This deserves a new subject line. Barbara L. has given much food for thought. See my comments interspersed below. On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Barbara Levergood <levergood@att.net> wrote: > >> You make a good point about vetting information--we want an archive to be >> accurate, so perhaps we develop it privately and then publish an edited >> document (using the term loosely) rather than publishing as we go along. >> > > Good idea. That means controlling access to the unpublished version. Would > you be willing to do that? Yes, since I administer this group I have access to subscriber emails here, and I'm willing to coordinate between here and a wiki/website/whatever. > I think Google Sites might do what we need--there's a blogging area, a >> files area--it has templates for various kinds of websites, including a >> wiki. It can be restricted access--I suspect much as one subscribes to a >> mailing list or a Google group. After we've cleaned up our notes a little, >> I imagine we could make it public access, or we could publish it as edited >> articles here on this mailing list for future reference.. >> > > I like this approach. I was thinking that we could set up a template for a > wiki page that would help us to standardize the type of information we are > collecting and the format. Each person who wanted to contribute could > either modify an existing page or could make a copy of the template to > start their own. To get us started, I could markup my example, as modified > by Barbara S. > > How about if I make a proposal on TMG-REFUGEES for the type of information > we want to collect so that we can prepare the template? Just off the top of > my head (based on my example, although others will hopefully want to add > things): > * Functionality > * The reason(s) that that functionality is important (to someone) > * Features that do or do not incorporate or enable that functionality in > TMG, RM, Legacy, and FH. (Also other software that folks might be > interested in evaluating.) For each, include the software version number, > whether it is a full version or the trial version, and the evaluator's > expertise. > I like having a proposal--I think there are other topics than a software comparison though. For one, I'd like to develop, procedures I will need to de-TMG my data when I finally decide where to take it. Another area might be lists of TMG dependencies--roles, split CDs, etc. and methods of dealing with them. The nice thing about a wiki is everyone can work in their area of concern. > Suggested rules > * Do not be TMG-centric. Think first in terms of the functionality that > you value, not the corresponding TMG feature. (BARBARA Z.: DO YOU AGREE > THAT THIS IS A GOOD WAY TO APPROACH IT?) > In terms of the pages about other programs, I agree. It may or may not be appropriate for other topic areas. * Be objective. > * Be specific enough that others can find the feature being mentioned. > * Be thorough. There may be more than one way to skin a kitty cat. > * If you don't know or can't find something, say so. It is usually better > to say that you can't find it than to say it doesn't exist unless you are > an expert on that software or have consulted information from an expert or > the vendor. > * If you want to add to or modify a feature mentioned by someone else, add > your own bullet so that the original information is not lost. (We will > evaluate and edit all information before publishing.) > * Feel free to include information that will assist others in learning > about a feature or its use such as informative postings on listservs, > blogs, etc. , webinars, help pages (online or within the software), etc. > * Because we want to be fair, objective, and fully accurate in our > observations and evaluations, we will fully evaluate and edit the > information presented. For this reason, please do not share the information > gathered with others until it has been released for "publication". > These are pretty good rules, pretty common sense--I want to think about them for awhile and think about whether they are too much for the size and composition of this group right now. I know any group has a lot of lurkers, but if any of you lurkers see anything go by that you object to, please speak up publicly or privately to me. I will summarize any private comments to the list anonymously if you don't wish to be identified. We're talking strategy for how this list will operate for some time to come. > > On a related note, do we want to think about something similar for GEDCOM > or somehow incorporate GEDCOM into the planning? I'm not sure what Barbara L. is asking here. If you mean the GEDcom discussion on TMG-L, I was planning on asking permission to summarize the thread once it dies down. > >> Someone suggested TMG-REFUGEES wasn't a good name. What would you like a >> collaborative work area and repository to be called? >> > > What we will be doing is looking at alternatives or successors to TMG. So, > "TMG Alternatives" or "TMG Successors" would be on point, although not very > exciting. And I am sure that someone would have some objection to either of > those names :). I suggest that you throw the question out to TMG-REFUGEES > and see if we can build some excitement and consensus that way. > What I like about Refugees is, it implies we aren't leaving necessarily by choice. > How can we encourage participation in the project? > > Barbara L. > Good question! -- Barbara Zanzig Kirkland, WA My websites: http://www.zanziggenealogy.info/ <http://www.zanziggenealogy.info/ZanzigStudy/index.htm>

I like the name TMG-REFUGEES. What didn't come across quite as well for me was the topic "This group is for people who have decided to abandon TMG as a database platform." Although I am currently playing around with RootsMagic, I don't feel like I am abandoning TMG - at least not yet. It could be that other [TMG] list members who have decided to stay with TMG for now, or even for a long time, might still be interested in the discussion on this list. Somehow, subscribing to a list that says I'm abandoning TMG, almost made me feel guilty for even considering something else. How about something like "This group is for people who are looking for alternatives to TMG"? On 8/31/2014 1:30 PM, Barbara Zanzig via wrote: > Someone suggested TMG-REFUGEES wasn't a good name. What would you like > a collaborative work area and repository to be called? >> What we will be doing is looking at alternatives or successors to TMG. So, >> "TMG Alternatives" or "TMG Successors" would be on point, although not very >> exciting. And I am sure that someone would have some objection to either of >> those names :). I suggest that you throw the question out to TMG-REFUGEES >> and see if we can build some excitement and consensus that way. >> > What I like about Refugees is, it implies we aren't leaving necessarily by > choice. >

Carol and the List in General: Yes, I like "Alternatives to TMG," but I would like to expand on the alternatives idea to offer some cautionary notes. I too am looking for alternatives, but not yet ready to abandon TMG, at least until I get my data converted to HTML via John C's Second Site, or to print it on old-fashioned paper. Having said that I am not leaving TMG just yet, I am looking at alternatives. Right now I am playing with Roots Magic. It and Legacy seem to be on most folks' minds as the leading contenders for their data. OK, but what bothers me about both of these programs is that they both seem to be products of essentially one-man-shops like TMG. Correct me if I'm wrong but, Roots Magic is the child of Bruce Busbee. I'm not sure about Legacy. Someone on the TMG List commented, when talking about a GEDCOM standard, that the two 800-pound gorillas in the room were LDS and Ancestry.com. What we need for long-term safety in a genealogy program is an 800-pound gorilla on our side. I wouldn't give you 2 cents for choosing Ancestry, they already have Family Tree Maker. Remember when Roots became UFT and CommSoft was purchased by Broderbun, then Broderbun was purchased by Ancestry? (forgive me if I have my company/chronology mixed up, I am writing this from memory--I started with Roots for DOS close to 30 years ago.) John Cardinal said that it wasn't an economically viable idea for him to try to develop a successor to TMG. Therein lies the crux of the matter. No single software developer can create a program for such a small market and expect to survive for long without some big corporate money behind him/her.. Ask Bob Velke. I have a gut feeling that LDS is working behind the scenes to fund the work on a competitor to FTM, whether it is Legacy or RM, I don't know. However, I do know that the LDS has a large investment in their web site Family Search. I suspect that it does make sense for them (LDS) to have a program for folks like us. One final thought: As I said, I am staying with TMG 9.03 for the moment, but I have seen how MicroSoft works. Don't be surprised that when Windows 9 is released Visual FoxPro won't work with it. Yes, you can keep a computer around that runs Windows 8 so you can access TMG. I could have kept a computer around that would have worked with my dBase or WordStar files. If I subscribed to that mind set, I would have to have had maybe 10 compters in my office (my first computer was an IBM PCXT in 1984). Maybe I should have kept a horse and buggy in my barn as well, so I could use my buggy whips. My father swore up and down that tubeless tires would never replace inner tubes. Once again, technology and economics seems to be calling the shots for us. I guess I am just an old anti-Luddite. All I am saying is that you should keep your eyes and ears open, put you data in as many places and formats as possible, especially print and don't panic. John Wood On 8/31/2014 2:48 PM, Carol Judge via wrote: > Somehow, subscribing to a list that says I'm abandoning TMG, > almost made me feel guilty for even considering something else. How > about something like "This group is for people who are looking for > alternatives to TMG"? > *** > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the message subject and body. > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > . >