Pat:
Please explain. Give me an example of where you are.
On Fri, 16 May 2003, Patricia Scott wrote:
yes, I continually get the message that the file does not exist but
am
looking at it. Also, I like the large "locks" on some of them..
Pat
----- Original Message -----
From: "FISHER,JOY R" <jfisher(a)ucla.edu>
To: <NVGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 6:51 PM
Subject: Re: [NVGEN] Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Bylaws Revision - News
> Pat:
>
> What are you tallking about? Are you talking about the State of Nevada
> Archives being on a mirror site? The USGW NVGenWeb Archives being on a
> mirror site?
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 15 May 2003, Patricia Scott wrote:
>
> > I have been watching Rootsweb and the creation and growth of their state
and
> > county pages. I truly believe this is just the next step in doing away
with
> > us all.
> >
> > The saddest part of it all is that all of the hard work from volunteers
who
> > donated it for free, will eventually be a pay per view.
> >
> > We lost Gen Connect boards, then Surname search, now this. Are they
hoping
> > that we all quit and go away?
> >
> > I havbe also noticed that the archives for the State of Nevada, that we
NOT
> > donated to USGenWeb, have been moved to another location other than the
one
> > I was given. The one I work on is a mirror site. If you think that
doesn't
> > make me nervous, you're crazy!
> >
> > Just my two cents worth.
> >
> > Patricia Scott
> > SC Nevada
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Betsy Mills" <betsym(a)1starnet.com>
> > To: <STATE-COORD-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 3:52 AM
> > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Bylaws Revision - News
> >
> >
> > > I agree. I don't feel that mandates will work. The less mandates we
> > have,
> > > the better it will be. I don't intend to start de-linking counties
> > because
> > > they don't have some disclaimer on the pages. If we do this, then it
is
> > > time to provide an "approved template" and only link to those
sites
who
> > are
> > > using it.
> > >
> > > I have still not seen the question of whether these revisions or
> > amendments
> > > will be voted on separately or all as one package. If it is a
package
> > > deal, there is no way I will be voting for them. These are not what I
> > > consider revisions - they are a major rewrite of the bylaws.
> > >
> > > Betsy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12:16 AM 5/13/2003 -0500, Connie Snyder said:
> > > >My opinion is that the last couple of proposed revisions would be
better
> > > >placed
> > > >in the guidelines where the wording could be periodically reviewed
and
> > updated
> > > >without having to go through the amendment process. These types of
> > specific
> > > >statements regarding the design and content of webpages get into an
area
> > that
> > > >can and has changed frequently over the years. Look at all that has
> > > >happened to
> > > >web design in just the last couple of years. You may need to have an
> > amendment
> > > >process every year just to update specific articles such as you are
> > proposing.
> > > >Will you be able to get five states to sign on to that process every
> > year?
> > > >
> > > >I would like to see a committee set up to do periodically review and
> > > >update the
> > > >guidelines. Perhaps it would be better if it were not an official
board
> > > >committee, but an independent committee composed of members from the
> > various
> > > >projects that could propose changes to update them. If you look at
them
> > now,
> > > >there are some that need to have links and wording updated. Just as
an
> > > >example,
> > > >GenConnect is still mentioned as one way to collect queries. Has
anyone
> > looked
> > > >at the pages on copyright lately to see if they need updating?
> > > >
> > > >Connie
> > > >
> > > >Roger Swafford wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The committee is charged with making revisions to clarify as
needed
> > and to
> > > > > add sections as necessary to facilitate continued growth of the
> > > > project. The
> > > > > project has experienced significant growth since the bylaws
were
> > > > adopted and
> > > > > has established a respectable web presence. As website content
expands
> > and
> > > > > more links are included the greater the chance of
repercussions.
> > Better to
> > > > > ward off potential problems if possible.
> > > > > Section 1.3 of the recently signed hosting agreement extents
authority
> > to
> > > > > the project for governing use, privacy policy, intellectual
property
> > > > notices
> > > > > "(so long as the notices adequately protect the rights of
both
> > parties)".
> > > > >
> > > > > Roger Swafford
> > > > > BRC-Chairman
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Susan W Pieroth" <pieroth(a)ix.netcom.com>
> > > > > To: <STATE-COORD-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 6:03 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Bylaws Revision - News
> > > > >
> > > > > > This really annoys me. Could someone on the committee
please
point
> > out
> > > > > > all the sites they have visited that show this disclaimer?
I
have
> > seen
> > > > > > sites where a specific link gets that kind of statement,
but a
> > generic,
> > > > > > across the board one? I'm sure some, do, but RootsWeb
doesn't
> > request
> > > > > > this, why the BRC????? Would the lawyer please stand up?
> > > > > >
> > > > > {snip}
> > > > > > Susan
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Coordinator Rhode Island USGenWeb ~
> >
http://www.rootsweb.com/~rigenweb/
> > >
> >
> >
> > ==== NVGEN Mailing List ====
> > Have you checked our archives recently? Lots of updates.
> >
> >
>
>
> ==== NVGEN Mailing List ====
> Nevada started out to be Washoe, Sierra Nevada, Esmeralda, Bullion, Oro
Plata! We ended up with Nevada "Snowy"! Go figure!
>
==== NVGEN Mailing List ====
Have you read how Nevada became a state? See the USGenWeb Nevada State page!