Wow! See we can agree on some things! Your "idea" or plan, I think might need
a little more work, but this is an example of how everyone has let too many
specifics come in the way of doing good things in this project. By opening up
communication, wow, we see that there are things that can be agreed with. If we
just truly listen to each others ideas, who knows what we may end up with....I
can tell you it will be the best darn project around!
Keep up these constructive ideas folks, thank you Angie!
Terria
Angie Rayfield wrote:
At 12:07 PM 08/30/2000 -0500, diana faust wrote:
> > Actually, we have no need whatsoever to trademark our name,
>
>To those who sit on the sides and throw stones at every idea that comes
>along,
>I ask you again to please tell us your positive ideas:
>
>Perhaps it would help if you would state what your priorities and opinions
>are. What is your vision of what the USGenWeb Project is? What direction
>should it be going in, what should be our goals? What would you like to
>see us work for and what do we need to accomplish in order to get us there?
>And I don't mean just 'put genealogy online' because we all are here to
do
>that.
Well, I don't feel like I was throwing stones by pointing out that we don't
have to spend a ton of money to register a trademark in order to use the
(TM) symbol, and protect ourselves by trademark.
But maybe it would help to hear from everyone about our priorities and
opinions. About the project in general, especially. It might give us a
much better idea of where everyone is coming from, and what needs to be
pursued, and what should be set aside for now. So, in that spirit, here
goes :)
But I don't think we should be too quick to dismiss "put genealogy online"
as a goal -- for many people, I think that IS the only goal. A better way
to phrase it, though, may be to provide free access to genealogical and
historical data online. They live in, or have roots in, the county they've
adopted, and they put their pages and their information online as a labor
of love. Everything else is just details <g>. It's probably a good thing
that most of the CC's fall into this category; they get the work done, with
no bickering, arguing, or power plays. Without their pages, projects like
this would fall apart.
But I don't think it's possible to run a project this size without some
direction and some structure. And some groups need more formal structure
than others. I would say that this group needs formal structure -- we seem
quite incapable of going about our business quietly and simply
accomplishing the basic goal <g>. We argue incessantly, about
everything. I prefer to think it's because we're passionate about what
we're doing. But it's not good for the project as a whole -- we waste a
lot of time that could be put to much better use. We take votes, and then
people who disagree with the results keep treading over the same ground ad
nauseum -- either arguing that the vote wasn't valid, that they don't
believe they were given the correct results, or just going ahead and doing
something that the group voted against doing. Our elected SC can't go to
the bathroom without having her motives questioned, and her every action
endlessly debated. Folks, if you don't want an SC to have the authority to
take any action, then do away with the position and just have a state-level
webmaster, and we can keep on arguing every petty point until we've driven
away everyone but a few stubborn CC's. I don't think this is going to be
good for the project, either.
So, what do I think our priorities should be? Well, I think we should make
sure the horse is in front of the cart, and not the other way around
<g>. The first thing we need to do is to establish a formal list of
guidelines, or by-laws, and put them into place. Without rules to follow,
we're going to keep treading the same old ground over and over again. And,
no offense, but this is not a group that should be trying to write by-laws
by committee. Sharon should appoint one person to do the writing -- don't
start screaming yet! We can establish, by way of reasonable discussion on
this list, areas that should be covered. Nothing other than the general
areas, mind you. Anyone who has an idea of the specifics should
communicate them, by private email, to the person doing the
coordinating. This person would be responsible for organizing the ideas
into a presentable format, nothing more -- he/she would *not* be creating
by-laws that everyone would have to live by. Then, we could take one
segment at a time, present it for discussion and make needed changes, then
bring it to a vote. Once voted on, end of discussion, and let's move on to
the next thing.
We aren't ever going to be in a position to do anything else without the
formal structure in place. It needs to include grievance procedures, and
to clearly define the roles/responsibilities/authority of the CC's, the SC,
and anyone else involved in the project. After that, *then* it's time to
worry about whether we should or shouldn't incorporate, should or shouldn't
be on Rootsweb, should or shouldn't do *whatever* else comes up.
Angie