I have been watching Rootsweb and the creation and growth of their state and county pages. I truly believe this is just the next step in doing away with us all. The saddest part of it all is that all of the hard work from volunteers who donated it for free, will eventually be a pay per view. We lost Gen Connect boards, then Surname search, now this. Are they hoping that we all quit and go away? I havbe also noticed that the archives for the State of Nevada, that we NOT donated to USGenWeb, have been moved to another location other than the one I was given. The one I work on is a mirror site. If you think that doesn't make me nervous, you're crazy! Just my two cents worth. Patricia Scott SC Nevada ----- Original Message ----- From: "Betsy Mills" <betsym@1starnet.com> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 3:52 AM Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Bylaws Revision - News > I agree. I don't feel that mandates will work. The less mandates we have, > the better it will be. I don't intend to start de-linking counties because > they don't have some disclaimer on the pages. If we do this, then it is > time to provide an "approved template" and only link to those sites who are > using it. > > I have still not seen the question of whether these revisions or amendments > will be voted on separately or all as one package. If it is a package > deal, there is no way I will be voting for them. These are not what I > consider revisions - they are a major rewrite of the bylaws. > > Betsy > > > > On 12:16 AM 5/13/2003 -0500, Connie Snyder said: > >My opinion is that the last couple of proposed revisions would be better > >placed > >in the guidelines where the wording could be periodically reviewed and updated > >without having to go through the amendment process. These types of specific > >statements regarding the design and content of webpages get into an area that > >can and has changed frequently over the years. Look at all that has > >happened to > >web design in just the last couple of years. You may need to have an amendment > >process every year just to update specific articles such as you are proposing. > >Will you be able to get five states to sign on to that process every year? > > > >I would like to see a committee set up to do periodically review and > >update the > >guidelines. Perhaps it would be better if it were not an official board > >committee, but an independent committee composed of members from the various > >projects that could propose changes to update them. If you look at them now, > >there are some that need to have links and wording updated. Just as an > >example, > >GenConnect is still mentioned as one way to collect queries. Has anyone looked > >at the pages on copyright lately to see if they need updating? > > > >Connie > > > >Roger Swafford wrote: > > > > > The committee is charged with making revisions to clarify as needed and to > > > add sections as necessary to facilitate continued growth of the > > project. The > > > project has experienced significant growth since the bylaws were > > adopted and > > > has established a respectable web presence. As website content expands and > > > more links are included the greater the chance of repercussions. Better to > > > ward off potential problems if possible. > > > Section 1.3 of the recently signed hosting agreement extents authority to > > > the project for governing use, privacy policy, intellectual property > > notices > > > "(so long as the notices adequately protect the rights of both parties)". > > > > > > Roger Swafford > > > BRC-Chairman > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Susan W Pieroth" <pieroth@ix.netcom.com> > > > To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> > > > Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 6:03 PM > > > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Bylaws Revision - News > > > > > > > This really annoys me. Could someone on the committee please point out > > > > all the sites they have visited that show this disclaimer? I have seen > > > > sites where a specific link gets that kind of statement, but a generic, > > > > across the board one? I'm sure some, do, but RootsWeb doesn't request > > > > this, why the BRC????? Would the lawyer please stand up? > > > > > > > {snip} > > > > Susan > > > > -- > > > > Coordinator Rhode Island USGenWeb ~ http://www.rootsweb.com/~rigenweb/ >

Patricia I just don't understand. Every time RW blinks someone jumps up and forecast doom and gloom. Then they want everyone else to jump of a cliff with them. So far the prediction rate of these Gloom and doomers is is very near "ZERO". The really sad part of this is that if The gloom and doomer's had left RW a lone, just how great it could have been for all the researchers. Will it eventually be a pay per view? Could be. They say that if you have an endless amount of time, and an endless amount of monkeys you can write Shakespeare. So perhaps with enough Gloom and doomers you can rewrite the future. Oh Yea! Just what does this all have to do with "Bylaws Revision - News", that was the subject? Richard... Patricia Scott wrote: > I have been watching Rootsweb and the creation and growth of their state and > county pages. I truly believe this is just the next step in doing away with > us all. > > The saddest part of it all is that all of the hard work from volunteers who > donated it for free, will eventually be a pay per view. > > We lost Gen Connect boards, then Surname search, now this. Are they hoping > that we all quit and go away? > > I havbe also noticed that the archives for the State of Nevada, that we NOT > donated to USGenWeb, have been moved to another location other than the one > I was given. The one I work on is a mirror site. If you think that doesn't > make me nervous, you're crazy! > > Just my two cents worth. > > Patricia Scott > SC Nevada > Richard M. Howland ILGenWeb State Coordinator Mailto:RichPump@wf.net ICQ # 898319

I'm not a gloom and doomer, I just want to protect my work and everyone else that has donated to the NVGenWeb Project as part of the USGenWeb Project. Now that I hear the true facts about the agreement, I am not so skeptical. There are plenty of folks that have left this project. Lets hhope we keep what we have and gain more. Pat ----- Original Message ----- From: "ILGenWeb State Coordinator" <richpump@wf.net> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 1:03 PM Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Bylaws Revision - News - "NOT" > Patricia I just don't understand. Every time RW blinks > someone jumps up and forecast doom and gloom. Then they > want everyone else to jump of a cliff with them. So far the > prediction rate of these Gloom and doomers is is very near > "ZERO". > > The really sad part of this is that if The gloom and > doomer's had left RW a lone, just how great it could have > been for all the researchers. > > Will it eventually be a pay per view? Could be. They say > that if you have an endless amount of time, and an endless > amount of monkeys you can write Shakespeare. So perhaps with > enough Gloom and doomers you can rewrite the future. > > Oh Yea! Just what does this all have to do with "Bylaws > Revision - News", that was the subject? Richard... > > Patricia Scott wrote: > > I have been watching Rootsweb and the creation and growth of their state and > > county pages. I truly believe this is just the next step in doing away with > > us all. > > > > The saddest part of it all is that all of the hard work from volunteers who > > donated it for free, will eventually be a pay per view. > > > > We lost Gen Connect boards, then Surname search, now this. Are they hoping > > that we all quit and go away? > > > > I havbe also noticed that the archives for the State of Nevada, that we NOT > > donated to USGenWeb, have been moved to another location other than the one > > I was given. The one I work on is a mirror site. If you think that doesn't > > make me nervous, you're crazy! > > > > Just my two cents worth. > > > > Patricia Scott > > SC Nevada > > > > > Richard M. Howland ILGenWeb State > Coordinator > Mailto:RichPump@wf.net ICQ # 898319 > > >

At 08:06 AM 5/15/03 -0700, Patricia Scott wrote: >I have been watching Rootsweb and the creation and growth of their state and >county pages. I truly believe this is just the next step in doing away with >us all. What state and county pages? Tim

seek and ye shall find. Go to Rootsweb. Pat ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Stowell" <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 4:57 AM Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Bylaws Revision - News > At 08:06 AM 5/15/03 -0700, Patricia Scott wrote: > >I have been watching Rootsweb and the creation and growth of their state and > >county pages. I truly believe this is just the next step in doing away with > >us all. > > What state and county pages? > > Tim >