Fyi -----Original Message----- From: "Bremer,Robert"<bremerr@oclc.org> Sent: 3/7/04 5:30:39 PM To: "USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com"<USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Subject: RE: [USGW-Discuss] Interesting I find the proposed USGenWeb bylaw revision (Article VIII, Section 2) cited in the message below to be completely unnecessary. See http://home.mchsi.com/~sagitta56/ for the complete revision. The topic of multiple affiliations of USGenWeb web sites has come up in discussions now and then over the past few years. The only argument I have seen people willing to put forth is that our visitors are somehow confused when our sites show multiple affiliations. I don't believe that to be true at all. If logos display names, links are properly identified, and each affiliation is given equal billing, then any person with average intelligence would likely conclude that the site is affiliated with multiple projects. I don't see why that should be a problem in that organizations in all sorts of other subject areas often collaborate to produce print and online publications. As the proposed revision is currently written, affiliation with our own state XXGenWeb projects is not specifically covered. A better approach to this proposed section might have been to indicate that sites with multiple affiliations present the USGenWeb affiliation on at least an equal basis with all the others. Unfortunately, what seems to me to be the underlying view of some is that CCs with multiple affiliations are somehow not true USGenWeb CCs. Their loyalty is in question because they do not solely promote the USGenWeb in that way that a few think it should be strictly promoted. But, even this idea is really without any basis. I have chosen to include my two USGenWeb Ohio counties in two other projects only because that seemed to be the most efficient and effective thing to do. Why have competing coordinators wasting time putting up similar pages, duplicating effort by independently transcribing the very same records instead of making a coordinated effort via a single county site, particularly when the three organizations have the same or very similar goals? I have browsed around other Ohio counties and found several others with multiple affiliations, and it was easy to see and understand that they had multiple affiliations. I saw no cases where one project was highlighted to detriment of the others. I have participated in the USGenWeb essentially since of the beginning of the project in 1996. My pages (which currently require some much needed attention) are there for people interested in genealogy in my counties. USGenWeb and the other projects are only mechanisms to coordinate and promote access to the county sites. I participate in several projects, but I am not an employee of the USGenWeb or any other online genealogical project. My pages are not owned by the USGenWeb or any other online genealogical project. They are there for the public, and I should do whatever would best serve the public. The project should facilitate the work of the CCs, and this proposed restriction, while surely satisfying to some who want to control the look of our pages, does not facilitate the work of CCs. It only restricts it. USGenWeb is the premier geographically-based genealogy project in the United States. That's not going to change, so there should be no fear of the project being knocked off its pedestal by some other "upstart" project. There needs to be no fear of our pages somehow being tainted by affiliation with other projects. I see multiple affiliations as having a legitimate payoff in terms of better coordination and the reduction in the duplication of effort. The proposed bylaw section is exclusive, aristocratic, and snobby. As the largest and best such project around, we should be reaching out to other projects and genealogical efforts online rather than necessarily seeking to cut them off and imposing restrictions on our own coordinators. I have heard stories where some USGenWeb coordinators have had occasion to run up against the wishes or preferences of local genealogical societies which sometimes object to any or all information being placed online. This has always impressed me as an incredibly negative aspect to what genealogical societies do, i.e., the idea that they "own" or at least must control information that is in the public domain relative to their geographic area of interest, rather than working to facilitate genealogical research for that area. This proposed section of the bylaws is quite in step with that idea. It only brings the "us" versus "them" mentality to the online environment of our project rather than promoting a collaborative approach. Our project showed so much promise eight years ago. It is sad that it possibly could promote such intolerant attitudes and could possibly implement such restrictive measures which only serve to control, but do nothing to facilitate genealogical research or facilitate the work of county coordinators. This is just another among several reasons to eventually vote "no" on the revised bylaws. Robert Bremer bremerr@oclc.org P.S. You have my permission to forward this message to any USGenWeb state or regional list you would like. -----Original Message----- From: Fred Smoot [mailto:dogtrotxp1@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 8:10 PM To: USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [USGW-Discuss] Interesting Revision "ARTICLE VIII. GUIDELINES/STANDARDS FOR WEBSITES/MEMBERS "Section 2. USGenWeb web sites may show only a single project affiliation - that of The USGenWeb Project. If a coordinator chooses also to host a local, state or special topic site with another organization, it must have a separate home or index page. " Hmmmmmm. ==== USGENWEB-DISCUSS Mailing List ==== --Celebrate the USGenWeb Project! -- Can you identify? Soldiers, Manchester "This was taken at Manchester, Ohio where we are stationed", signed Walter sent to Mr. F. G. Haldey, Stamford CT [1908] http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/oh/adams/postcards/2soldr.jpg ============================== Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237