From merope@Radix.Net Mon May 21 13:57:26 2001 Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 13:57:25 -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: In memoriam...this is your Daily Board Show! [This edition of the Daily Board Show is dedicated to Jeff Murphy, founder of KYGenWeb and USGenWeb, who has passed away. He was a reader and fan and a friend.] *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Sunday 20 May 2001: Joy Fisher responds to Maggie's motion to table Motion 01-11 pending revision of the bylaws: "Not a good idea. This census mess didn't start on my watch -- but I would sure like to see it ended on my watch. By-Law revision would take at least one or two years to complete, especially with the date for posting amendments less than two weeks away. Hastily written amendments are often create more problems than they solve...This motion hopes to "legitimatize" the status quo...This motion sets up an umbrella organization to act on the behalf of both groups...and in the best interest of all those involved in census work...While this motion, as it is written, may not be worded 100% to the satisfaction of everyone -- let's work on amending it, instead of tabling it." Ken Short seconds Maggie's motion. Pam Reid agrees with Joy and notes "By-laws amendments could still be proposed and the membership at large would be able to make their wishes known. But, we do need to do something now to at least begin to bring about a resolution." Monday 21 May 2001: Tim Stowell calls the vote on the motion to table Motion 01-11. Thus far, one Board member has voted yes and three have voted no. Maggie Stewart moves "I move that the AB create a special Bylaws Committee (BC) as follows; 1) The committee shall consist of nine USGWP members as follows; Maggie Stewart (Chair), Ken Short, Roger Swafford, Edward A. Black Sr., Vicki Shaffer, Esse Frye, Teresa Lindquist, Phyllis Rippee, Mary Hudson. Members shall serve until Sept. 1, 2002 or discharged upon adoption for new/revised bylaws prior to the aforementioned date. 2) The National Coordinator as an ex-officio member, has the right, but not the obligation, to participate in the proceedings of the committee, and is not counted in the quorum. 3) The Committee instructions are; a - Review/rewrite the project bylaws as appropriate, b - Use the current parliamentary authority as a guide for recommended changes, c - Select replacement member(s) if a vacancy occurs, d - Upon completion of review/rewrite submit a report in the form of a resolution to the AB. 4) The committee shall utilize an e-list for meetings which restricts who may post but is open to the general membership for viewing archives of proceedings. 5) The committee deliberations shall adhere to accepted parliamentary procedures for committees and USGW bylaws. Seven members shall constitute a quorum for the conduct of committee business. A 2/3 majority of members voting on main motions/recommendations is required approval. 6) The Chair shall submit periodic progress reports to the AB on the second Tuesday of each month. 7) Supplemental instructions may be given to the committee in accordance with the parliamentary authority." [Yes, we are very surprised to see our name still on the list.] Tim asks for a second of this motion. Richard Harrison notes that "A motion to Lay on the Table cannot be qualified in any way" and requests that the Chair find Maggie's motion out of order. Holly Timm notes that Maggie's Bylaws Committee motion can be handled until the motion to table is dealt with. Joe Zsedeny notes that "Tabling this motion means the status quo is okay," especially since getting the bylaws revised is highly unlikely. He describes the motion as one that "simply acts as an umbrella to gather the various census projects under one roof IF they want to join." He also notes that, given the present scattershot presentation of census information, "We must look pretty ridiculous to researchers when with just a little effort we could look first class." === End of an Era Corner: I am deeply saddened to learn of the death of our founder Jeff Murphy, who passed away Sunday morning May 20. Although he had not been involved in the USGenWeb Project for several years, many of us still kept in touch with him and we will miss him. Kentucky genealogists in particular have lost a fine colleague. Sadly, the USGenWeb Project home page makes absolutely no mention of him; we do urge the Board to consider rectifying that oversight as a memorial to him. [on another note: several people have written to me asking where they can get a Jeff Murphy memorial logo for their USGenWeb pages. Since this news is relatively new I do not know of any that exist yet. However, if someone wants to design one and let me know, I will be happy to post the URL.] === "When we walk to the edge of all the light we have and take the step into the darkness of the unknown, we must believe that one of two things will happen: there will be something solid for us to stand on or we will be taught to fly." ---Patrick Overton This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Tue May 22 13:04:39 2001 Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 13:04:38 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 5/22/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Things that go bump in the dark...its your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Monday 21 May 2001: Voting proceeds on the motion to table Motion 01-11. Thus far, one Board member has voted yes and 10 have voted no. [this includes some recast votes; see below. It does appear that this motion has failed.] Tina Vickery asks a few questions regarding Maggie Stewart's motion to form a Bylaws Committee: 1) "were all of the above mentioned individuals aware of your selection of them to this special committee, and if so, would you care to share with all of us your selection criteria?"; 2) what is the definition of "as appropriate" in reference to reviewing and rewriting the "entire Bylaws"; 3) whether "common sense and input from project members" will be accepted for recommended changes; 4) whether discussion and input from the project at large will be accepted during the process; and 5) where will the "supplementary instruction" come from? Shari Handley says she was saddened to learn of Jeff Murphy's death and to honor his memory she has made a graphic to commemorate his passing. It is available at: http://www.rootsweb.com/~mdsomers/images/jmurphy.jpg Tina compliments Shari for the graphic and and says "Although I did not work with, or know Jeff during his tenure with the USGenWeb Project, I share in the sadness of his passing and encourage those who wish to incorporate the use of your graphic on USGenWeb Pages to do so." Joe Zsedeny also compliments Shari on the graphic and says "Jeff Murphy's legacy is now in our hands. I hope we can nurture it until it fulfills the promise that he obviously felt it would achieve." Teri Pettit is back from her trip and comments on the amount of activity on the Board while she was away. She notes that since there are already other motions active on the floor, she is not sure what to do about the motion regarding the bannings she promised to make upon her return. She can either make the motion now or wait until the current business is concluded. She notes "The end result of either option would be the same - we would discuss and vote on Motion 01-11 and the Bylaws Amendment Committee motion and any motions subsidiary to those (such as amendments), and then the next main motion to be taken up would be the suspension-lifting motion. So which approach to take would I guess depend on which one is most compatible with Parliamentary Procedure." In response to Richard's point of order regarding the motion to table, Teri points out that "the Board has long been in the habit of using "table" as a synonym for "postpone". A motion to postpone CAN be qualified by an indication of when it should be taken up again. Motion 01-11 has already been conditionally postponed once using the imprecise 'table' wording..." She discuses the differences between a motion to table and a motion to postpone, and concludes "this really was a motion to postpone - it has a qualifier indicating when the motion should be taken up again, and it was debated." Although the motion could be re-introduced as a motion to postpone she questions whether it is really worth the delay. [I always get a kick out of the argument that says "because we've always done it wrong, its OK to keep doing it wrong.] Maggie Stewart agrees with Richard's point of order, but notes that Motion 01-11 itself "clearly indicates that changes in the bylaws are the prefered method of dealing with the Census Project situation". She suggests that "it should be considered to be more urgent than adopting 01-11 only to have it declared null and void when the AB does have the bylaws revised/rewritten." She also considers that a motion to table Motion 01-11 without the reason "would then be out of order as merely an attempt to "kill" 01-11." Joe notes "Bylaw amendments have a poor track record...If an amendment doesn't pass this motion [o1-11] provides a blueprint to bring census inline with the Bylaws." Richard responds to Maggie: "My point of order had nothing to do with the content of Motion 01-11. It had to do with your inappropriate use of a motion to table. If you are going to attempt to use the rules of order to control discussion, the least you can do is to use them correctly...voting should have stopped following the Point of Order until the Chair had the opportunity to rule...I think you have a very clear indication of the Board's opinion of your attempt to stiffle it's discussion of Joe's motion." [Ouch!] Tuesday 22 May 2001: Tim Stowell notes that by precedent tabling a motion with a qualification is not out of order, and cites the original tabling of Motion 01-11 "until we deal with Betsy's motion to seat replacement board members." [heh, see above.] He also notes that once a point of order has been raised, activity on a motion should cease. He asks all Board members who voted after the point of order was raised to revote on the motion to table Motion 01-11. Tim says that Maggie's Bylaws Committee motion can be made, "just as any other motion can be made by anyone else on any subject dealing with the Project." Tim says that Tina's questions to Maggie regarding the Bylaws Committee motion are out of order until the motion has been seconded and the floor opened for discussion. Tim suggests that Teri go forward with her motion regarding the Root$web bans, noting there is "No harm done in more than one motion being reacted to at a time. That's why the motions are numbered." === "We may draw good out of evil; we must not do evil, that good may come." ---Maria Weston Chapman This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------ Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Tue May 22 15:30:26 2001 Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 15:30:24 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org, ksgen-l@rootsquest.com, Daily Board Show Subject: Jeff Murphy memorial page Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: The American History and Genealogy Project has put together a very nice memorial page for Jeff Murphy. It includes a Memorial Guest Book that you can sign and that will be given to Jeff's wife and kids. Its located at http://www.ahgp.org/jeff/ Please forward this message as appropriate. -Teresa merope@radix.net From merope@Radix.Net Wed May 23 14:31:23 2001 Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 14:31:22 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 5/23/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Hi ho, hi ho, its off to work we go...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Tuesday 22 May 2001: Voting continues on the motion to table Motion 01-11. Thus far, 13 members have voted no, and one has voted yes. Teri Pettit posts a long motion regarding having the Board request that Root$web lift the bans currently in place against 6 USGW members. [This motion is reprinted in full below, with commentary] George Waller seconds Teri's motion. Teri asks Tim Stowell if, since he is allowing multiple unrelated motions to be active on the floor, he will also be allowing these motions to be open for discussion at the same time. She appreciates the opportunity to have multiple motions active but feels that simultaneous discussion may result in some motions not getting full attention. She suggests extending the debating period on all motions being concurrently discussed. Tim gives Teri's motion number 01-19 and opens the floor for discussion. He also notes that since there are multiple motions he will resume his daily activity summaries. Tim notes that "Multiple motions can be made and seconded. Each motion must be discussed in turn - in numbered order unless it is tabled before moving on to the next numbered motion." Once a motion is being voted on, the next motion may be opened for discussion. Tim removes motion 01-19 from discussion and opens the floor for discussion on Motion 01-11. Tina Vickery asks Tim to cite his source for his determination that there can be no discussion on motions before they are seconded. She notes that this "kind of cuts down on the concept of discussion and consensus doesn't it?" Wednesday 23 May 2001: Maggie Stewart withdraws the Bylaws Committee motion and reserves the right to submit it at a later date. [Odd that she didn't get a second on this. You don't suppose she came up with this idea all on her own, do you?] Tim declares the motion to table Motion 01-11 failed. One Board member voted yes, and 11 voted no. [actually, 13 voted no, but two members who voted prior to the resolution of the point of order did not recast their votes.] He opens the floor for discussion of Motion 01-11. === Will We Live To See The Day Corner: Here is the full text of Motion 01-19 [with commentary in brackets]: I move that the Advisory Board, acting in consulation with the members of the USGenWeb Project at large, compose and send a letter to the management of Rootsweb.com requesting that the access privileges of those USGenWeb Project members whose Rootsweb use permission was suspended in 1999 be fully restored. The letter shall contain a clause indicating recognition that Brian Leverich had, at the time the use permissions were suspended, the legal right to deny access to the servers he owned, and that the current owners of Rootsweb likewise have the legal right to deny access to the servers they own, with no cause required. The basic approach taken shall be that we interpret the generous policies of Rootsweb of giving free, no ads web space to USGenWeb sites and free, no ads email list hosting to mailing lists established for USGenWeb project members to be an indication that Rootsweb wishes to facilitate the healthy and unhindered operation of the USGenWeb Project, and that since the inability of several of our members in good standing to fully utilize the resources that Rootsweb provides is an impediment to that operation, we sincerely desire that the suspension, which was originally proclaimed as temporary, now be lifted. The tone shall be cordial and the letter shall contain an expression of gratitude for Rootsweb's past and continued support of the USGenWeb Project. [Personally, I don't see any reason to tell Root$web what they already know, which is that they can do anything they want with their servers. Certainly thanking them for their past and future support of USGW is in order, but belaboring the obvious just sounds like pandering.] It shall also contain a section declaring that the project members whose access privileges were suspended have agreed to the provisions of the Rootsweb Acceptable Use Policy posted at: http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/aup.html and at http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/aboutus.html (If any of the suspended individuals do not agree to this section, their name(s) shall be omitted from the list of project members whose access privileges we are requesting be restored.) [I personally have no problem with following the AUP, but I personally will not agree to any additional restrictions on my posting.] The procedure for composing the letter will be that any Advisory Board member wishing to submit a draft shall post it to BOARD-L@rootsweb.com, and either post copies to the mailing lists USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org and USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com, or include permission that the draft be forwarded those lists and to any project member, with a request for comments. Each draft author may repeatedly submit revised drafts, based on incorporating the suggestions made by members at large or by substituting sections or phrases from the drafts submitted by other Advisory Board members. [This is a nice touch.] Since the those members whose Rootsweb access privileges were suspended are the most materially affected by this motion, suggestions that any of them might wish to make about its wording should be considered most seriously, so long as they are consistent with the basic approach outlined above. [This is also a nice touch.] Within two weeks after passage of this motion (earlier if the revision process seems to have settled down), the Advisory Board shall vote upon which version of the letter or petition is most preferred, with repeated votes if necessary dropping off the least preferred version each round, until some version gains the support of a majority. That version shall then be sent immediately. If this motion passes by a 3/4 majority, then the letter shall be signed as "The USGenWeb Project Advisory Board". If it passes by a smaller majority, then the letter shall be signed by a list of individual Board members, with any dissenting Board member free to leave their name off the signature list. Regardless of the majority of passage, the National Coordinator may sign or not sign at his discretion. [If the "Advisory Board" votes to send it then the NC signs it by default. He is after all part of the Advisory Board.] The letter itself will contain no signatures other than those of Advisory Board members and possibly the National Coordinator, but members of the Project at large shall be free to submit petitions to Rootsweb indicating either support or opposition to the Board's request. [If you are going to make this into a popularity contest, why don't you put it on the ballot in the upcoming election?] === "If we told you what we were going to do, you'd never have elected us." ---John Crosbie 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 24 07:57:48 2001 Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 07:57:47 -0400 (EDT) From: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Teri Pettit responds Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: The following is Board member Teri Pettit's response to my commentary on Motion 01-19: === At 11:31 AM -0700 5/23/01, merope wrote: >[Personally, I don't see any reason to tell Root$web what they already >know, which is that they can do anything they want with their servers. The reasoning is to forestall a possible reply from Rootsweb informing us that they have that right. It was, after all, the ostensible ONLY reason that the Advisory Board gave in 1999 for NOT sending a similar letter, and therefore at least some people apparently interpret a request that someone lift a restriction as a claim that they had no right to make it. In general, if one foresees the potential for some fact or circumstance being presented as a reason for denying a request, it seems prudent to deflate it at the outset by showing that one realizes the factor exists, and nevertheless does not consider it pertinent. >[I personally have no problem with following the AUP, but I personally >will not agree to any additional restrictions on my posting.] When I get a chance to compose a draft, I will work in such a statement. It would seem most appropriate to put it in a section outlining exactly what status we are asking be restored. >The procedure for composing the letter will be that any Advisory Board >member wishing to submit a draft shall post it to BOARD-L@rootsweb.com, >and either post copies to the mailing lists USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org and >USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com, or include permission that the draft be >forwarded those lists and to any project member, with a request for >comments. Each draft author may repeatedly submit revised drafts, based on >incorporating the suggestions made by members at large or by substituting >sections or phrases from the drafts submitted by other Advisory Board >members. > >[This is a nice touch.] Thanks! What I was thinking of here is that the first draft of anything is seldom optimal. So I wanted to design a methodical and democratic way of getting closure on the phrasing that would be more manageable than using the amendment process on motions. And I wanted to make sure that nothing was composed behind closed doors. I view the Advisory Board as a tool of the CC's and SC's, not their 'management'. A hand cannot easily wield a tool it can't see. >[If the "Advisory Board" votes to send it then the NC signs it by default. >He is after all part of the Advisory Board.] You're right, I overlooked the wording of Article V in the Bylaws that includes the NC as a member of the Advisory Board. In common parlance, we tend to speak as if he/she were not. >The letter itself will contain no signatures other than those of Advisory >Board members and possibly the National Coordinator, but members of the >Project at large shall be free to submit petitions to Rootsweb indicating >either support or opposition to the Board's request. > >[If you are going to make this into a popularity contest, why don't you >put it on the ballot in the upcoming election?] For one thing, our By-Laws do not provide for putting referenda on the ballot (although perhaps they should), other than Bylaws amendments. For another thing, even if there were a ballot question as to "should we formally ask Rootsweb to restore access privileges to those who were suspended in 1999", I would want to make sure that there would be no reprisals for anyone who disagreed with the majority decision sending their separate letters to Rootsweb. The idea of this section is not to make anything into a popularity contest, but rather that I'm uncomfortable with the notion of an elite or even a majority claiming to speak for the whole. I want to ensure that each person is allowed to speak for themselves. The "shall be free to submit petitions" wording was intentional - I purposely did not say "shall be invited to" because I wasn't trying to _promote_ any petitions, only wanting to ensure that anyone who did send one wouldn't be castigated. -- Teri === -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net From merope@Radix.Net Thu May 24 13:30:31 2001 Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 13:30:30 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 5/24/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Oh lord please don't let me be misunderstood...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Thursday 24 May 2001: Maggie Stewart asks the following questions regarding Motion 01-11: "To comply with XIII Sec. 1, Who is to be appointed coordinator until an election can be held? When you say "The AB representative will be elected from nominees submitted by both of the present census projects.", is this an affirmation by the AB that both census projects are an approved part of the USGenWeb Project? Is the USGenWeb Project going to accept non-Project groups participating in the seating of an AB representative? Is the USGenWeb Project going to accept incorporated groups participating in the seating of an AB representative? Do the election committee instructions include supervision of Special project elections? Who is to vote in this election? Is the election committee prepared to comply with the first part of the motion? Would either census group agree to put forth a nominee?" [I can answer one of these questions for her. Yes, the EC instructions do charge them to conduct Special Project elections.] Joy Fisher responds to Maggie's questions. She notes that since several members of the "un-inc'd" group [the Project Formerly Known as the Archives Census Project] already serve as Board members [including Maggie], she would support appointing a member of the incorporated USGenWeb Census Project. She holds that the motions "is an affirmation that ALL census volunteers within the USGenWeb Project will be an approved part" and notes that there is precedent for allowing incorporated parts of the project to participate in the selection of Board members. Although she does not reference the posted EC instructions, she affirms that the EC "will supervise any elections deemed necessary by the AB", and will collect lists of voters as necessary. She notes that participation by either census project is voluntary and "Both can walk away if they choose." Tim Stowell reminds the Board members that "If any member wishes to amend any part of this motion, now is the time to do so." Teri Pettit suggests that rather than hastening to amend Motin 01-11 the Board continue discussing such issues as "(A) What problem(s) is the motion intended to solve? (B) What end result(s) are we trying to achieve? (C) In what ways might the motion as written be incompatible with the Bylaws and/or inconsistent within itself, and how might some of those inconsistencies be resolved? === Another One Bites the Dust Corner: One of the several online genealogy projects that sprang up as an alternative to USGenWeb is apparently defunct. The URL for GenRoots [www.genroots.org] now leads to something called "Wife and Mom", which seems to function as a promoter of "business opportunities" for mothers who do not work outside of the home. Thanks to a reader for letting us know about this. == "All truth is safe and nothing else is safe, but he who keeps back truth, or withholds it from men, from motives of expediency, is either a coward or a criminal." ---Max Fuller 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 25 14:04:02 2001 Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 14:04:01 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 5/25/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: So it goes...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Thursday 24 May 2001: Joe Zsedeny notes that "Nothing that we do will solve the census problem outright" and that Motion 01-11 provides an "umbrella under which the parties involved, if they wish, begin to solve the problem themselves." Friday 25 May 2001: Maggie Stewart responds to Joy Fisher's message from yesterday [in which Joy responded to Maggie's questions regarding Motion 01-11]. Maggie notes first that the "Official USGenWeb Census Project" named in Motion 01-11 violates the naming convention for new Special Projects in the bylaws and that the Board seat is for the representative of the "USGenWeb Census Project". She asks "1) Do you agree that the new project name violates the naming pattern in the bylaws? 2) Do you agree the bylaws stipulate an AB seat for "The USGenWeb Census Project"? 3) Does the project really need yet another CP? 4) Who is the project staff for the new Census Project?" Maggie asks another set of questions pertaining to membership in the "Official USGenWeb Census Project": "1) Then what is the need for a motion to create another Census Project? 2) Do you believe we were elected to uphold and follow the bylaws?" [well, actually the latter question doesn't have to do with anything and is kind of silly.] Maggie reminds Joy that the original Census Project was removed from the project by a vote of the Advisory Board in May 2000. She asks "1) If The USGenWeb Census Project, Inc is severed from the project, doesn't it need to be unsevered? 2) Shouldn't there be another motion on its own to Rescind 00-10 before this one is even considered." Maggie reminds Joy that other incorporated organizations within USGW were not subject to removal from USGW by vote of the Board and asks once again if Motion 00-10 [which severed the USGW Census Project] is still in effect. Joy says she is going out of town until Tuesday and will answer questions regarding Motion 01-11 when she returns. George Waller informs the Board that he will be out of town until next Thursday. === The Neverending Story Corner: Yeesh, I am getting sick of the census project issue. Its been almost three years now since the bylaws established the Census Project as an independent Special Project and since Kay Mason moved it to its own directories and we are no closer to resolution of this mess than we were then. Sad to say, but without serious amendment, Motion 01-11 is not going to solve anything. Maggie,for her part, seems to be forgetting that the second part of Motion 01-11 declares both Executive Order 2000-F-1 and Motion 00-10 null and void, so her concerns about those actions are misplaced. The problem with the name of proposed new Special Project can be easily fixed by amending the motion to read "the official USGenWeb Census Project", instead of "the Official USGenWeb Census Project". But this is just window-dressing. Joe's idea seems to be to create an umbrella organization that would include members of all USGenWeb census projects, including presumably state and/or local level projects. The Board representative would be elected from nominees that could come from either the CP or the PFKATACP. But we all know that anyone elected from either of these groups would be viewed as suspect by the other group and it is unlikely they will be accepted as a representative. And if the motion passed and one or both groups turned out to not be pleased with the outcome, we'd have an "official" census project that was an empty shell. We'd also still have two unofficial census projects going about their merry way. While I have seen no specific comments from either group as to whether they support the provisions of Motion 01-11, Maggie at least seems to have issues with it. Or Else Corner: At least one Board member, Richard Harrison, has stated that he will not support a Board effort to get the Root$web bans lifted unless one of the Root$web 4 [me] more to suit to his liking. He says that he "will not vote to petition for reinstatement of someone who continues to use Root$web instead of Rootsweb." When it was pointed out to him that this pretty much translates to "Do as I wish, or else" he said "I think it is particularly becoming for an elected representative to take a stand in favour of common courtesy. Teresa, if you have a point of view to express, please do so in terms of rational arguements rather than cheap shots...If you really want to be a participant in RootsWeb, demonstrate it by your behavior." He misses a couple of salient points, however: 1) I don't particularly want to be a participant in Root$web, I want to be a participant in USGenWeb; and 2) if I were willing to compromise my principles [and free speech is a biggie] we wouldn't be in this situation. One of my own representatives, Babs Dore, has this to say: "The AB did not create the problem and the AB should not be expected to solve it. Let those who's actions and words were the cause of the drastic action that occurred take their own responsibility in solving it...If there was major support for the unbanning there would be many more than the same few that are heard from over and over again...The AB should be defending the rights of those who seek to work quietly and very hard to further the goals of the project against those who continually promote disharmony...I will NOT support any official AB request calling for the return of persons who have shown little or NO change in attitudes or habits in communication styles to the "mainstream" lists of this project...Let those that "stepped in it" worry about cleaning under their own feet." [I guess this is a "no" vote from Babs. *shrug*] Former Board member Rich Howland says: "RW DID NOT SEE FIT TO RESTRICT THE PARTICIPATION OF SOME USGENWEB PROJECT MEMBERS. IT DID SEE FIT TO RESTRICT THE PARTICIPATION OF SOME RW USERS, THAT HAPPENED TO BE USGENWEB PROJECT MEMBERS...I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE POINT OF ASKING RW TO AGREE TO SOMETHING THEY HAVE ALREADY AGREED TOO. SOMETHING THEY ARE TIRED OF TALKING ABOUT." [caps are in the original. Apparently, Richard knows something the rest of us don't. He's alluded more than once to the ban already being lifted and to Root$web not wanting to hear further about it.] What I have particularly enjoyed about the ongoing discussion on this topic on both the CC-L list and the -ALL list is how it has segued from a simple discussion of an official request that the bans be lifted to a wide ranging conversation on how some USGW members should conduct themselves. For instance, from a number of comments made by project members, it is not enough that I agree to abide by the Root$web AUP when using Root$web's lists as suggested in Motion 01-19. I must also agree to meet some arbitrary standard of decorum _everywhere_ I post. I must discontinue my negative postings about Root$web in _any_ forum, and as one person put it "show a new leaf". In other words, the price of access is giving up everything I have fought for over the last couple of years. I think not. It ain't worth it. [I have of course not made any negative comments to or about anybody on _any_ Root$web list for over two years now, and no one has bothered to ask me if I intend do so should I be reinstated.] Incidentally, this is the relevant section of RW's AUP: "You should not decrease the enjoyment of others. Your posts should not flame or otherwise harass other users and should be reasonably on topic for the areas where they appear, and you should otherwise adhere to the principles of netiquette. Information about netiquette is available on many Internet sites." This seems relatively straightforward, except that "decrease the enjoyment of others" is rather a broad and ill-defined concept. === "It is not the content as much as the intent that will bring a warning on this list." ---Rich Howland, regarding the -ALL list This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.