Apology accepted. :-) Thank you. Ellen At 09:51 PM 12/22/2002 -0500, you wrote: >Greetings y'all and especially Ellen, > >After a careful review of all my emails and discussions with several folks, >It is apparent that I owe y'all an apology for my snide outburst on this >list a few days ago. > >While there is no real excuse for my premature reaction, I was the primary >and/or copied recipient of over three hundred emails in three days regarding >an issue with a current NC CC and a former NC CC. Most of the emails had a >multiple carbon copy list and many copies were sent to our two state lists >that I administer, this list, and even a NC county list or two. In a big >hurry to read the messages, it was difficult to determine who said what >about who. Perhaps my best response should have been no response. > >Too, perhaps it would be best if once a matter is before the AB we should >all - me included - refrain from discussing it publicly. > >Hope everyone has a happy holiday season. > >Regards, > >Paul Buckley, >NCGenWeb ASC

At 10:43 PM 12/22/02, Derick S. Hartshorn wrote: >and partnerships < http://webpages.charter.net/derickh/file-7.pdf > Should have read < http://webpages.charter.net/derickh/file-9.pdf > Other file numbers, from 1 to 8 containing substantiation to claims the leadership has been trying to make known Derick S. Hartshorn NCGenWeb State Coordinator nc@usgenweb.org Visit the NC home page at: http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncgenweb/

I'd like to put my two-cents in before what Paul is referring to reaches a confrontation stage that nobody intends or wants. The NCGenWeb Project has been under attack for a long time. Any reaction Paul may have expressed is more than likely, a bi-product of our on-going turmoil. Some folks have expressed surprise to learn that our Project leads the nation in the number of grievances filed. We discovered that one determined person can form associations < http://webpages.charter.net/derickh/file-7.pdf > and partnerships < http://webpages.charter.net/derickh/file-7.pdf > for the sole purpose of making a power grab. The NCGenWeb project has been subjected to the divisive forces of a single association composed of a couple folks. We have been trying to get the word out--for five years. Elizabeth Harris, Sharon Williamson and now me, SCs for this Project, have been in the crosshairs of some very disruptive folks. Many who have crossed their paths have been recipients of frightening threats, however veiled. One objective is to get the word out and let the rest of this Project what can happen when you let your guard down. Our primary objective is to gain the support of the Advisory Board in Protecting our Project. Please forgive Paul. He is the greatest Asst. SC anyone could hope for. If he raised any hackles, lets not have anyone making something of this that it isn't. Derick S. Hartshorn NCGenWeb State Coordinator nc@usgenweb.org At 09:51 PM 12/22/02, Paul Buckley wrote: >Greetings y'all and especially Ellen, > >After a careful review of all my emails and discussions with several folks, >It is apparent that I owe y'all an apology for my snide outburst on this >list a few days ago. > >While there is no real excuse for my premature reaction, I was the primary >and/or copied recipient of over three hundred emails in three days regarding >an issue with a current NC CC and a former NC CC. Most of the emails had a >multiple carbon copy list and many copies were sent to our two state lists >that I administer, this list, and even a NC county list or two. In a big >hurry to read the messages, it was difficult to determine who said what >about who. Perhaps my best response should have been no response. > >Too, perhaps it would be best if once a matter is before the AB we should >all - me included - refrain from discussing it publicly. > >Hope everyone has a happy holiday season. > >Regards, > >Paul Buckley, >NCGenWeb ASC

Greetings y'all and especially Ellen, After a careful review of all my emails and discussions with several folks, It is apparent that I owe y'all an apology for my snide outburst on this list a few days ago. While there is no real excuse for my premature reaction, I was the primary and/or copied recipient of over three hundred emails in three days regarding an issue with a current NC CC and a former NC CC. Most of the emails had a multiple carbon copy list and many copies were sent to our two state lists that I administer, this list, and even a NC county list or two. In a big hurry to read the messages, it was difficult to determine who said what about who. Perhaps my best response should have been no response. Too, perhaps it would be best if once a matter is before the AB we should all - me included - refrain from discussing it publicly. Hope everyone has a happy holiday season. Regards, Paul Buckley, NCGenWeb ASC

At 10:01 PM 12/21/02, legacy wrote: >Has anyone been checking the rootsweb directory for each of the states and >counties lately? > >Ya know it is really depressing to look at the ability to search ALL of the >census records for the state of Nevada through them for a fee, while we all >struggle away trying to get our counties and state info online. > >sheesh > >Pat The alternative is to get together and do some transcribing we can call our own. --Derick NC SC >----- Original Message ----- >From: "George Waller" <George@Waller.Org> >To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 7:34 AM >Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] NCGenNet server problems > > > > The only complain that I feel competent to address is the complaint that > > the USGenWeb Project is not mentioned more prominently. I feel > > that the numerous references to MSGenWeb and the existing mentions > > and logos of USGenWeb are ample indication that MS considers itself > > a strongly connected member of USGenWeb. Maybe putting the USGenWeb > > logo at the top of the page would make a stronger statement but that is > > just an idle suggestion since if we were to examine other state pages >there > > is no telling what we would see. > > George > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Ellen Pack" <e.j.pack@telocity.com> > > To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 10:07 AM > > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] NCGenNet server problems > > > > > > > Paul, I am totally at a loss to explain the remarks you have made, or >even > > > your reason for making them. I find it difficult to even respond, >because > > > to be perfectly honest I think you're so far off the mark it's not >funny. > > > > > > Additionally, I will not place our state, of which we are very proud, in >a > > > defensive position. I don't think we have anything to defend. Could we > > > make improvements? Yes, I am certain of that. This is a work in > > progress. > > > > > > There are some rather serious allegations in your note, but no >specifics, > > > no evidence. I can't find anything in the By-Laws to back up your > > remarks, > > > such as some rule that all material must be submitted to the USGW >Archives > > > even if the submitters don't want it there. Our policy is that the > > > submitter owns the material, so he chooses where he places his > > > material. There is no pressure to place or not place anywhere. If you > > > find fault with that, perhaps you can change the By-Laws. > > > > > > Please state specific pages, incidents, names, dates, etc., and perhaps >I > > > can address them individually, and ease your mind. It is, after all, >very > > > nice that you're so concerned about the project that you would go to >this > > > extreme to see that one state improves itself, especially when your own > > > state is experiencing so many problems. That's very unselfish of you. > > > > > > As for editing your registry, I have no idea what you're talking about > > > there either. Perhaps some kind person can explain the coding that > > > Netscape Communicator automatically uses, and tell me what I can do >about > > > it. I receive notes from researchers on a regular basis, so I don't >know > > > about the blocked addy you mentioned. If there is a coding error > > > somewhere, please point it out so I can make the correction. > > > > > > Re your state's difficulties, talk to someone else about that. My >remarks > > > to Derick over the past couple of days expressed my feeling that a >kinder, > > > gentler approach to volunteers who have found themselves between a rock > > and > > > a hard place would be a better route to go. I applaud Derick for > > > rethinking his position, and stating so. > > > > > > I would like to invite every SC and the AB to visit MSGW, and decide for > > > himself. I will not touch the pages, so what you will see is what Paul > > > saw. Please take a minute to check out our What's new Page. Or five > > > minutes. It's quite lengthy, and I have more to add right now, though I > > > will hold off so you will know I have not altered the pages. > > > > > > If we are found to be not in compliance with the By-Laws, or if there is >a > > > general consensus that MSGW is not in keeping with the goals of this > > > project, please say so right here on this list, and be specific. I will > > > listen carefully, and do what I can to make adjustments as necessary. > > > > > > I can't close without saying that if I were to take any offense to your > > > remarks, it would be out of respect for our CCs. They are, as a whole, > > the > > > greatest group of CCs anywhere. They are friendly, hard-working, > > > respectful, cooperative, concerned, and supportive of one another. Like > > > any state, some have wonderful pages, some do not. But there is never a > > > harsh word on our lists, and we accomplish that without any complicated > > > wordy by-laws, rules, or demands. We have little more than the most >basic > > > guidelines, along with recommendations. We have never had a need for a > > > grievance committee, page police, regional ASCs, etc., and I never, >never > > > mention specific CC names unless my remarks are positive in nature. > > > > > > Looking forward to hearing from everyone, whether the comments are > > positive > > > or critical. I am always happy to learn of errors, so they can be > > corrected. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Ellen > > > > > > > > > At 01:59 AM 12/18/2002 -0500, you wrote: > > > >Ellen and Derick, > > > > > > > >Have a few thoughts about the messages y'all have posted to the state > > > >coordinator's list. > > > > > > > >Ellen, I am not happy with the MSGenWeb Project Page(s) in that y'all > > seem > > > >to be moving further and further away from being a USGenWeb Project > > > >Page to a "catch-all" for individuals and other web-based genealogy > > > >projects. You no longer identify your state page as a part of the > > > >USGenWeb Project but list "Genealogy Links" to the USGenWeb and > > > >AHGP. Which one are you? > > > > > > > >None of the Mississippi counties that I visit put their stuff on the > > > >USGenWeb Archives and cc's often leave taking down all transcriptions > > with > > > >them leaving us researchers in the dark. > > > > > > > >Seems to me that the whole idea of the USGenWeb project is/was to >provide > > > >continuity. > > > > > > > >Perhaps most irritating about the MSGenWeb Project is that y'all have >it > > > >fixed so that every time I visit your page(s), the only way that I can > > > >remove you from my lists is by editing my registry. And, if I click on > > > >any email reply options the actual sender is blocked, consequently this > > > >message reply to the list. > > > > > > > >So that you will know my Mississippi interests, I was born and raised > > > >around Jackson and my ancestors were there years before statehood. Also > > > >had the opportunity and inclination to splatter Trent on Highway 49 >back > > > >in '65 and didn't take it...have always wondered if we wouldn't have >all > > > >these problems if I had seized the moment and spent my life at >Parchman. > > > >Derick, don't think you should be apologizing for your ultimatum. >Diane > > & > > > >Co. continually flaunt the NCGenWeb/USGenWeb projects by putting up > > > >multiple pages on multiple servers, none providing USGenWeb > > > >continuity...but always remaining within the USGenWeb bylaws. However, > > my > > > >understanding of the bylaws requires local projects to provide viable > > > >pages hosted at their own expense and accept that responsibility when > > > >signing on as members. > > > > > > > >Further, Diane's NCROOTS.COM pages are already exact duplicates of her > > > >USGenWeb Pages without the USGenWeb/NCGenWeb logos or affiliation and > > > >are/have remained accessible throughout the USGENCONNECT downtime. > > > > > > > >Appears that Diane doesn't really have an interest in maintaining pages > > > >for the USGenWeb/NCGenWeb Project. > > > > > > > >Maybe a little harsh. But, we all should know by now that ISP's and >web > > > >hosting services come and go. Even Ancestry/RootsWeb have frequent > > > >problems. And if a cc is not doing their job, the sc should simply take > > > >appropriate action without a lot of unproductive discussions. > > > > > > > >Bottom line, local project hosting is the responsibility of the cc who >is > > > >justified in contingency assistance from the state coordinator. I >agree > > > >with Ellen on that aspect. > > > > > > > >Moreover, lets not forget that RootsWeb, Inc. is not always > > > >reliable. Case in point is this evening when they were unexplainably > > down > > > >for a couple of hours. > > > > > > > >And to all. Obviously we can each find faults with our state and >county > > > >pages. Could we please get back to our original intent to facilitate > > free > > > >genealogical information exchange within the confines of our bylaws and > > > >stop all this jockeying and bickering? > > > > > > > >Regards, > > > > > > > >Paul Buckley, > > > >NCGenWeb ASC > > > <snip original note> > > > > > > > > > >

Has anyone been checking the rootsweb directory for each of the states and counties lately? Ya know it is really depressing to look at the ability to search ALL of the census records for the state of Nevada through them for a fee, while we all struggle away trying to get our counties and state info online. sheesh Pat ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Waller" <George@Waller.Org> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 7:34 AM Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] NCGenNet server problems > The only complain that I feel competent to address is the complaint that > the USGenWeb Project is not mentioned more prominently. I feel > that the numerous references to MSGenWeb and the existing mentions > and logos of USGenWeb are ample indication that MS considers itself > a strongly connected member of USGenWeb. Maybe putting the USGenWeb > logo at the top of the page would make a stronger statement but that is > just an idle suggestion since if we were to examine other state pages there > is no telling what we would see. > George > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ellen Pack" <e.j.pack@telocity.com> > To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 10:07 AM > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] NCGenNet server problems > > > > Paul, I am totally at a loss to explain the remarks you have made, or even > > your reason for making them. I find it difficult to even respond, because > > to be perfectly honest I think you're so far off the mark it's not funny. > > > > Additionally, I will not place our state, of which we are very proud, in a > > defensive position. I don't think we have anything to defend. Could we > > make improvements? Yes, I am certain of that. This is a work in > progress. > > > > There are some rather serious allegations in your note, but no specifics, > > no evidence. I can't find anything in the By-Laws to back up your > remarks, > > such as some rule that all material must be submitted to the USGW Archives > > even if the submitters don't want it there. Our policy is that the > > submitter owns the material, so he chooses where he places his > > material. There is no pressure to place or not place anywhere. If you > > find fault with that, perhaps you can change the By-Laws. > > > > Please state specific pages, incidents, names, dates, etc., and perhaps I > > can address them individually, and ease your mind. It is, after all, very > > nice that you're so concerned about the project that you would go to this > > extreme to see that one state improves itself, especially when your own > > state is experiencing so many problems. That's very unselfish of you. > > > > As for editing your registry, I have no idea what you're talking about > > there either. Perhaps some kind person can explain the coding that > > Netscape Communicator automatically uses, and tell me what I can do about > > it. I receive notes from researchers on a regular basis, so I don't know > > about the blocked addy you mentioned. If there is a coding error > > somewhere, please point it out so I can make the correction. > > > > Re your state's difficulties, talk to someone else about that. My remarks > > to Derick over the past couple of days expressed my feeling that a kinder, > > gentler approach to volunteers who have found themselves between a rock > and > > a hard place would be a better route to go. I applaud Derick for > > rethinking his position, and stating so. > > > > I would like to invite every SC and the AB to visit MSGW, and decide for > > himself. I will not touch the pages, so what you will see is what Paul > > saw. Please take a minute to check out our What's new Page. Or five > > minutes. It's quite lengthy, and I have more to add right now, though I > > will hold off so you will know I have not altered the pages. > > > > If we are found to be not in compliance with the By-Laws, or if there is a > > general consensus that MSGW is not in keeping with the goals of this > > project, please say so right here on this list, and be specific. I will > > listen carefully, and do what I can to make adjustments as necessary. > > > > I can't close without saying that if I were to take any offense to your > > remarks, it would be out of respect for our CCs. They are, as a whole, > the > > greatest group of CCs anywhere. They are friendly, hard-working, > > respectful, cooperative, concerned, and supportive of one another. Like > > any state, some have wonderful pages, some do not. But there is never a > > harsh word on our lists, and we accomplish that without any complicated > > wordy by-laws, rules, or demands. We have little more than the most basic > > guidelines, along with recommendations. We have never had a need for a > > grievance committee, page police, regional ASCs, etc., and I never, never > > mention specific CC names unless my remarks are positive in nature. > > > > Looking forward to hearing from everyone, whether the comments are > positive > > or critical. I am always happy to learn of errors, so they can be > corrected. > > > > Thanks, > > Ellen > > > > > > At 01:59 AM 12/18/2002 -0500, you wrote: > > >Ellen and Derick, > > > > > >Have a few thoughts about the messages y'all have posted to the state > > >coordinator's list. > > > > > >Ellen, I am not happy with the MSGenWeb Project Page(s) in that y'all > seem > > >to be moving further and further away from being a USGenWeb Project > > >Page to a "catch-all" for individuals and other web-based genealogy > > >projects. You no longer identify your state page as a part of the > > >USGenWeb Project but list "Genealogy Links" to the USGenWeb and > > >AHGP. Which one are you? > > > > > >None of the Mississippi counties that I visit put their stuff on the > > >USGenWeb Archives and cc's often leave taking down all transcriptions > with > > >them leaving us researchers in the dark. > > > > > >Seems to me that the whole idea of the USGenWeb project is/was to provide > > >continuity. > > > > > >Perhaps most irritating about the MSGenWeb Project is that y'all have it > > >fixed so that every time I visit your page(s), the only way that I can > > >remove you from my lists is by editing my registry. And, if I click on > > >any email reply options the actual sender is blocked, consequently this > > >message reply to the list. > > > > > >So that you will know my Mississippi interests, I was born and raised > > >around Jackson and my ancestors were there years before statehood. Also > > >had the opportunity and inclination to splatter Trent on Highway 49 back > > >in '65 and didn't take it...have always wondered if we wouldn't have all > > >these problems if I had seized the moment and spent my life at Parchman. > > >Derick, don't think you should be apologizing for your ultimatum. Diane > & > > >Co. continually flaunt the NCGenWeb/USGenWeb projects by putting up > > >multiple pages on multiple servers, none providing USGenWeb > > >continuity...but always remaining within the USGenWeb bylaws. However, > my > > >understanding of the bylaws requires local projects to provide viable > > >pages hosted at their own expense and accept that responsibility when > > >signing on as members. > > > > > >Further, Diane's NCROOTS.COM pages are already exact duplicates of her > > >USGenWeb Pages without the USGenWeb/NCGenWeb logos or affiliation and > > >are/have remained accessible throughout the USGENCONNECT downtime. > > > > > >Appears that Diane doesn't really have an interest in maintaining pages > > >for the USGenWeb/NCGenWeb Project. > > > > > >Maybe a little harsh. But, we all should know by now that ISP's and web > > >hosting services come and go. Even Ancestry/RootsWeb have frequent > > >problems. And if a cc is not doing their job, the sc should simply take > > >appropriate action without a lot of unproductive discussions. > > > > > >Bottom line, local project hosting is the responsibility of the cc who is > > >justified in contingency assistance from the state coordinator. I agree > > >with Ellen on that aspect. > > > > > >Moreover, lets not forget that RootsWeb, Inc. is not always > > >reliable. Case in point is this evening when they were unexplainably > down > > >for a couple of hours. > > > > > >And to all. Obviously we can each find faults with our state and county > > >pages. Could we please get back to our original intent to facilitate > free > > >genealogical information exchange within the confines of our bylaws and > > >stop all this jockeying and bickering? > > > > > >Regards, > > > > > >Paul Buckley, > > >NCGenWeb ASC > > <snip original note> > > > > > >

Texas: Colorado 1850 Colorado 1860 Colorado 1870 Colorado 1880 Colorado 1900 Colorado 1910 Colorado 1920 John F. Schunk S-K Publications PO Box 8173 Wichita KS 67208-0173 PH 316-685-3201 FAX 316-685-6650 john@SKcensus.com http://www.SKcensus.com

Happy Holidays from the Penny Postcard Collection: http://www.us-genealogy.com/christmas2002.html Recent additions: FL page started 50 ND cards 40 KS cards 40 NV cards 140 CO cards 25 CA cards ...and a partridge in a pear tree!!! <g> Permission granted to forward this far and wide. Hint for the impatient or those with a slow modem: If you don't want to wait for the thumbnails to load, scroll down to the bottom of the page. As soon as all of the text loads, hit the "stop" button on your browser. Read the captions and decide what full sized cards you actually want to see. Click on the caption to see the card. Only those counties with postcards are listed. If a county is missing, I probably don't have a card from it. I am still assembling pages for a few states. Please be patient. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com

We all need to remind ourselves that we are a 'volunteer' organization. Having been involved with other volunteer organizations as both a volunteer and as a paid advisor, I know that you cannot supervise volunteers in the same way that you would supervise paid employees. Volunteers are very special people who are freely donating their time and resources to help others, no matter what organization they are involved in. As volunteers, we need to know that we are appreciated and that we can make mistakes without being afraid of someone yelling at us or telling us that we should 'know better'. We should be able to know that we have some flexibility in how we do our volunteer work. Anyone that supervises other volunteers needs to provide that flexibility to those volunteers. Let them know that they can ask for help at any time without fear of being belittled for not knowing the answer. Throw in a little fun along the way. That last is probably the most important part. If volunteering isn't enjoyable, then there's no sense in volunteering your time doing anything. Having a web server go down suddenly happens all the time on the web. If it's a case of equipment failure through no fault of the volunteer, then we need to work around that by putting up a message letting people know that there's a problem and offering temporary space elsewhere if it's needed. On the other hand, if a web server disappears altogether, then I feel we should assist in any way that we can in order to get the county site going again on another server. (don't forget to remind everyone to back up their files often.) That's my two-cents worth....... Connie

Sorry all.......... That particular distinction belongs to NE, which by the way, means Nebraska, not New England or North East, or whatever that region of the country is called. Though a lot of our settlers came by way of Missouri and points east. Our cc's are so good that I have very little to do beyond take credit for their hard work. I'm going to have to ask you all to keep that a secret. We have one particular cc who thinks it's her job to supply us all with books, articles, journals, etc. to transcribe for our OnLine Library. She thinks I'm too busy right now to transcribe anything, little knowing that there's only one book waiting for transcription in my pile. <g> Connie Phyllis Rippee wrote: > Well, some of my Rippees went to Mississippi and disappeared. > > 'Nuff said <g>. > > Phyllis > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Ellen Pack <e.j.pack@telocity.com> > To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: 18 December, 2002 1:32 PM > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Mississippi > > > At 01:18 PM 12/18/2002 -0600, Phyllis wrote: > > >Ellen, > > > > > >I do have to disagree with something you posted. It was in regard to > > >Mississippi having the best group of CCs anywhere. > > > > > >FYI: That distinction belongs to the CCs in Missouri. <grinning, ducking > > >and running> > > > > LOL! > > Oh, ok. Let's just call it a tie. > > > > Besides, I think at least one of our MS CCs is also in MO. <g> > > > > Ellen > > > > > >

Well, some of my Rippees went to Mississippi and disappeared. 'Nuff said <g>. Phyllis ----- Original Message ----- From: Ellen Pack <e.j.pack@telocity.com> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: 18 December, 2002 1:32 PM Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Mississippi > At 01:18 PM 12/18/2002 -0600, Phyllis wrote: > >Ellen, > > > >I do have to disagree with something you posted. It was in regard to > >Mississippi having the best group of CCs anywhere. > > > >FYI: That distinction belongs to the CCs in Missouri. <grinning, ducking > >and running> > > LOL! > Oh, ok. Let's just call it a tie. > > Besides, I think at least one of our MS CCs is also in MO. <g> > > Ellen > > >

Facetious? Illustration? Of what? I thought I had a sense of humor, but, alas, you've proven me wrong. Ellen At 01:43 PM 12/18/2002 -0500, you wrote: >Ellen and all, > >No offence was intended by my sarcastic and facetious response to this >thread. <snip>

At 01:18 PM 12/18/2002 -0600, Piglet wrote: >The confusion is caused, I'm sure, by someone accidentally using "MS" to >mean Missouri......which Ellen then innocently read as Mississippi. <g> I think I innocently read my name, too - three times. <g> >My great grandpa, however, was from Mississippi, so it must be right up >there somewhere. You obviously had a wonderful GGrandpa. Maybe he knew a couple of my GGrandpas.... :-) Ellen

At 01:18 PM 12/18/2002 -0600, Phyllis wrote: >Ellen, > >I do have to disagree with something you posted. It was in regard to >Mississippi having the best group of CCs anywhere. > >FYI: That distinction belongs to the CCs in Missouri. <grinning, ducking >and running> LOL! Oh, ok. Let's just call it a tie. Besides, I think at least one of our MS CCs is also in MO. <g> Ellen

Ellen and all, No offence was intended by my sarcastic and facetious response to this thread. Intended was to illustrate that we each have different styles, interpretations, and preferences about what we present on our project pages and that our differences often turn into ugly confrontations. Seems too, that the confrontations have a cycle of escalation into exaggerated and/or unfounded allegations, until the parties tire before resolving the issue. The cycle often starts over by someone blaming the cause of a new issue on a previous or unrelated issue. The other point is that each county coordinator is free to choose their page host and content with very limited USGenWeb bylaw restrictions. But, the freedom is abused when the page is unavailable due to unreliability of the chosen webhosting provider or when a departing cc is so selfish that they take all the contributed files with them. Am sure that we have all experienced these situations and the SC has had to deal with them as appropriate. Again, I would like to see us get to the point where we always help each other resolve project issues through civil and constructive "on-list" discussion and keep personal and sensitive issues private and "off-list". Regards, Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Ellen Pack <e.j.pack@telocity.com> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 10:07 AM Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] NCGenNet server problems > Paul, I am totally at a loss to explain the remarks you have made, or even > your reason for making them. I find it difficult to even respond, because > to be perfectly honest I think you're so far off the mark it's not funny. > > Additionally, I will not place our state, of which we are very proud, in a > defensive position. I don't think we have anything to defend. Could we > make improvements? Yes, I am certain of that. This is a work in progress. > > There are some rather serious allegations in your note, but no specifics, > no evidence. I can't find anything in the By-Laws to back up your remarks, > such as some rule that all material must be submitted to the USGW Archives > even if the submitters don't want it there. Our policy is that the > submitter owns the material, so he chooses where he places his > material. There is no pressure to place or not place anywhere. If you > find fault with that, perhaps you can change the By-Laws. > > Please state specific pages, incidents, names, dates, etc., and perhaps I > can address them individually, and ease your mind. It is, after all, very > nice that you're so concerned about the project that you would go to this > extreme to see that one state improves itself, especially when your own > state is experiencing so many problems. That's very unselfish of you. > > As for editing your registry, I have no idea what you're talking about > there either. Perhaps some kind person can explain the coding that > Netscape Communicator automatically uses, and tell me what I can do about > it. I receive notes from researchers on a regular basis, so I don't know > about the blocked addy you mentioned. If there is a coding error > somewhere, please point it out so I can make the correction. > > Re your state's difficulties, talk to someone else about that. My remarks > to Derick over the past couple of days expressed my feeling that a kinder, > gentler approach to volunteers who have found themselves between a rock and > a hard place would be a better route to go. I applaud Derick for > rethinking his position, and stating so. > > I would like to invite every SC and the AB to visit MSGW, and decide for > himself. I will not touch the pages, so what you will see is what Paul > saw. Please take a minute to check out our What's new Page. Or five > minutes. It's quite lengthy, and I have more to add right now, though I > will hold off so you will know I have not altered the pages. > > If we are found to be not in compliance with the By-Laws, or if there is a > general consensus that MSGW is not in keeping with the goals of this > project, please say so right here on this list, and be specific. I will > listen carefully, and do what I can to make adjustments as necessary. > > I can't close without saying that if I were to take any offense to your > remarks, it would be out of respect for our CCs. They are, as a whole, the > greatest group of CCs anywhere. They are friendly, hard-working, > respectful, cooperative, concerned, and supportive of one another. Like > any state, some have wonderful pages, some do not. But there is never a > harsh word on our lists, and we accomplish that without any complicated > wordy by-laws, rules, or demands. We have little more than the most basic > guidelines, along with recommendations. We have never had a need for a > grievance committee, page police, regional ASCs, etc., and I never, never > mention specific CC names unless my remarks are positive in nature. > > Looking forward to hearing from everyone, whether the comments are positive > or critical. I am always happy to learn of errors, so they can be corrected. > > Thanks, > Ellen > > > At 01:59 AM 12/18/2002 -0500, you wrote: > >Ellen and Derick, > > > >Have a few thoughts about the messages y'all have posted to the state > >coordinator's list. > > > >Ellen, I am not happy with the MSGenWeb Project Page(s) in that y'all seem > >to be moving further and further away from being a USGenWeb Project > >Page to a "catch-all" for individuals and other web-based genealogy > >projects. You no longer identify your state page as a part of the > >USGenWeb Project but list "Genealogy Links" to the USGenWeb and > >AHGP. Which one are you? > > > >None of the Mississippi counties that I visit put their stuff on the > >USGenWeb Archives and cc's often leave taking down all transcriptions with > >them leaving us researchers in the dark. > > > >Seems to me that the whole idea of the USGenWeb project is/was to provide > >continuity. > > > >Perhaps most irritating about the MSGenWeb Project is that y'all have it > >fixed so that every time I visit your page(s), the only way that I can > >remove you from my lists is by editing my registry. And, if I click on > >any email reply options the actual sender is blocked, consequently this > >message reply to the list. > > > >So that you will know my Mississippi interests, I was born and raised > >around Jackson and my ancestors were there years before statehood. Also > >had the opportunity and inclination to splatter Trent on Highway 49 back > >in '65 and didn't take it...have always wondered if we wouldn't have all > >these problems if I had seized the moment and spent my life at Parchman. > >Derick, don't think you should be apologizing for your ultimatum. Diane & > >Co. continually flaunt the NCGenWeb/USGenWeb projects by putting up > >multiple pages on multiple servers, none providing USGenWeb > >continuity...but always remaining within the USGenWeb bylaws. However, my > >understanding of the bylaws requires local projects to provide viable > >pages hosted at their own expense and accept that responsibility when > >signing on as members. > > > >Further, Diane's NCROOTS.COM pages are already exact duplicates of her > >USGenWeb Pages without the USGenWeb/NCGenWeb logos or affiliation and > >are/have remained accessible throughout the USGENCONNECT downtime. > > > >Appears that Diane doesn't really have an interest in maintaining pages > >for the USGenWeb/NCGenWeb Project. > > > >Maybe a little harsh. But, we all should know by now that ISP's and web > >hosting services come and go. Even Ancestry/RootsWeb have frequent > >problems. And if a cc is not doing their job, the sc should simply take > >appropriate action without a lot of unproductive discussions. > > > >Bottom line, local project hosting is the responsibility of the cc who is > >justified in contingency assistance from the state coordinator. I agree > >with Ellen on that aspect. > > > >Moreover, lets not forget that RootsWeb, Inc. is not always > >reliable. Case in point is this evening when they were unexplainably down > >for a couple of hours. > > > >And to all. Obviously we can each find faults with our state and county > >pages. Could we please get back to our original intent to facilitate free > >genealogical information exchange within the confines of our bylaws and > >stop all this jockeying and bickering? > > > >Regards, > > > >Paul Buckley, > >NCGenWeb ASC > <snip original note> > >

Ellen, I do have to disagree with something you posted. It was in regard to Mississippi having the best group of CCs anywhere. FYI: That distinction belongs to the CCs in Missouri. <grinning, ducking and running> May all who are subbed to this list have a Happy and Safe Holiday Season. Phyllis Rippee, CC Wright County, MO SW/SC CC Representative

The confusion is caused, I'm sure, by someone accidentally using "MS" to mean Missouri......which Ellen then innocently read as Mississippi. <g> My great grandpa, however, was from Mississippi, so it must be right up there somewhere. <ducking, running, high-fiving Phyllis, giggling madly all the way, dropping Santa shaped chocolate truffles in her trail to slow Ellen down> --pig On 12/18/2002 13:18, wchs@getgoin.net shared this thought: > Ellen, > > I do have to disagree with something you posted. It was in regard to > Mississippi having the best group of CCs anywhere. > > FYI: That distinction belongs to the CCs in Missouri. <grinning, ducking > and running> > > May all who are subbed to this list have a Happy and Safe Holiday Season. > > Phyllis Rippee, CC > Wright County, MO > SW/SC CC Representative >

You know I like collage football! Does that mean I can't like Collage basketball, baseball, ect? I went to USC, and thought it was great! Does that mean I can't root for Illinois, Texas, or Tennessee? I was born a Howland! But came from Varner's, Smith's, Thompson's, and West's. Do I have to choose? Richard... Richard M. Howland ILGenWeb State Coordinator Mailto:RichPump@wf.net ICQ # 898319

The only complain that I feel competent to address is the complaint that the USGenWeb Project is not mentioned more prominently. I feel that the numerous references to MSGenWeb and the existing mentions and logos of USGenWeb are ample indication that MS considers itself a strongly connected member of USGenWeb. Maybe putting the USGenWeb logo at the top of the page would make a stronger statement but that is just an idle suggestion since if we were to examine other state pages there is no telling what we would see. George ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ellen Pack" <e.j.pack@telocity.com> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 10:07 AM Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] NCGenNet server problems > Paul, I am totally at a loss to explain the remarks you have made, or even > your reason for making them. I find it difficult to even respond, because > to be perfectly honest I think you're so far off the mark it's not funny. > > Additionally, I will not place our state, of which we are very proud, in a > defensive position. I don't think we have anything to defend. Could we > make improvements? Yes, I am certain of that. This is a work in progress. > > There are some rather serious allegations in your note, but no specifics, > no evidence. I can't find anything in the By-Laws to back up your remarks, > such as some rule that all material must be submitted to the USGW Archives > even if the submitters don't want it there. Our policy is that the > submitter owns the material, so he chooses where he places his > material. There is no pressure to place or not place anywhere. If you > find fault with that, perhaps you can change the By-Laws. > > Please state specific pages, incidents, names, dates, etc., and perhaps I > can address them individually, and ease your mind. It is, after all, very > nice that you're so concerned about the project that you would go to this > extreme to see that one state improves itself, especially when your own > state is experiencing so many problems. That's very unselfish of you. > > As for editing your registry, I have no idea what you're talking about > there either. Perhaps some kind person can explain the coding that > Netscape Communicator automatically uses, and tell me what I can do about > it. I receive notes from researchers on a regular basis, so I don't know > about the blocked addy you mentioned. If there is a coding error > somewhere, please point it out so I can make the correction. > > Re your state's difficulties, talk to someone else about that. My remarks > to Derick over the past couple of days expressed my feeling that a kinder, > gentler approach to volunteers who have found themselves between a rock and > a hard place would be a better route to go. I applaud Derick for > rethinking his position, and stating so. > > I would like to invite every SC and the AB to visit MSGW, and decide for > himself. I will not touch the pages, so what you will see is what Paul > saw. Please take a minute to check out our What's new Page. Or five > minutes. It's quite lengthy, and I have more to add right now, though I > will hold off so you will know I have not altered the pages. > > If we are found to be not in compliance with the By-Laws, or if there is a > general consensus that MSGW is not in keeping with the goals of this > project, please say so right here on this list, and be specific. I will > listen carefully, and do what I can to make adjustments as necessary. > > I can't close without saying that if I were to take any offense to your > remarks, it would be out of respect for our CCs. They are, as a whole, the > greatest group of CCs anywhere. They are friendly, hard-working, > respectful, cooperative, concerned, and supportive of one another. Like > any state, some have wonderful pages, some do not. But there is never a > harsh word on our lists, and we accomplish that without any complicated > wordy by-laws, rules, or demands. We have little more than the most basic > guidelines, along with recommendations. We have never had a need for a > grievance committee, page police, regional ASCs, etc., and I never, never > mention specific CC names unless my remarks are positive in nature. > > Looking forward to hearing from everyone, whether the comments are positive > or critical. I am always happy to learn of errors, so they can be corrected. > > Thanks, > Ellen > > > At 01:59 AM 12/18/2002 -0500, you wrote: > >Ellen and Derick, > > > >Have a few thoughts about the messages y'all have posted to the state > >coordinator's list. > > > >Ellen, I am not happy with the MSGenWeb Project Page(s) in that y'all seem > >to be moving further and further away from being a USGenWeb Project > >Page to a "catch-all" for individuals and other web-based genealogy > >projects. You no longer identify your state page as a part of the > >USGenWeb Project but list "Genealogy Links" to the USGenWeb and > >AHGP. Which one are you? > > > >None of the Mississippi counties that I visit put their stuff on the > >USGenWeb Archives and cc's often leave taking down all transcriptions with > >them leaving us researchers in the dark. > > > >Seems to me that the whole idea of the USGenWeb project is/was to provide > >continuity. > > > >Perhaps most irritating about the MSGenWeb Project is that y'all have it > >fixed so that every time I visit your page(s), the only way that I can > >remove you from my lists is by editing my registry. And, if I click on > >any email reply options the actual sender is blocked, consequently this > >message reply to the list. > > > >So that you will know my Mississippi interests, I was born and raised > >around Jackson and my ancestors were there years before statehood. Also > >had the opportunity and inclination to splatter Trent on Highway 49 back > >in '65 and didn't take it...have always wondered if we wouldn't have all > >these problems if I had seized the moment and spent my life at Parchman. > >Derick, don't think you should be apologizing for your ultimatum. Diane & > >Co. continually flaunt the NCGenWeb/USGenWeb projects by putting up > >multiple pages on multiple servers, none providing USGenWeb > >continuity...but always remaining within the USGenWeb bylaws. However, my > >understanding of the bylaws requires local projects to provide viable > >pages hosted at their own expense and accept that responsibility when > >signing on as members. > > > >Further, Diane's NCROOTS.COM pages are already exact duplicates of her > >USGenWeb Pages without the USGenWeb/NCGenWeb logos or affiliation and > >are/have remained accessible throughout the USGENCONNECT downtime. > > > >Appears that Diane doesn't really have an interest in maintaining pages > >for the USGenWeb/NCGenWeb Project. > > > >Maybe a little harsh. But, we all should know by now that ISP's and web > >hosting services come and go. Even Ancestry/RootsWeb have frequent > >problems. And if a cc is not doing their job, the sc should simply take > >appropriate action without a lot of unproductive discussions. > > > >Bottom line, local project hosting is the responsibility of the cc who is > >justified in contingency assistance from the state coordinator. I agree > >with Ellen on that aspect. > > > >Moreover, lets not forget that RootsWeb, Inc. is not always > >reliable. Case in point is this evening when they were unexplainably down > >for a couple of hours. > > > >And to all. Obviously we can each find faults with our state and county > >pages. Could we please get back to our original intent to facilitate free > >genealogical information exchange within the confines of our bylaws and > >stop all this jockeying and bickering? > > > >Regards, > > > >Paul Buckley, > >NCGenWeb ASC > <snip original note> > >

Paul, I am totally at a loss to explain the remarks you have made, or even your reason for making them. I find it difficult to even respond, because to be perfectly honest I think you're so far off the mark it's not funny. Additionally, I will not place our state, of which we are very proud, in a defensive position. I don't think we have anything to defend. Could we make improvements? Yes, I am certain of that. This is a work in progress. There are some rather serious allegations in your note, but no specifics, no evidence. I can't find anything in the By-Laws to back up your remarks, such as some rule that all material must be submitted to the USGW Archives even if the submitters don't want it there. Our policy is that the submitter owns the material, so he chooses where he places his material. There is no pressure to place or not place anywhere. If you find fault with that, perhaps you can change the By-Laws. Please state specific pages, incidents, names, dates, etc., and perhaps I can address them individually, and ease your mind. It is, after all, very nice that you're so concerned about the project that you would go to this extreme to see that one state improves itself, especially when your own state is experiencing so many problems. That's very unselfish of you. As for editing your registry, I have no idea what you're talking about there either. Perhaps some kind person can explain the coding that Netscape Communicator automatically uses, and tell me what I can do about it. I receive notes from researchers on a regular basis, so I don't know about the blocked addy you mentioned. If there is a coding error somewhere, please point it out so I can make the correction. Re your state's difficulties, talk to someone else about that. My remarks to Derick over the past couple of days expressed my feeling that a kinder, gentler approach to volunteers who have found themselves between a rock and a hard place would be a better route to go. I applaud Derick for rethinking his position, and stating so. I would like to invite every SC and the AB to visit MSGW, and decide for himself. I will not touch the pages, so what you will see is what Paul saw. Please take a minute to check out our What's new Page. Or five minutes. It's quite lengthy, and I have more to add right now, though I will hold off so you will know I have not altered the pages. If we are found to be not in compliance with the By-Laws, or if there is a general consensus that MSGW is not in keeping with the goals of this project, please say so right here on this list, and be specific. I will listen carefully, and do what I can to make adjustments as necessary. I can't close without saying that if I were to take any offense to your remarks, it would be out of respect for our CCs. They are, as a whole, the greatest group of CCs anywhere. They are friendly, hard-working, respectful, cooperative, concerned, and supportive of one another. Like any state, some have wonderful pages, some do not. But there is never a harsh word on our lists, and we accomplish that without any complicated wordy by-laws, rules, or demands. We have little more than the most basic guidelines, along with recommendations. We have never had a need for a grievance committee, page police, regional ASCs, etc., and I never, never mention specific CC names unless my remarks are positive in nature. Looking forward to hearing from everyone, whether the comments are positive or critical. I am always happy to learn of errors, so they can be corrected. Thanks, Ellen At 01:59 AM 12/18/2002 -0500, you wrote: >Ellen and Derick, > >Have a few thoughts about the messages y'all have posted to the state >coordinator's list. > >Ellen, I am not happy with the MSGenWeb Project Page(s) in that y'all seem >to be moving further and further away from being a USGenWeb Project >Page to a "catch-all" for individuals and other web-based genealogy >projects. You no longer identify your state page as a part of the >USGenWeb Project but list "Genealogy Links" to the USGenWeb and >AHGP. Which one are you? > >None of the Mississippi counties that I visit put their stuff on the >USGenWeb Archives and cc's often leave taking down all transcriptions with >them leaving us researchers in the dark. > >Seems to me that the whole idea of the USGenWeb project is/was to provide >continuity. > >Perhaps most irritating about the MSGenWeb Project is that y'all have it >fixed so that every time I visit your page(s), the only way that I can >remove you from my lists is by editing my registry. And, if I click on >any email reply options the actual sender is blocked, consequently this >message reply to the list. > >So that you will know my Mississippi interests, I was born and raised >around Jackson and my ancestors were there years before statehood. Also >had the opportunity and inclination to splatter Trent on Highway 49 back >in '65 and didn't take it...have always wondered if we wouldn't have all >these problems if I had seized the moment and spent my life at Parchman. >Derick, don't think you should be apologizing for your ultimatum. Diane & >Co. continually flaunt the NCGenWeb/USGenWeb projects by putting up >multiple pages on multiple servers, none providing USGenWeb >continuity...but always remaining within the USGenWeb bylaws. However, my >understanding of the bylaws requires local projects to provide viable >pages hosted at their own expense and accept that responsibility when >signing on as members. > >Further, Diane's NCROOTS.COM pages are already exact duplicates of her >USGenWeb Pages without the USGenWeb/NCGenWeb logos or affiliation and >are/have remained accessible throughout the USGENCONNECT downtime. > >Appears that Diane doesn't really have an interest in maintaining pages >for the USGenWeb/NCGenWeb Project. > >Maybe a little harsh. But, we all should know by now that ISP's and web >hosting services come and go. Even Ancestry/RootsWeb have frequent >problems. And if a cc is not doing their job, the sc should simply take >appropriate action without a lot of unproductive discussions. > >Bottom line, local project hosting is the responsibility of the cc who is >justified in contingency assistance from the state coordinator. I agree >with Ellen on that aspect. > >Moreover, lets not forget that RootsWeb, Inc. is not always >reliable. Case in point is this evening when they were unexplainably down >for a couple of hours. > >And to all. Obviously we can each find faults with our state and county >pages. Could we please get back to our original intent to facilitate free >genealogical information exchange within the confines of our bylaws and >stop all this jockeying and bickering? > >Regards, > >Paul Buckley, >NCGenWeb ASC <snip original note>