>From: "Ron & Kathy" >To: "Tim Stowell" <tstowell@chattanooga.net>, > "Connie Burkett" > "Maggie Stewart" >Cc: <kellyj, "Wayne Duncan" > "Linda Lewis" , "Sue Soden" >Subject: Re: Census Discussion - Finale >Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 17:02:23 +0200 > >Tim, et al, > >I'm sorry to see that you are given, to giving up. We haven't. >I know that I can only speak for Connie, Wayne and myself when I say that we >have never, not been open to discussion. > >In fact, during our primary discussion group it was you who departed and we >didn't hear from you for a very long time. I contacted you on numerous >occasions wanting to know what the problem was. I understand that you also >have a life, but in this most recent post you make it sound as if you have >done everything possible. > >Well, I think that the honor of trying has to go to The USGenWeb Census >Project. We alone have been asked to compromise everything. The famous >speach has always been, "There has to be a spirit of compromise and workign >together". But there has been no compromise on the part of the Archives >Project. > >Observe: > >1. Name Change: We are to compromise >2. Status within Project: We are to compromise >3. File locations: We are to compromise >4. Officers/Staff: We are to compromise > >The list goes on. We were to give up everything and be absorbed by the >Archives Project. For what? To make everything better? I got a letter >from a volunteer just this morning saying she "had a heck of a time getting >her first transcription on-line until Kay Mason took charge and it went up >and has stayed up." She said: "I will NOT submit any more transcriptions >until this thing is cleared up." She ended it by saying: "Please do not >let the Archives Project take control as they seem to be determined to do." >What do I say to people like that? >This is not about ego's. At least not on our part. >It's about Pride in what we are doing. It's about integrity that we try to >uphold. It's about people. Real people with real feelings. People who >work hard for free that just want a good, safe, reliable, honest place to >care about them and their work. >THAT's what we are about. >And no one wants to address the issues that matter to us. No one wants to >see where we fit into all this. >You, Tim, and everyone else want a simple, "turn it over to the Archives so >I don't have to battle with Linda solution", but it isn't that simple. The >Board already got involved last year. I assume you still know the number to >the Motion or Resolution, whatever it was that you refused to enforce. They >recomended that the Archives stop with the duplicate Project, but you >wouldn't touch it for nothing. As if you didn't want to get your hands >dirty. Or maybe you thought Linda might beat you up. She's not that mean, >really. >Here is what we are faced with. >We don't want two Projects because we understand it is a waste of effort. >Especially in the same Project. But we don't want to be forced to >disappear. And for some reason, that's what have of the people on this >mailing want. > >We see ourselves as being required to maintain our Special Project, as just >that. A Special Project. Not a sub-Project. >The argument of all the files being in the same place so that they can be >covered by the Search Engine is old and stupid and anyone that believes it >must be old and stupid too. Those Search Engines can search anywhere >Rootsweb tells them to. Linda chooses for them not to, thus Rootsweb >listens. They could be directed to the current locations of all our files >and be searched just like hers are. And if you doubt that, think of all the >new pages and projects Rootsweb adds all the time. Do you think they will >add new stuff and not have them searchable? Think again. This old tactic >is to get the files inside of the Archives file system so that they can be >under Archives control. Not USGW's control, but under the Archives control. >This is totally not necessary. It will take 1000 times more work and >manhours to move all the files than it would to direct the search engines. >So that idea is full of hot air. >So tell me someone. >Why are these stipulations being made if they are not a logical move? And >why do our pages have to be moved? This is not a merger. This is a >dis-memberment. We have directories, we have pages, we have a name, we have >memberwide and national recognition right where we are. What benefit to us >or to others is gained by us moving everything and changing our name. >Obviously I have been missing something. Actually I don't think so. >Yes, we want something to be done and yes we think a merger is the way to >go, but I don't think taking a Special Project and reducing it to a >sub-project under the Archives control is a very bright and discerning thing >to do. Just call it what it is. A take over. >No Tim, you haven't done all you can do. Agreeing that we shouldn't be the >only ones making compromises would be a great start. Standing up for The >USGenWeb Census Project, as a Special Project of The USGenWeb Project and >wanting to see it flourish and prosper would be a great start. Merely >acting on what the Board already recommended would have been a nice >beginning. But for some reason you seem to also share the ideals of others >who want to reduce The USGenWeb Census Project to The USGW Archives Census >Project. >Unfortunately for the masses you as well as others are entitled to your >opinions. We are also entitled to ours. As many have found that have >spoken out in the past, I may end up being removed but I think it's time >that You, the Board, the Archives and others (unnammed) understand that >without all those volunteers out there that work their tails off every day >to present to the public something of value, that there wouldn't be a >USGenWeb Project. >So when you think that the best thing for all would be for the Census >Project to give up, roll over and get swallowed up without asking why, then >maybe it is time for you to "wash your hands of it all". >But if any of you really want to talk about a sensible merger. About >creating something that makes real sense to all, then lets talk. >If all you are concerned with is getting an Archives sub-project, placing a >feather in someones hat, then I guess there is nothing to talk about. >But please don't say, insinuate, infer or in any other way try to make >anyone think that we have not tried. We have and will always be willing to >try. >But come with logic and intelligence. We want dialogue. But we don't want >arrogance. We want solutions, not roll-over demands. And we certainly >don't want someone hi-jacking our web pages where we have no access to >anything and nothing works. >This can work. It just probably won't work well, Linda's way. She is going >to have to learn to compromise too. >As for the Staff and Volunteers at The USGenWeb Census Project, as long as >they allow me to remain I will do all I can do preserve the standards and >quality of the Project that we know we have. And we will always be willing >to talk. How about the rest of you? > >Thanks, >Ron > >