Angie, I have to disagree, in part.
The "voting rights" issue is not nearly as much of a concern to me as is
the issue of "adding" special projects. (although I do have some
concerns regarding voting).
I definitely do not think the adding of special projects should be left
to the discretion of the SC. I believe the adding of any "special
project" needs to be the decision of the full membership, by vote.
Here's why I believe this:
Historically, the entire USGenWeb Project - and NCGenWeb as part of it -
has been structured "geographically," with county pages as the primary
basis for our organization. Essentially, we are a group of independent,
county-level websites which have affiliated with one another for the
mutual benefit of all. (That's my description/interpretation - and there
certainly may be those who disagree with it!)
"Special Projects," on the other hand, focus on organization by
"topic."
This is a very different sort of organization, and it *can* conflict
with "geographic" organization.
Perhaps the single biggest "sticking point" amongst our NCGenWeb
membership concerning the Military Project was whether military data is
appropriately housed on the county sites, and whether creating a central
site for "military data" might draw both researchers and donors of data
*away* from the county sites. I believe this is a valid concern,
although I also believe the concern CAN be addressed. (I just don't
think it was ever adequately addressed.)
For some county sites (mine among them), this is something of a
non-issue because I really don't have any military information on my
site. (a reflection of my time limitations, coupled no doubt with my own
personal interests). If anyone donated military data for Vance, I would
certainly add it. But since I don't have any, I welcome the opportunity
to "link" to a resource which houses such data to assist Vance Co
researchers.
.....on the other hand.....
Some county sites have a great deal of military data, and I can
certainly understand their concerns about having a larger military
project which might overshadow their county efforts. In addition, the
mere existence of a Military Project may well mean that someone who had
data to "contribute," may do so to the Military Project instead of the
appropriate county.
In any case, the Military Project is simply an example of the sort of
concerns that arise when we organize the project by "topic," rather than
by "county."
I'm not saying we cannot have some element of "topical" organization -
or that this is not, in some cases, "a good thing." But I think we must
consider such topics VERY carefully, and on a case-by-case basis, and in
a manner in which concerns of all county coordinators are both heard and
have voice in the outcome (which is only assured if they vote.)
Perhaps this way, we may be able to address - and even resolve - the
various concerns while protecting the integrity of the "geographical"
organization of our project.
-Sandy
On Friday, January 31, 2003, at 10:55 AM, Angie Rayfield wrote:
At 11:12 AM 1/31/2003 -0500, Elizabeth Harris wrote:
> The issue that was NOT adequately resolved back then was the mechanism
> by
> which new state-level projects might be created and approved by the
> membership, and whether the hosts of any such new projects would also
> be
> eligible to vote if they were not also CCs.
My personal thought on the matter -- the SC should be able to run with
almost any idea (emphasis on almost) for a state-level project if he/she
feels that the need exists, and that the information available justifies
it. In most cases, I would imagine that adding a section to the state
page
would accomodate most topical areas, simply by pointing researchers to
the
appropriate resources. If the SC determines that the need for a special
project exists, he/she should be able to "annoint" it -- BUT it should
be
understood that a "special project" is not a full-fledged voting
member. Before any project would be given voting rights, I think it
would
be appropriate for the membership of the project to vote on the
matter. Does that make sense?
Angie