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 > > > > > > > >