so it gets on the ballot. Otherwise, like in most things in USGW, you'll never get the chance to have your voice be heard. As might be expected, a radical proposal of this nature has mixed things up quite a bit, although the "pros" and "cons" are sorting out into their usual groupings. Here's some comments from the proletariat: "Sounds like the first POSITIVE action to come out of USGENWEB in several years." "I also say approve to this, this should have been done a long time ago." "I cannot agree with the alleged "dangers" outlined in the introductory paragraph to this whole proposal. In my view, the "danger" of dictatorial control at the national level is greatly increased by this proposal, which replaces 13 persons (National Coordinator and three Advisory Board representatives from each of four regions) with 1 person. That one person could choose to delink KSGenWeb (or any other state project) and/or replace the link to a "competitor" KSGenWeb (on RootsWeb or any other server) and could ignore the wishes of the electorate (should a majority from the other 49 states even be rallied to vote against the national Webmaster's action, which is a risky proposition anyway)." "This amendment is very close to the way the USGWP was conceived. I feel strongly that authority at the state and local level is all that is needed. I would certainly vote for the amendment." "Now I don't agree with everything that the National Coordinator and the Advisory Board have done. But I believe they are clearly more representative of the many, many volunteers in this project than would be the small group of people who have proposed this amendment in a cynical attempt to portray it as a greater empowerment of USGW county coordinators and co-coordinators. So, if we vote for this amendment, let's be clear-eyed and honest about what this amendment is all about, and let's state what we really mean by our vote: (i.e., "Yes, we believe it's time for the national USGW pages to be moved from RootsWeb"). "It could just be that lowly project members are bleeding tired of being told what to do and how to think by Tim Stowell and his band of merry yes-men. It could be that they see the danger in Tim's definition of "day to day" activities, and recent attempts to delink entire state projects because the Board doesn't like a single graphic displayed on one page ...Maybe it has nothing to do with the CP, or USGenNet, or RW. Maybe it has to do with the fact that every single member of this project lives every single day with the knowledge that at any time someone they've never even heard of at the national level might take a disliking to something they've said or done, or they might support the wrong side in a discussion, and they will find themselves "not in good standing", delinked, and out in the cold." ---various KS CCs "When you have an organization, even a local one, someone has to be in charge. If you don't you have anarchy. I believe this particular amendment was put forth simple because a few malcontents do not like the way things are run, because THEY are not the ones in charge." Ken Short, Board Secretary [USGENWEB-DISCUSS and various other lists] "IAGenWeb will hold a referendum on the "States' Rights Amendment" as part of its June election, but this does not imply that I or the IAGenWeb leadership or the IAGenWeb CCs support the proposal. It will be on the ballot because one CC requested it. Although some in IAGenWeb may favor the proposal, I strongly oppose this absurd amendment and hope that it is soundly defeated." Richard Harrison, IAGW SC [STATE-COORD-L] "This I can assure you will require destruction of the USGenWeb Project itself because you are forgetting what is needed to keep the Project together....Election of list managers by subscribers - OVER my dead body. If the politics is any indication like that - it might as well be best interests to KILL THE PROJECT OVERALL. We do NOT want political fanatics to take over the managements of lists. And YOU BLOODY HELL forgetting something else - the grievances do CUT across the state lines - and under the proposed amendment - might as well in best interests to start kicking out any county coordinators who have counties in more than one state because the grievance process will ABSOLUTELY will NOT be same in every state whatsoever. To each State coordinator is what you are asking for." ---David Samuelsen [USGENWEB-ALL] "What I'm hearing from the folks behind this amendment is: We don't like the project as it has always existed...And since we don't like it, we have to destroy it, in complete disregard for the people who *do* like it... in any genealogical society or other organization I've ever dealt with or seen, the rule is: if you don't like how we do things, then go away and start a competing organization." --Megan Zurawicz, Root$web employee [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] "Anybody considered abandoning the notion of "authority" all together? Rather than "transferring" authority from one level to another, why not just go to the webring concept?" ---Sandy, [CC-L] "Whatever happened to trying to change the organization from within? As much as I don't like what has happened on the board lately, it seems a little early to try to completely dissolve the board. This is something that you do when you've concluded that the organization doesn't function, and I'm far from that conclusion. We haven't even had an election yet to see if we can replace the offending officers!" ---Scott [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] "I am not endorsing the proposed amendment, I am simply saying that all proposed amendments should be brought to the attention of the members of the USGenWeb for consideration and that due to the recent hapenings of the AC and the AB a change is in order...I know that the researcher who comes to the UsGenWeb Project looking for resources does not know or care about the inner workings of said Project. However if those inner workings are corupt the Project soon loses credibility. I would ask that we all consider all of the proposed amendments, investigate the past and vote with a good conscience for the good of the Project. " --Sandra [CC-L] "We have been here four years, working on this project. We don't leave......Tim and his subservient board leaves. That is much more fair than to see the people who built this project bullied and pushed out of the project. --Don [CC-L] === More About Amendments Corner: The proposed "recall amendment" has been sponsored by the OHGenWeb and sent to the Board. It is now posted at: http://www.usgenweb.org/official/amendments.html. COGenWeb has also sponsored it, so two of the required five co-sponsors have been acquired. The "Archives Amendment" [that would eliminate two board seats and place all "special projects" under the control of the Archives coordinator] is also currently being voted on in several states, but does not yet have a sponsor. We hear that in the fine state of Georgia, the SC is "encouraging" his CCs into voting "yes" on this amendment with subtle reminders of unpleasant consequences if they do not. Ain't politics lovely? All In The Family Corner: Kevin Fraley, HWGW SC and erstwhile USGW Ombudsman has announced on the SC's list that Board member Maggie Stewart-Zimmerman will be the new Asst. SC for HWGW and will also be taking over one small county there. If we are not mistaken, Maggie is now eligible to vote in the elections in _every_ region. Return to the Fold Corner: We hear that Diane Mason has been removed from the "reject" list on the NCGenWeb mailing list. However, her return to the list has some restrictions: "NCGENWEB is not an appropriate venue for discussion of USGenWeb politics, and... reposting messages from USGW-CC-L, the Daily Board Show, or other lists will result in your being returned to read-only status, as will personal attacks on other CCs." Diane is instructed to take her personal issues with other CCs private and to keep her SC apprised of them. === "We have the power to do any damn fool thing we want to do, and we seem to do it about every ten minutes." ---Senator J. William Fulbright This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.