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 ----- Original Message ----- From: Ellen Pack <e.j.pack@telocity.com> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 2:00 PM Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] NCGenNet server problems > At 11:12 AM 12/16/2002 -0500, Derick wrote: > ><snip> > >In an earlier response to Ellen, I noted that the page owner had placed a > >USGenNet redirect to explain the problem. > > I'm sorry, apparently I missed your earlier response, so I'm unable to comment. > > What I'm saying basically is that this is not a problem that effects only > one state, or even one project. But even if it did, it's not a time to > place more pressure on good CCs to do something they may not be able to do. > > It would, however, be a good time to support and assist them. Place a > notice on the state page, offer to help CCs find alternative temporary or > permanent space if they desire, encourage them to place notices on their > county lists, help them fend off complaints from researchers, and so forth. > > Times like this people need help, not a short "or else", and especially not > at this busy time of the year. I know you're concerned about the state, > and rightly so, but think of it in the long term. I know you don't want to > lose the sites and data temporarily, but would it be better to lose it all > permanently? > > Ellen > >

From one ASC to another -- Thank you, Paul, your last paragraph said it all. Happy holidays to one and all, Leona L. Gustafson COGenWeb ASC ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Buckley" <PaulDBuckley@worldnet.att.net> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 1:59 AM Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] NCGenNet server problems 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

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>

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> > >

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