I will count this as a vote for "over reaching." I have been torn on this from the beginning (Sept 2009). However we must keep in mind: 1. Expanding the rootsweb list is probably not necessary, though I could do some out-reach to those lists on the Maryland side 2. The NN tree is not limited should editors so wish and 3. The NN tree DOES need to keep a more strict focus No rush on anything. I'm interested in what the rest of our group has to say about it. Craig On Oct 29, 2012, at 11:59 PM, Jim Bartlett wrote: > Craig > > Let's be sure we can handle what's on our plate now. If it works, then we can think about expanding. > > Jim - Sent from my iPhone - FaceTime! > > On Oct 29, 2012, at 11:18 PM, Craig Kilby <persisto1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Barbara, >> >> This is my understanding of it too. While the tree is a working document, it should not be used to repeat the same old, same old. The NN dna project, as I understand it, it too test those theories, and maybe (hopefully) come with a lot more. >> >> I am very proud of this group and our various projects. We are definitely "cutting edge" on many fronts in genealogy. In fact, I'm tempted to include the Eastern Shore and Delmarva peninsula into this group. My fear is that that we be over-reaching. My other fear is that we may be under-reaching. I'd love to hear feedback on this idea. >> >> Craig

I was referring only to the FTDNA charter we have for the DNA group (and our Patriarch Tool for that). I don't want to take on too much until I see how it's going to work out. Jim - Sent from my iPhone - FaceTime! On Oct 30, 2012, at 12:23 AM, Craig Kilby <persisto1@gmail.com> wrote: > I will count this as a vote for "over reaching." I have been torn on this from the beginning (Sept 2009). However we must keep in mind: > > 1. Expanding the rootsweb list is probably not necessary, though I could do some out-reach to those lists on the Maryland side > 2. The NN tree is not limited should editors so wish and > 3. The NN tree DOES need to keep a more strict focus > > No rush on anything. I'm interested in what the rest of our group has to say about it. > > Craig > > On Oct 29, 2012, at 11:59 PM, Jim Bartlett wrote: > >> Craig >> >> Let's be sure we can handle what's on our plate now. If it works, then we can think about expanding. >> >> Jim - Sent from my iPhone - FaceTime! >> >> On Oct 29, 2012, at 11:18 PM, Craig Kilby <persisto1@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Barbara, >>> >>> This is my understanding of it too. While the tree is a working document, it should not be used to repeat the same old, same old. The NN dna project, as I understand it, it too test those theories, and maybe (hopefully) come with a lot more. >>> >>> I am very proud of this group and our various projects. We are definitely "cutting edge" on many fronts in genealogy. In fact, I'm tempted to include the Eastern Shore and Delmarva peninsula into this group. My fear is that that we be over-reaching. My other fear is that we may be under-reaching. I'd love to hear feedback on this idea. >>> >>> Craig > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to VA-NORTHERN-NECK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message