Re: "It's my project." That raises, I believe, an interesting question, worth examining further: To what extent does a project "belong" to the project administrator and to what extent is serving as the admin a "public trust"? While attending the October conference of project admins, it became clear that, for some admins, their projects were private fiefdoms -- theirs to do with as they chose and for the sole purpose of furthering their own family histories. To one who runs a project which includes many people to whom I can't possibly be related, the thought makes me shudder. That puts me more in the "public trust" camp than the "My Project" camp. -ralpht_/)

I don't think the answer is black or white. I think it depends... It is the project admin who took the initiative to open the project and who provides the labor (and even funds) to maintain and advance it, so they are the ones who get to define it. FTDNA allows projects targeted at individual families or geographic locations, and if someone wants to hold to those limits, they can -- and a scanning of projects names shows there are many such specific projects. I don't think these projects should be disparaged just because the admin decided to work only on their own family. On the other hand, I agree with you, entirely, that if someone "takes" a surname, with no stated limitations, they are obligated to serve the entire surname for the simple reason that FTDNA doesn't allow duplications. Surname projects are a limited resource, so if you start one or take on one, I agree that you've an obligation to serve it well or resign and let someone else do a better job. Sad to say, there are a number of projects in this category, that is, with "passive" admins who appear to be little more than figureheads, who *ought* to let the project go, but won't. Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-projects- > bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Ralph Taylor > Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 3:42 PM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] Y-DNA-PROJECTS join authorization > > Re: "It's my project." > > That raises, I believe, an interesting question, worth examining further: > > To what extent does a project "belong" to the project administrator and to what extent is > serving as the admin a "public trust"? > > While attending the October conference of project admins, it became clear that, for some > admins, their projects were private fiefdoms -- theirs to do with as they chose and for > the sole purpose of furthering their own family histories. To one who runs a project > which includes many people to whom I can't possibly be related, the thought makes me > shudder. > > That puts me more in the "public trust" camp than the "My Project" camp. > > -ralpht_/) > >