From merope@Radix.Net Mon Oct 15 12:05:04 2001 Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 12:05:03 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 10/15/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Catching up...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Sunday 14 October 2001: Phyllis Rippee reminds the Board again that it will require revision of the bylaws to change the status of the Special Projects. She notes in particular that she'd like to see them called something other that "Special Projects" because "My little ol' county site isn't as big as the Archives, and may be considered very insignificant by everybody else, but it's every bit as "special" to me as any other part of the USGW P." She asks "Are either of the two current CPs recognized as "Special Projects?" Did either of them follow the procedure of becoming special projects as set forth in Section 1 of Article XIII, USGW P Bylaws? Are both of them subject to Section 5., Article XIII?" She also points out that "We already have bylaws requirements for the establishment/designation of SPs and breaking away from an established Special Project does not appear to be one of them." In Executive Session: --no activity In the Bylaws "starter" committee: --scope, procedure, and composition are discussed In the Guidelines "starter" committee: --no activity === Remember this quote in the next day or so: "It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than to put out on the troubled seas of thought." ---John Kenneth Galbraith 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 Oct 16 12:21:50 2001 Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:21:49 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 10/16/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Just another unfounded rumor...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Tuesday 16 October 2001: Teresa Lindquist once again introduces the issue regarding the xxgenweb.xxx domain names purchased by a non-USGenWeb member. She asks if the Board should write a letter to the SCs informing them of the issue or if "the simplest thing would be for someone here who is an SC to bring this issue to the attention of the SC list." Robert Bremer thinks it would be preferable for the issue to be raised on the SC list "to see if there is any interest in having the board pursue the matter in any way." He notes that he is getting mixed signals on this issue and says "why even try if the SCs of the individual states don't care. It's their domain names at issue. So, I think we need to find out from the SCs." Phyllis Rippee asks Holly Timm to specifically outline the duties of the "starter" committees recently set up to address the bylaws, guidelines, and publicity/promotion issues. She notes "The bylaws "starter" committee for example would like to know: 1. Are we supposed to come up with specific procedural instructions for the revision committee to follow? 2. After determining the number and other qualifying requirements, are we to ask for volunteers and select a slate of candidates to present to the entire AB for approval on an "all or none" basis? 3. How specific do you want the "scope" statement to be?" Phyllis thinks a letter should be sent to each SC informing them of the domain name issue. She then thinks the AB should consider these issues: "First: Does the XXGenWeb domain issue qualify as a national, or state, issue? Second: IF is it a state issue, do we as the national board have the right to interfere unless asked to do so by an SC, ASC, or petitioned by 2/3 of the CCs for a particular state? Third: Regardless of whether it is the AB, or SCs, what can be done?" -- In Executive Session: --no activity Bylaws 'starter' committee: --discussion of scope, procedure and composition continues Guidelines 'starter' committee: --no activity === "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." ---Dr. Seuss 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 17 18:54:09 2001 Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 18:54:08 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 10/17/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: From bad to worse...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Tuesday 16 October 2001: Teresa Lindquist forwards an extensive list of the domains registered to Tracy Parson-Holder. Phyllis Rippee posts the following motion: Pursuant to Section B., subsection 1. of the Mediation Process, requiring the Advisory Board members to nominate 5 Advisory Board members to serve as mediators for the Board term, I move that National Coordinator, Holly Timm, be required to direct this process to begin." Teresa seconds this motion. Jana Black suggests that the Board create a "working agenda" that "will allow us to move through the discussions in a somewhat orderly way." She asks for input on creating this committee and suggests the following topics for discussion: "Does the XXGenWeb domain issue qualify as a national, or state, issue? Second: IF is it a state issue, do we as the national board have the right to interfere unless asked to do so by an SC, ASC, or petitioned by 2/3 of the CCs for a particular state? Third: Regardless of whether it is the AB, or SCs, what can be done? 2) Special Projects: First: Is this a pressing issue? Second: What is the impact on the Project to leave the status of the SPs "as is" until we complete a Bylaws Revision? (Are either of the two current CPs recognized as "Special Projects? Therefore do we need to seat a CP Rep?) Third: What is in the best interests of the Project in this regard? 3) Committees: First: progress reports Second: clarifications regarding our "assignment" to design the committees 4) Mediation panel: motion made and seconded" Holly Timm asks Phyllis to move "that we proceed with taking nominations for the mediation panel," then if it passes, the Board can go immediately into the nominations. As the second, Teresa notes that this is fine with her and asks how many nominations the Board will be taking for the mediation pane. Holly informs the Board that she has posted a letter to the SCs regarding the domain name issue and appending the list of domains known to have been purchased. [The responses on the SC list have been similar to those on -ALL: some want to sue, some wonder what the big deal is, some point out that Traci has spent a lot of money for nothing. One SC noted that he had presented the issue to his CCs, but before many of them had a chance to respond, the domains for his state were purchased.] Holly lays out what is expected of the "starter" committees [better late than never]: "The interested board members who have gathered for each committee should come up with a motion or draft motion covering the structure and goals of the committee. Structure being number of members of the committee and any definitions thereof (position, region, etc) if thought desirable. Goals being the purpose and function of the committee as specific or general as the *starters* think adviseable." She thinks it is probably best not to lock the committees into specific procedures and that committees need not be selected prior to submitting the motion. She suggests that the "scope" statement produced by the Bylaws committee be "fairly specific" and notes "You might also want to consider that there are probably certain issues (such as the Special projects) that might be brought before the board for decisions on the substance, leaving the actual ByLaws changes required by that decision to the Bylaws committee as well as some coordination required with the Guidelines Committee on any changes to the Guidelines that are presently included in the ByLaws." Wednesday 17 October 2001: Holly forwards the most recent Election Committee report to the Board [it will follow this edition of the DBS in full]. Phyllis withdraws her mediation panel motion. --- In Executive Session --no activity Bylaws "starter" committee: --discussion on committee composition and scope continues Guidelines "starter" committee: --discussion ensues on composition and scope === "The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic." ---Bertrand Russell 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 17 18:33:25 2001 Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 18:33:24 -0400 (EDT) From: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: EC Quarterly Report Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Election Committee Report: >******************** >USGenWeb Election Committee >Report # 5 >October 15, 2001 > > >The Following Quarterly Report is submitted to the Advisory Board of the >USGenWeb Project: > >The AB requested the EC to host a Poll to determine the opinions of the >Project members in the SW/SC Region for a replacement for an AB member who >had resigned. Just as the Poll was scheduled to get underway the server, >that hosts our voting software, was attacked by a virus and the Poll had to >be re-scheduled. While the University's server was down the University made >the decision to upgrade their operating system. Once that was done it was >found that our voting booth software was unreliable under the new operating >system. Larry Stephens therefore wrote an opinion form and tallied the >results by hand. The Poll was completed with no problems and the results >were sent to the AB and the Membership at Large. > >During the course of the last 6 months the EC had lost 3 committee members. >A request for volunteers was posted on the appropriate e-mail lists and on >the EC's Web Site. After due discussion and votes the 3 new members were >chosen and submitted to the AB for final approval. The AB approved the >volunteers and they have now been seated on the Committee. > >With the EC at full strength again the EC will be working on the following: >(1) Determining what the problem is with the Voting Booth Software and >solving the problem. >(2) Completing the work on setting up a data base that will allow Volunteers >to self register for any election, allow the EC members to maintain the >information in the data base and produce verification reports by State for >the SCs prior to any election. >(3) During the elections and day to day operations of the EC, the EC has >found some things in the ESC Guidelines that were wonderful ideas but that >didn't work during the election and during day to day operations and found >things that should be in the guidelines that are not. Therefore the EC will >be working on revising the Guidelines to reflect these needed changes in the >coming weeks. >(4) We will be formulating some working procedures to standardize the >handling of nominations, self-registration and general working procedures >for regional teams. > >The first term for part of the EC will be over Jan 1st, therefore the EC >will once again be requesting volunteers during the month of December. > >Linda Haas Davenport >Chair, USGenWeb Project Election Committee From merope@Radix.Net Fri Oct 19 06:33:56 2001 Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 06:33:56 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 10/19/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: The drumbeats of the apocalypse...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Wednesday 17 October 2001: Jana Black posts this motion: "Pursuant to Section B., subsection 1. of the Mediation Process, requiring the Advisory Board members to nominate 5 Advisory Board members to serve as mediators for the Board term; I move that we proceed with taking nominations for the mediation panel" [Jeez, maybe _now_ we can get this show on the road...] Kathy Heidel and Tina Vickery second the motion. Richard Harrison thinks the Board should "make 5 new appointments each year with the provision that any mediations in progress would be completed by the mediators already involved with them." Thursday 18 October 2001: Phyllis notes that "The Mediation Process calls for members to be selected for "the Board term." It doesn't say for their board terms." Phyllis says "The reason I said that we should register according to what we are said to be in the bylaws is because this is currently acceptable to quite a few SCs and CCs who have told me that if we incorporate, they walk." She suggests that now is not the time to test whether or not something is "a threat or a promise". [If this seems a little non sequiter-ish, it is. It has to do with a Private Secret Something currently under discussion on Board-Exec.] Holly asks for discussion on Motion 01-33 (mediation panel). One Board member indicates that no discussion is necessary. --- In Executive Session: --Holly Timm posts two messages to Board-Exec. A great deal of discussion ensues. Bylaws "starter" committee: --discussion of scope continues Guidelines "starter" committee: --discussion includes definitions of guidelines === "Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise." ---Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland 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 20 17:13:08 2001 Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 17:13:07 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 10/20/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Plain ol' common sense...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Friday 19 October 2001: Phyllis Rippee asks what will happen if there are not 5 Board members willing to serve as mediators. Several more Board members feel there is no need to further discussion Motion 01-33 (mediation panel). Tina Vickery outlines her concerns regarding the mediation panel motion. She notes that she is both an SC and an ASC and that she makes diligent efforts to resolve all issues brought to her, even bringing in other parties to assist if she is not comfortable addressing it herself. She asks "Once an issue has reached us, without firsthand knowledge and participation, along the way, do you feel as if you can help facilitate a solution? Wouldn't you as a Board member feel more comfortable and helpful, if the issues were presented to you regionally, before they escalated to the level that we see them?" Jana Black agrees that everything possible should be done to resolve disagreements before they come to the board, she believes "the first job of any mediator is to solicit information from all parties involved listening without comment, but asking questions until the mediator feels entirely comfortable that they have a clear, impartial picture of the problem and all the issues fully delineated." She would then feel "quite equipped" to facilitate solutions. She also notes that "would prefer it to have been addressed at a regional level first, but if for whatever reason, it is approached at a national level first, I feel comfortable finding ways to contact the respective regional representatives, to let them know the issue has come up and to ask them if they are aware of the situation, have looked into it and to ask what they choose to do next." She notes that this is "plain ol' common sense" and that "Mediation is a hard and time consuming job, no two ways about it." Saturday 20 October 2001: Phyliss notes that in her opinion "The grievance process is flawed. The Mediation Process needs some revision. We need to set up a committee to study the grievance process, including but not limited to the revising of the Mediation Process." However, she does think we need a Mediation Panel available to handle any requests for mediation in the interim. --- In Executive Session: --Two topics are currently under discussion. Participants include Kathy Heidel, Jana Black, Tina Vickery, Nate Zipfel, Ron Eason, and via private mail, myself. Bylaws "starter" committee: --discussion continues on committee size Guidelines "starter" committee: --no activity === "I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not so desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right." ---Henry David Thoreau This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.