> See "A Simple Character Entity Chart" at > > > > for more details. If you are not sure if a browser will display certain > characters, view this page in that browser and you'll know. > > Bob Sullivan > NY SC / Schenectady County CC > That's a much better chart than I've ever seen before. It looks like the numberical code is still the best way to go. Thank you Bob! Connie
> > There was recently a question posed to WIGenWeb Project list regarding the > > html coding of special characters in transcription work. > > > > You can find the references that list them online too. I usually > check the following page, but you have to remember to insert the > # sign on the numerical codes that are listed. They didn't > include them. Remember that the numerical codes start with &# and > end with a semi-colon. Then just look up the correct number for > that code and insert it. > > http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/latin1.html > > I think there are some newer codes available now, but not all > browsers will be able to handle the new ones. That's why I prefer > this list. It's actually a little more complicated: some browsers can handle the numeric codes but not the names. IIRC, Netscape 4.x will show &8212; as an em dash but will not display &emdash; properly. Sigh. The names are nice because they are self-documenting. See "A Simple Character Entity Chart" at <http://www.evolt.org/article/A_Simple_Character_Entity_Chart/17/21234/index .html> for more details. If you are not sure if a browser will display certain characters, view this page in that browser and you'll know. Bob Sullivan NY SC / Schenectady County CC
There was recently a question posed to WIGenWeb Project list regarding the html coding of special characters in transcription work. I asked for and received permission to forward the answer here, as I thought some of you might find it useful to share with your County Coordinators. Tina Vickery SC WIGenWeb Project _______ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ellen- (Genealogy)" <jeanealogist@hotmail.com> To: <WIGEN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 6:19 PM Subject: Re: [WIGEN-L] Help with HTML > Might want to give them a more complete list. > It is not a complete list, but probably what they will be using most > > @ at symbol; use this to help stop spam > ¢ Cent sign > £ Pound sterling > ¤ General currency sign > ¥ Yen sign > ¨ Umlaut (dieresis) > © Copyright > ® Registered trademark > ¯ Macron accent > ° Degree sign > ± Plus or minus > ² Superscript two > ³ Superscript three > ´ Acute accent > µ Micro sign > · Middle dot > ¸ Cedilla > ¼ Fraction one-fourth > ½ Fraction one-half > ¾ Fraction three-fourths > À Capital A, grave accent > Á Capital A, acute accent > Â Capital A, circumflex accent > Ã Capital A, tilde > Ä Capital A, dieresis or umlaut mark > Å Capital A, ring > Æ Capital AE dipthong (ligature) > Ç Capital C, cedilla > È Capital E, grave accent > É Capital E, acute accent > Ê Capital E, circumflex accent > Ë Capital E, dieresis or umlaut mark > Ì Capital I, grave accent > Í Capital I, acute accent > Î Capital I, circumflex accent > Ï Capital I, dieresis or umlaut mark > Ð Capital Eth, Icelandic > Ñ Capital N, tilde > Ò Capital O, grave accent > Ó Capital O, acute accent > Ô Capital O, circumflex accent > Õ Capital O, tilde > Ö Capital O, dieresis or umlaut mark > × Multiply sign > Ø Capital O, slash > Ù Capital U, grave accent > Ú Capital U, acute accent > Û Capital U, circumflex accent > Ü Capital U, dieresis or umlaut mark > Ý Capital Y, acute accent > Þ Capital THORN, Icelandic > ß Small sharp s, German (sz ligature) > à Small a, grave accent > á Small a, acute accent > â Small a, circumflex accent > ã Small a, tilde > ä Small a, dieresis or umlaut mark > å Small a, ring > æ Small ae dipthong (ligature) > ç Small c, cedilla > è Small e, grave accent > é Small e, acute accent > ê Small e, circumflex accent > ë Small e, dieresis or umlaut mark > ì Small i, grave accent > í Small i, acute accent > î Small i, circumflex accent > ï Small i, dieresis or umlaut mark > ð Small eth, Icelandic > ñ Small n, tilde > ò Small o, grave accent > ó Small o, acute accent > ô Small o, circumflex accent > õ Small o, tilde > ö Small o, dieresis or umlaut mark > ÷ Division sign > ø Small o, slash > ù Small u, grave accent > ú Small u, acute accent > û Small u, circumflex accent > ü Small u, dieresis or umlaut mark > ý Small y, acute accent > þ Small thorn, Icelandic > ÿ Small y, dieresis or umlaut mark > > > Ellen-
> There was recently a question posed to WIGenWeb Project list regarding the > html coding of special characters in transcription work. > You can find the references that list them online too. I usually check the following page, but you have to remember to insert the # sign on the numerical codes that are listed. They didn't include them. Remember that the numerical codes start with &# and end with a semi-colon. Then just look up the correct number for that code and insert it. http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/latin1.html I think there are some newer codes available now, but not all browsers will be able to handle the new ones. That's why I prefer this list. Connie
Thank you, Betsy, I think I've had the proper title in there for a long time, but it may not have been that way when those pages were created. I do remember that there were a lot of complaints from people at the time. At least you've given us a way to request a change. At the time we were told that they couldn't be changed. The only thing offered to us was to submit another link to be added. That results in two links to the same site. I think this was pre-Helpdesk, so we didn't have that option. Connie Betsy Mills wrote: > Those pages were built automatically and used whatever they person had as > their index.htm page title (between <title> and </title>). If you look at > this page - http://resources.rootsweb.com/USA/TX/Lamar/ - you will see that > it is listed as Lamar Co. TXGenWeb as that was my title at the time. If > you want to ask that the title of your project be changed, then I would > suggest posting a request on the HelpDesk - > http://helpdesk.rootsweb.com/help.cgi - and they will get the request to > the proper person. (Even if you've done it before, you need to do it again > if it wasn't updated.) > > There is no way for staff (or an automated script) to know what county > account belongs to what project. The only way it could be done was by > using the title of the page as the link. So, just in case the pages are > ever re-indexed, you need to make sure your main page title reflects > whatever you want to appear as the link on an index page. > > Betsy > > On 06:12 PM 5/18/2003 -0500, Connie Snyder said: > >I can only find the Research Templates with all the search engines and > >then the > >State Resources which gets you to the Roots-L locality pages that have always > >been around. I did notice the templates still do not give proper credit to the > >xxgenweb sites. They state "xxxxxx county genealogy" instead of xxgenweb > >county > >site. Is there anyway to get the proper name/credit for our usgenweb > >county sites > >on those pages? > > > >For instance, the Dawson County, Nebraska page shows "Dawson Co. NE Genealogy" > >instead of the proper name, Dawson County NEGenWeb Project. It's been that way > >since those pages were put up a few years ago and although we've asked for the > >link to credit the correct name, it's never been changed. > > > >http://resources.rootsweb.com/USA/ > > > >Connie > > > >Betsy Mills wrote: > > > > > Pat, > > > > > > RootsWeb doesn't have "state and county pages". They have a listing of > > > accounts for states and counties that are on RootsWeb and there is one > > > place where people can add links to states/counties that are or are not on > > > RootsWeb. They are added by the visitor, not by us. So, I'm not certain > > > what you mean. > > > > > > Betsy > > > > > > On 08:40 AM 5/18/2003 -0700, Patricia Scott said: > > > >seek and ye shall find. > > > > > > > >Go to Rootsweb. > > > > > > > >Pat > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > > >From: "Tim Stowell" <tstowell@chattanooga.net> > > > >To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> > > > >Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 4:57 AM > > > >Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Bylaws Revision - News > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 08:06 AM 5/15/03 -0700, Patricia Scott wrote: > > > > > >I have been watching Rootsweb and the creation and growth of their > > state > > > >and > > > > > >county pages. I truly believe this is just the next step in doing away > > > >with > > > > > >us all. > > > > > > > > > > What state and county pages? > > > > > > > > > > Tim > > > > >
Those pages were built automatically and used whatever they person had as their index.htm page title (between <title> and </title>). If you look at this page - http://resources.rootsweb.com/USA/TX/Lamar/ - you will see that it is listed as Lamar Co. TXGenWeb as that was my title at the time. If you want to ask that the title of your project be changed, then I would suggest posting a request on the HelpDesk - http://helpdesk.rootsweb.com/help.cgi - and they will get the request to the proper person. (Even if you've done it before, you need to do it again if it wasn't updated.) There is no way for staff (or an automated script) to know what county account belongs to what project. The only way it could be done was by using the title of the page as the link. So, just in case the pages are ever re-indexed, you need to make sure your main page title reflects whatever you want to appear as the link on an index page. Betsy On 06:12 PM 5/18/2003 -0500, Connie Snyder said: >I can only find the Research Templates with all the search engines and >then the >State Resources which gets you to the Roots-L locality pages that have always >been around. I did notice the templates still do not give proper credit to the >xxgenweb sites. They state "xxxxxx county genealogy" instead of xxgenweb >county >site. Is there anyway to get the proper name/credit for our usgenweb >county sites >on those pages? > >For instance, the Dawson County, Nebraska page shows "Dawson Co. NE Genealogy" >instead of the proper name, Dawson County NEGenWeb Project. It's been that way >since those pages were put up a few years ago and although we've asked for the >link to credit the correct name, it's never been changed. > >http://resources.rootsweb.com/USA/ > >Connie > >Betsy Mills wrote: > > > Pat, > > > > RootsWeb doesn't have "state and county pages". They have a listing of > > accounts for states and counties that are on RootsWeb and there is one > > place where people can add links to states/counties that are or are not on > > RootsWeb. They are added by the visitor, not by us. So, I'm not certain > > what you mean. > > > > Betsy > > > > On 08:40 AM 5/18/2003 -0700, Patricia Scott said: > > >seek and ye shall find. > > > > > >Go to Rootsweb. > > > > > >Pat > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: "Tim Stowell" <tstowell@chattanooga.net> > > >To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> > > >Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 4:57 AM > > >Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Bylaws Revision - News > > > > > > > > > > At 08:06 AM 5/15/03 -0700, Patricia Scott wrote: > > > > >I have been watching Rootsweb and the creation and growth of their > state > > >and > > > > >county pages. I truly believe this is just the next step in doing away > > >with > > > > >us all. > > > > > > > > What state and county pages? > > > > > > > > Tim > > > >
I can only find the Research Templates with all the search engines and then the State Resources which gets you to the Roots-L locality pages that have always been around. I did notice the templates still do not give proper credit to the xxgenweb sites. They state "xxxxxx county genealogy" instead of xxgenweb county site. Is there anyway to get the proper name/credit for our usgenweb county sites on those pages? For instance, the Dawson County, Nebraska page shows "Dawson Co. NE Genealogy" instead of the proper name, Dawson County NEGenWeb Project. It's been that way since those pages were put up a few years ago and although we've asked for the link to credit the correct name, it's never been changed. http://resources.rootsweb.com/USA/ Connie Betsy Mills wrote: > Pat, > > RootsWeb doesn't have "state and county pages". They have a listing of > accounts for states and counties that are on RootsWeb and there is one > place where people can add links to states/counties that are or are not on > RootsWeb. They are added by the visitor, not by us. So, I'm not certain > what you mean. > > Betsy > > On 08:40 AM 5/18/2003 -0700, Patricia Scott said: > >seek and ye shall find. > > > >Go to Rootsweb. > > > >Pat > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Tim Stowell" <tstowell@chattanooga.net> > >To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> > >Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 4:57 AM > >Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Bylaws Revision - News > > > > > > > At 08:06 AM 5/15/03 -0700, Patricia Scott wrote: > > > >I have been watching Rootsweb and the creation and growth of their state > >and > > > >county pages. I truly believe this is just the next step in doing away > >with > > > >us all. > > > > > > What state and county pages? > > > > > > Tim > > >
Pat, RootsWeb doesn't have "state and county pages". They have a listing of accounts for states and counties that are on RootsWeb and there is one place where people can add links to states/counties that are or are not on RootsWeb. They are added by the visitor, not by us. So, I'm not certain what you mean. Betsy On 08:40 AM 5/18/2003 -0700, Patricia Scott said: >seek and ye shall find. > >Go to Rootsweb. > >Pat >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tim Stowell" <tstowell@chattanooga.net> >To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 4:57 AM >Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Bylaws Revision - News > > > > At 08:06 AM 5/15/03 -0700, Patricia Scott wrote: > > >I have been watching Rootsweb and the creation and growth of their state >and > > >county pages. I truly believe this is just the next step in doing away >with > > >us all. > > > > What state and county pages? > > > > Tim > >
Greetings, Am pleased to announce that in our regularly scheduled election for the NCGenWeb Project State Coordinator, Angie Rayfield has been declared winner and will assume her duties on July 1, 2003. Since the NCGenWeb Project does not provide for special elections of an SC unexpired term, the three ASC's (Angie, Nola Duffy, and I) will continue to jointly fulfill the SC duties and responsibilities until July 1. Congratulations Angie! Regards, Paul Buckley, NCGenWeb Project
seek and ye shall find. Go to Rootsweb. Pat ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Stowell" <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 4:57 AM Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Bylaws Revision - News > At 08:06 AM 5/15/03 -0700, Patricia Scott wrote: > >I have been watching Rootsweb and the creation and growth of their state and > >county pages. I truly believe this is just the next step in doing away with > >us all. > > What state and county pages? > > Tim >
At 08:10 AM 5/17/2003 -0400, Tim Stowell wrote: Even though the NC alone signed the agreement - each member of the AB is >liable for any action by a party that sues Rootsweb in which the agreement >states under 3.4 - up to $10,000 per incident those costs to be shared by >the Project. Not necessarily. Someone might sue RootsWeb for any number of reasons. Someone might sue The USGenWeb Project for any number of reasons. Someone might sue individual Board Members or individual project members for any number of reasons. A careful reading of the Hosting Agreement shows just how limited The Project's liability is in the circumstances covered by the agreement. Section 3.4 is concerned only with settlements arising out of the "warranties stated above" and only applies to the National website. The Project's warrantee is stated in Section 3.1: "3.1. Grantee Warranty. Grantee warrants that the contents of the Grantee Site do not infringe the intellectual property rights of any third party. Grantee further warrants that it has the authority to enter into this Agreement and perform its obligations hereunder." Access to the National website is strictly limited and the possibility that something posted there would result in a complaint regarding copyright infringement, let alone a lawsuit, is remote. >So it would seem that as Phyllis mentioned that either each Board member would >have to put up a bond, or some sort of financial agreement that they would >pay their portion of expenses for said action. > >Unless all AB members would pony up this bond or agreement - even with >insurance at $3000 per year - who is going to pay for this? Would the >members at large pay $3000 a year to keep a NC/AB? > >Tim Estimates of insurance at $2000-$3000 per year are for comprehensive policies that cover a wide range of circumstances. Coverage that would allow The Project to meet its obligation under the terms of the Hosting Agreement is available at a considerably lower cost. If fact, an angel has stepped forward who has offered to fund coverage and the matter is being discussed. The Project and its individual officers and members are in no greater danger of being sued now than they were before the agreement was signed--and I believe that danger was and is minimal. -Isaiah
At 07:08 AM 5/15/03 -1000, you wrote: > > >I have a copy of the agreement, thank you, and I have read it. > >I was just trying to find out what Tim was talking about, if >there is anything else about this that is being witheld. > >I wasn't twisting anything and I don't know anything about >a conspiracy. > >David Exactly what Phyllis said - is the other half. Even though the NC alone signed the agreement - each member of the AB is liable for any action by a party that sues Rootsweb in which the agreement states under 3.4 - up to $10,000 per incident those costs to be shared by the Project. So it would seem that as Phyllis mentioned that either each Board member would have to put up a bond, or some sort of financial agreement that they would pay their portion of expenses for said action. Unless all AB members would pony up this bond or agreement - even with insurance at $3000 per year - who is going to pay for this? Would the members at large pay $3000 a year to keep a NC/AB? Tim >On Thu, 15 May 2003, Angie Rayfield wrote: > >> >> --Boundary_(ID_jmcOJor8tllCY7WGY5PslA) >> Content-type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-72974003; charset=us-ascii; >> format=flowed >> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT >> >> Unfortunately, by "stealing" one post out of dozens, it's far too easy to >> give an incomplete and perhaps inaccurate picture of the >> situation. There's no context. >> >> If read properly, the "half out of the bag" does NOT refer to half of the >> hosting agreement being out of the bag. The entire hosting agreement is >> available to anyone that chooses to read it -- simply email Richard >> Harrison and ask for it. He's made that post publicly and on several >> lists. The agreement may not be posted publicly, but any USGWP member who >> wishes may have a copy. But if you've requested the agreement, and read >> it, then you know all there is to know about it. That's all there is -- >> one reason for having a written agreement, by the way. No question about >> what is expected, as opposed to the unwritten, oral understanding that had >> been in existence for so long. >> >> What isn't apparent without the rest of the discussion to give perspective >> is that the AB is discussing the disposition of the very motion that raised >> so much ruckus on this list -- whether to establish a separate private >> email list to discuss the future organization of the USGWP. Possibly >> reorganizing the USGWP *was* something that needed to be considered when >> the hosting agreement was up in the air -- what if Ancestry/MyFamily >> demanded control of the project? What if they demanded a spot on the AB >> for a representative of their own? What if they demanded veto rights over >> project elections, or AB decisions? What if, what if, what if? If >> Ancestry/MyFamily had made such demands, reorganizing the structure of the >> project might have been the only way to *keep* them from effectively >> "owning" it. With the hosting agreement signed, these "what ifs" have >> disappeared -- which, I imagine, is why Tim would comment that the only >> reason to have another motion would be to clarify why structural changes >> would be considered in the first place. The reasons why, and possible new >> structures of, the USGWP would be the items still "in the bag" (I don't >> care for that phrase, incidentally), and not made known or discussed with >> the organization at large as of yet. >> >> Admittedly, I haven't been on the board for very long, but I haven't seen >> any sinister conspiracy to take over the world and do some kind of harm to >> the CC's that are the backbone of this project. Maybe I just haven't been >> given the secret password yet <g>. But I don't think it's productive to >> take bits and pieces of long discussions and try to see plots and plans in >> them. Almost *anything* can be twisted a thousand ways to Sunday if it >> suits someone to do so. >> >> Angie Rayfield >> NCGenWeb Personnel Coordinator/ASC >> SE/MA CC Representative >> >> >> >> >> At 01:15 AM 5/15/2003 -1000, you wrote: >> >> >What is the other half? What is it that we still don't know >> >about this agreement, and why the USGenWeb Project needs to >> >consider reorganization? >> > >> >Please note the copyright violation below. Yes, I stole it from >> >board-l. >> > >> >David >> > >> > BOARD-L Archives >> > >> > From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> >> > Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] VOTE - MOTION 03-11 >> > Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 20:26:05 -0400 >> > >> ><SNIP> >> > >> >An aside to the Tombstone Project and the other SP - Archives - these >> >groups were not left out on purpose, they just weren't thought of in terms >> >of day to day life of the Project. >> > >> >The private email list is the SC list - except I doubt all SCs/ASCs are >> >subbed there for there has been no roll call there for at least 2 years. >> >Other than looking at the Who's Who - and wondering how up to date it is - >> >for if the SCs don't inform the webmaster of a change, she probably doesn't >> >know of it. >> > >> >The SC list is archived and the membership can read it fairly soon after >> >messages are posted there. >> > >> >Since the cat is already 1/2 out of the bag - with the contents of the Hosting >> >Agreement known by most anyone that wants to know it - the only reason to >> >have another motion would be to clarify why in tandem with the Hosting >> >Agreement - the AB would even consider broaching the subject of Project >> >reorganization. >> > >> >Tim >> >> --Boundary_(ID_jmcOJor8tllCY7WGY5PslA) >> Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; >> x-avg-checked=avg-ok-72974003 >> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT >> Content-disposition: inline >> >> >> --- >> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >> Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release Date: 5/13/2003 >> >> --Boundary_(ID_jmcOJor8tllCY7WGY5PslA)-- >> > >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/ > > >
At 08:06 AM 5/15/03 -0700, Patricia Scott wrote: >I have been watching Rootsweb and the creation and growth of their state and >county pages. I truly believe this is just the next step in doing away with >us all. What state and county pages? Tim
Hi, Everyone We are fast approaching National Election time, and the EC is badly in need of updated lists from quite a few states. We want to send out a mass informational mailing next week, then notices will go out re nominations which begin 1 June. Voting will begin 1 July. Please check the Status Page for your state: http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/2002stateslist.html If you have not turned in a list very recently, or if you have had recent changes in your state, please send now. You can send to the EC member listed at the top of the page, or if there is no working email, send to me personally, or for that matter to any EC member. The EC must depend on the SCs to assist, even when we have a full committee, and we are currently short three members due to one vacancy, and two who are relocating. We are especially in need of updated lists from the following states: CA ID IN KS LA MN NY Let's all do the best we can to see that every USGenWeb member has an opportunity to vote. Thanks! Ellen Pack Chair, EC
Hi everyone, I thought I would pass this along to you. I was approached by someone wanting to use a cemetery index that we have posted on my county site. It's for findagrave.com. I refused for two reasons. First, the person who walked and submitted the index isn't reachable now and cannot give her permission. Second, we have a state-wide policy that people can copy the information for personal uses only. They should link to our information instead of copying it to another webpage. Do we have a national policy about this kind of thing? I know that the Archives does. Our state put a policy in some time ago. Would this be something that should be suggested for all county sites? You can see our state statement at: http://www.rootsweb.com/~negenweb/availability.html Read the last paragraph under copyright. Connie
I'm not a gloom and doomer, I just want to protect my work and everyone else that has donated to the NVGenWeb Project as part of the USGenWeb Project. Now that I hear the true facts about the agreement, I am not so skeptical. There are plenty of folks that have left this project. Lets hhope we keep what we have and gain more. Pat ----- Original Message ----- From: "ILGenWeb State Coordinator" <richpump@wf.net> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 1:03 PM Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Bylaws Revision - News - "NOT" > Patricia I just don't understand. Every time RW blinks > someone jumps up and forecast doom and gloom. Then they > want everyone else to jump of a cliff with them. So far the > prediction rate of these Gloom and doomers is is very near > "ZERO". > > The really sad part of this is that if The gloom and > doomer's had left RW a lone, just how great it could have > been for all the researchers. > > Will it eventually be a pay per view? Could be. They say > that if you have an endless amount of time, and an endless > amount of monkeys you can write Shakespeare. So perhaps with > enough Gloom and doomers you can rewrite the future. > > Oh Yea! Just what does this all have to do with "Bylaws > Revision - News", that was the subject? Richard... > > Patricia Scott wrote: > > I have been watching Rootsweb and the creation and growth of their state and > > county pages. I truly believe this is just the next step in doing away with > > us all. > > > > The saddest part of it all is that all of the hard work from volunteers who > > donated it for free, will eventually be a pay per view. > > > > We lost Gen Connect boards, then Surname search, now this. Are they hoping > > that we all quit and go away? > > > > I havbe also noticed that the archives for the State of Nevada, that we NOT > > donated to USGenWeb, have been moved to another location other than the one > > I was given. The one I work on is a mirror site. If you think that doesn't > > make me nervous, you're crazy! > > > > Just my two cents worth. > > > > Patricia Scott > > SC Nevada > > > > > Richard M. Howland ILGenWeb State > Coordinator > Mailto:RichPump@wf.net ICQ # 898319 > > >
Patricia I just don't understand. Every time RW blinks someone jumps up and forecast doom and gloom. Then they want everyone else to jump of a cliff with them. So far the prediction rate of these Gloom and doomers is is very near "ZERO". The really sad part of this is that if The gloom and doomer's had left RW a lone, just how great it could have been for all the researchers. Will it eventually be a pay per view? Could be. They say that if you have an endless amount of time, and an endless amount of monkeys you can write Shakespeare. So perhaps with enough Gloom and doomers you can rewrite the future. Oh Yea! Just what does this all have to do with "Bylaws Revision - News", that was the subject? Richard... Patricia Scott wrote: > I have been watching Rootsweb and the creation and growth of their state and > county pages. I truly believe this is just the next step in doing away with > us all. > > The saddest part of it all is that all of the hard work from volunteers who > donated it for free, will eventually be a pay per view. > > We lost Gen Connect boards, then Surname search, now this. Are they hoping > that we all quit and go away? > > I havbe also noticed that the archives for the State of Nevada, that we NOT > donated to USGenWeb, have been moved to another location other than the one > I was given. The one I work on is a mirror site. If you think that doesn't > make me nervous, you're crazy! > > Just my two cents worth. > > Patricia Scott > SC Nevada > Richard M. Howland ILGenWeb State Coordinator Mailto:RichPump@wf.net ICQ # 898319
On Thu, 15 May 2003, Connie Snyder wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I thought I would pass this along to you. I was approached by > someone wanting to use a cemetery index that we have posted on my > county site. It's for findagrave.com. I refused for two reasons. > First, the person who walked and submitted the index isn't > reachable now and cannot give her permission. Second, we have a > state-wide policy that people can copy the information for > personal uses only. They should link to our information instead > of copying it to another webpage. > > Do we have a national policy about this kind of thing? I know > that the Archives does. Our state put a policy in some time ago. > Would this be something that should be suggested for all county > sites? Anybody can copy data from the Texas archives to their county web site or private web site as long as they get permission from the submitter. The county web sites can give to whoever they choose, assuming that the submitter agrees. David 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/
Yes, you can get a copy of the full agreement by just asking the NC for it. The need to discuss the future of the Project, which should include the organizational structure is very simple: The AB has very little authority, yet the members of the AB are those who stand responsible in case of a lawsuit. No money in the Project? That hasn't stopped people from suing others before. Burden of proof on the one(s) who files? Yes. If the case proceeds to court and the Project "wins" the other party will probably have to pay all attorney fees? Yes. BUT, what happens if a decision goes the other way? Who has to pay? The governing body....which we actually do not have, but which will be looked upon by the courts as the Advisory Board. So, is restructuring something that should be discussed? Yes. Should the Advisory Board be given more authority? If you want them to stand responsible for the actions of others.....as in copyright violations, libelous statements made, actions taken to deliberately harm the reputation of a Project member and the AB doing nothing because it cannot..........the answer is "yes". If you don't want to given them any more authority, then disband the Advisory Board; or provide them and the Project with insurance coverage; or be sure that each Advisory Board member knows that they can either trust to luck, or take out a personal liability policy at least during the time they serve. And, the quote from one agent on the type of insurance that we would need....$2,000 per year. On line, on a site that I checked in regard to "unincorporated non-profit association", was the statement that such insurance "averages" $3,000 per year. Furthermore, it is highly recommended that IF insurance is taken out, the best thing the organization can do is either incorporate to an LLC (which I don't know what is), or register in some State that has adopted laws giving "unincorporated non-profit associations" basically the same protection that is given a corporation. And, the fact of the AB's vulnerability is not tied to any hosting agreement. It has been vulnerable ever since the AB was established, during the short period of time the AB had from the time the agreement was actually shown to us and the time it was signed, and is still existing even as you read this. Phyllis Rippee SW/SC CC Representative
--Boundary_(ID_jmcOJor8tllCY7WGY5PslA) Content-type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-72974003; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Unfortunately, by "stealing" one post out of dozens, it's far too easy to give an incomplete and perhaps inaccurate picture of the situation. There's no context. If read properly, the "half out of the bag" does NOT refer to half of the hosting agreement being out of the bag. The entire hosting agreement is available to anyone that chooses to read it -- simply email Richard Harrison and ask for it. He's made that post publicly and on several lists. The agreement may not be posted publicly, but any USGWP member who wishes may have a copy. But if you've requested the agreement, and read it, then you know all there is to know about it. That's all there is -- one reason for having a written agreement, by the way. No question about what is expected, as opposed to the unwritten, oral understanding that had been in existence for so long. What isn't apparent without the rest of the discussion to give perspective is that the AB is discussing the disposition of the very motion that raised so much ruckus on this list -- whether to establish a separate private email list to discuss the future organization of the USGWP. Possibly reorganizing the USGWP *was* something that needed to be considered when the hosting agreement was up in the air -- what if Ancestry/MyFamily demanded control of the project? What if they demanded a spot on the AB for a representative of their own? What if they demanded veto rights over project elections, or AB decisions? What if, what if, what if? If Ancestry/MyFamily had made such demands, reorganizing the structure of the project might have been the only way to *keep* them from effectively "owning" it. With the hosting agreement signed, these "what ifs" have disappeared -- which, I imagine, is why Tim would comment that the only reason to have another motion would be to clarify why structural changes would be considered in the first place. The reasons why, and possible new structures of, the USGWP would be the items still "in the bag" (I don't care for that phrase, incidentally), and not made known or discussed with the organization at large as of yet. Admittedly, I haven't been on the board for very long, but I haven't seen any sinister conspiracy to take over the world and do some kind of harm to the CC's that are the backbone of this project. Maybe I just haven't been given the secret password yet <g>. But I don't think it's productive to take bits and pieces of long discussions and try to see plots and plans in them. Almost *anything* can be twisted a thousand ways to Sunday if it suits someone to do so. Angie Rayfield NCGenWeb Personnel Coordinator/ASC SE/MA CC Representative At 01:15 AM 5/15/2003 -1000, you wrote: >What is the other half? What is it that we still don't know >about this agreement, and why the USGenWeb Project needs to >consider reorganization? > >Please note the copyright violation below. Yes, I stole it from >board-l. > >David > > BOARD-L Archives > > From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> > Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] VOTE - MOTION 03-11 > Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 20:26:05 -0400 > ><SNIP> > >An aside to the Tombstone Project and the other SP - Archives - these >groups were not left out on purpose, they just weren't thought of in terms >of day to day life of the Project. > >The private email list is the SC list - except I doubt all SCs/ASCs are >subbed there for there has been no roll call there for at least 2 years. >Other than looking at the Who's Who - and wondering how up to date it is - >for if the SCs don't inform the webmaster of a change, she probably doesn't >know of it. > >The SC list is archived and the membership can read it fairly soon after >messages are posted there. > >Since the cat is already 1/2 out of the bag - with the contents of the Hosting >Agreement known by most anyone that wants to know it - the only reason to >have another motion would be to clarify why in tandem with the Hosting >Agreement - the AB would even consider broaching the subject of Project >reorganization. > >Tim --Boundary_(ID_jmcOJor8tllCY7WGY5PslA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-72974003 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release Date: 5/13/2003 --Boundary_(ID_jmcOJor8tllCY7WGY5PslA)--