From merope@Radix.Net Mon May 28 07:44:44 2001 Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 07:44:43 -0400 (EDT) From: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 5/28/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: From sea to shining sea...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Sunday 27 May 2001: Joe Zsedeny tells Maggie Stewart to go reread Motion 01-11, noting that it "pushes Motion 00-10 aside in so far as Motion 00-10 presents a conflict to the implementation of Motion 01-11." Teri Pettit asks Joe to clarify the meaning of "in so far as" in his message above. She notes that if he is using it to mean "because" "ALL the provisions of Motion 00-10 would be declared "null and void"," but if he were using it to mean "to the extent that" then "only those provisions of Motion 00-10 that are considered to be in conflict with the preceding paragraphs of Motion 01-11 would be declared null and void". As pointed out by Barbara Dore previously, rescinding Motion 00-10 in its entirety would result in restoring the USGenWeb Census Project [the original one] to its place as the official Census Project. Creating a new one with the new motion would then be in conflict with the bylaws. However, if only some provisions of Motion 00-10 were to be declared null and void then "there would instead be an ambiguity problem, in that it is not good practice to say that you will "declare null and void" any clauses of a previous motion that are in conflict with the current one, without specifying exactly which clauses those are." Teri notes "While I am very much in agreement with the goals of your motion...I do think it does too much hand-waving as to how it is going to be made consistent with the Bylaws and with previous Advisory Board decisions. We have to seriously come to grips with those problems, or it will just be rejected by half the Project, the same way that Motion 00-10 was." === "The truth is not always the same as the majority decision." ---Pope John Paul II 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 29 10:29:22 2001 Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 10:29:21 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 5/29/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Asleep at the wheel...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Monday 28 May 2001: Joe Zsedeny clarifies that his use of "in so far as" means "to the extent that". He states "I don't mean "because" - as the USGenWeb Census Project Inc. may choose not to participate in the Official USGenWeb Census Project - in which case there would be no conflict between my proposed motion (01-11) and Motion 00-10. If the USGenWeb Census Project Inc. should choose to participate, however, then Motion 00-10 is in conflict when it says that the USGenWeb Project "sever its relationship with the USGenWeb Census Project, Inc." In this case, Motion 00-10 would be declared "null and void" so as to allow the USGenWeb Census Project Inc. to participate in the Official USGenWeb Census Project, should they choose to do so." He also notes that passage of Motion 01-11 would not return the USGenWeb Census Project to its place as the official CP because the motion establishes "the new Official USGenWeb Census Project" as the CP sanctioned in the bylaws. He also notes that, if Motion 01-11 passes and this new "Official USGenWeb Census Project" is established, "Should the Advisory Board Representative/Coordinator of the Official USGenWeb Census Project choose to re-link the USGenWeb Census Project, Inc. as a part of the Official USGenWeb Census Project, he/she would have the authority (but not the requirement) to do so." [Well, this hardly encourages hope on the part of the USGW CP, does it? Looks like they only get to play if the Project Formerly Known As The Archives Census Project says they get to play.] Tim Stowell asks if it is correct that the Board would appoint the first Coordinator for the new Census Project and if it is correct "parties wishing to join this new SP must agree to some sort of guidelines." He is curious about who will formulate any such guidelines. Joe responds "The idea here is that the new CP rep would be elected and then would serve also as the coordinator until an internal election is held to select a coordinator of choice by the members of the umbrella CP." He also notes, in regard to guidelines, that he is "not going to try and answer questions which are not germane to the process outlined in the motion." He notes "the new project coordinator could best determine what guidelines are necessary. We need first to get past the first hurtle, passing the motion. We would not and shouldn't be in the business of managing any SP. Just establishing the SP as provided for in the Bylaws, no more, no less." === Business As Usual Corner: Sometime in the last few days, Ginger Hayes turned over management of the USGENWEB-ALL mailing list to Richard "Rent-a-Cop" Howland, who has wasted no time in making heads roll. For those of you who don't bother with that list, there has a been a more or less polite discussion over there for the last week on list decorum. The usual crowd has been pushing for bannings, suspensions, list moderation and censorship in order to enforce their particular view of appropriate social conduct. Although everyone is certainly in favor of everyone playing nice, there is some disagreement as to how to achieve this desired state. Some opt quite strenuously for the punishment route [suspensions, bannings, etc], noting that a few well-placed executions will serve as an example for others. Others make a case for appealing to our better natures, using moderation and inducements to gentler participation, noting that harsh enforcement of arbitrary policy will only serve to increase the calls of discrimination. But this is all moot now; list members have a new judge and jury and court is in session. The first head to feel the censorship axe was that of Kelly Courtney-Blizzard. Kelly has been outspoken recently in favor of lifting the Root$web bans and has participated avidly in the "decorum discussion". Kelly unfortunately had three strikes against her: she is outspoken, she often appears to be posting in an emotional state, and she is on the wrong side of the debate. So Kelly was suspended after watching Babs Dore and Ron Eason go after each other repeatedly, after watching Linda Lewis call Sue Soden a liar, and after watching John Schunk publicly call someone on the carpet for using a term of address he didn't like. Must have been quite a shock to her; the post Richard claims to have suspended her for is no better or worse than the others [except of course that it publicly called him on the carpet for being high-handed]. The amusing thing is that she was suspended from the -ALL list just as soon as she asked publicly for my email address. One of the things about the -ALL list's various Politeness Police over the years is that they seem to take particular delight in suspending someone _publicly_, and then continuing to discuss them and their offense after they can no longer participate. [We fondly recall the time Linda Lewis excised Don Tharp from the list and then continued to respond to his posts and call him a liar after he was gone.] This case is no different, and as usual its always instructive to see what happens when you give big power to little people. Public reaction on the list has been running quite opposed to Richard's unilateral action. Here's some comments: "Shame on you Richard, I cannot believe that Kelly was actually banned from posting here for expressing her thoughts. It sounds like she gave an opinion that you just did not want to hear and it was easier to ban her from posting than for you to stand up and reply to her questions. From reading the email exchange I get the impression that you have been looking for a reason to ban her. I would call it a power play." ---Geri Newton "I see nothing that horrible in Kelly Courtney-Blizzard's posts to this list that should cause her to be suspended other than a viewpoint that did not coincide with that of the moderator/censor. Your use of "Well now the fight is over!" indicates to me that you were more interested in your little power play than necessarily concerned with the supposed offensiveness of Kelly's posts....The timing of the new and better USGENWEB-ALL list nicely coincides with the upcoming election. Free discussion of the issues will most certainly be hindered by this "I don't like the way you said it" approach to who can and cannot post to this list. After having been subscribed to the list since 1996...I'm now unsubscribing for the first time. I don't want to read what the moderator/censor thinks is appropriate. I'd prefer to read what people really think, and that is not going to happen on this list." ---Robert Bremer [The observation that this new "moderation style" comes suspiciously close to the election is very interesting.] "I must agree with Robert, Kelly's words and actions were insufficient to cause suspension. Whether it can be considered censorship because of disagreement with the poster or simply a rush to suspend someone to satisfy the discussion about behavior on the list, this was overdone." ---Holly Timm Don't forget, Richard said himself the other day that its not _what_ you say on the list, its your _intent_ that determines whether or not your posts are acceptable. And apparently, Rich, sitting at his computer at -god-knows-where can determine whether you've been bad or good in your posting and judge you accordingly. Head In The Sand Corner: We are also amused by what is apparently the most recent dodge regarding the ongoing bans of project members by Root$web. We first saw this surface a few weeks ago when Maggie Stewart noted that someone at Root$web had told her that the bans had been lifted and there were no restrictions on the use of Root$web resources. Then Richard "Sharon, Can I Borrow Your Axe?" Howland alluded to it in a couple of posts. Now our own Dear Leader, National Commander Tim Stowell is publicly stating "There is no ban. The ban was lifted long ago but for some reason the banned want to keep bashing Rootsweb for lifting a ban already lifted." This was and remains patently untrue and ALL of these people know it. None of the banned can subscribe, unsubscribe or post to any Root$web lists. This is nothing more than a way to dodge the recent concerted effort by some Board members and project members to get the bans removed. After all, if they can successfully pretend the bans away, they will no longer have to face the unpleasant responsibility of taking positive action on behalf of their constituents. Another One Bites the Dust Corner: Shirley Scott has abruptly resigned as State Coordinator of the MSGenWeb following some rather public disagreements with some of her CCs. She turned the reigns of the project over to Nate Zipfel and was promptly chastised by some of her fellow SCs for failing to follow the bylaws and holding an election to chose her successor. The MSGenWeb is currently accepting nominations for the SC position under the auspices of its three ASCs. The DBS wishes Shirley well in her future endeavors; she had difficult shoes to fill and we are sure she tried her best. === Today we have two quotes...both sent by readers of the -ALL list. I just couldn't make up my mind: "As to who I think I am. I am a list subscriber with a right to my opinion. Plus till Ginger wants it back, I am the one who does Judge what is beyond the acceptable conduct for this list." ---Richard Howland "...you wanted to know about "moderated".....try "Pravda." ---Phyllis Rippee 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 31 14:11:39 2001 Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 14:11:38 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 5/31/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Like pulling teeth...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Wednesday 30 May 2001: Tim Stowell believes that a discussion of guidelines for participation are germane to a discussion of Motion 01-11. He notes that the new project will be the official Census Project as stipulated in the bylaws and that members of current groups would be invited to join. He notes that Special Projects are not merely collections of links. He also notes that the USGenWeb Census Project has indicated "they will not allow our Bylaws to supercede anything of their bylaws." He cites some relevant portions of the bylaws and asks "if some other group's internal bylaws conflict with our Bylaws with regards to our relationship to them - is the AB prepared to rollover and ignore the provisions above?" [This is rich coming from a man who has diligently supported Linda Lewis. Linda, as we know, is very fond of pointing out that the Archives predated the bylaws whenever the bylaws are inconvenient to her. In any case, we have seen more than one statement from Ron Eason and other members of the USGenWeb Census Project that they _will_ follow USGenWeb bylaws, so I don't know where Tim gets his information.] Joe Zsedeny replies that a Special Project could use more than one server and would thus require links. He also notes "Any SP or part thereof must comply with our Bylaws. Ron's group has publically stated that they comply fully with the USGenWeb Bylaws." He does not expect the Board to roll over for bylaws violations "unless the AB is more wimpish than I suppose them to be." Noting "Since some Board members seem to have forgotten", Tim reposts his Apr 6 messages nominating Sundee Maynez as his choice for Board Secretary. Noting that Tim seems to have forgotten, Holly Timm reposts Shari Handley's 9 Apr message requesting information about Sundee's qualifications for the position. Tim tells Holly to read her Board-Exec mail. [They are SO cute when they fight.] Holly notes that the question was asked on Board-L and a reply was expected in the same place, "not five days later on Board-Exec." Tim tells Holly that her dates are off. He says he wrote Sundee on 10 Apr requesting further information and he passed her reply on to the Board on 11 Apr. He reminds Holly that personnel issues are not discussed on Board-L [god forbid that the membership should know anyone's qualifications for the job.] Lorraine Newsome asks Tiim to forward Sundee's qualifications to Board-L for the three Board members who were not present in April. Regarding Motion 01-11, Richard Harrison asks Joe "1) Has there been any interest in participation expressed by either of the CPs? 2) How many voting members are there in each of the CPs?...3) What does "others" mean? Other groups?...Other individuals?" Richard also points out that Joe's motion effectively throws control of the CP to whichever project has the most voting members. In response to Richard, Joe notes that a couple of people have corresponded with him privately on the issue of participation and that he has no way of knowing how many voting members there are in each group. He also notes that "This is an open, inclusive invitation for anyone doing census work to join if they wish." Tim asks Joe to comment on an observation made by a project member that Motion 01-11 "is already in conflict with Article XIII, Section 2 and Section 3." Joe says he doesn't believe the motion is in conflict with the bylaws or he would not have made it. He notes "If someone else believes that it is in violation the burden of proof is on them. Barbara Dore notes that she has no problem with the first part of Motion 01-11, since its goal is "inclusion" of all census volunteers within the overall USGenWeb Project. She notes "The "how" to implement that goal is the real challenge as this discussion shows. Someone privately suggested that for the betterment of the whole USGenWeb project, if this motion passes, the new CP Rep would need to be either someone who has/can work with both of the present project's volunteers or someone who is fairly remote to both projects but who is willing to take on the task of representing the views of all the transcribing volunteers." Thursday 31 May 2001: Joe posts a message indicating that he has found "a willingness from the leadership of both census projects this morning to end the squabble that has dominated too much of our time over the past two years or so. Therefore he is going to move to table Motion 01-11 in favor of continuing discussion to reach a compromise. He asks that he be allowed to post replies from Ron Eason to Board-L and says he will ask both Ron and Maggie to avoid revisiting the past. He posts this as his "understanding of what MAY be possible": 1) Executive Order #2000-E-1 be rescinded. 2) Motion 00-10 remains. To rescind it returns us to the Bylaws directed CP. There simply is not support for that so lets not get hung up there. 3) Both census projects be linked equally on the USGenWeb front page...4) The board seat remains empty until such time as the two projects can work out a solution themselves for filling it and reestablishing a CP in accordance with the Bylaws...4) Transcribers for both projects be strongly urged, by the leadership of both projects, to submit their work to the Archives for perpetual storage." Joe moves to table Motion 01-11. Joy Fisher seconds it and Tim calls the vote. Thus far three member have voted "yes" [to table the motion]. [Yikes, didn't we just go through this?] Tim notes he has "No problem" with rescinding the Executive Order that delinked the Census Project. He notes however that if it is rescinded and the link is restored then that will conflict with Motion 00-10, which actually removed the Census Project from USGenWeb. He suggests rescinding Motion 00-10 first and then rescinding the Executive Order and "then one can happily link to one's heart's desire but be on a solid 'legal' standing." [Easy for him to say; he knows 00-10 won't be rescinded.] Joy Fisher moves that "Motion 00-10 be rescinded so that the web site at www.us-census.org may be linked from the USGenWeb national pages." She also moves that "the AB seat for the Census Project be kept vacant until all the census volunteers decide on how best to fill the seat to serve their needs." Joe seconds this motion. Tim belatedly asks for a second on Joy's motion. === Told Ya So Corner: No less a personage than St. Megan Zurawicz has confirmed that all six banned USGenWeb members remain on the reject list. Tim Stowell has formally apologized for any "distress" he may have caused with his message to the contrary. Welcome Back Corner: After a vocal public outcry, Kelly Courtney-Blizzard has been allowed back onto the USGENWEB-ALL list by its new manager, Richard Howland. Richard removed her posting permission a couple of days ago after she made a post he didn't like and asked for my email address. When he allowed her back onto the list, Richard helpfully explained the difference between a "banning" and what he did to Kelly. Apparently a banning only occurs when someone is unsubbed from a list, not when they are no longer allowed to post to it. Richard denies strenously that he "banned" Kelly since he merely placed her on the reject list [silence is golden, by any means, eh Richard?]. He also -finally- publicly posted the list rules and a litany of threats, including that of a "ban". Man With A Plan Corner: We have learned from a somewhat unexpected source who the current "Executive Producer" of Root$web is and it turns out to be USGenWeb's own Jake Gehring. Jake is the long-time CC for Summit county, UTGenWeb and has also been an employee of Ancestry.com for some time. We don't know how long he's been in the position, but he's at the least the second once since Charles Merrin was shown the door. We are given to understand that the new management is amenable to lifting the bans and merely await the request of the Advisory Board. The only condition required is an agreement to abide by the Acceptable Use Policy. === "The truth isn't always beauty, but the hunger for it is." ---Nadine Gordimer This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.