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.
Sandy, I agree with you here. It was always my understanding that the
archives were a special project of the USGenWeb project, and logically, that
would make the archives belong to the project. I can't imagine any possible
way that anyone would think the USGenWeb Project Archives *aren't* a part of
the USGW Project! Regardless of how much work Linda has done or how good
her intentions are, soliciting donations of data for a project called the
USGW Archives implies that the data is being given to USGW, and if that is
not the case, she is soliciting this material under false pretenses.
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."
Well, he might be, but I'd prefer not to assume that's what he means <g>.
(That, and I tend to think that if Dr.B thought that USGW had gotten the
better end of a very lopsided deal, he'd probably be pretty direct about
it.) I can understand why Dr.B would want Rootsweb to be the exclusive home
of the Archives, though. If nothing else, then Rootsweb has as a selling
point that it's the home of the USGW Archives <g>. Doesn't seem like much
to give in return for the pretty hefty amount of server space that the
Archives take up (and hopefully will continue to take up, and hopefully will
keep growing!)
> > 13. Once submitted, the data can't be retracted by
submitter.
I don't remember that being one of the conditions, oh so long ago, when I
first looked! When did that happen? I thought that data always was owned
by the submitter! That's one of the premises of the USGW? Your queries,
your posts, etc., belong to you, not to the project. Of course, if Linda
believes the Archives are not part of the project....
Angie