Fellow S/ACs, The following is an email I received today which makes me think twice about what has gone on with KSGenWeb (?), TNGenWeb, PAGenWeb and IAGenWeb. Please read it then I will add some more comments. >George: What this seems to me is all these folks are saying that no >state can have their own server unless ONE person agrees to pay >for it. That's a pretty big expense for one person. >So that pretty much leaves everyone having to use Rootsweb, >doesn't it? >What Iowa is doing seems to me to be the same thing Rootsweb >used to do when they asked for donations. I don't see the difference >here. Sounds sensible to me. The results of the straw poll of the past few days is hard to analyze. A reasonable number of respondents said that they felt IAGenWeb was not acting in the best interest of USGWP. But that was before some found out that other states had already started soliciting money. Another reasonable number of respondents said they had concerns about putting all our resources on Rootsweb servers and that soliciting funds should be considered. Several mentioned changing the bylaws. This is my latest thinking. We (the USGWP) should not encourage states to start their own servers, but if they do so they should take the strictist care to not mess up on soliciting funds. However.... we should amend the bylaws to say that CCs/LCs/TCs may NOT solicit funds for whatever reason; including using their own server. I won't ask a straw poll since the great plurality of SC's and ASC's did not respond to the last poll which leads me to believe that there is not a lot of concern about this subject. Respectfully, George

I haven't anwered your straw poll since I'm still abivalent on the issue. I would imagine that could be the case for many of us. It does seem to me that there is a difference between a server that offers space to more than one project (whether it's genealogy, history, whatever) and a server that is set up to only serve one sub-project within a larger project. Rootsweb, usgennet and skyways all serve several types of projects and websites. Rootsweb and usgennet for genealogy-history. Skyways is a public service of the KS State library. Friends of IAGenWeb is set up to only provide web server space to one project, IAGenWeb. In the first instance, it seems to be nothing more than the server offering the space on their web server just as our individual ISPS offer to us as a part of us signing up with them. Whether it's funded by donation or is free, I don't see a problem. The hosts have an agreement with the individual projects that can be terminated when the appropriate notice is given according to their agreement with the host. In the second instance, isn't the state project more or less locked into remaining with that particular web group/host/sponsor? What happens if the volunteer tecnical support people leave? What happens to the Friends group if the State project decides they don't want/need them and move elsewhere? Are there plans set up for either instance? Connie (still thinking.....) George Waller wrote: > Fellow S/ACs, > The following is an email I received today which makes me think > twice about what has gone on with KSGenWeb (?), TNGenWeb, > PAGenWeb and IAGenWeb. Please read it then I will add some > more comments. > > >George: What this seems to me is all these folks are saying that no > >state can have their own server unless ONE person agrees to pay > >for it. That's a pretty big expense for one person. > > >So that pretty much leaves everyone having to use Rootsweb, > >doesn't it? > > >What Iowa is doing seems to me to be the same thing Rootsweb > >used to do when they asked for donations. I don't see the difference > >here. > > Sounds sensible to me. The results of the straw poll of the past few > days is hard to analyze. A reasonable number of respondents said > that they felt IAGenWeb was not acting in the best interest of > USGWP. But that was before some found out that other states had > already started soliciting money. Another reasonable number of > respondents said they had concerns about putting all our resources > on Rootsweb servers and that soliciting funds should be considered. > > Several mentioned changing the bylaws. > > This is my latest thinking. We (the USGWP) should not encourage > states to start their own servers, but if they do so they should take the > strictist care to not mess up on soliciting funds. However.... we should > amend the bylaws to say that CCs/LCs/TCs may NOT solicit funds for > whatever reason; including using their own server. > > I won't ask a straw poll since the great plurality of SC's and ASC's did > not respond to the last poll which leads me to believe that there is not > a lot of concern about this subject. > > Respectfully, George

Amen Patricia Scott Nevada SC -------Original Message------- From: Patricia Hamp Date: Monday, August 25, 2003 12:10:14 To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Unofficial poll requested Abstain from this poll. It is the by-law section and not the XXGenWeb project that should be in question. Line by line. ARTICLE IX. GUIDELINES/STANDARDS FOR WEBSITES/MEMBERS Section 2. Solicitation of funds for personal gain is inappropriate. This is defined as the direct appeal on the home page of any of the websites comprising The USGenWeb Project for funding to do research, to pay for server space, to do look-ups, etc. A website may, however, acknowledge any entities who may host their website (i.e., provide server space at no cost) or may include a link to a coordinator's personal page on which they offer research services for reimbursement. The acknowledgement may include a link to the hosting entity's website. A website may list research materials and/or services which may be for sale/hire, either by the coordinator, a genealogy society, or others. Such a listing shall not be on the main web page for the site, but may be linked from the main web page. It may be appropriate to include a disclaimer that the coordinator and The USGenWeb Project do not guarantee the contents of such research materials and/or the expertise of any professional researchers. Patricia Wazny ASC MIGenWeb Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~migenweb/ Michigan FGS Project FM http://www.rootsweb.com/~migenweb/fgs/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Waller" <George@Waller.Org> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 1:07 PM Subject: [STATE-COORD] Unofficial poll requested > Well put Ellen! > > I would like to take your note as a jumping off point to > hold an unofficial poll amongst SCs and ASCs. > > The question is do you agree with Ellen's statement: > > > I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for > > it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not >free > > standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is first a member > > of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the > > project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at all, but I > > do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. I believe, > > in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. > > Thanks to those who will participate. > Respectfully, > George > MAGenWeb > CTGenWeb --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19 August 2003 .

Just in mentioning, I just went to the NM photo site for the Tombstone project. On the top is the search logo for Ancestry.com There are three boxes on the bottom, soliciting .. Makes you wonder. Pat -------Original Message------- From: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Date: Monday, August 25, 2003 09:55:39 To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [STATE-COORD] Unofficial poll requested I have been following this somewhat though some of the e-mails are really long to weed through. Here is what I have come up with... 1.) Is there a valid reason why all XXGenWeb sites aren't hosting with Rootsweb? If not, then we need to make a ruling that all sites host with Rootsweb. That would solve this entire debate. 2) If so, then we need make a ruling that XXGenWebs can collect funds to cover the costs of DNS and Server space. (which really shouldn't be all that much money. I handle websites professionally and know how much it should cost.) This should be the ONLY reason funds can be collected and once these funds are met per year, a notice should be posted on the page that quotas have been met, but please come back in January of the following year for future donations. Contact information should be taken down so that there isn't a chance of an errant check getting through. We could even allow funds to be collected for two years so that there isn't a chance of an overlap with no funds. Somebody in USGenWeb needs to be appointed to keep track of all of the funds coming in. (An unbiased party.) This would include copies of checks and accounting spreadsheets to keep track of credits and debits. (Wouldn't be all that hard. Excel is a wonderful tool.) 3.) If there is an invalid reason why someone doesn't want to use Rootsweb, then they, as volunteers, should supply the money. There should be no web campaigns soliciting funds and doing so would cause immediate expulsion from the project. (For instance, they don't like Rootsweb because Rootsweb called them a purple monkey in the past and they refuse to ever have anything to do with them. I know of people who feel this way and I think it is silly, but that's their business.) 4.) Has anyone thought of e-mailing all of the cc's of that state and asking if anyone was willing to sponsor a year's worth of DNS fees? I pay for some stuff for TXGenWeb out of my own pocket. I am a volunteer and I am more than happy to spend ten dollars making copies of a book in the library that I think will help my counties. I also subscribe to ancestry.com every year to help out my users. This is out of the goodness of my heart and I would never think of asking for a refund. It has always been made clear to me that I am a volunteer and I will never get money. If I have a problem with it, then all I have to do is give up my county for adoption. If David sent out an e-mail asking for a donation to help us keep our website, I would have no problem donating $5. I trust David enough to know that he would either send any extra fees back or save them for the next DNS registration. I think we need to get this whole debate in a clear light and wound down. It has gotten to the point where some people are repeating the same thing over and over and I don't feel we are getting anywhere. > -----Original Message----- > From: okgenweb@cox.net [mailto:okgenweb@cox.net] > Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 11:31 AM > To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Unofficial poll requested > > > This does not have the feel of being in the best interest of The > Project, only one Project. > > Why grandfather some who have been allowed to quietly collect > money off The Project. > > It is either OK for all or none... > > Marti > OKGenWeb > > > > > > From: "George Waller" <George@Waller.Org> > > Date: 2003/08/24 Sun PM 01:07:53 EDT > > To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com > > Subject: [STATE-COORD] Unofficial poll requested > > > > Well put Ellen! > > > > I would like to take your note as a jumping off point to > > hold an unofficial poll amongst SCs and ASCs. > > > > The question is do you agree with Ellen's statement: > > > > > I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for > > > it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not >free > > > standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is first a member > > > of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the > > > project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at all, but I > > > do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. I believe, > > > in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. > > > > Thanks to those who will participate. > > Respectfully, > > George > > MAGenWeb > > CTGenWeb > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 24 Aug 2003 at 10:14, Ellen Pack wrote: > > > > > At 10:06 AM 8/24/2003 -0400, Pettys wrote: > > > >Ellen, > > > > > > > >Had you truly read my note, > > > > > > > > > I say again, I did read it, and completely understood it, along with > > > several thousand other notes that have drifted through from a number > > > of folks, from a number of lists, for a number of years. > > > > > > I'm agreeing with Vicki. The bickering has got to stop. This project > > > needs to take a major turn towards mature, respectful, and cooperative > > > behavior. > > > > > > It has nothing at all to do with protected speech, modems, or > > > interstate commerce. > > > > > > We all have the Constitutional right to say anything we want. But we > > > do not have the right to be listened to or taken seriously. For that > > > to occur, we must at least try to frame our words in a polite and > > > respectful fashion more palatable to those we are addressing. > > > > > > The irony is that while Phyllis is accusing me of making cutting > > > remarks (not my intent at all), and you're explaining FCC Regulations, > > > I agree with both of you re IAGW, if only because the Friends Board > > > members are all IAGW members. Legal or otherwise, I believe it is a > > > clear conflict of interest when the Friends Board members are the > > > direct benefactors (albeit via the state project) of the funds they > > > themselves solicit, control and disperse. No one on that Board should > > > be an IAGW member, except perhaps a "guest" IAGW member, without > > > voting rights. > > > > > > I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for > > > it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not free > > > standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is first a member > > > of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the > > > project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at all, but I > > > do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. I believe, > > > in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. > > > > > > Ellen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003 .

To all USGenWeb Members: This is an Announce-only mailing. Please forward to all USGenWeb Members and appropriate mail lists. Results of the Run-Off Portion of the National 2003 Election, August 8 - 22, 2003: 483 Valid votes received. National Coordinator Total Votes: 468 Richard Harrison - 273 Tim Stowell - 195 The Election Committee hereby declares Richard Harrison winner. --- Representative At Large Total Votes: 395 Shari Handley - 232 Angie Rayfield - 163 The Election Committee hereby declares Shari Handley winner. --- Archives Representative Total Votes: 56 Cyndie Enfinger - 35 Ken Johnson - 21 The Election Committee hereby declares Cyndie Enfinger winner. --- NorthEast/North Central CC Rep Total Votes: 105 Teri Brown - 63 Barbara Lavin - 42 The Election Committee hereby declares Teri Brown winner. --- Southwest/South Central CC Representative Total Votes: 120 Roger Swafford - 41 Bettie Wood - 79 The Election Committee hereby declares Bettie Wood winner. --- The Election Committee hereby closes the National 2003 Election. The Committee would like to thank all who participated, and to extend a special thank you to Larry Stephens for his invaluable assistance in operating the voting software. Thank you, The USGenWeb Election Committee

First, in answer to "1.) Is there a valid reason why all XXGenWeb sites aren't hosting with Rootsweb?" I am the SC for VTGenWeb. Though some inside pages are online at rootsweb, the main page is located at http://home.att.net/~Local_History/VT_History.htm . This site was voluntarily authored by me prior to its becoming associated with USGenWeb. There are NO solicitations for financial donations, nor are there any "friends of VTGenWeb" groups. It is housed in my personal web space and I pay for the web space. When I was asked to become the SC for VTGenWeb, I updated my pages with the required USGenWeb logos, links and so forth. I did not choose to relocate my pages for several reasons. Among these - 1) The current urls were already well-indexed in most of the main search engines. 2) Moving the site would be very time-consuming and require a great many changes to inside links. 3) Though I happily volunteer the use of my pages within USGenWeb, I have not chosen to give away rights to my work. By keeping the pages in my own space, it is hoped that others may better recognize they are not free to copy and use them for commercial purposes. Unfortunately, some seem to incorrectly assume that anything housed on rootsweb is in public domain. Present VT county and town pages are CC'd and TC'd by wonderful, dedicated volunteers! I have been trying to make sense of the difficult debate issue. Unfortunately, I can sympathize and understand both sides. Though USGenWeb sites are authored and maintained by dedicated volunteers who try to post information which may be helpful to researchers, at no cost to online researchers, I believe many online researchers mistakenly believe that this means all information really is, or should be, available for free. In reality, this is simply not the case. For example, though fees vary, I am not aware of any U. S. state which gives birth, death or marriage certificates away for free. Record keeping, staff, copies and postage are among the costs which such fees help offset. While there are many dedicated volunteers who have spent countless hours (and dollars) transcribing and abstracting records, recording gravestones, compiling indexes, typing material from out-of-copyright works, and so forth, they have not done so without incurring any cost in time and money. Some of the individuals and societies who do this wonderful work choose to donate the work and absorb the costs. Others may publish and make available books for sale to help to defray the costs and/or support future work. In either case, I believe that it would be wonderful if the USGenWeb could post a page which explains that such costs do really exist, so new genealogists and less experienced researchers would not be deceived into thinking everything is, or should be, automatically free. Even though information and records may be available through USGenWeb, and may be consulted at no cost to the online researcher, this is not possible because the records and information are free. Rather, it is "free" due to the efforts of countless people who have chosen to volunteer to dedicate their time, money and effort to help other genealogists. As an aside: Though we would probably all agree that it would be great to be able to go into a wonderful restaurant, order a scrumptious meal and be served by an experienced waiter - all for FREE - I doubt any of us would try to argue that we should have a "right" to do this. --Ann Mensch Kimm Antell wrote: >I have been following this somewhat though some of the e-mails are really >long to weed through. > >Here is what I have come up with... > >1.) Is there a valid reason why all XXGenWeb sites aren't hosting with >Rootsweb? > >If not, then we need to make a ruling that all sites host with Rootsweb. >That would solve this entire debate. > >2) If so, then we need make a ruling that XXGenWebs can collect funds to >cover the costs of DNS and Server space. (which really shouldn't be all >that much money. I handle websites professionally and know how much it >should cost.) > >This should be the ONLY reason funds can be collected and once these funds >are met per year, a notice should be posted on the page that quotas have >been met, but please come back in January of the following year for future >donations. Contact information should be taken down so that there isn't a >chance of an errant check getting through. We could even allow funds to be >collected for two years so that there isn't a chance of an overlap with no >funds. Somebody in USGenWeb needs to be appointed to keep track of all of >the funds coming in. (An unbiased party.) This would include copies of >checks and accounting spreadsheets to keep track of credits and debits. >(Wouldn't be all that hard. Excel is a wonderful tool.) > >3.) If there is an invalid reason why someone doesn't want to use Rootsweb, >then they, as volunteers, should supply the money. There should be no web >campaigns soliciting funds and doing so would cause immediate expulsion from >the project. > >(For instance, they don't like Rootsweb because Rootsweb called them a >purple monkey in the past and they refuse to ever have anything to do with >them. I know of people who feel this way and I think it is silly, but >that's their business.) > >4.) Has anyone thought of e-mailing all of the cc's of that state and asking >if anyone was willing to sponsor a year's worth of DNS fees? > >I pay for some stuff for TXGenWeb out of my own pocket. I am a volunteer >and I am more than happy to spend ten dollars making copies of a book in the >library that I think will help my counties. I also subscribe to >ancestry.com every year to help out my users. This is out of the goodness >of my heart and I would never think of asking for a refund. It has always >been made clear to me that I am a volunteer and I will never get money. If >I have a problem with it, then all I have to do is give up my county for >adoption. If David sent out an e-mail asking for a donation to help us keep >our website, I would have no problem donating $5. I trust David enough to >know that he would either send any extra fees back or save them for the next >DNS registration. > >I think we need to get this whole debate in a clear light and wound down. >It has gotten to the point where some people are repeating the same thing >over and over and I don't feel we are getting anywhere. > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: okgenweb@cox.net [mailto:okgenweb@cox.net] >>Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 11:31 AM >>To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com >>Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Unofficial poll requested >> >> >>This does not have the feel of being in the best interest of The >>Project, only one Project. >> >>Why grandfather some who have been allowed to quietly collect >>money off The Project. >> >>It is either OK for all or none... >> >>Marti >>OKGenWeb >> >> >> >> >>>From: "George Waller" <George@Waller.Org> >>>Date: 2003/08/24 Sun PM 01:07:53 EDT >>>To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com >>>Subject: [STATE-COORD] Unofficial poll requested >>> >>>Well put Ellen! >>> >>>I would like to take your note as a jumping off point to >>>hold an unofficial poll amongst SCs and ASCs. >>> >>>The question is do you agree with Ellen's statement: >>> >>> >>> >>>>I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for >>>>it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not >free >>>>standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is first a member >>>>of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the >>>>project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at all, but I >>>>do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. I believe, >>>>in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. >>>> >>>> >>>Thanks to those who will participate. >>>Respectfully, >>>George >>>MAGenWeb >>>CTGenWeb >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>On 24 Aug 2003 at 10:14, Ellen Pack wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>At 10:06 AM 8/24/2003 -0400, Pettys wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Ellen, >>>>> >>>>>Had you truly read my note, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>I say again, I did read it, and completely understood it, along with >>>>several thousand other notes that have drifted through from a number >>>>of folks, from a number of lists, for a number of years. >>>> >>>>I'm agreeing with Vicki. The bickering has got to stop. This project >>>>needs to take a major turn towards mature, respectful, and cooperative >>>>behavior. >>>> >>>>It has nothing at all to do with protected speech, modems, or >>>>interstate commerce. >>>> >>>>We all have the Constitutional right to say anything we want. But we >>>>do not have the right to be listened to or taken seriously. For that >>>>to occur, we must at least try to frame our words in a polite and >>>>respectful fashion more palatable to those we are addressing. >>>> >>>>The irony is that while Phyllis is accusing me of making cutting >>>>remarks (not my intent at all), and you're explaining FCC Regulations, >>>>I agree with both of you re IAGW, if only because the Friends Board >>>>members are all IAGW members. Legal or otherwise, I believe it is a >>>>clear conflict of interest when the Friends Board members are the >>>>direct benefactors (albeit via the state project) of the funds they >>>>themselves solicit, control and disperse. No one on that Board should >>>>be an IAGW member, except perhaps a "guest" IAGW member, without >>>>voting rights. >>>> >>>>I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for >>>>it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not free >>>>standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is first a member >>>>of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the >>>>project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at all, but I >>>>do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. I believe, >>>>in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. >>>> >>>>Ellen >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003 > > > > >

Abstain from this poll. It is the by-law section and not the XXGenWeb project that should be in question. Line by line. ARTICLE IX. GUIDELINES/STANDARDS FOR WEBSITES/MEMBERS Section 2. Solicitation of funds for personal gain is inappropriate. This is defined as the direct appeal on the home page of any of the websites comprising The USGenWeb Project for funding to do research, to pay for server space, to do look-ups, etc. A website may, however, acknowledge any entities who may host their website (i.e., provide server space at no cost) or may include a link to a coordinator's personal page on which they offer research services for reimbursement. The acknowledgement may include a link to the hosting entity's website. A website may list research materials and/or services which may be for sale/hire, either by the coordinator, a genealogy society, or others. Such a listing shall not be on the main web page for the site, but may be linked from the main web page. It may be appropriate to include a disclaimer that the coordinator and The USGenWeb Project do not guarantee the contents of such research materials and/or the expertise of any professional researchers. Patricia Wazny ASC MIGenWeb Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~migenweb/ Michigan FGS Project FM http://www.rootsweb.com/~migenweb/fgs/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Waller" <George@Waller.Org> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 1:07 PM Subject: [STATE-COORD] Unofficial poll requested > Well put Ellen! > > I would like to take your note as a jumping off point to > hold an unofficial poll amongst SCs and ASCs. > > The question is do you agree with Ellen's statement: > > > I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for > > it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not >free > > standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is first a member > > of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the > > project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at all, but I > > do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. I believe, > > in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. > > Thanks to those who will participate. > Respectfully, > George > MAGenWeb > CTGenWeb --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19 August 2003

David, I noticed the same thing... Of course Kentucky was first... Officially Arkansas was second although I had Texas and Maryland up and running before there was an Arkansas page. I also had the Clark and Baxter County pages up before the Arkansas State page was up. Other state page were going up daily, but as you well know, there were no projects of this nature, at least on a state level, before the Kentucky site was up, and only a very few state pages were up before the US pages were posted. I don't know how many state projects were established before Tennessee was, but I know at least four states were up before it was established... And it did not originate as a result of any discussion group... Other than Jeff Murphy announced the project on that list... Edward -----Original Message----- From: David W. Morgan [mailto:dmorgan@efn.org] Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 1:41 PM To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Re: TN History On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, MAK - Transcriber Only wrote: > Here is the URL for the history of TN - perhaps it > will help answer your questions. http://www.tngenweb.org/genweb.htm > > The TNGenWeb exsisted prior to USGenWeb - From the URL you pointed us to. Hosted by USGenNet A Little History of TNGenWeb It is impossible to discuss the history of the TNGenWeb project without discussing our parent project, USGenweb. ------------------------ [INLINE] began in 1996, as a group of genealogists who organized the Kentucky Comprehensive Genealogy Database Project, known as the KYGenWeb Project. It began as a discussion group on the mailing list, KYROOTS-L, hosted by the University of Kentucky and coordinated by Roseann Hogan of Frankfort, Ky. Roseann Hogan is the author of "Kentucky Ancestry." The KYGenWeb was designed to provide a single entry point for all counties in Kentucky where researchers could find Genealogical data. In addition all county sites would be indexed and cross-linked, so that a single search in the master index could locate all references to a given surname across all pages and databases associated with the project. The discussion quickly turned into a reality; by mid July all Kentucky counties were represented. The project was so successful that it was decided to extend the concept to all U.S. States and the USGenWeb Project was born. More information about USGenweb can be found on the USGenWeb page. TNGenWeb, Tennessee's branch of USGenWeb came into existence on ------------------------------ June 29th, 1996, when the first page was uploaded. TNGenWeb was created as an all volunteer project, under the visionary direction of its founding state coordinator, Billie McNamara. Space for the project was generously donated by US Internet. David W. Morgan dmorgan@efn.org Honolulu Hawaii SC - TXGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txgenweb/ FM - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/tx/txfiles.htm ** http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/ --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003

This does not have the feel of being in the best interest of The Project, only one Project. Why grandfather some who have been allowed to quietly collect money off The Project. It is either OK for all or none... Marti OKGenWeb > > From: "George Waller" <George@Waller.Org> > Date: 2003/08/24 Sun PM 01:07:53 EDT > To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [STATE-COORD] Unofficial poll requested > > Well put Ellen! > > I would like to take your note as a jumping off point to > hold an unofficial poll amongst SCs and ASCs. > > The question is do you agree with Ellen's statement: > > > I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for > > it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not >free > > standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is first a member > > of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the > > project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at all, but I > > do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. I believe, > > in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. > > Thanks to those who will participate. > Respectfully, > George > MAGenWeb > CTGenWeb > > > > > > > On 24 Aug 2003 at 10:14, Ellen Pack wrote: > > > At 10:06 AM 8/24/2003 -0400, Pettys wrote: > > >Ellen, > > > > > >Had you truly read my note, > > > > > > I say again, I did read it, and completely understood it, along with > > several thousand other notes that have drifted through from a number > > of folks, from a number of lists, for a number of years. > > > > I'm agreeing with Vicki. The bickering has got to stop. This project > > needs to take a major turn towards mature, respectful, and cooperative > > behavior. > > > > It has nothing at all to do with protected speech, modems, or > > interstate commerce. > > > > We all have the Constitutional right to say anything we want. But we > > do not have the right to be listened to or taken seriously. For that > > to occur, we must at least try to frame our words in a polite and > > respectful fashion more palatable to those we are addressing. > > > > The irony is that while Phyllis is accusing me of making cutting > > remarks (not my intent at all), and you're explaining FCC Regulations, > > I agree with both of you re IAGW, if only because the Friends Board > > members are all IAGW members. Legal or otherwise, I believe it is a > > clear conflict of interest when the Friends Board members are the > > direct benefactors (albeit via the state project) of the funds they > > themselves solicit, control and disperse. No one on that Board should > > be an IAGW member, except perhaps a "guest" IAGW member, without > > voting rights. > > > > I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for > > it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not free > > standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is first a member > > of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the > > project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at all, but I > > do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. I believe, > > in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. > > > > Ellen > > > > > > >

I have been following this somewhat though some of the e-mails are really long to weed through. Here is what I have come up with... 1.) Is there a valid reason why all XXGenWeb sites aren't hosting with Rootsweb? If not, then we need to make a ruling that all sites host with Rootsweb. That would solve this entire debate. 2) If so, then we need make a ruling that XXGenWebs can collect funds to cover the costs of DNS and Server space. (which really shouldn't be all that much money. I handle websites professionally and know how much it should cost.) This should be the ONLY reason funds can be collected and once these funds are met per year, a notice should be posted on the page that quotas have been met, but please come back in January of the following year for future donations. Contact information should be taken down so that there isn't a chance of an errant check getting through. We could even allow funds to be collected for two years so that there isn't a chance of an overlap with no funds. Somebody in USGenWeb needs to be appointed to keep track of all of the funds coming in. (An unbiased party.) This would include copies of checks and accounting spreadsheets to keep track of credits and debits. (Wouldn't be all that hard. Excel is a wonderful tool.) 3.) If there is an invalid reason why someone doesn't want to use Rootsweb, then they, as volunteers, should supply the money. There should be no web campaigns soliciting funds and doing so would cause immediate expulsion from the project. (For instance, they don't like Rootsweb because Rootsweb called them a purple monkey in the past and they refuse to ever have anything to do with them. I know of people who feel this way and I think it is silly, but that's their business.) 4.) Has anyone thought of e-mailing all of the cc's of that state and asking if anyone was willing to sponsor a year's worth of DNS fees? I pay for some stuff for TXGenWeb out of my own pocket. I am a volunteer and I am more than happy to spend ten dollars making copies of a book in the library that I think will help my counties. I also subscribe to ancestry.com every year to help out my users. This is out of the goodness of my heart and I would never think of asking for a refund. It has always been made clear to me that I am a volunteer and I will never get money. If I have a problem with it, then all I have to do is give up my county for adoption. If David sent out an e-mail asking for a donation to help us keep our website, I would have no problem donating $5. I trust David enough to know that he would either send any extra fees back or save them for the next DNS registration. I think we need to get this whole debate in a clear light and wound down. It has gotten to the point where some people are repeating the same thing over and over and I don't feel we are getting anywhere. > -----Original Message----- > From: okgenweb@cox.net [mailto:okgenweb@cox.net] > Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 11:31 AM > To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Unofficial poll requested > > > This does not have the feel of being in the best interest of The > Project, only one Project. > > Why grandfather some who have been allowed to quietly collect > money off The Project. > > It is either OK for all or none... > > Marti > OKGenWeb > > > > > > From: "George Waller" <George@Waller.Org> > > Date: 2003/08/24 Sun PM 01:07:53 EDT > > To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com > > Subject: [STATE-COORD] Unofficial poll requested > > > > Well put Ellen! > > > > I would like to take your note as a jumping off point to > > hold an unofficial poll amongst SCs and ASCs. > > > > The question is do you agree with Ellen's statement: > > > > > I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for > > > it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not >free > > > standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is first a member > > > of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the > > > project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at all, but I > > > do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. I believe, > > > in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. > > > > Thanks to those who will participate. > > Respectfully, > > George > > MAGenWeb > > CTGenWeb > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 24 Aug 2003 at 10:14, Ellen Pack wrote: > > > > > At 10:06 AM 8/24/2003 -0400, Pettys wrote: > > > >Ellen, > > > > > > > >Had you truly read my note, > > > > > > > > > I say again, I did read it, and completely understood it, along with > > > several thousand other notes that have drifted through from a number > > > of folks, from a number of lists, for a number of years. > > > > > > I'm agreeing with Vicki. The bickering has got to stop. This project > > > needs to take a major turn towards mature, respectful, and cooperative > > > behavior. > > > > > > It has nothing at all to do with protected speech, modems, or > > > interstate commerce. > > > > > > We all have the Constitutional right to say anything we want. But we > > > do not have the right to be listened to or taken seriously. For that > > > to occur, we must at least try to frame our words in a polite and > > > respectful fashion more palatable to those we are addressing. > > > > > > The irony is that while Phyllis is accusing me of making cutting > > > remarks (not my intent at all), and you're explaining FCC Regulations, > > > I agree with both of you re IAGW, if only because the Friends Board > > > members are all IAGW members. Legal or otherwise, I believe it is a > > > clear conflict of interest when the Friends Board members are the > > > direct benefactors (albeit via the state project) of the funds they > > > themselves solicit, control and disperse. No one on that Board should > > > be an IAGW member, except perhaps a "guest" IAGW member, without > > > voting rights. > > > > > > I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for > > > it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not free > > > standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is first a member > > > of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the > > > project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at all, but I > > > do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. I believe, > > > in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. > > > > > > Ellen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003

Angie the liabilities I am worried about is association. Perhaps you heard about the United Way problems. Admittedly the innocent people will not go to jail. They won't have to make up the moneys. But they will have to try to live down the black eye. They will have to put up with the bad will. Just how much trust can we have in someone that abuses our bylaws to responsibly handle money? Richard... Angie Rayfield wrote: > I'm sorry, but you're wrong. If someone in Friends of IAGenWeb > embezzles funds, the only person liable is the person that committed the > theft. If someone has a complaint against the Friends of IAGenWeb, the > only group responsible *is* the Friends of IAGenWeb. It's no different > than the "Friends of the Library," or "Friends of the Zoo," or any > organization of that sort. > > Angie > Richard M. Howland Mailto:RichPump@wf.net ICQ # 898319

First: I agree with Ellen's statement Second: TNGenWeb does not exploit the project's name. The incorporated entity that owns the server and accepts contributions for its maintaince, etc. is called USGenNet, Inc. There may even be a .org in there, but there's enough of a dissimilarity of names, to distinguish between the two entities. Phyllis

I agree with Joy. I say none of it is okay and let's resolve the issue. Richard ---------- Original Message ----------- From: Joy Fisher <sdgenweb@yahoo.com> To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 20:17:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Vote > Ummm -- either it is OK for all or it is not OK for > all. > > Otherwise, everyone will slap a "Friends of XXGW" logo > on their pages so they will be "grandfathered in" > should circumstances make it necessary later on. > > --- George Waller <George@Waller.Org> wrote: > > Gail, > > Thank you for writing this note, as it allows me to > > introduce some > > "new" information into the mix. Despite the "new" > > information, I > > would like to continue with the straw vote on > > IAGenWeb just so we > > can get a feeling for where we stand right now. > > > > Before the "new" information, I would like to > > respond to some things > > you say below. What good is the vote going to do? > > First it will let us > > know how we feel about this. It wouldn't surprise > > me to find that the > > majority don't care enough to respond. But, just > > suppose that a large > > majority feels that what IAGenWeb is doing is not in > > the best interest > > of the USGWP? In that case, I would recommend that > > the bylaws be > > revised so that soliciting funds is clearly not > > allowed. In Iowa's case, > > think GRANDFATHER (or GRANDPARENT). Iowa is a > > wonderful part > > of USGenWeb and we should all be very careful to > > show our respect > > even if some of us might disagree with Iowa's > > activities. > > > > This brings us to the "new" information. A few > > minutes ago a friend > > wrote me reminding me that TNGenWeb has been doing > > about the > > same (if not exactly the same) as what IAGenWeb is > > doing. And, I am > > a CC in TNGenWeb so why am I picking on Iowa? I > > suppose the > > answer to TNGenWeb is that they would be > > grandfathered too. I do > > not feel I am picking on Iowa, I have stated on > > several lists that Iowa > > is doing things the right way. My opinion, however, > > is that Iowa is > > doing the wrong thing (if that makes sense). > > > > My dim recollection is that KSGenWeb incorporated > > years ago but I > > don't know if they are soliciting money. And, I > > heard a tiny rumor that > > some CC in CA is soliciting money. > > > > In any case, I think it would be useful to proceed > > with this straw vote > > just so we can get a sense of how we all feel about > > mixing money into > > our organization. > > > > Respectfully, George > > > > On 24 Aug 2003 at 18:14, Gail Meyer Kilgore wrote: > > > > > I don't know who has the authority to call a vote, > > but I doubt if it > > > is an SC who really has no knowledge of what is > > going on. So, what > > > good is your vote going to do? IAGenWeb has done > > nothing wrong. You > > > are asking for a vote against an organization that > > has nothing to do > > > with IAGenWeb but supporting its server. You > > can't vote The Friends > > > of Iowa out, they don't belong to anything you can > > vote on. IAGenWeb > > > has done no wrong, they have not violated any > > by-laws. When The > > > Friends of Iowa was formed the attorney went over > > the USGenWeb By-Laws > > > with a fine tooth comb so as not to violate > > standing by-laws. If you > > > change the by-laws, why? IAGenWeb is not > > accepting donations. > > > > > > Gail Meyer Kilgore > > > Iowa State Coordinator > > > IAGenWeb: http://iagenweb.org > > > > > > > > > --- > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system > > (http://www.grisoft.com). > > > Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release > > Date: 08/19/2003 > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ------- End of Original Message -------

Gail, the concerns are several. The issues that keep coming up are conflict of interest, best interests of the USGWP, appearance of impropriety and potential absconding of funds. Nothing more, nothing less. I questioned the point of a vote myself. However, I believe it is indicative of the fact that IAGenWeb has done something wrong, even if it is only the perception of improperiety. Open your eyes. Read what people are saying. Richard ---------- Original Message ----------- From: "Gail Meyer Kilgore" <gkilgore@globalcrossing.net> To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 18:14:45 -0700 Subject: [STATE-COORD] Vote > I don't know who has the authority to call a vote, but I doubt if it > is an SC who really has no knowledge of what is going on. So, what > good is your vote going to do? IAGenWeb has done nothing wrong. > You are asking for a vote against an organization that has nothing > to do with IAGenWeb but supporting its server. You can't vote The > Friends of Iowa out, they don't belong to anything you can vote on. > IAGenWeb has done no wrong, they have not violated any by-laws. > When The Friends of Iowa was formed the attorney went over the > USGenWeb By-Laws with a fine tooth comb so as not to violate > standing by-laws. If you change the by-laws, why? IAGenWeb is not > accepting donations. > > Gail Meyer Kilgore > Iowa State Coordinator > IAGenWeb: http://iagenweb.org > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 08/19/2003 ------- End of Original Message -------

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, MAK - Transcriber Only wrote: > Here is the URL for the history of TN - perhaps it > will help answer your questions. > http://www.tngenweb.org/genweb.htm > > The TNGenWeb exsisted prior to USGenWeb - From the URL you pointed us to. Hosted by USGenNet A Little History of TNGenWeb It is impossible to discuss the history of the TNGenWeb project without discussing our parent project, USGenweb. ------------------------ [INLINE] began in 1996, as a group of genealogists who organized the Kentucky Comprehensive Genealogy Database Project, known as the KYGenWeb Project. It began as a discussion group on the mailing list, KYROOTS-L, hosted by the University of Kentucky and coordinated by Roseann Hogan of Frankfort, Ky. Roseann Hogan is the author of "Kentucky Ancestry." The KYGenWeb was designed to provide a single entry point for all counties in Kentucky where researchers could find Genealogical data. In addition all county sites would be indexed and cross-linked, so that a single search in the master index could locate all references to a given surname across all pages and databases associated with the project. The discussion quickly turned into a reality; by mid July all Kentucky counties were represented. The project was so successful that it was decided to extend the concept to all U.S. States and the USGenWeb Project was born. More information about USGenweb can be found on the USGenWeb page. TNGenWeb, Tennessee's branch of USGenWeb came into existence on ------------------------------ June 29th, 1996, when the first page was uploaded. TNGenWeb was created as an all volunteer project, under the visionary direction of its founding state coordinator, Billie McNamara. Space for the project was generously donated by US Internet. David W. Morgan dmorgan@efn.org Honolulu Hawaii SC - TXGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txgenweb/ FM - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/tx/txfiles.htm ** http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/

Hi all, I usually don't involve myself in these types of discussions, but I want to give my 2 cents worth on this. Having been apart of the USGenWeb since August of 1996 anytime the mere mention of money has been made we've heard how it is going to be the ruin of the USGenWeb and open up to "liability" issues, etc... I appreciated our Southern friend who checked out the various state projects that aren't hosted by RW and he even mentioned rumor of a CA CC who "solicits" funds. I'm "one of those" CCs who solicits funds on my county websites. Those funds have been used to purchase various county history books to transcribe, pay for copying and mailing costs associated with various transcription projects. While I appreciated the CC's who have done an outstanding job at providing links and addresses to the various resources available to their counties I determined early on that in addition to being a resource center that my counties would as be a source of on-line data. Are folks charged to access the data? Absolutely not! Some of the folks in the project are very fortunate to live near a library or FHC and have ready access to material for their counties. While serving on active duty in the Air Force (retired now for 2 years) I didn't have the luxury of time to take advantages of the resources that were close at hand. So a need to purchase resources was evident and visitors were presented with the need and many chose to help out. I don't know how many of you all have checked into the cost of buying or leasing a webserver, but it is an expensive proposition. Without a continual inflow of income it would be a great financial burden on a single individual. I know, "Why do you need your own server, you can host it for free at RW." I know in my case and I suspect in Iowa's case that RW didn't meet my needs. I've admired the way the IAGenWeb has approached the problem with raising funds to support their server. I see nothing wrong nor any violation of the by-laws by having a Independently incorporated organization sponsoring their project. I recall back when RW was experiencing a cash crunch and many in the project rallied by adding buttons or other links on their RW hosted pages asking visitors to "Join RW" by contributing money to the ongoing support of RW. If what Iowa is "deemed" to be wrong, then all project members who solicited funds for RW were wrong as well. There is a huge difference between asking folks to help pay server costs or purchase data sets to be transcribed and asking folks to pay to join so that they can see what we have "behind the curtain" or to "pay me" because I've worked so hard to make this possible. The former is entirely acceptable in my mind while the later is just plain wrong and is against the intent of the USGenWeb Project. Nathan Zipfel PAGenWeb Project State Coordinator http://www.pagenweb.org/ -----Original Message----- From: George Waller [mailto:George@Waller.Org] Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 1:08 PM To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [STATE-COORD] Unofficial poll requested Well put Ellen! I would like to take your note as a jumping off point to hold an unofficial poll amongst SCs and ASCs. The question is do you agree with Ellen's statement: > I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for > it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not >free > standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is first a member > of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the > project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at all, but I > do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. I believe, > in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. Thanks to those who will participate. Respectfully, George MAGenWeb CTGenWeb On 24 Aug 2003 at 10:14, Ellen Pack wrote: > At 10:06 AM 8/24/2003 -0400, Pettys wrote: > >Ellen, > > > >Had you truly read my note, > > > I say again, I did read it, and completely understood it, along with > several thousand other notes that have drifted through from a number > of folks, from a number of lists, for a number of years. > > I'm agreeing with Vicki. The bickering has got to stop. This project > needs to take a major turn towards mature, respectful, and cooperative > behavior. > > It has nothing at all to do with protected speech, modems, or > interstate commerce. > > We all have the Constitutional right to say anything we want. But we > do not have the right to be listened to or taken seriously. For that > to occur, we must at least try to frame our words in a polite and > respectful fashion more palatable to those we are addressing. > > The irony is that while Phyllis is accusing me of making cutting > remarks (not my intent at all), and you're explaining FCC Regulations, > I agree with both of you re IAGW, if only because the Friends Board > members are all IAGW members. Legal or otherwise, I believe it is a > clear conflict of interest when the Friends Board members are the > direct benefactors (albeit via the state project) of the funds they > themselves solicit, control and disperse. No one on that Board should > be an IAGW member, except perhaps a "guest" IAGW member, without > voting rights. > > I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for > it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not free > standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is first a member > of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the > project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at all, but I > do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. I believe, > in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. > > Ellen > >

Sorry: If I donated $5000 so IAGenWeb could buy some census films - and the films were never purchased for whatever reason, I would sure go after USGW and whomever else I could to get the goods I paid for or my money back. --- Angie Rayfield <angie@inmyattic.com> wrote: > >-----Original Message----- > > > >We are opening up ourselves to liability should > >someone abscond with the funds. > > > > I'm sorry, but you're wrong. If someone in Friends > of IAGenWeb > embezzles funds, the only person liable is the > person that committed the > theft. If someone has a complaint against the > Friends of IAGenWeb, the > only group responsible *is* the Friends of IAGenWeb. > It's no different > than the "Friends of the Library," or "Friends of > the Zoo," or any > organization of that sort. > > Angie > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system > (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release > Date: 8/19/2003 > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

>-----Original Message----- > At this point, what stops me from creating >Friends of >Gilmer County GAGenWeb and pocketing all of the money under >the auspices of >paying myself for maintaining the site? > Well, if you set up the same way as Friends of IAGenWeb, the IRS just might have a thing or two to say about it. 501c3 organizations have to account for every penny, and there are restrictions as to how the money can be spent. Angie --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003

>-----Original Message----- > >We are opening up ourselves to liability should >someone abscond with the funds. > I'm sorry, but you're wrong. If someone in Friends of IAGenWeb embezzles funds, the only person liable is the person that committed the theft. If someone has a complaint against the Friends of IAGenWeb, the only group responsible *is* the Friends of IAGenWeb. It's no different than the "Friends of the Library," or "Friends of the Zoo," or any organization of that sort. Angie --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003

Greetings y'all, Have been inundated with about a thousun attempts per day to infect me with one of them virus thangs and with my advanced age have not egzactly follered y'all in this discuss'n. So bear with me. If'n I got this strate, har is whut's goin' on: One of them Georgia boys started this mess by not acting like the surthern gentlman his mama brot him up to be. Maybe jus cuz that Isaiah feller is a yankee...dunno. Ain't no excuse. Sumin bout the Isaih feller wantin som money to pay for hiz server that sum folks don't like but didn't brake no laws. Then, a lady tried to calm folks down and wuzn't treated like no lady for her efforts. The Georgia boy commenced to talk about everything under the sun regardin his affliction, the govment, and how everybody was wrong. One of them other yankees decided to have a kangaroo court and call for a vote (Rebels love it when yankees fit mongst theirselves) Now to get serious (If that is possible with me), I took a quick look at all of our state pages and found that only twelve do not have RootsWeb Addy's. Two are RootsWeb Redirects. Of the remaining ten state pages it is not exactly clear if they truly acknowledge that they are a "chapter" of the USGenWeb Project. Maybe two or three are incorporated as "xxGenWeb". Kansas is the "KSGenWeb Internet Genealogy Society". Don't think its any of my business, but for the states not hosted by RootsWeb, who is paying for their servers? So, should we beat up on Iowa for having a sponsor other than RootsWeb(Who always solicited contributions before they were bought by a "commercial interest")? My personal opinion is that the Iowa solicitation should be a bit more subtle. But since it doesn't break the USGenWeb bylaws and there are several other questionable state page hosting arrangemets, is there sufficient need for us to conduct a non-binding censure vote? Why can't we just state our opinions civily and responsibly? My hope is that Iowa, and any other States, will take a hard look at what we present to the public so that we keep our focus on providing free help to folks looking for their family history. Regards, Paul Buckley, North Carolina ASC