In the beginning of USGenWeb there were basically three rules for county hosts - links to state, national; provide for queries; provide information and as an aside have fun creating to one's heart's desire. That lasted for three years or thereabouts. USGenWeb didn't die, it continued to grow. People with all sorts of abilities joined, learned how to do HTML, FTP and many other things. The Bylaws were coming into being and the fighting started. The Bylaws went into effect and the what's wrong with the Bylaws started and best I know continues to this day. The counties continue to be adopted, built, abandoned, readopted. In the early days of USGenWeb county sites depended on the state site to attract visitors and the states on national. Once search engines became a standard of the Internet, that necessity began to fade, so if one has a site with keyed meta tags in the heading one can get traffic whether or not the state site is active. County mailing lists help as well if the coordinator is a member and announces major updates to the site and/or participates in the list. So while the MN state page was dormant for some time, counties continued to get traffic. The downside for the state project was / is that without a team watching over the state site, counties that are abandoned do not get readopted. Perhaps one should not underestimate the annoyance caused by a myriad of emails delivered to those who in the end it has no effect on. It begins to have the characteristics of spam - unwanted. Since we are all individuals, with individual tastes as to likes / dislikes may we not cut some slack for those with whom we disagree? Tim On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Laverne H. Tornow via <[email protected]> wrote: > Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it a lack of "rules" in MNGenWeb > that put you in the position of having the AB take over the project to > revive it? > > Every organization from the lowliest to the largest has to have rules or > procedures by which to operate or it stagnates and dies, also those > rules must be reviewed periodically and updated to reflect changes not > only in the organization, but changes within society. > > As for the amount of e-mail that is being generated during this > resuscitation process, had you had rules or procedures to begin with non > of this would be happening. and since we ARE an internet based > organization what alternative method would you suggest we use to > communicate Lynn? Are you subbed in digest mode or regualr. if it is > regular then you might want to switch to digest, that way you get 2 or 3 > e-mails a day that have all the emails lumped into them! > > Laverne > On 2/14/2015 9:46 PM, Lynn Brandvold via wrote: > > Tim, > > > > You've got my vote! I don't want to deal with more by-Laws, rules, > > regulations or guidelines. I am rapidly becoming burned out with all > > these emails as it is. > > > > Lynn Brandvold > > Pennington and Red Lake Counties > > On 2/14/2015 9:40 AM, Timothy Stowell via wrote: > >> Linda, > >> > >> Actually I am not in favor of creating more rules for coordinators to > >> follow. The national bylaws are sufficient and have been for the nearly > 19 > >> years of our existence. Some would say, what would we do if the > leadership > >> disappears again? We could do just as was done this time, ask national > for > >> assistance. > >> > >> Perhaps more regular roll calls than our previous yearly roll call would > >> alert the members to a problem sooner - ie a roll call instituted by the > >> SC/ASC team rather than everyone posting on list 'here' or 'present'. > >> > >> Since it seems most coordinators are adults, saying to them, that our > state > >> logo needs to be at the top of the main page of a county site and if > >> linked, linked to the state page - there is really no reason to make a > rule > >> that says do this or else. > >> > >> Most people are pleasant to work with, so why complicate their lives > with > >> more rules unless those who want the rules seek to control other > people's > >> creativity? > >> > >> That said, I would not stand in the way of those who like to have more > >> rules, to serve some purpose that eludes me. > >> > >> Tim > >> > >> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Linda Ziemann via <[email protected] > > > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Good morning. Without restating everything regarding this, I agree with > >>> what > >>> Martha has stated in her response. (In fact, based on what I have > read, > >>> the candidates for SC are in favor of establishing MN state bylaws, > with > >>> accompanying rules.) Any bylaws approved by the members, should > "enhance" > >>> the Project-not detract from it (to quote Martha.) YES! Right on! > >>> > >>> My approach would be to ask for volunteers from the members, > establishing a > >>> "committee" to put together a group of bylaws. These in turn would be > >>> presented to the membership for discussion and a vote. The rules also > would > >>> be formulated and presented in much the same manner. "Together" the > MEMBERS > >>> would establish & vote to set the bylaws and the rules. > >>> > >>> Most importantly it is essential that the CCs be proactive in finding & > >>> transcribing data, recruiting others to help, uploading the free data > to > >>> the > >>> county, presenting the ancestor data for the MN visiting researchers to > >>> find. > >>> > >>> Everyone have a great weekend! Happy Hearts Day! > >>> Linda Ziemann > >>> Candidate for SC > >>> Rock County Coordinator > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2/13/15, 10:21 PM, "Kermit Kittleson via" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> I just want to "second" what Martha just said. > >>>> > >>>> Kermit Kittleson > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Martha A Crosley Graham via < > >>>> [email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Shirley, > >>>>> Thank you for the concise information on the difference between > >>>>> Guidelines and By-Laws. > >>>>> One of the things that is bothersome to me is the tendency to > re-invent > >>>>> some of the basic [and common sense] items that have been spelled out > >>>>> over time in the USGW. > >>>>> > >>>>> I am not a 'micro-manager' type of SC here in CA. Blatant disregard > for > >>>>> the By-laws set up by the USGW are obvious items of concern and > should > >>>>> be addressed as they come up or are found. By-laws at the local > [State] > >>>>> level should enhance the Project, not detract from it. > >>>>> > >>>>> As an entity that promotes 'Free Genealogical and Historical Data', > the > >>>>> whole idea is to make resources available to visiting Researchers. > If we > >>>>> are so caught up in compliance issues, we are not giving ourselves > time > >>>>> to get the data located, formatted and uploaded. > >>>>> > >>>>> Martha > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ------------------------------- > >>>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > >>>>> [email protected] 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 > >>>> [email protected] 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 > >>> [email protected] 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 > [email protected] 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 > [email protected] 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 > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >

Tim, Well stated! - Linda Simpson -----Original Message----- From: Timothy Stowell via Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 9:32 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MNGEN] By-Laws In the beginning of USGenWeb there were basically three rules for county hosts - links to state, national; provide for queries; provide information and as an aside have fun creating to one's heart's desire. That lasted for three years or thereabouts. USGenWeb didn't die, it continued to grow. People with all sorts of abilities joined, learned how to do HTML, FTP and many other things. The Bylaws were coming into being and the fighting started. The Bylaws went into effect and the what's wrong with the Bylaws started and best I know continues to this day. The counties continue to be adopted, built, abandoned, readopted. In the early days of USGenWeb county sites depended on the state site to attract visitors and the states on national. Once search engines became a standard of the Internet, that necessity began to fade, so if one has a site with keyed meta tags in the heading one can get traffic whether or not the state site is active. County mailing lists help as well if the coordinator is a member and announces major updates to the site and/or participates in the list. So while the MN state page was dormant for some time, counties continued to get traffic. The downside for the state project was / is that without a team watching over the state site, counties that are abandoned do not get readopted. Perhaps one should not underestimate the annoyance caused by a myriad of emails delivered to those who in the end it has no effect on. It begins to have the characteristics of spam - unwanted. Since we are all individuals, with individual tastes as to likes / dislikes may we not cut some slack for those with whom we disagree? Tim On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Laverne H. Tornow via <[email protected]> wrote: > Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it a lack of "rules" in MNGenWeb > that put you in the position of having the AB take over the project to > revive it? > > Every organization from the lowliest to the largest has to have rules or > procedures by which to operate or it stagnates and dies, also those > rules must be reviewed periodically and updated to reflect changes not > only in the organization, but changes within society. > > As for the amount of e-mail that is being generated during this > resuscitation process, had you had rules or procedures to begin with non > of this would be happening. and since we ARE an internet based > organization what alternative method would you suggest we use to > communicate Lynn? Are you subbed in digest mode or regualr. if it is > regular then you might want to switch to digest, that way you get 2 or 3 > e-mails a day that have all the emails lumped into them! > > Laverne > On 2/14/2015 9:46 PM, Lynn Brandvold via wrote: > > Tim, > > > > You've got my vote! I don't want to deal with more by-Laws, rules, > > regulations or guidelines. I am rapidly becoming burned out with all > > these emails as it is. > > > > Lynn Brandvold > > Pennington and Red Lake Counties > > On 2/14/2015 9:40 AM, Timothy Stowell via wrote: > >> Linda, > >> > >> Actually I am not in favor of creating more rules for coordinators to > >> follow. The national bylaws are sufficient and have been for the nearly > 19 > >> years of our existence. Some would say, what would we do if the > leadership > >> disappears again? We could do just as was done this time, ask national > for > >> assistance. > >> > >> Perhaps more regular roll calls than our previous yearly roll call > >> would > >> alert the members to a problem sooner - ie a roll call instituted by > >> the > >> SC/ASC team rather than everyone posting on list 'here' or 'present'. > >> > >> Since it seems most coordinators are adults, saying to them, that our > state > >> logo needs to be at the top of the main page of a county site and if > >> linked, linked to the state page - there is really no reason to make a > rule > >> that says do this or else. > >> > >> Most people are pleasant to work with, so why complicate their lives > with > >> more rules unless those who want the rules seek to control other > people's > >> creativity? > >> > >> That said, I would not stand in the way of those who like to have more > >> rules, to serve some purpose that eludes me. > >> > >> Tim > >> > >> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Linda Ziemann via <[email protected] > > > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Good morning. Without restating everything regarding this, I agree > >>> with > >>> what > >>> Martha has stated in her response. (In fact, based on what I have > read, > >>> the candidates for SC are in favor of establishing MN state bylaws, > with > >>> accompanying rules.) Any bylaws approved by the members, should > "enhance" > >>> the Project-not detract from it (to quote Martha.) YES! Right on! > >>> > >>> My approach would be to ask for volunteers from the members, > establishing a > >>> "committee" to put together a group of bylaws. These in turn would be > >>> presented to the membership for discussion and a vote. The rules also > would > >>> be formulated and presented in much the same manner. "Together" the > MEMBERS > >>> would establish & vote to set the bylaws and the rules. > >>> > >>> Most importantly it is essential that the CCs be proactive in finding > >>> & > >>> transcribing data, recruiting others to help, uploading the free data > to > >>> the > >>> county, presenting the ancestor data for the MN visiting researchers > >>> to > >>> find. > >>> > >>> Everyone have a great weekend! Happy Hearts Day! > >>> Linda Ziemann > >>> Candidate for SC > >>> Rock County Coordinator > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2/13/15, 10:21 PM, "Kermit Kittleson via" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> I just want to "second" what Martha just said. > >>>> > >>>> Kermit Kittleson > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Martha A Crosley Graham via < > >>>> [email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Shirley, > >>>>> Thank you for the concise information on the difference between > >>>>> Guidelines and By-Laws. > >>>>> One of the things that is bothersome to me is the tendency to > re-invent > >>>>> some of the basic [and common sense] items that have been spelled > >>>>> out > >>>>> over time in the USGW. > >>>>> > >>>>> I am not a 'micro-manager' type of SC here in CA. Blatant disregard > for > >>>>> the By-laws set up by the USGW are obvious items of concern and > should > >>>>> be addressed as they come up or are found. By-laws at the local > [State] > >>>>> level should enhance the Project, not detract from it. > >>>>> > >>>>> As an entity that promotes 'Free Genealogical and Historical Data', > the > >>>>> whole idea is to make resources available to visiting Researchers. > If we > >>>>> are so caught up in compliance issues, we are not giving ourselves > time > >>>>> to get the data located, formatted and uploaded. > >>>>> > >>>>> Martha > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ------------------------------- > >>>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > >>>>> [email protected] 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 > >>>> [email protected] 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 > >>> [email protected] 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 > [email protected] 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 > [email protected] 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 > [email protected] 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 [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

And my question still stands: How does the project "rebuild" without communication? What alternative method to e-mail is there, that is available to everyone? Another question and I feel it IS legitimate: Would you still object to receiving e-mail if it was coming from site visitors? Correct NO set of rules can cover every possibility, BUT if MNGenWeb had had rules set up governing what to do in the event of the SC and the ASC disappearing for WHATEVER reason, and if they had conducted a roll call occasionally I still say they would not have ended up in this situation! Of course that is just my opinion, BUT if you look at the most successful State Projects in USGenWeb, they have rules and rollcalls.......... Laverne On 2/15/2015 10:32 AM, Timothy Stowell via wrote: > In the beginning of USGenWeb there were basically three rules for county > hosts - links to state, national; provide for queries; provide information > and as an aside have fun creating to one's heart's desire. > > That lasted for three years or thereabouts. USGenWeb didn't die, it > continued to grow. People with all sorts of abilities joined, learned how > to do HTML, FTP and many other things. The Bylaws were coming into being > and the fighting started. The Bylaws went into effect and the what's wrong > with the Bylaws started and best I know continues to this day. > > The counties continue to be adopted, built, abandoned, readopted. In the > early days of USGenWeb county sites depended on the state site to attract > visitors and the states on national. Once search engines became a standard > of the Internet, that necessity began to fade, so if one has a site with > keyed meta tags in the heading one can get traffic whether or not the state > site is active. County mailing lists help as well if the coordinator is a > member and announces major updates to the site and/or participates in the > list. > > So while the MN state page was dormant for some time, counties continued to > get traffic. The downside for the state project was / is that without a > team watching over the state site, counties that are abandoned do not get > readopted. > > Perhaps one should not underestimate the annoyance caused by a myriad of > emails delivered to those who in the end it has no effect on. It begins to > have the characteristics of spam - unwanted. > > Since we are all individuals, with individual tastes as to likes / dislikes > may we not cut some slack for those with whom we disagree? > > Tim > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Laverne H. Tornow via <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it a lack of "rules" in MNGenWeb >> that put you in the position of having the AB take over the project to >> revive it? >> >> Every organization from the lowliest to the largest has to have rules or >> procedures by which to operate or it stagnates and dies, also those >> rules must be reviewed periodically and updated to reflect changes not >> only in the organization, but changes within society. >> >> As for the amount of e-mail that is being generated during this >> resuscitation process, had you had rules or procedures to begin with non >> of this would be happening. and since we ARE an internet based >> organization what alternative method would you suggest we use to >> communicate Lynn? Are you subbed in digest mode or regualr. if it is >> regular then you might want to switch to digest, that way you get 2 or 3 >> e-mails a day that have all the emails lumped into them! >> >> Laverne >> On 2/14/2015 9:46 PM, Lynn Brandvold via wrote: >>> Tim, >>> >>> You've got my vote! I don't want to deal with more by-Laws, rules, >>> regulations or guidelines. I am rapidly becoming burned out with all >>> these emails as it is. >>> >>> Lynn Brandvold >>> Pennington and Red Lake Counties >>> On 2/14/2015 9:40 AM, Timothy Stowell via wrote: >>>> Linda, >>>> >>>> Actually I am not in favor of creating more rules for coordinators to >>>> follow. The national bylaws are sufficient and have been for the nearly >> 19 >>>> years of our existence. Some would say, what would we do if the >> leadership >>>> disappears again? We could do just as was done this time, ask national >> for >>>> assistance. >>>> >>>> Perhaps more regular roll calls than our previous yearly roll call would >>>> alert the members to a problem sooner - ie a roll call instituted by the >>>> SC/ASC team rather than everyone posting on list 'here' or 'present'. >>>> >>>> Since it seems most coordinators are adults, saying to them, that our >> state >>>> logo needs to be at the top of the main page of a county site and if >>>> linked, linked to the state page - there is really no reason to make a >> rule >>>> that says do this or else. >>>> >>>> Most people are pleasant to work with, so why complicate their lives >> with >>>> more rules unless those who want the rules seek to control other >> people's >>>> creativity? >>>> >>>> That said, I would not stand in the way of those who like to have more >>>> rules, to serve some purpose that eludes me. >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Linda Ziemann via <[email protected] >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Good morning. Without restating everything regarding this, I agree with >>>>> what >>>>> Martha has stated in her response. (In fact, based on what I have >> read, >>>>> the candidates for SC are in favor of establishing MN state bylaws, >> with >>>>> accompanying rules.) Any bylaws approved by the members, should >> "enhance" >>>>> the Project-not detract from it (to quote Martha.) YES! Right on! >>>>> >>>>> My approach would be to ask for volunteers from the members, >> establishing a >>>>> "committee" to put together a group of bylaws. These in turn would be >>>>> presented to the membership for discussion and a vote. The rules also >> would >>>>> be formulated and presented in much the same manner. "Together" the >> MEMBERS >>>>> would establish & vote to set the bylaws and the rules. >>>>> >>>>> Most importantly it is essential that the CCs be proactive in finding & >>>>> transcribing data, recruiting others to help, uploading the free data >> to >>>>> the >>>>> county, presenting the ancestor data for the MN visiting researchers to >>>>> find. >>>>> >>>>> Everyone have a great weekend! Happy Hearts Day! >>>>> Linda Ziemann >>>>> Candidate for SC >>>>> Rock County Coordinator >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2/13/15, 10:21 PM, "Kermit Kittleson via" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>>>> I just want to "second" what Martha just said. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kermit Kittleson >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Martha A Crosley Graham via < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Shirley, >>>>>>> Thank you for the concise information on the difference between >>>>>>> Guidelines and By-Laws. >>>>>>> One of the things that is bothersome to me is the tendency to >> re-invent >>>>>>> some of the basic [and common sense] items that have been spelled out >>>>>>> over time in the USGW. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am not a 'micro-manager' type of SC here in CA. Blatant disregard >> for >>>>>>> the By-laws set up by the USGW are obvious items of concern and >> should >>>>>>> be addressed as they come up or are found. By-laws at the local >> [State] >>>>>>> level should enhance the Project, not detract from it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As an entity that promotes 'Free Genealogical and Historical Data', >> the >>>>>>> whole idea is to make resources available to visiting Researchers. >> If we >>>>>>> are so caught up in compliance issues, we are not giving ourselves >> time >>>>>>> to get the data located, formatted and uploaded. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Martha >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------- >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>>>>>> [email protected] 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 >>>>>> [email protected] 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 >>>>> [email protected] 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 >> [email protected] 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 >> [email protected] 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 >> [email protected] 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 [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I do not get queries or emails from visitors for all my sites combined with the volume this list is producing or for that matter on all the county / surname lists I manage. Comparing the two seems off base. What constitutes a successful state project? In my book we are not in a competition with other states. We are here only to provide resources for this state and its counties. Tim On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Laverne H. Tornow <[email protected]> wrote: > And my question still stands: How does the project "rebuild" without > communication? What alternative method to e-mail is there, that is > available to everyone? > Another question and I feel it IS legitimate: Would you still object to > receiving e-mail if it was coming from site visitors? > > Correct NO set of rules can cover every possibility, BUT if MNGenWeb had > had rules set up governing what to do in the event of the SC and the ASC > disappearing for WHATEVER reason, and if they had conducted a roll call > occasionally I still say they would not have ended up in this situation! Of > course that is just my opinion, BUT if you look at the most successful > State Projects in USGenWeb, they have rules and rollcalls.......... > > Laverne

Clearly until the National Coordinator stepped in, this project did not communicate. Arpril 2014- 1 message that was a spam, and not another until October when the NC took over. October 2013 - 1 message, request for help from Keith Gulsvig to which NO ONE replied! and none between October 2013 and April 2014 October 2011 there were 21 messages relating to a temp ASC being appointed by the NC, there wre no other messages for that year. from Nov 2011 to October 2013 there were no messages December 2010 there were 4 messages and none between that time and October 2011 There are maybe 1 or 2 messages per year....... That is a project that does not communicate! Laverne On 2/15/2015 10:32 AM, Timothy Stowell via wrote: > In the beginning of USGenWeb there were basically three rules for county > hosts - links to state, national; provide for queries; provide information > and as an aside have fun creating to one's heart's desire. > > That lasted for three years or thereabouts. USGenWeb didn't die, it > continued to grow. People with all sorts of abilities joined, learned how > to do HTML, FTP and many other things. The Bylaws were coming into being > and the fighting started. The Bylaws went into effect and the what's wrong > with the Bylaws started and best I know continues to this day. > > The counties continue to be adopted, built, abandoned, readopted. In the > early days of USGenWeb county sites depended on the state site to attract > visitors and the states on national. Once search engines became a standard > of the Internet, that necessity began to fade, so if one has a site with > keyed meta tags in the heading one can get traffic whether or not the state > site is active. County mailing lists help as well if the coordinator is a > member and announces major updates to the site and/or participates in the > list. > > So while the MN state page was dormant for some time, counties continued to > get traffic. The downside for the state project was / is that without a > team watching over the state site, counties that are abandoned do not get > readopted. > > Perhaps one should not underestimate the annoyance caused by a myriad of > emails delivered to those who in the end it has no effect on. It begins to > have the characteristics of spam - unwanted. > > Since we are all individuals, with individual tastes as to likes / dislikes > may we not cut some slack for those with whom we disagree? > > Tim > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Laverne H. Tornow via <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it a lack of "rules" in MNGenWeb >> that put you in the position of having the AB take over the project to >> revive it? >> >> Every organization from the lowliest to the largest has to have rules or >> procedures by which to operate or it stagnates and dies, also those >> rules must be reviewed periodically and updated to reflect changes not >> only in the organization, but changes within society. >> >> As for the amount of e-mail that is being generated during this >> resuscitation process, had you had rules or procedures to begin with non >> of this would be happening. and since we ARE an internet based >> organization what alternative method would you suggest we use to >> communicate Lynn? Are you subbed in digest mode or regualr. if it is >> regular then you might want to switch to digest, that way you get 2 or 3 >> e-mails a day that have all the emails lumped into them! >> >> Laverne >> On 2/14/2015 9:46 PM, Lynn Brandvold via wrote: >>> Tim, >>> >>> You've got my vote! I don't want to deal with more by-Laws, rules, >>> regulations or guidelines. I am rapidly becoming burned out with all >>> these emails as it is. >>> >>> Lynn Brandvold >>> Pennington and Red Lake Counties >>> On 2/14/2015 9:40 AM, Timothy Stowell via wrote: >>>> Linda, >>>> >>>> Actually I am not in favor of creating more rules for coordinators to >>>> follow. The national bylaws are sufficient and have been for the nearly >> 19 >>>> years of our existence. Some would say, what would we do if the >> leadership >>>> disappears again? We could do just as was done this time, ask national >> for >>>> assistance. >>>> >>>> Perhaps more regular roll calls than our previous yearly roll call would >>>> alert the members to a problem sooner - ie a roll call instituted by the >>>> SC/ASC team rather than everyone posting on list 'here' or 'present'. >>>> >>>> Since it seems most coordinators are adults, saying to them, that our >> state >>>> logo needs to be at the top of the main page of a county site and if >>>> linked, linked to the state page - there is really no reason to make a >> rule >>>> that says do this or else. >>>> >>>> Most people are pleasant to work with, so why complicate their lives >> with >>>> more rules unless those who want the rules seek to control other >> people's >>>> creativity? >>>> >>>> That said, I would not stand in the way of those who like to have more >>>> rules, to serve some purpose that eludes me. >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Linda Ziemann via <[email protected] >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Good morning. Without restating everything regarding this, I agree with >>>>> what >>>>> Martha has stated in her response. (In fact, based on what I have >> read, >>>>> the candidates for SC are in favor of establishing MN state bylaws, >> with >>>>> accompanying rules.) Any bylaws approved by the members, should >> "enhance" >>>>> the Project-not detract from it (to quote Martha.) YES! Right on! >>>>> >>>>> My approach would be to ask for volunteers from the members, >> establishing a >>>>> "committee" to put together a group of bylaws. These in turn would be >>>>> presented to the membership for discussion and a vote. The rules also >> would >>>>> be formulated and presented in much the same manner. "Together" the >> MEMBERS >>>>> would establish & vote to set the bylaws and the rules. >>>>> >>>>> Most importantly it is essential that the CCs be proactive in finding & >>>>> transcribing data, recruiting others to help, uploading the free data >> to >>>>> the >>>>> county, presenting the ancestor data for the MN visiting researchers to >>>>> find. >>>>> >>>>> Everyone have a great weekend! Happy Hearts Day! >>>>> Linda Ziemann >>>>> Candidate for SC >>>>> Rock County Coordinator >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2/13/15, 10:21 PM, "Kermit Kittleson via" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>>>> I just want to "second" what Martha just said. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kermit Kittleson >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Martha A Crosley Graham via < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Shirley, >>>>>>> Thank you for the concise information on the difference between >>>>>>> Guidelines and By-Laws. >>>>>>> One of the things that is bothersome to me is the tendency to >> re-invent >>>>>>> some of the basic [and common sense] items that have been spelled out >>>>>>> over time in the USGW. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am not a 'micro-manager' type of SC here in CA. Blatant disregard >> for >>>>>>> the By-laws set up by the USGW are obvious items of concern and >> should >>>>>>> be addressed as they come up or are found. By-laws at the local >> [State] >>>>>>> level should enhance the Project, not detract from it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As an entity that promotes 'Free Genealogical and Historical Data', >> the >>>>>>> whole idea is to make resources available to visiting Researchers. >> If we >>>>>>> are so caught up in compliance issues, we are not giving ourselves >> time >>>>>>> to get the data located, formatted and uploaded. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Martha >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------- >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>>>>>> [email protected] 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 >>>>>> [email protected] 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 >>>>> [email protected] 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 >> [email protected] 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 >> [email protected] 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 >> [email protected] 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 [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

In other states I host counties in we have occasional roll calls, nearly zero messages on the state list other than announcements about national events that we mostly ignore. Why? Because it bears no relevance to our hosting a county. Occasionally someone finds something to share, then the list goes silent. We like it that way. I counted one state's emails for 2014 there were approximately 190 emails for the year. I read three because the rest were not pertinent to the counties I host or the subject matter was of no interest to me. In the other less than 30 of which I wrote several. I continue with my counties and rarely look at the surrounding counties because I have enough material for my sites. If I come across material for other counties, I inform the host of said county who is free to either accept or reject the data. All of the past history is moot except to say that over the number of years before the SC/ASC ceased to participate, we were a very quiet group. We either felt no need to communicate or there was nothing to be said. We just did our county sites, which is what we volunteered to do. Tim On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Laverne H. Tornow <[email protected]> wrote: > Clearly until the National Coordinator stepped in, this project did not > communicate. > > Arpril 2014- 1 message that was a spam, and not another until October when > the NC took over. > October 2013 - 1 message, request for help from Keith Gulsvig to which NO > ONE replied! and none between October 2013 and April 2014 > October 2011 there were 21 messages relating to a temp ASC being appointed > by the NC, there wre no other messages for that year. > from Nov 2011 to October 2013 there were no messages > December 2010 there were 4 messages and none between that time and October > 2011 > > There are maybe 1 or 2 messages per year....... That is a project that > does not communicate! > > Laverne

Long before MNGenWeb lost their leadership team, there were many counties that were stagnant and missing. During this time it was peace and quiet as Tim has mentioned. Perhaps if there was no peace and quiet those counties would be updated or not missing? I LOVE talking to other CCs and get loads of ideas from others and what they are doing on their sites. We don't need to hide our candles under the bushel basket and it is truly sad to me that any fellow CC does not want basic rules or talking on this list. Yes I can understand inappropriate posts like someone's grandbaby or spouse doing something noteworthy. I would be the first to complain about that but these posts are project business and CCs need a voice. I know that this profuse amount of email right now is a temporary thing and it will calm down eventually but I do not want ANYONE thinking they cannot ask a question of their fellow CCs on this list or share something they have discovered. It will not go back to the years of no emails ever again and that is a good thing. This list is for official project business and with lots of business comes lots of emails. Karen Becker, Todd and Stearns On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Timothy Stowell via <[email protected]> wrote: > In other states I host counties in we have occasional roll calls, nearly > zero messages on the state list other than announcements about national > events that we mostly ignore. Why? Because it bears no relevance to our > hosting a county. Occasionally someone finds something to share, then the > list goes silent. We like it that way. > > I counted one state's emails for 2014 there were approximately 190 emails > for the year. I read three because the rest were not pertinent to the > counties I host or the subject matter was of no interest to me. In the > other less than 30 of which I wrote several. I continue with my counties > and rarely look at the surrounding counties because I have enough material > for my sites. If I come across material for other counties, I inform the > host of said county who is free to either accept or reject the data. > > All of the past history is moot except to say that over the number of years > before the SC/ASC ceased to participate, we were a very quiet group. We > either felt no need to communicate or there was nothing to be said. We > just did our county sites, which is what we volunteered to do. > > Tim > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Laverne H. Tornow <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Clearly until the National Coordinator stepped in, this project did not > > communicate. > > > > Arpril 2014- 1 message that was a spam, and not another until October > when > > the NC took over. > > October 2013 - 1 message, request for help from Keith Gulsvig to which > NO > > ONE replied! and none between October 2013 and April 2014 > > October 2011 there were 21 messages relating to a temp ASC being > appointed > > by the NC, there wre no other messages for that year. > > from Nov 2011 to October 2013 there were no messages > > December 2010 there were 4 messages and none between that time and > October > > 2011 > > > > There are maybe 1 or 2 messages per year....... That is a project that > > does not communicate! > > > > Laverne > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >

>From 1997 or thereabouts until the early 2000s, this was a quiet list. The SCs did their things, the CCs theirs. Perhaps we weren't as curious or chatty as others would have had us be. People who wanted information usually just wrote the SC privately and asked. Long after MNGenWeb lost its leadership, apparently USGenWeb was asleep and not only for Minnesota but for several other states as well. At least the current NC is doing something to rectify that. While I know who the NC was before the current one, I rather gather this has been an issue for more than one NC prior to the current one. Of course any member can post what they want regarding the project, what additions they've made to their site, share methods, URLs and the like. Yes to basic rules, but as members of USGenWeb basic rules already exist. Thus any rules created by this group would be beyond the basics. As for 'lots of business' would generate lots of email, such is true. However, as I recall, that business to date is exactly two things, selection of a new logo and selection of new management. So forgive me if us old timers in MNGenWeb find the list a bit verbose. Not as verbose mind you as some other states but still verbose. TIC, Tim On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Karen De Groote via <[email protected]> wrote: > Long before MNGenWeb lost their leadership team, there were many counties > that were stagnant and missing. During this time it was peace and quiet as > Tim has mentioned. Perhaps if there was no peace and quiet those counties > would be updated or not missing? I LOVE talking to other CCs and get loads > of ideas from others and what they are doing on their sites. We don't need > to hide our candles under the bushel basket and it is truly sad to me that > any fellow CC does not want basic rules or talking on this list. Yes I can > understand inappropriate posts like someone's grandbaby or spouse doing > something noteworthy. I would be the first to complain about that but > these posts are project business and CCs need a voice. > > I know that this profuse amount of email right now is a temporary thing and > it will calm down eventually but I do not want ANYONE thinking they cannot > ask a question of their fellow CCs on this list or share something they > have discovered. It will not go back to the years of no emails ever again > and that is a good thing. This list is for official project business and > with lots of business comes lots of emails. > > Karen > Becker, Todd and Stearns

This all makes perfect sense to me Tim. Thank you. --Ann Mensch -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Timothy Stowell via Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 10:32 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MNGEN] By-Laws In the beginning of USGenWeb there were basically three rules for county hosts - links to state, national; provide for queries; provide information and as an aside have fun creating to one's heart's desire. That lasted for three years or thereabouts. USGenWeb didn't die, it continued to grow. People with all sorts of abilities joined, learned how to do HTML, FTP and many other things. The Bylaws were coming into being and the fighting started. The Bylaws went into effect and the what's wrong with the Bylaws started and best I know continues to this day. The counties continue to be adopted, built, abandoned, readopted. In the early days of USGenWeb county sites depended on the state site to attract visitors and the states on national. Once search engines became a standard of the Internet, that necessity began to fade, so if one has a site with keyed meta tags in the heading one can get traffic whether or not the state site is active. County mailing lists help as well if the coordinator is a member and announces major updates to the site and/or participates in the list. So while the MN state page was dormant for some time, counties continued to get traffic. The downside for the state project was / is that without a team watching over the state site, counties that are abandoned do not get readopted. Perhaps one should not underestimate the annoyance caused by a myriad of emails delivered to those who in the end it has no effect on. It begins to have the characteristics of spam - unwanted. Since we are all individuals, with individual tastes as to likes / dislikes may we not cut some slack for those with whom we disagree? Tim On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Laverne H. Tornow via <[email protected]> wrote: > Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it a lack of "rules" in MNGenWeb > that put you in the position of having the AB take over the project to > revive it? > > Every organization from the lowliest to the largest has to have rules > or procedures by which to operate or it stagnates and dies, also those > rules must be reviewed periodically and updated to reflect changes not > only in the organization, but changes within society. > > As for the amount of e-mail that is being generated during this > resuscitation process, had you had rules or procedures to begin with > non of this would be happening. and since we ARE an internet based > organization what alternative method would you suggest we use to > communicate Lynn? Are you subbed in digest mode or regualr. if it is > regular then you might want to switch to digest, that way you get 2 or > 3 e-mails a day that have all the emails lumped into them! > > Laverne > On 2/14/2015 9:46 PM, Lynn Brandvold via wrote: > > Tim, > > > > You've got my vote! I don't want to deal with more by-Laws, rules, > > regulations or guidelines. I am rapidly becoming burned out with all > > these emails as it is. > > > > Lynn Brandvold > > Pennington and Red Lake Counties > > On 2/14/2015 9:40 AM, Timothy Stowell via wrote: > >> Linda, > >> > >> Actually I am not in favor of creating more rules for coordinators > >> to follow. The national bylaws are sufficient and have been for the > >> nearly > 19 > >> years of our existence. Some would say, what would we do if the > leadership > >> disappears again? We could do just as was done this time, ask > >> national > for > >> assistance. > >> > >> Perhaps more regular roll calls than our previous yearly roll call > >> would alert the members to a problem sooner - ie a roll call > >> instituted by the SC/ASC team rather than everyone posting on list 'here' or 'present'. > >> > >> Since it seems most coordinators are adults, saying to them, that > >> our > state > >> logo needs to be at the top of the main page of a county site and > >> if linked, linked to the state page - there is really no reason to > >> make a > rule > >> that says do this or else. > >> > >> Most people are pleasant to work with, so why complicate their > >> lives > with > >> more rules unless those who want the rules seek to control other > people's > >> creativity? > >> > >> That said, I would not stand in the way of those who like to have > >> more rules, to serve some purpose that eludes me. > >> > >> Tim > >> > >> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Linda Ziemann via > >> <[email protected] > > > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Good morning. Without restating everything regarding this, I agree > >>> with what Martha has stated in her response. (In fact, based on > >>> what I have > read, > >>> the candidates for SC are in favor of establishing MN state > >>> bylaws, > with > >>> accompanying rules.) Any bylaws approved by the members, should > "enhance" > >>> the Project-not detract from it (to quote Martha.) YES! Right on! > >>> > >>> My approach would be to ask for volunteers from the members, > establishing a > >>> "committee" to put together a group of bylaws. These in turn > >>> would be presented to the membership for discussion and a vote. > >>> The rules also > would > >>> be formulated and presented in much the same manner. "Together" > >>> the > MEMBERS > >>> would establish & vote to set the bylaws and the rules. > >>> > >>> Most importantly it is essential that the CCs be proactive in > >>> finding & transcribing data, recruiting others to help, uploading > >>> the free data > to > >>> the > >>> county, presenting the ancestor data for the MN visiting > >>> researchers to find. > >>> > >>> Everyone have a great weekend! Happy Hearts Day! > >>> Linda Ziemann > >>> Candidate for SC > >>> Rock County Coordinator > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2/13/15, 10:21 PM, "Kermit Kittleson via" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> I just want to "second" what Martha just said. > >>>> > >>>> Kermit Kittleson > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Martha A Crosley Graham via < > >>>> [email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Shirley, > >>>>> Thank you for the concise information on the difference between > >>>>> Guidelines and By-Laws. > >>>>> One of the things that is bothersome to me is the tendency to > re-invent > >>>>> some of the basic [and common sense] items that have been > >>>>> spelled out over time in the USGW. > >>>>> > >>>>> I am not a 'micro-manager' type of SC here in CA. Blatant > >>>>> disregard > for > >>>>> the By-laws set up by the USGW are obvious items of concern and > should > >>>>> be addressed as they come up or are found. By-laws at the local > [State] > >>>>> level should enhance the Project, not detract from it. > >>>>> > >>>>> As an entity that promotes 'Free Genealogical and Historical > >>>>> Data', > the > >>>>> whole idea is to make resources available to visiting Researchers. > If we > >>>>> are so caught up in compliance issues, we are not giving > >>>>> ourselves > time > >>>>> to get the data located, formatted and uploaded. > >>>>> > >>>>> Martha > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ------------------------------- > >>>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > >>>>> [email protected] 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 > >>>> [email protected] 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 > >>> [email protected] 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 > [email protected] 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 > [email protected] 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 > [email protected] 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 [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message