Ok Yank, er half a-- yank, y'all gonna force me to git seros har. Don't think that it is a lack of interest. I think if a definitive survey of USGenWeb Project members is done, many -perhaps a majority - are "professional" genealogists who voluntarily share their efforts with others and often to their own financial discomfort. North Carolina cc's include folks from all walks of life who share a common goal...some who don't think twice about purchasing thousands of dollars worth of equipment and services for their page, and others who depend solely upon a few dollars from their social security or disability check to maintain their page. My opinion is that the USGenWeb bylaws as written accommodate all our interests in that the onus is placed squarely on state and local coordinators to comply with USGenWeb rules and applicable Federal, State, and Local laws. And, the bylaws relegate unrestricted hosting choice to the individual coordinators. Should the USGenWeb Project amend our bylaws to restrict server choices? My opinion is no. For example, I recently fielded a "user" complaint about one of our NC county pages that "cigarette advertisements" - in Tobacco Country no less - on the page. The only way to prevent "pop-up" ads is to purchase web space...since all "free" providers condition their service upon an agreement to advertise in one form or another. Ain't no free lunch! 'Nother complaint received was from a lady raisin' h--- 'cause I didn't post all the county marriage records on the page...since they were in book form. My answer was, that didn't satisfy the lady, was that the book was copyrighted and that no one had volunteered to re-transcribe the records so that they could be legally placed on the page. Didn't tell her, but a "volunteer" would have to purchase the microfilm reel, find a microfilm reader, and scan or transcribe the data at considerable expense. Ending my musings, I don't think we should set about restricting our state and local coordinators any more than we already have. And when suspected violations occur, my opinion is that it is a resolution matter for the AB and not for us to decide. Regards, Paul Buckley, NC ASC p.s. George, fyi. I went off to Eli-noise and married one of them Catholic Yankees from Chicargo. She larned to say y'all after a few years. ----- Original Message ----- From: George Waller <George@Waller.Org> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 10:48 PM Subject: [STATE-COORD] (Fwd) Re: IAGenWeb > Fellow S/ACs, > The following is an email I received today which makes me think > twice about what has gone on with KSGenWeb (?), TNGenWeb, > PAGenWeb and IAGenWeb. Please read it then I will add some > more comments. > > >George: What this seems to me is all these folks are saying that no > >state can have their own server unless ONE person agrees to pay > >for it. That's a pretty big expense for one person. > > >So that pretty much leaves everyone having to use Rootsweb, > >doesn't it? > > >What Iowa is doing seems to me to be the same thing Rootsweb > >used to do when they asked for donations. I don't see the difference > >here. > > Sounds sensible to me. The results of the straw poll of the past few > days is hard to analyze. A reasonable number of respondents said > that they felt IAGenWeb was not acting in the best interest of > USGWP. But that was before some found out that other states had > already started soliciting money. Another reasonable number of > respondents said they had concerns about putting all our resources > on Rootsweb servers and that soliciting funds should be considered. > > Several mentioned changing the bylaws. > > This is my latest thinking. We (the USGWP) should not encourage > states to start their own servers, but if they do so they should take the > strictist care to not mess up on soliciting funds. However.... we should > amend the bylaws to say that CCs/LCs/TCs may NOT solicit funds for > whatever reason; including using their own server. > > I won't ask a straw poll since the great plurality of SC's and ASC's did > not respond to the last poll which leads me to believe that there is not > a lot of concern about this subject. > > Respectfully, George > >