From merope@Radix.Net Mon Oct 1 12:25:29 2001 Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 12:25:29 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 10/1/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Dreaming of hot soup...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Monday 1 October 2001: Voting proceeds on motion 01-31 (to appoint Phyllis Rippee to the vacant Board seat). Thus far, 13 Board members have voted yes and one has abstained. [I believe that's all of us; welcome to the Board, Phyllis!] -- In Executive Session: --no activity === "In the end it is worse to suppress dissent than to run the risk of heresy." ---Learned Hand 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 Oct 3 06:51:06 2001 Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 06:51:05 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 10/2/2001, 10/3/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: For your own good...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! [We apologize for the lack of a DBS yesterday. We wrote it, we pushed the send button, and we found it still in our draft folder this morning. So today's is kinda long.] Monday 1 October 2001: Holly Timm declares Motion 01-31 passed with 13 yes votes and one abstention. She welcomes Phyllis Rippee to the Board. Several Board members also welcome Phyllis aboard. Holly Timm forwards the following message from Jake Gehring, Executive Producer of Root$web: "In response to requests for RootsWeb/Ancestry to keep The USGenWeb Project better informed, I am delighted to announce that Betsy Mills has agreed to take on an additional job responsibility so she may serve as the official liaison between MF/RW/A and The USGenWeb Project. Betsy's position on the USGW Advisory Board plus her employment within the company means she is uniquely positioned to be both informed and responsive. She is already accessible to the AB and will now assist in answering any questions/concerns that you may have." [Great. Now the conflict of interest is official. I am curious though about how this came to be. There's been no Board-wide discussion of the need for an liaison. Did Root$web just decide on their own we needed one and made it so? That would be kind of interesting.] Kathy Heidel thinks Jake's announcement is great news and notes "Looks like we will have a fine year." [Heh, we'll reserve judgement on that until we see if we get any sort of advance notice the next time Ancestry tries some bone-headed new "feature" that negatively impacts USGW.] Tuesday 2 October 2001: Teresa Lindquist asks how Betsy's appointment as official Root$web liaison actually changes anything, whether we will receive advance notice of changes that impact USGW, what happens if she leaves the Board, and whether we asked for this or RW just imposed it on us. Robert Bremer has already received some concerns regarding our "new" liaison from his constituents. He notes "The concern over a board member being employed by Rootsweb/Ancestry has come up before, but this announcement adds a further conflict of interest dimension to that issue. One CC wrote, "She can't fairly represent the Project if she must also represent Ancestry ... it's interests are not the same as the Project's."" Betsy claims she is not representing Ancestry on the Board, but that she is now "empowered" to "answer questions that may arise from the board. " She points to her years both on the Board and as a Root$web employee as proof that she can keep her respective jobs separate. She notes "This is in response to the many requests to be better informed, and I will also be able to provide this same service to other projects that are hosted by RootsWeb, such as the WorldGenWeb Project, American Local History Network, and so on. This does mean that I will be able to let the board know directly of changes that may take place that affect the USGenWeb Project. It does not mean that I will keep Ancestry informed of board business...To answer Teresa's question as to whether "RW/Ancestry decide(d) this on their own and impose(d) it on us." It is not imposed on the board at all. If you have no questions, I will not be answering them." A number of Board members step forward to defend Betsy's appointment as liaison. Pam Reid states "it is time to get a grip! It seems that some of us are constantly looking under rocks for the long suspected conspiracy - it really should be obvious by now that no conspiracy exists. I can understand why some people would have concerns about the relationship between Ancestry and USGW...However, Ancestry has been good to us and they have demonstrated their support of USGW...Betsy has been a great Board rep., always a voice of reason and calm. Her opinions and attitudes have always been immensely fair and objective...We should all be grateful to have someone like her on board. It is an unjustice to even imply that Betsy is not to be trusted. She is as trustworthy a person as I have come across in this Project and has demonstrated nothing but the best interests of USGW." Jana Black "me-too"'s Pam's sentiments. Kathy Heidel notes Betsy's long service with the Board and with Root$web and says "Never has there been an inkling of conflict, don't see why there should be one starting now. I believe that an open line of communication between all is to the best interests of the USGWP...I remember too well all of the changes "sprung" upon us and how we were left reeling from the impact. Don't you all remember the GenConnect Board Change. If we would have had prior knowledge of this coming, I believe it would have made a big difference in how we reacted to the news." [It of course remains to be seen whether or not we will get any advance notice of what are essentially Ancestry's proprietary business decisions. We haven't in the past and something tells me having a "liaison" won't change that.] Holly Timm forwards a note from former Board member Bill Oliver supporting the "choice" of Betsy as our liaison with Ancestry. Phyllis Rippee notes "An open line of communication between the Project and Ancestry was one of the things I called for during the campaign. It's now been established and Betsy wears our "Go-To Gal" hat." Tina Vickery notes "As an SC, CC, LC, and a Board member, I have NEVER seen Betsy flounder with her hats :-)) I look forward to the opportunity for the interaction between all of us." Ron Eason also publishes a long email supporting Betsy as liaison: "As one who did not like the idea of some from Rootsweb being subscribed to the Board-L in the early days, or having them too closely be able to make changes and/or policies that had a direct effect in the operations of USGW...I want to say that Betsy has been on the Board. This is not someone new, doing anything different. She has also been in the employ of RW/MyFamily for some time now, so this is also not new. Nothing has actually changed at all...Just because she has been authorized to answer questions for us, does not change her immediate view, responsibility to USGW, nor her responsibility to those she represents...Betsy was a USGW Member and a Board Member before asked to be a spokesperson. If anyone thinks she changed overnight, then I guess I have been brainwashed, because so far I haven't seen it...Until Betsy does something that is in direct conflict with her duties as a Member of this Board, then I think it behoves is all to treat her with the same respect that we want and with the same level of common courtesy and trust as we expect to receive from our own actions." Phyllis Rippee thanks the Board for appointing her and says "I will do my best to represent the people of the SW/SC region and help move the USGW P forward." Robert publishes another question from a CC for Betsy: "are they planning to recreate the wonderful situation they created when the new message boards were simply announced with no warning and/or input from the USGenWeb users of the boards?" [so far, this has gone unanswered.] Teresa asks Betsy what plans Ancestry has for the mailing lists. Betsy responds "At this time nothing has been decided. If anything is done, it will be to improve the function of the mailing lists and enhance the list admin experience." Kathy Heidel brings up the question of a USGW newsletter and asks the Board to discuss "establishing an Official USGWP Newsletter." Phyllis believes in keeping the CCs informed and would support a newsletter; she asks if Alicy Gayley [whose idea it initially was] would be available to answer questions. Jana also thinks its a wonderful idea and supports having Alice as the editor. She notes "Offering CCs a "one stop shop" for straight Project news would effectively answer the most often mentioned "gripe" I have received; the need to stay informed w/o having to plow through politics." She says she's ready to go forward with a motion "right now" but later decides to let the rest of us have a say. Tina Vickery also likes the idea of a newsletter but says she "would also like to expand this discussion to include not *only* a newsletter to volunteers, but a standing Publicity/Promotion committee to spearhead the USGenWeb Project's presence to visitors in both online and "off-line" venues." Kathy tells her that her impetus for bringing it to the board was the positive reply to Alicy's suggestion of a newsletter on the -ALL list. Kathy forwards Alice's original post to the Board. Teresa agrees with Tina that the newsletter should be part of the broader duties of a publicity committee. She notes "The Board should establish a publicity committee; one of the duties of this committee should be the publication of a regular newsletter. I would certainly support Alice as editor-in-chief. The only change I would make to her original proposal was that it should not be a "Board" newsletter...It should certainly cover Board activity, but should also include regional news, special project news, general genealogy news of interst to USGW news, etc. Additionaly the Board should exercise little if any editorial control over the newsletter. Additional duties of the promotional committee can include liaison with other genealogy organizations, attendance or coordination of attendance at local, regional, special interest and national genealogy conferences, promotional literature, media outreach, etc. Probably one or two Board members should be ex-officio members of the committee and the Board should probably have final approval over any promotional materials designed by the committee, since they will bear the official imprimatur of the USGenWeb Project." Tina invites project members to contact the Board with their suggestions for the publicity committee. Sundee Maynez publishes her Board report. -- In Executive Session: --A Board members checks in === Little Pitchers Have Big Ears Corner: Although members of the Election Committee per its guidelines, both Holly and I have been summarily removed from the Committee while it deliberates on new members. According to Linda Haas Davenport, Chair of the Committee, whose decision this was, we were removed both because she feels our first loyalty is to the Board and not the EC and we don't have any right to be privy to how the EC chooses its members. She also notes that the track record of previous ex-officio members in regards to confidentiality has not been outstanding [thank you, Tim]. So, apparently despite the EC guidelines, Holly and I serve the EC at Linda's pleasure. This is interesting. Although I am personally familiar with most of the volunteers and might have some valuable insight to add as to their suitability for the committee's work I will not be able to do so. This decision also means the Board must make its decision on committee members blind, without any informative input, which is Holly's and my job to provide to them. I am curious to know if we will be removed from the committee whenever "difficult" discussions will occur; it would seem counter-productive to remove the Board liaisons from these discussion when we are there to provide information to the Board to help it in decisions regarding the EC. Getting It Right Corner: The new Root$web spam has appeared in my inbox once again, and this time they managed to actually include the stuff to want and buy in the body of the message. Creepily, they've added an URL for the Ancestry shops to Root$web's logo. Add puzzingly, although the body of the text implies you need to subscribe to continue receiving it, the bottom of the message has text telling you how to unsubscribe if you don't want to continue getting it. Curious. I neither subscribed nor unsubscribed; we'll see what the next edition brings us. === "An idealist is one who, on noticing that roses smell better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup." ---Henry 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 Thu Oct 4 12:23:33 2001 Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:23:31 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 10/4/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: One lump or two?...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Wednesday 3 October 2001: Discussion of the newsletter and publicity committee continues: Phyllis Rippee asks if the discussion involves two different things or if the newsletter and publicity committee are meant to be combined. Kathy Heidel thinks they should be two different items. Teresa Lindquist, however, thinks managing the newsletter should be one of the publicity comittee's functions. Jana Black, [who apparently writes much more clearly when she sleeps on her responses], says "I do not think we need a publicity committee to enfold a Newsletter. I think publicising the Project generally is a long term project involving offering support...A Newsletter, on the other hand seems to me to be a short term responsive tool to help us organize ourselves and stay connected as a Project." [No, I don't know what she means either.] Phyllis notes "I agree that the publicity/promotion campaign should be separated from the newsletter, although one would definitely complement the other, but I cannot understand one being of any shorter duration than the other." She echos a question originally asked on the -ALL list: "What is the target group for the newsletter?" Jana clarifies herself: "I am not talking about *duration,* I am talking about *scope* as the difference between newsletter/s and a Publicity/Promotion Committee. I think we *are* discussing two subjects. While there certainly needs to be good communication between the two groups, they would function separately. On the other hand, it does make sense to me that a Newsletter directed towards the general public would function under the auspices of a Publicity/Promotional Committee." She provides some examples of things that have been discussed on other lists that she thinks are good ideas and suggests "we need to do *both* an In-house CC Newsletter PLUS an Official USGW Newsletter intended for a broader public audience." [Oy vey.] Regarding the publicity committee, Jana notes thinks it should include creation of brochures, signs for conferences, Sites of the Week, and other things, regional websites, etc. Holly Timm suggests "that the P/P Committee should be a general ongoing group which would include the editor(s) of any newsletters*** but not exercising a direct supervision of any newsletter. I think the P/P Committee's initial thrust should be to help get various promotional efforts and resources started and then as an ongoing committee act as a central resource and communications point between various efforts." She asks "Rather than discussing various specifics the P/P Committee might do, can we have some discussion as to what it's formation should be and it's general goals?" Vicki Shafer thinks that _any_ inclusion of Board news is "a very bad idea", noting "With so few CC's in the project participating in elections or polls this would be a good reason for them NOT to subscribe to this list. Politics is what has driven them away and it's sure not going to bring them back." She asks if the newsletter will be mandatory and suggests that we ask the CCs what they would like to see in it. She suggests "before we start promoting the project we need to do some "mending" with all the CC's. Maybe too much emphasis is put on the special projects and we need to focus more on the individual county sites. Many need help and we need to find out why and what we can do about it. And most important tone down the politics and do away with the bickering." Robert Bremer thinks that "the number of positions on the committee should probably be a range...That might allow it to get started with fewer volunteers and with just a newsletter before branching into other areas. If it does become successful, the larger number would be needed, but not something that would become unmanageable. There should probably be a board liaison, but I think this is a group that would not flourish if the board were to attempt to micro-manage it." Robert also agrees with Vicki's comments, noting "It is important to focus on the county sites in particular whether the target audience is CCs or the general public. One of the best ways to motivate CCs is by having them see or read how other CCs go about what they do...Having some of that information delivered directly to CCs and other project volunteers via a newsletter could save people a lot of time and effort." Kathy Heidel clarifies some of her thoughts on the newsletter: "in my opinion it should be CC run for the CC/SCs. It should focus on the County pages and interests and include submissions by the CC/SC's. I would like for it to include announcements of upcoming Events, Awards Recieved, County or State wide, for it to be their Newletter, somewhat like the RW newsletter. I don't think the AB should be involved except perhaps perhaps having the Newspaper "Manager" and a member of the AB to act as a go-between...Anyone could read it from perhaps the Regional lists and/or a website which could include pictures and etc. It could include help sections, suggestions, invitations to visit and etc. Also I don't believe anything Political or Board related should be included." Teresa notes that she did not mean for Board news to be "political" but merely a brief summary of the Board's recent activity. Nathan Zipfel lets the Board know that Alice Gayley, proposed editor for the newsletter, is away and to hold off on any questions for her. Kathy posts the URL for the WGW's newsletter, to serve as an example of another genealogy project's efforts in this direction. Vicki says that "Any mention of the AB is going to be politics no matter how you publish it. Politics has GOT to fade away in this project if we expect the volunteers to regain an interest." She asks Teresa is she now wants two newsletters, the DBS and a "serious" one and suggests that this might be "a little too much for the CC's to swallow." She asks Teresa "have you ever considered stopping your DBS as a sign to regain confidence in the project for the good of us all?" Teresa forwards a request regarding the Root$web Review to the "liaison". Betsy deigns to reply to the request, even though she finds its tone "insulting". She says she will pass it on to the RWR editor, but will not answer such requests in the future unless they are asked in a tone that pleases her. She later lets the Board know that its too late for the USGenWeb URL to be included in this week's RWR but it will be included in future editions. Thursday 4 October 2001: Teresa notes that the project membership does not consist of children and that it is unlikely they will object to a brief summary of Board activity in the proposed newsletter. In regards to the DBS, she notes that it will not be redundant or in conflict with the general interest newsletter and that "A project newsletter aimed at the the CCs and/or the general public can have an entirely different focus than the DBS...Our volunteers are, I am sure, capable of choosing among the many sources of information available to them." She points out that if the Board does not wish to include news of its activity in the newsletter "the DBS will be pleased to remain the primary source of information regarding the Board and its activities." [I also told the Board that I have received email slurring Alice Gayley, the proposed editor of the newsletter. Sadly, this is true. Interestingly enough, although the email appears to have come from a former Board member, it really is not that person's style, and it bears the distinct whiff of Linda "Nothing Better To Do" Lewis.] Robert forwards a suggestion from a CC that the proposed publicity committee have regional membership, noting "this could be useful in allowing some part of the committee to concentrate in promoting activities their respective regions." -- In Executive Session: --no activity === "Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not; a sense of humor to console him for what he is." ---Francis Bacon 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 Oct 5 22:30:22 2001 Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 22:30:21 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Bhow, 10/5/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Thank god its Friday...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Thursday 4 October 2001: Jana Black initiates a discussion on including the Special Projects on the Board and in USGenWeb in general: "Originally the USGW Project was designed to offer researchers pithy genealogical content on folks who have lived in every county in every state in the United States. While I was not a CC originally, I was on the USGW list and remember well when discussion of Special Projects first came up. Then, as now, I was concerned that SPs would merely scatter our Project focus away from developing county sites...it takes a level of research sophistication to know to even look for a website focused on a special category of information...Therefore, I am not sure it is in the best interest or an appropriate focus for us to envelop Special Projects under the wings of the USGW Project *at all.* I think we should encourage the development of Special Projects and offer support where we think the results will benefit researchers and out Project, but, beyond that, Special Projects need to stand or fall on their own. They must take responsibility for creating their own inner operating systems and to deal with their own inner politics. I think USGW Project offering links to any such services the AB deems relevant which also follow our own mission statement...Frankly, I think we need to change the bylaws and eliminate Board representation for Special Projects and put ourselves as the USGW Project into the driver's seat where we belong focused on what we do best, developing our county sites. Ron Eason agres with Jana and notes that "I have actually echoed your sentiments, privately, and tried to get feedback as to the idea of doing away with all representation for Special Projects and was basically told, that it would never fly...it would be okay to eliminate the Census position as well as the Tombstone position, but that the Archives position would not be an acceptable loss. It was argued that the size and number of people represented by the Archives was far too large to even think of removing representation." In regards to the Census Project, he notes, "...I have tried for many years to try and get equal and fair representation for the Census Project as was called for in the Bylaws...one Census Project should not be recognized, as during this past election, without doing the same for the other. That is only fair and equal treatment. Beyond that, we will need to decide on many issues that lead up to and surround the Census Issue." Betsy Mills basically agrees with Ron and notes "It was actually one of my goals this year to see if we couldn't remove the Special Projects from the bylaws. They can be "satellite" projects or whatever you want to call them, a special logo can be created for them and a page linking to ALL approved projects. This would include the archives. In the past, Joe and Pam both expressed agreement with this idea and would have offered to give up their seats if this could be accomplished. It might be easier/nicer to grandfather the seats that are currently filled until their term expires...This project was set up as a linking of all counties to states and all states to US pages. I just think there will be a lot less dissension if we return to that. And do realize that the fact that the other CP voted was NOT discussed by the board or voted on -- it seems it was a done deal when the board found out about it. I believe (and someone WILL correct me if I am wrong) that they were not allowed to vote in the run-off election. It was also checked and determined that the outcome of the first election wouldn't have changed if the votes were removed as there weren't that many folks who didn't have some other role in the Project that allowed them to vote. I can guarantee you that if I had been asked to vote on whether or not to allow the other CP to vote, I would have said "no." Phyllis Rippee notes how many times the Special Projects are mentioned in the bylaws and says "IF it is decided to proceed with this idea...I think that it would be possible to do it with one amendment....but I am a "neat-nic" and if there is a bylaws revision committee established, would like to see same revised in such a way as to actually present an updated document, free of the term "special project." But, that brings up the subject of whether or not we want to tackle a bylaws revision project and we've already got quite a bit on our plate." Friday 5 October 2001: Teresa Lindquist suggests forming two subcommittees, one for the newsletter/publicity committee and one for bylaws revision, both of which are to operate publicly. She says "IMO, the Board cannot hope to handle these issues, as well as numerous others that have been suggested, by itself. It would be better to establish committees in which we participate in order that we may accomplish more in a shorter span of time and so that we may direct our attention to any sudden issues that come up." Kathy Heidel wants to form a "Study Committee" for a newsletter. She notes "the Newsletter and Promotions are and should be 2 separate committees...I would like very much to carry through with this project, and would like to form a Newsletter Study Committee/Group, I believe that 2 - 3 weeks should be enough time to find an Editor, decide format and present to the Board for this project to continue and begin publication...Public Relations and Promotions are different Areas and should not be lumped all together with Newsletters because the P/P is focused more towards people from Outside the Project telling what we do. Newsletters are for and by the CC/SC Project Membership telling what we did." Teresa notes that she thought this would be something the suggested committee could discuss and make a recommendation, but that her preference is for a newsletter that appeals to members and nonmembers. Phyllis doesn't think there will be a problem with having two newsletters and says "I believe that there is enough interest in the Project that there won't be any lack of volunteers for committiees and we can avoid the perception of the "ins" and "outs."" Phyllis asks some questions about how committees are generally set up by the Board and what the usual compositions of committees is. Jana asks Phyllis to elaborate on her comments regarding the bylaws and special projects. She is "bogged down". Phyllis notes that the bylaws not only call for Special Project by name and gives them Board seats, but are riddled with references to the SPs. The Board has several options open to it regarding changing this. She says "It's not just the elimination of Special Project status....is also includes establishing a different status for them....so that they are separate entities, yet linked to the whole. And, this would lead to gaping holes in the bylaws if they are not changed." Jana posts several replies she has received regarding the special projects issue. They will not be repeated here, but she summarizes them: "So far *all mail* but one is in favor of separating the SPs from the Project and eliminating the Board position. Positive response to Betsy's idea of creating a USGW Logo of Approval for SPs that meet our standards to use on their sites and Positive comments regarding encouraging CCs to link to any available information on their county for researchers and for the National Site to offer links to "Approved SPs"." Jana agrees with Kathy about forming a newsletter committee and says she's "certainly willing to collaborate with others interested, Board or CC." [Heh, I didn't get that impression when Kathy asked her the first time.] Pam Reid writes an extensive message on the issue of removing the special projects from the Board and revising the bylaws. She does not object to it in principle and doesn't think that losing the seats will be detrimental to the Board. She notes "it would seem that popular opinion favors eliminating these seats and as I said before, I have no objection. Phyllis made the point that in order to do this, the Bylaws have to be changed. It shouldn't be very difficult to get this change passed since the membership seems to be in favor." However, she thinks some thought should be put into issues involved with removing the SPs, particularly the Archives, from USGW altogether. She notes "this proposal brings with it some very major problems. While many counties have put records online in HTML format, just as many others chose to use the Archives as a digital library for the records submitted to their counties. So, if they are in the Archives and the Archives is no longer an official part of USGW, how will this work?" [Jana Black responds at length to this, but adds essentially nothing to the discussion; if you wanna see it, look it up ] Ron Eason also responds at length to Pam's post, mostly a rehash of issues revolving around the vacant Census Project seat, but he does state "I would rather that we follow the suggestion of a [bylaws] committee and let there be some dialoque, that is meaningful and allowing the voices of all parties be heard with the hopes that a fair and impartial recommendation can be made. I also think that the SP's are beneficial and too feel that an atempt to remove them will prove to be a much more problematic solution than trying to find a single solution to the Census problem created when that seat first became open." Holly separates the ongoing discussion into three broad categories: Publicity/Promotion [to include the newsletter(s)], Guidelines, and Bylaws. She suggests "that we find some means to define these three committees, their structure and goals and get started. Perhaps interested board members would each *sign up* for the topic of their choice (a temporary *starter* committee) and come up with a proposal for that topic's committee." So far, Kathy and Jana have volunteered for the Publicity/Promotion committee. -- In Executive Session: --no activity == "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise." ---F. Scott Fitzgerald 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 Sat Oct 6 21:27:29 2001 Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 21:27:28 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 10/6/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Packed with peanuts...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Friday 5 October 2001: Teresa Lindquist indicates that she is interested in serving on the Bylaws and Guidelines "starter" committees. Nate Zipful would like to serve on the Bylaws committee or Guidelines as his second choice. Tina Vickery passes on a suggestion from Alice Gayley, who is the proposed editor of the newsletter. Alice asks "Why aren't we sending an announcement of the new National Coordinator and new Advisory Board to organizations with which we interact directly or indirectly." She notes "If we keep our name in front of these "folks" they may eventually get to know that we are an independent stand-alone organization. Corporations, governments, and other organizations make these kinds of announcements in newspapers every day. Simple, direct, and to the point." Saturday 6 October 2001: Ron Eason says he would consider volunteering for the Bylaws committee. Diane Montgomery asks for Guidelines and/or Bylaws. Tina Vickery opts for Guidelines. Phyllis is interested in Bylaws. Vicki Shafer also wants Bylaws and Guidelines, as does Mary Ann Hetrick. Phyllis wishes Kathy Heidel a happy birthday [as does the DBS, and many more!] -- In Executive Session: --no activity === What Goes Around Comes Around Corner: Board member Richard Harrison has announced the formation of something called "the Friends of IAGenWeb" which apparently exists to solicit funds to support the IAGW's web space. Here's Richard's announcement: "IAGenWeb has taken some initiative to insure its independence in the ever-changing internet world. "Friends of IAGenWeb" has been organized to meet the financial needs of our project. Space has been arranged for our state pages and we will soon be opening our own set of boards for queries, surnames, obits and bios that will be available to all IAGenWeb Project CCs. For more information visit our site at http://iagenweb.org/state/friends.htm IAGenWeb is the third state to more or less go "independent" and formally arrange its own affairs; KSGenWeb and TNGenWeb both made this decision a couple of years ago. Of course, they don't solicit or accept donations, much less offer the convenience of Paypal to their customers. Note, the FOIAGW does not appear to be a tax-exempt organization; donations go to Loren Toomsen, who is both the treasurer and the apparent lessee of the domain name [its registered to IAGenWeb, but IAGW apparently lives in the same house as Mr. Toomsen]. We'll be interested to see how far this goes. There have been moderate outcries in the past when SCs have tried to raise money to help support servers or pay for hosting services, and this will probably be no different. [Paypal though, that's a first]. It does after all flirt with flaunting the bylaws. But I think we are likely to see more and more of this sort of thing in the near future. Its a sign of the times and changing circumstances as USGW and its components grow larger and more complicated and real concerns about future stability begin to be addressed. We can't count on Ancestry's largesse forever [especially if CMGI's stock continues to tank], and we can't all rely on state libraries or non-profit benefactors to provide our space. So the money has to come from somewhere. And really, what better place than our visitors' pockets? [You know, Paypal allows its users to invest their funds while Paypal holds them...one more way to make your money work for IAGW.] === "We submit to the majority because we have to. But we are not compelled to call our attitude of subjection a posture of respect." ---Ambrose Bierce 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 Oct 7 12:12:28 2001 Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 12:12:27 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 10/7/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Typed by Chinese in Hong Kong...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Sunday 7 October 2001: Pam Reid posts another longish message regarding the Special Projects and revising the bylaws: "...there are some parts of this discussion that bother me more than a little. For one thing, I don't really understand why there seems to be such a rush to act on the proposal...There is time for thought and careful consideration of the proposal and all of the possible problems with it...If we act according to the bylaws on the amendment, the amendment would be proposed by a state, would need five sponsoring states to be placed on the ballot and would be voted on during the regularly scheduled voting period. I hardly think this issue qualifies as "an urgent matter affecting the well-being of The USGenWeb Project"...While I see that the sentiment of many of the more vocal project members leans toward strengthening the County oriented core of USGW, I believe that the SPs enjoy a great deal of support in USGW as a whole...I have been trying to figure out why some seem to feel that eliminating SPs from the USGW is such a good idea...I have formed the opinion that this might stem from an unwillingness to deal with the Census Project issue. Perhaps some feel it would be easier to take the path of least resistance and just eliminate all SPs rather than to handle the problem areas. I want to go on record as being in complete disagreement with that...if someone does propose an amendment that eliminates Board seats for the individual SPs, I believe that the SPs should have ONE board seat that represents all of the SPs...SPs play a very valuable role in the USGW framework and eliminating them would be detrimental to the Project and its long term goals. I also want to state again my belief that the Archives is not a Special Project. The USGW Archives is the centralized, digital library for this Project and is one of our most valuable assets." Tim Stowell is interested in participating in the Bylaws committee. Holly Timm posts the following rules for Board-Exec: "Except as noted below, no one is to repeat, quote, paraphrase or report what is said on the Board-Exec list. If you see an issue discussed here that you believe should be discussed on Board-L, request here that it should be moved and if it is possible to do so without dragging discussion of individuals or identification of individuals to Board-L or if there is general agreement that an issue should be brought before the project even if individuals are concerned, I will open the topic on Board-L. When we are discussing grievances etc, I will give the Board Secretary a general statement to include in the Board Report such as a "Grievance of a CC against an SC is being discussed on Board-Exec" or "An SC has requested advice on dealing with a problem". If you think I have missed adding something to the Board report that ought to be listed, you may say so here or privately to me. Often the best course may be to complete the discussion first and then report for example that "A grievance was addressed regarding a state election and it was found that the SC acted appropriately (or inappropriately as the case may be)". Personal posts such as "I'm going to be away and will have limited email access" are NOT to be reported in any way. If someone is going to be away or in the hospital for surgery or whatever they don't necessarily want the world to know and if they do, they should be the one to tell them. Minor infractions of the rules will result in a warning, major or repeated infractions will find the offender removed from the Board-Exec list." -- In Executive Session: --rules for Board-Exec are discussed and promulgated === Hide And Seek Corner: And we all thought a new day was dawning. Silly us. Let me tell you a little secret about our favorite secret list. I've been reading Board-Exec on and off for almost three years now. They don't use it all that often for stuff that can't be discussed in public. The occasional grievance, on and off again notices of absence, a personal question or two now and again. They don't need the list, but they sure _want_ it. Why? For one thing, Its a lot easier to bad-mouth trouble-makers [or each other] in secret; they do this surprisingly often. And for another thing, many of them don't really want to know what you think [especially if you are one of the aforementioned troublemakers] and if we discuss stuff in public, guess what? We get all sorts of impertinent questions and comments from the peanut gallery. As an added bonus, on the secret list we can futz around on a topic for weeks and you won't even know we are discussing it. The we can either let it fade away and no one's the wiser or we can present whatever we've been discussing as a fait accompli and with a more or less united front. After all, as Our Former Esteemed National Commander once told us [on Board-Exec] "CCs don't need to know everything." We particularly don't need to know how little they think of us or how badly they conduct their business when they think no one is watching. I'm not particularly opposed to the existence of Board-Exec, and I don't deny that the Board may at times need to have a private session to discuss grievances or whatever. But here's what will happen. Over time, and rapidly I'll bet, it will gradually come to replace Board-L as the main Board session, as it has in the past. Discussion will by default be started there and by tradition and because its easier continued there. There will be big stretches of time when Board-L is a desert because all the action is on the secret list. Certain of my colleagues have been literally aching for the list to get back to its normal hidden self; these new marching orders will no doubt fill them with a sense that all is once again set right. [I expect the gloating email from Jana in my inbox within minutes.] And when you ask us what the Board is doing and we tell you "oh, don't worry, we never use Board-Exec for anything important", guess what? We're lying. Under Tim's, oops, I mean Holly's new orders, we can't even decide to move the discussion to the open, she's the one who decids. Now, there have been some complaints that as the situation now stands, one person [yours truly] is deciding what is presented and how it is presented. Holly's orders just switch that situation to a different person [her]. And of course, the orders are accompanied, like Bob's and Beth's and Tim's before her, by threats of removal from the list. Did the Board discuss and decide on these rules? Would be nice, but we didn't [Although I bet #holly has been a hopping place these last few days]. Did we vote on them? Nope. They just descended on us from above. As usual in USGW, the more things change, the more they stay the same. === "Secrecy is the badge of fraud." ---Sir John Chadwick This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.