On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Angie Rayfield wrote: > > > > >> > >> If I remember correctly, the Archives Project and the > >Tombstone Project > >> are the only actual special projects recognized by the > >USGenWeb Project, > >> and from what I've seen, they're both still linked. Neither Census > >> Project is actually recognized as being part of the USGenWeb Project, > >> and that's been the case for years. > >> > >> Angie > >> > > > >No argument here. > > > >So why were the links to both census projects removed from the main > >USGenWeb page, and why wasn't there some discussion of it in public? > > Hmm, but you could as easily turn that question around -- why should > there have ever been links to the census projects on the USGW main page? > Neither is recognized as a special project of the USGW Project. Useful, > yes, but despite the use of the project name, neither is part of the > project. The only link on the front page now is to the census image > portion of the Archives, which *is* recognized by the USGW Project. > > It makes more sense to me to have removed the links. Why should be main > USGW page link to groups that aren't actually associated with our > project? There's no link on the main page for the Family Group Sheet > project, which is working to be accepted as an official project within > the USGWP. Why should the unofficial census projects get a link? > > Angie > I believe there was a motion passed at the time, to include both links. It was all done in public, to the best of my memory. 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/

David is right, there was a vote and we decided to keep links to both CPs. They bylaws call for a CP and there has been an ongoing battle to bring the two CPs to some sort of amicable affiliation. It has become clear to me that is never going to happen. My opinion is that we should prominently link to both. While you say that neither is a part of USGW, I believe the people involved in both would adamantly disagree. They consider themselves active USGW members who are doing this work for USGW and for researchers everywhere. Neither has violated the bylaws, though both have made mistakes. It is time to accept the fact that the two CPs will never be united (at least not in our lifetime), but it is important to recognize them as valid contributors to USGW. Pam -----Original Message----- From: David W. Morgan [mailto:dmorgan@efn.org] Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 5:47 PM To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [STATE-COORD] Re: [BOARD-L] Motion 03-25 NO ADJOURNMENT On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Angie Rayfield wrote: > > > > >> > >> If I remember correctly, the Archives Project and the > >Tombstone Project > >> are the only actual special projects recognized by the > >USGenWeb Project, > >> and from what I've seen, they're both still linked. Neither Census > >> Project is actually recognized as being part of the USGenWeb Project, > >> and that's been the case for years. > >> > >> Angie > >> > > > >No argument here. > > > >So why were the links to both census projects removed from the main > >USGenWeb page, and why wasn't there some discussion of it in public? > > Hmm, but you could as easily turn that question around -- why should > there have ever been links to the census projects on the USGW main page? > Neither is recognized as a special project of the USGW Project. Useful, > yes, but despite the use of the project name, neither is part of the > project. The only link on the front page now is to the census image > portion of the Archives, which *is* recognized by the USGW Project. > > It makes more sense to me to have removed the links. Why should be main > USGW page link to groups that aren't actually associated with our > project? There's no link on the main page for the Family Group Sheet > project, which is working to be accepted as an official project within > the USGWP. Why should the unofficial census projects get a link? > > Angie > I believe there was a motion passed at the time, to include both links. It was all done in public, to the best of my memory. 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/

> > I believe there was a motion passed at the time, to include both > links. > > It was all done in public, to the best of my memory. > Yup, but the motion didn't specify front page links, only that they should both be linked to, and basically they should recieve equal billing. They both have links, and they're linked to from the same area of the special projects page. To me, that is in accordance with the motion that the AB passed. Some of the arguments to put the links back on the front page I'm afraid don't make sense to me. I've seen the comment that neither project has violated the bylaws (although you might could point out that since neither is really part of USGW, there's not really a way of knowing if they violate the bylaws -- they're not covered by them), that both projects are made up of USGWP members, and that the projects provide a benefit to the researcher. All that's true, but is it fair to other special projects to say that that's all you need to do? I don't think the Tombstone Project got a link under those conditions, or the Kidz Project, the Events Project, and so on. I *know* that the Family Group Sheet Project didn't. In fact, there's no link to the Family Group Sheet Project now that I see, because it hasn't yet been accepted by USGWP as an official special project. But it's in compliance with the bylaws, is made up of USGWP members, and is providing a benefit to the researchers. Shoot, the FGS has even asked to be recognized as a project -- I don't believe either census project has. To me, if you're going to argue that the unofficial census projects should have a link from the front page, then you also be in favor of putting all the official projects on the front page, as well as the trying-to-become-official projects. It's not fair to give special dispensations to some groups while making the others jump through hoops. Angie