From merope@Radix.Net Sat Sep 1 12:39:11 2001 Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 12:39:10 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 9/1/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: The changing of the guard...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Friday 31 August 2001: Tim Stowell posts the results of the vote on Motion 01-25: the motion passed with 14 yes votes. Saturday 1 September 2001: Tim thanks the departing Board members for the service and notes "Much has been accomplished including request for a service mark, setting up of a mediation board and a standing election committee formed." He welcomes the new members and sends this message to the Project membership: "it has been my distinct pleasure to serve as your National Coordinator since January 1999. While we have disagreed on some things along the way, it has always been my desire to further the Project's presence and scope. I've done this to the best of my ability giving as much or more time to the Project than my career. Thanks to those of you who supported my efforts by placing your trust in me through 3 elections. I realize that some of you and I have parted ways since then and that's ok for each must make up their own mind what's best for their relationship to the Project and to their fellow co-workers. And now let's move on to the future." Tim posts the subscription info for Board-L: 140 total subscriptions. Holly Timm also thanks the departing Board members and welcomes the new members, and asks "that past animosities be set aside and that we all try to treat each other with respect, agreeing to disagree where necessary." === Keys To The Kingdom Corner: We are pleased to report that we have been subbed to all the secret lists. Finally. Tim Stowell admitted in another venue that he had subbed everyone but myself and Ron Eason to the lists [Hey, when the man says "bully pulpit" he _means_ "bully pulpit"] but all is in order now, as far as I can tell. Nothing of interest to report so far on any of them and the transition appears to have been orderly. Paint By Numbers Corner: The results of the Election Committee's survey are up at: http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/ === "Its the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine." ---R.E.M. 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 Sep 2 17:57:16 2001 Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 17:57:16 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 9/2/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: Sticking a toe in the water...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Saturday 1 September 2001: Holly Timm asks for a motion to accept Ken Short's resignation. Richard Harrison moves "that the Board accept with regret Ken Short's resignation as CC Representative for the SW/SC Region." Kathy Heidel seconds the motion and Holly asks for either discussion or a call for a vote. Holly conducts a roll call of members. Sundee Maynez publishes a Board Report. Sunday 2 September 2001: Teresa Lindquist [ok, this is _weird_!] calls for a vote; Holly gives the motion number 01-26 and asks for a second on the call for a vote. Ron Eason [also very weird] seconds the call. Voting on "proceeding to a vote" on motion 01-26 proceeds; thus far 9 Board members have voted Yes. === In Executive Session: -A roll call is being conducted -The Board discusses unsubstantiated and later disproven rumors that Ancestry.com has been purchased by Iwon.com -A draft version of the letter to the membership approved in Motion 01-25 has been requested; it will be "fine-tuned" in Executive Session. === Damning With Faint Praise Corner: An article in the Wall Street Journal from Thursday Aug 30 discusses online genealogy and ranks a handful of the available sites. USGenWeb was one of them and here's what they had to say about us: "Volunteers are building a collection of random, yet wide-ranging, free databases covering census images, digital maps, and military pensions. theres is also a separate tombstone project, which indexes cemeteries across the country. Its mailing lists are also a valuable tool, but user participation is variable. Design: Poor. There are USGenWeb volunteers across the country, which means design is haphazard, often split up county by county. Bottom Line: Good. In this hit-or-miss environment, you'll either find incredibly detailed, and unexpected entries or nothing at all." Ancestry.com and the Ellis Island site were both ranked as Excellent, Cyndi's List was ranked very good, and FamilySearch.org was ranked as good. Roos$web and Genealogy.com were not apparently reviewed or ranked. And the point has been made elsewhere: the reviewer apparently missed entirely the point of USGenWeb's organizational structure, although he did obviously experience first-hand the haphazard quality it has produced. === Today's quote was submitted by a reader: Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic." ---Wally "Famous" Amos 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 Mon Sep 3 20:53:56 2001 Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 20:53:55 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 9/3/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: Laboring mightily on Labor Day...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Monday 3 September 2001: The roll call proceeds. Voting proceeds on the call for a vote on Motion 01-26. When 12 yes votes are reached, Holly Timm calls for a vote on Motion 01-26. The motion is declared passed with 13 yes votes. One additional vote was received after the motion was declared passed. Holly Timm asks for suggestions as to how to fill the vacant SW/SC CC rep seat. She notes "We now have a vacancy in the SW/SC CC Representative seat with not quite one year remaining in the term. There has been much discussion on the project's lists on this subject, the consensus seeming to me that the Region's volunteers should choose. I have asked Linda Haas-Davenport, chair of the Election Committee, and they could quickly set up a poll of the SW/SC regions voters to determine their choice for the replacement. Is this the best way to proceed? How do we choose who the voters choose from? ask for volunteers?" Richard Harrison suggests that "it would be reasonable to ask for volunteers, poll the voters for their preference, and make an appointment based on the results of the poll." Ron Eason says that when he asked his constituents about this "The majority response was that the choice should be solicited from the CC's in that Region, and that person be appointed by the Board." He notes "If the election committee can put together a nomination and election period that would and could be done in a short period of time, I would suggest that route as the fairest possible solution. I would support Don's selection as well, but I think that in order to avoid the appearance of favortism which has and will arise from that avenue, I think he deserves the chance to be elected fair and square." Teresa Lindquist says she will forward member comments on this topic in the morning. Jana Black likes Richard's idea of a poll and asks several questions: "1) Does "appoint" mean we cannot throw the choice back to voters in the region?...Could "appoint" also mean we ask for a poll from the CCs then make an AB selection based on their input? 2) What was Linda's answer? If there can be a quick poll, I think this would be the most prudent approach. 3) Is there precedent or criteria in the history of the Project for this kind of situation available for us to look over? 4) If not should we establish same?...5) It occurs to me that in several cases in the last election, folks from various regions chose to run at a national levels rather than at their regional levels...I think, if persons like this are willing, it makes sense to include them and have the regional CCs choose from the best possible array of candidates. 6) I also recall that some folks who did run had or have had changes of heart since. It occurs to me that this possibly could create a scenario where the candidate with the least votes could end up on the AB." Kathy Heidel says her experience has been that selecting the "next runner up" is not always the best choice but that having the Board select the replacement does not always work either. She suggests "if Linda could do a "mini-election" in a short time perhaps this would be the best and fairest way. Let volunteers send their names in and go from there. If we have to go through a nomination period it will take longer and right now we really should focus on filling the vacancy." In Executive Session: --The roll call proceeds. === "Many wearing rapiers are afraid of goosequills." ---William Shakespeare This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Tersea Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Tue Sep 4 12:26:04 2001 Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 12:26:03 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 9/4/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: Jesters do often prove prophets...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Monday 3 Sep 2001: Holly Timm clarifies that the Board can do a "poll" [note, we are carefully not calling this an election] using the election software and voter rolls for the SW/SC region. She also notes that nominations would take longer than just having interested persons volunteer. Holly answers Jana Black's questions from earlier. She notes "Appoint means the Board makes the final decision but it doesn't prevent us from seeking the region's opinion so yes, we can have a poll and as i think i said already, I can not imagine our not appointing their choice without some heavy duty reason." She clarifies again that the EC can conduct the "poll" quickly and notes "Previous vacancies have either been filled by appointment (without polling) or in one instance in conjunction with an election to replace an NC. [its also the case in the past that they have selected the runner-up from a previous election.] She does not think establishing the precedent of asking the CCs for their opinion is a bad thing and doesn't think that a poll will result in the "candidate with the least votes" ending up on the AB. Kathy Heidel is "in favor of the CC's from the SW/SC region volunteering themselves, Linda and her group doing a poll and the person selected by the CC's from the SW/SC Region be appointed by the Board." Betsy Mills agrees with Kathy. Based on Holly's response, Jana's opinion is that the Board "seek volunteers and poll the CCs, then run a mini-election to fill the vacancy," and then "once the position if filled, the Board can create criteria based upon our experience." Sundee Maynez asks Holly if she will be continuing as the Board Secretary, and if she is, what are the expecations Holly has of her. Robert Bremer has no objections to polling the region's CCs and asking for volunteers. However he notes several issues of concern: "1) Would the EC check the eligibility of each volunteer or will that be the responsibility of the Board in this situation? 2) If there are several volunteers, which seems possible considering the four candidates for the one open position in July, will the person with the highest number of votes be selected, even if that is less than 50%, or will we request a run-off poll more in line with a regular election? 3) If only one person ends up volunteering, do we automatically appoint that person?" He suggests resolving these issues prior to filling the seat to "avoid the inevitable controversy that would result by making up rules along the way." Tuesday 4 Sep 2001: Diane Parsons is also in favor of "the CC's from the SW/SC region volunteering themselves." She thinks the EC should verify nominees' eligibility and then a poll conducted. She notes "This way, who ever is selected will be already approved by the board." Teresa Lindquist forwards various member comments solicited at the end of August on the issue of filling the vacant seat. The comments range from supporting a mini-election to allowing the Board to appoint a replacement without any sort of poll or election of the CCs in the affected region. Teresa submits a draft letter for sending to the membership regarding the sale of the usgenweb.com domain. Robert finds the text of the letter OK as written. Teresa forwards information from a member regarding the prominent placement of the usgenweb.com domain on the front page of the USGenWeb home page and that links to the National Coordinator still go to Tim Stowell. Webmaster Pam Reid says she's happy to receive notice of these sorts of things and also points out there is a prominent link to the webmaster on every USGenWeb page. In response to Jana, Teresa asks what is the point of running a "mini-election" if the CCs have already been polled. She also suggests that it is "probably better to decide what we want to do first and then do it, rather than making it up as we go along." Teresa asks Tim Stowell to share with the Board the information he received in correspondence from the USPTO regarding the service mark applications. In Executive Session: -no activity === Update on the News Corner: There's been some action with all four of the service mark applications: USGenWeb Archives: On Aug 23 2001, "Final review prior to publication has been completed, application will be published for opposition" The USGenWeb Census Project: July 11 2001, "A non-final action has been mailed. This is a letter from the examining attorney requesting additional information and/or making an initial refusal. However, no final determination as to the registrability of the mark has been made." USGenWeb: On Aug 9, 2001: "A non-final action has been mailed. This is a letter from the examining attorney requesting additional information and/or making an initial refusal. However, no final determination as to the registrability of the mark has been made." The USGenWeb Project: On Aug 9, 2001: "A non-final action has been mailed. This is a letter from the examining attorney requesting additional information and/or making an initial refusal. However, no final determination as to the registrability of the mark has been made." Sayonara Corner: A history of the recently completed 2000-2001 Advisory Board term has been posted at: http://www.radix.net/~merope/history/brdhist3.htm === "Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master." ---Sallust 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 Sep 5 10:37:58 2001 Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 10:37:57 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 9/5/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: Democracy is messy...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! [bear with me, this is a long one today...] Tuesday 4 Sep 2001-Wednesday 5 Sep 2001: --The Board discusses the SW/SC regional "poll" in depth: Jana Black suggests that the Board "seek volunteers and poll the CCs (using the EC), then the Board appoints a Rep based to fill the vacancy based upon the results of the poll" She thinks its better to fill the seat first and then "officialize" the criteria the Board used to fill it so that "the newly elected Rep is included in the discussion and a full Board establishes it." Teresa Lindquist fowards some suggestions from project member Don Tharp regarding establishing a standard procedure for future Boards to use in filling vacant Board seats. Teresa thinks it is better to decide before an election "how we are going to run it and how we are going to handle the results." She notes "The consensus here seems to be that the EC should collect names of volunteers, the region's CCs should be polled, and the winner of the "poll" should then be appointed...I don't get the impression that the CCs really care if we poll them or not, just that we put someone in the seat in a timely and unbiased fashion. Its not a good idea to see who the winner is and _then_ decide what to do with the results." She has no objection to conducting a "poll" and thinks it is a good opportunity to let the EC mount a small election and see how it works. Teresa suggests the following motion and asks for comments: "I move that 1) The Advisory Board solicit via the state mailing lists volunteers for the vacant SW/SC Local Coordinator representative seat. Any person who is eligible to run for the seat, per the bylaws, may volunteer. The names of all volunteers will be forwarded to the Election Committee, which will verify eligibility. The period in which members may volunteer will be one week following the initial solicitation of volunteers. If there is only one volunteer, the Board may, at its discretion, directly solicit other eligible members to volunteer. 2) The Election Committee conduct a poll of the eligible voters in the SW/SC region, using their voting booth software, to determine member preference for the seat. This poll should start no later than one week after the volunteer period has ended. The EC will forward the results of the poll to the membership and to the Board. For the purposes of this poll, a simple majority [plurality?] will be sufficient. If there is a tie for "first place", the Board will choose among the tied volunteers. There will be no "run-off poll." 3) The Board agree a priori to appoint whoever the eligible voters indicate is their preferred choice for the seat." Richard finds item 1 "acceptable", the portions of item 2 dealing with ties and runoffs unneccesary since "we are conducting a poll, not an election", and item 3 "unacceptable", noting "While the Board members should listen to the opinions of their constituents in all matters, they shouldn't agree in advance to act on the results of a poll." Holly Timm objects to "the absolute commitment to the choice because this turns the poll into an election." She notes that a poll just gives the opinion of the region, while an election "makes the choice." She states "I can not imagine the board ignoring the opinion of the CC's but the final determination belongs with the board or it is not a poll, it is an election." Ron Eason agrees with Holly that "To depend exclusively on the outcome of the poll as the only factor would definitely classify it as an election." He suggests that the EC conduct the "poll" and forward the top 3-5 candidates [boy, is he optimistic] to the Board and then the Board would decide between them. Teresa notes "We will ask their opinion, but reserve to ourselves the right to ignore it if we don't like it." Jana asks if "Is there a way to get a poll accomplished w/o using the EC since it is a regional replacement?...Could each SC poll the CCs in his/her region and send the top three names on to the EC for compilation? Then as Ron suggests, perhaps the AB should appoint from that information...perhaps it would serve as the necessary safety measure to insure CCs that we want their input while we do our jobs." Robert believes the the difference between a "poll" and an "election" is in whether the results are binding, like an election would be, versus providing input to the board as the basis making for an appointment as required in the bylaws." He thinks using the EC to conduct whichever is preferable to having the SCs do it. [well, we all know how reliable some of the SCs are]. Tina Vickery agrees with him. Kathy Heidel is reluctant to let another committee make the decision for the Board. She also notes the difficulty of getting some SCs to participate in this sort of thing and would prefer the EC conduct the "poll". Jana is also comfortable with using the EC and once again raises the issue of members who's browsers do not use javascript. Tina raises a similar issue and asks how it can be resolved. Several members point out that the issue was addressed succesfully in the recently concluded election. Richard Harrison responds to Robert Bremer's comments, noting 1) either the the EC or area representatives can be responsible for verifying eligibility; 2) the suggested "poll" is not a new election and the "responsibility for making the appointment still rests with the Board members, and some flexibility should be retained for exercising that responsibility." and 3) if only one person volunteers, the Board should either work with local CCs to identify other candidates or seat the lone volunteer. Jana responds to Teresa's previous questions. She notes that it is the Board's duty to "sort out" the "burden" of issues presented by conducting a mini-election or poll. In the case of a tie, she suggests either getting more info from the CCs or letting the Board decide if it has enough information to make a decision. Which is pretty much her same answer if there is no clear majority. She thinks anyone who qualifies should be allowed to run, and seems to feel that the Board will "reflect their choices, not our own" with respect to seating the winner of the "poll", regardless of who it is. She "cannot imagine a situation in which "who" matters more than "what they represent" and what the voters *want* represented". [Oh, I can] Jana asks a question based on comments from the SW/SC regional mailing list: "If we (the AB) want to poll CCs for input before we appoint, but use the EC to do so, how is this a poll rather than a special election?... Additionally, the EC uses javascript software that some folks cannot use on their browsers, so, they effectively cannot vote. I am not sure how large a problem this is, but how should we handle it?" Jana forwards some more constituent input regarding the vacancy. Her correspondent suggests not using the EC but directly requesting input from the CCs via a letter. S/he also suggests "If you only get a dozen or so emails, it pretty much tells you that the majority do not care about it and trust you to do the selecting. I suspect that you will not get much input. But at least they would have all been heard, or been given the chance to be heard. Knowing that they have been heard, is often what the CCs want more than anything else." Teresa forwards some comments by former Board member Teri Pettit, who points out that one reason for not abiding by the results of a member "poll" is a low turnout. Teresa forwards some commments from member Roger Swafford, who points out that any poll run without proper security "can not provide 'the true will of the membership.' He suggests that the Board solicit volunteers, choose from among them and then appoint that person. Teresa suggests that it is pointless to go through the motions of a "poll" if the Board is going to reserve to itself the right to ignore the results. --The Board also discusses the letter to the Project mandated by Motion 01-25: Mary Ann Hetrick thinks the letter is fine, with the suggestion that Board member names do not need to be included. Kathy Heidel agrees with Mary Ann. Holly suggests a small change involving the URLs mentioned in the letter and also suggests a minor grammatical correction. Ron thinks the letter is fine as is. Jana agrees with Holly's suggestion. Based on these suggestions, Teresa amends the letter and moves to send it to the project membership [motion is appended in full at the end]. Kathy seconds the motion. --Miscellaneous: Jana forwards some questions regarding SCs and their accountability to their CCs and to the larger Project. Teresa responds that SCs are more or less unaccountable to their CCs and to the Project, they are not subject to "re-election, job assessment or evaluation" in the Project unless the state has adopted mechanisms for internal procedures and that SCs can remain in their jobs indefinitely if they so choose. Sundee Maynez notes that she has yet to receive an answer to her question about whether or not she is to remain as the Board Secretary. Tim Stowell refuses to inform the Board as to the contents of the correspondence regarding our mark applications without the permission of the Service Mark Committee. Teresa asks who the SMC might be and whether or the correspondence stated "Action on this application will be suspended pending the disposition of these applications." ["These applications" refers to Linda's application for "USGenWeb Archives" and to an application filed by a biotech company called "Geneweb".] Teresa also asks if any current Board members are on the committee and whether a committee report can be requested. Tim notes he is still receiving correspondence that should go to the National Coordinator. Pam Reid says she's corrected the addresses so this should stop happening. In Executive Session: --The Board discusses some "administrative issues" including voting periods, website maintenance, personnel issues, and Board-Exec list rules. [I'll leave you to guess who's bitching because this little summary exists.] === End of an Era Corner: Don Tharp, list manager for the CC-L list, has decided to close the list. In his farewell message to the list membership he says: "As most of you know the list was started for the benefit of all USGenWeb CCs. A list to be used as a forum to discuss USGenWeb in all of its manifestations. Membership also included those who had been denied use any RootsWeb facility. I felt the banning by RootsWeb limited USGW members from expression their opinions and ideas concerning the project and was a threat to many others. Recent action taken by the AB leads me to believe that there are no longer any USGenWeb members that are denied full participation on lists housed on any server used by the project. With that in mind this list is redundant and should be closed. However, if any members of USGenWeb are again denied use of the server which supports the USGenWeb lists, then I will, in a heartbeat, again activate a list where all CCs can participate in the free expression of their ideas and opinions. I do believe the list accomplished what we set out to accomplish. Thanks to all of you for your support and efforts over the past few years. Also we owe a thanks to Rootsquest, the server that supported this list." A big thanks goes out to Don from this member of the once-banned Root$web Four for sticking his neck out for so long on our behalf. And although I will miss CC-L enormously, I do sincerely hope this Project never needs it again. Whew! Corner: That's enough for now. I'll send out a late edition if there is activity to warrant it. === "At the heart of the First Amendment lies the principle that each person should decide for him or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence. Our political system and cultural life rest upon this ideal. Government action that stifles speech on account of its message, or that requires the utterance of a particular message favored by the Government, contravenes this essential right. Laws of this sort pose the inherent risk that the Government seeks not to advance a legitimate regulatory goal, but to suppress unpopular ideas or information or manipulate the public debate through coercion rather than persuasion." ---Turner Broadcasting System v. FCC, 114 S. Ct. 2445, 2458 US Supreme Court (1994) This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. === Motion submitted to the Board: "I move that the USGenWeb Advisory send the following letter to the Project members via the general, regional and state mailing lists as mandated by Motion 01-25: Dear USGenWeb Project member: On August 24, 2001 the USGenWeb Advisory Board was notified by the current registrant of the usgenweb.com domain name, Dale Schneider, that he is no longer interested in keeping it. He has offered to sell the registration to the USGenWeb Project for $2500; if the Project is not interested in purchasing it they indicate they will sell it at auction. Mr. Schneider has indicated that the price is negotiable and that there are several weeks available for the Project to make a decision on purchasing the domain. Please be assured that the Advisory Board is looking into the various options available to us and we will keep you informed as to the status of the domain and how we decide to respond to Mr. Schneider's offer. In the interim, we would like to remind all project members that our official domain is http://www.usgenweb.org and that all links to the USGenWeb Project home page should use this domain. If you have any questions about this issue or comments you would like to make, please contact your representative(s). A list of representatives and their contact information can be found at: http://www.usgenweb.com/about/whoswho.html Sincerely, Holly Timm, National Coordinator and the The USGenWeb Advisory Board" From merope@Radix.Net Wed Sep 5 15:56:45 2001 Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 15:56:45 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 9/5/2001, late edition Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: Too much is always better than not enough...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Wednesday 5 Sep 2001: [the discussion of the vacant seat goes on and on and on...]] Kathy Heidel suggests that the two SW/SC reps each choose a nominee and the Board select from between them. Teresa Lindquist agrees with this, except she would prefer that the Board solicit volunteers/nominations from the members. Nate Zipfel and Robert Bremer agree with Teresa; Robert also thinks the motion should not contain a requirement for the Board to automatically accept the results of the "poll". He notes however, "I do very much believe the board should appoint the person with the highest percentage in the poll. If we fail to do so because of politics, personalities, etc., then we as board deserve all the flack that our project volunteers can dish out." He asks Teresa to amend her draft motion and she agrees to do so if that is what the rest of the Board wishes. Holly Timm notes that the Board would need a "compelling reason" not to appoint the winner of a "poll", and sees "no reason why we should not obtain the opinion of the CC's of the region by means of a poll before we make that choice." Teresa Lindquist asks Holly to clarify what constitutes a "compelling enough reason to override the stated wishes of the membership when we have actually solicited their opinion." Jana Black refers her to a forwarded message from Teri Pettit and Teresa requests further clarification on what number of responses is enough for the Board to determine the "will of the membership". Richard Harrison likes the idea of polling members and would like to see it implemented in future appointments. However, he agrees with Kathy that the Board needs to move on this issue and prefers allowing any Board member to nominate candidates for the vacant seat. In another message he states "The only reasons not to conduct a poll are that we cannot quickly and easily agree on how to do it or on the degree to which it would be binding." Although he feels these issues could be worked out in time, he notes "if we want to accomplish this appointment promptly, we had better do it as we have in the past--accept nominations from any Board member and let the Board members determine the opinions of their constituents by their own devices." Jana's "common sense" tells her that "if only 117 people from that region voted the first go around, we already know we will likely be operating without the *actual* will of the membership...We must shoulder the responsibility for making tough choices as best we can with whatever we get...We can only offer the opportunity for input then do the best we can as a Board. I'll betcha this Board will work really hard to figure out a way to handle it that has CCs at its heart." [yeah, and if we don't like what they tell us, we'll just do what we want anyways...] Jana forwards another simple approach that "boggles" her mind: "The AB asks for volunteers from the region to submit their names directly to the AB and then appoints from that group of names as per the by-laws." [yes, folks, you read it here first; we have just re-invented the wheel. This is _exactly_ the way the Board has handled most recent appointments.] The Service Mark discussion also goes on: Tim Stowell informs the Board that Joe Zsedeny is the Chair of the Service Mark Committee and reiterates his refusal to tell the Board what was in the correspondence from the USPTO. He and Holly are the Board members on the SMC and and Teresa Lindquist asks Holly to share both the USPTO correspondence and the SMC's current activities with the Board. Holly forwards a brief report from Joe Zsedeny to the Board. It reads as follows: "We have received and posted a letter from the PTO here: http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/tm/usgw5.jpg http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/tm/usgw6.jpg http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/tm/usgw7.jpg http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/tm/usgwp5.jpg http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/tm/usgwp6.jpg http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/tm/usgwp7.jpg http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/tm/usgwp8.jpg This letter indicates a possible conflict between our application and the previously filed application of the USGenWeb Census Project. We have a letter in draft which will be sent to the PTO over Tim's signature. We are attempting to answer the points that we understand and find out exactly what changes are needed either to our applications or to the CP application so that both can be successful. I have a feeling that this can be worked out if all act in a spirit of good will and cooperation. My suggestion would be that once we have the necessary information in hand that Holly sit down with all parties and try to come to an agreement that will be satisfactory to all." In Executive Session: --The discussion of list rules and "privacy" continues. === Enough for today! This has been a late edition of 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 Sep 6 11:34:13 2001 Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 11:34:12 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 9/6/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: You don't need to know...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Wednesday 5 Sep 2001: Sundee Maynez posts a Board Report that is notable for its succint summation of the current discussion: "Currently the board is looking for options on how to appoint a new SW/SC CC rep. One idea had been to allow the CC's in that area make the choice or have a poll. Other options are also being explored." [heh, maybe I should take lessons ;) ] [Speaking of which...the "poll" discussion goes on...] Robert Bremer notes that "a poll in which only 30 or 40 people may respond would still be more representative than the dozen or fewer that may be inclined to express an opinion on one of the lists." He suggests that if no one has any objections to soliciting volunteers, polling the volunteers as to their preference, or appointing a replacement after the "poll", "perhaps we can move on to a motion to get this process underway. There are more important issues which we need to address." Teresa Lindquist points out that Jana Black's mind-bogglingly simple idea for soliciting volunteers and appointing from that pool is "the most common way that the Board has handled appointments in the past." Jana suggests using the following procedure: "The AB President solicits volunteers from the SW/SC Region. Volunteers will have until 12 PM PDT 7 September 2001 to email Holly. The AB will take the list to the CCs of the SW/SC Region for a poll conducted by the EC. CCs will have until 12 PM PDT 12 September 2001 to respond. The AB will look over the results and decide who to appoint in executive session. Results to be announced by 12 PM PDT 14 September 2001." [Jana, incidentally, has taken to Board-Exec like a duck takes to water.] Holly Timm says she cannot think of any compelling reason to override the wishes of the CCs in a poll [but she's still not willing to make the poll results binding on the Board] and suggests the following procedure: "1) We accept volunteers for X number of days or until a specified date (this Saturday midnight for example) (your choice of volunteers sending to me, the board as a whole, the EC) 2) The EC prepare for and then operate a poll of the SW/SC region for their choice of those volunteers running for X number of days or until a specified date/time. 3) The results of the poll to be publicly announced ASAP (the recent election run off results were available within 12 hours I believe) 4) With the results of the poll to guide them, the board appoints, presumably the leader in the poll." Kathy Heidel, Mary Ann Hetrick, Pam Reid, and Diane Parsons think Holly's plan is the way to go. Holly and Jana hash out time zone issues. Tina suggests sending the volunteers to the Election Committee and allowing members who cannot use the voting web pages to send their votes directly to Holly, Larry Stephens, and/or Linda Haas Davenport. Kathy also asks if voting problems experienced by some users can be addressed; Holly says she has asked the EC about it and will share their response with the Board [This request is based on a rather involved discussion in Executive Session; see below] The Service Mark discussion also continues: Holly forwards a message from the Service Mark Committee explaining what they have sent back to the USPTO. Basically they are asking the USPTO to clarify what it wants from us so that our applications won't conflict with the Census Project's. [incidentally, the Census Project's application is in conflict with the Archives' application not ours, apparently.] Thursday 6 Sep 2001: Holly forwards a message from the EC Chair that notes that the EC is now prepared to do the poll using a nominee/volunteer form, a system of voter registration, verification of regional members via the SCs, and notification of members on the poll, instructions, etc. She reminds the Board that the time zone used for voting must be CDT as that is the time zone the software is coded for. [Heh, Linda also snarked at me for telling the Board --and you-- that the EC members were reluctant to do the poll; apparently we don't need to know that.] Holly asks if there is any discussion needed on Motion 01-27, the "Motion 01-25 letter" motion. Thus far the consensus seems to be that none is needed. Teresa asks if there is any objection to approving in advance "a policy to accept the winner of the poll, subject to reversal by 2/3 of the board?" In response to this, Betsy Mills doesn't understand what's to worry about. She notes "The board members have all indicated that they WANT to hear and follow the wishes of the CCs in the SW/SC region...It will take 2/3 of the board members to confirm an appointment. IF it were to happen that 2/3 of the board members choose to ignore the wishes of the CCs and vote for a lesser choice, then you would also already have the 2/3 necessary to reverse a decision." When Teresa notes that it is her constituents that are worried about the Board's stance on this issue, Betsy replies "I suggest YOUR constituents need to put a little trust and faith in the integrity of THEIR board members. That is something that has been missing in this project. It is time that the distrust be put behind." [emphasis in the original] She notes that having her and Jana pick the candidates is beginning to sound like a "great idea". [This is exactly why Betsy's constituents are writing to me instead of her.] Teresa notes that the Board can call it what they want, but they are also "apparently unwilling to "put a little trust and faith" in the CCs and agree to abide by their wishes." Betsy believes that she is "ascribing your [Teresa's] twisted beliefs to the motives of the board members." and suggests it is Teresa's decision whether or not to trust her. Teresa, munching on cake, notes that its not her that needs to be able to trust Betsy. In Executive Session: --the discussion of list secrecy continues. The majority of responders seems to be in favor of having a secret list, but the Board is split about half and half as to whether this bland and detail-less summary is actually violating confidentiality or not. --There is an _extensive_ discussion on issues involving access to the voting software by a subset of the USGenWeb volunteer base who need to use text-based browser software, such as Lynx. The voting software uses javascript, and the text-based browsers are not compatible with it. The Board is discussing basically how to accomodate the needs of these people so that they can vote. === "When confronted by a difficult problem, you can solve it more easily by reducing it to the question, 'How would the Lone Ranger have handled this?'?" ---Brady's First Law of Problem Solving 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 Sep 7 12:29:39 2001 Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 12:29:38 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 9/7/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: Just a hop, skip and a jump...its your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Thursday 6 Sep 2001: Kathy Heidel thinks that "If you are holding an election, which in effect is what happens if you take the highest vote receiver and say this person is the new AB member, this is wrong, and against the bylaws. If you are having a poll then 2-4 people with highest votes would be considered by the AB and it would be a "Poll". [if nothing else, they are optimistic about the number of volunteers for the seat.] She is "I am opposed to selecting the person receiving the most number of votes is not the way I want to go about this." [Really? Honoring the CCs' wishes is "not the way to go about this"? Or at least, I think that's what she means...] Kathy thinks Teresa Lindquist's previous attempt at compromise on this issue constitutes an election "plain and simple". [I disagree, but what's the point?] Jana Black agrees with Betsy Mills that Teresa's suggetsion of compromise is unnecessary and says "We will listen, we will be responsive, but the final decision rests upon our shoulders." Teresa forwards a message from a volunteer who suggests that "the CCs in your area who were interested enough in national politics to vote in the last election have already spoken, and if the AB _CARED_ about trust, the choice would have been simple. If the position had been open to fill, as it was in NE/NC and SE/MA, both Jana and Don would have gotten seats". She asks why Don has not yet been appointed, and Teresa tells her she has no idea what the objection to seating him is [and its true, I don't. I know why Maggie and Tim didn't want him on the Board, but one of those folks is gone and the other is being pretty quiet these days, and I have no idea how the rest of the Board feels about him.] Jana asks if Board-L is archived and where the subscription information can be found on Root$web. Kathy takes another shot at explaining to Teresa why whatever the Board decides eventually to do will satisfy the CCs. She notes "Betsy and Jana are the SW/SC Reps it is their job to listen to constituents from that Region also. I trust their opinion and they represent me, most of my sites rest in their regions." [they represent me too, but that's apparently not important.] Kathy says she just wants to follow the bylaws and please the CCs and suggests that the Board "either allow the 2 Reps to represent their Region, or have a Poll, not Election, and have the end result from either way selected, presented to the Board. After which the AB as a group will select which person will represent the SW/SC region along with Betsy and Jana." Holly Timm notes that if both seats were open at the time of election, each volunteer would have had two votes and "There is no way to even guess whether the 58 people who voted for Jana would have chosen Don or one of the others running, much less what the second choice of those who voted for Don, Roger and Ed would be." She claims that the "only way" to determine the wishes of the volunteers is to take a poll. She notes "If we make the results of the poll binding, it is no longer a poll nor an appointment, it is an election and the Bylaws specifically state that we APPOINT." She again suggests that the bylaws could be amended to allow interim elections. Jana notes "It is *not* the Board's job to assume that Don or Ed or Roger are willing, let alone that there may not be other qualified folks who for excellent reasons did not go through the election in the SW/SC Region because they were running for other positions on the AB." She likes the current proposal of soliciting volunteers, running a poll, and then appointing a replacement. After explaining the difference between a "plurality" and a "majority" she states "As Betsy said, you elected us, how about giving us a chance to show you we will "do good?" Though I would not prefer the "heat" of a situation where Betsy and I "duked it out" and made the selection between us, I am willing to go that route if the Board prefers it to offer a slate of choices to the Board from OUR region." [I am beginning to notice a great deal of possessiveness in Betsy and Jana whenever they refer to THEIR region.] Jana forwards a letter from the same volunteer as above, who again urges the Board to appoint Don Tharp to the vacant seat. Jana replies "I am sure I could work well with Don, so this is not personal in any way. But I think it is fair to say he has opponents as well as supporters in his camp just like others...I also have had three folks who did not run in the immediate race email me to say they are interested in volunteering now where they were not interested before based upon the composition of the new Board and the possibilities they see available now. And...we also happen to have folks in our region who ran and lost in other USGW positions...There is enough discrepancy for me to want the advice of a poll of our CCs looking at the whole slate of possibilities...Then like it our not, the burden falls upon the shoulders of the Board as a whole to make the final decision and let the chips fall where the may." Friday 7 Sep 2001: Teresa notes that her fellow Board members are missing the point with regards to project members who cannot use the current voting methodology. She says "What "some of the voters" want is to be able to do what _every other member_ of this project gets to do, go to a web page and vote in privacy and security without having to request special accomodation each and every time." She does not think this is unreasonable. In Executive Session: --The accessibility issue continues in discussion; the consensus now seems to be that the Board and others have done all they can do in the matter. --The Board continues discussion of confidentiality on the the secret list. --The Board discusses possible data harvesting by a commercial company. === "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Of course, you could do even better with a dead squirrel." ---Fred Schwartz 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 Sep 8 13:18:16 2001 Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 13:18:15 -0400 (EDT) From: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: The usgenweb.com domain - letter from the board (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: For your reading pleasure... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2001 07:58:10 -0500 From: Holly Timm Reply-To: USGENWEB-SW-L@rootsweb.com To: USGENWEB-SW-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [USGenWeb-SW] The usgenweb.com domain - letter from the board Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 06:17:44 -0600 Resent-From: USGENWEB-SW-L@rootsweb.com Please forward the following to state and other lists as appropriate, thank you. Dear USGenWeb Project member: On August 24, 2001 the USGenWeb Advisory Board was notified by the current registrant of the usgenweb.com domain name, Dale Schneider, that he is no longer interested in keeping it. He has offered to sell the registration to the USGenWeb Project for $2500; if the Project is not interested in purchasing it they indicate they will sell it at auction. Mr. Schneider has indicated that the price is negotiable and that there are several weeks available for the Project to make a decision on purchasing the domain. Please be assured that the Advisory Board is looking into the various options available to us and we will keep you informed as to the status of the domain and how we decide to respond to Mr. Schneider's offer. In the interim, we would like to remind all project members that our official domain is http://www.usgenweb.org and that all links to the USGenWeb Project home page should use this domain. If you have any questions about this issue or comments you would like to make, please contact your representative(s). A list of representatives and their contact information can be found at: http://www.usgenweb.com/about/whoswho.html Sincerely, Holly Timm, National Coordinator and the The USGenWeb Advisory Board ==== USGENWEB-SW Mailing List ==== To unsubscribe, send a message to USGENWEB-SW-L-request@rootsweb.com with the one word, unsubscribe. If you are subbed to the digest, send it to USGENWEB-SW-D-request@rootsweb.com From merope@Radix.Net Sat Sep 8 14:28:09 2001 Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 14:28:08 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 9/8/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: Its a pirate's life for me...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Friday 7 Sep 2001: Kathy Heidel makes the following motion: "I move that we 1) The Advisory Board have the Election Committee accept volunteers for the SW/SC Region until Sept 14, 2001 12:00 midnight CDT 2) The Election Committee will prepare for and then operate a poll of the SW/SC Region for their choice of those volunteers running until Sept. 21, 2001 12 Midnight CDT 3) The results of the poll to be publicly announced ASAP 4) With the results of the poll to guide them, the board appoints the New SW/SC CC Rep for the remainder of this 1 yr. term no later than Sept. 28, 2001" Nate Zipfel seconds it. Mary Ann Hetrick moves that Motion 01-27 be put to a vote. Jana Black seconds this motion. Mary Ann later apologizes for jumping the gun. Holly Timm opens the vote on Motion 01-27, noting "The vote will continue until there is a clear 2/3rds majority or for 48 hours whichever comes first. Those who have not voted when the majority is reached may still vote within the 48 hour time frame to register their opinion and be counted in the final total." Moving a discussion over from Board-Exec, Robert Bremer notes "I don't care for secret lists." [you go, guy!] He explains further "The problem is that while the intent of BOARD-EXEC is admirable...the potential for abuse is too readily available. Discussions which ought to occur on BOARD-L for the benefit of all the volunteers that we represent can end up taking place in secret because it's quick, it's easy, and you can probably have the expectation that your comments will go no further...Extensive use of BOARD-EXEC can contribute to a sense of the Board being some sort of elitist club in an "us" versus "them" environment. Past use of BOARD-EXEC in decision-making and in formulating policy has stirred up a lot of controversy among the CCs. The existence of the past gag rule in particular has fostered conspiracy theories, and since enough has happened behind the scenes in this project in the past, it is easy for CCs to believe the Board is indeed cooking up stuff on its secret list...While there has been considerable activity on BOARD-EXEC this past week, most of it could have been discussed on BOARD-L...the conversation on BOARD-EXEC that has concerned me the most has been the one focused what is appropriate for discussion on that list...That conversation has now turned toward the issue of confidentiality of what is said. I can well anticipate another forthcoming gag rule tomorrow. I think that will disappoint a number of CCs who are looking to the new board to do things differently, but I fear we will be presenting them with a return to business as usual." Robert urges his colleagues to consider whether each message they post to Board-Exec really needs to go there and asks them to "Balance the need for confidentiality with the consideration of our project's volunteers." Richard Harrison challenges Robert to move topics from Board-Exec to Board-L when he feels it is approproate so long as he does "not quote from or refer to the previous messsages on Board-Exec." Richard notes "each person's idea of what is best said publicly and what is best said privately is going to differ a bit and I think most Board members feel the need for a place where we can speak privately to the rest of the Board without fear of those comments being made public." Saturday 8 Sep 2001: Holly declares Motion 01-27 passed unanimously and indicates she will send out the letter to the various mailing lists within the hour. [Its already been sent and you should have received your copy.] Holly gives Kathy's motion number 01-28 and opens the floor for discussion. Ron Eason suggests that there has been enough discussion and moves the previous question. Holly asks him to hold off a bit, as she would like to make sure the time frame is acceptable. So far there are no objections to the time frame. Mary Ann says the EC already has things ready to do. Teresa Lindquist asks who will be eligible to vote in the "poll" with regard to the 30 day rule. Holly responds to Robert's message regarding the secret list. She thought the letter was better handled on Board-Exec due to the "flurry of activity" on Board-L, and that unsubstantiated rumors are better handled secretly because "Repeating an unsubstantiated rumor publicly without any investigation of the facts gives it more life." She notes that the "accessibility" discussion could have been public "the details of the specific incident is not as it does involve the actions and statements of an individual. " Holly suggests that Robert doesn't know her thoughts on the matter of a gag rule, nor does he know what constitutes "business as usual." [Well, I _do_ know, and what is going on on Board-Exec now is pretty BAU. Only some of the faces have changed.] Holly notes that "The primary issue is that one board member is making those decisions, not the posters of messages to Exec, not the group as a whole, one person has seen fit to make the judgements and publish, not to Board-L but elsewhere in a non-discussion arena with editorial comments." She asks comments from anyone who would like to respond. In Executive Session: --The discussion of list confidentiality continues. === Competition Corner: Rich Howland has announced a new USGenWeb newsletter, USGenWeb Today, which purports to give its readers "The life and issues as they happen, who, what, where, and why they happen. Untwisted and as told as close to the truth, as can be told." [See the thing with the DBS is, we don't get "close" to the truth, we get right in the mud and wrestle with it.] Anyways, you can subscribe at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/USGW_Today. === "Thou call'dst me a dog before thou hadst a cause, but, since I am a dog, beware my fangs." ---William Shakespeare 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 Sep 9 15:24:00 2001 Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 15:24:00 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 9/9/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: Surreptitiously editorializing the Board since 1998...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Saturday 8 September 2001: Jana Black congrats Holly Timm for her graceful and dignified response to Robert Bremer regarding the secret list. She notes "Creating an environment where all the Board members (but for Teresa who chooses to surreptitiously editorialize Board questions and comments in her DBS out of content and distorting the facts) are, in essence, forced to "watch their backs" is not a healthy way to produce positive results for the Project. IMHO, such tactics serve only to contaminate and obfuscate progress." [Jana should check her dictionary link. I may be many things but "surreptitious" isn't one of them.] She reiterates her stance that discussion on Board-Exec "was not about *secrecy*, it was about *sensitivity* for individuals and *clarification* at a time when new Board business overlapped previous Board actions." She also states that she will not use Board-Exec if it does not remain secret and notes "I cannot stop Teresa from writing her DBS nor can I stop her editorializing. However, I will state here, publicly, that from this moment on, I DO NOT give Teresa permission to quote me EXCEPT IN *FULL*." Ron Eason says he will hold off on his request to take Motion 01-28 to an immediate vote. Holly says the time frame for the "poll" looks ok to her but wanted the Board to have time to comment on the specifics of the motion. Robert Bremer continues his conversation about Board-Exec with Holly. He notes "You had solicited input from board members and indicated that you would address the issue today. That input has entirely been in favor of keeping conversations on BOARD-EXEC confidential. Unless you were to make a rule contrary to the wishes of the majority of the board, I think it is safe to conclude that there will be a gag rule. Please prove me wrong. As for business as usual that would be conducting some part of board business in secret. Are you trying to tell me that has never happened? The problem is that almost every other issue that comes before this board can have a confidential or sensitive nature or be turned into a personnel matter by whoever is writing a message. Your defense of what has been on BOARD-EXEC this week illustrates my point." He also notes that given the tone of Holly's original response to him, he is unlikely to offer further suggestions about the list and asks her if the issue is really leaks, how she expects to fix that other than a gag rule. Holly responds that she's received considerable input from Board members and others but notes "the one thing that is needed is any suggestions, ideas or thoughts as to how and who decides what is or is not suitable for discussion on exec and how we are to manage mention of what is being discussed and/or move anything to Board-L." She points out that now "deciding what is or is not appropriate seems to have been taken on by Teresa Lindquist as hers alone to judge. That is inappropriate and that is the issue...The Board didn't get a chance to decide to move something anywhere nor how to discuss an issue without discussing specifics (accessibility incident). The judgement was made by one board member without input, without discussion." [Hey, its a dirty job, but someone has to do it.] Holly notes finally "The issue is one person making the judgements. An edict from me making a gag rule is not an answer to that...As it stands now, any board member must guess ahead of time whether or not others will think so before presenting something and any CC with an issue they wish to be confidential must also make such a guess... a guess as to what Teresa will decide and how much publicity she will decide to give it. That is neither appropriate nor tolerable." [The funny thing about this is that, except for once, I haven't editorialized the Board-Exec stuff. I've actually been pretty careful about that. And they _know_ it could be much worse.] Jana forwards a portion of RONR [Ithink this is a new version of RRoO; she got the citation info from Roger Swafford] regarding proper procedure to go into Executive Session. Based on this excerpt, she asks the following questions: "1) Is use of Board-Exec-L considered the same as the Board going into Executive Session? 2) If so, as this CC suggests, I was in error in posting to Board-Exec the first time I did w/o securing on Board-L passage of a motion to go into Executive Session. If Board-Exec does equal Executive Session, then I will certainly follow proper protocol from here on. Looking over the By-laws, the status of Board-Exec is not clear to me, please advise? 3) IF Board-Exec does equate to Executive Session, once we are "there," Teresa Lindquist may not allude to discuss or editorialize anything about what goes on there on the DBS... 4) Lastly, although the bylaws say we will use "accepted parliamentary procedures" to perform our duties, I am not sure that means in every case we are bound to RON... please advise?" [In her response to Roger on this, she was downright enthusiastic about the possibility of "punishing" me. ] Richard Harrison notes that our Exective Session is an open-ended one, like our regular meeting and says that we follow RRoO in principle but "not to the letter." Sunday 9 Sept 2001: Holly opens the vote on Motion 01-28; thus far 9 members have voted yes. Teresa notes that her question was never answered and she would "like more discussion on the issue of who will be eligible to participate in the "poll"." Holly replies that it will be the same rules as in an election. Teresa reminds Holly that this not an election and if we are interested in the CCs' opinions, there is no reason not to include even recently joined CCs. In Executive Session: --There has no further discussion since the last report. === Imitation Is The Sincerest Form of Flattery Corner: Got my first issue of the new USGenWeb Today newsletter. And guess what? Its mostly about me! Its actually kind of a fun little read. It apparently started back in June, stuttered along for two issues, and then reappeared on September 7. Somehow it went from Volume 1 to Volume 9 in the interim and the issue numbers are out of sequence. Its new incarnation tracks Board activity, other list activity [very selectively, no one in their right minds would try to track everything on the -ALL list], and the DBS. Richard even does me the honor of editorializing on my editorializing. He includes "letters to the editor", a "little birdie" section and a humor column. I highly recommend everyone subscribe to it. And thanks to Rich for the plug and the URL for the DBS! === "I never wonder to see men wicked, but I often wonder to see them not ashamed." ---Jonathan Swift This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.