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> > > > > > > > > > >

I know but that is what we have been doing.... Pat ----- Original Message ----- From: "Derick S. Hartshorn" <derickh@charter.net> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 8:35 PM Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] NCGenNet server problems > 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> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >