Two recent messages on this discuss list raised question about the
ownership and authority of our project's state-level website:
On Sep 4, 2007, at 10:13 AM, Paul D. Buckley wrote:
According to the USGenWeb bylaws, Article XII, section 1: "Each
state shall
have a State Coordinator who manages the state website and oversees
the
state project..." and section 5: "State projects are empowered to
develop/adopt any additional rules/bylaws and guidelines, as
appropriate,
for their state so long as they do not conflict with these bylaws..."
My statement was to simply remind everyone that state page
decisions are the
responsibility of the SC who at their discretion may or may not
involve the
local coordinators in the decision. And, specifically a discussion
about
whether or not we should add a search engine to the state page was
premature
without a request to Denise. I don't think Denise, or any of her
predecessors have discouraged suggestions, recommendations, etc.
about the
state page.
On Sep 5, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Denise Woodside wrote:
As far as the host for the state pages, I have no intention of
moving
any state pages at this time.
----------------
This issue came up because Paul's and Denise's statements departed
from the way the NCGW membership has historically treated our state
project web site. Since there seems to be some disagreement or
confusion, I believe we need to reach resolution and clarity.
I believe it's especially important we discuss and reach agreement on
this issue at this particular time because we may be on the verge of
another round of discussions (and if the past is any indication,
probable disagreements) concerning our national project's - and
possibly our state project's - relationship with Rootsweb/Ancestry/
MyFamily.com/The Generations Network - which could well include the
matter of moving our NCGW state web site from RW's servers.
The issue of the project's relationship with RW/Ancestry isn't a
"new" debate. We've been through it before, right down to and
including an earlier NCGW co. coordinator purchasing the
www.ncgenweb.org domain and offering to donate it to the NCGW
Project. At that time, the NCGW membership turned down the offer and
opted to keep our state site on RW. That was then and this is now.
Both the composition of the NCGW membership (i.e., the cc's) as well
as the particular situation may not be the same and different
decisions might be reached.
But now there seems to be a question as to _who_ will make these
decisions -- the collective membership, or whomever holds the office
of SC at the time?
Moving servers is a serious matter, and (in my opinion) the last
thing we need is the potential for our state project domain and/or
server to be subject to change with every new SC election. Perhaps
that "might not" occur, but I think the better part of wisdom says to
ensure it "can not" occur without the discussion and vote of the full
project membership. We also have the predicament of not really being
an "organization," per se, in the legal entity sense, which inhibits
our ability to negotiate terms, services, etc., for server space, and
to actually hold title to ownership of a domain. (This, too, has been
the topic of much past discussion.)
Paul's statement seems to hinge on interpreting the word "manages" as
"having sole and/or exclusive authority." Other cc's may agree, and
if so should certainly say so. I disagree with Paul, and believe his
interpretation is contrary to the history of how we, in NCGW, have
historically treated our state web site and the office of SC. The
SC's relationship to our state web site is not, in my opinion, the
same as that of a cc to his/her county site. Hopefully other cc's
will give their opinions, too.
-Sandy