>From: "Maggie Stewart" >To: "Tim Stowell", "Ron Eason", > "Connie Burkett", > "JJ" >Subject: Re: [Census-Discuss] - Followup >Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 10:40:45 -0400 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 > >Morning Everyone! > >1. Directory control - ie password protected for census FMs >***We can discuss this until the cows come home but we have no control over >this as the choice for this belongs to the Linda Lewis and Kay Mason. The >archives File Managers work as a team and none of us would touch someone >else's files unless there was a major problem (copyright violation or the >file manager was unable to do so). There is in the works a move to >"separate" the state CC's folders from the state archives folders and once >that is done the only persons that will even see those folders are the >archives folks. > >2. Directory structure - hiearchy of the data >***This, as John said, is a matter that has to be decided between Linda and >Kay. Each wants it their own way and they have to resolve it. > >3. Duplicate Personel - two folks doing the same census or state FMs >***I think this can be resolved by us by allowing/encouraging the Census >State Coordinators to work for each of the projects. This would promote >continuity and would be a first step toward melding the two projects >together. I personally can't see any problem with two sets of TOCs for the >census records as long as they are updated and current. The less we step >on Linda's or Kay's toes while quietly putting the projects together the >better. If you try to combine anything outright the way things are it would >be like waving a red flag in front of a pair of bulls, they would lock horns >again. Also, I think that the leaders within the project need to get the >personalities out of this. I get a lot of very negative attitudes from some >folks and somehow the negative needs to be replaced with a positive. If we >can merge a united front everyone will be a winner. > >4. TOCs - possibly one for Scanned Images and one for text? >***I have been maintaining a separate TOC for the scanned images since the >first one was put up into the archives. Linda and I have had extensive >discussions about why we need them on the CP TOCs as well and I lost. What >I am planning to do in my spare time (what is that anyway?) is to link from >the button with the census images to the images TOC. > >5. Restatement of the Goal of the Census Project >***Goal = work together to get as many of the census records online as >possible. > >6. Recruitment of Volunteers - should we possibly encourage volunteers to >first transcribe the scanned images versus microfilm? Scanned images >could be done at one's home versus going elsewhere to read microfilm. >***This is already being done by both projects as far as I can see. > >7. Handling of partial or surname transcriptions of census records >***This has always been placed in the state/county/census directories and >was agreeable to both Kay and Linda. One of the few things that I have ever >had them both tell me the same thing. > >8. Housing of the Census Project >***This is another, we can talk forever but Linda and Kay have to come to >some sort of agreement. It's obvious to me from reading the messages that >Folks in the leadership in Kay's project share her beliefs of where they >should be housed and the Archives File Managers want them where they always >have been. I should say on this subject that when the archives were >originally set up the original File Managers voted on the directory >structure of the archives and this is what they choose as a bridge to the >future. The folks that use the archives know that if they want a certain >state/county exactly where to find it. > >9. Definition of the Digital Library as mentioned in the Bylaws >***Somewhere around here I have a collection of history of the USGW Project >and the archives. As I understand it the Archives and the USGW Project were >formed at the same time and Linda Lewis requested that the Archives be >allowed to use the USGenWeb name as a matter of unity. The real name of the >archives is the USGenWeb Archives. I don't really think that a discussion >of the Archives is appropriate here except to say that I did an indepth look >into the history of the Census project that involved talking to all the >folks that were involved at that time (those that would answer my email) and >I do have a problem with Kay saying that the Census Project is hers when she >was not even involved in it for the first year of its inception and >creation. > >Maggie