>From: "Ron & Kathy" >To: "Maggie Stewart" , > "Tim Stowell", > "Connie Burkett" , > "JJ" >Subject: [Census-Discuss] - Followup >Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 21:52:11 +0300 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 > >Hi, > >1. Directory control - ie password protected for census FMs >******* It is my opinion that we, as Census People need to be able to >ensure others and know for ourselves that what we do is protected from >anyone else. We need to be able to maintain control over our own files >without anyone else to worry about. Just as the Archives maintains security >and no one touches the Archives Files except the File Managers, so also the >Census Project needs to maintain this strickt control over the handling of >it's files, no matter what Linda or Kay thinks. > >>2. Directory structure - hiearchy of the data >*******I have been thinking about this a lot. And I am of the opinion at >this time that the actual directory structure really makes no difference, >UNLESS the underlying idea is to place or maintain the Census Project under >the control of the Archives. In that case it would have to be changed. But >since that is not the best idea for the Census Project, the way they are >maintained now is also fine. The bottom line is that they be there for >everyone's use. I KNOW that they can be searched no matter what hiearchy >they are in and the only reason it isn't being done yet is because Rootsweb >is waiting for a decision from the Board as to what is going to happen one >way or the other. >***The bottom line for Rootsweb is, that they don't want our directories >where they are, on the USGenWeb.com/net/org server name. They want them >under the Rootsweb server name just as the Archvies are because it is better >business for them. But that is secondary, or should be to us at this point. > >3. Duplicate Personel - >*******I've thought about this too. We are already sending out a weekly >report to everyone including the AC and I haven't yet seen the same thing >happening for us. It may be, to someone else privately, but I haven't seen >it so I am not aware. At this point, I am not sure ALL of the State >Coordinators would be willing to do this. Some may, but I don't know. Some >see the creation of the AC as a slap in their face and we have to be >sensitive to them. But it may be possible for the AC to redirect their >"email.ini" file to have the sign-up requests that come in for those states >without Coordinators to be directed to our Coordinators. This will happen >quietly and as we update our pages, the AC can update their pages as >assigned and On-line, etc, and since they already get notices of uploads >they will still be getting the work completed. Just a thought. > >4. TOCs - possibly one for Scanned Images and one for text? >>Linda and I have had extensive discussions about why we need< >them on the >CP TOCs as well and I lost.< >*******I don't mean to make an example out of things, but this is one of the >very reasons that the USGWCP wanted autonomy. Because we have and will >always have new and maybe better ideas and want to be able to implement them >without interference. But honestly I don't think our glory in this Project >will come from the scanned images. Others will be doing them and already >are. What we have to concentrate on is a very high standard of >transcription. > >5. Restatement of the Goal of the Census Project >*******Goal = work together to get as many of the census records online as >possible, "Without compromising quality and standards and uniting as one >Census Project, a stand alone Project. > >6. Recruitment of Volunteers - >*******Yes, we are encouraging it. It helps. > >7. Handling of partial or surname transcriptions of census records >*******I think this would be best turned over to the County Coordinators >unless it is a "complete township or Village, etc.. > >8. Housing of the Census Project >*******If my history of the Project serves me correctly it wasn't the >original File Managers per se that voted on it, but rather those that were >actually instrumental in bringing the Archives to life, Linda/Brian/and a >few others not in the current picture, although they may have been the >first "known as" FM's. And the directory structure works fine for >miscellaneous information about a particular county. You know you will find >every bit and piece of info. gathered by whoever in the directory under such >and such County. That to me is what the archives should be. But this is >the Census Project and there is no need to put our work in the directory >under some state and county FM. However, there is a way to make it seem >so. In order to get to the census files within the AC, is no different than >it is for the CP. You get through either from the Search engine or through >the front door TOC. And there the TOC has links to every census file, just >like we do. There is no other way to find them, they are linked. >The TOC's for the archives can link to Census Project directories just like >they do their own. There is no reason to move the census files into another >directory and then link to them. They have to be linked to no matter what >and they can be linked to no matter where they are. >And believe me I have heard every argument, and I told Linda personally on >ICQ and in email many times. When all the arguments are over and the truth >has to be heard. The only reason to move the Census Files is CONTROL. This >is not hostility or anger, but fact. >I know, I have been at it for years here and I have imaged every angle I >could think of to come up with a way to compromise between Linda and Kay. >Kay isn't perfect but all she wanted was the freedom to do this Project the >best she could. And to end up with something to pass on to the next person >that was worth having. >I don't want to get on any soap-box, but think about that, all of you and >tell me that what I said is not rational. It makes perfect sense and is >do-able but the files themselves are the value points. Not the links. > >9. Definition of the Digital Library as mentioned in the Bylaws >*******Your recollection of History Maggie is close. The USGW was founded >and envisioned first and was in construction first. The premier inception >of the USGW however did not include the Archives. In fact the founder of >the USGW emphatically did NOT want the archives to be a part of the USGW >because it would in fact take away from the validity and need for each >County Project. Which has basically been true. However the founder was >pushed out of his own project and berated and humiliated by those that >WANTED the Archives to be a part, ie: Linda/Brian/John/etc. and others were >rallied to smear the founder to their later dismay. In fact you may have >seen bit and pieces on it lately as some have come out in repentance for the >things they were fooled into doing and saying against him. SO the Archives >prevailed where it wasn't intended. >But getting back to the By-Laws, if read completely treat the AP and the CP >as equal entities with the same voice and the same recognition, which is as >it should be. The problem with the old idea that Kay didn't have the right >to take the Project away from the AP is that when they voted her in as the >National Coordinator of the Project they, in reality, gave her the right and >the power to do with it as she saw best for the Project. Where is the wrong >in that? We are all members of the Census Project. It is our duty to feed >it and nurture it so that it becomes the best it can be. Not for our own >glory, but for the good of those that use it. Not to make a name for >ourselves or to LORD over others. We do this because we love it and because >we believe in what we are doing. Kay did what she thought was best for the >growth and betterment of the Census Project. It may have been unpopular >with the AP but she was within her rights. > >Thanks, >Ron > >