Beginning March 2nd, 2020 the Mailing Lists functionality on RootsWeb will be discontinued. Users will no longer be able to send outgoing emails or accept incoming emails. Additionally, administration tools will no longer be available to list administrators and mailing lists will be put into an archival state.
Administrators may save the emails in their list prior to March 2nd. After that, mailing list archives will remain available and searchable on RootsWeb
Perhaps you're correct and nobody is interested, Denise.
I'm not suggesting we start a conversation about the intent of our
national USGW Project bylaws, however I would think that as SC, you
might want to seek some clarification and let us know whether our
state project is in compliance.
I do think our state project cc guidelines page should be updated to
clarify that in NCGenWeb the mandatory list is 'read-only.' (unless,
of course, my motion happens to pass <gr>)
I'm sure you point every new NCGenWeb cc to our state cc guidelines
page, and probably the national one as well. If I was new to
NCGenWeb, I expect I would be at least surprised, after reading those
guidelines, to discover I couldn't post to my mandatory state list,
particularly if I've come from another state which doesn't impose
such a restriction.
-Sandy
On Jul 7, 2007, at 8:56 AM, Denise Woodside wrote:
> I understand what you are saying Sandy, but to be honest, I don't
> think most of our volunteers are interested in a conversation trying
> to figure out the intent of the bylaws. Clearly, the move to the
> current format of the NCGenWeb list was accomplished via a vote of the
> volunteers. If the list is to be changed, I will do it because the
> volunteers vote to change it back.
>
> The original motion which was approved by a vote of the volunteers
> reads:
>
> This is a formal motion, that the manditory list for all NCGW cc's be
> a "Read Only" list for the use of the SC to make announcements or
> communicate information to all NCGW Project members. Also as part of
> this motion, the Discuss List to be made a closed list restricted to
> NCGW Project Members Only.
Please let me state my feelings, brief and to the point.
The NCGENWEB (mandatory subscription) is the only mail that I receive
where opting out is not an option.
When I receive mandatory mail, I don't want anything more than the
bare necessities--just needed information. Period.
And then there is the NCGENWEB-DISCUSS list. I have freely chosen to
subscribe to it.
I might add, the list is what we make it.
We can showcase our pages, use it to announce new features, talk
about our county, our interests; even our family, kids, grand kids, pets, etc.
As far as I know there are no restrictions and we know we are
communicating with fellow CC's.
As for me, I think the present scheme of things is just fine.
Seven years ago, some folks used the mandatory list strictly for
personal grievances. I hope I never see it turned into that again.
Using the NCGENWEB-DISCUSS list, I can rest assured that I am
speaking only with folks who have chosen to listen to me.
Derick S. Hartshorn
USGenWeb Project-County Coordinator
Catawba/Burke/Lincoln/Gaston/Cleveland, NC
http://www.rootsweb.com/~nccatawb/http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncburke/http://www.rootsweb.com/~nclincol/http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncgaston/http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncclevel/
At 01:40 PM 7/7/2007, Sandy wrote:
>Derick,
>
>Your perception that CC's "don't want mandatory lists" may be true,
>but I certainly can't do anything about it and it really has nothing
>to do with my proposal. My proposal concerns our state NCGenWeb list
>to which all of us are required to subscribe. That's not a new
>requirement and I certainly didn't establish it. I just abide by it
>like you and everybody else. I haven't proposed a new or additional
>list or any other new requirement. I've simply proposed lifting a 7-
>year long restriction and restoring our list to its original
>configuration. Period.
>
>I don't know of anyone, including myself, who "wants to be dictated
>to," or to be "embroiled in endless discussions and complaints," and
>I certainly haven't proposed either.
>
>I do hope you are mistaken in your perception that "CC's want to be
>left alone to do their thing," because if you're correct I don't
>think anything can improve communication and participation in the
>project, and to me that will be a downright sad realization.
>
>I honestly don't know why you wish to maintain a restriction we had
>to impose upon ourselves seven years ago. I didn't think any of us
>actually *wanted* to do it in the first place, but I honestly do not
>know what else we could have done. But this is seven YEARS later, for
>petesake, and I think that's MORE than a gracious plenty time to
>forget it and move on.
>
>-Sandy
>
>On Jul 6, 2007, at 2:32 PM, Derick Hartshorn wrote:
>
> > As for a "two-way" discussion list, I have listened to Project
> > members, then and now.
> > Recent posts, as well as those sent to me when I was SC, seem to
> > express the same theme:
> >
> > CC's want to be left alone to do their thing.
> > They don't want to be dictated to.
> > They don't want mandatory lists or restrictions.
> > They don't want to be embroiled in endless discussions and complaints.
> > It's just that simple!
> >
> > I support their wishes 100%.
>
>
>-------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe'
>without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
And I simply can't hold a grudge that long. ;-)
Seven years is looooong time to harbor ill-feelings, particularly
when the people who caused the problem are gone.
Besides, anyone who administers a list on Rootsweb knows full-well
they have the technical ability to handle a problematic list member
without muzzling every single subscriber to the list, in this case
every county coordinator in the project - a technical ability our SC/
list admin did *not* have seven whole years ago.
I do not think the present scheme of things is "just fine."
I think it's ridiculous to keep the list set to announce-only,
precluding every cc in the project the ability to post to it -
particularly those who weren't even around 7 years ago - simply
because a few "old-timers" who were around in 2000 can't get over it,
let go, and move on.
-Sandy
On Jul 7, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Derick Hartshorn wrote:
> As for me, I think the present scheme of things is just fine.
> Seven years ago, some folks used the mandatory list strictly for
> personal grievances. I hope I never see it turned into that again.
Correction!! There was a second and it has been forwarded on NCGenWeb.
On 7/7/07, Denise Woodside <genweb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The original motion has not been seconded.
>
> Denise
There seems to be a possibility that my proposal is moot.
I don't know how long the current pages have been posted, or if they
represent anything new, but both our national USGW and state NCGW web
sites have pages listing guidelines/requirements for county
coordinators. Both say cc's have to be subscribed to their state's
email list (that part I know is not new.)
But the wording of both, especially on the national site, seems to
describe the state lists as being 2-way, although each words it a
little differently. The national page seems fairly straight-forward,
saying the list is where "we discuss all matters having to do with
the project." Our NCGW page is a somewhat less clear, stating the
list is used "for internal communication between the State
Coordinator (SC) and all County Coodinators [sic] (CC) and Special
Project Volunteers."
While the word "communication" isn't quite the same as "discussion,"
it does say "communication between," which implies the communication
is 2-way. I don't see how can county coordinators can possibly
"discuss" or that there can be "communication between" us and anyone
on a list that we can't post a message to.
I really don't think these were posted online 7 years ago, but I
don't have any idea how long they have been. Possibly, they reflect
the changes in list admin software which essentially eliminate the
biggest part of the dilemma of 7 years ago.
In reading these, it seems as if my proposal may be moot. Does anyone
know? If so, what now?
Here are the relevant URLS:
http://www.usgenweb.org/volunteers/CCguidelines.shtml
> State mail list
> If you have not already done so, you need to join the mail list for
> your state of interest. This is where we discuss all matters having
> to do with the project.
http://www.rootsweb.com/%7Encgenweb/volunteer.html
> All county coordinators must subscribe to the NCGENWEB list. This
> is a closed list, and is used for internal communcation between the
> State Coordinator (SC) and all County Coodinators (CC) and Special
> Project Volunteers. The state coordinator will subscribe you to
> this list when you join the project.
-Sandy
On Jul 6, 2007, at 10:23 PM, Nola Duffy wrote:
> The question which
> has been raised is whether every CC MUST be subscribed to a list
> where any of us can post.
I just want to clarify that, while I realize this is how you
interpret my proposal, Nola, it really isn't what I proposed. I
suppose it can be construed as "technically accurate" for you to say
that "every CC MUST be subscribed to a list where any of us can
post," but I do feel this misrepresents the intent of the proposal
and implies that I've asked for some new "requirement" to be forced
upon everyone, which is not at *all* what I've proposed.
Our NCGenWeb list has *always* been our mandatory list, and was
always a 2-WAY list where all county coordinators received
information and also had the ability to post. The change to "announce-
only" was self-imposed by a majority of us in the face of a specific
"crisis" seven YEARS ago! Making the change seemed to be our only
viable option at the time. But seven whole years have passed. Times
do and have changed, and the reasons which prompted us to make that
change no longer even exist. Additionally, the much-improved list
admin software nowadays provides us the ability to handle such a
crises with far less extreme measures, should the need ever arise.
Frankly, given the dramatic decline in participation and
communication that's transpired in the last few years even on our
DIscuss list, I can't imagine in my wildest dreams that my proposal
would suddenly result in some excessive barrage of messages to our
NCGenWeb list... though i suppose we could always hope! ;-) But if
such an improbable event *should* miraculously occur, I would expect
the list admin to handle it by directing a discussion over to Discuss
list. And nowadays, if anyone should refuse to comply, the list admin
can warn them, and if necessary, even preclude individuals from
posting by changing their status to "moderated," *without* having to
impose that restriction upon the *entire* list. So it's not as if my
proposal is in any way destined to become some uncontrollable free-
for-all. ;-)
It does strike me as unfair to continue imposing restrictions that
are no longer even needed simply because some people are afraid the
amount of email might increase. Isn't improved participation and
communication worth putting up with a little more email?
-Sandy
>
Linda,
That is what the NC-Discuss list is supposed to be for, i.e. discussing anything that you might
have on your mind or question you might want to ask. As far as I know there are no "list rules". I
am notorious for asking computer and website questions on some of the lists I am on. There is
always someone with the answer. The same is true for every CC in the state. The question which
has been raised is whether every CC MUST be subscribed to a list where any of us can post. There
are a number of CCs who obviously prefer not to be subbed to the NC-Discuss. As for participation,
the list is what each of us make it. I know I have county lists where there is much more
communication that we see on the NC-Discuss list. I am also fortunate that Sandy has interests in
the counties that I happen to host and she does a great job answering questions which makes the
county mailing lists a success. I admit, I post to the researchers in my counties far more than I
post on the NCDiscuss list.
I don't know of any particular reason why the NC-Discuss has not be utilized more, whether it is
60% or 100% that are subbed to the list. I personally do not know since I am not the list-admin.
I agree, a sense of community is very important. Still, I can think of a couple top CCs in the
state who have great mailing lists for their counties that are very active but have never posted a
word on the NC-Discuss list. However, I do know we will do what the majority of CCs prefer and if a
majority feel it is important, it will be done.
The NCGenWeb is a community of 78 members at my last count. It would indeed be fun to hear from
many more on a regular basis. If nothing else, by raising the question, Sandy has prompted a few
responses.
I have not heard from Denise about a 2nd yet. I know there were two 2nds on this list. Assuming
there has been a second to Sandy's motion, the passwords will start out tomorrow. I can do mail
merge but still have not figured out how to make it mail the messages ;) I had to do an election in
another state recently and had to send each letter individually because I could not get the mail
merge to work properly ;)
Nola
----- Original Message -----
From: "Linda" <ma_scrooge47(a)yahoo.com>
To: <ncgenweb-discuss(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 8:59 PM
Subject: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] List and List Rules, etc.
> "we really don't even know who is in the project these days, and we've lost
> the sense of
> community we once had."
>
> NOT being a CC who has been with the project since the beginning, I agree
> that Sandy's proposal sounds good and practical, too. I don't feel a part
> of a "community" of CC's at all. And I certainly don't know who else is
> involved with the project. I don't have time to visit everyone else's
> websites, but I'd still like to get ideas from them. The Discuss list has
> NOT functioned that way while I've been a CC.
>
> Of course, as a CC, I don't want anyone telling me how I HAVE to do the
> website--I don't want anyone doing that in any part of my life. And having
> a list to communicate is NOT the same as having a method of addressing
> complaints.
>
> If there was just one list where we could get announcements & maybe
> "pronouncements" from the elected officials but also have a chance to
> comment on what's happening or ask for help with some project, I know I
> would participate in the list more and feel more supported by the NC GenWeb
> Project as a whole. Being supportive is not the same as "meddling"!
>
>>"I don't know if reverting to the earlier status of the lists will
>> solve the problem, but I think it might be time to give it a try."
>
> I see no reason why it couldn't be tried, unless someone is concerned about
> giving up some sort of pseudo power. I don't want to get bogged down in
> emails, but, as an adult, I've figured out that I can scan them quickly and
> delete whatever I'm not interested in and save the "jewels" I sometimes
> find.
>
> I'm usually an advocate of "if it's not broke, don't fix it", but I'm afraid
> true communication has been broken in NC. If most other states have only
> one list, why do we need to be different?
>
> Linda Anders
> Transylvania County CC
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Elizabeth Harris" <ncgen(a)mindspring.com>
> To: <ncgenweb-discuss(a)rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 4:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] List and List Rules, etc.
>
>
>> Joel very nicely expressed what I'm feeling also:
>>
>>>I think Sandy was just trying to find a way to get CCs talking with
>>>each other, we as a group are very silent.
>>
>> and Sandy did the same in an earlier post. There aren't many people
>> left in NCGenWeb whose participation dates back to 1996, but Sandy,
>> Joel, Derick and I all are in that category, and I think there are a
>> few others - although as Sandy pointed out, we really don't even know
>> who is in the project these days, and we've lost the sense of
>> community we once had.
>>
>> I don't know if reverting to the earlier status of the lists will
>> solve the problem, but I think it might be time to give it a try.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Elizabeth Harris
>> ncgen(a)mindspring.com
>>
>> Personal genealogy webpage: http://www.duke.edu/web/chlamy
>> Winston-Salem NC area genealogy: http://www.fmoran.com/
>> HOLDER DNA project: http://www.mindspring.com/~holderdna/
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>> NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
>> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-request(a)rootsweb.com with
> the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.1/888 - Release Date: 7/6/2007 6:36 AM
>
>
"we really don't even know who is in the project these days, and we've lost
the sense of
community we once had."
NOT being a CC who has been with the project since the beginning, I agree
that Sandy's proposal sounds good and practical, too. I don't feel a part
of a "community" of CC's at all. And I certainly don't know who else is
involved with the project. I don't have time to visit everyone else's
websites, but I'd still like to get ideas from them. The Discuss list has
NOT functioned that way while I've been a CC.
Of course, as a CC, I don't want anyone telling me how I HAVE to do the
website--I don't want anyone doing that in any part of my life. And having
a list to communicate is NOT the same as having a method of addressing
complaints.
If there was just one list where we could get announcements & maybe
"pronouncements" from the elected officials but also have a chance to
comment on what's happening or ask for help with some project, I know I
would participate in the list more and feel more supported by the NC GenWeb
Project as a whole. Being supportive is not the same as "meddling"!
>"I don't know if reverting to the earlier status of the lists will
> solve the problem, but I think it might be time to give it a try."
I see no reason why it couldn't be tried, unless someone is concerned about
giving up some sort of pseudo power. I don't want to get bogged down in
emails, but, as an adult, I've figured out that I can scan them quickly and
delete whatever I'm not interested in and save the "jewels" I sometimes
find.
I'm usually an advocate of "if it's not broke, don't fix it", but I'm afraid
true communication has been broken in NC. If most other states have only
one list, why do we need to be different?
Linda Anders
Transylvania County CC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Elizabeth Harris" <ncgen(a)mindspring.com>
To: <ncgenweb-discuss(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] List and List Rules, etc.
> Joel very nicely expressed what I'm feeling also:
>
>>I think Sandy was just trying to find a way to get CCs talking with
>>each other, we as a group are very silent.
>
> and Sandy did the same in an earlier post. There aren't many people
> left in NCGenWeb whose participation dates back to 1996, but Sandy,
> Joel, Derick and I all are in that category, and I think there are a
> few others - although as Sandy pointed out, we really don't even know
> who is in the project these days, and we've lost the sense of
> community we once had.
>
> I don't know if reverting to the earlier status of the lists will
> solve the problem, but I think it might be time to give it a try.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Elizabeth Harris
> ncgen(a)mindspring.com
>
> Personal genealogy webpage: http://www.duke.edu/web/chlamy
> Winston-Salem NC area genealogy: http://www.fmoran.com/
> HOLDER DNA project: http://www.mindspring.com/~holderdna/
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Sandy, NCGWP members,
No apologies are needed nor expected.
My Catawba County genealogical site preceded the NCGenWeb by several
months. Since then, I have assumed hosting duties of other counties.
During that early time of formation, I hoped that an umbrella
organization would come along to encompass Catawba and the other 99
NC counties in our state.
I watched that dream come to fruition. And you, and may others, have
become very much a part of that.
I have never sought to impose my ideas on others nor have I tried to
dictate the format and direction of this Project.
My decision, in 2000, to run for SC was based only on the fact that I
saw the original concept being fragmented by dissenting voices.
During my tenure, some organizational necessities were implemented
and there is no need now to plow old ground.
As for a "two-way" discussion list, I have listened to Project
members, then and now.
Recent posts, as well as those sent to me when I was SC, seem to
express the same theme:
CC's want to be left alone to do their thing.
They don't want to be dictated to.
They don't want mandatory lists or restrictions.
They don't want to be embroiled in endless discussions and complaints.
It's just that simple!
I support their wishes 100%.
Since 1996, I have been applying my talents and knowledge resources
to the sites I administer.
I don't want somebody dictating what I should or should not do to my
NCGWP web sites.
I don't think that my pages are any better or "prettier" than any
other member page.
The USGenWeb has allowed each of us to be as creative, artistic and
autonomous as we choose to be.
And now the question has been raised that we, as a USGW Project
member alter the way that we communicate among one another.
The first question should be: What's wrong with the way we are
currently doing it?
Secondly, have our communications broken down to the point that
remediation is needed?
Thirdly, are there are any members who are not aware with Project
By-Laws or expectations?
Lastly, are there any members of our Project who have been denied due
process through the established methods I previously delineated?
Again, Sandy, no apologies are expected, nor due.
I think every member in our Project respects you for your
contributions and your desire to work within the existing framework
of our organization.
I know, like you, I am proud to have the opportunity to be a part of
the greatest FREE GENEALOGICAL resource on the Internet.
Derick S. Hartshorn
USGenWeb Project-County Coordinator
Catawba/Burke/Lincoln/Gaston/Cleveland, NC
http://www.rootsweb.com/~nccatawb/http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncburke/http://www.rootsweb.com/~nclincol/http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncgaston/http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncclevel/
At 03:51 PM 7/6/2007, Sandy wrote:
>Derick,
>
>Please allow me to apologize for misunderstanding what you said. I
>certainly didn't intend to misrepresent you.
>
>I hope you will re-read my proposal, because it only returns the list
>to its original configuration, and has nothing whatsoever to do with
>anybody's "personal complaints." As you've pointed out, there are
>very specific (I guess even mandatory?) procedures for that sort of
>thing. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with returning our list
>to its original 2-way configuration.
>
>Also, my proposal does make clear that the list master has both the
>ability and authority to deal with a bad situation should one arise
>by warning a cc that their messages are inappropriate, and even then
>placing them on individual "moderated" status, if necessary. I don't
>think the technical ability to do that existed in the Rootsweb list
>software of seven years ago, so that wasn't an option. But it is now,
>so I do think that should alleviate your concern.
>
>Anyway, again my apologies for misunderstanding you.
>
>-Sandy
>
>On Jul 6, 2007, at 12:37 PM, Derick Hartshorn wrote:
>
> > Dear NC folks,
> >
> > I would like to personally apologize to NC list members for implying
> > that I support an unmoderated, two-way, mandatory state list.
> > Sandy expressed her opinion that she felt there should be another way
> > to make state discussion a two-way street.
> > I never supported the concept she proposed but merely supported
> > Sandy's right to express her opinion.
> > As I recall, the last time we had such a list and the reason for it's
> > demise was abuse by a small minority of Project members.
> >
> > Legitimate complaints and grievances within the Project have a
> > mandated avenue of pursuit:
> >
> > 1. Any complaints in a State Project should be directed to the
> > appropriate ASC's and SC for determination and resolution.
> > 2. Failing the expectations of the complainant, the next step is to
> > the appropriate CC Representative.
> > 3. Should their grievance fail to be resolved at that point, the
> > Advisory Board has been instituted to arbitrate.
> > 4. The question submitting the arbitration to a Grievance Committee,
> > to my understanding, has not yet been finalized.
> >
> > *At no time* should any state mandatory list be utilized for personal
> > complaints.
> >
> > The purpose of a mandatory state list should be for the:
> >
> > 1. Sharing of information that is of benefit to all County
> > Coordinators.
> > 2. Promulgation of information and directives from the national
> > Project that may not have been previously communicated to
> > individual CCs.
> > 3. Recognition of CCs and their pages for special contributions and
> > innovations.
> >
> > In short, I feel that the current methods used by the NCGWP to
> > communicate to its members is adequate and I don't feel any change is
> > necessary.
> > If I implied otherwise, I apologize. I have always felt that all
> > members should feel free to express their concerns.
> > I believe we currently have the mechanisms in place to do just that.
> >
> > In addition, my opinion regarding elections regarding "one-county,
> > one-vote" is simple.
> > Each member should have one vote, regardless of the number of
> > counties they administer.
> >
> > Derick S. Hartshorn
> > USGenWeb Project-County Coordinator
> > Catawba/Burke/Lincoln/Gaston/Cleveland, NC
> > http://www.rootsweb.com/~nccatawb/
> > http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncburke/
> > http://www.rootsweb.com/~nclincol/
> > http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncgaston/
> > http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncclevel/
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NCGENWEB-
> > DISCUSS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
> > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
>-------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe'
>without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Hi all,
I'm going to through in my 2 cents here. The following are my
personal opinions and perceptions. I've been here since 1996 and
have read just about all of the posts on the two lists.
I think Sandy was just trying to find a way to get CCs talking with
each other, we as a group are very silent.
I think the reason most of us stay quiet, and I know it is why I do,
is that the conversations don't stay plain and simple. There is a
focus on 'rules' of how to say or present something instead of just
plain, casual, dialogue between people. In reading the discussion
thus far we've gone through a multitude of posts just to find a way
for Sandy to 'properly' ask the question she is wanting to ask.
I wish we could treat each other as friends and neighbors instead of
business associates.
Enough said, I'll slip back to doing genealogy which is what I do best.
Joel
It is still read only, Elizabeth. Just as it was in July 2000.
Denise
On 7/6/07, Elizabeth Harris <ncgen(a)mindspring.com> wrote:
> >Our NCGENWEB list is moderated. Any postings to it come to me for a
> >decision to accept it or reject it. We have consistently used the
> >list for at least one business session per year with no problems.
> >And I rarely receive messages that I have to make a decision about.
>
> I think I've missed something here. The NCGENWEB list was made
> read-only back at the beginning of July 2000. The change was
> proposed by CCs, discussed, and voted on.
>
> If it's still read-only, then only the SC and perhaps a few other
> project administratars can post to it. Why then does it need to be
> moderated?
>
> If it's NOT still read-only, then Sandy's proposal is unnecessary. I
> would be interested in knowing however when that change was made.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Elizabeth Harris
> ncgen(a)mindspring.com
>
> Personal genealogy webpage: http://www.duke.edu/web/chlamy
> Winston-Salem NC area genealogy: http://www.fmoran.com/
> HOLDER DNA project: http://www.mindspring.com/~holderdna/
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
Derick,
Please allow me to apologize for misunderstanding what you said. I
certainly didn't intend to misrepresent you.
I hope you will re-read my proposal, because it only returns the list
to its original configuration, and has nothing whatsoever to do with
anybody's "personal complaints." As you've pointed out, there are
very specific (I guess even mandatory?) procedures for that sort of
thing. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with returning our list
to its original 2-way configuration.
Also, my proposal does make clear that the list master has both the
ability and authority to deal with a bad situation should one arise
by warning a cc that their messages are inappropriate, and even then
placing them on individual "moderated" status, if necessary. I don't
think the technical ability to do that existed in the Rootsweb list
software of seven years ago, so that wasn't an option. But it is now,
so I do think that should alleviate your concern.
Anyway, again my apologies for misunderstanding you.
-Sandy
On Jul 6, 2007, at 12:37 PM, Derick Hartshorn wrote:
> Dear NC folks,
>
> I would like to personally apologize to NC list members for implying
> that I support an unmoderated, two-way, mandatory state list.
> Sandy expressed her opinion that she felt there should be another way
> to make state discussion a two-way street.
> I never supported the concept she proposed but merely supported
> Sandy's right to express her opinion.
> As I recall, the last time we had such a list and the reason for it's
> demise was abuse by a small minority of Project members.
>
> Legitimate complaints and grievances within the Project have a
> mandated avenue of pursuit:
>
> 1. Any complaints in a State Project should be directed to the
> appropriate ASC's and SC for determination and resolution.
> 2. Failing the expectations of the complainant, the next step is to
> the appropriate CC Representative.
> 3. Should their grievance fail to be resolved at that point, the
> Advisory Board has been instituted to arbitrate.
> 4. The question submitting the arbitration to a Grievance Committee,
> to my understanding, has not yet been finalized.
>
> *At no time* should any state mandatory list be utilized for personal
> complaints.
>
> The purpose of a mandatory state list should be for the:
>
> 1. Sharing of information that is of benefit to all County
> Coordinators.
> 2. Promulgation of information and directives from the national
> Project that may not have been previously communicated to
> individual CCs.
> 3. Recognition of CCs and their pages for special contributions and
> innovations.
>
> In short, I feel that the current methods used by the NCGWP to
> communicate to its members is adequate and I don't feel any change is
> necessary.
> If I implied otherwise, I apologize. I have always felt that all
> members should feel free to express their concerns.
> I believe we currently have the mechanisms in place to do just that.
>
> In addition, my opinion regarding elections regarding "one-county,
> one-vote" is simple.
> Each member should have one vote, regardless of the number of
> counties they administer.
>
> Derick S. Hartshorn
> USGenWeb Project-County Coordinator
> Catawba/Burke/Lincoln/Gaston/Cleveland, NC
> http://www.rootsweb.com/~nccatawb/
> http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncburke/
> http://www.rootsweb.com/~nclincol/
> http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncgaston/
> http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncclevel/
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NCGENWEB-
> DISCUSS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>Our NCGENWEB list is moderated. Any postings to it come to me for a
>decision to accept it or reject it. We have consistently used the
>list for at least one business session per year with no problems.
>And I rarely receive messages that I have to make a decision about.
I think I've missed something here. The NCGENWEB list was made
read-only back at the beginning of July 2000. The change was
proposed by CCs, discussed, and voted on.
If it's still read-only, then only the SC and perhaps a few other
project administratars can post to it. Why then does it need to be
moderated?
If it's NOT still read-only, then Sandy's proposal is unnecessary. I
would be interested in knowing however when that change was made.
--
Elizabeth Harris
ncgen(a)mindspring.com
Personal genealogy webpage: http://www.duke.edu/web/chlamy
Winston-Salem NC area genealogy: http://www.fmoran.com/
HOLDER DNA project: http://www.mindspring.com/~holderdna/
As an FYI to all on our discussion - I'm teaching today and won't be
able to get through all the messages until much later. I wanted to
let you know, so you didn't wonder where I was.
Denise
Hi Paul,
I don't think you missed anything, and I don't think there was
anything special about the timing, other than it's election time and
Derick posted to encourage everybody to participate in the governing
process, so it just seemed like a good time to return our NCGenWeb
list to its original 2-way format. Might not produce some "miracle"
of participation, but surely couldn't hurt. Derick encouraged me to
propose it and said he'd support it, so I did, and there you have the
gist of it. ;-)
"Back in the day," our NCGenWeb list was set up as our main means of
communication with one another, indeed the only way we had to send
out a message that everyone would get. It was only changed to
"announce-only" because we found ourselves in a "bit of a crisis" at
the time. That, of course, was all quite a long time ago, and the
crisis has long since passed, so there doesn't seem to be any
particular reason not to return the list to its original
configuration. I don't know whether there are other states that
restrict their list to "announce-only," but I do know that many
don't. As Denise said, she was surprised to discover ours was "post
only."
So anyway, since apparently Denise's poll won't do the trick, and the
proposal has to be done more formally through an official convening
of a business session on the NCGenWeb list, I made the official
request you said was needed - or at least I think I did. Somehow it's
all beginning to feel mighty complicated, so if I didn't get it
right, please let me know what else I or Denise needs to do.
Thanks,
Sandy
On Jul 6, 2007, at 8:48 AM, Paul D. Buckley wrote:
> Am curious as to timing of the issue now raised. Have I missed
> something or unknowingly not handled a request to post on the list?
Here's that link
http://www.archive.org/index.php
----- Original Message -----
From: <bladencountyncgw(a)triad.rr.com>
To: <ncgenweb-discuss(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 6:37 AM
Subject: Re: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] Columbus Co.
> It would be such a shame to lose the wealth of information that was on
> the Columbus County page. The internet archives could be used to
> extract a lot of this info. I'm not sure which company runs this
> site, but it archives almost all web pages.
>
> Jason
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Nola Duffy <nduffy(a)patch.net>
> Date: Friday, July 6, 2007 0:39 am
> Subject: Re: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] Columbus Co.
> To: ncgenweb-discuss(a)rootsweb.com
>
>>
>> I think Denise has already asked for the existing account on
>> Rootsweb. She is aware that the
>> previous Columbus Co. site is down and presumed closed. She
>> mentioned that someone had expressed an
>> interest in taking it so it should be up shortly.
>>
>> Nola
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Sandy" <teylu(a)earthlink.net>
>> To: <ncgenweb-discuss(a)rootsweb.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 11:28 PM
>> Subject: Re: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] slightly revised.Re:official proposal
>>
>>
>> >
>> > On Jul 5, 2007, at 9:01 PM, bladencountyncgw(a)triad.rr.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> What has happened to Columbus County? It has been down for
>> over a
>> >> month.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Looks like that server account has been closed, Jason. I checked
> and
>> > there's an open account for Columbus on the rootsweb servers at
>> > http://www.rootsweb.com/~nccolumb , but no one seems to be using
> it.
>> >
>> > Denise or Nola or Paul.... has the Columbus County CC left the
>> > project, making Columbus available for adoption?
>> >
>> > We've also got (or had) a page on which counties are listed when
>> they> come up for adoption - along with a list of people who are
>> hoping to
>> > adopt. But it says the last update was in May 2005? (surely, that'
>> > must be an error!)
>> > http://www.rootsweb.com/%7Encgenweb/volunteer.html
>> >
>> > Any chance we can update the adoption page? If a volunteer is
> needed
>> > to keep the list updated, I don't mind doing it if someone will
> tell
>> > me which counties are available, and has a list of folks interested
>> > in adopting.
>> >
>> > -Sandy
>> >
>> >
>> > -------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NCGENWEB-
>> DISCUSS-request(a)rootsweb.com with
>> > the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the
>> body of the message
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > No virus found in this incoming message.
>> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 - Release Date:
>> 7/4/2007 1:40 PM
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NCGENWEB-
>> DISCUSS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
>> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
Folks,
Am not receiving all my emails on a timely basis. So, I think this is an answer to Sandy's latest question.
Our NCGENWEB list is moderated. Any postings to it come to me for a decision to accept it or reject it. We have consistently used the list for at least one business session per year with no problems. And I rarely receive messages that I have to make a decision about.
Am curious as to timing of the issue now raised. Have I missed something or unknowingly not handled a request to post on the list?
>From my list admin perspective, it is easier for me to maintain the lists as they are currently designated. And, regardless of whether or not a list is moderated, the onus is upon the list administrator to maintain it according to posting rules. So, I'm wondering if we are having problems requiring us to revisit the list issue to the extent that we need a change in list administrators.
One other statistical comment. The number of CC's subscribing to the DISCUSS list has almost doubled since Denise was first elected SC, from about 25 to 48. The activity on the list has not increased.
Thanks,
Paul
Denise,
Apparently the poll you asked for isn't formal enough and won't work.
According to Paul's message, I have to ask you "to convene a business
session on the NCGENWEB-L" for the purpose of presenting my proposal.
(Who knew? <gr>)
Okay, so here we go with my requisite request.....
Denise, since it seems a poll won't work, would you please convene a
business session on our NCGENWEB-L list for the purpose of
considering my proposal which was made, and seconded (twice) on our
NCGenWeb-Discuss List. My proposal, as seconded, is:
WHEREAS the NCGenWeb-L list is the only mandatory list to which all
NCGW county coordinators are subscribed, and hence is the most
efficient and most readily available mechanism through which any
NCGenWeb county coordinator can effectively contact all fellow CC's, and
WHEREAS the NCGenWeb-L list was originally, and for many years, a 2-
way list for communication about NCGenWeb Project business both to
and between the Project's county coordinators; and
WHEREAS the NCGenWeb-L list was subsequently changed, during
emergency circumstances, to an "announce-only" list, thereby
eliminating the ability of the county coordinators to readily or
effectively communicate with one another through their list; and
WHEREAS, at the time the list was changed to "announce-only," the
change was not intended to be permanent in nature, rather to be
temporary during a time of crisis; and
WHEREAS that time of crisis has long passed, and NCGenWeb county
coordinators remain without the ability to readily and effectively
communicate with one another via their list;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,
That the NCGenWeb-L list be reinstated to its original configuration
of 2-way communication for NCGenWeb Project business, with the list
master (namely, the SC or his/her designated assistant) being vested
with the usual authority of a list master to define the parameters of
appropriate topics and appropriate language, and to instruct
discussion be moved over to the NCGenWeb-L DISCUSS list when the list
master feels appropriate; and to take action, if necessary, regarding
list members who fail to comply with list rules - including placing
a subscriber on "moderated" status, if necessary, AFTER first warning
the subscriber ON the list that such action will be taken if the
offending behavior continues, this being a mandatory list from which
county coordinators cannot be wholly "removed."
Thanks so much,
Sandy
------------------------------------
On Jul 5, 2007, at 3:05 PM, Denise Woodside wrote:
> Hi all! I have been listening. I have been a member of two
> organizations other than NCGenWeb. And since I don't have the history
> with NCGenWeb that some of you have, I can admit that I was kind of
> surprised that there was a "post only" list in NCGenWeb, because that
> isn't how MOGen and MSGenWeb does it. But even MOGen and MSGenWeb
> don't do it the same way (one has only one list, the other has three).
>
> However, it was my understanding that having the lists as they are
> today was the desire of the majority of the NCGenWeb volunteers.
> Because there was a time when there were many off-topic, or
> "political" messages being sent, there were those that only wanted to
> receive the project-specific messages. However, times have changed
> and not all of our volunteers are the same today as they were at that
> time, so their might be a change of mind.
>
> Nola -- you did such a fine job with our previous informal poll, would
> it be possible for you to do another on this subject? Specifically,
> to ask the volunteers if they would like to open up the NCGenWeb-L to
> two-way communication. I would not want to abolish this optional
> discussion list.
>
> As a reminder to all on this hist, NCGenWeb-L is the mandatory list,
> and can be posted to by ASCs and SCs only, but anyone with a message
> that should go to the whole group, can simply send it to one of us and
> ask us to forward it. NCGenWeb-Discuss-L is the optional list, but
> 60% of our volunteers to opt to be a part of it.
>
> So - Nola, will you accept the challenge to be the poll taker!! I
> liked your organized approach on the previous poll.
>
-----------------
> On Jul 5, 2007, at 11:36 PM, Paul D. Buckley wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> Have been following the recent postings about our list rules. As
>> your NCGenWeb list(s) "grandpa" and ASC for quite a few years, the
>> rules, procedures, and list administration tasks have not changed
>> since they were voted upon in a parliamentary session in 2000.
>> Neither has our order of business according to generally accepted
>> parliamentary procedures changed since then.
>>
>> To keep things simple, formal, and less confusing, any project
>> member desirous of changing or rescinding rules should ask Denise
>> to convene a business session on the NCGENWEB-L for that purpose.
>> Items posted on the NCGENWEB-DISCUSS list generally have been
>> considered informal, and not necessarily acted upon by the project
>> membership.
>>
>> I think someone mentioned that the "mandatory" list has 78
>> subscribers and the discuss list has 48...also some of you are
>> subscribed on the discuss list with both your work and home email
>> address, so I'm sure that a formal proposal made on this list will
>> be read by just over half of our project members.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> -------------------------------