[No Conflict.
USGWBL - Article XIV, and USGWBL Article XII, Sec. 5]
11. Settlement of Grievances.
In the event of a disagreement involving a GAGenWeb site, or a disagreement
over genealogical data stored on, or proposed for, a GAGenWeb site the
following method, starting with the first position above the highest
position held by either party involved, will be applied:
a)
(i) - the county coordinator is contacted and asked to settle the grievance.
If a settlement cannot be reached, the CC's Regional coordinator should be
contacted.
(ii) - the state special project coordinator is contacted and asked to
settle the grievance. If a settlement cannot be reached, the Assistant State
Coordinator should be contacted, as shown in section 11 c).
b) the Regional Coordinator is contacted and asked to settle the grievance.
If a settlement cannot be reached, the Assistant State Coordinator should be
contacted, as shown in section 11 c).
c) the Assistant State Coordinator is contacted and asked to settle the
grievance. If a settlement cannot be reached, the State Coordinator should
be contacted as shown in section 11 d).
d} the State Coordinator is contacted and asked to settle the grievance. The
decision of the State Coordinator may be appealed to the GAGenWeb Council.
The decision of the GAGenWeb Council is final.
[After exhausting GAGenWeb's Grievance procedures, a party may have recourse
under the USGenWeb Bylaws].
Why don't we change this in section D to something along the lines of:
"d} the State Coordinator is contacted and asked to settle the grievance. The
decision of the State Coordinator may be appealed to a Peer Review Committee.
The decision of the Peer Review Committee is final."
This gets the GAGenWeb Council out of this business and let's the people -
the peers of the CC, determine if a just and fair decision was made.
How the Peer Review Committee would be set up, is up to the members to decide.
The SC is to be an ex-offico member of any committee - except in cases that
deal directly with the SC, in which case one of the ASCs would sit instead in
that position.
[No Conflict.
USGWBL - Article XI, Sec. 2. ]
12. Appointment of a Coordinator.
A county or special project coordinator may be selected by the SC, or, with
the SC's approval, the RC. To determine if the candidate receives the county
or special project, an RC or SC may take any of the following into
consideration:
a) the opinion of the outgoing CC or SPC.
b) the candidate's past performance in GAGenWeb.
c) the candidate's past performance in other xxGenWeb Projects.
d) the opinion of the SC or RC.
e) the opinion of the GAGenWeb Council.
A new coordinator's responsibilities will include (in order of importance):
a) obtain the ftp account information from the RC.
b) ask the RC if the old design has been donated to the new coordinator's
use.
c) edit the coordinator's name, email address, and copyright information on
each HTML page on the site, within seven days.
d) informing the RC of any problems in the county changeover.
e) make any necessary page redesigns within 30 days. If the site is very
large, the CC should seek the RC's approval in taking more time. A CC may,
of course, make changes s/he deems necessary and/or beneficial to the site
at any time.
At no time will a CC maintain more than three counties within the GAGenWeb
Project. Those CCs holding more than three counties upon the approval of
these guidelines shall be exempt from this rule, until such time as they
maintain not more than three counties.
Something needs to be added about co-CCs which I see as a partner, equally
responsible for the county site and/or asst. CCs which would be helpers
not responsible for the county site.
As the former is as responsible as the primary CC, it would seem logical
that they also be approved. The latter, not being responsible for the site
would be selected at the discretion of the CC.
[No Conflict.
USGWBL - Article VI, Sec. 5]
13. Abandoned Sites.
A GAGenWeb county or special project site will be deemed abandoned if any of
the following occur:
a) A CC or SPC cannot be reached by email for 30 days, without prior
notification to the RC or SC and the GAGEN list.
b) The site has not been updated with genealogical data within nine (9)
months. (Some consideration may be given to sites for counties less than 100
years old. Also, new links to GAGenWeb Archives files, pertaining to the
county in question, may be considered an update.)
c) A CC or SPC refuses to answer email from an RC; ASC; or SC.
d) A CC refuses to add county-related, transcribed data to their site from a
submitter, if the transcribed data does not appear to violate any person or
entity's copyright. ("Violations" of this section will invoke an inquiry to
find the cause of the refusal, to be sure of the reasons for the refusal.)
The CC has the right to determine if gedcoms, family group sheets, or
information about a single family is relevant to their county site.
This blurb about the Archives needs to be removed - for it is in conflict with
the premise that the county sites are the principle data resource of county
material.
This does not prohibit the CC from also contributing the data to the
Archives but
it does mean county site first.
Linking to other sites - is not putting data on the county website.
If a CC cannot within a reasonable time add data contributed, to their
website,
provisions need to made for that - whether it be help or contributing it to
the
Archives.
I realize this may sound to be in direct conflict with what I said earlier
but it
is not. It just recognizes that some folks can be overwhelmed by data to
the point
that to get it online faster, the Archives while not the first choice, is
better
than letting data sit unused and unavailable for our clients.
[Not in Conflict.
USGWBL - Article IX, Sec. 2 (also see Article III), And Section seven of the
USGW Guidelines: State Requirements.]
15. Offering Items for Sale on County Sites.
Coordinators may provide a list of, or links to, genealogical materials
available for purchase that relate to the specific County or Project,
provided it is not on the main page and is not the primary purpose of the
site (as stated in Section 6).
Items will not be offered for sale by a GAGenWeb Coordinator, or any entity
with whom the Coordinator may have a monetary interest. Additionally, monies
will not be solicited on any GAGenWeb state or county page with the
following exceptions:
a) Professionally printed books, bound in hardcover or industry accepted
(perfect bound, etc) softcover, that contain information related to the
county or subject of the Web page on which it is offered.
b) Professionally manufactured CD-ROMs containing data related to the county
or subject of the Web page on which it is offered.
c) Requests for donations to a legitimate genealogy or historical society.
A coordinator who chooses to sell items within the above exceptions, must
abide by sound business practices. Persistent complaints to GAGenWeb about
failure to deliver the proper items and/or refunds where applicable could
result in dismissal from GAGenWeb. A coordinator who sells, or solicits
items not covered within the exceptions above will be immediately dismissed
from GAGenWeb.
I believe this needs to be changed to say that it is ok for county sites to
point directly to their local genealogy or historical society that do in fact
charge for either their services or for publications they have.
Most folks understand that this is how most of these organizations survive.
Why
should we do a dis-service to our clients by not making them aware that in
addition
to the material we offer - freely, there may be some items we don't have
that the
local society does? We aren't making a dime off this and it seems to me that
we are withholding information from our clients by hiding this resource
from them.
Tim