I want to weigh in on this discussion because I believe there has been misconceptions about the role of the many tools provided by Rootsweb and Rootsweb itself versus the USGenWeb. I pick and choose the tools available to me and never view them as a threat to my sites. I didn't use the GenConnect Boards initially because I was busy and it seemed too much trouble for the relatively few queries I was receiving. Later, after learning that I would essentially lose control of the queries, I decided against using the Boards. I concur that I don't own the queries but I do control them and decided I wanted to keep it that way - my decision. Teri's comments on the county cluster boards mirror my thoughts. They simply gather everything together and present it to researchers to pick and choose from. They in no way challenge USGenWeb sites. If anything they give us more exposure. The Archives Search Engine is a fantastically good tool and I use it for the NDGenWeb Archives and my web pages. It can search every file in ND in seconds and return surnames, town and village names and even stray words if they are related. Again, I like the tool and use it - my decision. The Archives are set up as a tool for the CCs use. They provide a repository which can be linked directly or thru indexes prepared to display information in artful and attractive formats. I look at them this way. County coordinators come and go, but the Archives remain. However, no one is forced to put their data in the Archives, but they are certainly encouraged to do so. I initially hesitated to put my data there until I felt comfortable with the Archives - my decision. Rootsweb has provided server space for the Archives which essentially is unlimited and free. We are now putting high quality census scans in the Archives. These scans gobble server space to the extent of 300kb-400kb per census page. Someway, somehow Rootsweb has stayed ahead of us in this space race, so to speak. Some of the downtime that we sometimes grouse about is caused by the upgrades required to stay ahead of the input that we are piling into the Archives to the extent now of nearly 3 gigabytes of data. Thru the hard work of Joy Fisher, now here on the Board, SD and ND now have Bureau of Land Management (BLM) records online for the two states. This has generated enough excitement to cause the State Genealogical Society of ND to put the Archive links in their last newsletter. Am I a Rootsweb supporter? Yes, to the extent of being a sponsor. Do I have to be? No - my decision. There is just no better deal around. Like it or leave it - your decision. Rootsweb controls only the servers, not USGenWeb. If we can find a server to mirror our data FREE we should consider it. The point is we as volunteers don't have to do anything we don't want to do. We can use any server we wish to use for our web pages. We can use or not use any tool available to us. We can incorporate our state organizations, fire the SC of a state if 2/3s of the CCs desire it, elect whomever we wish to represent us, ignore politics and let a minority elect our representatives or just plow into the genealogy that most of us love and ignore the rest. We can quit the USGenWeb if we wish, there will always be someone waiting to pick up the slack. We can even believe that all I have pointed out above is not so. But it is so. Volunteerism is the expression of a kind heart. Lets look for the best in what we do and have and not just for the worst. You now have a Board that will listen, answer questions and respect your opinions, but not always agree with you. Talk to us and we will listen. But if we don't, be sure and vote next time. Joe -- email:jzsed@slic.com http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm

I need Richard's email address to update the page.

Motion 99-26 - to appoint Richard Howland to the vacant seat for NE/NC CC Rep passes with 12 yes, 0 no, 3 not voting. Tim

You may be getting this twice Pam. I am resending since I'm not sure it got anywhere. It sent itself while I was in the middle of composing. <g> Looking over it I believe I said everything I intended to. Sorry, Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Ginger <gingerh@shawneelink.com> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Monday, November 01, 1999 7:34 AM Subject: Re: Fw: [BOARD-L] NE-NC Advisory Board Rep & other concerns > > > >Ginger >gingerh@shawneelink.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: Pam Carey Durstock (by way of Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net>) ><durp@one.net> >To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> >Date: Monday, November 01, 1999 6:17 AM >Subject: Re: Fw: [BOARD-L] NE-NC Advisory Board Rep & other concerns > > >>Hi Teri, >> >>I'm sending my response directly to BOARD-L. If it doesn't make it there, >>will you forward this for me? (If it does make it there, my apologies for >>your receiving 2 copies) --Pam >> >> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: Teri Pettit <pettit@Adobe.COM> >>>To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> >>>Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 10:42 PM >>>Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] NE-NC Advisory Board Rep & other concerns >>> >>>I think we should get a clear written answer from GenConnect and >>>Rootsweb what the policy is on this kind of reformatting. <<snip>> >> >Hi Pam >> >>Neither GenConnect nor RootsWeb have any objection whatsoever with a CC >>reformatting copies of the queries from a GenConnect board which that CC >>admins, and putting the reformatted queries on their website ... no matter >>where that website is (for the purposes of clarity, "website" is *not* >>defined as another web-based bulletin board system). > >As you know I am not a GenConnect fan. Not that I don't think it is a >great tool, but I don't think the present use of GC by the USGW Project >CC's is fair to either the CC's or the researchers. As has been stated, >and shown, numerous times, GC is not a part of the USGW Project. >It is in fact a stand alone project and those CC's who use it are in fact >GC volunteers. The problem comes in that CC's who began using >GC thought it was "theirs", and that perception was fostered by GC. > >The researchers who leave information and queries on a GC board that >they access from a county website believe they are leaving that query >or information with the USGW Project. This, in fact, is not the case. >Material that they believe they are submitting to USGW is actually being >submitted to GC, and is not under the care and/or control of the USGW >Project, the intended recipient. While most researchers would not care, >I still don't like misconceptions and misrepresentation. > >It is my firm belief that any USGW Project affiliated website that uses >GC as a means of collecting queries and other information should >carry a disclosure statement informing researchers that any information >submitted to these boards is being submitted to GenConnect, >that GenConnect is not a part of the USGenWeb Project and any material >submitted there is not under the care and/or control of the USGW Project. > >> ><sni >If what you say is true then allowing reformatting and placing of queries on >a county site can not be done without the permission of the original poster. >Admittedly I'm not very familiar with GC but in the boards I have visited >I have not seen anything plainly posted informing a visitor that by placing >a query on the board they are also giving permission for that query to be >copied and reposted elsewhere. >> >>If a CC prefers a system that merely collects and formats the queries for >>them, but desires to have the queries on their website and nowhere else, >>Query Express would be a better choice for them. GenConnect is designed >>for long-term storage and searchability. >> >>Only under clearly defined situations may individual queries be deleted >>without the poster's permission. And under no circumstances may a board be >>"wiped out" without the permission of all the posters. >> >>In a nutshell, copying/reformatting/uploading elsewhere is perfectly fine, >>deleting them after copying is not permitted. >> >>Pam Carey Durstock >>GenConnect Developer >>pam@rootsweb.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >

Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Pam Carey Durstock (by way of Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net>) <durp@one.net> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Monday, November 01, 1999 6:17 AM Subject: Re: Fw: [BOARD-L] NE-NC Advisory Board Rep & other concerns >Hi Teri, > >I'm sending my response directly to BOARD-L. If it doesn't make it there, >will you forward this for me? (If it does make it there, my apologies for >your receiving 2 copies) --Pam > > >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: Teri Pettit <pettit@Adobe.COM> >>To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> >>Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 10:42 PM >>Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] NE-NC Advisory Board Rep & other concerns >> >>I think we should get a clear written answer from GenConnect and >>Rootsweb what the policy is on this kind of reformatting. <<snip>> > Hi Pam > >Neither GenConnect nor RootsWeb have any objection whatsoever with a CC >reformatting copies of the queries from a GenConnect board which that CC >admins, and putting the reformatted queries on their website ... no matter >where that website is (for the purposes of clarity, "website" is *not* >defined as another web-based bulletin board system). As you know I am not a GenConnect fan. Not that I don't think it is a great tool, but I don't think the present use of GC by the USGW Project CC's is fair to either the CC's or the researchers. As has been stated, and shown, numerous times, GC is not a part of the USGW Project. It is in fact a stand alone project and those CC's who use it are in fact GC volunteers. The problem comes in that CC's who began using GC thought it was "theirs", and that perception was fostered by GC. The researchers who leave information and queries on a GC board that they access from a county website believe they are leaving that query or information with the USGW Project. This, in fact, is not the case. Material that they believe they are submitting to USGW is actually being submitted to GC, and is not under the care and/or control of the USGW Project, the intended recipient. While most researchers would not care, I still don't like misconceptions and misrepresentation. It is my firm belief that any USGW Project affiliated website that uses GC as a means of collecting queries and other information should carry a disclosure statement informing researchers that any information submitted to these boards is being submitted to GenConnect, that GenConnect is not a part of the USGenWeb Project and any material submitted there is not under the care and/or control of the USGW Project. > <sni If what you say is true then allowing reformatting and placing of queries on a county site can not be done without the permission of the original poster. Admittedly I'm not very familiar with GC but in the boards I have visited I have not seen anything plainly posted informing a visitor that by placing a query on the board they are also giving permission for that query to be copied and reposted elsewhere. > >If a CC prefers a system that merely collects and formats the queries for >them, but desires to have the queries on their website and nowhere else, >Query Express would be a better choice for them. GenConnect is designed >for long-term storage and searchability. > >Only under clearly defined situations may individual queries be deleted >without the poster's permission. And under no circumstances may a board be >"wiped out" without the permission of all the posters. > >In a nutshell, copying/reformatting/uploading elsewhere is perfectly fine, >deleting them after copying is not permitted. > >Pam Carey Durstock >GenConnect Developer >pam@rootsweb.com > > > > > > > >

Hi Teri, I'm sending my response directly to BOARD-L. If it doesn't make it there, will you forward this for me? (If it does make it there, my apologies for your receiving 2 copies) --Pam >----- Original Message ----- >From: Teri Pettit <pettit@Adobe.COM> >To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 10:42 PM >Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] NE-NC Advisory Board Rep & other concerns > >I think we should get a clear written answer from GenConnect and >Rootsweb what the policy is on this kind of reformatting. <<snip>> Neither GenConnect nor RootsWeb have any objection whatsoever with a CC reformatting copies of the queries from a GenConnect board which that CC admins, and putting the reformatted queries on their website ... no matter where that website is (for the purposes of clarity, "website" is *not* defined as another web-based bulletin board system). Reformatting and placing copies on your website was the sole purpose in designing the 'Full' option [formerly known as the 'CCHelper Format' option] for receiving admin notices ... so that you *could* reformat the queries and place them on your website. This was our original position, and has not changed. We're pleased to help you get formatted copies for your websites. What is *not* permitted is removing them from the board once the copies are placed on your website. If you were to photocopy pages from a book in the library, I think we'd all agree that we wouldn't then tear the pages out of the book after we finished making our copies. And if asked why we wouldn't do this, the answer would be easy ... "because it isn't fair to others who might want to read the book, and because I don't own the book". These original queries are not to be destroyed on the GenConnect board where they were originally posted. Removing posts from GenConnect would be equally unfair to those who posted them there anticipating future responses (and to those who may want to read them in the future), and additionally - the CC doesn't own the queries. The visitors who posted them do. If a CC prefers a system that merely collects and formats the queries for them, but desires to have the queries on their website and nowhere else, Query Express would be a better choice for them. GenConnect is designed for long-term storage and searchability. Only under clearly defined situations may individual queries be deleted without the poster's permission. And under no circumstances may a board be "wiped out" without the permission of all the posters. In a nutshell, copying/reformatting/uploading elsewhere is perfectly fine, deleting them after copying is not permitted. Pam Carey Durstock GenConnect Developer pam@rootsweb.com

Aye! Tim Stowell wrote: > > Now that Motion 99-26 has been made and seconded to appoint Richard Howland > as the new Northeast/North Central County Coordinator Representative, and > whereas there seems to be no need for discussion, please cast your vote by > saying your equivalent of - yes, no, abstain. All Board members please vote. > > Thanks, > Tim > > At 06:36 AM 10/30/99 -0500, you wrote: > >Good Morning, > >Since the time period for feedback from the county > >coordinators has now ended, and since the feedback > >I received was overwhelmingly in favor of Richard Howland, > >I move that Richard Howland be appointed by this Board > >to the position of Northeast/North Central County Coordinator > >Representative, to fill the vacancy created by Bonnie > >McVicar-Briggs resignation. > > > >Ginger Hayes > >gingerh@shawneelink.com > >NE/NC SC Rep > > > >

Whew, thanks for saying you forgot to let me know. I thought I was losing my mind as I didn't remember hearing that your address had changed. Pam Jim Powell Jr wrote: > > Thanks Terri... That one slipped my mind. I should have asked to have > it changed. > > Jim

Pat and Advisory Board members, Pat Sabin wrote: >I had planned to wait until the elections were over and the new board in >place before writing this letter, so I'll respond to the nominees for CC >board member for the NE-NC region first. > <snip> > >If you only have two candidates, I would support David Young. David >certainly shows a continuing, unstoppable enthusiasm for the Project. >I think he's one of about five subscribers to the NE list, and the only >one who posts on the list. I am sure that either candidate would have made a valuable addition to the Advisory Board. All the feedback about both candidates was positive. Nobody said anything negative about the "other" candidate, except for one person who said that David Young might be spreading himself too thin, which I did not attach any weight to because several of our most active Board members also carry multiple counties and/or states, and seem to manage it fine. There were just many more messages from supporters of Richard Howland. This may say more about the level of activism of the people who work with the two candidates than it does about the nominees themselves, but it was all some of us had to go on. Not being from the NE/NC region myself, and not being personally familiar with either nominee, I decided early on to let the input from the NE/NC CC's be the major factor in my decision. >My concern prior to the election is still a concern. I think the >Advisory Board and the RootsWeb Cheerleading team, often one and the >same, have a tendency to dismiss opinions that are expressed by those >you have called the "Screamers." I'm not sure who the "you" is. If anyone was called a screamer, it must have been on a list that I don't read. I agree that we should not dismiss the concerns of any group of CC's, even those who are in a minority and those who tend to express their opinions in an overly strident manner. >There are many County Coordinators (and State Coordinators) that do not >spend their time in lengthy debates on the mailing lists, but that does >not mean they do not have strong opinions. Agreed. It's just hard to know what their opinions are if they don't express them! We are hoping to work out some way to gather SC and CC input that is easy to use and not overly intrusive on those who want to keep their mailboxes free of politics. Something like an online forum or discussion board, on a non-Rootsweb server. >The issue, as you know, is RootsWeb's hold on the USGenWeb Project. >Please do not make the mistake of believing that only the "Screamers" >and the banned and blocked are opposed to the extent of the involvement. While it is true that the Advisory Board members, both past and present, tend to view Rootsweb either favorably or with mixed feelings, it is worth bearing in mind that their positions were known when they campaigned. The fact that nobody with a strongly negative stance toward Rootsweb has ever won an election for a national office suggests that the majority of the SC's and CC's have opinions that roughly align with those of the board members they voted in. I realize, though, that this may not be a very large majority. One of the drawbacks of a representative democracy is that it tends to exaggerate a small majority. The true spread of opinion on an issue might be something like 55 to 45, but if it doesn't fall into geographically-based camps, then it can get translated into a 100 to zero spread in the representatives they elect! This is the major reason that I favor putting all policy decisions DIRECTLY in the hands of the voters, rather than having the board decide them. The board should deal with implementation, and let direct votes of the volunteers set the direction. >I think many, many county and state coordinators got a wake up call >when the County Cluster pages made their debut. I don't really understand this concern about the County Cluster pages. I'm not dismissing it, I'm just puzzled by it. The County Cluster pages are *very* different from the USGenWeb pages. They are computer-generated boilerplates. They all look identical, to the point of including a link to the Ship Passenger Arrivals database even for midwestern states that have no ports. The cluster pages have no personal touch, no historical or background information, no data except what has been submitted to the GenConnect boards, and except for the links to USGenWeb pages, almost no links to any county resources outside of Rootsweb. I don't think there's any danger whatsoever that visitors will view them as an "alternative" to USGenWeb county pages, and it is clear they were never intended as such. They are horses of a different color. They are so plainly automated indexes to automated Rootsweb resources, that I don't see how anybody could think of them as competition for the same audience. The ALHN pages are *much* more overlapping in style and substance with the USGenWeb county pages. Both are networks of independent volunteers who design their own web pages with a great deal of personal flair and autonomy. As chartered, ALHN focuses on local history with ties to genealogy of local families, while USGenWeb concentrates on genealogy with a smattering of local history. But in practice the two networks are more alike than different. As you yourself point out, many of the pages have been moved from one network to the other. I personally don't view *either* ALHN or Rootweb County Cluster pages as "competition", and think there is plenty of room for as many different sites as anyone wants to build. But it is hard for me to understand the mindset of someone who views the RW Cluster pages as so competitive that they are a reason to leave Rootsweb and maybe USGenWeb to boot, while the ALHN pages are somehow not competitive at all. If we can coexist peacefully with the very similar network of personal county pages, why can't we coexist peacefully with the very different set of automated submission boards and computer-generated link pages? >Many, like me, while not >abandoning their GenConnect boards and RootsWeb mailing lists, are much >more cautious in that relationship. While I have not made any such >decisions, I am prepared at any moment to disconnect my relationship >with RootsWeb if necessary. I believe I am not in the minority. I do have some misgivings about the GenConnect boards, even though I use them. When Pam Carey first introduced the GenConnect boards, they were not part of Rootsweb, and she publically stated that it was perfectly fine to use GenConnect as a "front end" for collecting queries, which could then be massaged into a more formatted presentation either using Surname Helper or by hand, and placed on any web site on any host of the CC's choice. There are advantages to a GenConnect-like system, especially in ease of submission and very low labor requirement from the CC, but it also has drawbacks for browsing. It's good if you have a narrow interest that you want to query on, but if you want to browse the queries for a county and see if it includes any of the 50 surnames you're researching, it is a lot easier to do that in a surname indexed table than it is to query on 50 surnames. I don't share the fear of some CC's that Rootsweb will try to sell CD's or books garnered from the GenConnect submissions. But I am quite uneasy about whether they might attempt to prevent CC's from taking queries submitted through GenConnect, and archiving them in another form such as the "Surname Helper" generated pages, or this format of my own: http://www.best.com/~tpettit/rowan/rowan-q.html especially if the reformatted queries were placed on another server. When GenConnect became associated with Rootsweb, Rootsweb seemed to claim rights to the "compilation" that might imply CC's did not have the right to use it as a front-end for reformatted queries anymore. (Whether they do depends on whether you interpret taking queries one-by-one and doing something with all of them individually to be equivalent to doing something with the "compilation".) I think we should get a clear written answer from GenConnect and Rootsweb what the policy is on this kind of reformatting. >My other RootsWeb issue is the Advisory Board's acceptance of RootsWeb's >banning policy. As sick and tired as I get of all the debating and >name-calling and bickering, we're a diverse group who will express many >ideas and opinions. All CCs and SCs should be allowed to participate >in USGenWeb lists and vote without special dispensation. The existing >situation is, in my opinion, intolerable. I view the Rootsweb banning policy as problematic too. While it's true that every free service claims a right to ban abusers, and they all categorize casting aspersions on the integrity of the service provider as abuse, we would be much less likely to run afoul of this universally claimed "right to deny service" if the service we were using had no potential or perceived conflict of interest. Yahoo or HotMail will claim the same right, but CC's aren't nearly as likely to be using the project lists to complain about Yahoo! So if we cannot get Rootsweb to change their policy about banning people they perceive as "telling lies" about Rootsweb, I would favor moving all of the official lists to a server that was not directly involved in genealogy, if we could find one to accomodate the load without too many requirements. The ListBot that Teresa uses for the Daily Board Show so far seems fairly benign. OneList, on the other hand, has some very invasive policies requiring you to submit to full html banners embedded in your email unless you provide them with a bunch of demographic data that they can use to target ads. Yuck! But, I do not think this is the kind of thing that the Advisory Board should make a decision on. It is something that should be brought directly to the CC's for a vote. >I also see these folks dismissed as radical nuts who obviously can't >spend much time working on genealogy. Again, I'm not a "Screamer" >or a banned CC, but we are all multi-dimensional, aren't we? >.... As I would do in local politics, I want to hear all sides >before making up my mind. I'm don't know who you perceive as doing this dismissing, but if anyone is dismissing someone as a "screamer", I'm sure they are doing so precisely because the individuals in question are *not* disposed to hearing all sides. That's what "screaming" is - holding your hands over your ears and insisting that only your own voice matters. Screamers can exist on all sides of an issue. It is a description of a style of interaction, not of a policy position. I doubt very much that any current board member has ever dismissed someone with a opposing opinion who is willing to state it in a manner which respects those who see things differently. Certainly we do not dismiss concerns about the relationship between USGenWeb and Rootsweb; it is one of the main issues that we intend to work on. In summary, on the issue of our relationship with Rootsweb, 1. I think we should encourage diversifying servers and mirroring web sites on multiple servers, because no matter how good a provider is, it weakens us to be so dependent on the stability and accessibility of a single web presence provider. 2. I think the County Cluster pages are not competitive and pose no threat, intended or actual, to USGenWeb county pages. 3. I do not fear that Rootsweb intends to ever sell our data. 4. I *do* fear that Rootsweb may place restrictions on the use of GenConnect-collected data and queries that makes it much less than ideal as a data-collection mechanism. 5. I think that the Rootsweb policy of banning those who object vociferously and undiplomatically to Rootsweb actions poses serious problems with using Rootsweb to host our official project mailing lists. 6. I am concerned about the public perception that USGenWeb is "part of" Rootsweb, and think we need to do much more to visibly distinguish ourselves as a separate project. As you can see, a mixed bag. The other Advisory Board members undoubtably differ on particulars, but I think most of us have some middle-of-the-road set of opinions about Rootsweb. We are no more a group of "cheerleaders" than the people with a more strongly negative position are a group of "screamers". >My other issue is the power struggle between the Census Project >and the Archives Project. Frankly, the debates on this issue have >convinced me to maintain *all* on my data on my county pages. >This is an ugly situation and needs attention or it will continue >to erode the USGenWeb Project. I think the name-calling and fence erecting that is going on between these two projects is childish and counter-productive too. But I am not at all convinced that it "needs attention" from the Advisory Board. I'm afraid that giving attention to the combatants will will just open up a new round of "he said - she said" accusations. Sometimes the best way to deal with squabblers is to let them work out their differences in a quiet corner. Public attention tends to make everyone focus on the goal of being declared "more right", so that the air fills up with accusations and defenses, instead of solutions to problems. Away from the glare of attention, the two sides may be more open to compromise. (I will admit that I'm somewhat in a minority here. Most of the Board members are more eager to "do something" about it than I am.) >Please consider that many CCs feel this way and are just not >bothering to express themselves. Thanks for "listening." And thanks for expressing your concerns in an intelligent and thoughtful manner. I hope that the silent CC's who share your feelings appreciate the effort that you've made to speak up for them. I hope also that you will find that we are not prone to dismissing anyone's concerns. Teri Pettit Rowan Co KYGenWeb Coordinator http://www.best.com/~tpettit/rowan/ USGenWeb CC Rep, SE/MA Region http://www.best.com/~tpettit/usgenweb/board99.html

Thanks Terri... That one slipped my mind. I should have asked to have it changed. Jim

Pam, The web page with the Advisory Board email addresses still has Jim Powell's old email address at worldnet. Do you think you could change it to his new address <jpowelljr@gru.net> the next time you update the page? (I noticed this when my first reply to Pat Sabin's message got a bounce from Jim's address.) http://www.usgenweb.org/about/whoswho.html Thanks, Teri

Pat has obviously written this message with a great deal of sincerity and candor and I respect her viewpoints although I don't agree with all of them. For the moment, as Archives Representative, I will only comment on the next to last paragraph below. "Pat Sabin (by way of Teri Pettit)" wrote: > Forwarding to Board-L for discussion, at Pat Sabin's request: > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > Dear Advisory Board, > > I had planned to wait until the elections were over and the new board in > place before writing this letter, so I'll respond to the nominees for CC > board member for the NE-NC region first. > > The apathy demonstrated by the inactivity of the CC lists since the > elections certainly applies to me, too. Perhaps that's as it should be - > CCs concentrating on improving their county sites and not concerned > about national politics. > > If you only have two candidates, I would support David Young. David > certainly shows a continuing, unstoppable enthusiasm for the Project. > I think he's one of about five subscribers to the NE list, and the only > one who posts on the list. > > My concern prior to the election is still a concern. I think the > Advisory Board and the RootsWeb Cheerleading team, often one and the > same, have a tendency to dismiss opinions that are expressed by those > you have called the "Screamers." > > There are many County Coordinators (and State Coordinators) that do not > spend their time in lengthy debates on the mailing lists, but that does > not mean they do not have strong opinions. > > I think the recent growth of the A.L.H.N. is the result of *many* > disgruntled CCs and SCs, including former USGenWeb Advisory Board > Members, quietly moving their pages, or starting new pages in a > different environment. For every hysterical CC who makes a bold > announcement on the CC list, there are twenty who make no announcement, > but are quietly transferring their affiliation to another organization. > > The issue, as you know, is RootsWeb's hold on the USGenWeb Project. > Please do not make the mistake of believing that only the "Screamers" > and the banned and blocked are opposed to the extent of the involvement. > I think many, many county and state coordinators got a wake up call when > the County Cluster pages make their debut. Many, like me, while not > abandoning their GenConnect boards and RootsWeb mailing lists, are much > more cautious in that relationship. While I have not made any such > decisions, I am prepared at any moment to disconnect my relationship > with RootsWeb if necessary. I believe I am not in the minority. > > My other RootsWeb issue is the Advisory Board's acceptance of RootsWeb's > banning policy. As sick and tired as I get of all the debating and > name-calling and bickering, we're a diverse group who will express many > ideas and opinions. All CCs and SCs should be allowed to participate in > USGenWeb lists and vote without special dispensation. The existing > situation is, in my opinion, intolerable. > > I also see these folks dismissed as radical nuts who obviously can't > spend much time working on genealogy. Again, I'm not a "Screamer" or a > banned CC, but we are all multi-dimensional, aren't we? I work full > time in real estate in busy Atlanta, maintain a home on my own, serve as > an officer on my church's Board of Trustees, have friends and family > nearby, and spend an inordinate (some would say ridiculous) amount of > time on genealogy...and I still read and consider these USGenWeb debate > issues. As I would do in local politics, I want to hear all sides > before making up my mind. > > My other issue is the power struggle between the Census Project and the > Archives Project. Frankly, the debates on this issue have convinced me > to maintain *all* on my data on my county pages. This is an ugly > situation and needs attention or it will continue to erode the USGenWeb > Project. The Census problem will be addressed once the Board reaches a full complement. The vote is underway now to bring the Board to that status. I hope that everyone with an interest in the Census conflict will read and analyze the dialog that ensues devoid of personalities. For if we don't it will never be resolved. I attempted to work the problem in that vein during the last Board session without success prior to proposing Motion 99-12. I sent private emails which were snubbed or sluffed off. Not one iota of compromise could be reached. Thus, Motion 99-12. It got everyone's attention and expressed the frustration felt by the majority of the Archives file managers who play by the rules and in a democratic way help make those rules. Anyway, before I get into this any deeper let's get the Board up to strength. > > > Please consider that many CCs feel this way and are just not bothering > to express themselves. Thanks for "listening." > > Pat Sabin > New London County CTGenWeb - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ctnewlon/ > Jonesborough TNGenWeb - http://www.rootsweb.com/~tncjones/ > DuPage County IL ALHN - http://www.usgennet.org/~ahildupa/ > Washington County TN ALHN - http://www.usgennet.org/~ahtnwash/ Joe -- email:jzsed@slic.com http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm

I understand some of Pat's concerns even though I disagree with her on some points. We've exchanged a few emails since her initial message. I think maybe it is time we started exploring the possibility of a more formal arrangement between the USGenWeb Project and Rootsweb.com, Inc. I think maybe if the line between the two were less blurry and if the rights and responsibilities of each entity were spelled out, a lot of this hassle could be alleviated. At least as much of it as possible. Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Pat Sabin (by way of Teri Pettit) <psabin@bellsouth.net> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Sunday, October 31, 1999 6:04 PM Subject: [BOARD-L] NE-NC Advisory Board Rep & other concerns >Forwarding to Board-L for discussion, at Pat Sabin's request: >------------------------------------------------------------- > >Dear Advisory Board, > >I had planned to wait until the elections were over and the new board in >place before writing this letter, so I'll respond to the nominees for CC >board member for the NE-NC region first. > >The apathy demonstrated by the inactivity of the CC lists since the >elections certainly applies to me, too. Perhaps that's as it should be - >CCs concentrating on improving their county sites and not concerned >about national politics. > >If you only have two candidates, I would support David Young. David >certainly shows a continuing, unstoppable enthusiasm for the Project. >I think he's one of about five subscribers to the NE list, and the only >one who posts on the list. > >My concern prior to the election is still a concern. I think the >Advisory Board and the RootsWeb Cheerleading team, often one and the >same, have a tendency to dismiss opinions that are expressed by those >you have called the "Screamers." > >There are many County Coordinators (and State Coordinators) that do not >spend their time in lengthy debates on the mailing lists, but that does >not mean they do not have strong opinions. > >I think the recent growth of the A.L.H.N. is the result of *many* >disgruntled CCs and SCs, including former USGenWeb Advisory Board >Members, quietly moving their pages, or starting new pages in a >different environment. For every hysterical CC who makes a bold >announcement on the CC list, there are twenty who make no announcement, >but are quietly transferring their affiliation to another organization. > >The issue, as you know, is RootsWeb's hold on the USGenWeb Project. >Please do not make the mistake of believing that only the "Screamers" >and the banned and blocked are opposed to the extent of the involvement. >I think many, many county and state coordinators got a wake up call when >the County Cluster pages make their debut. Many, like me, while not >abandoning their GenConnect boards and RootsWeb mailing lists, are much >more cautious in that relationship. While I have not made any such >decisions, I am prepared at any moment to disconnect my relationship >with RootsWeb if necessary. I believe I am not in the minority. > >My other RootsWeb issue is the Advisory Board's acceptance of RootsWeb's >banning policy. As sick and tired as I get of all the debating and >name-calling and bickering, we're a diverse group who will express many >ideas and opinions. All CCs and SCs should be allowed to participate in >USGenWeb lists and vote without special dispensation. The existing >situation is, in my opinion, intolerable. > >I also see these folks dismissed as radical nuts who obviously can't >spend much time working on genealogy. Again, I'm not a "Screamer" or a >banned CC, but we are all multi-dimensional, aren't we? I work full >time in real estate in busy Atlanta, maintain a home on my own, serve as >an officer on my church's Board of Trustees, have friends and family >nearby, and spend an inordinate (some would say ridiculous) amount of >time on genealogy...and I still read and consider these USGenWeb debate >issues. As I would do in local politics, I want to hear all sides >before making up my mind. > >My other issue is the power struggle between the Census Project and the >Archives Project. Frankly, the debates on this issue have convinced me >to maintain *all* on my data on my county pages. This is an ugly >situation and needs attention or it will continue to erode the USGenWeb >Project. > >Please consider that many CCs feel this way and are just not bothering >to express themselves. Thanks for "listening." > >Pat Sabin >New London County CTGenWeb - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ctnewlon/ >Jonesborough TNGenWeb - http://www.rootsweb.com/~tncjones/ >DuPage County IL ALHN - http://www.usgennet.org/~ahildupa/ >Washington County TN ALHN - http://www.usgennet.org/~ahtnwash/ > >

Aye RootsLady (aka) Barbara Yancey Dore Southwest/South Central County Coordinator Representative ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 1999 12:20 PM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Motion to fill NE/NC rep position > > Now that Motion 99-26 has been made and seconded to appoint Richard Howland > as the new Northeast/North Central County Coordinator Representative, and > whereas there seems to be no need for discussion, please cast your vote by > saying your equivalent of - yes, no, abstain. All Board members please vote. > > Thanks, > Tim

Re: >Now that Motion 99-26 has been made and seconded to appoint Richard Howland >as the new Northeast/North Central County Coordinator Representative Yes

yes Shari Handley -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Saturday, October 30, 1999 2:35 PM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Motion to fill NE/NC rep position > >Now that Motion 99-26 has been made and seconded to appoint Richard Howland >as the new Northeast/North Central County Coordinator Representative, and >whereas there seems to be no need for discussion, please cast your vote by >saying your equivalent of - yes, no, abstain. All Board members please vote. > >Thanks, >Tim > >At 06:36 AM 10/30/99 -0500, you wrote: >>Good Morning, >>Since the time period for feedback from the county >>coordinators has now ended, and since the feedback >>I received was overwhelmingly in favor of Richard Howland, >>I move that Richard Howland be appointed by this Board >>to the position of Northeast/North Central County Coordinator >>Representative, to fill the vacancy created by Bonnie >>McVicar-Briggs resignation. >> >>Ginger Hayes >>gingerh@shawneelink.com >>NE/NC SC Rep >> >> > >

Aye Tim Stowell wrote: > Now that Motion 99-26 has been made and seconded to appoint Richard Howland > as the new Northeast/North Central County Coordinator Representative, and > whereas there seems to be no need for discussion, please cast your vote by > saying your equivalent of - yes, no, abstain. All Board members please vote. > Joe -- email:jzsed@slic.com http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm

Yes Maggie ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 1999 2:20 PM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Motion to fill NE/NC rep position Now that Motion 99-26 has been made and seconded to appoint Richard Howland as the new Northeast/North Central County Coordinator Representative, and whereas there seems to be no need for discussion, please cast your vote by saying your equivalent of - yes, no, abstain. All Board members please vote. Thanks, Tim At 06:36 AM 10/30/99 -0500, you wrote: >Good Morning, >Since the time period for feedback from the county >coordinators has now ended, and since the feedback >I received was overwhelmingly in favor of Richard Howland, >I move that Richard Howland be appointed by this Board >to the position of Northeast/North Central County Coordinator >Representative, to fill the vacancy created by Bonnie >McVicar-Briggs resignation. > >Ginger Hayes >gingerh@shawneelink.com >NE/NC SC Rep > >

Yes. Tina Vickery

Yes Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Saturday, October 30, 1999 1:35 PM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Motion to fill NE/NC rep position > >Now that Motion 99-26 has been made and seconded to appoint Richard Howland >as the new Northeast/North Central County Coordinator Representative, and >whereas there seems to be no need for discussion, please cast your vote by >saying your equivalent of - yes, no, abstain. All Board members please vote. > >Thanks, >Tim > >At 06:36 AM 10/30/99 -0500, you wrote: >>Good Morning, >>Since the time period for feedback from the county >>coordinators has now ended, and since the feedback >>I received was overwhelmingly in favor of Richard Howland, >>I move that Richard Howland be appointed by this Board >>to the position of Northeast/North Central County Coordinator >>Representative, to fill the vacancy created by Bonnie >>McVicar-Briggs resignation. >> >>Ginger Hayes >>gingerh@shawneelink.com >>NE/NC SC Rep >> >> >