No, but it would certainly be acceptable to thank them for their support and provide a link to their site. And that's all that actually appears on the IAGenWeb pages. Angie >-----Original Message----- > >Based on the theory behind Friends of IAGenWeb, would it be >acceptable for >me to place a statement soliciting funds for WCH&GS on all of my pages, >except the main one which serves as an index to the others? > --- 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

Heather wrote: ... As someone who researches locally and not locally, I find that this information is infinitely useful. Finding the location of the primary resource is half the battle won. Knowing what libraries exist--especially those devoted to special interests (like race, religion, industry, etc.). I think it's unfair to say that only transcriptions provide value and that pointing to resources does not--especially since transcriptions are subject to human error and incompletions. I'd rather go to the source--as many researchers would--and therefore I value the resource location more than the transcription. Not to say I don't appreciate transcriptions, I just appreciate more the original/primary source location. So what's the purpose here? I thought it was to help users who were looking for their ancestor's in XYZ county? Showing them all of the information that exists there for their use? Transcriptions were a bonus--and something I leave to the archives (which I link out to in addition to providing the original source location of the records transcribed--especially since few resources are transcribed in total). Would love to hear everyone else's thoughts... Reply: Thank you, thank you, Heather. While I am not a state coordinator, I do want to say I agree completely. From the beginning it has been about connecting people with genealogical information, and there are many ways to go about that than just transcriptions. A site that is set up with an extended group of look up volunteers may have just as much to offer as a site with a few transcriptions. A detailed list of courthouses, libraries, and other repositories, their holdings, their hours, fees, policies on correspondence and research can be just as helpful as the ability to post queries or surnames. Over the years there has been a growing emphasis on transcriptions as the only thing we are about. I can't imagine anyone wanting to take on counties with large cities like Boston, New York, Philadelphia, or Baltimore knowing that transcriptions were considered the only objective when it's unlikely that a coordinator could actually get through a transcription of any particular record set in those large cities. Knowing what information exists and how to get it is most of the problem in genealogy, and I don't think the coordinators that have gone out of their way to provide that information should be considered as having "shell" sites for lack of extensive transcriptions. During the time I have been on the Board my counties have been very much neglected, and I am looking forward to soon getting back to work on them soon, but that effort will most definitely be a combination of listing resources and adding links along with transcriptions of some records. Robert Bremer bremerr@oclc.org

From Robert Bremer... > Over the years there has been a growing emphasis on transcriptions as the > only thing we are about. I can't imagine anyone wanting to take on counties > with large cities like Boston, New York, Philadelphia, or Baltimore knowing > that transcriptions were considered the only objective when it's unlikely > that a coordinator could actually get through a transcription of any > particular record set in those large cities. Knowing what information > exists and how to get it is most of the problem in genealogy, and I don't > think the coordinators that have gone out of their way to provide that > information should be considered as having "shell" sites for lack of > extensive transcriptions. I agree with this. Transcriptions are NOT the "be all-end all" for people who are truly doing research. And to Robert's comment about people CC'ing larger cities, I CC Orleans Parish, LA--which is primarily New Orleans. We are fortunate that the archives has a great deal of transcription (which I link to), but I think the value provided by that site is showing all of the resource locations that are available. I live in NJ, but have family in Baton Rouge--so I get to visit New Orleans on occasion. I think there are a number of CCs who truly believe that transcriptions are "it". I'm ASC in NJ where we've recently set standards for the counties that require specific document/resource locations to be listed for every county--among them the county courthouse. I can't fathom this information NOT being on ANY county site in the country and yet it's missing from a good chunk of them. If there is any direction needed in USGW, it's things like this: providing guidance on what we need to ensure our users get to make USGW a truly value-added free-of-charge resource for researchers. Many county sites differ in the types of information they provide. Some combination of these is optimal. I know in NJ, I am on point to help any CC who can't find a location/address for a resource location. But there are the bare-bones basics of genealogy research that do not show up on many county sites. For instance--location and availability of birth, marriage and death certificates (see Somerset Co., NJ-->Vitals). How is this not available on EVERY site or a link from every site to some state level of this information? This is CRITICAL information for EVERY researcher... I think we flip-flop back and forth between "leave volunteers alone and be grateful for whatever they do" and an unrealistic level of bureaucracy. There must be a happy medium. --Heather Jones DeGeorge -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search http://corp.mail.com/careers

At 01:56 PM 8/21/2003 -0400, you wrote: >Dear Mr NC, > >Like many things, one of the URLs you listed gives an ERROR message, though >your suggestion to read them does not answer the question. If the same people >happen to "serve" on two organizations there is always the question as to who >wags whom. "Friends of ..." can claim it sole purposes loud and wide, >however, >that does not eliminate questioning who or what controls. > >Bill Oliver >-=- I just checked both links and both seem to be working now. -Isaiah

Welcome Mari!!! Iowa SC ----- Original Message ----- From: Isaiah Harrison To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 7:55 AM Subject: [STATE-COORD] New State Coordinator Welcome to Mari Byers the new TNGenWeb State Coordinator and goodbye to Nancy Cole who intends to settle into a well-earned "retirement." -Isaiah --- 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

I agree with you Heather. I think our purpose is to provide information. Providing information does not mean only doing transcriptions. I see our sites as gateways to point genealogists in the direction of where they can find information regarding their relatives in the county that we sponsor. If we have the time to do transcriptions, that's great. However, I don't have time and this is probably the same for many other people. I try to contribute small transcriptions that I can do quickly rather than the huge ones that there is no way I can take the time to do. (Which is a good idea as the small ones tend to get lost. :) ) But if my site has a wealth of links and information on how to obtain genealogical information, does that make it less of a site that might have a few links and 5 transcribed cemeteries? I recently won an award for Tom Green County in Texas and was also showcased on the Dear Myrtle radio show as being an excellent gateway to information. I feel proud of that work. I think it is important that my users can find the information quickly and easily. Cheers everyone! Kimm > -----Original Message----- > From: Heather DeGeorge [mailto:heatherdegeorge@writeme.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 10:00 AM > To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [STATE-COORD] What's our purpose? What makes a "useful" site? > > > > All this talk about soliciting funds to further the efforts > brings me to a rather relevant concern... > > About a month ago I was told by a reporter that one of my county > sites looked like any other and "nothing special"--which he > determined by comparing mine to 2 others (this was his total > exposure to such sites and genealogy in general). I was > thoroughly infuriated with him because the site in question, > while it had little or no transcriptions, pointed users to TONS > of information resources--some on the net which had > transcriptions; some on the net that provided information on > topics or how to order records; and some that were locations, > instructions, and contact information on getting to original > source records. Most of these I had actually used myself or > contacted the places to ensure I knew what was available and if > there was a fee associated with it, etc.--all stated for the > user. I also noted (for non-online resources) how to best get > the research objective met by having contacted those places > myself and asking how they'd prefer the researcher to deal with them. > > As someone who researches locally and not locally, I find that > this information is infinitely useful. Finding the location of > the primary resource is half the battle won. Knowing what > libraries exist--especially those devoted to special interests > (like race, religion, industry, etc.). > > I think it's unfair to say that only transcriptions provide value > and that pointing to resources does not--especially since > transcriptions are subject to human error and incompletions. I'd > rather go to the source--as many researchers would--and therefore > I value the resource location more than the transcription. Not > to say I don't appreciate transcriptions, I just appreciate more > the original/primary source location. > > So what's the purpose here? I thought it was to help users who > were looking for their ancestor's in XYZ county? Showing them > all of the information that exists there for their use? > Transcriptions were a bonus--and something I leave to the > archives (which I link out to in addition to providing the > original source location of the records transcribed--especially > since few resources are transcribed in total). > > Would love to hear everyone else's thoughts... > > --Heather Jones DeGeorge > -- > __________________________________________________________ > Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com > http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup > > CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search > http://corp.mail.com/careers > > --- 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

All this talk about soliciting funds to further the efforts brings me to a rather relevant concern... About a month ago I was told by a reporter that one of my county sites looked like any other and "nothing special"--which he determined by comparing mine to 2 others (this was his total exposure to such sites and genealogy in general). I was thoroughly infuriated with him because the site in question, while it had little or no transcriptions, pointed users to TONS of information resources--some on the net which had transcriptions; some on the net that provided information on topics or how to order records; and some that were locations, instructions, and contact information on getting to original source records. Most of these I had actually used myself or contacted the places to ensure I knew what was available and if there was a fee associated with it, etc.--all stated for the user. I also noted (for non-online resources) how to best get the research objective met by having contacted those places myself and asking how they'd prefer the researcher to deal with them. As someone who researches locally and not locally, I find that this information is infinitely useful. Finding the location of the primary resource is half the battle won. Knowing what libraries exist--especially those devoted to special interests (like race, religion, industry, etc.). I think it's unfair to say that only transcriptions provide value and that pointing to resources does not--especially since transcriptions are subject to human error and incompletions. I'd rather go to the source--as many researchers would--and therefore I value the resource location more than the transcription. Not to say I don't appreciate transcriptions, I just appreciate more the original/primary source location. So what's the purpose here? I thought it was to help users who were looking for their ancestor's in XYZ county? Showing them all of the information that exists there for their use? Transcriptions were a bonus--and something I leave to the archives (which I link out to in addition to providing the original source location of the records transcribed--especially since few resources are transcribed in total). Would love to hear everyone else's thoughts... --Heather Jones DeGeorge -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search http://corp.mail.com/careers

Resend as this did not appear to go through while using my <WVGenWeb@citynet.net> address. At 09:24 PM 08/20/2003 -0700, you wrote: >If you choose to conceal your disabilities and spring them on people >unawares, you deserve no apology. Isaiah, In my opinion you have crossed the line with this comment. There are many people in this world and also many volunteers within the USGenWeb Project with various disabilities. Many of these people choose to do the work that they can and not keep announcing their disabilities to the world around, choosing to be accepted for who they are and what they are able to do in spite of the disabilities. I have been shocked and dismayed in reading the past few hundred postings on this list and on USGenWeb-Discuss-L to learn that some of you have chosen to interpret Article IX, Section 2 in a manner that a large portion of the Project would find upsetting and very much against the ideals of the Project and the purpose of the articles. I now truly regret casting my ballot early since there is no way with this year's voting system to submit a corrected ballot. Les Shockey Les Shockey email address = lshockey@citynet.net or wvgenweb@citynet.net RootsWeb Listowner for the SHOCKEY family discussion group. SHOCKEY-L@rootsweb.com Visit the Jackson County, WVGenWeb Page, part of USGenWeb Project at: http://www.rootsweb.com/~wvjackso/JACK.HTM Visit the (West Virginia) WVGenWeb: http://www.rootsweb.com/~wvgenweb/

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Isaiah Harrison wrote: > Welcome to Mari Byers the new TNGenWeb State Coordinator and goodbye to > Nancy Cole who intends to settle into a well-earned "retirement." > > -Isaiah > Welcome, Mari! David David W. Morgan damorgan@nyx.net Honolulu Hawaii SC - TXGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txgenweb/ FM - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/tx/txfiles.htm ** http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/

Isaiah, I'm shocked and appalled that you would support this. Perhaps you didn't read my prior e-mail... if we can't provide it ourselves free of charge there is TREMENDOUS value in directing users to the resource without transcribing, etc. If there is a fee for materials that a volunteer feels is one fee too much (because those fees here & there certainly add up), then point the user to that information and let them incur the cost if they feel the information is worth it to them. If they then feel like they'd like to share, that's their prerogative. This is a free of charge project at it's very core. I realize what you intend does not charge users for the info, but it certainly doesn't sit with me as fully free of charge. I supply a WORLD of information that costs NOTHING. --Heather ----- Original Message ----- From: Isaiah Harrison <IsaiahH@cox.net> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 20:54:12 -0700 To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Soliciting Funds > At 04:23 PM 8/20/2003 -0500, you wrote: > >Well, the Wright County Historical & Genealogical Society is a Friend of the > >MOGenWeb Project, specifically the Wright County division thereof. > > > >So, since it is incorporated non-profit and since the information on the > >site is FREE access, I fail to see any difference in WCHS soliciting > >"donations" and "Friends of IAGenWeb" soliciting funds. FOIAGW is going at > >it the "right way?" If I've read correctly, they are "in the process" of > >getting their non-profit status established. > > > >Shucks! WCH&GS already has been able to accept gifts and give receipts for > >contributions (thus making them tax deductible) because of its doing things > >THE RIGHT WAY! Nothing was accepted until ALL the legal work was done. > >Seems to me that is MORE RIGHT! > > > >And, no money has ever been accepted because of the information on the > >website because of a promise given to Megan Z. who was NC of the Project and > >SC of MO at the time I was given the site. Now, it appears that there's a > >new Sheriff in town and the laws seem to have changed. > > > >If what Friends of IAGenWeb is doing and is planning on doing is okay bylaws > >wise......as we have been told......then, what's fair for one is fair for > >all. > > > >So, let the Free For All begin! > > > >Phyllis > > What IAGenWeb is doing is hardly a free for all. We have a logo/link on > most of our pages that says: "Space for the IAGenWeb Pages is provided by > Friend of IAGenWeb. Thanks." The link goes to the Friends of IAGenWeb > pages. If people choose to click on the link, they are given the > opportunity to find out about the Friends and to make a donation if they > want to. > > It is very low key. In fact, the plans of Friends are to secure corporate > sponsorship once we have our not-for-profit status. The links are there > primarily for the information they provide. It is far to passive an > approach for effective fund-raising. Gee, maybe we should try "Pledge > Weeks." ;=} > > -Isaiah > > > > > -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search http://corp.mail.com/careers

Welcome to Mari Byers the new TNGenWeb State Coordinator and goodbye to Nancy Cole who intends to settle into a well-earned "retirement." -Isaiah

Welcome Mari Mari! Congrats on your new endeavor! -----Original Message----- From: ncole@coffey.com Sent: Aug 19, 2003 1:30 PM To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [STATE-COORD] New State Coordinator for Tennessee Dear List Wrangler, Could you all please remove ncole@coffey.com from this list and add Mari Mari Byers <keyofbflat@comcast.net> After she is on the list you all might want to give a welcome to Mari, the quite wonderful new TNGenWeb State Coordinator. Thank you, Nancy Cole, the old and tired previous TNGenWeb Coordinator

At 07:10 AM 8/21/2003 -0400, you wrote: <snip> >Who wags the "tail", "Friends of ..." or the XXGenWebProject?? Whichever >does the >wagging, what conditions or requirements are there to belong to the >other? What >safeguard for "conflict of interest" is provided? In the case under >discussion, it >might appear that both ruling classes are the same. Does it spread than >to the >National? <snip> >Sincerely, >Bill Oliver >-=- I suggest you read this statement: http://iagenweb.org/state/friends_of_iagenweb/friendsofiagenweb.htm Then visit this website: http://iagenweb.org/state/friends_of_iagenweb/ For answers to your questions. -Isaiah

True, change is the order of the Universe. Hairs are being split thinner than "Philadelphia Lawyers" can do, and in the process, the concept of furnishing "fee" free information for genealogy is moving further and further from its goal. It is not a large jump from "you may contribute" to "you must pay an initiation fee to contribute and/or use". Who wags the "tail", "Friends of ..." or the XXGenWebProject?? Whichever does the wagging, what conditions or requirements are there to belong to the other? What safeguard for "conflict of interest" is provided? In the case under discussion, it might appear that both ruling classes are the same. Does it spread than to the National? "on the home page" was inserted in the By-Laws as a compromise to appease those who did and those who did not want solicitations. And, it accomplished what it meant to do ... moved it to a back burner ... that is, prolonged the [k]nit-picking [sic]. It is an unstoppable force colliding with an immovable object. Debate is good, great even, however, this debate is so old even the stink has been archived. Thinking must bounce "out of the box" for a good and true solution. Sincerely, Bill Oliver -=- Isaiah Harrison wrote: > At 11:42 PM 8/20/2003 -0400, you wrote: > >No, sir, I said that I see it as a breach of the blaws. You stated that I > >need an eye exam and asked for a cite to the specific section. > > > >Get your facts right, Mr. NC. > > My facts are correct. In my second message I quoted your original > response--copied and pasted. > > >I interpret it as being violative of Article IX, Section 2. It states: > >"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." > > Perhaps you should visit the IAGenWeb pages so you can see what is actually > there. What is there is a thank you and a link. There is no appeal on the > home page. > > >That seems to be clear to me that we cannot solicit funds under any > >circumstances on any Project page. > > That's not what the bylaws say. You quoted them above but apparently did > not read them. > > >If the IAGenWeb page contains a link > >to "Friends of IAGenWeb", which it most certainly does, then I would argue > >that there is a direct solicitation. > > There is a difference between a direct solicitation and a link. > > >If you want to declare "Friends" to be > >a separate entity and not part of the Project, that is your choice, but I > >think it is a flagrant and obvious violation, especially given the fact > >that "Friends" is stored on the IAGenWeb servers. > > Actually, IAGenWeb is stored on the Friends servers. Friends of IAGenWeb > paid for the domain name and pays for the server space. > > >And I note that your explanation did not include an apology for your blatant > >and discriminatory remarks. > > > >Richard Pettys, Jr. > > If you choose to conceal your disabilities and spring them on people > unawares, you deserve no apology. The remarks were not blatant. The remarks > were not discriminatory. I am well aware from personal experience of the > difficulties that handicapped people face and the courage and endurance > with which most of them face those difficulties. > > You're trying to take advantage of my lack of knowledge of your poor > eyesight. I assure you, my opinion regarding what the bylaws say and mean > is no different for handicapped people than it is for people without handicaps. > > -Isaiah

No, sir, I said that I see it as a breach of the blaws. You stated that I need an eye exam and asked for a cite to the specific section. Get your facts right, Mr. NC. I interpret it as being violative of Article IX, Section 2. It states: "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." That seems to be clear to me that we cannot solicit funds under any circumstances on any Project page. If the IAGenWeb page contains a link to "Friends of IAGenWeb", which it most certainly does, then I would argue that there is a direct solicitation. If you want to declare "Friends" to be a separate entity and not part of the Project, that is your choice, but I think it is a flagrant and obvious violation, especially given the fact that "Friends" is stored on the IAGenWeb servers. And I note that your explanation did not include an apology for your blatant and discriminatory remarks. Richard Pettys, Jr. ---------- Original Message ----------- From: Isaiah Harrison <IsaiahH@cox.net> To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 09:02:36 -0700 Subject: Re: RE: [STATE-COORD] Mr National Coordinator if you would please answer a few? > At 09:50 AM 8/20/2003 -0400, you wrote: > >Mr. NC, > > > >I believe that your crass comment is uncalled for and I believe that it is > >wholly improper to make such a statement on this list. It shows your > >complete and total insensitivity. What you could not know, for you do not > >know me, is that I am considered to be legally blind. My vision is horrid > >and is a point of grave distress for me, as it prevents me from being able to > >do normal activities, such as driving, because it is not correctable to > >anywhere near 20/20, let alone 20/50. To tell me or any member of this > >Project that I need an eye exam is absolutely unforgiveable. > > > >Richard Pettys, Jr. > > You are correct when you say 'What you could not know, for you do > not know me." If I had been aware of your condition I certainly > would not have made the remark. > > However, you did make the statement "I see it is a breach of our > by-laws..." and I asked the question "Would you please cite the > specific bylaw that is being violated." You have not yet answered > the question. > > -Isaiah ------- End of Original Message -------

At 11:42 PM 8/20/2003 -0400, you wrote: >No, sir, I said that I see it as a breach of the blaws. You stated that I >need an eye exam and asked for a cite to the specific section. > >Get your facts right, Mr. NC. My facts are correct. In my second message I quoted your original response--copied and pasted. >I interpret it as being violative of Article IX, Section 2. It states: >"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." Perhaps you should visit the IAGenWeb pages so you can see what is actually there. What is there is a thank you and a link. There is no appeal on the home page. >That seems to be clear to me that we cannot solicit funds under any >circumstances on any Project page. That's not what the bylaws say. You quoted them above but apparently did not read them. >If the IAGenWeb page contains a link >to "Friends of IAGenWeb", which it most certainly does, then I would argue >that there is a direct solicitation. There is a difference between a direct solicitation and a link. >If you want to declare "Friends" to be >a separate entity and not part of the Project, that is your choice, but I >think it is a flagrant and obvious violation, especially given the fact >that "Friends" is stored on the IAGenWeb servers. Actually, IAGenWeb is stored on the Friends servers. Friends of IAGenWeb paid for the domain name and pays for the server space. >And I note that your explanation did not include an apology for your blatant >and discriminatory remarks. > >Richard Pettys, Jr. If you choose to conceal your disabilities and spring them on people unawares, you deserve no apology. The remarks were not blatant. The remarks were not discriminatory. I am well aware from personal experience of the difficulties that handicapped people face and the courage and endurance with which most of them face those difficulties. You're trying to take advantage of my lack of knowledge of your poor eyesight. I assure you, my opinion regarding what the bylaws say and mean is no different for handicapped people than it is for people without handicaps. -Isaiah

At 04:23 PM 8/20/2003 -0500, you wrote: >Well, the Wright County Historical & Genealogical Society is a Friend of the >MOGenWeb Project, specifically the Wright County division thereof. > >So, since it is incorporated non-profit and since the information on the >site is FREE access, I fail to see any difference in WCHS soliciting >"donations" and "Friends of IAGenWeb" soliciting funds. FOIAGW is going at >it the "right way?" If I've read correctly, they are "in the process" of >getting their non-profit status established. > >Shucks! WCH&GS already has been able to accept gifts and give receipts for >contributions (thus making them tax deductible) because of its doing things >THE RIGHT WAY! Nothing was accepted until ALL the legal work was done. >Seems to me that is MORE RIGHT! > >And, no money has ever been accepted because of the information on the >website because of a promise given to Megan Z. who was NC of the Project and >SC of MO at the time I was given the site. Now, it appears that there's a >new Sheriff in town and the laws seem to have changed. > >If what Friends of IAGenWeb is doing and is planning on doing is okay bylaws >wise......as we have been told......then, what's fair for one is fair for >all. > >So, let the Free For All begin! > >Phyllis What IAGenWeb is doing is hardly a free for all. We have a logo/link on most of our pages that says: "Space for the IAGenWeb Pages is provided by Friend of IAGenWeb. Thanks." The link goes to the Friends of IAGenWeb pages. If people choose to click on the link, they are given the opportunity to find out about the Friends and to make a donation if they want to. It is very low key. In fact, the plans of Friends are to secure corporate sponsorship once we have our not-for-profit status. The links are there primarily for the information they provide. It is far to passive an approach for effective fund-raising. Gee, maybe we should try "Pledge Weeks." ;=} -Isaiah

Just by coincidence, I was interviewed today by a reporter from a Florida TV station about The Tombstone Project and USGenWeb. She was very impressed with what we do on the whole, though her primary interest was sparked by the TP. She actually went to a cemetery with a couple who do transcriptions for us in Florida and decided to a special interest report. Now, this certainly isn't the first time I have been interviewed for a news article or program concerning the TP, but this reporter asked me a question that I had never been asked before. She said, "All this is totally free to anyone, anywhere?" I told her that it was and would always remain so and that if that ever changed, I would take my ball and go home! She asked why I felt it was so important that it be free and I explained to her that genealogists are on the whole a very generous group who enjoy sharing their research and efforts with others. We also feel that public domain records should be entirely free to all. We are just striving to make those records more easily accessible by placing them on the Web. We were all helped in the beginning and what we do as USGW volunteers helps to pay it back by "paying it forward." The spirit of the entire USGenWeb Project would be destroyed if we charged for services or asked for donations. As I said before, we were all helped by some generous researchers when we first got started and are now "paying it forward" by doing what we do as USGW volunteers. Pam -----Original Message----- From: Heather DeGeorge [mailto:heatherdegeorge@writeme.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 4:23 PM To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Soliciting Funds Talk about losing the spirit of volunteering (I'm not talking about Phyllis--just about the concept of soliciting funds). I've devoted countless hours to gathering and transcribing and researching free of charge. Would I love to be paid for it? Of course--and often I do, but not via the USGenWeb project. What I do for USGenWeb is strictly volunteer work. If I don't have the money to get something I want to provide for my users, I point them to the resource and warn them of whatever fees might be involved. My goal is simply to connect them to information they need in their hunt for their ancestors--and to do so free of charge. If I can't provide it myself free of charge, I CAN (free of charge) point them to a resource that they can choose to use or not. Likewise, if there are resources that are free of charge, but not transcribed or available online--I point them there as well. I've attempted to set up volunteer networks of locals willing to go to those places for lookups, but only successful in a few places. It's a volunteer project. If you need money to accomplish it, then go somewhere else. Am I missing something? --Heather Jones DeGeorge ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phyllis Rippee" <wchs@getgoin.net> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:39:56 -0500 To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [STATE-COORD] Soliciting Funds > TIC!!! > > Since ALL of the information on my county site has been placed there by the > Wright County Historical and Genealogical Society, or has been specifically > (in written documents signed, sealed and delivered by snail-mail) "loaned" > to the Society to be placed on line.....only as long as I do the > site........and since the WCH&GS is an incorporated non-profit > organization.............. > > Based on the theory behind Friends of IAGenWeb, would it be acceptable for > me to place a statement soliciting funds for WCH&GS on all of my pages, > except the main one which serves as an index to the others? > > When I first was given the site, I had to promise not to do so.....or > forfeit my first born and then my head. > > Is it now safe to assume that promise is nullified? > > "We hope this information is of help to you. We depend on donations to help > keep our door open and our lights on. We would appreciate any sum you can > send. Wright County Historical Society, P. O. Box 66, Hartville MO 65667" > > Phyllis Rippee > Wright County Historical Society > SW/SC CC Representative USGen Web Project Advisory Board > -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search http://corp.mail.com/careers

Well, the Wright County Historical & Genealogical Society is a Friend of the MOGenWeb Project, specifically the Wright County division thereof. So, since it is incorporated non-profit and since the information on the site is FREE access, I fail to see any difference in WCHS soliciting "donations" and "Friends of IAGenWeb" soliciting funds. FOIAGW is going at it the "right way?" If I've read correctly, they are "in the process" of getting their non-profit status established. Shucks! WCH&GS already has been able to accept gifts and give receipts for contributions (thus making them tax deductible) because of its doing things THE RIGHT WAY! Nothing was accepted until ALL the legal work was done. Seems to me that is MORE RIGHT! And, no money has ever been accepted because of the information on the website because of a promise given to Megan Z. who was NC of the Project and SC of MO at the time I was given the site. Now, it appears that there's a new Sheriff in town and the laws seem to have changed. If what Friends of IAGenWeb is doing and is planning on doing is okay bylaws wise......as we have been told......then, what's fair for one is fair for all. So, let the Free For All begin! Phyllis

Were you ever able to get through to the Williamses and to that bittersweet address for NC? -----Original Message----- From: Ellen Pack <e.j.pack@natchezbelle.org> Sent: Aug 20, 2003 9:20 AM To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [STATE-COORD] Reminder: Run-Off Election Nearing End To All USGenWeb Members - Please forward to all Members and appropriate project lists. The Run-Off portion of the National 2003 Election is nearing an end. Voting will cease Friday Aug 22, 2003 12:00 noon CT. No votes cast after that time will be accepted. If you have not received a voting password, immediately contact either Marti Graham <marti4@cox.net> or Ellen Pack <e.j.pack@natchezbelle.or>, not later than tonight August 20, to allow time for a password to be sent or resent. For more information about the Run-Off election, including a list of candidates, go to: http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/candidate-run-off.htm For information about all facets of the National 2003 election, go to: http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/nationals-index.htm Please vote! Thank you, USGenWeb Election Committee