Did you get the gist of earlier posts about USGENWeb moving it's main page with links to all state and county sites on it?? If they did that there is a possibility that we might have trouble with rootsweb and need to move our stuff to a new location> Joe Pat Sabin wrote: > Unless I missed something (entirely possible), I thought the deal was struck years ago > between Linda Lewis and RootsWeb to permanently house the Archives at RW. I sort of keep > out of the politics, though, so maybe that changed...? > > Pat S. > Gwinnett Co > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joe" <jborderman@cox.net> > To: "gagen" <gagen@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 9:35 PM > Subject: Re: [GAGEN] Masthead Disscussion > > > >> Just some more food for thought for the future. >> >> Why not investigate one of our two major universities in >> Georgia to host a least the state data and archives, >> _/*BUT ONLY IF WE NEED TO AT A LATER DATE, >> NOT RIGHT NOW.*/_ Only trying to start thinking ahead and >> wanted to share the thought. >> >> Joe >> Peach CC >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GAGEN-request@rootsweb.com with >> the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GAGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

Unless I missed something (entirely possible), I thought the deal was struck years ago between Linda Lewis and RootsWeb to permanently house the Archives at RW. I sort of keep out of the politics, though, so maybe that changed...? Pat S. Gwinnett Co ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe" <jborderman@cox.net> To: "gagen" <gagen@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 9:35 PM Subject: Re: [GAGEN] Masthead Disscussion > Just some more food for thought for the future. > > Why not investigate one of our two major universities in > Georgia to host a least the state data and archives, > _/*BUT ONLY IF WE NEED TO AT A LATER DATE, > NOT RIGHT NOW.*/_ Only trying to start thinking ahead and > wanted to share the thought. > > Joe > Peach CC > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GAGEN-request@rootsweb.com with > the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Another excellent idea! I agree that we need to be thinking ahead. Vivian At 09:35 PM 9/16/2007, you wrote: >Just some more food for thought for the future. > >Why not investigate one of our two major universities in >Georgia to host a least the state data and archives, >_/*BUT ONLY IF WE NEED TO AT A LATER DATE, >NOT RIGHT NOW.*/_ Only trying to start thinking ahead and >wanted to share the thought. > >Joe >Peach CC > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >GAGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Just some more food for thought for the future. Why not investigate one of our two major universities in Georgia to host a least the state data and archives, _/*BUT ONLY IF WE NEED TO AT A LATER DATE, NOT RIGHT NOW.*/_ Only trying to start thinking ahead and wanted to share the thought. Joe Peach CC

\\\\\\\ The USGenWeb Census Project R /////// ///// http://www.us-census.org \\\\\\ ________ /////// Census Upload Report \\\\\\\\ ________ ________ /////////// 16 Sept 2007 \\\\\\\\\\\ ________ GA / Troup / 1910 (Partial) Dist/Twp/City EDs: 135, 136, and 137 Transcribed by Ross Jones Proofread by not yet http://ftp.us-census.org/pub/usgenweb/census/ga/troup/1910/ ed135-(2 files) Harrisonville, MD 673 ed136-(2 files) Roughedge, MD 697 ed137-pg131a.txt Roughedge, MD 697 13 index files _partial.txt GA / Turner / 1910 (Proofread version) Dist/Twp/City EDs: 173 and 174 Transcribed by Ross Jones Proofread by Lana Magiera http://ftp.us-census.org/pub/usgenweb/census/ga/turner/1910/ ed173- (2 files) Amboy, MD1626 ed174- (2 files) Dakota, MD1627 15 index files _ed-info.txt GA / Twiggs / 1910 (Proofread Version) Dist/Twp/City ED: 126 Transcribed by Ross Jones Proofread by Shannon Byers http://ftp.us-census.org/pub/usgenweb/census/ga/twiggs/1910/ ed126- (2 files) Marion MD 425 and Ward MD 324 14 index files _ed-info.txt GA / Washington / 1910 (Proofread Version) Dist/Twp/City EDs: 103, 114, and 116 Transcribed by Ross Jones Proofread by John Billigmeier(103), Lana Magiera(114,116) http://ftp.us-census.org/pub/usgenweb/census/ga/washington/1910/ ed103-(2 files) Cato, MD 95 ed114-(2 files) Northern, MD 1399 ed116-(3 files) Tennille, MD 1488 24 index files _ed-info.txt Ron Eason, Asst-Coordinator rkeason@comcast.net The USGenWeb Census Project R http://www.us-census.org "Permission Granted to reprint and/or resend, this list only, to others" Direct upload report questions to: censusuploadreport@usgennet.net ************************************************* Throughout the year give something that will keep giving not only to others but will return something to you as well. And Thank You! http://www.usgennet.org/index.html#join *************************************************

Joe and everyone, Please be assured that Ed and I can and do speak for the Georgia project, when necessary and appropriate, as we were elected to do. However, that does not mean that each individual CC should not express his/her own opinion to the national governing body, as you and others have done quite eloquently already, both privately and via the national mailing lists. County coordinators, of course, are allowed to house their sites wherever they choose. Perhaps at some point we may need to decide if the state page will remain at RootsWeb. Until we see what the National Coordinator is able to negotiate with RW, it is premature to make a decision. By the way, Joe, kudos for thinking outside the box and suggesting Google as a potential project host. Vivian At 09:46 PM 9/15/2007, you wrote: >The problem that has USGENWeb upset at this time appears to be the fact >that rootsweb added >a logo to the USGENWeb site. Also if you go to rootsweb now there also >is an Ancestry logo >on the main page. People are concerned that they might do this to all >pages on rootsweb that >are state or county sites too. To complicate the issue is the fact that >USGENWeb appears to >really wanting to move the main site page off rootsweb. This could >upset the apple cart and >possibly cause rootsweb to shut down all our sites (Could this be a move >by Ancestry to >cripple the whole project????). I offered my input because there was so >much discussion >going on that was off-base with the main topic. I don't particularly >want to move to something >else either. I mainly posted the comment because I think we may need to >discuss this item >amongst GAGENWeb and get a consensus of the CC's and maybe appoint one >or two >people to speak for the state. What do you all think???? > >Joe Borderieux >Peach County Coordinator > >Virginia Crilley wrote: > > Brenda, you stated this so well! > > > > I've yet to see any real (in contrast to alleged) abuse by Ancestry. > > > > They removed what had outraged many from USGenWeb -- so I'd like to give > > them the benefit of the doubt. It could be their intent was to be helpful > > to all researchers -- but it came out differently. But the > important thing > > is that they listened and made changes. > > > > Considering all their dependability, their free mailing lists, free > > USGenWeb pages, free personal Genealogy pages that they have provided over > > the years, I feel their "plus" elements far outweigh the few times they > > have appeared to encroach on our materials. I've never known them to "ask > > us" for contributions so we can continue to have our pages on their server. > > > > We in USGenWeb certainly have as our main goal to provide FREE research, > > and that is what I plan to continue to do by working with all the > > volunteers who submit information for our sites. > > > > I want to keep my pages with Rootsweb/Ancestry. > > > > At 08:09 PM 9/14/2007 -0400, you wrote: > > > >> I just wanted to step in (for what may be my only venture into this > >> discussion) and respond to some of Joe B's comments and ideas, as well > >> as bring up some of my own. > >> > >> Rootsweb's initial mission was exactly the same as the USGenWeb > >> project- to keep internet genealogy free (and legal). This was prior > >> to their being bought out in 2000, so obviously the rules have changed > >> (and I'm sure MyFamily changed a lot of the wording once they got a > >> hold of things). MyFamily.com has become a sort of a "Ma Bell" of the > >> online genealogy community, and so it does warrant a close look at > >> things to see if it might be time for us to cut our ties. If I'm not > >> mistaken, all or nearly all of the county/state sites were up and > >> active *before* the sellout/buyout of Rootsweb in 2000. Since they > >> have been passed down from coordinator to coordinator, it has just > >> been easier to refresh and maintain existing sites rather than remove > >> them entirely and set them up on other hosting services. But there are > >> some who have done this, so it's not impossible- but for the rest of > >> us it would be a large undertaking on a grand scale. If we did this, > >> would it be best to do it in phases? What problems might we encounter? > >> Should we all jump ship to one single provider (like Google), or might > >> it be better to scale down and offer a handful of possible providers > >> (preferably non-genealogy related)? Would there be any chance of the > >> same things occurring over again as far as user-submitted data and it > >> being exploited for someone else's monetary gain? > >> > >> Wasn't there a similar issue with user-submitted family tree data and > >> Ancestry initially charging for that (and then changing their policies > >> to make it into a free-access family tree database)? Since the GenWeb > >> project is, after all, essentially 100% user-submitted data (and > >> design), do they have a right to create any kind of free access/search > >> engine results to provide access to that data for anyone using their > >> site? They probably do, and if that bothers us, we need to do > >> something about it. > >> > >> If Rootsweb wants their logo on USGenWeb pages, it makes perfect sense > >> that Ancestry will follow too (notice the Ancestry logo side-by-side > >> with the Rootsweb logo at the top of Rootsweb pages already). Do we > >> want to open ourselves up to that possibility? I'm not a big fan of > >> that idea. Is Rootsweb expecting every free page they host > >> (non-USGenWeb related) to incorporate their logo in a masthead? > >> Probably not. Why? Maybe because *we* are such a huge force in online > >> genealogy (at least I believe we are) that they want a piece of us. > >> > >> Something that should be looked at is Rootsweb's "Acceptable Use > >> Policy" which can be found here: > >> http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/aup.html > >> > >> Here are some choice segments from the Ters and Conditions that made > >> me raise my eyebrows- wondering if it is really "safe" to continue > >> with their service: > >> > >> "...Your use of the Service indicates that you are bound by this > >> agreement with us. If you don't agree with any of these terms and > >> conditions, don't use the Service. We may alter this agreement at our > >> discretion and your continued use after any change indicates your > >> acceptance of that change. If you don't want to be bound by a change, > >> discontinue use of the Service. > >> > >> ...Limited Use LICENSE > >> You are licensed to use the Content only for personal or professional > >> family history research, and may download Content only as search > >> results relevant to that research. The download of the whole or > >> significant portions of any work or database is prohibited. Resale of > >> a work or database or portion thereof, except as specific results > >> relevant to specific research for an individual, is prohibited. On > >> line or other republication of Content is prohibited except as unique > >> data elements that are part of a unique family history or genealogy. > >> Violation of this License may result in immediate termination of your > >> membership and may result in legal action for injunction, damages or > >> both. ... [Are they bound by this agreement as well??] > >> > >> ...User-Provided Content > >> Portions of the Service will contain user-provided content, to which > >> you may contribute appropriate content (the "Submitted Content") For > >> this Content, the submitter is the owner, and RootsWeb.com is only a > >> distributor. By submitting Submitted Content to RootsWeb.com, you > >> grant MyFamily.com, Inc., the corporate host of the Service, a limited > >> license to the Submitted Content to use, host, and distribute that > >> Submitted Content and allow hosting and distribution on co-branded > >> Services of that Submitted Content. You should submit only content > >> which belongs to you and will not violate the property or other rights > >> of other people or organizations. MyFamily.com, Inc. is sensitive to > >> copyright and other intellectual property rights of others. For more > >> information concerning copyright issues, view our corporate policy. > >> Content submitted for the purpose of commercial use, advertising or > >> fee for service is prohibited. ... > >> > >> ...Because some states/jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion or > >> limitation of liability for consequential or incidental damages, this > >> limitation may not apply in part to you. IF YOU ARE DISSATISFIED WITH > >> ANY PORTION OF THIS WEB SERVICE, OR WITH ANY OF THESE TERMS OF USE, > >> YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS TO DISCONTINUE USING THIS WEB > >> SERVICE...." > >> > >> > >> I did not alter any of that- just copied and pasted it here. The note > >> in brackets is mine. > >> > >> I currently have my own Google Pages that I use for family genealogy, > >> and have been using Google's Page Creator to put it together. I don't > >> know how that page creator will work for others- so just uploading the > >> pages as-is might be best. But I would have a concern about how to > >> establish all of the county/state/archives pages we would need to have > >> without working out an arrangement with Google. If the usernames and > >> passwords will be passed down to future coordinators, then a specific > >> agreement might need to be worked out in order to do that. I think > >> that might cut into a "misrepresentation/impersonation" conflict if > >> the registration info no longer applies to a new coordinator (how > >> could we create pages not tied to a person's name in any way?). > >> > >> > >> I apologize for the length of this, but wanted to sort out my thoughts > >> and see what others felt about all this. This is a potentially huge > >> shift for the Projects, but maybe it will turn out to be a worthwhile > >> undertaking. I come at this from the perspective of a long-time > >> USGenWeb user as well as an Ancestry.com subscriber. USGenWeb is more > >> personal than Ancestry and will only increase in value as time goes on > >> (especially as the Census Project continues). I dream of the day when > >> I won't need to subscribe to Ancestry.com, because all of the info > >> they charge for will finally end up on the web for free (at USGenWeb > >> and at other archival sources -like Universities- who don't/can't > >> charge for their data). As we grow stronger, Ancestry might grow > >> weaker, because if they can't legally monopolize documents and data > >> then it is only a matter of time before someone else (like a > >> volunteer) gets to it and provides access to the information for free. > >> > >> Thank you for your time on this, and for everyone coming out to voice > >> their concerns and ideas. > >> > >> > >> Belinda Slocumb > >> Stewart and Webster CC, GAGenWeb > >> > >> ------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > >> GAGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > >> in the subject and the body of the message > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GAGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >GAGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >quotes in the subject and the body of the message

For those who have not kept up with the discussion and/or do not know the background... First, this only concerns Web sites that are hosted on RootsWeb or RootsWeb Freepages. As you know, RW hosts many genealogy sites, including our GAGenWeb state page and many of our county sites. RW provides unlimited server space free of charge. Most sites hosted by RootsWeb already carry a small RW logo and link, usually at the bottom of the page, with no mention of Ancestry. RootsWeb is owned by The Generations Network (TGN), which also owns Ancestry.com. Without any announcement or consultation with site-holders, RootWeb began several weeks ago to place a banner (you also may hear these referred to as mastheads) atop every site hosted by RW. (Since RW is the host server, it has access to all sites regardless of whether they are password protected.) The banner includes the words "an Ancestry.com community" and links to both RootsWeb and Ancestry. This initiative began with the FreePages accounts. If you wish to see what one looks like, here is a site (chosen at random): http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lorrie/ You will note that the Ancestry logo includes a link directly to the commercial site. Some USGenWeb state pages carried the banners briefly in the last couple of days, but they were quickly removed. I believe the National Coordinator has at least persuaded TGN to hold off on putting the banner on USGW sites. There are several concerns. 1. The banner size and placement commands too much attention, drawing the eye away from the sites (marketing and branding is the intent). 2. The inclusion of the reference and link to Ancestry indicatess that USGenWeb is part of a commercial genealogy site. You may have, as I have, encountered researchers who are confused about whether USGW is a free or paid resource. In addition, potential contributors are hesitant to loan their data to a GAGenWeb site because of the fear that it will end up on Ancestry. When RootsWeb first began to host USGenWeb sites, RW agreed to avoid any appearance of commercialism on USGW sites. That was before TGN bought RW. The dilemma, of course, is that servers cost money. It has been suggested that the national project move to a server that would accommodate the national site as well as all project sites or one that would only house the national site. That would cost money the project does not have. A few ideas have been kicked around, like dues or incorporation as a non-profit in order to raise money, but nothing has come of these proposals to date. The National Coordinator currently is in discussions with TGN to resolve this issue. Perhaps they will devise some manner of recognition for RW/Ancestry that will be less intrusive and non-commercial. While we certainly can discuss this issue on the GAGenWeb list, it cannot be resolved here. Please let your representatives on the Advisory Board know your feelings. Your county coordinator representatives are Suzanne Shepherd and Linda Blum-Barton, who is a member of the GAGenWeb Project. Suzanne: <mailto:syshephard@charter.net>syshephard@charter.net Linda: <mailto:lblumb@gmail.com>lblumb@gmail.com If you have questions, please let me know. Vivian Price Saffold ASC At 10:24 AM 9/16/2007, you wrote: >Joe, >I appreciate your bringing up these points. > >I think that many of us do not stay tuned to all that goes on at the >National Level. Some people do belong to the National lists but even they >may not take the time to study the situation. > >Could you help us all out with some specifics -- urls which illustrate the >Mastheads, etc. I had thought they had been removed. > >I certainly do like your idea of having a couple of people investigate this >matter and report back to GAGenWeb with their findings. > >Because you already seem to be updated on the situation, would you consider >doing this? Maybe someone else would volunteer to explore it with you. > >I'm saying this simply as a CC -- do not mean in any way to speak for Ed or >Vivian....nor to create any "official" group for GAGenWeb. I'm grateful >that you, Joe, as a concerned CC are bringing this to our attention. > >At 09:46 PM 9/15/2007 -0400, you wrote: > >The problem that has USGENWeb upset at this time appears to be the fact > >that rootsweb added > >a logo to the USGENWeb site. Also if you go to rootsweb now there also > >is an Ancestry logo > >on the main page. People are concerned that they might do this to all > >pages on rootsweb that > >are state or county sites too. To complicate the issue is the fact that > >USGENWeb appears to > >really wanting to move the main site page off rootsweb. This could > >upset the apple cart and > >possibly cause rootsweb to shut down all our sites (Could this be a move > >by Ancestry to > >cripple the whole project????). I offered my input because there was so > >much discussion > >going on that was off-base with the main topic. I don't particularly > >want to move to something > >else either. I mainly posted the comment because I think we may need to > >discuss this item > >amongst GAGENWeb and get a consensus of the CC's and maybe appoint one > >or two > >people to speak for the state. What do you all think???? > > > >Joe Borderieux > >Peach County Coordinator > > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >GAGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Joe, I think for now, all of the mastheads have been removed from all USGENWEB sites hosted by rootsweb. That's not to say they won't be back very soon, but for now, they are all gone. Hopefully our National Coordinator will be able to negotiate something that will be acceptable to the ones that have sites hosted by rootsweb. If not, then we will all have to make our individual decisions to move or not. For me, I don't have a problem with some kind of uniform blurb on our sites acknowledging rootsweb for our hosting. The problem I have is a link to ancestry.cm on my site. IMO that makes it look like we are nothing but a bunch of sites offered through them. It's no secret that ancestry's goal is to be the only genealogy site on the web. To me this is another way to control another chunk of pie, so to speak. But, one thing I've learned since I've been here. You ask 10 people, you get 10 different opinions. You have very strong ancestry and rootsweb supporters that see nothing wrong with it and say it is a bunch ado about nothing. There is also the possibility that if the National Page does move and roootsweb and ancestry can no longer claim to host the Project, they may look at all of the sites differently. Just thinking out loud Sandy McDuffie CC ---- Joe <jborderman@cox.net> wrote: > The problem that has USGENWeb upset at this time appears to be the fact > that rootsweb added > a logo to the USGENWeb site. Also if you go to rootsweb now there also > is an Ancestry logo > on the main page. People are concerned that they might do this to all > pages on rootsweb that > are state or county sites too. To complicate the issue is the fact that > USGENWeb appears to > really wanting to move the main site page off rootsweb. This could > upset the apple cart and > possibly cause rootsweb to shut down all our sites (Could this be a move > by Ancestry to > cripple the whole project????). I offered my input because there was so > much discussion > going on that was off-base with the main topic. I don't particularly > want to move to something > else either. I mainly posted the comment because I think we may need to > discuss this item > amongst GAGENWeb and get a consensus of the CC's and maybe appoint one > or two > people to speak for the state. What do you all think???? > > Joe Borderieux > Peach County Coordinator > > Virginia Crilley wrote: > > Brenda, you stated this so well! > > > > I've yet to see any real (in contrast to alleged) abuse by Ancestry. > > > > They removed what had outraged many from USGenWeb -- so I'd like to give > > them the benefit of the doubt. It could be their intent was to be helpful > > to all researchers -- but it came out differently. But the important thing > > is that they listened and made changes. > > > > Considering all their dependability, their free mailing lists, free > > USGenWeb pages, free personal Genealogy pages that they have provided over > > the years, I feel their "plus" elements far outweigh the few times they > > have appeared to encroach on our materials. I've never known them to "ask > > us" for contributions so we can continue to have our pages on their server. > > > > We in USGenWeb certainly have as our main goal to provide FREE research, > > and that is what I plan to continue to do by working with all the > > volunteers who submit information for our sites. > > > > I want to keep my pages with Rootsweb/Ancestry. > > > > At 08:09 PM 9/14/2007 -0400, you wrote: > > > >> I just wanted to step in (for what may be my only venture into this > >> discussion) and respond to some of Joe B's comments and ideas, as well > >> as bring up some of my own. > >> > >> Rootsweb's initial mission was exactly the same as the USGenWeb > >> project- to keep internet genealogy free (and legal). This was prior > >> to their being bought out in 2000, so obviously the rules have changed > >> (and I'm sure MyFamily changed a lot of the wording once they got a > >> hold of things). MyFamily.com has become a sort of a "Ma Bell" of the > >> online genealogy community, and so it does warrant a close look at > >> things to see if it might be time for us to cut our ties. If I'm not > >> mistaken, all or nearly all of the county/state sites were up and > >> active *before* the sellout/buyout of Rootsweb in 2000. Since they > >> have been passed down from coordinator to coordinator, it has just > >> been easier to refresh and maintain existing sites rather than remove > >> them entirely and set them up on other hosting services. But there are > >> some who have done this, so it's not impossible- but for the rest of > >> us it would be a large undertaking on a grand scale. If we did this, > >> would it be best to do it in phases? What problems might we encounter? > >> Should we all jump ship to one single provider (like Google), or might > >> it be better to scale down and offer a handful of possible providers > >> (preferably non-genealogy related)? Would there be any chance of the > >> same things occurring over again as far as user-submitted data and it > >> being exploited for someone else's monetary gain? > >> > >> Wasn't there a similar issue with user-submitted family tree data and > >> Ancestry initially charging for that (and then changing their policies > >> to make it into a free-access family tree database)? Since the GenWeb > >> project is, after all, essentially 100% user-submitted data (and > >> design), do they have a right to create any kind of free access/search > >> engine results to provide access to that data for anyone using their > >> site? They probably do, and if that bothers us, we need to do > >> something about it. > >> > >> If Rootsweb wants their logo on USGenWeb pages, it makes perfect sense > >> that Ancestry will follow too (notice the Ancestry logo side-by-side > >> with the Rootsweb logo at the top of Rootsweb pages already). Do we > >> want to open ourselves up to that possibility? I'm not a big fan of > >> that idea. Is Rootsweb expecting every free page they host > >> (non-USGenWeb related) to incorporate their logo in a masthead? > >> Probably not. Why? Maybe because *we* are such a huge force in online > >> genealogy (at least I believe we are) that they want a piece of us. > >> > >> Something that should be looked at is Rootsweb's "Acceptable Use > >> Policy" which can be found here: > >> http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/aup.html > >> > >> Here are some choice segments from the Ters and Conditions that made > >> me raise my eyebrows- wondering if it is really "safe" to continue > >> with their service: > >> > >> "...Your use of the Service indicates that you are bound by this > >> agreement with us. If you don't agree with any of these terms and > >> conditions, don't use the Service. We may alter this agreement at our > >> discretion and your continued use after any change indicates your > >> acceptance of that change. If you don't want to be bound by a change, > >> discontinue use of the Service. > >> > >> ...Limited Use LICENSE > >> You are licensed to use the Content only for personal or professional > >> family history research, and may download Content only as search > >> results relevant to that research. The download of the whole or > >> significant portions of any work or database is prohibited. Resale of > >> a work or database or portion thereof, except as specific results > >> relevant to specific research for an individual, is prohibited. On > >> line or other republication of Content is prohibited except as unique > >> data elements that are part of a unique family history or genealogy. > >> Violation of this License may result in immediate termination of your > >> membership and may result in legal action for injunction, damages or > >> both. ... [Are they bound by this agreement as well??] > >> > >> ...User-Provided Content > >> Portions of the Service will contain user-provided content, to which > >> you may contribute appropriate content (the "Submitted Content") For > >> this Content, the submitter is the owner, and RootsWeb.com is only a > >> distributor. By submitting Submitted Content to RootsWeb.com, you > >> grant MyFamily.com, Inc., the corporate host of the Service, a limited > >> license to the Submitted Content to use, host, and distribute that > >> Submitted Content and allow hosting and distribution on co-branded > >> Services of that Submitted Content. You should submit only content > >> which belongs to you and will not violate the property or other rights > >> of other people or organizations. MyFamily.com, Inc. is sensitive to > >> copyright and other intellectual property rights of others. For more > >> information concerning copyright issues, view our corporate policy. > >> Content submitted for the purpose of commercial use, advertising or > >> fee for service is prohibited. ... > >> > >> ...Because some states/jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion or > >> limitation of liability for consequential or incidental damages, this > >> limitation may not apply in part to you. IF YOU ARE DISSATISFIED WITH > >> ANY PORTION OF THIS WEB SERVICE, OR WITH ANY OF THESE TERMS OF USE, > >> YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS TO DISCONTINUE USING THIS WEB > >> SERVICE...." > >> > >> > >> I did not alter any of that- just copied and pasted it here. The note > >> in brackets is mine. > >> > >> I currently have my own Google Pages that I use for family genealogy, > >> and have been using Google's Page Creator to put it together. I don't > >> know how that page creator will work for others- so just uploading the > >> pages as-is might be best. But I would have a concern about how to > >> establish all of the county/state/archives pages we would need to have > >> without working out an arrangement with Google. If the usernames and > >> passwords will be passed down to future coordinators, then a specific > >> agreement might need to be worked out in order to do that. I think > >> that might cut into a "misrepresentation/impersonation" conflict if > >> the registration info no longer applies to a new coordinator (how > >> could we create pages not tied to a person's name in any way?). > >> > >> > >> I apologize for the length of this, but wanted to sort out my thoughts > >> and see what others felt about all this. This is a potentially huge > >> shift for the Projects, but maybe it will turn out to be a worthwhile > >> undertaking. I come at this from the perspective of a long-time > >> USGenWeb user as well as an Ancestry.com subscriber. USGenWeb is more > >> personal than Ancestry and will only increase in value as time goes on > >> (especially as the Census Project continues). I dream of the day when > >> I won't need to subscribe to Ancestry.com, because all of the info > >> they charge for will finally end up on the web for free (at USGenWeb > >> and at other archival sources -like Universities- who don't/can't > >> charge for their data). As we grow stronger, Ancestry might grow > >> weaker, because if they can't legally monopolize documents and data > >> then it is only a matter of time before someone else (like a > >> volunteer) gets to it and provides access to the information for free. > >> > >> Thank you for your time on this, and for everyone coming out to voice > >> their concerns and ideas. > >> > >> > >> Belinda Slocumb > >> Stewart and Webster CC, GAGenWeb > >> > >> ------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > >> GAGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > >> in the subject and the body of the message > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GAGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GAGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Joe, I appreciate your bringing up these points. I think that many of us do not stay tuned to all that goes on at the National Level. Some people do belong to the National lists but even they may not take the time to study the situation. Could you help us all out with some specifics -- urls which illustrate the Mastheads, etc. I had thought they had been removed. I certainly do like your idea of having a couple of people investigate this matter and report back to GAGenWeb with their findings. Because you already seem to be updated on the situation, would you consider doing this? Maybe someone else would volunteer to explore it with you. I'm saying this simply as a CC -- do not mean in any way to speak for Ed or Vivian....nor to create any "official" group for GAGenWeb. I'm grateful that you, Joe, as a concerned CC are bringing this to our attention. At 09:46 PM 9/15/2007 -0400, you wrote: >The problem that has USGENWeb upset at this time appears to be the fact >that rootsweb added >a logo to the USGENWeb site. Also if you go to rootsweb now there also >is an Ancestry logo >on the main page. People are concerned that they might do this to all >pages on rootsweb that >are state or county sites too. To complicate the issue is the fact that >USGENWeb appears to >really wanting to move the main site page off rootsweb. This could >upset the apple cart and >possibly cause rootsweb to shut down all our sites (Could this be a move >by Ancestry to >cripple the whole project????). I offered my input because there was so >much discussion >going on that was off-base with the main topic. I don't particularly >want to move to something >else either. I mainly posted the comment because I think we may need to >discuss this item >amongst GAGENWeb and get a consensus of the CC's and maybe appoint one >or two >people to speak for the state. What do you all think???? > >Joe Borderieux >Peach County Coordinator

I guess this is my short penny's worth .... I believe in this organization - that's why I'm here. Whatever the organization as whole by majority decides to do, I will abide by the decision and follow suit. GenWeb - on both the state and national level is much too important to genealogy. I haven't been here long enough as a CC to truely understand some of the finer points and remifications of the host server to be able to make intelligent arguments one way or the other. I wish I had all of the answers to the growing pains that USGenWeb is having at the moment. I guess that I choose to see it as a good bump in the growing process - the organization has become important to all levels of genealogists. It's just navigating the road that's become the head scratcher. .... but I'll keep thinking on it. Venita :) Venita and Jeff Allmond Liberty Co. CC --------------------------------- Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more.

The problem that has USGENWeb upset at this time appears to be the fact that rootsweb added a logo to the USGENWeb site. Also if you go to rootsweb now there also is an Ancestry logo on the main page. People are concerned that they might do this to all pages on rootsweb that are state or county sites too. To complicate the issue is the fact that USGENWeb appears to really wanting to move the main site page off rootsweb. This could upset the apple cart and possibly cause rootsweb to shut down all our sites (Could this be a move by Ancestry to cripple the whole project????). I offered my input because there was so much discussion going on that was off-base with the main topic. I don't particularly want to move to something else either. I mainly posted the comment because I think we may need to discuss this item amongst GAGENWeb and get a consensus of the CC's and maybe appoint one or two people to speak for the state. What do you all think???? Joe Borderieux Peach County Coordinator Virginia Crilley wrote: > Brenda, you stated this so well! > > I've yet to see any real (in contrast to alleged) abuse by Ancestry. > > They removed what had outraged many from USGenWeb -- so I'd like to give > them the benefit of the doubt. It could be their intent was to be helpful > to all researchers -- but it came out differently. But the important thing > is that they listened and made changes. > > Considering all their dependability, their free mailing lists, free > USGenWeb pages, free personal Genealogy pages that they have provided over > the years, I feel their "plus" elements far outweigh the few times they > have appeared to encroach on our materials. I've never known them to "ask > us" for contributions so we can continue to have our pages on their server. > > We in USGenWeb certainly have as our main goal to provide FREE research, > and that is what I plan to continue to do by working with all the > volunteers who submit information for our sites. > > I want to keep my pages with Rootsweb/Ancestry. > > At 08:09 PM 9/14/2007 -0400, you wrote: > >> I just wanted to step in (for what may be my only venture into this >> discussion) and respond to some of Joe B's comments and ideas, as well >> as bring up some of my own. >> >> Rootsweb's initial mission was exactly the same as the USGenWeb >> project- to keep internet genealogy free (and legal). This was prior >> to their being bought out in 2000, so obviously the rules have changed >> (and I'm sure MyFamily changed a lot of the wording once they got a >> hold of things). MyFamily.com has become a sort of a "Ma Bell" of the >> online genealogy community, and so it does warrant a close look at >> things to see if it might be time for us to cut our ties. If I'm not >> mistaken, all or nearly all of the county/state sites were up and >> active *before* the sellout/buyout of Rootsweb in 2000. Since they >> have been passed down from coordinator to coordinator, it has just >> been easier to refresh and maintain existing sites rather than remove >> them entirely and set them up on other hosting services. But there are >> some who have done this, so it's not impossible- but for the rest of >> us it would be a large undertaking on a grand scale. If we did this, >> would it be best to do it in phases? What problems might we encounter? >> Should we all jump ship to one single provider (like Google), or might >> it be better to scale down and offer a handful of possible providers >> (preferably non-genealogy related)? Would there be any chance of the >> same things occurring over again as far as user-submitted data and it >> being exploited for someone else's monetary gain? >> >> Wasn't there a similar issue with user-submitted family tree data and >> Ancestry initially charging for that (and then changing their policies >> to make it into a free-access family tree database)? Since the GenWeb >> project is, after all, essentially 100% user-submitted data (and >> design), do they have a right to create any kind of free access/search >> engine results to provide access to that data for anyone using their >> site? They probably do, and if that bothers us, we need to do >> something about it. >> >> If Rootsweb wants their logo on USGenWeb pages, it makes perfect sense >> that Ancestry will follow too (notice the Ancestry logo side-by-side >> with the Rootsweb logo at the top of Rootsweb pages already). Do we >> want to open ourselves up to that possibility? I'm not a big fan of >> that idea. Is Rootsweb expecting every free page they host >> (non-USGenWeb related) to incorporate their logo in a masthead? >> Probably not. Why? Maybe because *we* are such a huge force in online >> genealogy (at least I believe we are) that they want a piece of us. >> >> Something that should be looked at is Rootsweb's "Acceptable Use >> Policy" which can be found here: >> http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/aup.html >> >> Here are some choice segments from the Ters and Conditions that made >> me raise my eyebrows- wondering if it is really "safe" to continue >> with their service: >> >> "...Your use of the Service indicates that you are bound by this >> agreement with us. If you don't agree with any of these terms and >> conditions, don't use the Service. We may alter this agreement at our >> discretion and your continued use after any change indicates your >> acceptance of that change. If you don't want to be bound by a change, >> discontinue use of the Service. >> >> ...Limited Use LICENSE >> You are licensed to use the Content only for personal or professional >> family history research, and may download Content only as search >> results relevant to that research. The download of the whole or >> significant portions of any work or database is prohibited. Resale of >> a work or database or portion thereof, except as specific results >> relevant to specific research for an individual, is prohibited. On >> line or other republication of Content is prohibited except as unique >> data elements that are part of a unique family history or genealogy. >> Violation of this License may result in immediate termination of your >> membership and may result in legal action for injunction, damages or >> both. ... [Are they bound by this agreement as well??] >> >> ...User-Provided Content >> Portions of the Service will contain user-provided content, to which >> you may contribute appropriate content (the "Submitted Content") For >> this Content, the submitter is the owner, and RootsWeb.com is only a >> distributor. By submitting Submitted Content to RootsWeb.com, you >> grant MyFamily.com, Inc., the corporate host of the Service, a limited >> license to the Submitted Content to use, host, and distribute that >> Submitted Content and allow hosting and distribution on co-branded >> Services of that Submitted Content. You should submit only content >> which belongs to you and will not violate the property or other rights >> of other people or organizations. MyFamily.com, Inc. is sensitive to >> copyright and other intellectual property rights of others. For more >> information concerning copyright issues, view our corporate policy. >> Content submitted for the purpose of commercial use, advertising or >> fee for service is prohibited. ... >> >> ...Because some states/jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion or >> limitation of liability for consequential or incidental damages, this >> limitation may not apply in part to you. IF YOU ARE DISSATISFIED WITH >> ANY PORTION OF THIS WEB SERVICE, OR WITH ANY OF THESE TERMS OF USE, >> YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS TO DISCONTINUE USING THIS WEB >> SERVICE...." >> >> >> I did not alter any of that- just copied and pasted it here. The note >> in brackets is mine. >> >> I currently have my own Google Pages that I use for family genealogy, >> and have been using Google's Page Creator to put it together. I don't >> know how that page creator will work for others- so just uploading the >> pages as-is might be best. But I would have a concern about how to >> establish all of the county/state/archives pages we would need to have >> without working out an arrangement with Google. If the usernames and >> passwords will be passed down to future coordinators, then a specific >> agreement might need to be worked out in order to do that. I think >> that might cut into a "misrepresentation/impersonation" conflict if >> the registration info no longer applies to a new coordinator (how >> could we create pages not tied to a person's name in any way?). >> >> >> I apologize for the length of this, but wanted to sort out my thoughts >> and see what others felt about all this. This is a potentially huge >> shift for the Projects, but maybe it will turn out to be a worthwhile >> undertaking. I come at this from the perspective of a long-time >> USGenWeb user as well as an Ancestry.com subscriber. USGenWeb is more >> personal than Ancestry and will only increase in value as time goes on >> (especially as the Census Project continues). I dream of the day when >> I won't need to subscribe to Ancestry.com, because all of the info >> they charge for will finally end up on the web for free (at USGenWeb >> and at other archival sources -like Universities- who don't/can't >> charge for their data). As we grow stronger, Ancestry might grow >> weaker, because if they can't legally monopolize documents and data >> then it is only a matter of time before someone else (like a >> volunteer) gets to it and provides access to the information for free. >> >> Thank you for your time on this, and for everyone coming out to voice >> their concerns and ideas. >> >> >> Belinda Slocumb >> Stewart and Webster CC, GAGenWeb >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> GAGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >> in the subject and the body of the message >> > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GAGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

A couple more cents' worth about this up and coming move. Sorry if you are tired of messages, but it seems like there are lots of ideas out there. Perhaps this is an issue that cannot, and maybe should not, be handled by e-mail. A move in which "historical" ties are cut between organizations (I put "historical" in quotes because what is ancient web history is in fact just a few years in real time) takes a lot of concerted effort on the parts of many people. It seems to me that there needs to be some sort of conference or summit on this, maybe on different levels of the USGenWeb organization. Perhaps it needs to be incorporated and funded via donation, as with many NPOs. This would allow the organization to move in its own way and afford it greater legal standing viz-a-viz other providers, such as the "Ma Bell," myfamily.com. Perhaps the officers at various levels should have more real power. If there is some sort of central endowment/donation system that is free from commercialism, the organization can work more independantly, with a sort of board of directors, annual meetings, etc. Perhaps donations in the form of advertising could be acceptible, as "sponsors" could be assigned various levels of support. This would not entitle them to ads but possibly to a "hall of fame" kind of status with various levels of support. Then, those organizations that support the site could display USGenWeb support emblems on their sites, giving them prestige that we generate. There could also be far more quality control, and more control of what goes on websites at all levels of the organization in terms of what is legal and approriate or not. Sorry my mind is just sort of in brainstorm mode here but I have seen these kinds of things in other NPOs that seem to be successful. Were the USGenWeb an NPO, a seperate, incorporated not-for-profit body, perhaps the organization could be stronger, with a highly-functional set of national, state, and project coordinators working within an organized framework. Perhaps at a yearly national conference officers could be elected for the national level at large, and there could be caucuses for state coordinator elections. The volunteers would act as shareholders, each with a vote. The beauty of such a system is that the site could, potentially, should all go well, become a self-determining, non-absorbable entity on the web that could, for many years to come, remain a clearing house and centrally-located, powerful tool for genealogists of all levels of experience to work with. I am not a businessman, but I think an NPO with a business type model would be a good way for the whole organization to go. Feel free to disagree with me, and poke holes all through this rant/brainstorm. Confusion and unsurity, I say, can be a powerful catalyst for change rather than an embrace of a less-than-desirable status quo. Mike Fisher Grady County CC

Brenda, you stated this so well! I've yet to see any real (in contrast to alleged) abuse by Ancestry. They removed what had outraged many from USGenWeb -- so I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt. It could be their intent was to be helpful to all researchers -- but it came out differently. But the important thing is that they listened and made changes. Considering all their dependability, their free mailing lists, free USGenWeb pages, free personal Genealogy pages that they have provided over the years, I feel their "plus" elements far outweigh the few times they have appeared to encroach on our materials. I've never known them to "ask us" for contributions so we can continue to have our pages on their server. We in USGenWeb certainly have as our main goal to provide FREE research, and that is what I plan to continue to do by working with all the volunteers who submit information for our sites. I want to keep my pages with Rootsweb/Ancestry. At 08:09 PM 9/14/2007 -0400, you wrote: >I just wanted to step in (for what may be my only venture into this >discussion) and respond to some of Joe B's comments and ideas, as well >as bring up some of my own. > >Rootsweb's initial mission was exactly the same as the USGenWeb >project- to keep internet genealogy free (and legal). This was prior >to their being bought out in 2000, so obviously the rules have changed >(and I'm sure MyFamily changed a lot of the wording once they got a >hold of things). MyFamily.com has become a sort of a "Ma Bell" of the >online genealogy community, and so it does warrant a close look at >things to see if it might be time for us to cut our ties. If I'm not >mistaken, all or nearly all of the county/state sites were up and >active *before* the sellout/buyout of Rootsweb in 2000. Since they >have been passed down from coordinator to coordinator, it has just >been easier to refresh and maintain existing sites rather than remove >them entirely and set them up on other hosting services. But there are >some who have done this, so it's not impossible- but for the rest of >us it would be a large undertaking on a grand scale. If we did this, >would it be best to do it in phases? What problems might we encounter? >Should we all jump ship to one single provider (like Google), or might >it be better to scale down and offer a handful of possible providers >(preferably non-genealogy related)? Would there be any chance of the >same things occurring over again as far as user-submitted data and it >being exploited for someone else's monetary gain? > >Wasn't there a similar issue with user-submitted family tree data and >Ancestry initially charging for that (and then changing their policies >to make it into a free-access family tree database)? Since the GenWeb >project is, after all, essentially 100% user-submitted data (and >design), do they have a right to create any kind of free access/search >engine results to provide access to that data for anyone using their >site? They probably do, and if that bothers us, we need to do >something about it. > >If Rootsweb wants their logo on USGenWeb pages, it makes perfect sense >that Ancestry will follow too (notice the Ancestry logo side-by-side >with the Rootsweb logo at the top of Rootsweb pages already). Do we >want to open ourselves up to that possibility? I'm not a big fan of >that idea. Is Rootsweb expecting every free page they host >(non-USGenWeb related) to incorporate their logo in a masthead? >Probably not. Why? Maybe because *we* are such a huge force in online >genealogy (at least I believe we are) that they want a piece of us. > >Something that should be looked at is Rootsweb's "Acceptable Use >Policy" which can be found here: >http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/aup.html > >Here are some choice segments from the Ters and Conditions that made >me raise my eyebrows- wondering if it is really "safe" to continue >with their service: > >"...Your use of the Service indicates that you are bound by this >agreement with us. If you don't agree with any of these terms and >conditions, don't use the Service. We may alter this agreement at our >discretion and your continued use after any change indicates your >acceptance of that change. If you don't want to be bound by a change, >discontinue use of the Service. > >...Limited Use LICENSE >You are licensed to use the Content only for personal or professional >family history research, and may download Content only as search >results relevant to that research. The download of the whole or >significant portions of any work or database is prohibited. Resale of >a work or database or portion thereof, except as specific results >relevant to specific research for an individual, is prohibited. On >line or other republication of Content is prohibited except as unique >data elements that are part of a unique family history or genealogy. >Violation of this License may result in immediate termination of your >membership and may result in legal action for injunction, damages or >both. ... [Are they bound by this agreement as well??] > >...User-Provided Content >Portions of the Service will contain user-provided content, to which >you may contribute appropriate content (the "Submitted Content") For >this Content, the submitter is the owner, and RootsWeb.com is only a >distributor. By submitting Submitted Content to RootsWeb.com, you >grant MyFamily.com, Inc., the corporate host of the Service, a limited >license to the Submitted Content to use, host, and distribute that >Submitted Content and allow hosting and distribution on co-branded >Services of that Submitted Content. You should submit only content >which belongs to you and will not violate the property or other rights >of other people or organizations. MyFamily.com, Inc. is sensitive to >copyright and other intellectual property rights of others. For more >information concerning copyright issues, view our corporate policy. >Content submitted for the purpose of commercial use, advertising or >fee for service is prohibited. ... > >...Because some states/jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion or >limitation of liability for consequential or incidental damages, this >limitation may not apply in part to you. IF YOU ARE DISSATISFIED WITH >ANY PORTION OF THIS WEB SERVICE, OR WITH ANY OF THESE TERMS OF USE, >YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS TO DISCONTINUE USING THIS WEB >SERVICE...." > > >I did not alter any of that- just copied and pasted it here. The note >in brackets is mine. > >I currently have my own Google Pages that I use for family genealogy, >and have been using Google's Page Creator to put it together. I don't >know how that page creator will work for others- so just uploading the >pages as-is might be best. But I would have a concern about how to >establish all of the county/state/archives pages we would need to have >without working out an arrangement with Google. If the usernames and >passwords will be passed down to future coordinators, then a specific >agreement might need to be worked out in order to do that. I think >that might cut into a "misrepresentation/impersonation" conflict if >the registration info no longer applies to a new coordinator (how >could we create pages not tied to a person's name in any way?). > > >I apologize for the length of this, but wanted to sort out my thoughts >and see what others felt about all this. This is a potentially huge >shift for the Projects, but maybe it will turn out to be a worthwhile >undertaking. I come at this from the perspective of a long-time >USGenWeb user as well as an Ancestry.com subscriber. USGenWeb is more >personal than Ancestry and will only increase in value as time goes on >(especially as the Census Project continues). I dream of the day when >I won't need to subscribe to Ancestry.com, because all of the info >they charge for will finally end up on the web for free (at USGenWeb >and at other archival sources -like Universities- who don't/can't >charge for their data). As we grow stronger, Ancestry might grow >weaker, because if they can't legally monopolize documents and data >then it is only a matter of time before someone else (like a >volunteer) gets to it and provides access to the information for free. > >Thank you for your time on this, and for everyone coming out to voice >their concerns and ideas. > > >Belinda Slocumb >Stewart and Webster CC, GAGenWeb > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >GAGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >in the subject and the body of the message

Hi folks, I have a request from someone who is trying to get a copy of an obit for a soldier from Colquitt County. It appeared in the Atlanta Constitution in 1949. She has a date: "dated Friday, August 26, 1949. It appeared on page 30: PARKER, 2nd LT. HOWARD B." Can anyone help me with this? Thanks, Jacki Colquitt County GAGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~gacolqu2/

I just wanted to step in (for what may be my only venture into this discussion) and respond to some of Joe B's comments and ideas, as well as bring up some of my own. Rootsweb's initial mission was exactly the same as the USGenWeb project- to keep internet genealogy free (and legal). This was prior to their being bought out in 2000, so obviously the rules have changed (and I'm sure MyFamily changed a lot of the wording once they got a hold of things). MyFamily.com has become a sort of a "Ma Bell" of the online genealogy community, and so it does warrant a close look at things to see if it might be time for us to cut our ties. If I'm not mistaken, all or nearly all of the county/state sites were up and active *before* the sellout/buyout of Rootsweb in 2000. Since they have been passed down from coordinator to coordinator, it has just been easier to refresh and maintain existing sites rather than remove them entirely and set them up on other hosting services. But there are some who have done this, so it's not impossible- but for the rest of us it would be a large undertaking on a grand scale. If we did this, would it be best to do it in phases? What problems might we encounter? Should we all jump ship to one single provider (like Google), or might it be better to scale down and offer a handful of possible providers (preferably non-genealogy related)? Would there be any chance of the same things occurring over again as far as user-submitted data and it being exploited for someone else's monetary gain? Wasn't there a similar issue with user-submitted family tree data and Ancestry initially charging for that (and then changing their policies to make it into a free-access family tree database)? Since the GenWeb project is, after all, essentially 100% user-submitted data (and design), do they have a right to create any kind of free access/search engine results to provide access to that data for anyone using their site? They probably do, and if that bothers us, we need to do something about it. If Rootsweb wants their logo on USGenWeb pages, it makes perfect sense that Ancestry will follow too (notice the Ancestry logo side-by-side with the Rootsweb logo at the top of Rootsweb pages already). Do we want to open ourselves up to that possibility? I'm not a big fan of that idea. Is Rootsweb expecting every free page they host (non-USGenWeb related) to incorporate their logo in a masthead? Probably not. Why? Maybe because *we* are such a huge force in online genealogy (at least I believe we are) that they want a piece of us. Something that should be looked at is Rootsweb's "Acceptable Use Policy" which can be found here: http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/aup.html Here are some choice segments from the Ters and Conditions that made me raise my eyebrows- wondering if it is really "safe" to continue with their service: "...Your use of the Service indicates that you are bound by this agreement with us. If you don't agree with any of these terms and conditions, don't use the Service. We may alter this agreement at our discretion and your continued use after any change indicates your acceptance of that change. If you don't want to be bound by a change, discontinue use of the Service. ...Limited Use LICENSE You are licensed to use the Content only for personal or professional family history research, and may download Content only as search results relevant to that research. The download of the whole or significant portions of any work or database is prohibited. Resale of a work or database or portion thereof, except as specific results relevant to specific research for an individual, is prohibited. On line or other republication of Content is prohibited except as unique data elements that are part of a unique family history or genealogy. Violation of this License may result in immediate termination of your membership and may result in legal action for injunction, damages or both. ... [Are they bound by this agreement as well??] ...User-Provided Content Portions of the Service will contain user-provided content, to which you may contribute appropriate content (the "Submitted Content") For this Content, the submitter is the owner, and RootsWeb.com is only a distributor. By submitting Submitted Content to RootsWeb.com, you grant MyFamily.com, Inc., the corporate host of the Service, a limited license to the Submitted Content to use, host, and distribute that Submitted Content and allow hosting and distribution on co-branded Services of that Submitted Content. You should submit only content which belongs to you and will not violate the property or other rights of other people or organizations. MyFamily.com, Inc. is sensitive to copyright and other intellectual property rights of others. For more information concerning copyright issues, view our corporate policy. Content submitted for the purpose of commercial use, advertising or fee for service is prohibited. ... ...Because some states/jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion or limitation of liability for consequential or incidental damages, this limitation may not apply in part to you. IF YOU ARE DISSATISFIED WITH ANY PORTION OF THIS WEB SERVICE, OR WITH ANY OF THESE TERMS OF USE, YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS TO DISCONTINUE USING THIS WEB SERVICE...." I did not alter any of that- just copied and pasted it here. The note in brackets is mine. I currently have my own Google Pages that I use for family genealogy, and have been using Google's Page Creator to put it together. I don't know how that page creator will work for others- so just uploading the pages as-is might be best. But I would have a concern about how to establish all of the county/state/archives pages we would need to have without working out an arrangement with Google. If the usernames and passwords will be passed down to future coordinators, then a specific agreement might need to be worked out in order to do that. I think that might cut into a "misrepresentation/impersonation" conflict if the registration info no longer applies to a new coordinator (how could we create pages not tied to a person's name in any way?). I apologize for the length of this, but wanted to sort out my thoughts and see what others felt about all this. This is a potentially huge shift for the Projects, but maybe it will turn out to be a worthwhile undertaking. I come at this from the perspective of a long-time USGenWeb user as well as an Ancestry.com subscriber. USGenWeb is more personal than Ancestry and will only increase in value as time goes on (especially as the Census Project continues). I dream of the day when I won't need to subscribe to Ancestry.com, because all of the info they charge for will finally end up on the web for free (at USGenWeb and at other archival sources -like Universities- who don't/can't charge for their data). As we grow stronger, Ancestry might grow weaker, because if they can't legally monopolize documents and data then it is only a matter of time before someone else (like a volunteer) gets to it and provides access to the information for free. Thank you for your time on this, and for everyone coming out to voice their concerns and ideas. Belinda Slocumb Stewart and Webster CC, GAGenWeb

This is my first time to post on this discussion. I went through 149 pieces of e-mail that contained a lot of discussion that seemed to provide some valid questions to be answered but it would seem to me that most of that should be discussed once a tentative decision was made about moving the National Site and before actually moving it so that SC's and CC's could decided what direction they needed to take. There are several areas of concern to me as the GAGENWeb Peach County Coordinator: First, I inherited a site and have spent many hours working on that site to make it more functional. I did post a copyright notice in my name only because the SC said to do it when updating the e-mail links. Actually all the material on the site was not my contribution and I do not think I own it. If I have to leave the site the new CC will have all the code and work I put into it because that is what I want to happen. Second, when I first started doing Genealogy Research I became very stymied because Ancestry seemed to own virtually all the databases. At that time I was not aware of USGENWeb and it sites. I ended up having to pay a month's subscription to Ancestry and when it was over did not renew it. I live off a Social Security check and could not afford to buy my own site. Which leads me to number Three: After my experiences starting out in Genealogy I absolutely think that we need to move everything off rootsweb (national, state, and county) and find something not associated with Ancestry. I really think that move followed by publicity about it would bring more _/*new researchers online*/_ because they would not have to pay for it. Finally, while I admit Google is a big conglomerate, has anyone thought about approaching them with this kind of idea??? Sure we might have some ads when they look us up but what they offer is for free!!! Free search!!!!! I would almost bet they would take us up on it and establish a new Genealogy Portion as a part of Google. Joe Borderieux Peach County Coordinator

-----Original Message----- From: state-coord-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:state-coord-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Tina S. Vickery Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 11:00 PM To: usgenweb-sw@rootsweb.com; usgenweb-nw@rootsweb.com; usgenweb-ne@rootsweb.com; state-coord@rootsweb.com; board@rootsweb.com; usgenweb-se@rootsweb.com; usgenweb-all@rootsweb.com; discuss@rootsweb.com Subject: [STATE-COORD] Call for Web master *****Please forward to USGenWeb Project lists***** The USGenWeb Project is recruiting a web master to maintain its USGenWeb Project National pages. Volunteers should have these qualifications: 1. Strong demonstrated knowledge and understanding of HTML and CSS [Cascading Style Sheets]; 2, Knowledge of FTP software; 3. Understanding of the USGenWeb mission and goals; 4, Member of the USGenWeb Project with a minimum of six months as a member in good standing; 5. Ability to spend at least one day a month on site maintenance and upkeep. This time will be spread over the course of a month to assure that updates are completed in a timely fashion; 6. Ability to respond in a timely manner to requests for updates as needed. If you are interested, please send a short statement of your qualifications and a minimum of three reference urls for the Advisory Board to consider. Please send your qualifications to Tina Vickery tsvickery@gmail.com Your statement will be shared with Advisory Board members. Applications will remain open through Wednesday, September 19, 2007. Tina Vickery National Coordinator USGenWeb Project ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to STATE-COORD-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

These type of discussions should not be taking place mainly on an unarchived list. Unless you subscribe to the list then you have no idea what the discussions are. And I know that I am not the only one who does not like being on that USGENWEB DISCUSS list which is a free for all at best. Debra Crosby -----Original Message----- From: gagen-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:gagen-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Ed Gordon Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 12:42 AM To: GAGen-L Subject: [GAGEN] FW: [STATE-COORD] Contingency Discussions - re: mastheadnegotiation/discussion -----Original Message----- From: state-coord-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:state-coord-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Tina S. Vickery Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 4:45 PM To: state-coord@rootsweb.com; usgenweb-sw@rootsweb.com; usgenweb-nw@rootsweb.com; usgenweb-ne@rootsweb.com; usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com; board@rootsweb.com; usgenweb-se@rootsweb.com Subject: [STATE-COORD] Contingency Discussions - re: mastheadnegotiation/discussion In conjunction with the masthead negotiations/discussions, the Board and I feel that a contingency discussion is also prudent to have. I offer the below as discussion points only. We welcome all Project members to express their concerns, opinions and to ask questions. Please forward to XXGenWeb Project lists. Again, below is intended as discussion points *only*. Main discussion will take place on the -Discuss list. Subscription information is available at: http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/USGenWeb/USGENWEB-DISCUSS.html Please have courtesy and respect for your peers and the hosts of our mailing lists as we have this discussion. If you wish to contact Advisory Board members privately their names and email addresses are available at: http://www.usgenweb.com/about/advisoryboard.shtml Tina Vickery National Coordinator USGenWeb Project ----------------- Our USGenWeb Project bylaws state: ARTICLE II. PURPOSE "Section 1. The USGenWeb Project is an organized group of volunteers working to create an online center for genealogical research by linking every county in the United States. The purpose of this organization shall be to gather genealogical and historical information for free online access by researchers". Key phrase being: "free online access by researchers". The bylaws make no reference to which server any member or project of the USGenWeb Project must use. Long set precedence allows for the use of "server of one's choice." That choice extends to county, parish, town, special project, etc., and the USGenWeb National pages. As a Project, we are at a crossroads. Rootsweb and its parent company have been a very gracious and accommodating host for many years. And as a Project we would be remiss not to appreciate that. However, some corporate changes and decisions of late have placed the USGenWeb Project in a tenuous position. We need to evaluate their business decisions vs. our mission of providing " ... free online access by researchers." This is a huge decision and discussion. It is a decision as to whether or not to stay with our current host. It is a discussion I feel that must be held in conjunction with the masthead discussion. It is a discussion and decision that we must have as the USGenWeb Project community. The key question for the USGenWeb Project to discuss is: How important is it that we are seen in the genealogy community as the "USGenWeb Project .. Land of Free Genealogy"? Having answered that question, we need to evaluate many things. We have three domains: .org, .net and .com We need to consider hosting, specialized tools [php, db, etc], maintenance, administration, financing and security, to name a few. We need to make choices to promote the growth and future of the USGenWeb Project. Please understand these concerns are for the *national pages only*, but I feel a very important discussion to have with the entire USGenWeb Project membership. Bottom line is what is best for the USGenWeb Project? Tina Vickery National Coordinator USGenWeb Project ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to STATE-COORD-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GAGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

-----Original Message----- From: state-coord-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:state-coord-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Tina S. Vickery Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 4:45 PM To: state-coord@rootsweb.com; usgenweb-sw@rootsweb.com; usgenweb-nw@rootsweb.com; usgenweb-ne@rootsweb.com; usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com; board@rootsweb.com; usgenweb-se@rootsweb.com Subject: [STATE-COORD] Contingency Discussions - re: mastheadnegotiation/discussion In conjunction with the masthead negotiations/discussions, the Board and I feel that a contingency discussion is also prudent to have. I offer the below as discussion points only. We welcome all Project members to express their concerns, opinions and to ask questions. Please forward to XXGenWeb Project lists. Again, below is intended as discussion points *only*. Main discussion will take place on the -Discuss list. Subscription information is available at: http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/USGenWeb/USGENWEB-DISCUSS.html Please have courtesy and respect for your peers and the hosts of our mailing lists as we have this discussion. If you wish to contact Advisory Board members privately their names and email addresses are available at: http://www.usgenweb.com/about/advisoryboard.shtml Tina Vickery National Coordinator USGenWeb Project ----------------- Our USGenWeb Project bylaws state: ARTICLE II. PURPOSE "Section 1. The USGenWeb Project is an organized group of volunteers working to create an online center for genealogical research by linking every county in the United States. The purpose of this organization shall be to gather genealogical and historical information for free online access by researchers". Key phrase being: "free online access by researchers". The bylaws make no reference to which server any member or project of the USGenWeb Project must use. Long set precedence allows for the use of "server of one's choice." That choice extends to county, parish, town, special project, etc., and the USGenWeb National pages. As a Project, we are at a crossroads. Rootsweb and its parent company have been a very gracious and accommodating host for many years. And as a Project we would be remiss not to appreciate that. However, some corporate changes and decisions of late have placed the USGenWeb Project in a tenuous position. We need to evaluate their business decisions vs. our mission of providing " ... free online access by researchers." This is a huge decision and discussion. It is a decision as to whether or not to stay with our current host. It is a discussion I feel that must be held in conjunction with the masthead discussion. It is a discussion and decision that we must have as the USGenWeb Project community. The key question for the USGenWeb Project to discuss is: How important is it that we are seen in the genealogy community as the "USGenWeb Project .. Land of Free Genealogy"? Having answered that question, we need to evaluate many things. We have three domains: .org, .net and .com We need to consider hosting, specialized tools [php, db, etc], maintenance, administration, financing and security, to name a few. We need to make choices to promote the growth and future of the USGenWeb Project. Please understand these concerns are for the *national pages only*, but I feel a very important discussion to have with the entire USGenWeb Project membership. Bottom line is what is best for the USGenWeb Project? Tina Vickery National Coordinator USGenWeb Project ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to STATE-COORD-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

For those interested. Ed -----Original Message----- From: usgenweb-se-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:usgenweb-se-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Linda Blum-Barton Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 3:24 PM To: SEMA Regional List Subject: [USGW-SE] FW: [ABChat] USGenWeb Project National Mail Lists. -----Original Message----- From: usgenweb-all-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:usgenweb-all-bounces@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of Tina S. Vickery Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 7:59 AM To: usgenweb-all@rootsweb.com Subject: [ABChat] USGenWeb Project National Mail Lists. I have opened up the posting ability to Project members to discuss the merits and offer constructive suggestions of this draft to all subscribed on Tuesday, September 10 - Tuesday, September 18, 2007. 8am - 11:59 EST. For those that wish to participate in this discussion, subscription information is at the following link. http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/USGenWeb/USGENWEB-ALL.html We all look forward to Project members participating in this very important discussion. --- These are the rules for this discussion: 1. Any post that, in the opinion of the moderator(s), is inflammatory, derogatory, demeaning, or otherwise inappropriate will be subject to an immediate period of moderation of 5 to 10 days at the moderator(s) discretion. This applies to all. 2. There will be no warnings and there is no appeal of the moderation. 3. Any second offense that would result in a second period of moderation will earn that poster a 30 day ban from discuss. 4. Any third offense results in a permanent ban from the discuss list. 5. Any post that questions or complains about a moderation that has taken place will secure for that poster a 5 day moderation period. Please take a moment to welcome Alice and Betsy to their role. Thank you, Tina Vickery National Coordinator USGenWeb Project ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to USGENWEB-ALL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.14/999 - Release Date: 9/10/2007 5:43 PM