Sonya,
With all due respect, I feel your comments do not accurately reflect the
concerns of all cc's who object to the current status of Linda's
archives project.
I am a cc who has grave concerns about Linda's position that the
archives project is hers, and that it is separate from the USGW Project
umbrella under which all state and county coordinators operate -
however, I most certainly do not support the archives being "tossed in
the garbage." I am not even supporting the splitting up of the archives.
I realize you feel this is what some cc's support - but it certainly
isn't what this one wants, nor do I believe it is what *most* cc's want.
However, Linda has stated her position, which I believe is polar
opposite of how the states and counties in the USGW Project operate --
she considers hers a "stand alone" project, which uses the USGW name,
and certainly appears to function as the archives of this project.
Contributions to those archives are made under the presumption they are
donated to the USGW project.
Some cc's encourage contributions of data to those archives believing
the archives are and always will be part of the project.
We also operate as "custodians" of the counties within the project.
Linda does not view her project in that manner...and she has chosen not
to bring the project in under the umbrella of the project. In fact, she states:
> when all the state coordinators "give" their projects
to USGW and
> all the county coordinators "give" their projects to USGW, then come
> back and ask me.
> USGW is a loosely connected bunch of webpages.
In addition, Linda has an agreement which appears to grant exclusivity
to one particular server, i.e. Rootsweb, to house the USGW Archives,
which include data contributed to the USGW Project for *its* archives.
In response to my suggestion that the concerns and problems of everyone
*might* be resolved if Linda just brought the project under the umbrella
of USGW instead of it being some "stand alone" project, and my
suggestion that she ask Rootsweb if it would have any objection to just
extending the same agreement it has with the USGW Project...i.e. the
space of Rootsweb's servers is available "if we need it", Brian Leverich
responded on behalf of Rootsweb by stating:
> Why is that fair? Apart from the fact RootsWeb made the mistake
of
> accepting such lopsidedly unfair arrangements with some other
> organizations in the past, why do you believe RootsWeb might accept
> such a bad relationship now or in the future? -B
I can only assume he is referencing the USGW Project as being among
those "other organizations in the past" with whom he feels "RootsWeb
made the mistake of accepting such lopsidely unfair arrangements."
I find this quite distressing especially in light of RootsWeb having
*offered* this arrangement which he now terms as RootsWeb's "mistake"
and as being "loposidedly unfair" to RootsWeb.
Also as a major part of the concern over the archives project which
*contains* the archives of the USGW Project, is Linda's *condition* of
all donations TO those archives, as stated on:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/timetodo.htm
> 13. Once submitted, the data can't be retracted by
submitter.
While none of this may concern you, Sonya, there are many within the
USGenWeb Project, including those who make USE of our USGW Project who
*are* concerned.
You may characterize or try to portray our concerns as something other
than what they are, or as invalid, or as downright stupid, but I can
assure you that I, and many others expressing serious concern over this
arrangement for our *project's* archives, are in fact concerned with
*protecting* our project's archives and ensuring the data contributed TO
THE PROJECT remains precisely that, and does not rest in the hands of a
private agreement between entities not part of the umbrella of this project.
I accept that you do not share our concerns. I do not accept your
attempt to portray our concerns with such total inaccuracy.
Sandy
--------
Sonya Woosley wrote:
<snipped>
other emails. If there aren't any good bylaws to protect the archives,
which there aren't, what do you think would happen to them if they were
just turned over to USGenWeb??? See what Don, Diane, Billie, Carol and
others want? They want the archives to be split up and all the info
distributed to the cc's or tossed in the garbage, not sure which. I've
worked too hard to stay around and see that happen, but at the rate
everyone is going that is exactly what will happen before long. Also
USGenWeb has not been incorporated, they can't own anything.
Already Holly has been tossed out of INGenWeb by Betty Sellers because
she refused to move her page off of rootsweb. But for some reason you
and the others see Linda and Brian as the control freaks. What if
someone told you to move your page or else your out? Is that not
controlling?? Linda simply protects the archives and works her rear off
to make it better and add more data, we "the file managers" expect her
to protect it and so do the submitters. The USGenWeb Archives have no
protection from people who want to claim them as their own or rip them
to shreds, except for Linda Lewis.
Linda answered your questions, she answered Carol's questions, and she
even answered diane's, which she should have ignored. Apparently none of
you read her reply.
Elizabeth, I wish you luck in making the NCGenWeb the best research site
online. There are some really good cc's in NC that are doing a wonderful
job and adding so much data to their pages and the archives. I just hope
their efforts aren't wasted by others who care only to fight and
destroy.
by the way, I "never" get angry. Have to say this is a new experience.
Sonya
diane k wrote:
>
> Of course not.
>
> Since I doubt that you have made a Will concerning the destiny of the
> ARchives, we NEED to keep your ALIVE for fear RW will become the soul owner
> of all the volunteers' hardwork in the name of the USGenWEb Archives
>
> diane
> ===
> This mail is a natural product. No electrons were destroyed in the
> production of this message. The slight variations in spelling and grammar
> enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to be
> considered flaws or defects..........
> ====
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Linda <cityslic(a)ix.netcom.com>
> To: USGenWeb-SE-L(a)rootsweb.com <USGenWeb-SE-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> Date: Monday, June 14, 1999 12:51 AM
> Subject: Re: [USGenWeb-SE-L] ARchives' destiny
>
> >diane k wrote:
> >>
> >> Do you have a Will Linda? What if you die? Could happen. You know you
> >> can't take the ARchives with you.
> >>
> >
> >I've gotten three messages in my inbox in the last few minutes (that
> >sent publicly to several lists, and one private one that was not a
> >duplicate) where dianeK has mentioned my death. Should I start to
> >worry??
> >
> >Linda
> >
> >
> >==== USGenWeb-SE Mailing List ====
> >Congratulations new SE/MA CC Rep!
> >Jim Powell, Jr <jpowelljr(a)worldnet.att.net>
> >
> >
> >
>
> ==== USGenWeb-SE Mailing List ====
> The Official By-Laws Page
>
http://www.usgenweb.org/official/bylaws.html
==== USGenWeb-SE Mailing List ====
Congratulations new SE/MA CC Rep!
Jim Powell, Jr <jpowelljr(a)worldnet.att.net>
--------------AC6FC14FF43F387D4C82B16A--
==== NCGENWEB Mailing List ====
NCGenWeb Tombstone Transcription Project
http://www.rootsweb.com/~cemetery/n-car.html