This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------A4793B9E38EE7FCEA1E46DED
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
If you have the time and don't have a problem doing this, please
consider what they are suggesting. I would request that they contact the
CC directly so the submitter and CC understand each other. I don't want
us (Archives volunteers) to be the "agent" (for lack of a better word)
for submitted data. Once they contact the CC, any format/display of
their work placed at the county site is between the CC and the
submitter.
To save time, and not have to look up CC's e-mail addresses if you are
already overloaded, you can point them to the XXGenWeb site. An easy way
to do that is:
http://www.usgenweb.org/xx (where the xx is the two-letter state abbr)
Also, a good idea, if you don't already do it, is to put a link to the
county site on each county TOC. You should already have a link on the
state TOC to the appropriate XXGenWeb.
Thanks!
Linda
--------------A4793B9E38EE7FCEA1E46DED
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Return-Path: <USGENWEB-ALL-L-request(a)rootsweb.com>
Received: from
lists5.rootsweb.com ([63.92.80.123])
by elektra (Earthlink/Netcom Mail Service) with ESMTP id tnjou5.l8d.37tiu4v
Tue, 14 Aug 2001 19:51:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from slist@localhost)
by
lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f7F2kSN04379;
Tue, 14 Aug 2001 20:46:28 -0600
Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 20:46:28 -0600
X-Original-Sender: hoji(a)skantech.net Tue Aug 14 20:46:28 2001
Message-ID: <003f01c12535$64c4d480$2d100fd0(a)beaufortco.com>
Reply-To: "Terria Baynor" <hoji(a)skantech.net>
From: "Terria Baynor" <hoji(a)skantech.net>
Old-To: <USGENWEB-ALL-L(a)rootsweb.com>
References: <3B79AFBD.8B6F0154(a)ix.netcom.com> <bb.1236e47b.28a9e56d(a)aol.com>
<00fb01c124a7$c7e38680$14ac0ad8@homes> <3B793D05.861802D(a)ix.netcom.com>
<3B792131.499DEF2A(a)skantech.net>
<200108141952.MAA18998(a)sire.mail.pas.earthlink.net>
<v03130300b79f5a445b3a(a)[153.32.54.145]>
Subject: Re: [ALL-L] Question.
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 22:52:54 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Resent-Message-ID: <UqbxgC.A.PEB.EKee7(a)lists5.rootsweb.com>
To: USGENWEB-ALL-L(a)rootsweb.com
Resent-From: USGENWEB-ALL-L(a)rootsweb.com
X-Mailing-List: <USGENWEB-ALL-L(a)rootsweb.com> archive/latest/20389
X-Loop: USGENWEB-ALL-L(a)rootsweb.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: USGENWEB-ALL-L-request(a)rootsweb.com
Thank you Teri. You comments were well said! Your earlier suggestion of
giving submitters a choice upon initial submission was a great idea. That
was my thoughts, I just didn't spell it out too clearly. <g> I also think
it would be good to say something to the effect, we would like you to submit
this to our Project as a whole, both in our Archives and County sites. That
would steer them to submit to both, not just the county or just the
Archives. I do believe this would help to bridge some of the concerns CC's
have with the Archives. I think it would help our Project as a whole
because if the CC's were reasurred about the Archives then they would be
willing to direct those that give them data to share it with the Archives
too. It would be a win-win situation for both sides. We would be working
together then in a joint Project.
At present, no personal offense Linda, but I don't want to participate in
putting data in the Archives because I don't feel that I am a part of the
Archives. I feel it is Linda's Archives not the USGenWeb's Archives.
Unless I see some changes, and some give and take. I don't feel comfortable
promoting her project and I don't feel her project is really a part of the
USGenWeb Project.
I believe this is a real problem with our Project and unless we find a
solution to the problem it will continue to come back, over and over again.
If we could just put all of the past behind us, and start afresh, working
toward our future, we will all be much better off. If we are to succeed, we
need to work together as a team. And if we aren't willing to do that, then
my question is why are we in the same Project?
Terria
----- Original Message -----
From: "Teri Pettit" <pettit(a)adobe.com>
To: <USGENWEB-ALL-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: [ALL-L] Question.
Don and Linda,
Tina's "question" was for suggestions about what we all might be able to
do to improve the cooperation and good will between File Managers and
County Coordinators.
Griping about the charter of the Archives, as you've been doing, certainly
does not improve cooperation and build bridges.
(Neither does acting as if there is nothing at all that could stand to
be improved, as Linda seems to be doing.)
At 1:36 PM -0700 8/14/01, Don Tharp wrote:
>
>I wasn't referring to the CCs I was referring to the Archives which are
>intended for material that transcends county and state boundaries but now
>include everything imaginable.
>
> As spelled out in that wording the Archives were to be a resource
>for material that transcended county and state boundaries. I would assume
that
>to mean the Archives were not set up to be a repository for local
material.
>Land records, marriages, wills, state census, death records,
cemetery
records,
>school records, etc., etc.,
>
The archives were NEVER "intended for material that transcends county
and state boundaries."
I do think Linda is being too resistant to changing some of the submission
procedures, but she is dead right on the original charter of the Archives.
They were intended to fulfill two functions: (1) be a permanent repository
for files which would stay at the same dependable location regardless of
fluctuations in county and state coordinators and their web sites, and
(2) provide convenient storage space for county and state coordinators
who did not have enough room on their local servers to store all their
data files.
It was ALWAYS expected that most of the files in the Archives would
pertain to specific states and counties, as most genealogical records do.
The "Time to Do" in the name of Linda's original email list referred to
the idea that it was time to get busy transcribing and storing all those
county and state records that everyone could only view on microfilm.
The state > county > recordtype directory hierarchy was set up by George
Willick and Linda Lewis before the archives were even announced.
>Let me ask you this since you said those words were added in 1998. What
pitch
>was given to Jeff Murphy when he resisted the idea of including
the
archives
>within USGW???
Jeff Murphy's opposition to including the Archives within the USGenWeb
Project did not come about until after he started storing files in it,
and discovered that Linda and George required him to rename the files.
Jeff agreed with the two functions I described above, but he did not
expect
that there would be any rules enforced about how files could be named
or
organized. He saw the Archives as something like free space where the
CC would be able to name their files whatever they wanted, and put them
in whatever subdirectories they wanted, sort of an extension of their
own server space except that the files would have to stay there if the
CC changed.
I got involved in their argument because I agreed that George's original
file naming rules had problems (as did Jeff's preferred file names.)
So I tried to arbitrate by finding some rules they could both agree on.
Linda and George saw my points and changed their rules, but to Jeff the
specific drawbacks of the original rules wasn't the core issue. He was
very opposed to the whole idea of the CC not having complete freedom
to choose their file names at will. He wanted the Archives, but not as
any kind of organized "project", just as file space. He even agreed with
the procedure of submitting transcriptions to a File Manager rather than
giving the CC password access to the Archives, so that a CC would not
be able to take the files and run. But he thought the File Managers
should just store the files and not touch their names, and let each CC
specify what the directory paths should be. And I think he also expected
that files would be submitted first to the CC, and through them to the
FM, rather than in some cases going direct from transcriber to FM.
They could not come to an agreement. So Linda gave up on 'pitching' the
Archives rules to Jeff and turned to the project members. She put it
up to the usgenweb email list as to whether the Archives should stay
in the USGenWeb Project as an intact subproject with its own rules, or
whether the two projects should part ways. Some of the CC's wanted to
keep it under Jeff's vision of file space, but not as a subproject. But
the majority said they wanted to keep it, and agreed that it needed to
have consistent rules and structure. So the Archives stayed, and Jeff
resigned in protest.
I do think there are changes that could be made to improve the
relationship
between File Managers and County Coordinators. But any arguments for
doing
so shouldn't rely on misperceptions about what the original charter of
the Archives was.
Linda and Jeff had different opinions about how much control the CC should
have over the Archives, so in that respect they disagreed on exactly what
the Archives' charter was, but NEITHER of them ever saw it as being for
files that crossed locality boundaries, and it was never pitched that way
to the CC's. It was always pitched as a place to store mainly county
records.
-- Teri
==== USGENWEB-ALL Mailing List ====
The USGenWeb Project is not a commercial project.
==== USGENWEB-ALL Mailing List ====
The USGenWeb Project is not a commercial project.
--------------A4793B9E38EE7FCEA1E46DED--