Tracy Reinhardt wrote: > Once again, wondering if it pays to participate in this list. > > tracy reinhardt Hi Tracy, I have completely enjoyed your participation on this list. Your comments have been interesting and thought-provoking. I did not take your comments personally, nor did I find them to be offensive or controversial in any way. I also hope you didn't find my response to be offensive or controversial, as it was not meant to be. If you did, I sincerely apologize. You made some very valid points and I felt safe in responding to those points, simply giving my own opinion. That's how we learn and grow - by talking things out...together. I know that not all of us are going to agree on everything. Heck, I can't even get my own family to agree with everything. ;-) I hope you will continue to share your thoughts on this list. They are valuable to our organization. I also agree with your statement about the local gen. societies having an interest in taking over a county website. Most of the time they can provide some very helpful information and besides, who knows the way of doing research better than a gen. society member? The only thing that one would need to watch for would be those societies who do not believe in freely sharing their info. In the past, there was one such society president who maintained a county website. That site did not grow at all in the two years that it was in that person's control. I realize that not all societies are like that though. I'm simply pointing out one possible negative and hoping that it will never happen here in Wisconsin. While it is true that many resources are available within the county of question, I have found that my best resource finds (old history books, photos, etc.) are found in used bookstores outside of the area that the subject is about. Many of the books that I've found were located in other states. Tracy, thank you again for voicing your thoughts. I sincerely hope you will continue to do so. Big mouth me will do so also. :-\ And if my thoughts offend anyone else on this list, I am very sorry. They are not meant to be offensive, but only a different angle on the same topic. Hoping we can all continue to share our thoughts freely here, Nance

I need to clarify my comment about county co-ordinators before it goes any further. Please don't read between the lines. I never stated that residing in your county should be a requirement! I was bringing up a topic as one of many things that should be thought about, if we are going to adjust or discuss voting....this is an issue that someone might bring up to be voted upon... 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.. And, it is very logical to state that a local resident is much more effective.......there are many genealogical materials available at a local level, that are not handy to a county co-ordinator who resides in a different state. I get emails from out-of-state researchers, who travel here on vacation, and I help and assist them, even take them directly to the cemetery that they are looking for, if it is one I am familiar with. Once again, wondering if it pays to participate in this list. tracy reinhardt

My two cents, although I agree with Nance ........ Should a coordinator be required to live in the county they coordinate? NO For those of us who move a lot, that would pretty much preclude us from participating at all. For right now, I can't control that I don't live in Dunn County, WI. I have no interest in Washtenaw Co. MI genealogy which is where I live. But I do belong to the Dunn County Genealogical Society, I visit there several times a year, I have resources from the area in my home for lookups, and I have volunteers who will do lookups in the area. A trip this fall to Northfield, MN even resulted in new Dunn County material I've been posting. Should a coordinator only be allowed one county? NO Some have the time and motivation to do more. Let them! I'm afraid the reality is that there are some counties in Wis. that would never have a coordinator if this was the case. Where are the people who are dying to coordinate Douglas County? It's been nearly 2 years since I asked to be relieved of that. No one in that county has volunteered, let alone anyone else. Should county coordinators have ALL the answers to questions posed to us? NO But we should know what resources are available and certainly try to find the answer. Should county web sites be required to have XX number of pages in them? NO Not all material I post related to the county goes on my web site. Old obits, bios and a variety of other materials are just as readily available when I post them to the Dunn Rootsweb message boards .... and there's the added advantage that the same info is then automatically posted to the Dunn mail list. Should each county be allowed only one vote in an election? YES Should Ancestry say "thank you" by giving coordinators a free or reduced-fee subscription? YES What a nice idea! No offense meant to anyone else who has a differing opinion. :-) Linda Dunn and Douglas Counties At 07:04 PM 12/6/2003 -0600, you wrote: >I agree with the statement that we needn't be a resident of a county to be >its coordinator... and I live in one of the counties that I coordinate >(Washburn). I also live closer to the county seat of one of the other >counties that I coordinate (Sawyer) than the seat of the county I do live >in. That doesn't mean that the info is flowing though. There are many >variables as to why some counties have more info online than other >counties. For me, I can say that these two counties have never had those >big, wonderful, old histories written about them (come to think of it, >neither has Burnett Co. so that makes three) and any recent books that >have been written are all under copyright and are watched closer than a >shivering rabbit by a hovering hawk. There is no way the local historical >and genealogical societies are going to share their work and, as some of >you may have experienced, our websites are looked upon as some kind of >wicked curse to the very same societies that want to claim our websites as >their own just because we represent "their" county. At least that is what >I have experienced. So, living in or very near a county doesn't >necessarily mean that we have access to everything or know all the answers >to the many genealogical queries that are sent to us either through the >query systems or directly from visitors to our websites. By the way, even >though I do not have alot of answers, I thoroughly check all of my >resources and then, I answer my emails...all of them. If someone has >complained about me not doing my job, I'd really like to know. There have >been days that I spend hours sitting here answering just one >email. Having said that, I next want to voice that I do not agree with >the statement that we should only be allowed to coordinate one, or only a >couple county sites. I have been working with 6 counties for several >years now, and I can honestly say that none of them are hurting for >attention. Yes, there are some that haven't been updated for a month, but >whenever I obtain information through a donation, I am able to get that >item online within 2 or 3 days at the most. It is unfair to those of us >who want to do the work to have us be limited to less than what we are >capable of. I would not have volunteered for any of these sites if I >didn't think I could do justice to them. I put alot of thought into each >county before I offered to volunteer for the job. Since that time, I have >invested alot of my own money into obtaining materials to put on these >websites. I would be more than a little upset to think that I could lose >them just because there was a limit set on how many counties we could >coordinate. I'm not saying that everyone should do what I do and I'm not >trying to do what others are doing. We are all individuals, capable of >doing a certain amount based on our own circumstances. My circumstances >enable me to do what I do. I do not think I am better or worse than >anyone else who is a Wisconsin coordinator. I think we all are doing a >great job and I have thoroughly enjoyed visiting the other counties around >the state. I have also visited many of the other states and seen how >their counties have stacked up against what we are doing. We have alot to >be proud of! Wisconsin is not a state that is abundantly rich in history >(unlike many of the eastern states), but what we have, we do a good job with! > >In regards to the voting process, I guess I really don't have alot to >say. I haven't seen too many problems with the way that we have voted in >the past. As far back as I can remember, a person with multiple counties >only gets one vote, and those counties with two coordinators each got a >vote (these coordinators were all officially recognized by the SC and >ASC). That method did not change for this past election and I wasn't >aware of any problems there either. I do not think it would be fair for >me to put 6 votes in on one person. On the other hand, I have wondered >what would stop someone from stacking up a whole crew of "co-coordinators" >to sway a vote in the way that someone would want the vote to go if we >allowed each co-coordinator to vote. I realize this is a very touchy >situation and I surely don't have any answers. I am just wondering why we >are talking about making a change. Did I miss something? Is there a >change that can be made that would be fair to everyone? > >I really like Joan's idea of getting the extra perk of a free or >reduced-fee Ancestry subscription. I've often thought that it would be a >great incentive for us, especially when they (Ancestry) gave us some free >time when they first bought out Rootsweb. That was wonderful!. Heck, I >would even consider starting up my own research again - haven't worked on >my own family lines in years! Wouldn't it be great if we could get a >little 'return' on our hard work? I mean, when you look back at how many >people we have helped, how many of those people have even bothered to say >"thank you." > >Thank you all for sharing your thoughts. I have enjoyed reading each and >every email from you all. These are just my thoughts on this cool winter >night. > >Nance

Jan, thanks for alerting us to this. I indeed will be providing a link to it on the Green Lake County Web site. Anne Kasuboski Green Lake County Genweb Coordinator ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jan Cortez" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 1:39 PM Subject: [WIGEN-L] Waushara & Bayfield Updates > Over the past week, I have begun typing the portions of the 1890 Portrait & > Bio Album of Green Lake, Marquette and Waushara Counties. Waushara now has > its history and town histories online. I have just completed "War for the > Union" of that book, which is mostly for Green Lake. As it tells in the > chapter, apparantly Waushara and Marquette Counties were not forthcoming on > their stories of the war, however, I have put it online. If Marquette and > Green Lake, do not have this online, feel free to link and/or copy the > source to your sites. > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwausha/1890bioalbum.html > > Bayfield County has seen the addition of four more Memories columns, and the > addition of many post cards showing the area. > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wibayfie/photos.html > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wibayfie/BCJMem/BCJMem13aug42.html > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wibayfie/BCJMem/BCJMem20aug42.html > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wibayfie/BCJMem/BCJMem06aug42.html > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wibayfie/BCJMem/BCJMem23jul42.html > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > ---- > > > > > ==== WIGEN Mailing List ==== > Celebrate Wisconsin! > Visit the Vernon County WIGenWeb Project Pages > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wivernon/ > >

I agree with the statement that we needn't be a resident of a county to be its coordinator... and I live in one of the counties that I coordinate (Washburn). I also live closer to the county seat of one of the other counties that I coordinate (Sawyer) than the seat of the county I do live in. That doesn't mean that the info is flowing though. There are many variables as to why some counties have more info online than other counties. For me, I can say that these two counties have never had those big, wonderful, old histories written about them (come to think of it, neither has Burnett Co. so that makes three) and any recent books that have been written are all under copyright and are watched closer than a shivering rabbit by a hovering hawk. There is no way the local historical and genealogical societies are going to share their work and, as some of you may have experienced, our websites are looked upon as some kind of wicked curse to the very same societies that want to claim our websites as their own just because we represent "their" county. At least that is what I have experienced. So, living in or very near a county doesn't necessarily mean that we have access to everything or know all the answers to the many genealogical queries that are sent to us either through the query systems or directly from visitors to our websites. By the way, even though I do not have alot of answers, I thoroughly check all of my resources and then, I answer my emails...all of them. If someone has complained about me not doing my job, I'd really like to know. There have been days that I spend hours sitting here answering just one email. Having said that, I next want to voice that I do not agree with the statement that we should only be allowed to coordinate one, or only a couple county sites. I have been working with 6 counties for several years now, and I can honestly say that none of them are hurting for attention. Yes, there are some that haven't been updated for a month, but whenever I obtain information through a donation, I am able to get that item online within 2 or 3 days at the most. It is unfair to those of us who want to do the work to have us be limited to less than what we are capable of. I would not have volunteered for any of these sites if I didn't think I could do justice to them. I put alot of thought into each county before I offered to volunteer for the job. Since that time, I have invested alot of my own money into obtaining materials to put on these websites. I would be more than a little upset to think that I could lose them just because there was a limit set on how many counties we could coordinate. I'm not saying that everyone should do what I do and I'm not trying to do what others are doing. We are all individuals, capable of doing a certain amount based on our own circumstances. My circumstances enable me to do what I do. I do not think I am better or worse than anyone else who is a Wisconsin coordinator. I think we all are doing a great job and I have thoroughly enjoyed visiting the other counties around the state. I have also visited many of the other states and seen how their counties have stacked up against what we are doing. We have alot to be proud of! Wisconsin is not a state that is abundantly rich in history (unlike many of the eastern states), but what we have, we do a good job with! In regards to the voting process, I guess I really don't have alot to say. I haven't seen too many problems with the way that we have voted in the past. As far back as I can remember, a person with multiple counties only gets one vote, and those counties with two coordinators each got a vote (these coordinators were all officially recognized by the SC and ASC). That method did not change for this past election and I wasn't aware of any problems there either. I do not think it would be fair for me to put 6 votes in on one person. On the other hand, I have wondered what would stop someone from stacking up a whole crew of "co-coordinators" to sway a vote in the way that someone would want the vote to go if we allowed each co-coordinator to vote. I realize this is a very touchy situation and I surely don't have any answers. I am just wondering why we are talking about making a change. Did I miss something? Is there a change that can be made that would be fair to everyone? I really like Joan's idea of getting the extra perk of a free or reduced-fee Ancestry subscription. I've often thought that it would be a great incentive for us, especially when they (Ancestry) gave us some free time when they first bought out Rootsweb. That was wonderful!. Heck, I would even consider starting up my own research again - haven't worked on my own family lines in years! Wouldn't it be great if we could get a little 'return' on our hard work? I mean, when you look back at how many people we have helped, how many of those people have even bothered to say "thank you." Thank you all for sharing your thoughts. I have enjoyed reading each and every email from you all. These are just my thoughts on this cool winter night. Nance

Stay warm Anne, snowy and blizzardly here as well in Maine. 'Tis beginning to look alot like Christmas' <g> Tina > Anne > Shawano...living in snowy & blizzardy New England tonight........ > > > ==== WIGEN Mailing List ==== > Celebrate Wisconsin! > Visit the Waupaca County WIGenWeb Project Pages > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwaupac/index.htm >

And I realized I clipped that wrong........In a message dated 12/6/2003 5:26:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes..... she definitely did not write that....AOL has some weird things happen when you clip and paste........

In a message dated 12/6/2003 5:26:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: >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. I totally disagree with that theory...... I have not yet heard ONE Shawano visitor even remotely comment that a Shawano resident would be better able to keep up and run the site. And I probably have the market on distance from my county. I have great volunteers and take every opportunity I can to locate maps, obits, etc. to make the site of interest. I have a neighbouring county that is one of the largest WI sites and she's not a resident either... living in your county doesn't mean diddly squat.... if that was criteria, I'd have not qualified, either.... and I'd challenge any of the CC's to explain to me how their site is better than mine, simply because they live there.... And, how far up the food chain does this theory go? Does an ASC or SC from the state make a better ASC or SC than a non-resident? Just my thoughts..... Anne Shawano...living in snowy & blizzardy New England tonight........

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

>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. -------- Residence in the county or an area can be an advantage IF the cc is willing to devote the time to transcribing material for their county website(s). In the case of one of the counties I now coordinate, the former coordinator lived in the county but did very little with the site nor respond to a number of would-be volunteer contributors for several years. From the beginning of WiGenWeb to June 2000 they managed only 15-18 pages, and they lived in the county and worked in the county seat. Some cc's live far away from their county of responsibility but manage to have growing websites anyway, while some cc's will only put up what volunteers send them. Few of us can afford to be 'professional volunteers' and paying jobs, our living families, etc should take precedence. But yes, in selecting a coordinator there needs to be some thought given to whether the person will spend time working on their site *along with* putting up the contributions sent to them by volunteers. The greater the geographic proximity to the county, the greater the opportunity for more website content, but only if the coordinator is willing to put forth the time & effort. I think in making the decision in who gets a website when there is a vacancy, it should be considered whether the person has the motivation to work on it, as evidenced by prior and current activity in contributing material and volunteer involvement in their local genealogy or historical society, FHC, etc. On a related vein, since we cc's are putting forth so much of our time and pocket change paying for copies, driving to the FHC's/courthouses/libraries to do look-ups and obtain content for our sites--shouldn't ancestry.com at least provide us a reward of a subscription at free or greatly reduced price? We are after all an advertising venue for them in drawing traffic and each page and county mailing list message is an ad for them. Is this an idea Tina or other leaders might 'push' for the benefit of our website building? For all the work we do and hours we spend, it would be nice if there were some reward other than "free webspace"... My twenty five cents worth--and no I am not trying to offend anyone with my opinion <smile>--and thanks for considering my thoughts! Joan Adams and Marquette CC

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

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

I guess I have to agree with one vote for each county/and or coordinator. However in most states that I am affiliated with, each CC gets a vote, regardless of whether there are two or one CC to a county. I have two local coordinators in Waushara County, that do the work, email it to me and I upload, would that mean that they should then have votes, as well? While I agree that they should probably be able to vote, I see where Joan is coming from and would place an unfair advantage on Waushara County, to have three votes, and most of the counties with only one. It's a hard call, and maybe something we should all vote on, bowing to the majority. Jan Waushara & Bayfield Counties ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> > I think we should stick to one vote regardless of the number of county > coordinators for that county. > > If one coordinator gets one vote no matter how many sites they have, it > seems inconsistent to grant co-coordinators more than one vote...this in > effect allows two votes per site if that site has more than one > coordinator. This could turn into quite a situation, if I name 4 people as > co-coordinators with myself, do we get Five votes then for one site? I > think it would be wiser to keep it simple and have one vote per > county/person and if there are co-coordinators or husband/wife, then still > just one vote. If the coordinator has more than one site it will not > increase the number of votes they may cast, they are still limited to one > vote like the rest of us. > > Joan > Adams and Marquette CC > > Original Message: > ----------------- > From: Tina S Vickery [email protected] > Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:15:55 -0500 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [WIGEN-L] Re: Follow-up: Proposed SC and ASC update to > WIGenWeb Guidelines > > > Michelle and Frank <smile>, my point is that although husband and wife [in > your case of co-coordinating], you and Frank are individuals and each should > have a voice. > > Tina > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michelle Laycock" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 10:06 PM > Subject: Re: [WIGEN-L] Re: Follow-up: Proposed SC and ASC update to WIGenWeb > Guidelines > > > > Tina, et al, > > > > As a co-coordinator for 2 of the counties mentioned, let it be known > > that Frank and I have no feelings one way or the other on voting. > > Whatever the group decides we will accept. > > > > Michelle > > Racine & Kenosha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tina S Vickery wrote: > > > > >The definition of Co-County Coordinators has been questioned. > > > > > >In the WIGenWeb Project, we have 4 counties with this designation. > > >Pepin County, Kenosha County, Racine County, and Washington County. > > >Each coordinator is recognized in their respective role as an > > >individual volunteer, with individual vote and voice. > > > > > >Thus my "Each member may cast one vote only (no matter the number of > > >county or topical sites hosted)." > > > > > >Discussion, comments? > > > > > >Tina > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: "Tina S Vickery" <[email protected]> > > >To: <[email protected]> > > >Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 7:51 PM > > >Subject: Follow-up: Proposed SC and ASC update to WIGenWeb Guidelines > > > > > ><snip> > > > > > > > > >==== 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/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== WIGEN Mailing List ==== > > Celebrate Wisconsin! > > Visit the Walworth County WIGenWeb Project Pages > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwalwor/ > > > > > ==== WIGEN Mailing List ==== > Celebrate Wisconsin! > Visit the Walworth County WIGenWeb Project Pages > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwalwor/ > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web - Check your email from the web at > http://mail2web.com/ . > > > > > ==== WIGEN Mailing List ==== > Celebrate Wisconsin! > Visit the Taylor County WIGenWeb Project Pages > http://www.rootsweb.com/~witaylor/ > >

Thanks to Debra Eckstein a new page Name Changes in Wisconsin has been added to the Waupaca County Site. This list includes name changes from around the state of Wisconsin and can be seen at http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwaupac/Misc/Names.htm. Please feel free to link to this page. Paula WaupacaCC http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwaupac/index.htm _________________________________________________________________ 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

That might work with husband and wife teams, keep in mind I said might. That is never going to work with two people who know each other strictly because of working toward the same goal, adding and/or maintaining genealogical information for a county. What happens if they don't agree with the vote? Who should be forced to give in and decline their opinion? I can see that being a big bomb, Debie

For what it is worth, I believe each site (even if there are more than one coordinator, co-coordinator, unit builder what have you) should have one vote. One vote per county. All folks within the county should agree and be entitled to vote as one!!! Carolyn Caflisch > At 10:04 PM 12/2/03 -0500, you wrote: >>Good questions Judy. Thank you. >>> 2) under election procedures, what is the definition of or rather >>> who >>all >>> is included in WIGenWeb membership? (ie. county coordinators, >>> co-coordinators, assistants, state coordinator, and ?) >> >>Currently the WIGenWeb Project has a State Coordinator, Assistant >>State Coordinator, County and CO-County Coordinators. All, with what >>I have presented, would have "one vote only (no matter the number of >>county or topical sites hosted)." >> >>Tina > > Any limit on the number of co-coordinators? > > Tim > > > ==== 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/ > >

I think we should stick to one vote regardless of the number of county coordinators for that county. If one coordinator gets one vote no matter how many sites they have, it seems inconsistent to grant co-coordinators more than one vote...this in effect allows two votes per site if that site has more than one coordinator. This could turn into quite a situation, if I name 4 people as co-coordinators with myself, do we get Five votes then for one site? I think it would be wiser to keep it simple and have one vote per county/person and if there are co-coordinators or husband/wife, then still just one vote. If the coordinator has more than one site it will not increase the number of votes they may cast, they are still limited to one vote like the rest of us. Joan Adams and Marquette CC Original Message: ----------------- From: Tina S Vickery [email protected] Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:15:55 -0500 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [WIGEN-L] Re: Follow-up: Proposed SC and ASC update to WIGenWeb Guidelines Michelle and Frank <smile>, my point is that although husband and wife [in your case of co-coordinating], you and Frank are individuals and each should have a voice. Tina ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michelle Laycock" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 10:06 PM Subject: Re: [WIGEN-L] Re: Follow-up: Proposed SC and ASC update to WIGenWeb Guidelines > Tina, et al, > > As a co-coordinator for 2 of the counties mentioned, let it be known > that Frank and I have no feelings one way or the other on voting. > Whatever the group decides we will accept. > > Michelle > Racine & Kenosha > > > > > > > > Tina S Vickery wrote: > > >The definition of Co-County Coordinators has been questioned. > > > >In the WIGenWeb Project, we have 4 counties with this designation. > >Pepin County, Kenosha County, Racine County, and Washington County. > >Each coordinator is recognized in their respective role as an > >individual volunteer, with individual vote and voice. > > > >Thus my "Each member may cast one vote only (no matter the number of > >county or topical sites hosted)." > > > >Discussion, comments? > > > >Tina > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Tina S Vickery" <[email protected]> > >To: <[email protected]> > >Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 7:51 PM > >Subject: Follow-up: Proposed SC and ASC update to WIGenWeb Guidelines > > > ><snip> > > > > > >==== 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/ > > > > > > > > > > ==== WIGEN Mailing List ==== > Celebrate Wisconsin! > Visit the Walworth County WIGenWeb Project Pages > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwalwor/ > ==== WIGEN Mailing List ==== Celebrate Wisconsin! Visit the Walworth County WIGenWeb Project Pages http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwalwor/ -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .

>My comments follow the related paragraph..... Linda >County and Co-County Coordinators: The County and Co-County >Coordinator are responsible for creating and maintaining websites at >the county level. County and Co-County Coordinator duties include >striving to include as much local or topical reference and resource >information as possible for their site, adding new and updated content >regularly, responding promptly to correspondence and questions from >researchers. County and Co-County Coordinators are appointed by the >State Coordinator in accordance with national and state guidelines. In >making Local Coordinator selections, consideration should be given to >knowledge and interest in genealogy in the area, technical ability, >activity in The USGenWeb Project, and existing workload. All County >and Co-County Coordinator appointments must be authorized and approved >by the State Coordinator. ............ why would "activity in The USGenWeb Project" play a role? Is this suggesting we should be active or not? Or is this indicating perhaps a conflict of interest? I don't understand how it is related to being a CC. >Required Elements: > >Site Naming: Adopting a WIGenWeb local web site means it is a part of >The USGenWeb Project, and it must be prominently identified as such. >The name of your site should be something like "[County Name] County, >Wisconsin, USGenWeb (or WIGenWeb) Project". > >Project Logo: All WIGenWeb local web sites are required to use the >official project name and to have the national USGenWeb logo and the >state WIGenWeb logo displayed prominently. .............. As a side comment about the logo - it has the year 2000 on it. Is there a reason - does that commemorate something? >Project Name: The name of our parent organization is The USGenWeb >Project. The name of our individual state project is The WIGenWeb >Project. (Note that there is NO space between the "US" or the "WI" and >the "GenWeb"). Our national and state projects should never be >identified by any other variation in spelling or character spacing >(correct: WIGenWeb, incorrect: WI GenWeb, Wisconsin GenWeb, GenWeb, >Gen Web). > >Required Links: Links to the following web sites must appear on the main >page of all WIGenWeb local web sites - >The WIGenWeb Project main state page - >The USGenWeb Project main national page - >The Wisconsin USGenWeb Archives main page - > >Queries: Every WIGenWeb local site must provide an area in which >visitors can post research queries specific to the geographical or >topical division of the site. This may be done via email, mailmerge, >or through one of the approved query programs for USGenWeb, such as >the RootsWeb/Ancestry Query Boards. The USGenWeb national site has a >page on Query Management, with instructions for each query option. >Queries must be dated so that your visitors (and we) can determine >which are the new ones. Care should be taken by the County and Co- >County Coordinator to ensure that queries posted are appropriate and >on-topic. Queries or posts that are not specific to the locality or >topic, inquiries about living persons, and adoption inquiries should >be removed or redirected to a more appropriate forum. ............... are there other "approved query programs"? >Resources: Every WIGenWeb County site must provide at least some basic >research help for their locality or topic. The more information you >offer, the better your site will be. Lookups should be offered if you >or your volunteers have received permission to do so from the book's >author or publisher or the reference books you have available meet the >copyright policies of The USGenWeb Project. > >County or Topic History: Each WIGenWeb local web site should also >provide at least some basic information on the history of the locality >or topic, whether it be a short, general history, or longer articles >on the history of particular families, towns, etc. > >USGenWeb Special Projects: Each WIGenWeb local web site should include >information on, and encourage participation in, the USGenWeb Special >Projects. ................. the purpose? It's hard enough for we coordinator to understand the special projects without pushing this at our site visitors. >E-Mail Link: Your main page should include your name, identify you as >the County or Co-County Coordinator, and give your e-mail address. > >Additional Necessities: > >WIGenWeb State Mailing List: Communication with and between all >WIGenWeb Coordinators is critical to the success of the Project. To >assure that important information is shared in a timely fashion, all >Coordinators will be subscribed to our CC mailing list, WIGEN-L. This >is where we discuss all matters having to do with the project. >Periodically, the State Coordinator will send out a roll call message. >Replies to these messages are expected within 7 days. If you will be >away from your computer and unable to respond to any such roll calls >for more than a that period, please notify the State Coordinator in >advance. ................... is failing to respond in a timely manner a reason for removal of a coordinator? >To post messages to the WIGEN-L list, send email to WIGEN- >[email protected] Only WIGenWeb staff may post messages. ...................... "staff" seems to indicate someone else .... isn't it WIGenWeb coordinators? >Site Maintenance: If you volunteer to coordinate a county or topical >site, it is expected that you will have your site online within 30 >days. If, for some reason, you will be delayed attending to your site, >or will no longer be able to volunteer, it is very important that you >notify the State Coordinator of the situation. > >All county and topical sites will become the sole responsiblity of >those who have adopted them and they must conform to the USGenWeb and >WIGenWeb standards. If you feel that you cannot maintain your site, >then please allow it to be put up for adoption - our viewers expect to >see an "active page" with changes and updates being made frequently. >Your site should be updated on a regular basis. How often is >"regular"? It is probably reasonable to expect that no WIGenWeb county >site would be static, or without updates, for more than a 60-day >period at most. Queries should be updated at least every two weeks. If >you use RootsWeb's Query Boards or another automated system, it is >necessary to be vigilant about removing inappropriate queries. .............. make this WIGenWeb only .............. 60 day period ...... I do agree that the web sites should be updated several times a year. But we are volunteers. This is not a job so we will do what we can. Some can obviously do more if they have more time. >Non-Genealogical Content: WIGenWeb web sites may not contain non- >genealogical related information. In particular, public personal >statements concerning politics inside or outside of The USGenWeb >Project are expressly prohibited. > >Site Evaluations: Periodically, your site will be visited for an >evaluation to confirm that it includes certain required elements, to >check for broken or outdated links, and to suggest other possible >improvements. Please respond promptly to any correspondence you >receive pursuant to these reviews. Any required updates identified in >the evaluation should be attended to within a week of notification. If >that is not possible, please arrange a completion date with the State >Coordinator. ............. Who will do this? What happens if we "fail" this evaluation and don't make the updates within one week? >Advertising/Solicitation of Funds: Solicitation of funds on a WIGenWeb >affiliated web site is prohibited. It is permissible, however, to >provide a link to a non-USGenWeb affiliated personal web site where >genealogical services or materials are offered for sale. It is also >permissible to acknowledge any entities who host or provide server >space at no cost and to include a link to that entity's web site. If a >coordinator lists materials or services for sale or hire by third >parties, such as genealogical societies or commercial interests, the >home or index page may include a link to the listing, but the >materials and services themselves may not be listed on the home or >index page. Any such listing of materials or services for sale or hire >by third parties should include a disclaimer on the listing page >saying that The USGenWeb Project and the site coordinator make no >warranty as to the contents or accuracy of any of the materials for >sale by these third parties, nor the expertise of any professional >researchers listed. > >Co-Coordinators: All Co-Coordinators appointments must be authorized and >approved by the State Coordinator. > >County Coordinators: It is the responsibility of the State Coordinator >to choose a replacement coordinator when a WIGenWeb Couny Coordinator >resigns or is replaced. Outgoing County and Co-County coordinators are >encouraged to try to find a suitable replacement to coordinate the >site, but the appointment must be authorized and approved by the State >Coordinator. > >Recommended Elements: >The WIGenWeb Project recommends the following items, though they are not >required. > >Copyright Notice: It is recommended that all websites within The USGenWeb >Project carry the following copyright notice: > >Copyright 2003 by (the name of the coordinator) >Be sure to update the year. On the volunteer page, once this is approved, I suggest including a short "check list" that coordinators can use to see if their pages meet the requirements. Linda Schwartz Dunn county and still waiting for someone to adopt Douglas county

>Thus my "Each member may cast one vote only (no matter the number of >county or topical sites hosted)." If each member has only one vote no matter how many counties we have, why should one county - via co-coordinators - get 2 votes? This has never made sense to me. Perhaps one could be designated the "voting member." Linda

At 07:32 PM 12/4/03 -0500, you wrote: >I recognize that dual sites exist. I think it is wonderful that many >of you are involved in providing your skills, talents, and material in >many different genealogical venues, I truly do! But, I have to be >honest .. We together, are the WIGenWeb Project, part of the USGenWeb >Project. I advocate that the WIGenWeb Project pages are indeed >WIGenWeb Project pages and identified singularly as such. Agreed. I'd rather sites didn't look like the telephone pole on the corner covered with all sorts of placards. Tim