From merope@Radix.Net Tue May 15 13:31:00 2001 Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 13:30:59 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 5/15/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Curiouser and curiouser...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* You know the drill. contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Monday 14 May 2001: Richard Harrison moves that "Lorraine Sonnenberg Newsome be appointed to fill the position of CC Rep for the Northeast/Northcentral Region." Richard Harrison moves that "the Advisory Board appoint Diane Parsons to fill the position of CC Rep for the Southeast/Mid-Atlantic Region." [Both Diane and Lorraine were original applicants for the openings, announced on 14 Apr. Both are also not Ron Eason, who was the only other applicant for the SE/MA CC rep seat.] === Making It Right Corner: The following plea has been sent to each Board member by project member Carol Carwile-Head [also posted to CC-L and USGENWEB-ALL]: "Because of conflicts at one time years ago with the then-owner of a server - NOT with the USGenWeb Project - some USGenWeb CCs have not had full access to all areas of the USGenWeb Project which are accessible to other CCs. IMHO, that is discrimination, which is both morally and legally WRONG. The past is gone - we can not change it, and there is nothing to be gained by re-hashing it - enough time has passed that there will never even be agreement on what really happened, anyhow. As others have suggested, un-banning these CCs so that they can have access to all USGenWeb areas available to other CCs, will end the discrimination now - today - which is all that can be done to correct the situation. The AB, being our elected representative body, has the power to insist that be done. Now. Today. Members of the AB, I beg you to do so." There has been much talk of late about lifting the now 851 day old ban, much of it, ironically enough, on the -ALL list where the banned members may not participate. At least one Board member, George Waller, has publicly stated that he supports lifting the ban; it is likely that others feel the same. It will be interesting to see if this goes anywhere. Three Cheers Corner: The fallout from Sharon Williamson's blacklist idea continues on the SC list, with several SCs speaking out forcefully on the idea, and one or two expressing tepid support. Here's some comments: "I personally think this is a bad idea. In essence a person could be "black-balled" from the project. Unfortunately we would only have one side of the story and that would be from the SC who identified the person...A better recommendation would be for the SC "interview" the prospective CC and find out if they are currently or have been in the past involved with the USGenWeb. If they are or have been then you could talk with the SC of the state that they were involved with. I cannot imagine that there is really a big problem with this...I also don't believe the majority of the CC's would want to see the SC's doing something like this. As the SC of PA, I would not participate in this if this moves forward." ---Nate Zipfel, PAGENWEB [George Waller, CTGENWEB and MAGENWEB, and Leona Gustafson, ASC of COGENWEB, both expressed support for Nate's position.] "I don't think a Black list would do anything but to cause more problems. I think your idea is a good one, and I do check CC's other sites. It doesn't always tell you if the prospective CC is going to match the personality of the State project, but it does give you an idea of their dedication and ability. CO will not participate in a black list either." ---Mary Ann Hetrick, COGENWEB "I think if something is used negatively, it could be a "black list." But, the Better Business Bureau keeps records of "complaints" and it isn't used negatively...I know that when a person writes me and asks to adopt one of my counties, I would appreciate a little more insight into their behavior elsewhere in the USGW than what is now available. Sometimes I've written other SCs to ask about a portential cc, but we all tend to be protective of our cc's and I've found that writing another SC hasn't been such a good barometer of a cc's dedication...We are all loath to do anything that might upset "the cc's." Yet, I agree somewhat with Sharon. I would appreciate knowing if other SCs have had complaints toward any particular person...Do you really want cc's who have deleted websites in *your* state project? I don't. And, if you were a potential cc, would you want to sign-on to a state project where the cc's have had problems with the SC? Such a "complaint" roster could be useful to both SCs and CCs. Let's explore this idea a little more." ---Carol Haagensen, WYGENWEB [The Better Business Bureau also makes its complaint list public and makes a concerted effort to allow the companies involved to correct or explain the situations behind the complaints. We did not see that option discussed in Sharon's proposal.] "What is being discussed here is a black list, and you can count Ky out. It doesn't matter to me where another CC has been and what the problems were there, and I have yet to ask for a reference from another SC...While I would be upset if a CC left and trashed their county site [been there, done that], it is their site to do with as they please. Yes, some of the data on the site might belong to a volunteer, but guess what... that volunteer is free to give it to the new CC for their site, which might end up being a much better site than the first one. The best defense for this is to back up the data in the archives and back up the county sites if you are concerned about a CC. If it isn't backed up and the site is trashed, the world... or the project... won't fall apart." ---Nancy Trice, KYGENWEB "Sharon what a great idea. I like it!!!! Now, to get a volunteer? Since it is dealing with all States, perhaps the National coordinator..." ---Marcia Ann Kuehl, WIGENWEB [ASC] "I do wish people would get a grip. I never suggested a black list. I took what Tim had said and made some suggestions that would better protect the privacy of any CCs that might be involved...I challenge anyone to show where I made a MOTION that we start a black list! I just was simply stating that at times it would be good to have some sort of insight into potential problem CCs. I never suggested that a person would be so foolish as to base their whole decision on any list reports. For what it is worth, we are all subject to just such a set up all the time...The bottom line is that no matter what we do as we go about our lives, there are times we will suffer consequences from our actions. Sometimes it might be points on our driving record, and sometimes it might be that others don't want to "play" with us because we don't "behave well" on the "play-ground". That's life." ---Sharon Williamson, NCGENWEB [Not getting the point, is she? No one has claimed she made a motion to start a blacklist, just that her suggestion of making a secret list of undesirable CCs looks and smells like a blacklist. And now the potential list membership has expanded from CCs who strip pages to those who don't play nice. Quite an amorphous criterion for being included on a blacklist, don't you think?] Anyways, it appears that this Very Bad Idea is dead in the water. A big hooray! for those SCs who have expressed their opposition so eloquently above. Way Back Machine Corner: A reader has informed us that the notice regarding the missing February GenConnect posts has been removed and that there are indeed scattered February posts once again present in the GC searches. In a notice to the GC mailing list, Root$web employee Joan Young says " Except for a bit of clean up work which Randy is still working on, the recovery and restoration of the posts is completed. Please feel free to repost anything that you still find missing." We had some readers do a quick check and found that, at least as far as queries go, either February was a _very_ slow month in some usually very busy counties, or the "recovery and restoration" was somewhat less than complete. So if you posted anything to any GenConnect board during February, you might want to check and see if its been reposted. Rebuttal Corner: Our National Commander writes to inform us that_apparently_ any proposed bylaws revisions committee is not the work of "the Board", but is being undertaken by a subset of Board members. [I say "apparently" because, as usual with Our Leader's fractured syntax, I can't tell what part of my original message he is rebutting.] Anyways, I haven't heard anything further about it. === "Before I can live with other folks I've got to live with myself.The one thing that doesn't abide by majority rule is a person's conscience." ---Harper Lee, "To Kill a Mockingbird" This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------ Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Wed May 16 15:27:58 2001 Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 15:27:57 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 5/16/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: Remembrance of times past...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains a steaming pile of editorial content. Read at your own risk! Tuesday 15 May 2001: Teri Pettis posts the "plea" from a project member to lift the bans to the Board list. [It was printed here yesterday.] Maggie Stewart says "To my knowledge these bans no longer exist. I know that one of the group that was banned was online in RootsWeb mIRC area during GenTech earlier in the year. All anyone needs to do is agree to the RootsWeb AUP to administer available RootsWeb facilities. Anyone with internet access can visit any public area on RootsWeb." [Again, missing the point. Whether or not we physically can access RW resources is irrelevant to whether or not we are _allowed_ to access them. The ban included _all_ RW resources, but what constitutes a resource was never defined. Until the ban is formally lifted, the bannees risk legal consequences if they do access anything RW chooses to call a resource, up to and including USGenWeb pages.] Teri responds to Maggie: "I agree that Teresa's "Free the Rootsweb 4" web site makes it sound like the access is more severely restricted than it really is...to the best of my knowledge the mail filter is still in effect...Any letter sent by the Board should make it clear that it is the removal of the email filter that is being requested. The banned individuals have repeatedly stated that they agree to the Rootsweb AUP. What they do not agree to is to refrain from discussing USGenWeb politics." [Again, missing the point...I imagine both the Board and Root$web would like to reduce this issue to nothing more than an email filter, but its much bigger than that. Again, until the ban is formally lifted we all risk serious repercussion should we access any of RW's resources, however they chooose to define them. ] Teri notes that she forwarded Carol's plea to Board-L rather than to individual Board members [as in Carol's original] to save effort. However, since this may confuse some people, in the future she will reply to the addresses the original was sent to. Maggie says she has been told that RW does not have the ability to globally filter users from the mail lists, so that "problem people" would have to be added individually to specific lists. She notes "RootsWeb kindly allows the USGenWeb Project and many others space on their server for webpages and the use of their "tools" such as lists and the GenConnect Boards. They are not a part of the USGenWeb Project. Why would RootsWeb care if someone discussed USGenWeb Politics on a list?" Teri points out that RW globally filters addresses all the time and suggests that perhaps they meant that they would not do it at a listowner's request. She hopes that current RW management would not care if the bannees discuss USGW politics on RW lists, but reminds Maggie "Back in 1999 when the ban was put in place, though, that was Brian's requirement for lifting the ban - not that they accept the AUP, which they had ALREADY agreed to, but that they narrowly limit their posts to genealogy and to running a genealogy web site, and not discuss any other matters, at the penalty of reinstating the ban with no second chance...While Brian did not specifically mention refraining from discussing USGenWeb politics, in banning discussion of anything except genealogy as narrowly defined I doubt that his intention was that they refrain from discussing quilt making and cat care. The implication was clear, because USGenWeb politics was the only topic other than genealogy that any of those people had been discussing on Rootsweb email lists. As for 'why', presumably because Brian anticipated, probably correctly, that at least some of the discussion by those particular individuals would be likely to be critical of USGenWeb involvement with Rootsweb." Tim Stowell asks for a second to Richard Harrison's motion to appoint Lorraine Newsome to the vacant NE/NC CC rep seat. Tina Vickery seconds the motion. Wednesday 16 May 2001: Tim gives the motion to appoint Lorraine Newsome number 01-17 and opens the floor for discussion. He later calls for a vote on this motion; thus far 2 Board members have voted yes. Tim asks for a second to Richard's motion to appoint Diane Parsons to the vacant SE/MA CC rep seat. Maggie seconds the motion and Tim gives it Motion number 01-18 and opens the floor for discussion. One Board member mistakenly votes on this motion, but then withdraws her vote pending a call for votes. === Big Picture Corner: We really fail to understand why it is so hard for some Board members to grasp the simple reality of the ban. Yes, it is enforced in part by email filters that reject mail from every address I am know to them to possess at their mail hub. But in actuality the terms of the ban are so amorphous as to be end up being very restrictive. Less than a month before the bannings, I was threatened with a specific legal statute [Title 18 USC sec 1030] which makes certain abuses done in connection with computers a criminal act. Brian made it very clear that any use whatsoever of RW's resources could lead to criminal and civil charges being filed. I take this sort of thing very seriously. The fact that Brian failed to define "Rootsweb resource" just makes it more problematic. I did discuss this with a lawyer when it happened, and she made it very clear that RW could define anything it hosts as a "Rootsweb resource". Whether I can or cannot physically visit webpages, go to chat rooms, receive email from RW lists, etc. is irrelevant. The fact is, under the current ban, if I do so, I risk serious legal action being taken against me. MyFamily decided not to interfere in RW's decision to maintain the bans; therefore until it is _formally_ lifted those of us who are banned must assume we risk serious repercussion for accessing whatever it is that RW defines as a resource. What I want is for MyFamily or RootsWeb to formally lift the ban. Until they do so, I will consider it to be still in place and will act accordingly. === "You can only be free if I am free." ---Clarence Darrow This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Thu May 17 13:36:17 2001 Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 13:36:16 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 5/17/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: All a flutter..its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Wednesday 16 May 2001: Tim Stowell calls for a vote on Motion 01-18, to appoint Diane Parsons to the vacant SE/MA CC rep seat. Thus far 12 Board members have voted yes [one of these votes, however, came before the call for a vote]. Voting proceeds on motion 01-17, to appoint Lorraine Newsome to fill the vacant NE/NC rep seat; thus far 13 Board members have voted yes. [The DBS welcomes Diane and Lorraine!] === "I believe it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is better to know than to be ignorant." ---H.L. Mencken This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Fri May 18 14:29:42 2001 Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 14:29:41 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 5/18/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Can they do that on TV?...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Thursday 17 May 2001: Teri Pettit informs the Board she will be out of town until Monday. When she returns she plans to introduce a motion to ask Root$web to lift the bans. She is waiting until then so she can participate in any ongoing discussion. Friday 18 May 2001: Tim Stowell announces that Motion 01-17 has passed with 13 yes votes and welcomes Lorraine Newsome to the Board. Tim Stowell announces that Motion 01-18 has passed with 13 yes votes and welcomes Diane Parsons to the Board Tim reopens Motion 01-11 [regarding the establishment of an official Census Project], which was tabled pending the appointment of new Board members. [And wasn't it nice of him to wait until Teri was out of town for the weekend?] === "A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." ---Douglas Adams This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Sun May 20 09:24:33 2001 Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 09:24:31 -0400 (EDT) From: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 5/20/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: A dose of reality...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Saturday 19 May 2001: Lorraine Newsome says she's looking forward to working with her new colleagues. Sunday 20 May 2001: Maggie Stewart moves "that Motion 01-11 be tabled pending revision/rewriting of the Bylaws." [We are _sure_ the word she meant to use here was "amendment".] === Conflict of Interest Corner: Maggie Stewart is, of course, the head of one of the census projects directly affected by Motion 01-11. We can see why she'd want to lay it on the table indefinitely. === "Labour to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire - conscience." ---George Washington This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.