June-August 2002 Permission to forward where appropriate is granted. GUIDELINES COMMITTEE WEEKLY REPORT, for the week ending June 1 2002 === On May 25 the weekly report was submitted to the Project. No comments were received. - Contact Information: Two weeks ago the Committee began discussion of a requirement that the LCs provide contact information on their web pages. The Committee voted in favor of requiring LCs to provide a valid contact email address on their USGenWeb page. Appropriate language was added to the working document. - Welcome to the Project: On May 26, the Committee started discussion of the brief welcome message included at the end of the current guidelines. The Committee was in favor of retaining the paragraph and altering the wording slightly. The new wording has been added to the working document. - Miscellaneous: On May 26, the Committee initiated discussion of several miscellaneous items that could be included as recommendations in the revised guidelines: Page Design: The Committee discussed a variety of resources that could be recommended as additions to the websites, including site-wide search engines, guestbooks, counters and updated-on dates. The Committee is in general agreement that search engines should be be recommended for inclusion on USGenWeb page. The Committee also discussed a recommendation that Local Coordinators be encouraged to keep their page design simple for the benefit of visitors with older computers, slow dial-up connections, and/or accessibility issues. This item continues under discussion and currently suggested wording for this recommendation is as follows: "You are free to add music, animations, java applets, graphics, etc. to your pages, but you should try to keep your page design simple for the benefit of visitors with older computers, dial-up connections, or accessibility-related issues. Visitors should be able to turn off or bypass any features that they have difficulty with. USGenWeb has a page of some useful design tips to help you get started at ." Source Data: The Committee discussed the idea of encouraging LCs to transcribe source data and/or provide a place on the local website for the storage of transcribed source data. This item continues under discussion. === The current version of the working document is posted at: http://www.radix.net/~merope/lcguide.txt Please address comments to Teresa Lindquist -Teresa Lindquist Chair, Guidelines Committee Representative At Large, USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net ============ One brick shy of a load...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! 26 May - 2 June 2002: Vacant Seat: On May 28, Holly Timm requests that the Board resume discussion of making an appointment to fill the seat recently vacated by Diane Parsons. Phyllis Rippee proposes that a ""general consent" vote be taken on leaving the seat vacant until the Election is held." Richard Harrison notes "Filling this vacant seat should be a quick and simple matter...The bylaws give the Board the responsibility of replacing members who resign. It's time we accepted that responsibility." Tina Vickery feels, however, that "the region will be better served to elect their representative during the upcoming election." Kathy Heidel notes that the Board was able to quickly appoint Phyllis to her seat and says "We seated Phyllis in jig-time. If this were done as we did then we could have a new AB Member in 3 wks." She asks however "Diane's term is up this session 2002, and that Region will be Electing a new CC-Rep. So doesn't this make this selection process a tad bit frivolous?" Other Business: Election: As of June 1, the nominations for the upcoming election have been opened. The form and instructions are available at: http://www.indiana.edu/~riskmgmt/Forms/Nominations.html Please note that although the form gives you only until June 14 to send in nominations, the message announcing the opening of nominations gives an end date of June 17. The Election Committee has requested permission from the Board to post the following question on the ballot: "Should only those volunteers who register to vote be allowed to vote?" Thus far one Board member, Betsy Mills, has indicated she would not favor putting this question on the ballot. [We find it interesting that another question was also recommended by a Board member to be put to the membership on the ballot, but the EC has apparently decided to ignore that recommendation, perhaps because the Board vote went the way they wanted on that one. No formal announcement has been made of the status of the remaining four questions the EC put to the Board several months ago. All but two Board members have responded, but the NC has not yet determined the final outcome of any of them.] - Guidelines Committee: Teresa Lindquist forwards the weekly Guidelines Committee report on May 26. --- In Executive Session: no activity === Grab Bag Corner: Its been a quiet week. The Board is moribund, perhaps due to the opening of beach season. It is spring though, and the birds are singing. One little warbler reminds us that the Angie Rayfield who is currently running for SC of the NCGenWeb is the same Angie Rayfield who joined with Traci Parsons Holder [you remember her, the one who bought up dozens of xxgenweb domains] to start a new competing project, which eventually failed. And down in Georgia, we hear that the "grievance committee" has been silent on the issue of ASCs who violate guidelines to remove county coordinators, other than telling the CC that he should keep his mouth shut about it. It is reported that they are not even bothering to respond to requests from the CC to be reinstated while they determine the outcome of the issue. === "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence." ---Richard Loft This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2002 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. =============== Permission to forward where appropriate is granted. GUIDELINES COMMITTEE WEEKLY REPORT, for the week ending June 8 2002 === On June 2 the weekly report was submitted to the Project. Two comments were received. One recommended adding a requirement that LCs keep their contact information updated with their State Coordinator; this comment was discussed by the committee. The other comment was a generally positive response to the recent discussion of page design issues. - Contact Information: The Committee is currently discussing adding a requirement that Local Coordinators keep their contact address updated with their State Coordinator. The Contact section of the proposed guidelines would be reworded as follows: "Local Coordinators are required to provide a valid email address on their websites so that visitors may contact them if they need to do so. Local Coordinators are also required to notify their state coordinators if their email address changes." - Page Design: The Committee has approved the following wording regarding page design: "You are free to add music, animations, java applets, graphics, etc. to your pages, but you should try to keep your page design simple for the benefit of visitors with older computers, dial-up connections, or accessibility-related issues. Visitors should be able to turn off or bypass any features that they have difficulty with. USGenWeb has a page of some useful design tips to help you get started at ." - Source Data: The Committee continues to discuss the recommendation that LCs provide transcriptions of source data on their webpages. The Committee was in favor of both recommending that LCs provide a place for the storage of transcribed source data on their local website and that LCs transcribe original source data if possible. The Committee recognizes that circumstance may limit the ability of LCs to do either or both of these, so they will be in the guidelines as recommendations and not requirements. The Committee was not in favor of recommending that LCs direct submitters of transcribed data to the USGenWeb Archives (TM). === The current version of the working document is posted at: http://www.radix.net/~merope/lcguide.txt Please address comments to Teresa Lindquist -Teresa Lindquist Chair, Guidelines Committee Representative At Large, USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net =============== Bad to the bone...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! 2 June - 9 June 2002: Current motions: Special Projects: On June 7, in response to a question by the Election Committee, Phyllis Rippee moves "that the Pension Project, Special Collections Project, The Kidz Project, The Lineage Project, The Genealogical Events Project and The Marriage Project be officially recognized as Special Projects of the USGenWeb Project." Kathy Heidel seconds this motion. On June 8, Holly asks if Phyllis is intending to declare the Pension, Special Collections and Marriage Projects independent of the Archives and notes "They were created as and have been under the Archives umbrella until now and in past elections volunteers in these projects have been considered as Archives volunteers." Holly says she will not proceed with the motion until Phyllis declares her intent. Richard Harrison sees no reason to change the status quo with regard to these subprojects. Betsy Mills notes "We are dealing with a nightmare already with the "recognized" Projects and the bickering and fighting for control...I just do not see the need to add these. To declare these as Special Projects would appear to me to require a bylaws amendment." On June 8, Phyllis declares "it was NOT my intent to declare these as separate special projects," and withdraws the motion. Later, Holly forwards a message from Linda Haas Davenport that indicates that the EC was not aware that these projects are part of the Archives and since they are, the issue is resolved. --- Other Business: Vacant Seat: Tim Stowell suggests that Tom Parker, who was the runner-up for the seat recently vacated by Diane Parsons, be appointed to the seat to fill out her term, if he is willing to serve. On June 6, Holly decides there has been too little discussion of the matter to decide what to do and asks Board members to give her their first and second choices from the following options: "1) Leave it open until after the regular election and appoint the winner as soon as the voting is finished 2) Appoint Tom Parker as the next vote getter last time around (or someone else if he is not willing) until Sept 1 when the winner of the election takes their seat 3) Have the EC run a poll with volunteers for the position as has been done with other recent vacancies until Sept 1 when the winner of the election takes their seat 4) Leave it open until Sept 1 when the winner in the regular election will fill it." At this point, with 10 Board members responding, option number one is the clear favorite. - GAGenWeb: On June 3, Teresa forwards a message to the Board from John Rigdon, regarding his removal from the GAGenWeb for alleged violation of its recently adopted [but not yet active] guidelines. As expected, the grievance committee upheld Keith Giddeon's actions in dismissing John and putting his county up for adoption. John requests an immediate review of the situation by the Board and notes "None had had the decency to ask me any questions or dialogue with me regarding the question at hand, that is whether I would be give the same time as other VOLUNTEERS to bring my page into compliance...The issue at hand is NOT the current status of my site or the commercialism of the site or USGenweb's connection to Ancestry for that matter - the question is whether I will be treated fairly in being allowed to bring my page into compliance." [see below] - Election Committee: The current status of nominations is available at: http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/2002nominations.html; if you wish to nominate someone, the form is available at: http://www.indiana.edu/~riskmgmt/Forms/Nominations.html The Board continues to discuss the EC's request to include a question about voter registration on the ballot in the upcoming election. Tina Vickery notes "I see no reason whatsoever not to place this question on the ballot, but would like to be assured that all USGenWeb Project eligible voters are made aware of the need to register, should that become the procedure...Has the EC given the procedure to notify, and educate any thought, should this question be placed on the ballot and passed by the membership? Linda Haas Davenport responds that the EC has given a lot of thought and discussion to this question [heh, not that I've seen] and that updated voter lists will still be obtained from the SCs, announcements will still be sent out and the EC will "in every way possible try to let every volunteer know about the registration process." She notes "The major reason for asking that only registered voters be allowed to vote is to eliminate the possibility of duplications that seem to creep into the master list no matter how hard the EC tries to find and eliminate them." Tina wonders if this approach will be enough to combat the apathy about voting in the project and Linda notes "There is only so much the EC can do." Thus far, 3 Board members think the question should be put on the ballot, and one thinks it should not. On June 6, Holly forwards another question from the EC regarding the Special Projects: "In the questions the EC asked of the AB was one about what groups if any should be excluded from voting. The AB's majority answer received was "per the by-laws". Therefore, the EC must now come back and ask the AB for a ruling on the members of the "other" Special Projects: Pension Project; Special Collections Project; The Kidz Project; The Lineage Project; The Genealogical Events Project; The Marriage Project. These Special Projects are not "officially recognized in the By-Laws" as are the Archives, Tombstone and Census Projects but non-the-less operate under the Project umbrella and are listed as USGenWeb Projects on the National page. The volunteers of these Projects display the USGenWeb Logo and the volunteers believe themselves to be a part of the Project...Shall these groups be excluded from voting for NC and RAL?" In response to this, Phyllis Rippee makes the motion listed above. - Guidelines Committee: Teresa Lindquist forwards the weekly Guidelines Committee report to the Board on June 2. - Bylaws Revision Committees: On June 8, Phyllis asks "When changes in the personnel of the Bylaws Revision Committee were made, why wasn't the Advisory Board informed? Teresa...as R.A.L. requested reports from the other two committees some time ago. Why was she ignored by the BRC?" Tim then wants to know who is now on the committee and suggests they aren't responding to the request because "Perhaps they didn't like the question or the questioner even though both are valid." [Joy! I have been validated by The Tim Himself!] --- In Executive Session: no activity === The Devil Went Down to Georgia Corner: As expected, after a week or so of deliberation that managed not to involve actually contacting John Rigdon personally to get his version of events, the GAGenWeb grievance committee rubberstamped Keith Giddeon's latest temper tantrum. Here's a snippet from the committee's letter to John; this was apparently the entirety of their communication to him during their deliberations: "After careful review of your Richmond County page...together with many complaints about the commercialism and intent of the page, the Grievance Committee has reached the following conclusions...1)The site is and has been for several years used primarily for your commercial purposes. This is in direct conflict with the goals of USGenWeb and GAGenWeb to provide free on-line data for researchers. 2)The e-mail correspondence you directed to Keith Giddeon, indicated that you did not support the very clear statement about this in the GAGenWeb Guidelines recently adopted...Your e-mail responses both to Keith and to the GAGen List conveyed an attitude not in keeping with the goals. 3)After much discussion and deliberation, we uphold the decision of dismissal." Not surprisingly, the committee missed the point. Whatever deficiencies may exist in John's page, they were brought to his attention, he said he would fix them, and the new guidelines give him 30 days to do so. John was basically canned because he talked back to Keith and Keith has never been opposed to using whatever means he has available to shut up his adversaries. [During the flap over the "misappropriated" Talbot county files, he allegedly just removed the two aggrieved ladies from the county mailing list so they couldn't discuss it with the researchers anymore.] In reading over the extensive instructions for the resolution of grievances in the GAGW guidelines, it appears that the GAGenWeb grievance committee didn't even follow its own rules for reaching their decision. Curiously, these guidelines do not mention any sort of "grievance committee"; we are curious as to how the members of the one used to rubberstamp John's dismissal were selected. It also appears that John's dismissal was in violation of section 20f of the GAGW guidelines, which clearly states that "Coordinators are entitled to sufficient warning (the end of section 16) before being dismissed over page requirements issues." The end of section 16 states "If a County Coordinator is found to be in violation of any of these requirements, they will be given warning and 30 days to correct the infraction. A copy of the emailed warning will be sent to the GAGenWeb Council to verify that warning was sent." Of course, any committee interested in actually researching a grievance would first want to know why John's warning was a matter of a few hours, not 30 days, and whether or not Keith also notified the Council that John had received a warning to start the 30-day clock. They would also question Keith's and Tim's actions in this matter and would probably have come to the conclusion that whatever they think of John, Keith violated the guidelines in dismissing him without following proper procedure. It is hard not to believe that the entirety of the mysterious GAGenWeb grievance committee's "careful review" of this matter consisted of them all saying "good riddance" and calling it a day. John has now requested a full review of this action against him by the full Advisory Board, which has thus far completely ignored his request. === "The first sign of corruption in a society that is still alive is that the end justifies the means." ---Georges Bernanos This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2002 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. ============== I'm gonna soak up the sun...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! 9 June - 16 June 2002: Current Motions: GAGenWeb Grievance: On June 11, Phyllis Rippee moves "that the discussion of the Georgia Grievance situation, including John Rigdon's formal grievance be moved to Board-Exec." This motion is provisionally seconded by Richard Harrison, should the NC fail to move the discussion to Board-Exec. Jana Black seconds the motion and requests "that the RAL cease all posts on the topic cease until Madame NC gets home from work." Holly declares the motion "premature" and directs Ron Eason to "inquire of Mr Rigdon whether he is directing the grievance to Board-L or Board-Exec and to then post the grievance accordingly." Motion 02-11 (Vacant Seat): On June 12, Mary Ann Hetrick moves that "the vacancy due to Diane Parsons resignation be filled by the will of the voters of that region. This will be accomplished during the upcoming national elections. The winner of the seat to start their term as soon as the election results are known, in place of the normal September 1 starting date." Kathy Heidel seconds the motion and Holly opens it for discussion. Holly opens the vote on June 14. Thus far, 10 Board members have voted "yes". --- Other Business: Elections: The nominations closed on June 14. The current list of candidates is at: http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/2002nominations.html - Rigdon/GAGenWeb Grievance: [Bear with me. This is long and complicated and goes nowhere.] On June 9, Vicki Shaffer notes "It was brought to my attention today that merope (RAL) said in the "Daily Board Show" that John Rigdon's grievance was being ignored by the Advisory Board. Since to the best of my knowledge, Teresa Lingquist is still the Representative at Large and serving on the AB, has made no recommendations to the AB on this grievance, I request that she present her "view" on this grievance, since obviously she has had quite a bit of correspondence with John Rigdon regarding such and is very much involved in reporting this in a negative AB light in her "Daily Board Show"." She asks Teresa to present the grievance to the Board and begin discussion of it. She also notes "I was under the impression that we were agreed to let GA work this out amongst themselves. Has something changed?" Pam Reid notes that she asked for further information when John's original request for review was received but that her request was ignored. She notes "It appeared to me at that time that no one really wanted to discuss it or to explain what had occured." Richard Harrison asked if a grievance had been filed, as he was unaware of it if one had been. Jana notes that as of June 9, all that had been received was a request for review and notes "I do not see that the AB has any standing in the situation at all, under the current Bylaws. Granted, some may think that the fact the AB has no ability to help out CCs beyond "advising the states under the Bylaws is a problem, but until and unless the Bylaws are changed to give the "Advisory" Board the clout to do more than advise, it is what we have. This certainly does not mean the AB is ignoring anything, we are simply operating as we have the authority to operate, and the problem and the solution remains in GA." Teresa notes that as John has both requested review and filed a formal grievance the Board does have standing to address the issue. On June 10, Teresa forwards John Rigdon's full formal grievance to the Board and suggests that the Mediation Panel look into the issue [this starts a pointless discussion of mediation panel membership]. In his grievance, John notes "I would like to file a formal complaint against Tim Stowell acting State Coordinator for the State of Georgia for his abuse of power in removing the link to my county page AFTER I had agreed to comply with the guidelines and a full 45 days BEFORE the new guidelines were scheduled to go into affect. This reflects an obvious dislike of me personally by Tim and he is abusing his position to try to force me from The USGEN Web Project. I request an immediate relinking of my Richmond County, GA page and a censure of Tim for his obvious abuse of his position. I further request that I be allowed adequate time to bring the page into compliance and that an independent committtee be designated to arbitrate whether or not my new site is in compliance with the guidelines." He provides extensive accompanying documentation of his complaint. The grievance was originally submitted to Ron Eason on June 3. Ron forwarded it to Teresa and Holly who discussed their own inability to address it in an unbiased fashion for a few days. This delay in posting the grievance to the full Board engenders disquiet in some Board members. Pam notes that this is the first time she has seen the grievance and that it would have been difficult for her to discuss something she had not previously seen [throughout much of this discussion, some Board members confuse the "request for review" posted to the Board on June 3 and the grievance, which was posted on June 10.] Richard suggests moving the discussion to the secret list and Phyllis wonders why the NC did not do that when the grievance was received. Jana accuses Teresa and Holly of withholding the information from the full Board and agrees with Richard that the posting to Board-L was inappropriate [this makes no sense whatsoever]. She then asks Holly "Upon what authority does the NC and two AB members think they can handle a formal grievance kept secret from the rest of the AB?" and wonders why it required "six days and public questioning" before the grievance was posted. Holly notes that it was not being handled in secret, but there was some "preliminary discussion about who would investigate it." She also remarks that she doesn't know why it wasn't sent to the Board immediately. Jana pursues the issue, remarking "it sounds like you are saying that the RAL sat on the grievance before you saw it...The AB surely did not receive it until 6 days later. If so, the RAL has misrepresented the situation to the rest of us...was the grievance sent to you and Ron on the 3rd of June or not?...upon what authority do you, as NC, the RAL and the CC Rep have for "preliminary discussion" without first informing the AB?...Either there is more than one way to operate in secret or someone has twisted the facts." Jana then asks Teresa why she didn't post the grievance to Board-Exec "especially as you were specifically asked to forward it to the AB by the petitioner? [In her zeal to accuse of me whatever she can find to hand, Jana appears completely clueless of simple basic facts. I did not receive the grievance, Ron did. John did not ask that the grievance be forwarded to the Board, as Jana would know if she had actually read it.] Holly has to point out to Jana that she is asking the wrong person and also notes that when Jana is NC she can decide how to handle these issues as she sees fit. Thinking she finally has some meat to chew, Jana notes "The plot thickens.... So Ron is the one who did not post the grievance for six days, then the RAL, who had been discussing the situation with him and the NC in secret *did* post the full grievance to Board-L, when it was *not* only *not* her place to do so, but also the wrong place to post such a sensitive document." She also asks what authority Ron had to present the grievance to Holly and Teresa first. Holly responds that "there was no discussion or decision to withhold or keep anything secret, there was some justifiable real concern about actual or perceived bias which was discussed before posting of the grievance...I was elected NC and permitting the preliminary discussion without requesting an immediate posting of the grievance was my choice." When Teresa posts a correction to Jana's misrepresentations, Jana responds "if not with the AB, to whom else do you think a Formal Grievance would be addressed?...You elected yourself to a secret subset committee to handle it all for the rest of us!" At this point, both Ginger Hayes and Betsy Mills tell her to "give it a rest." [Yes, the more astute readers among you will have noted by now that the Board was discussing everything _but_ the grievance itself. Funny how that works, isn't it?] On June 11, Teresa posts some concerns she has with the grievance process in GAGenWeb: "There is no grievance committee mentioned in the GAGW guidelines, and the procedure followed by Keith, Tim and the grievance committee to dismiss John is not that set out in the guidelines recently voted in by the GAGW membership...Several GAGW members have written me to ask when and how the grievance committee was established, since they were unaware of its existence and do not recall voting to elect any members of the committee...the grievance committee is a subset of the GAGW council, which consists of "the State Coordinator (Chairperson, with voting privileges); Asst. State Coordinator(s); Regional Coordinators; and GAGenWeb State Special Projects Coordinators", minus [Tim] and Keith...ASCs, RCs, and SPCs are hand-picked by the SC and served until they resign or are dismissed. This hardly seems a likely way to arrive at an unbiased group of people to judge someone who has upset the SC...Because everyone involved in this issue was placed under a gag order, it is not possible to know how the committee deliberated...It is however fairly clear from the outcome that the committee did not bother to read and follow their own state guidelines, which allow a CC 30 days to correct any noncompliant portions of their webpage and which clearly state that "Coordinators are entitled to sufficient warning (the end of section 16) before being dismissed over page requirements issues." Whatever faults exist with John's page are not relevant. He should have been given time to address them, and the procedure voted in by the GAGW membership should have been followed prior to his dismissal." Following this post, Phyllis requests that Holly move the discussion to the secret list, or that a motion be made and voted on to move it there [see Current Motions above]. Teresa posts a further concern with the GAGenWeb grievance process and the status of its guidelines: "According to John Rigdon, these guidelines were not supposed to go into effect until June 1, and possibly July 1. Keith Giddeon claims that the guidelines were in effect at the time of the dismissal and his actions were fully justified under those guidelines...IF the guidelines were not in effect, then neither John nor anyone else could be removed for failing to comply with them...If the guidelines WERE in effect at the time, then Keith, Tim and the grievance committee were clearly in violation of sections 16 and 20. Heck, section 21 actually gives ALL members 45 days after passage to bring their sites into compliance. The guidelines were adopted on April 23; with the 45 day leadin, the guidelines should not even have kicked in until June 7. Yet...Keith kicked John out of the project in the middle of May, Tim supported his actions, and his handpicked grievance committee rubber stamped it." On June 11, Teresa forwards a message from John Rigdon, who notes "it appears to me that Teresa and Keith [he probably means Ron] both acted in a timely and professional manner in handling this situation, and we should proceed with addressing the issue at hand, not continuing to run around in circles and pointing fingers." Tim Stowell wonders why the message was posted to Board-L rather than the secret list and asks "Will the NC use the power of filtering messages of the RAL as has been done for others since the RAL seemingly has total disregard for established procedures?" [Tim himself is one of the "others", the only one so far as I know, who has had his messages filtered.] [The saddest thing about this whole mess actually is that John Rigdon and Tim Stowell were boyhood friends and have known each other for over 30 years.] - Vacant Board Seat: On June 12, Holly notes that the clear choice of a majority of Board members for filling the vacant seat left by Diane Parsons was to "Leave it open until after the regular election and appoint the winner as soon as the voting is finished." She asks for a motion. [See Current Motions above] - Archives Copyright Notice: On June 14, Teresa Lindquist asks Archives representative Vicki Shaffer when the Archives changed its policy regarding the files in its Archives. She cites the current copyright notice, which reads "USGENWEB ARCHIVES NOTICE: These electronic pages may NOT be reproduced in any format for profit or presentation by any other organization or persons. Persons or organizations desiring to use this material, must obtain the written consent of the contributor, or the legal representative of the submitter, and contact the listed USGenWeb archivist with proof of this consent. The submitter has given permission to the USGenWeb Archives to store the file permanently for free access." Vicke responds that the notice was instituted in 1999 but "The rewording of the Notice did not institute any new policies, it merely made the policies that had been in effect since July 1996 more visible." Teresa responds that the new policy is a substantial change in policy, since "It goes from basically saying that any noncommercial entity can use the data to saying that no one can use the data. It also goes from being a "USGenWeb Copyright" notice to being a "USGenWeb Archives Copyright" notice." Holly has problems with the policy, and notes "The wording above explicitly states that anyone wishing to use the material must not only have the consent of the contributor/submitter but they must then prove this to the Archives...if I have submitted a family history I authored to the Archives and then give permission to a local genealogy society to publish it in their newsletter...that society must first prove to the Archives that they have my permission thus the Archives in a sense acquires equal rights to the contributor in control of the material...I also have a serious problem with the copyright status given the *submitter* in the statement. Again, if I tell a CC of XX county they may submit the family history I authored to the Archives thus making the CC the contributor or submitter, by the statement above they can give consent to anyone else they choose (or withhold consent) irregardless of what I, the author, wish." Holly also points out that the old version of the notice gives "actually takes control of the material giving free use to any *non-commercial* entity as long as they leave the Archives label on it and even encourages such use and yet prohibits use of the material in any other way, again, irregardless of what the author wishes." [Holly fails to realize that the only important part of the notice is the part that gives the transcription to the Archives permanently. The rest is just window-dressing.] - Dealing with the DBS: During the course of discussion of the GAGW grievance, Jana again expresses her dissatisfaction with the Daily Board Show, and notes "we are left again with the problem of how to correct the inflammatory distortion usually found in the DBS, which certainly does not even offer a "Letter to the Editor" spot for the accused to offer corrections." When Teresa notes that she always prints corrections when they are received, Jana suggests the following correction to a recent DBS: "John Rigdon's grievance was kept secret from the rest of the Advisory Board by Teresa Lindquist and Holly Timm." Both Phyllis and Teresa note that Jana is incorrect in her assessment of the events. Phyllis notes "Teresa did forward John Rigdon's request for a review of the GA Grievance Committee's rulings to Board-L. IF there was any comment made in regard to this, I did not receive it. I, too, have indicated that the request was ignored." Teresa reminds Jana that, "I did send John's request for an immediate review to this Board as soon as I received it. And it was ignored. It is the grievance that was not forwarded, pending the outcome of the discussion among myself, Holly and Ron. We have concluded that we cannot address it ourselves and it has now been presented to the full Board." Jana then suggests that "at the very least you need to correct your statement saying "you assume the request was being ignored" you do not know what we think." She notes that she read the request for review but made no response due to her opinion on the Board's standing in the matter [which sounds like "ignoring" to me]. Jana then claims she was merely waiting "to see some leadership from our NC, regarding next steps," and cites a post from Phyllis that _preceeded_ the June 3 posting as support for her contention that the June 3 posting was not ignored. Probably aware that she is losing the debate, Jana then tells Teresa "I'd certainly like to be pointed to the proof of what you say - where is the evidence that you "have always printed corrections when they have been sent to me"...now that you *have* promised to print corrections and that we have established that corrections are in order, you certainly will have "corrections" to post in the upcoming DBS...I look forward to seeing how you handle it." [Well, here ya go: 1) I did not "promise" to print anything; 2) we have not established that any corrections are currently "in order"; and 3) it is not logically possible to "prove" that I have "always" printed corrections. However, I have printed every correction that I have ever received, they occur in numerous editions of the DBS and Jana is free to peruse them at her leisure. A tip though: a little investment in reading comprehension skills can go a long way.] Jana later wonders if Holly will "hold the RAL...accountable for selectively publishing claims in the DBS to make it appear that it was the rest of the AB that was derelict in its duties?" Holly tells her that "I and we, the AB, have no power to selectively silence anyone off this list. I have control of this list and the Exec list and the State Coordinator list, and no other main lists. I have neither the authority nor the power nor the desire to punish any one of you, including you Jana, for statements made elsewhere." Jana complains that Holly won't punish Teresa and suggests "Holding her accountable means holding the RAL to her word...If the RAL does not print corrections to her misinformation, you can, as NC take steps to correct the situation by taking her off the lists she uses as fodder for misrepresentation and you can offer, as NC, a public reprimand that until the RAL chooses to keep her word and offer the corrections, she will remain unsubbed. It is the Project's reputation that is at stake and "holding one accountable" is merely natural consequences for chosen actions, not punishment." Holly notes that the DBS is not the only source of biased and inflammatory rhetoric in the project and remarks "most people who read it are aware of the bias and editorializing. Most CC's are not as stupid or ignorant as you seem to believe and are not so gullible as to swallow every word in the DBS as gospel truth." She suggests that if she wants the situation addressed by the Board, Jana should make an appropriate motion. Jana fails to do so, and the matter is not discussed further. - OHGenWeb: On June 12, the OHGenWeb briefly drops off the web and because of the numerous concerns she's received about it, Pam Reid notifies the Board that she is going to put up a temporary replacement page linking to the counties. The Board discusses this briefly. OHGW is back online by the morning of June 13. - Service Marks: Teresa asks the Service Mark Committee about a discrepancy between the applications for the "USGenWeb" and the "The USGenWeb Project" service marks. One shows an address of Kentucky and the other shows an address of "United States" in the line for owner's information. According to the SMC, this occurred apparently because the USPTO used information from a document submitted by the SMC that shows KY as the state where the USGW was organized (see http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/tm/usgw08.jpg) - Guidelines Committee: On June 9, Teresa Lindquist forwards the weekly Guidelines Committee to the Board. - Root$Web Upgrades: Betsy Mills, the "liaison" for Ancestry.con, informs the Board that Root$web will begin upgrading its servers on June 10 and that some servers and features will be unavailable. --- In Executive Session: June 10: messages from Tim Stowell, Pam Reid, Kathy Heidel, Richard Harrison June 11: messages from Holly Timm, Tina Vickery, Pam Reid June 12: messages from Ron Eason, Jana Black, Phyllis Rippee June 13: messages from Tim Stowell, Phyllis Rippee, Jana Black, Kathy Heidel, Ron Eason === Taking Matters Into Our Own Hands Corner: We've heard that the mysterious Bylaws Revision Committee is currently discussing a "Member's Rights and Responsibilities" document to protect the lower level Project members from the whims of their SCs and the apathy and impotence of the Advisory Board. What do you know, Tim Stowell might leave a lasting legacy to this project after all. === "This board, that everyone had such high hopes for has turned out to be the biggest joke ever perpetrated on the USGW volunteers." ---Ginger Hayes This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2002 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. ================ FYI. -Teresa > Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:57:44 -0600 > X-Original-Sender: usgenweb@cox.net Mon Jun 17 17:57:43 2002 > X-Sender: usgenweb@pop.east.cox.net > X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 > Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 19:44:18 -0400 > Old-To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com > From: Holly Timm > Subject: [BOARD-L] Volunteer Bill of Rights and Responsibilities > To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com > Resent-From: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com > Reply-To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com > X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9653 > X-Loop: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com > Resent-Sender: BOARD-L-request@rootsweb.com > > > Several incidents over time have brought up the discussion at times of a "Bill of Rights", most recently by some on the Bylaws Committee. Both the Bylaws and Guidelines Committee are addressing clarifying and updating some of the requirements, structure and procedure that is perhaps part of how we deal with each other within the project but may not touch on all areas particularly those touching on matters of respect and its opposite, abuse. Although what has been most vocalized publicly is *abuse* or *unfair treatment* of CC's, it is a two way street and SC's as well have been abused as have other volunteers. > > I am therefore calling for volunteers and creating a Rights & Responsibilities Committee to discuss and investigate these issues, and, if they determine it appropriate, drafting a Volunteer Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. It does need to be perfectly clear that those who volunteer must be open to all sides of the problems, CC, SC, et cetera and be willing to discuss and consider the issues with an open mind. This is neither a *bashing* committee nor a *whitewash* committee. > > There are no qualifications regarding project position (except one must have some position in the project) but volunteers must make some statement as to why they feel they should be on the committee and why they feel they can be open minded about it. Those interested in the being on the committee should write me with the responses mentioned at usgenweb@cox.net > > Holly > ============== Some things never change...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! 17 June - 23 June 2002: Current Motions: 02-11 (Vacant SEMA CC rep seat): Voting continues on Motion 02-11, bringing the total up to 11 yes votes. Holly declares the motion passed on June 17 and notes that the new SEMA CC rep will be seated immediately after the election. Other Business: Elections: The final list of candidates for the openings in the upcoming general election are posted at http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/2002nominations.html Candidates' webpages will be listed at http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/2002candidates.html when they become available. Because there is no candidate for the NE/NC State coordinator representative, the Board begins discussing how to address the vacancy that will occur on September 1 when the new Board takes its seat. Holly is of the opinion that the next Board should deal with it, and Jana, Phyllis, Betsy and Tim agree with her. Ron Eason suggests that rather than "ignoring the problem", the SC or the EC should place a notice on the SC mailing list soliciting volunteers to run in the election. He also suggests "If at that time there are no takers, then the position be left vacant as is the Census seat, and the SC's will just be one vote short in their representation." Teresa and Pam agree with Ron's suggestion; Pam notes "It is a shame to let the seat go vacant if there is someone out there who would like to give it a try, would be qualified and just hasn't thought to express interest." Richard Harrison thinks it wouldn't hurt to ask, but he doesn't have much hope it will be succesful. After some little discussion, Teresa notifies the Board that "The EC has already sent messages to all the ASCs and SCs in the NE/NC region soliciting for volunteers to run for the seat." Kathy Heidel wants to know who authorized it and notes "I should think that we would have been the ones to make this decision." [No one authorized it. The EC does not need the Board's permission to do anything and will run USGW as it sees fit.] - Bill of Rights Committee: On June 17, Holly forwards an announcement soliciting volunteers for the new "Rights & Responsibilities Committee". The announcement was already forwarded here and will not be repeated. [The decision to form a "rights and responsibilities" committee follows discussion of the matter on the apocryphal Bylaws Revision Committee. Over the objections of several committee members, Holly ruled that the topic was not an appropriate area of discussion for that committee, and apparently decided to form yet another "operates in secret" committee to hash one out. This will probably have the same high success rate as previous opportunities to institute a rights and responsibilities document.] Tina Vickery does not seem to hold the idea in very high regard; she notes "Each person within in this project has the right to be here, plain, simple, no ifs, ands or buts, about it. It is a given...Each person has the responsibly to perform their role to the best of their ability, each person has the responsibility to be mindful of those working with them, and each person has the ultimate responsibility to do all of the above, in conjunction with all of the above, to promote the goals and mission of the USGenWeb Project." - Missing Websites: Pam Reid notes that the MDGenWeb has apparently been missing for a couple of weeks and asks if this may be due to Root$web's recent server maintenance. Betsy tells her it is, and all should be well shortly. - Guidelines Committee: Teresa Lindquist forwards the weekly Guidelines Committee report to the Board on June 16. === In Executive Session: June 17: messages from Tim Stowell June 21: message from Richard Harrison === Changing Faces Corner: The candidates for the upcoming election have been announced, and with few exceptions, the faces are all very familiar. In the single-candidate "races", Joe Miller and Jan Cortez will be joining the Board as Tombstone rep and NE/NC CC rep respectively; congrats to both! [And yes, we do find it interesting that there is never an actual election for a Special Projects candidate.] There is as yet no candidate for the NE/NC SC rep seat, as noted above, although the EC has solicited for one from among the SCs and ASCs who were not nominated. Board-members-for-life Betsy Mills and Pam Reid have finally bowed out and are allowing others to have a chance at their seats [bummer, no more Ancestry.con "liaison" lurking on the Board]. There is a dark horse candidate for NC this year, Richard Pettys, who could surprise us all; even if he does not win, with any luck he will keep Richard Harrison from being the next NC. You can view the NC candidates' web pages at http://www.usgw.org/restorethedream/, http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard/nc/index.htm, http://www.rootsweb.com/~gacgr/campaign/page1.html I Love The Smell of Napalm In The Morning Corner: All three candidates have been vocally active on the -ALL list over the last few days, and have been responding to member's questions. Of course, this would not be an election season without numerous smear campaigns. We note that there is already an effort to discredit John Rigdon, the only candidate who actually has experience and some plan for the project other than promoting the dysfunctional status quo. Unfortunately, by coming out in favor of incorporating the project as a non-profit, John has probably shot himself in the foot. Certain of our more rabid project members [David Samuelsen springs to mind] have used this as an excuse to wheel out the corpse of the Dill episode for another good kicking; it seems that is the only brush they have to tar John with and we can look forward to another month or so of rehashing old news. Keith Giddeon has publicly accused an -ALL poster who thinks incorporation might benefit us of being in cahoots with John Rigdon. He's also, as is usual for Keith when a conversation is not to his liking, raised the spectre of a lawsuit if anyone attempts to incorporate the project without his permission. Another poster who has publicly supported John has been accused of running an online porn portal and [you saw it coming] of being associated with Jerry Dill. And we have the usual crop of naysayers [Saint Megan, Keith, Linda Davenport, etc] threatening to pick up their toys and go home if the project incorporates [which is one of the best reasons I've seen yet to actually do it. ] To ice the pie, somehow or other, bashing Root$web bashers has worked its way into the mix. Apparently wanting to incorporate and have our own server and a modicum of independence from begging for scraps off Ancestry's table is a bad thing. Instead of promoting and improving our own selves, we are actually being encouraged by people that Root$web canned without mercy [one of them while she was recovering from an illness] to promote and support Ancestry.con, so that it may be fruitful and multiply and suck yet more cash out of genealogist's pockets. Of course Ancestry.con doesn't want us to incorporate; if we incorporate, they can't get the Archives when we fold. So if John Rigdon is unreedemably evil, how about the other choices? Richard Pettys has been in the project barely a year and appears uninformed on both the Project itself and on nuances of incorporation; its actually fairly easy to believe he's a ringer brought in by Tim and/or Keith [as one reader suggested, perhaps tongue in cheek]. Richard Harrison apparently wants the office so he can micromanage Board meetings. He has a history of obdurate righteousness, and has already made it clear that when he rules the world, things will change. No more of this free speech and dissenting stuff; it soils our image. I imagine he will be very popular with Jana's crowd. Neither of the Richards has any sort of new ideas for the project. So basically it comes down to: vote for John and risk Keith Giddeon's wrath, or pick a Richard and end up with the same stuff, different day. Tough choice, indeed. Stuffed Boxes Corner: The so-called election for SC of the NCGenWeb is over and the Election Committee has "officially" declared Derek Hartshorn as the winner, even though he got nowhere near a majority of the votes. [Funny, I do not recall that the EC is empowered to declare anyone the winner of anything; they are just supposed to collect votes and count them]. After several members of NCGW noted that the outcome was in violation of the bylaws, which require that a majority of votes be obtained before someone is awarded a seat, the acting SC of NCGenWeb requested that the EC conduct a run-off election between Derek and Ron Eason. The run-off is currently underway and ends next Friday. Comedy of Errors Corner: SW/SC CC rep Jana Black recently announced on the -ALL list that she was obtaining a booth for USGenWeb at the Federation of Genealogical Societies conference in Ontario, CA in August. She went the whole nine yards, solicited for volunteers, told people how to make brochures. Sadly though, the FGS smacked her down hard and refused to give her a booth. The reason: "FGS cannot give a free booth to any group, regardless of their volunteer status. The USGenWeb project does not qualify under conditions established for the Society Hall requirements for member societies. Since the project directly supports Ancestry, we suggest that you elicit Ancestry or RootWeb's support for booth space." [In other words, "we don't give free space to commercial companies."] Jana also says she asked Root$web and they told her no. Jana is now requesting that project members email the FGS and the conference organizers to protest their decision; failing that, apparently we are going to picket the conference. [Gee, maybe if we were incorporated as a non-profit ourselves we would be recognized as something other than a gullible arm of Ancestry.con's data harvesting machine.] === "Like a man traveling in foggy weather, those at some distance before him on the road he sees wrapped up in the fog, as well as those behind him, and also the people in the fields on each side, but near him all appears clear, though in truth he is as much in the fog as any of them." ---Benjamin Franklin This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2002 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. =============== GUIDELINES COMMITTEE WEEKLY REPORT, for the week ending June 22 2002 === On June 16 the weekly report was submitted to the Project. Three comments were received from project members and forwarded for discussion. - Page Design Issues: The Committee briefly discussed page design issues. One member suggested including a section that instructed members on how to design their pages so that visitors could copy and paste specific portions, as opposed to the entire page. This topic was deemed as more suitable for the Help pages subcommittee of the Publicity and Promotions Committee and was referred to them. - Rights and Responsibilities: USGenWeb National Coordinator Holly Timm solicited the Committee for members for the proposed new Rights & Responsibilities Committee. === The current version of the working document is posted at: http://www.radix.net/~merope/lcguide.txt Please address comments to Teresa Lindquist -Teresa Lindquist Chair, Guidelines Committee Representative At Large, USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net ============== Apparently someone is in a bad mood this morning. -Teresa > Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 04:37:37 -0600 > To: merope@Radix.Net > Subject: Re: unsubscribe merope@Radix.Net > X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > From: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com > > 32760 merope@Radix.Net > merope@Radix.Net > > You have been removed from the list. > > If this wasn't your intention or you are having problems getting yourself > unsubscribed, reply to this mail now (quoting it entirely (for diagnostic > purposes), and of course adding any comments you see fit). > > Transcript of unsubscription request follows: > -- > >From merope@Radix.Net > >From: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com > >Reply-To: merope@Radix.Net > >To: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com > >Subject: unsubscribe merope@Radix.Net =========== Apparently while Holly basks in the warm glow of Jana's approval, other bees have been busy as well... > Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 15:30:33 -0400 (EDT) > From: RadixNet Abuse Reports > To: merope > Subject: Website complaints (again) > > > Just to give you a heads up, we've recieved a request to remove > some pages on your website because of their "defamatory nature". > My initial response to them was that we cannot remove customer > data unless legally compelled. =============== I must be onto something...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! 23 June - 30 June 2002: [N.B.: apparently our great good friends over at Root$web are shuffling the mailing list servers and both Board-L and the secret list are being affected by it. This has resulted in the delay of some mail and the apparent loss of other mail; if any messages were missed due this, I apologize.] Current Motions: NE/NC SC Representative: On June 24, following the EC's announcement [see below] of a candidate for the NE/NC SC representative seat who was solicited and accepted outside the nomination period set forth in the bylaws, Robert Bremer moves "I move that the Advisory Board declare the NENC SC representative position vacant in the upcoming election and direct the Election Committee to list no names for the position on the ballot. The position will be filled under the direction of the next Advisory Board. In fairness to potential candidates for any position, the Election Committee will refrain from soliciting volunteers for positions after the close of a previously announced nomination period." Teresa Lindquist and Richard Harrison second this motion, with Richard noting, "the EC does not have the power to change the dates of the nomination period. The Board does not have the power to change the dates of the nomination period. This can be done only by an amendment to the bylaws." Phyllis Rippee than asks that Holly declare the motion out of order and notes "No motion is necessary in this case as what the EC has done is in violation of the USGW Project bylaws and should be informed of same." Holly agrees with Phyllis and says she will consider her suggestion. She later posts a self-serving message from Richard Howland explaining why the EC should be allowed to get away with appointing him. He notes "The Bylaws say, "A subcommittee to oversee elections shall be appointed by the Advisory Board." It does not say the AB will oversee the elections...The Bylaws say, "Nominations shall be received during the first two weeks of June."...The Bylaws do not say, Nominations shall be *only* received during the first two weeks of June. The Bylaws do not say what is to happen when no one accepts the nominations...The Standing EC can ask for AB help in deciding this question...But they don't have to go with what the AB decides...EC are charged with running a fair election. To do this it must be allowed to make its own decision, with no political interference." He then claims to not care one way or the other. On June 26, Phyllis withdraws her suggestion, noting "It appears that some are claiming that there is a difference in "nominations" and "volunteers." Thus, skirting the spirit of the bylaws if not directly violating the letter of them...If the EC is allowed to call for volunteers after the nominating period is over, such a call CANNOT be limited to just a position where there are no candidates, as this would be discriminating against someone who might wish to run due to not liking any of the choices he/she has for his/her representative." On June 27, Phyllis requests that Holly make a ruling on the motion. On June 28 Holly rules that "there are no nominees for the NE/NC SC Representative seat; that the EC is not empowered by either the Bylaws or its own guidelines to either solicit volunteers after they have closed the nominations or to use the unprecedented step of allowing a write-in candidate. The ballot position for the NE/NC SC Representative seat will remain vacant. As early as September 1, 2002, the new Advisory Board can deal with the vacancy as the Bylaws directs by appointing someone to it, hopefully by seeking the will of the SC's and ASC's of the NE/NC Region. The seat is not now vacant and there is nothing further for the present Advisory Board or the Election Committee to do. The motion by Robert Bremer, seconded by Teresa Lindquist and Richard Harrison is superfluous and unnecessary as it directs the Election Committee to not do something it is not to do anyway." Holly also notes in response to Rich's message above that "The next AB will be the ones faced with the vacancy and it will be their job, as dictated by the bylaws, to appoint some one to the position. It is neither the job of this AB nor of the EC to willy-nilly run over the bylaws and the EC guidelines." Other Business: Election: On June 24, the Election Committee announces that it has found a candidate for the NE/NC State Coordinator Representative seat. Former Board member Richard Howland has volunteered to stand for the seat. After the announcement is made on the Board list and the -ALL list, several project members protest the violation of both precedent and the bylaws and the Board discusses a motion to prevent the EC from listing Rich's name on the ballot [see above]. This attempt to do an end-run around the bylaws and the EC guidelines is truncated on June 28 following Holly's ruling. On June 26, Teresa asks the EC if they are still using Keith Giddeon's server for any part of the election process. Holly Timm forwards a response from Keith, who notes "My server was never used for any part of the election process." Linda Davenport also denies that Keith's server is still being used for election business [note the discrepancy]. Teresa then asks for an explanation of a piece of code from the very recent NCGenWeb election that appears to be passing voting information to a server at www.giddeon.com, which is registered to Keith Giddeon. Linda then explains that "The script is from the voter registration form. Keith set the form up when he was on the EC. When he left the EC he left the form running until we could move it. Joy Fisher agreed to host the registration form on her server. Before Joy could finish the form she became too ill to work on it. The form is still on Keith's server but as far as I know he's unaware it's still there...As for Keith having anything to do with the elections or being privy to any nomination or election information he doesn't...No one - not Keith, me, the EC or any other member of the Project has anything to do with either the nominations or the elections forms." [again, note the discrepancy; Keith says it never happened, Linda is saying it is no longer happening.] Eventually, Holly posts a message from Keith whereby he admits that the code is still running behind the EC's registration form and it is still forwarding registration information to his server. He claims to have forgotten all about it. Holly also forwards a message from EC member Joy Fisher, who takes full blame for the unfortunate oversight of leaving active code that directs registration information to the private server of someone no longer on the EC. Holly later forwards a message from Larry Stephens who affirms that the code does not forward any information to Keith Giddeon's server. On a less serious note, it looks like Tim Stowell got his wish to have "none of the above" on the ballot after all. Larry Stevens has noted that the new voting form must have a "none" radio button in order to allow people to change their vote should they decide they do not want to vote for any candidates in a particular race once they've already clicked a button. Like the loss of the ability to change one's vote up until the end of the election, this new addition to our election procedures is due solely to mechanical requirements and its more or less a done deal. Teresa does suggest however that they could label the "None" button "Clear Entries" or something similar. - FGS: After Jana's fiasco with the Federation of Genealogical Societies last week, Teresa forwards a message to the Board from a project member who suggests "perhaps the USGenWeb board might give some thought to approaching the FGS leadership in a constructive manner and building some bridges to other organizations." Holly informs the Board that she had approached the FGS last year and that they are not interested in "any bridge building" and she "was given the impression that the basis for their group was societies that are not online that are concerned about online posting of information stealing their revenue and that therefore no cooperation or allowances would be forthcoming." Jana notes that several members have volunteered to donate the funds to buy a booth so that USGW can be represented at the conference, and that she will herself scarf up the free registration that comes with the booth [even though her attendance is already paid for, according to her previous posts]. Since she doesn't have enough money from donors yet and doesn't want to pay for it herself because she "primarily wanted to see IF there is enough grass roots support to make this happen," she's now using the Board list to solicit more funds. [Is it just me or does it sound to anyone else like Jana wants USGW volunteers to pay her way to this conference?] - Guidelines Committee: On June 23, Teresa forwards the weekly Guidelines Committee report to the Board. - Rights and Responsibilities Committee: Holly Timm publishes a final call for volunteers for the proposed Rights and Responsibilities Committee. Volunteers were accepted until June 26. [Holly was to have announced the final committee on June 29 but she did not do so.] - Bylaws Committee: On June 25, Ginger Hayes resigns as Chair of the Bylaws Revision Committee, citing "pressing offline obligations". --- In Executive Session: June 24: messages from Tina Vickery, Richard Harrison, Tim Stowell June 25: messages from Tim Stowell, Tina Vickery, Holly Timm, Betsy Mills, Jana Black, Richard Harrison, Robert Bremer, Kathy Heidel June 26: messages from Tina Vickery, Pam Reid, Holly Timm, Phyllis Rippee, Betsy Mills, Tim Stowell, Jana Black, Kathy Heidel June 27: messages from Ron Eason, Jana Black, Tim Stowell On June 28, I was removed without warning or explanation from the secret list for reasons that have not been communicated to me and in apparent violation of the list rules published by National Coordinator Holly Timm on October 7, 2001 . No emails on this topic have been acknowledged and no response has been forthcoming. [I have not violated the rules that were posted for the list, as Holly as affirmed in the past, and although there have been several attempts to persuade Holly to remove me, she has steadfastly indicated she would not do so unless and until a motion was made to that effect and a proper vote was taken. I know this is USGW and peoples' words count for absolutely nothing, but still. I guess there is no point to having power if you do not use it imperiously.] Unless I receive the secret list correspondence via another mechanism, I will no longer be able to provide you with these weekly updates on the Executive Session on a reliable basis. You have my apologies. Tim Stowell has also been summarily excised from the list and probably Ron Eason as well. [For all I know, Holly has just decided to be done with it and unsubbed everyone. But I think if she had done so the squawking from the secrecy crowd would have been swift and furious.] === Running Unopposed Corner: We have known for some time that the EC has no problem taking matters into its own hands when it sees fit. This time they decided to fill a vacant seat by fiat. The EC's action was based on a suggestion made by Ron Eason that, although it was discussed briefly by the Board and received minimal support by Board members, apparently struck the EC as a Really Good Idea. Solicitiations for candidates were sent out to all SCs and ASCs in the NE/NC region that had not been nominated during the standard nominations period and lo and behold, former Board member and failed R-A-L candidate Richard Howland stepped bravely up to the plate. Given the reluctance of anyone else in that region to run for the seat, it was not likely that Richard would have opposition and by tradition unopposed candidates automatically win. Thus did the EC try to decide who sits on the Board. Fortunately, this abrupt departure from bylaws, guidelines and precedent was short-circuited. EC Chair Linda Davenport's explanation of how the EC's can justify this is priceless: "The EC has not been hiding the fact that we were requesting volunteers for this seat. There is nothing in the by-laws that preclude volunteers from stepping forward after the nominations are closed nor the EC accepting them as candidates." Apparently, her reading of the bylaws is selective, since the bylaws do set forth a very specific period for nominations and that period was well passed when she decided to give the seat away to whoever wanted it. Particularly interesting is that the action was taken in the midst of Board discussion on what to do with the seat. Popular sentiment was leaning toward letting the next Board decide whether to fill it or leave it vacant for the next election and although we can understand the EC's need for speed to get Rich's name on the ballot on the off chance he might have opposition, the unseemly haste with which the EC acted on a suggestion that was in the process of being rejected by the Board is instructive. It doesn't matter what the Board does or desires, the EC will take its own counsel on these matters and do what it pleases and will cobble together some excuse for it as needed. Big Brother is Watching Corner: Along with this fiasco [and we won't even mention the way they've found to get around having the Board approve new committee members], the EC is now faced with another scandal. After the recent NCGenWeb election, a member of that project contacted me with a question about the code behind the voting form, specifically the part that directs information from the form, including votes, to the server of someone named Keith Giddeon. When asked publicly if the EC still used Keith's server for anything involving elections, Linda Davenport merely responded "No," with no qualifications or explanations. Keith outright denied that they ever had used his server for anything involving elections. However, when presented with the actual code, Linda explained that it was just an old unimportant bit of a thing that they'd all managed to forget about and probably even Keith didn't remember that it was sitting on his server, quietly passing confidential information to someone who is not a member of the EC. This explains, I suppose, how Keith could deny it ever existed. At any rate, Keith is now holding his breath until he turns blue or something, since he doesn't want to answer any more difficult questions on the subject. In an aside to Joy Fisher which was apparently inadvertently posted to the -ALL list [although I would bet I was meant to see it], Linda brushes the whole embarrassing incident off by noting, "I misunderstood but it really doesn't matter - Teresa is turning over every rock she can find to try to get the EC discredited." It sounds from the tone of Linda's message that this little revelation caused a brief flurry of distress over at EC headquarters, at least until Linda could come up with a viable excuse for it that most Project members would buy. [And really, I don't have to go out of my way to "discredit" the EC. They manage fine on their own. So far we've had phantom voters, dual voters, creative interpretations and manipulations of the EC Guidelines and the Bylaws to suit the EC's purposes--witness the "EC Chair Shuffle", attacks on committee members, an attempt to unilaterally seat a Board member, and now "forgotten" code. Leaves you wondering what's next, doesn't it?] The original code that raised this concern is at: http://www.indiana.edu/~riskmgmt/Forms/NC_State.html This is the location recently used for the collection of votes for the recently concluded NCGenWeb runoff election. The code in question is this: Now, I'm not much of a coder and I have no idea what most of that means, so I asked someone who knows about these things. They assured me the code is active and functioning as written and that anything submitted via that form is going to www.giddeon.com. When I asked about it, I more or less expected that there was some reasonable explanation, and I would have been quite pleased if someone had just said "the code is commented out and is not forwarding votes to www.giddeon.com". Instead, however what happened is this: 1) Keith Giddeon denied publicly that his server had ever been used for any election related business 2) Linda Davenport indicated that Keith's server is no longer being used for any election related business 3) It turns out that Keith's server IS being used for the collection of election related information, but not via the NCGW election site; that code is apparently commented out, as several people have pointed out to me 4) Keith finally admitted publicly that "these form handling files are still on my server...The reason I was under the impression that these forms were no longer being used was Joy Fisher asked me for a copy of the files below a few months back and said the EC was going to be using a different method of form handling for these pages. When I sent the files to Joy I put the whole matter out of my mind." 5) Linda Davenport admitted publicly that yes, the form for registrations is still directing confidential information to Keith Giddeon's server. She pledges however to rectify this situation immediately, although as of this morning, its still there. [Linda's attempts to explain away this incident as unimportant because the information is not confidential are insulting to the project's members, and her attempts to direct the discussion away from the EC's lapses toward my failings are ludicrous, but amusing.] 6) Joy Fisher publicly apologized for failing to fix the code on the EC's registrations form, citing health reasons and a crush of EC business for her failure to remove the offending code. 7) Larry Stephens confirmed that the code for the NCGW election was not forwarding votes to Keith Giddeon and that all votes go only to his server at Indiana. So, apparently, the code that collected votes for the NCGenWeb election was NOT sending them to Keith's server, but the registration form for USGW elections IS. Doesn't that make you feel all safe and secure? Mud Slinging Corner: Ah yes...election season. The debate. The rhetoric. The mud. For those of you keeping score: -Time before the onset of the election of the first EC gaffe: 8 days -Time before the onset of the election of the second EC gaffe: 6 days; time to blaming the messenger: immediately -Time elapsed between Keith Giddeon "opening his heart" and begging us "can't we all just get along?" and his next mudslinging message: around 6 hours (slightly longer than it took him to delink John Rigdon after John told him he'd get his county into compliance). -Number of concerned yet anonymous posters to appear thus far on -ALL and tell us what a bunch of clowns we are while forwarding a barely disguised political agenda: 2 [girl cloud at cloudier4u@hotmail.com and an "innocent bystander" at Bb900000@aol.com]. Both came and went in very short order. [Maggie Stewart must have spare time on her hands these days.] -Number of people whose personal lives have been investigated and publicly trashed since the campaign began: 2 [Charles Barnum, Daryl Lytton; one has been accused of being a pornographer, the other has been told to take his buckets of money and go away.] This inquiry into and public exposure of personal information about USGenWeb members has been defended by none other than our Esteemed Former National Coordinator Tim Stowell who noted: "Anyone who posts to this list had best be prepared to be researched and reported on by other members of the list for it does occur." In Other Election News: In a stunning piece of non-news, NC candidate Richard Harrison came out squarely in favor of maintaining the status quo in regards to Board-Exec, the Board's secret trash-talking list, and pledged to pretty much leave it the way it is. After all, it works so well. Look at all the really cool stuff we accomplish on it . The _other_ Richard is busy telling anyone who asks that he helped can John Rigdon from GAGenWeb because the clause in the GAGenWeb guidelines that allows for immediate dismissal for commercial activity trumps the several clauses guaranteeing the members of that project due process. This may be instructive as to his priorities relative to the members he wishes to serve as NC. [And you folks out there sporting Ancestry.con and Root$web ads, beware! Such rampant commercialism could get your heinie kicked to the curb if you manage to irk some self-important little potentate with too much time on his hands.] The results are in for the NCGenWeb election runoff, and its a landslide victory for Derek Hartshorn, who garnered 28 votes to Ron Eason's 16 [we saw that one coming]. In what I believe to be a first for USGW, Derek takes the opportunity to openly gloat on the -ALL and the STATE-COORD lists, where he and Keith Giddeon indulge in some mutual stroking. Apparently flushed with victory, Derick then publicly goes after John Rigdon, in a message that attacks John for providing free server space and message boards to USGenWeb volunteers. [I don't know if he is willfully misrepresenting John's activities with the usgw.org site, or if he's just an idiot.] Derek does get off one clever bon mot in reference to the bumper crop of NC candidates: "I don't know who provided us with the original quotation, "Cream rises to the top." However, I don't think it necessarily applies to the situation here. It might be better interpreted by Lawrence J. Peter, who said, "In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence; the cream rises until it sours." But he then goes on to say "I am not so much into "restore the dream" and all that touchy-feely stuff. We have ALWAYS possessed the dream. It is time to RESTORE THE SANITY." [This is beyond irony at this point. It is embarrassing. Every year we have to deal with these people who pretend to be naive and who just "wandered across" something and are shocked, SHOCKED at what they found there and the profound evil it will cause to their beloved USGenWeb. Their heartbreaking tales of shattered innocence and new found fear for the future are enough to make one lose one's lunch. Is it too much to ask for some modicum of intellectual honesty in this project? Just for appearance's sake?] Piling It On Corner: As if finally succeeding in removing me from the secret list were not victory enough, I have been notified that Radio Free USGenWeb is once again under attack. My ISP has received complaints that several of the RFUSGW pages contain "defamatory" material and they have been requested to remove them. Although I haven't checked every page in the list my ISP provided, it does appear to be each and every DBS page wherein I refer to the Election Committee with less than full respect and admiration. The whiners have apparently been told to more or less buzz off. Yahoo has also been contacted in an effort to shut down the Daily Board Show and remove its archives. We find it ironic that this is occurring at the very time that several Board members have noted the outright injustice done to John Rigdon by the GAGW Council in its violation of its own guidelines and while Holly is attempting to establish a "Rights and Responsibilities" committee. And right before Independence Day too; have they no shame? === "Men in earnest have no time to waste In patching fig-leaves for the naked truth." ---James Russell Lowell This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2002 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. =============== Permission is granted to forward where appropriate. GUIDELINES COMMITTEE WEEKLY REPORT, for the week ending June 29 2002 === On June 23 the weekly report was submitted to the Project. One comment was received regarding page design issues. - State Coordinator Guidelines: On June 23, the Committee begins to discuss proposed State Coordinator guidelines. The Committee is currently discussing the state mailing lists requirements and the requirement that SCs belong to State-Coord-L. State mailing lists: Some concern was expressed over requiring very small states, territories, and/or districts with a very small number of counties (or no counties) to maintain a mailing list. Discussion thus far has supported a reading of the requirement to "maintain a current mailing list of all local-level coordinators" to include a less formal email system. Concern has also been expressed over SCs who remove Local Coordinators from the state mailing lists, SCs who do not forward important project-related business to the state mailing lists. These items are still under discussion. State-Coord-L: There is also a current requirement that SCs subscribe to State-Coord-L. This requirement is currently under discussion. === The current version of the working document is posted at: http://www.radix.net/~merope/lcguide.txt Please address comments to Teresa Lindquist -Teresa Lindquist Chair, Guidelines Committee Representative At Large, USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net =========== This is an absolute load of crap, but there you have it. -Teresa > X-Sender: usgenweb@pop.east.cox.net > X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 > Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 08:30:26 -0400 > To: Tim Stowell , merope > From: Holly Timm > Subject: Fwd: [Board-Exec] Unsubbing > > > If the lists and listservers had been behaving properly you would have seen this first before being unsubbed. > >> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 06:41:02 -0400 >> From: Holly Timm >> Subject: [Board-Exec] Unsubbing >> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >> >> This apparently got lost in the listserver problems so am resending >> >> ------------------- >> >> I wrote the following yesterday evening (6/26) only to find that the lists2 server it is on is down (which is why there has also been no mail on it). As soon as I have access to the list tools I will follow through with this. >> >> -------------------- >> After posting this message I am unsubscribing Tim Stowell because he is directly involved in an ongoing grievance and has additionally by his own admission forwarded discussion from this list to other involved parties without the permission or agreement of the individuals who posted or the board. >> >> I am also unsubscribing Teresa Lindquist as she has chosen not to participate in this list but to subvert it by emailing all the AB members in order to avoid the appearance of participating on the exec list herself and yet in actuality discussing issues privately while criticizing and flagrantly disrespecting the confidentiality of discussions of sensitive matters on the exec list. >> >> Holly Timm >> National Coordinator, USGenWeb Project =============== >> >> >> I am also unsubscribing Teresa Lindquist as she has chosen not to participate in this list but to subvert it by emailing all the AB members in order to avoid the appearance of participating on the exec list herself and yet in actuality discussing issues privately while criticizing and flagrantly disrespecting the confidentiality of discussions of sensitive matters on the exec list. I have not, per your own statement, violated the confidentiality of the secret list. I have NEVER denied that I participate in the secret list by reading it, but that I do not respond to it. It is clear to anyone who reads the DBS that I do participate in the list, I just do not post responses there. There is no rule disallowing sending personal mail to my colleagues; you have recognized this and stressed repeatedly that if the rest of the Board does not like it they can make and pass a motion and you would abide by their vote. You yourself have stated that you do not find the weekly summary of activity to be in violation of the list rules, and you have allowed it to continue for 8 months. Now suddenly I am "flagrantly disrespecting" your rules? Rules you yourself have ignored for the most part over the last few months and which you are in violation of with this action? Apparently following the rules is pointless. So be it. -Teresa merope@radix.net =========== Sorry folks, there will be no Daily Board Show this week. There's nothing happening worth writing about. However, so that you won't be left without reading material to peruse and ponder, I've posted the following. Get it while its hot; it won't be there long. http://merope.phantasm.org/SekritStuff/ "I know that I will lose today and that tomorrow will be a victory" ---Lech Walesa -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2002 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. =========== While I prepare this week's DBS, I thought you' all might be interested in some ancient history. Its not exactly beach reading, but some things never do change. http://merope.phantasm.org/SekritStuff/ "If you've got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow." ---John Wayne -Teresa Lindquist Representative At Large, USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net =========== More treats from the cookie jar: http://merope.phantasm.org/SekritStuff/ "Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup, they slither wildly, as they make their way across the universe." ---George Harrison -Teresa Lindquist Representative At Large, USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net ============ More old secret list stuff: http://merope.phantasm.org/SekritStuff/ "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" ---Dolores Ibarruri -Teresa Lindquist Representative-At-Large, USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net ============ > Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 21:07:05 -0600 > X-Original-Sender: keith@giddeon.com Mon Jul 22 21:07:04 2002 > From: "Keith Giddeon" > Old-To: "USGenWeb-ALL-L" > Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 22:06:04 -0500 > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) > Importance: Normal > Subject: [ALL-L] Petition > To: USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com > Resent-From: USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com > Reply-To: USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com > X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/26124 > X-Loop: USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com > Resent-Sender: USGENWEB-ALL-L-request@rootsweb.com > > http://www.giddeon.com/usgenweb/petition.html > > Feel free to post this anywhere. > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.377 / Virus Database: 211 - Release Date: 7/15/02 > > > ==== USGENWEB-ALL Mailing List ==== > The USGenWeb Project is not a commercial project. ============== There be new stuff... check it out! http://merope.phantasm.org/SekritStuff/ -Teresa Lindquist Representative-At-Large, USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net =========== > Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:36:24 -0500 > To: keith@giddeon.com, merope@radix.net > From: merope@radix.net > Subject: USGW Petition signed by Teresa Lindquist > > > > The petition at http://www.giddeon.com/usgenweb/petition.html was > submitted in the name of Teresa Lindquist, from merope@radix.net, who is a in Representative At Large, USGenWeb Project, . > > If this is in error, please email Keith Giddeon at rkg@giddeon.com. > > Thank you > > THE FORM WAS SUBMITTED FROM http://www.giddeon.com/usgenweb/petition.html. By a user at: 68.50.227.225. ============ When you cannot get what you want by open discussion and consensus, abuse your power. Its the USGenWeb Way. Effective immediately, this list is available to everyone for open discussion of USGenWeb issues and concerns. You may subscribe at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dailyboardshow and read messages there as well. Peace out, -Teresa Lindquist Representative At Large, USGenWeb Project Publisher, Daily Board Show "Besmirching the name of USGenWeb" since 1998