I have been following this somewhat though some of the e-mails are really long to weed through. Here is what I have come up with... 1.) Is there a valid reason why all XXGenWeb sites aren't hosting with Rootsweb? If not, then we need to make a ruling that all sites host with Rootsweb. That would solve this entire debate. 2) If so, then we need make a ruling that XXGenWebs can collect funds to cover the costs of DNS and Server space. (which really shouldn't be all that much money. I handle websites professionally and know how much it should cost.) This should be the ONLY reason funds can be collected and once these funds are met per year, a notice should be posted on the page that quotas have been met, but please come back in January of the following year for future donations. Contact information should be taken down so that there isn't a chance of an errant check getting through. We could even allow funds to be collected for two years so that there isn't a chance of an overlap with no funds. Somebody in USGenWeb needs to be appointed to keep track of all of the funds coming in. (An unbiased party.) This would include copies of checks and accounting spreadsheets to keep track of credits and debits. (Wouldn't be all that hard. Excel is a wonderful tool.) 3.) If there is an invalid reason why someone doesn't want to use Rootsweb, then they, as volunteers, should supply the money. There should be no web campaigns soliciting funds and doing so would cause immediate expulsion from the project. (For instance, they don't like Rootsweb because Rootsweb called them a purple monkey in the past and they refuse to ever have anything to do with them. I know of people who feel this way and I think it is silly, but that's their business.) 4.) Has anyone thought of e-mailing all of the cc's of that state and asking if anyone was willing to sponsor a year's worth of DNS fees? I pay for some stuff for TXGenWeb out of my own pocket. I am a volunteer and I am more than happy to spend ten dollars making copies of a book in the library that I think will help my counties. I also subscribe to ancestry.com every year to help out my users. This is out of the goodness of my heart and I would never think of asking for a refund. It has always been made clear to me that I am a volunteer and I will never get money. If I have a problem with it, then all I have to do is give up my county for adoption. If David sent out an e-mail asking for a donation to help us keep our website, I would have no problem donating $5. I trust David enough to know that he would either send any extra fees back or save them for the next DNS registration. I think we need to get this whole debate in a clear light and wound down. It has gotten to the point where some people are repeating the same thing over and over and I don't feel we are getting anywhere. > -----Original Message----- > From: okgenweb@cox.net [mailto:okgenweb@cox.net] > Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 11:31 AM > To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Unofficial poll requested > > > This does not have the feel of being in the best interest of The > Project, only one Project. > > Why grandfather some who have been allowed to quietly collect > money off The Project. > > It is either OK for all or none... > > Marti > OKGenWeb > > > > > > From: "George Waller" <George@Waller.Org> > > Date: 2003/08/24 Sun PM 01:07:53 EDT > > To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com > > Subject: [STATE-COORD] Unofficial poll requested > > > > Well put Ellen! > > > > I would like to take your note as a jumping off point to > > hold an unofficial poll amongst SCs and ASCs. > > > > The question is do you agree with Ellen's statement: > > > > > I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for > > > it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not >free > > > standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is first a member > > > of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the > > > project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at all, but I > > > do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. I believe, > > > in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. > > > > Thanks to those who will participate. > > Respectfully, > > George > > MAGenWeb > > CTGenWeb > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 24 Aug 2003 at 10:14, Ellen Pack wrote: > > > > > At 10:06 AM 8/24/2003 -0400, Pettys wrote: > > > >Ellen, > > > > > > > >Had you truly read my note, > > > > > > > > > I say again, I did read it, and completely understood it, along with > > > several thousand other notes that have drifted through from a number > > > of folks, from a number of lists, for a number of years. > > > > > > I'm agreeing with Vicki. The bickering has got to stop. This project > > > needs to take a major turn towards mature, respectful, and cooperative > > > behavior. > > > > > > It has nothing at all to do with protected speech, modems, or > > > interstate commerce. > > > > > > We all have the Constitutional right to say anything we want. But we > > > do not have the right to be listened to or taken seriously. For that > > > to occur, we must at least try to frame our words in a polite and > > > respectful fashion more palatable to those we are addressing. > > > > > > The irony is that while Phyllis is accusing me of making cutting > > > remarks (not my intent at all), and you're explaining FCC Regulations, > > > I agree with both of you re IAGW, if only because the Friends Board > > > members are all IAGW members. Legal or otherwise, I believe it is a > > > clear conflict of interest when the Friends Board members are the > > > direct benefactors (albeit via the state project) of the funds they > > > themselves solicit, control and disperse. No one on that Board should > > > be an IAGW member, except perhaps a "guest" IAGW member, without > > > voting rights. > > > > > > I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for > > > it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not free > > > standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is first a member > > > of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the > > > project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at all, but I > > > do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. I believe, > > > in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. > > > > > > Ellen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003

First, in answer to "1.) Is there a valid reason why all XXGenWeb sites aren't hosting with Rootsweb?" I am the SC for VTGenWeb. Though some inside pages are online at rootsweb, the main page is located at http://home.att.net/~Local_History/VT_History.htm . This site was voluntarily authored by me prior to its becoming associated with USGenWeb. There are NO solicitations for financial donations, nor are there any "friends of VTGenWeb" groups. It is housed in my personal web space and I pay for the web space. When I was asked to become the SC for VTGenWeb, I updated my pages with the required USGenWeb logos, links and so forth. I did not choose to relocate my pages for several reasons. Among these - 1) The current urls were already well-indexed in most of the main search engines. 2) Moving the site would be very time-consuming and require a great many changes to inside links. 3) Though I happily volunteer the use of my pages within USGenWeb, I have not chosen to give away rights to my work. By keeping the pages in my own space, it is hoped that others may better recognize they are not free to copy and use them for commercial purposes. Unfortunately, some seem to incorrectly assume that anything housed on rootsweb is in public domain. Present VT county and town pages are CC'd and TC'd by wonderful, dedicated volunteers! I have been trying to make sense of the difficult debate issue. Unfortunately, I can sympathize and understand both sides. Though USGenWeb sites are authored and maintained by dedicated volunteers who try to post information which may be helpful to researchers, at no cost to online researchers, I believe many online researchers mistakenly believe that this means all information really is, or should be, available for free. In reality, this is simply not the case. For example, though fees vary, I am not aware of any U. S. state which gives birth, death or marriage certificates away for free. Record keeping, staff, copies and postage are among the costs which such fees help offset. While there are many dedicated volunteers who have spent countless hours (and dollars) transcribing and abstracting records, recording gravestones, compiling indexes, typing material from out-of-copyright works, and so forth, they have not done so without incurring any cost in time and money. Some of the individuals and societies who do this wonderful work choose to donate the work and absorb the costs. Others may publish and make available books for sale to help to defray the costs and/or support future work. In either case, I believe that it would be wonderful if the USGenWeb could post a page which explains that such costs do really exist, so new genealogists and less experienced researchers would not be deceived into thinking everything is, or should be, automatically free. Even though information and records may be available through USGenWeb, and may be consulted at no cost to the online researcher, this is not possible because the records and information are free. Rather, it is "free" due to the efforts of countless people who have chosen to volunteer to dedicate their time, money and effort to help other genealogists. As an aside: Though we would probably all agree that it would be great to be able to go into a wonderful restaurant, order a scrumptious meal and be served by an experienced waiter - all for FREE - I doubt any of us would try to argue that we should have a "right" to do this. --Ann Mensch Kimm Antell wrote: >I have been following this somewhat though some of the e-mails are really >long to weed through. > >Here is what I have come up with... > >1.) Is there a valid reason why all XXGenWeb sites aren't hosting with >Rootsweb? > >If not, then we need to make a ruling that all sites host with Rootsweb. >That would solve this entire debate. > >2) If so, then we need make a ruling that XXGenWebs can collect funds to >cover the costs of DNS and Server space. (which really shouldn't be all >that much money. I handle websites professionally and know how much it >should cost.) > >This should be the ONLY reason funds can be collected and once these funds >are met per year, a notice should be posted on the page that quotas have >been met, but please come back in January of the following year for future >donations. Contact information should be taken down so that there isn't a >chance of an errant check getting through. We could even allow funds to be >collected for two years so that there isn't a chance of an overlap with no >funds. Somebody in USGenWeb needs to be appointed to keep track of all of >the funds coming in. (An unbiased party.) This would include copies of >checks and accounting spreadsheets to keep track of credits and debits. >(Wouldn't be all that hard. Excel is a wonderful tool.) > >3.) If there is an invalid reason why someone doesn't want to use Rootsweb, >then they, as volunteers, should supply the money. There should be no web >campaigns soliciting funds and doing so would cause immediate expulsion from >the project. > >(For instance, they don't like Rootsweb because Rootsweb called them a >purple monkey in the past and they refuse to ever have anything to do with >them. I know of people who feel this way and I think it is silly, but >that's their business.) > >4.) Has anyone thought of e-mailing all of the cc's of that state and asking >if anyone was willing to sponsor a year's worth of DNS fees? > >I pay for some stuff for TXGenWeb out of my own pocket. I am a volunteer >and I am more than happy to spend ten dollars making copies of a book in the >library that I think will help my counties. I also subscribe to >ancestry.com every year to help out my users. This is out of the goodness >of my heart and I would never think of asking for a refund. It has always >been made clear to me that I am a volunteer and I will never get money. If >I have a problem with it, then all I have to do is give up my county for >adoption. If David sent out an e-mail asking for a donation to help us keep >our website, I would have no problem donating $5. I trust David enough to >know that he would either send any extra fees back or save them for the next >DNS registration. > >I think we need to get this whole debate in a clear light and wound down. >It has gotten to the point where some people are repeating the same thing >over and over and I don't feel we are getting anywhere. > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: okgenweb@cox.net [mailto:okgenweb@cox.net] >>Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 11:31 AM >>To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com >>Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Unofficial poll requested >> >> >>This does not have the feel of being in the best interest of The >>Project, only one Project. >> >>Why grandfather some who have been allowed to quietly collect >>money off The Project. >> >>It is either OK for all or none... >> >>Marti >>OKGenWeb >> >> >> >> >>>From: "George Waller" <George@Waller.Org> >>>Date: 2003/08/24 Sun PM 01:07:53 EDT >>>To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com >>>Subject: [STATE-COORD] Unofficial poll requested >>> >>>Well put Ellen! >>> >>>I would like to take your note as a jumping off point to >>>hold an unofficial poll amongst SCs and ASCs. >>> >>>The question is do you agree with Ellen's statement: >>> >>> >>> >>>>I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for >>>>it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not >free >>>>standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is first a member >>>>of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the >>>>project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at all, but I >>>>do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. I believe, >>>>in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. >>>> >>>> >>>Thanks to those who will participate. >>>Respectfully, >>>George >>>MAGenWeb >>>CTGenWeb >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>On 24 Aug 2003 at 10:14, Ellen Pack wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>At 10:06 AM 8/24/2003 -0400, Pettys wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Ellen, >>>>> >>>>>Had you truly read my note, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>I say again, I did read it, and completely understood it, along with >>>>several thousand other notes that have drifted through from a number >>>>of folks, from a number of lists, for a number of years. >>>> >>>>I'm agreeing with Vicki. The bickering has got to stop. This project >>>>needs to take a major turn towards mature, respectful, and cooperative >>>>behavior. >>>> >>>>It has nothing at all to do with protected speech, modems, or >>>>interstate commerce. >>>> >>>>We all have the Constitutional right to say anything we want. But we >>>>do not have the right to be listened to or taken seriously. For that >>>>to occur, we must at least try to frame our words in a polite and >>>>respectful fashion more palatable to those we are addressing. >>>> >>>>The irony is that while Phyllis is accusing me of making cutting >>>>remarks (not my intent at all), and you're explaining FCC Regulations, >>>>I agree with both of you re IAGW, if only because the Friends Board >>>>members are all IAGW members. Legal or otherwise, I believe it is a >>>>clear conflict of interest when the Friends Board members are the >>>>direct benefactors (albeit via the state project) of the funds they >>>>themselves solicit, control and disperse. No one on that Board should >>>>be an IAGW member, except perhaps a "guest" IAGW member, without >>>>voting rights. >>>> >>>>I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for >>>>it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not free >>>>standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is first a member >>>>of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the >>>>project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at all, but I >>>>do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. I believe, >>>>in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. >>>> >>>>Ellen >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003 > > > > >

Just in mentioning, I just went to the NM photo site for the Tombstone project. On the top is the search logo for Ancestry.com There are three boxes on the bottom, soliciting .. Makes you wonder. Pat -------Original Message------- From: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Date: Monday, August 25, 2003 09:55:39 To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [STATE-COORD] Unofficial poll requested I have been following this somewhat though some of the e-mails are really long to weed through. Here is what I have come up with... 1.) Is there a valid reason why all XXGenWeb sites aren't hosting with Rootsweb? If not, then we need to make a ruling that all sites host with Rootsweb. That would solve this entire debate. 2) If so, then we need make a ruling that XXGenWebs can collect funds to cover the costs of DNS and Server space. (which really shouldn't be all that much money. I handle websites professionally and know how much it should cost.) This should be the ONLY reason funds can be collected and once these funds are met per year, a notice should be posted on the page that quotas have been met, but please come back in January of the following year for future donations. Contact information should be taken down so that there isn't a chance of an errant check getting through. We could even allow funds to be collected for two years so that there isn't a chance of an overlap with no funds. Somebody in USGenWeb needs to be appointed to keep track of all of the funds coming in. (An unbiased party.) This would include copies of checks and accounting spreadsheets to keep track of credits and debits. (Wouldn't be all that hard. Excel is a wonderful tool.) 3.) If there is an invalid reason why someone doesn't want to use Rootsweb, then they, as volunteers, should supply the money. There should be no web campaigns soliciting funds and doing so would cause immediate expulsion from the project. (For instance, they don't like Rootsweb because Rootsweb called them a purple monkey in the past and they refuse to ever have anything to do with them. I know of people who feel this way and I think it is silly, but that's their business.) 4.) Has anyone thought of e-mailing all of the cc's of that state and asking if anyone was willing to sponsor a year's worth of DNS fees? I pay for some stuff for TXGenWeb out of my own pocket. I am a volunteer and I am more than happy to spend ten dollars making copies of a book in the library that I think will help my counties. I also subscribe to ancestry.com every year to help out my users. This is out of the goodness of my heart and I would never think of asking for a refund. It has always been made clear to me that I am a volunteer and I will never get money. If I have a problem with it, then all I have to do is give up my county for adoption. If David sent out an e-mail asking for a donation to help us keep our website, I would have no problem donating $5. I trust David enough to know that he would either send any extra fees back or save them for the next DNS registration. I think we need to get this whole debate in a clear light and wound down. It has gotten to the point where some people are repeating the same thing over and over and I don't feel we are getting anywhere. > -----Original Message----- > From: okgenweb@cox.net [mailto:okgenweb@cox.net] > Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 11:31 AM > To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Unofficial poll requested > > > This does not have the feel of being in the best interest of The > Project, only one Project. > > Why grandfather some who have been allowed to quietly collect > money off The Project. > > It is either OK for all or none... > > Marti > OKGenWeb > > > > > > From: "George Waller" <George@Waller.Org> > > Date: 2003/08/24 Sun PM 01:07:53 EDT > > To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com > > Subject: [STATE-COORD] Unofficial poll requested > > > > Well put Ellen! > > > > I would like to take your note as a jumping off point to > > hold an unofficial poll amongst SCs and ASCs. > > > > The question is do you agree with Ellen's statement: > > > > > I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for > > > it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not >free > > > standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is first a member > > > of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the > > > project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at all, but I > > > do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. I believe, > > > in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. > > > > Thanks to those who will participate. > > Respectfully, > > George > > MAGenWeb > > CTGenWeb > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 24 Aug 2003 at 10:14, Ellen Pack wrote: > > > > > At 10:06 AM 8/24/2003 -0400, Pettys wrote: > > > >Ellen, > > > > > > > >Had you truly read my note, > > > > > > > > > I say again, I did read it, and completely understood it, along with > > > several thousand other notes that have drifted through from a number > > > of folks, from a number of lists, for a number of years. > > > > > > I'm agreeing with Vicki. The bickering has got to stop. This project > > > needs to take a major turn towards mature, respectful, and cooperative > > > behavior. > > > > > > It has nothing at all to do with protected speech, modems, or > > > interstate commerce. > > > > > > We all have the Constitutional right to say anything we want. But we > > > do not have the right to be listened to or taken seriously. For that > > > to occur, we must at least try to frame our words in a polite and > > > respectful fashion more palatable to those we are addressing. > > > > > > The irony is that while Phyllis is accusing me of making cutting > > > remarks (not my intent at all), and you're explaining FCC Regulations, > > > I agree with both of you re IAGW, if only because the Friends Board > > > members are all IAGW members. Legal or otherwise, I believe it is a > > > clear conflict of interest when the Friends Board members are the > > > direct benefactors (albeit via the state project) of the funds they > > > themselves solicit, control and disperse. No one on that Board should > > > be an IAGW member, except perhaps a "guest" IAGW member, without > > > voting rights. > > > > > > I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for > > > it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not free > > > standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is first a member > > > of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the > > > project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at all, but I > > > do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. I believe, > > > in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. > > > > > > Ellen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003 .