<snip> > P.S. if any CC who does not live in Wisconsin has to much snow please send > it here, especially to Iron County, they don't have enough for the > snowmobile races on Saturday. Judy, My final total was 20 inches at my home in Maine .. I will share all but a foot -- I do love a White Christmas! I am sure Anne in CT has more than I to share .. Lots of snow, but today shown bright! Tina > > ==== WIGEN Mailing List ==== > Celebrate Wisconsin! > Visit the Walworth County WIGenWeb Project Pages > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwalwor/ >

I have been following the discussion on voting and would like to add another option to consider. a) Eligible Voters are County Coordinators, Asst. County Coordinators and Co-Coordinators, each person having only one vote regardless of the number of counties they coordinate or help coordinate. b) Each county may have a Coordinator & Asst. Coordinator or two co-coordinators. (limit of 2 people per county). There are no limits on the number of other volunteers envolved but they are not eligible to vote. Some counties would still have 2 votes this way; but at least all county coordinators who coordinate more than one county would have the option to find a ACC or co-coordinator for each county who would be able to represent that county with a vote. Maybe this would also encourage more people to become envolved in the WIGenWeb project. respectfully Judy (Iron, Oneida, Vilas counties) P.S. if any CC who does not live in Wisconsin has to much snow please send it here, especially to Iron County, they don't have enough for the snowmobile races on Saturday.

Are you talking to me MAK? I do live in Sheboygan, that's why I took the county in the beginning. Debie Blindauer Calumet & Sheboygan Counties At 08:00 PM 12/8/2003, you wrote: >Debbie - I didn't realize you lived in Washington - >For some reason, I thought you lived in Sheboygan - >(grin)... > >I am right there with you, Paula, and Joan - but I >guess we have to have some guidelines - I didn't know >anything back then either - WOW - we have learned a >lot since then - hang in there - this too shall >pass... > >R/S MAK > > >--- Debbie Barrett <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi: > > > > As one of the cc's who probably lives as far from > > her county as you can without having your hat float > > (I'm in Seattle, Washington and host the Pierce > > County site), I can say that distance from the > > county has nothing to do with a person's ability to > > service that county. With over 650 pages of > > material online, transcribed about 90% by me, myself > > and I, on my own time, using my own money to obtain > > materials, I would put my site up against just about > > anyone's who resides in their hosted county. It > > isn't a matter of distance, it's a matter of > > willingness to work and see the project succeed. > > > > And I'm with Paula, when I began working for the > > project in 1997, I didn't have a clue how to build a > > website, make a graphic, etc (I was just about bald > > before I figured out FTP). I didn't know how I > > would get the materials I needed, I just knew that I > > would, period. Had the guidelines expected me to > > know more than I did then, I would not have been > > allowed to be a coordinator and the talents and > > skills that I have acquired in the intervening years > > would never have been put to use. > > > > So sorry, I can't agree at all with the requirement > > that the cc live within the boundaries of their > > hosted county. And, although I agree in some > > respects that a coordinator should only have one > > county at a time, that certainly doesn't mean people > > can't. There are plenty of coordinators who host > > more than one county and do a fine job. Once again > > it all comes down to their willingness to do work > > hard that defines their success as a coordinator. > > > > Debbie Barrett > > Coordinator > > Pierce County WIGenWeb Project > > www.rootsweb.com/~wipierce/ > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Paula Vaughan > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 2:38 PM > > Subject: [WIGEN-L] On Selecting Future > > Coordinators > > > > > > I know there has to be some kind of process or way > > to select a coordinator > > but I hope it doesn't become so strict that it > > leaves someone who may do a > > very great job is not given the opportunity. With > > the present recommended > > quidelines - I would most likely not be selected > > as a county coordinator as > > when I first became I knew nothing about websites, > > had no previous > > experience in any GenWeb Project, and do not live > > in the county I am the cc > > for (but do alot of reserach there and live close) > > but I did have the time > > and willingness to learn and I think I have done a > > decent job and I keep > > learning and trying. So I do hope the "screening" > > does not get to strict > > either. > > > > Paula > > WaupacaCC > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > > Our best dial-up offer is back. Get MSN Dial-up > > Internet Service for 6 > > months @ $9.95/month now! > > http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup > > > > > > ==== WIGEN Mailing List ==== > > Celebrate Wisconsin! > > Visit the Waukesha County WIGenWeb Project Pages > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwaukes/indice.html > > > > > > ==== WIGEN Mailing List ==== > > Celebrate Wisconsin! > > Visit the Waupaca County WIGenWeb Project Pages > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwaupac/index.htm > > > > >===== >MAKTranscriber - >http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwood >http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiportag >http://www.rootsweb.com/~wimonroe > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now >http://companion.yahoo.com/ > > >==== WIGEN Mailing List ==== >Celebrate Wisconsin! >Visit the Waushara County WIGenWeb Project Pages >http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwausha/wsctweb.html >Visit the Wood County WIGenWeb Project Pages >http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwood/

sorry wrong Debie - and it wasn't menat for the Mailing list - yikes... R/S MAK ===== MAKTranscriber - http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwood http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiportag http://www.rootsweb.com/~wimonroe __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/

Debbie - I didn't realize you lived in Washington - For some reason, I thought you lived in Sheboygan - (grin)... I am right there with you, Paula, and Joan - but I guess we have to have some guidelines - I didn't know anything back then either - WOW - we have learned a lot since then - hang in there - this too shall pass... R/S MAK --- Debbie Barrett <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi: > > As one of the cc's who probably lives as far from > her county as you can without having your hat float > (I'm in Seattle, Washington and host the Pierce > County site), I can say that distance from the > county has nothing to do with a person's ability to > service that county. With over 650 pages of > material online, transcribed about 90% by me, myself > and I, on my own time, using my own money to obtain > materials, I would put my site up against just about > anyone's who resides in their hosted county. It > isn't a matter of distance, it's a matter of > willingness to work and see the project succeed. > > And I'm with Paula, when I began working for the > project in 1997, I didn't have a clue how to build a > website, make a graphic, etc (I was just about bald > before I figured out FTP). I didn't know how I > would get the materials I needed, I just knew that I > would, period. Had the guidelines expected me to > know more than I did then, I would not have been > allowed to be a coordinator and the talents and > skills that I have acquired in the intervening years > would never have been put to use. > > So sorry, I can't agree at all with the requirement > that the cc live within the boundaries of their > hosted county. And, although I agree in some > respects that a coordinator should only have one > county at a time, that certainly doesn't mean people > can't. There are plenty of coordinators who host > more than one county and do a fine job. Once again > it all comes down to their willingness to do work > hard that defines their success as a coordinator. > > Debbie Barrett > Coordinator > Pierce County WIGenWeb Project > www.rootsweb.com/~wipierce/ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Paula Vaughan > To: [email protected] > Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 2:38 PM > Subject: [WIGEN-L] On Selecting Future > Coordinators > > > I know there has to be some kind of process or way > to select a coordinator > but I hope it doesn't become so strict that it > leaves someone who may do a > very great job is not given the opportunity. With > the present recommended > quidelines - I would most likely not be selected > as a county coordinator as > when I first became I knew nothing about websites, > had no previous > experience in any GenWeb Project, and do not live > in the county I am the cc > for (but do alot of reserach there and live close) > but I did have the time > and willingness to learn and I think I have done a > decent job and I keep > learning and trying. So I do hope the "screening" > does not get to strict > either. > > Paula > WaupacaCC > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Our best dial-up offer is back. Get MSN Dial-up > Internet Service for 6 > months @ $9.95/month now! > http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup > > > ==== WIGEN Mailing List ==== > Celebrate Wisconsin! > Visit the Waukesha County WIGenWeb Project Pages > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwaukes/indice.html > > > ==== WIGEN Mailing List ==== > Celebrate Wisconsin! > Visit the Waupaca County WIGenWeb Project Pages > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwaupac/index.htm > ===== MAKTranscriber - http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwood http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiportag http://www.rootsweb.com/~wimonroe __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/

These are good points from Anne. I believe they are each separate issues to be looked at independently. It is too hard to lump things into one big mess and try to come out with a general consensus, especially when these are separate responsibilities. Please consider: * One CC, one vote is the first, or not? - regardless of your own thoughts, it is an independent issue. * Co-CC, one vote or 2 (or 3 or 5....).? "Co" means combined and "cooperative" here, as it does with other leadership positions. Co chair people act as one person. It is the work of one person, whether there are 2 or 1000 people contributing to that one person's work, it is still one person , one coordinator. How the one vote delegated to that one person is handled should be decided between the people who make up the work of that person, since any combination of people is possible. So if S.W. Winky has 4 counties to coordinate, and two of those counties have co- coordinators, there is still one vote under Winky. This S.W. is responsible for coordinating how that vote is decided. These folks have decided on all working as one, then they decide on their own as to how that one will vote. This type of autonomy is important in independent cooperative efforts, especially on a county level. I suggest one vote per person, with the combined leadership of that one vote deciding on it's own as to how to cast that one vote. In the matter of one person and several counties, it is the same. That person(s) is in leadership of those volunteers working as him or her. That person will coordinate how the one vote is decided, and cast that vote accordingly. It is part of the county "coordinator"s' job. This responsibility to lead goes with the territory. Just thinking; Rita [email protected] wrote: > If a CC hosts 2 counties and only gets one vote, how do you address the issue > of 2 CC's hosting a county? I can appreciate Rita's comment on if you own > more than one property, you get only one vote -- makes sense.... BUT, if I do > the work and maintain 2 counties, I feel both counties should get an equal vote > as just one county... it just doesn't seem fair that a CC with 2+ counties can > only have 1 vote, but a CC that shares a county with someone else, can > literally get 2 votes for that county.... while the first CC's second county doesn't > get a vote at all.....Fair would be each county=1 vote... 72 counties = 72 > votes -- one could stuff a ballot box with Co-CC's each getting a vote, meaning > I could have 5 counties and get an additional 1 or 2 Co-CC's for each county - > my friends or relatives of course - and have a total of 6 - 11 votes cast for > the cause I believe in = could have changed the outcome of the past elections > drastically. > > How do you handle Co-CC's in the election? Counties that have Co-CC's work > out the details for their websites in agreement -- they could also work out how > that county will cast its vote...i.e. they agree or voting is rotated between > them... > > It just wouldn't be right for me to ask for a Co-CC and pick up an extra vote > in the elections... this is not directed toward any county, but hubby does > help with the Shawano site -- does he get a vote now? and what about Shawano > volunteers? do I get to co-host with them, too and they each pick up a vote? > > Something to think about...... > Anne > Shawano CC > > ==== WIGEN Mailing List ==== > Celebrate Wisconsin! > Visit the Waupaca County WIGenWeb Project Pages > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwaupac/index.htm

If a CC hosts 2 counties and only gets one vote, how do you address the issue of 2 CC's hosting a county? I can appreciate Rita's comment on if you own more than one property, you get only one vote -- makes sense.... BUT, if I do the work and maintain 2 counties, I feel both counties should get an equal vote as just one county... it just doesn't seem fair that a CC with 2+ counties can only have 1 vote, but a CC that shares a county with someone else, can literally get 2 votes for that county.... while the first CC's second county doesn't get a vote at all.....Fair would be each county=1 vote... 72 counties = 72 votes -- one could stuff a ballot box with Co-CC's each getting a vote, meaning I could have 5 counties and get an additional 1 or 2 Co-CC's for each county - my friends or relatives of course - and have a total of 6 - 11 votes cast for the cause I believe in = could have changed the outcome of the past elections drastically. How do you handle Co-CC's in the election? Counties that have Co-CC's work out the details for their websites in agreement -- they could also work out how that county will cast its vote...i.e. they agree or voting is rotated between them... It just wouldn't be right for me to ask for a Co-CC and pick up an extra vote in the elections... this is not directed toward any county, but hubby does help with the Shawano site -- does he get a vote now? and what about Shawano volunteers? do I get to co-host with them, too and they each pick up a vote? Something to think about...... Anne Shawano CC

I agree with one vote per CC - it should not matter how many counties a CC has - the vote should not change just because it represents another county. Shelley Marathon and Lincoln counties

Tina - Thanks for the clarification. I would like to see the voting remain as is. Paula Waupaca County Coordinator WIGenWeb Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwaupac/index.htm >From: "Tina S Vickery" <[email protected]> >Reply-To: [email protected]om >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [WIGEN-L] Comments in General >Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 19:18:48 -0500 > >Let me clarify. To date, there has been one vote per each >*individual* CC and Co-CC regardless of the number of counties they >host. It has worked well in the WIGenWeb Project. This issue has >been one that has been struggled with in many other XXGenWeb >Project's, and for me personally, the bottom line is, each and every >one of us as an *individual* is a member of the WIGenWeb Project. We >are not counties, we are individuals, and as such should each >*individually* have a voice. In other words, counties don't vote - >people do. > >Tina > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Paula Vaughan" <[email protected]> >To: <[email protected]> >Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 2:54 PM >Subject: [WIGEN-L] Comments in General > > ><snip> > > > Has there been a problem in the past on the way our voting system is set >up? > > Has the system been one vote per cc no matter how many counties they >were >cc > > of and no vote for co-cc's? If this is how is has been I would like to >see > > it kept that way. > > > > Tina- stated in a previous email "Some states have TC - Town >Coordinators - > > should we address this in case it comes up in the future." I would >suggest > > any decision we decide upon for the co-cc's should also apply to any >Town > > Coordinators. > > > > <snipped> from another of Tina's emails Thus my "Each member may cast >one > > vote only (no matter the number of county or topical sites hosted)." > > > > By wording it each member, wouldn't that read to mean each cc, co-cc or >town > > cc would have a vote? > > > > > > Paula > > Waupaca County Coordinator > > WiGenWeb Project > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwaupac/index.htm > > >==== WIGEN Mailing List ==== >Celebrate Wisconsin! >Visit the Waukesha County WIGenWeb Project Pages >http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwaukes/indice.html > _________________________________________________________________ Shop online for kids’ toys by age group, price range, and toy category at MSN Shopping. No waiting for a clerk to help you! http://shopping.msn.com

If you take care of more than one piece of property (home, cottage, rentals, business etc,) you still only get one vote in general elections. Why should this be different? I agree; one person, one vote. Rita Tina S Vickery wrote: > Let me clarify. To date, there has been one vote per each > *individual* CC and Co-CC regardless of the number of counties they > host. It has worked well in the WIGenWeb Project. This issue has > been one that has been struggled with in many other XXGenWeb > Project's, and for me personally, the bottom line is, each and every > one of us as an *individual* is a member of the WIGenWeb Project. We > are not counties, we are individuals, and as such should each > *individually* have a voice. In other words, counties don't vote - > people do. > > Tina > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paula Vaughan" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 2:54 PM > Subject: [WIGEN-L] Comments in General > > <snip> > > > Has there been a problem in the past on the way our voting system is set > up? > > Has the system been one vote per cc no matter how many counties they were > cc > > of and no vote for co-cc's? If this is how is has been I would like to see > > it kept that way. > > > > Tina- stated in a previous email "Some states have TC - Town > Coordinators - > > should we address this in case it comes up in the future." I would suggest > > any decision we decide upon for the co-cc's should also apply to any Town > > Coordinators. > > > > <snipped> from another of Tina's emails Thus my "Each member may cast one > > vote only (no matter the number of county or topical sites hosted)." > > > > By wording it each member, wouldn't that read to mean each cc, co-cc or > town > > cc would have a vote? > > > > > > Paula > > Waupaca County Coordinator > > WiGenWeb Project > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwaupac/index.htm > > ==== WIGEN Mailing List ==== > Celebrate Wisconsin! > Visit the Waukesha County WIGenWeb Project Pages > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwaukes/indice.html

Let me clarify. To date, there has been one vote per each *individual* CC and Co-CC regardless of the number of counties they host. It has worked well in the WIGenWeb Project. This issue has been one that has been struggled with in many other XXGenWeb Project's, and for me personally, the bottom line is, each and every one of us as an *individual* is a member of the WIGenWeb Project. We are not counties, we are individuals, and as such should each *individually* have a voice. In other words, counties don't vote - people do. Tina ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paula Vaughan" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 2:54 PM Subject: [WIGEN-L] Comments in General <snip> > Has there been a problem in the past on the way our voting system is set up? > Has the system been one vote per cc no matter how many counties they were cc > of and no vote for co-cc's? If this is how is has been I would like to see > it kept that way. > > Tina- stated in a previous email "Some states have TC - Town Coordinators - > should we address this in case it comes up in the future." I would suggest > any decision we decide upon for the co-cc's should also apply to any Town > Coordinators. > > <snipped> from another of Tina's emails Thus my "Each member may cast one > vote only (no matter the number of county or topical sites hosted)." > > By wording it each member, wouldn't that read to mean each cc, co-cc or town > cc would have a vote? > > > Paula > Waupaca County Coordinator > WiGenWeb Project > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwaupac/index.htm

Hi all, First of all, I think these discussion is terrific! Thank you all for sharing your ideas and suggestions. Please know that no decisions will be made without a majority vote of all of you. We all be a team, working together to make WIGenWeb Project the very best that it can be! <g> I perhaps did get carried away in presenting to much at once. For now, keep discussing, and I will attempt to incorporate your suggestions into the appropriate section(s) of what I have presented, and re-present it for second round discussion one section at a time. I agree that the holidays are upon us, and I assure you that this discussion is not one I will rush .. so don't worry about that please. Keep on discussing, I have really appreciated your thoughtfulness of the issues, and the wonderful ideas many of you have contributed. Tina ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lori Niemuth" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 5:07 PM Subject: Re: [WIGEN-L] votes > I wish to commend Tracy for addressing some good issues here. One of > the main problems we have now is that we (as a list) are trying to cover > more than one issue at a time. I believe we should start out by > defining - fully and acceptably - what a CC (or Co-CC) is and the duties > of that position. I agree with Tracy that the holiday season is a poor > time to start. From there we can work up to voting issues, term limits > for the SC, etc. > > Lori in Rock > > Tracy Reinhardt wrote: > > > I for one, have not had much occasion to consider the effectiveness of > > one vote per person, until recently. > > In the back of my mind, I felt that every county needs a > > representative vote on some issues. But if a person is a rep for > > more than one county, that means things can snowball. > > > > If we are going to rock the boat, and re-do some guidelines, then we > > need to visit the issue of whether someone can effectively handle more > > than one county, AND the people who actually research in the county, > > need to have a say in whether their co-ordinator is doing an adequate > > job. > > I have always felt that residents of a county should have first choice > > on who their co-ordinator should be. It's much more effective if the > > co-ordinator resides in their county, and I hear that from my county > > visitors all the time. I don't think anyone can reside in more than > > one county at a time. > > Also, past experience has shown us that someone with more than one > > county, can suddenly remove those pages, and the end result is to have > > more than one county site 'disappear' overnight in a huff. (and when a > > county 'disappears', shouldn't that person responsible for the > > disappearance be banned from being a county co-ordinator????) > > > > There are pros and cons to one vote per person/one vote per county, > > and we need to address these issues slowly and carefully, with more > > thought than what I have time for, at this season of the year. > > > > We also need to identify ALL issues, before we change anything. > > And I hope that no one wants to insist on decisions being finalized > > any time soon, during the holiday season. > > > > tracy reinhardt > > > > ==== WIGEN Mailing List ==== > Celebrate Wisconsin! > Visit the Trempealeau County WIGenWeb Project Pages > http://www.rootsweb.com/~witrempe/ > >

I wish to commend Tracy for addressing some good issues here. One of the main problems we have now is that we (as a list) are trying to cover more than one issue at a time. I believe we should start out by defining - fully and acceptably - what a CC (or Co-CC) is and the duties of that position. I agree with Tracy that the holiday season is a poor time to start. From there we can work up to voting issues, term limits for the SC, etc. Lori in Rock Tracy Reinhardt wrote: > I for one, have not had much occasion to consider the effectiveness of > one vote per person, until recently. > In the back of my mind, I felt that every county needs a > representative vote on some issues. But if a person is a rep for > more than one county, that means things can snowball. > > If we are going to rock the boat, and re-do some guidelines, then we > need to visit the issue of whether someone can effectively handle more > than one county, AND the people who actually research in the county, > need to have a say in whether their co-ordinator is doing an adequate > job. > I have always felt that residents of a county should have first choice > on who their co-ordinator should be. It's much more effective if the > co-ordinator resides in their county, and I hear that from my county > visitors all the time. I don't think anyone can reside in more than > one county at a time. > Also, past experience has shown us that someone with more than one > county, can suddenly remove those pages, and the end result is to have > more than one county site 'disappear' overnight in a huff. (and when a > county 'disappears', shouldn't that person responsible for the > disappearance be banned from being a county co-ordinator????) > > There are pros and cons to one vote per person/one vote per county, > and we need to address these issues slowly and carefully, with more > thought than what I have time for, at this season of the year. > > We also need to identify ALL issues, before we change anything. > And I hope that no one wants to insist on decisions being finalized > any time soon, during the holiday season. > > tracy reinhardt

> >>And, my comment was made because...when someone resigns from a county >>site, often members of that county genealogical society sometimes are >>unaware that the site is up for adoption. Recruitment of new cc's >>should START with the local society. Each county and it's genealogy society are different and I think that has to be taken into account when choosing a new cc for the county. Sometimes they would be great folks to draw from and other times, they wouldn't. Our society has not yet given approval to post anything to the web site. Their material is their material. Sometimes it's a matter of having something they can generate revenue from ... and if it's all posted online, they get no revenue. I can understand both sides of that. Linda

I would hope that no one would take our comments on the subject matter as a personal attack on them if we disagree with what they have said. I believe we are all simply stating our opinions. If there are issues which need a vote, I'm sure Tina will provide us that opportunity. Linda

I did not get any type of free ancestry subscription when becoming a cc. I do (as many of you) subscribe and pay the full price to subscribe. (I joined the group in Wi in 1999.) I do agree it would be a very nice jesture on Ancestry's part to provide a free or reduced subscription price for the hard work of all coordinator's do. I just wanted to add to the mix of the discussion on the local societies. Please remember the views of a "society" is not always the view of all board members or members. I know several of you also serve on society boards (as I do) and some societies work very hard to over come the negative veiws etc that came from past board members or members. I only speak from my own experience and know each cc's experience is different. Please remember board memebers do change and you might find new "blood" may better understand the importance of the computer as another tool for research. Has there been a problem in the past on the way our voting system is set up? Has the system been one vote per cc no matter how many counties they were cc of and no vote for co-cc's? If this is how is has been I would like to see it kept that way. Tina- stated in a previous email "Some states have TC - Town Coordinators - should we address this in case it comes up in the future." I would suggest any decision we decide upon for the co-cc's should also apply to any Town Coordinators. <snipped> from another of Tina's emails Thus my "Each member may cast one vote only (no matter the number of county or topical sites hosted)." By wording it each member, wouldn't that read to mean each cc, co-cc or town cc would have a vote? Paula Waupaca County Coordinator WiGenWeb Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwaupac/index.htm _________________________________________________________________ Don’t worry if your Inbox will max out while you are enjoying the holidays. Get MSN Extra Storage! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es

Sent this to the list earlier, but haven't seen it hit the list. Maine is buried in 18+ inches of snow, perhaps my computer is just COLD. <g> Tina ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tina S Vickery" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 10:41 AM Subject: Update to Orphan Train Project pages. > The Life of Charles Loring Brace > Copyright, 1894, by Charles Scribner's Sons > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiorphan/people/brace/brace02.html > > CHAPTER II has been added. > > Decision to enter the Ministry--- Teaching at Ellington and Winchendon > --- Letters on his Reading --- Earnest Resolves --- Visit in New > Milford --- Theological Year in New Haven --- Letters --- Period of > Speculation --- Theological Letters --- Miscellaneous Letters --- > Letter on Friendships 29 > > Tina

I neglected to make one comment, to something that you brought up. Ancestry DID give three months free (or was it a year) membership to all county co-ordinators when they first took over. I got one. tracy

>And, my comment was made because...when someone resigns from a county >site, often members of that county genealogical society sometimes are >unaware that the site is up for adoption. Recruitment of new cc's should >START with the local society. That was the only intent of my comment, >because I feel strongly that they have access to more material.. ------------- I'm thankful this issue has been brought out for discussion. I agree it is important to discuss these issues and think it through well before making changes. I hope we do not become so selective or restrictive in whom we choose to do these volunteer sites that it will not allow those candidates who are willing to work but lacking in html or living nearby to have this opportunity. We might get a great cc from a local society but then again, maybe not. As Nance worded so well yesterday, many of the county genealogy and historical societies regard us as the "wicked internet woman/man" and have some degree of competitive attitudes. Perhaps they fear we will put everything on the internet they've indexed and no one will contact them again to do research for $, and they will lose their *tight control* of the data in *their* county. For this reason a local resident applying for a site who has not been a contributor to boards and sites in the area should be a big yellow caution light in the minds of the decision-makers. I can think of several counties where the WiGenWeb site was done by a local resident and it was a store-front for a genealogy or historical society with not alot of content on the pages or boards. In one WI county now lacking a cc, any contributors were contacted by the pair of "volunteers" and strongly discouraged from contributing to the messageboards or webpages for the county, being told it was a big waste of time and they ought to find another hobby, etc. I stand with my original two ideas: 1. What should matter most in selection is if a cc is willing to work to add content. Whether they live near/in the county of interest or in xyz, prior evidence of working to add content may indicate the degree of future motivation. 2. Ancestry needs to give back and provide us free/ greatly reduced price subscriptions to at least partially thank us for the time and money we spend doing this work. The Packer game starts in 10 minutes so I've gotta run, thanks for listening, Joan Adams and Marquette CC

Hi All, >And, my comment was made because...when someone resigns from a county >site, often members of that county genealogical society sometimes are >unaware that the site is up for adoption. Recruitment of new cc's should >START with the local society. That was the only intent of my comment, >because I feel strongly that they have access to more material.. I have to strongly disagree with this statement when it comes to MY county. If Sheboygan were to be given up by me and the local society were to find out it was up for adoption, I can tell you right now what would happen. The county would become basically bare. No genealogical information, other then a link to their society would be basically found. When I first took the county they tried bullying me to shut it down. When they realized that wouldn't work, they threatened court if I placed any more information on the site. We battled for almost a full year before I finally told them to take me to court and we would settle it there. So Tina, for your own knowledge, should I die or something, don't let them have it, Debie Blindauer