Beginning March 2nd, 2020 the Mailing Lists functionality on RootsWeb will be discontinued. Users will no longer be able to send outgoing emails or accept incoming emails. Additionally, administration tools will no longer be available to list administrators and mailing lists will be put into an archival state.
Administrators may save the emails in their list prior to March 2nd. After that, mailing list archives will remain available and searchable on RootsWeb
I had asked Jean for permission to send her message to the board, bud
didn't hear from her. Thank you, Billie, for posting it to usgw-all. At
least the board members collecting those will have it.
Linda
All lot of the comments I have read on this list regarding the
proposed by-laws have a common theme. The guys in the
trenches, the CCs, feel that some structure is being imposed
on them that they are pretty uncomfortable with. They feel
unrepresented, alienated, and confused about the purpose
of what these "by-laws" are intended to accomplish.
Nate correctly pointed out early on in this discussion that there are
several serious holes and flaws in the by-laws. Those deficiencies
are at the heart of the matter regarding people's feelings toward the
"organization".
1. What is the definition of a "member"?
2. What rights and privileges does a member have?
This is different from what they are expected to do;
this is, "what can we expect from the organization?"
We are volunteers and rely on support of many kinds.
I don't see us getting any support at all from the national body
except a link on the main map to the Penna. map, and from
there to our sites. Also, there is the archives area which
is good. At any rate, what is USGenWeb doing for its
volunteers?
3. What is the grievance process?
4. What is the redress process?
Please sell us CC's on the fact that that process is fair and equitable.
That is, once one is established.
If the people on the national front are dismayed about the
reaction they are seeing on this list, I'm sure it's not because
we're all a bunch of troublemakers or ingrates. It's because y'all
have fallen down on the job of selling your ideas and getting buy-in
from CCs.
I'd like answers to the above four questions. I'm sorry, but I'm really
tired of hearing what the CCs responsibilities are. What is USGenWeb
going to do for us, its potential membership, the feet on the street, to help
us do a better job of representing USGenWeb on our pages and
working within the imposed guidelines?
The USGenWeb national organization should start by convincing
us, the CCs, that it really does exist for a reason, and that it's not just
a matter of a group of folks playing at politics, etc. I'm sorry, but
that's how I view how things are at the national level. I was hoping that
over the last year things would change as that group of people
starting sorting things out, but to my view, there has been little tangible
progress. This recent debacle confirms it. Again, this is just one person's
opinion. If I'm wrong, convince me otherwise.
Jean Suplick Matuson
I was not a cc when the letter from Megan was issued to the sc's, so I
was unaware of the plans to reorganize. I agree with the statement by
Megan that one person should not be calling the shots. Nor should 2 or
3. Nor should 8 or 10. There are 67 counties in PA. Since some cc's
maintain more than one county, I'm going to estimate, and I emphasize
estimate, that there are 50,(probably low), cc's. Again estimating,
let's assume for the sake of argument there are 50 cc's in each state.
That would be 2500 cc's.
Now, here we are, some genealogists, some researchers, some plain old
diggers. All 2500 of us. We all are forever indebted to our ancestors
for the sacrifices they made to allow us the freedoms and liberties we
all cherish today. Had the Revolutionary War not been fought, who knows
where we might be? Why, I bet that we would not even be permitted to
vote!
Look at this example. I'm not busting on Megan, but a statement like
"The structure of the Board is subject to revision by the Board, in case
it turns out the original structure doesn't work as well as I envision"
is bound to raise a few eyebrows. Who ever decided it was ok to even
have a board?
If you want some guidelines to follow, that is understandable. I think
almost everybody will agree to that. But, as Mike stated, "Nowhere in
the original announcement did it ever say that this board had any power
to make major initiatives on its own and draw up a set of bylaws for us
all".
As I see it, there is absolutely no reason to even consider the proposed
by-laws or for that matter any changes without the input of all. And
that includes all sc's and cc's.
If it ain't broke.........
--
Ken Boonie
Coordinator
USGenWeb Project
Huntingdon County PA
http://www.rootsweb.com/~pahuntin/
At 03:57 PM 5/30/98 +0000, Linda Lewis wrote:
>The USGenWeb Project was never called "GenWeb", not officially. Some
>refer to it as "genweb", but it's incorrect. KYGenWeb was formed by Jeff
>Murphy, who was on the "genweb@" mailing list and got tired of them
>talking and not doing anything... and formed KYGenWeb. Broderbund had
>nothing to do with it that I know of.
>
Our first required logo was a little yellow graphic with a little web that
simply said "GenWeb". This is a large part of the reason why there is so
much confusion about us and the other GenWeb to this day.
>> I just wish the volunteers had been polled before this
>> bylaw initiative started and asked to vote for a drafting committee.
>
>They WERE, or were supposed to be. Megan sent a message to the state
>coordinator mailing list asking that it be forwarded to the state's
>xxgen-l lists.... in which she requested volunteers to serve. Some cc's
>received the message, some didn't. I would say the majority did, from
>the feedback. (This was last year - fall of 1997.)
>
>Linda
>
Nowhere in the original announcement did it ever say that this board had
any power to make major initiatives on its own and draw up a set of bylaws
for us all. Megan specifically promised that "Should any issue come up
that is that major, the Board would take it to all the SC's and CC's for a
vote in any event." I would say that drafting bylaws is a major issue. It
seems like the NC's Cabinet has become the USGW Congress. Full text of
original announcement is below.
I've said enough and wish others would speak up ... either for or against
or indifferent.
<sigh>
Mike
-------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 13:26:36 -0500
From: pigoletto <piglet(a)usroots.com>
Reply-To: statecoord(a)usgenweb.com
To: statecoord(a)usgenweb.com
Subject: USGWSC: New Stuff
Well, here it is September first, and here comes the first announcement
from the new NC. Please distribute to your county folks......
My first focus as National Coordinator is going to me improving internal
communications on this project. I have several ideas of ways to do
this, but we're going to start right off with the first and biggest.
USGW is going to have a Board.
What's it for and who is it? First off...
It gives a wider base for decision making. Realistically, every day to
day decision can't be taken to every volunteer...nothing would ever get
done, that's too many people to run *every* idea through. But neither is
it then just one person calling the shots. It also provides a group to
keep an eye on the NC....and should it become necessary at any time to
remove an NC or an SC, it creates a group that is capable of deciding
whether or not that's necessary.
In the long term, both the Board and the NC will be elective positions,
but for the first year the Board will be appointed, because it's going
to take a while to set up election procedures.
The structure of the Board is subject to revision by the Board, in case
it turns out the original structure doesn't work as well as I envision,
but here's how it starts:
There are four parts to the Board:
Part One:
Automatic/Appointive (3 people currently):
Archives head
Census project head
Tombstone project head
(others to be added when the board feels a particular project has grown
enough to warrant it)
Part Two:
Regional Representative, SC or Asst/Co-SC:
(four persons, four regions)
Western Region: (AK, HI, CA, OR, WA, ID, NE, AZ, UT, NM, CO, WY, MT)
Don Spidell, co-SC of Arizona (dspidell(a)zekes.com)
Central Region: (TX, OK, KS, NE, ND, SD, MN, IA, MO, AR, LA, WI)
Mike Basham, SC of Texas (malcolm.basham(a)chrysalis.org)
Northeastern Region: (ME, VT, NH, CT, MA, RI, NY, NJ, DE, PA, MD, WV,
OH)
Kim Harris Myers, SC of New York (estral(a)switchboard.net)
South/Midwest Region: (DC, VA, KY, TN, MI, IL, IN, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL,
MS)
Rich Holler, SC of Mississippi (rholler(a)www.insolwwb.net)
Part Three:
Regional Representatives, CC:
(four persons, same regions)
These have not yet been chosen, because I wanted to work with the SC's
on this. You can help by sending in nominations...CC's, please send
nominations to your own SC; SC's, please send a collection of what you
receive plus your own nominations to your SC representative.
Part Four:
Non-voting representatives of our two major servers:
For DSEnter Dotcom: Dan Sunderland
For RootsWeb: TBA (they're deciding who it should be)
The purpose of these folks is to let us know when something we'd like to
do is doable or not doable, and what's the best way to do it. Pretty
much technical advisors.
Now before any rumors start (rumors in USGW? what's that?<G>)....I DO
NOT ENVISION USGW INCORPORATING. THE BOARD IS NOT A WAY TO BYPASS CC'S
TO DO THIS.
Should any issue come up that is that major, the Board would take it to
all the SC's and CC's for a vote in any event.
Other communication ideas under discussion include the possibility of
having a weekly IRC session so that folks can ask questions of the NC
directly in realtime....I just used mIRC for the first time last night
to talk to the TXGenWeb folks, who do have a weekly IRC, and it seemed
to be a useful tool. If we do this IRC thing, my initial idea is to
make a particular session for a specific group of states, so that there
aren't so many people on the channel nobody can make sense of the
discussion. We'd then rotate around the country....probably the first
session would be SC's only, and all SCs. I'd like some feedback on this
idea.
To the lighter side.....
I've always been an opinionated old cuss, and posted respectably often
to the lists. I'm concerned that my continuance in this practice is
going to lead to folks taking my personal opinions as "USGW
Dicta"....and my personal opinions aren't infallible enough to be taken
as Policy.<G>
Therefore, I'll try to remember to label opinions personal, if it seems
there's room for confusion, if you all will try to remember that unless
I say I'm discussing policy, you ought to assume it's just personal
opinion.<VBG>
Now I'm off to take my kids to the Labor Day stuff over at the old
Paarlberg Farm...(if any of you've ever read Edna Ferber's "So Big", it
was based on the Widow Paarlberg in South Holland, Illinois...and her
farm is where our Historical Society has it's annual Labor Day gig.)
megan
--
piglet(a)usroots.com * cochonnet(a)aol.com
Megan Zurawicz, National Coordinator USGenWeb
http://www.usgenweb.com
Linda,
You said "They WERE, or were supposed to be. Megan sent a message to the
state coordinator mailing list asking that it be forwarded to the state's
xxgen-l lists.... in which she requested volunteers to serve. Some cc's
received the message, some didn't. I would say the majority did, from the
feedback. (This was last year - fall of 1997.)"
I certainly don't recall that because if I had I would have piped in then.
I did a search of the mailing list archives and this is nothing related to
that there for this mailing list.
It appears that from what I've been reading of the posts is that folks would
have liked to have had input before any drafting of by-laws occurred.
Nate
Nathan Zipfel
Pa Roots Webmaster
http://www.pa-roots.com/
Armstrong County USGenWeb Project Co-Coordinator
http://www.pa-roots.com/armstrong
Jefferson County USGenWeb Project Co-Coordinator
http://www.pa-roots.com/jefferson
Westmoreland County USGenWeb Project Co-Coordinator
http://www.pa-roots.com/westmoreland
-----Original Message-----
From: Linda Lewis [mailto:cityslic@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 1998 11:58 AM
To: PAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: by laws
Michael L. Hebert wrote:
>
> At 12:19 PM 5/30/98 +0000, you wrote:
> >Mike,
> >
> >The USGenWeb Project was started based on KYGenWeb with basic rules
> >already in place. When county coordinators were recruited, they were
> >supposed to be told of those rules and agree to them. It's nothing new..
> >and those rules are still in place.
> >
> >Linda
> >
>
> Hi Linda -
>
> This Project got rolling when Broderbund started making money off the
> submissions of genealogists ... some thought unfairly. Some felt that
> genealogists were being taken advantage of and were caught off guard by
the
> fine print in their agreement with Broderbund. I've never dealt directly
> with Broderbund, so I don't know how fair or unfair their practices
> are/were.
>
> The whole point is that USGenWeb (then GenWeb) was supposed to be
> different.
The USGenWeb Project was never called "GenWeb", not officially. Some
refer to it as "genweb", but it's incorrect. KYGenWeb was formed by Jeff
Murphy, who was on the "genweb@" mailing list and got tired of them
talking and not doing anything... and formed KYGenWeb. Broderbund had
nothing to do with it that I know of.
I just wish the volunteers had been polled before this
> bylaw initiative started and asked to vote for a drafting committee.
They WERE, or were supposed to be. Megan sent a message to the state
coordinator mailing list asking that it be forwarded to the state's
xxgen-l lists.... in which she requested volunteers to serve. Some cc's
received the message, some didn't. I would say the majority did, from
the feedback. (This was last year - fall of 1997.)
Linda
At 12:19 PM 5/30/98 +0000, you wrote:
>Mike,
>
>The USGenWeb Project was started based on KYGenWeb with basic rules
>already in place. When county coordinators were recruited, they were
>supposed to be told of those rules and agree to them. It's nothing new..
>and those rules are still in place.
>
>Linda
>
Hi Linda -
This Project got rolling when Broderbund started making money off the
submissions of genealogists ... some thought unfairly. Some felt that
genealogists were being taken advantage of and were caught off guard by the
fine print in their agreement with Broderbund. I've never dealt directly
with Broderbund, so I don't know how fair or unfair their practices
are/were.
The whole point is that USGenWeb (then GenWeb) was supposed to be
different. When I became associated with the Project in 1996, I saw it as
a place where volunteers could come together and do their thing in a loose,
easy-going association with a handful of simple rules ... no fine print to
worry about. It seems to have worked so far and I don't see why it needs
changing with a set of formal bylaws.
But, maybe I'm in the minority and the Project has changed philosophy and I
have stood still. I just wish the volunteers had been polled before this
bylaw initiative started and asked to vote for a drafting committee. Now,
we are going to be presented with a set of bylaws drawn up by a hand-picked
set of individuals. And who knows, it may pass from the votes of most who
are too busy with their counties (like I should be now) to investigate the
possible implications of these bylaws ... won't be the first time in
history something like that has happened.
As I have said before, I have nothing personal against anyone on the
current board and respect the contributions they have made to free online
genealogy through the Project. I realize that some disagree with my views
on things. I would just be more comfortable if I knew that the drafting
board was a true reflection of ALL the volunteers and that my viewpoint had
a chance of being represented in this forthcoming document. All I have now
is the assurance that concerns similar to mine will be *considered*. But,
it looks like the train is rolling and there is no stopping it. I hope the
bylaws don't pass and that we start off with a set of elected people and go
about things in the right way.
If you have a big mailbox and a strong constitution, I would encourage
people to join the USGENWEB-ALL list (send 'subscribe' to
USGENWEB-ALL-L-request(a)rootsweb.com)
and sample some of the fare currently being dealt out by all sides on this
issue. It is rather eye-opening.
As always, all this is just the viewpoint of one little ole CC out here in
USGenWeb land ... me. If others have an opinion (either similar or
different), I would love to hear about it on the list here.
Mike
Like Frances, I get very annoyed when people start trying to turn this
Project upside down and make it a top-down, regimented organization
governed by a set of bylaws. The Project has worked just fine as a
bottom-up network of volunteers giving freely of their time in an open and
unrestrictive atmosphere.
Any initiatives should start at the bottom and be approved by a majority or
super-majority of the members. I sincerely hope that the current set of
bylaws does not pass. Not only do they move us closer to that restrictive
structure many of us don't want, but they will forever be stained by the
process by which they arose. At least let us elect people to represent ALL
our views and do any drafting that needs to be done.
I've been involved in the Project since Aug 1996. It was formed earlier
that year as an alternative to the corporate structures in the computer
genealogy world, i.e., the Broderbunds and Ancestry.com's. If people like
that structure, these companies have job opportunities pages at their web
sites. If things continue as they are going, I can see a new project
arising to replace the old project we all came to know and love, but lost.
So, there's my opinion ... just one of hundreds. I too would like to hear
from more people in the Project to get a feel of how they view the Project
and the current situation.
Mike
_______________________________________
Michael L. Hebert mhebert(a)stlnet.com
CC for Mercer and Venango Cos., PA
That first logo, that had only "genweb" on it was required until a
permanent USGW logo could be designed..and voted on by the volunteers.
That vote took place in 1996, and the current usgw logo is the one that
won. We stopped using the "genweb" logo partly because Gary Hoffman, of
www.genweb requested it. In fact, he requested that we discontinue using
anything that had "genweb" included in the name. That's why we want
people to stop referring to the project as "GenWeb."
And the board is not trying to enforce those bylaws.. they are draft,
are being revised and will be put up to a vote by the USGW volunteers.
If they fail, they fail.
Linda
This message was on the state-coord mailing list and is an example of
how non-communication can affect the Project. All cc's are required to
be subbed to their XXGenWeb's mailing list (xxgen-l@). Some states have
very few counties, and also use that as a research tool, but most state
coordinators have them open to only cc's because their are other state
mailing lists available for research... i.e. pa-roots, erie-roots, etc.
Linda
Michael L. Hebert wrote:
>
> At 12:19 PM 5/30/98 +0000, you wrote:
> >Mike,
> >
> >The USGenWeb Project was started based on KYGenWeb with basic rules
> >already in place. When county coordinators were recruited, they were
> >supposed to be told of those rules and agree to them. It's nothing new..
> >and those rules are still in place.
> >
> >Linda
> >
>
> Hi Linda -
>
> This Project got rolling when Broderbund started making money off the
> submissions of genealogists ... some thought unfairly. Some felt that
> genealogists were being taken advantage of and were caught off guard by the
> fine print in their agreement with Broderbund. I've never dealt directly
> with Broderbund, so I don't know how fair or unfair their practices
> are/were.
>
> The whole point is that USGenWeb (then GenWeb) was supposed to be
> different.
The USGenWeb Project was never called "GenWeb", not officially. Some
refer to it as "genweb", but it's incorrect. KYGenWeb was formed by Jeff
Murphy, who was on the "genweb@" mailing list and got tired of them
talking and not doing anything... and formed KYGenWeb. Broderbund had
nothing to do with it that I know of.
I just wish the volunteers had been polled before this
> bylaw initiative started and asked to vote for a drafting committee.
They WERE, or were supposed to be. Megan sent a message to the state
coordinator mailing list asking that it be forwarded to the state's
xxgen-l lists.... in which she requested volunteers to serve. Some cc's
received the message, some didn't. I would say the majority did, from
the feedback. (This was last year - fall of 1997.)
Linda
I have always thought that should be an option -- there are those who don't
want to use it because they don't like it, and there are those who don't
want to use it because the colors don't fit the design of their pages.....
At 09:19 AM 5/30/98 -0400, Nathan Zipfel wrote:
>Frances makes a very good point about the graphics which I hadn't ever
>really considered. I consider it important to show the association of the
>county with the Project. We might want to propose that in place of the
>graphic that a statement "This page is maintained in support of the USGenWeb
>Project" be an option for those who do not like graphics.
Frances makes a very good point about the graphics which I hadn't ever
really considered. I consider it important to show the association of the
county with the Project. We might want to propose that in place of the
graphic that a statement "This page is maintained in support of the USGenWeb
Project" be an option for those who do not like graphics.
Nate
Nathan Zipfel
Pa Roots Webmaster
http://www.pa-roots.com/
Armstrong County USGenWeb Project Co-Coordinator
http://www.pa-roots.com/armstrong
Jefferson County USGenWeb Project Co-Coordinator
http://www.pa-roots.com/jefferson
Westmoreland County USGenWeb Project Co-Coordinator
http://www.pa-roots.com/westmoreland
-----Original Message-----
From: Linda Lewis [mailto:cityslic@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 1998 10:10 PM
To: PAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: by laws
One of the requirements for hosting a county affiliated with The
USGenWeb Project is to place a USGW logo on the webpage, to identify it
as part of the project.
Information is on the main Project page:
http://www.usgenweb.org/volunteers/volunteers.html
and
http://www.usgenweb.org/volunteers/countypage.html
These rules and guidelines have been a part of The USGenWeb Project from
the beginning, and are based on the original rules of KYGenWeb, from
which The USGenWeb Project was expanded.
The draft by-laws are based on those original rules, with election
procedures added in. This will be the first election for national
coordinator. In the past, it has been a "handed-off" type change, but
now all the volunteers will be able to participate in electing a
national coordinator.
Nominations are needed for national coordinator, as well as for regional
representatives to serve on the advisory board. Send nominations to:
mailto:nominate@usgenweb.org
The list of regions is included in the draft by-laws.
Linda
Mike,
The USGenWeb Project was started based on KYGenWeb with basic rules
already in place. When county coordinators were recruited, they were
supposed to be told of those rules and agree to them. It's nothing new..
and those rules are still in place.
Linda
Frances
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Tammy
-----Original Message-----
From: fpm9944(a)ix.netcom.com [mailto:fpm9944@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 1998 5:01 AM
To: PAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: by laws
I'm annoyed as I always get when someone else tries to regiment me, but I
figure if it gets too much, don't have to stay hooked to Gen Web (although I
think it absolutely marvelous that it is ALL volunteered time and effort!).
It would appear that something formal is necessary to accomplish things at
national level - why not just do what is mandatory and let it alone!
one national-type is upset I don't uses the USGENWEB graphic - I don't use
ANY graphics unless they fall into "1-picture-worth-1000-words" category;AND
I surf with "graphics off" and so don't even notice others' ! (is this what
it is all about?)
I guess I belong to "if it's not broke, don't fix it!" crowd and intend to
ignore the whole deal - this is by way of being sure you know you are being
ignored Nate! but you did ask!
Frances P. Morrison - fpm9944(a)ix.netcom.com
Web sites for Palmer, Morrison, Perry Co AL:
http://pw2.netcom.com/~fpm9944/index.html
Web site for Mongtomery Co PA:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~pamontgo/montgomery.html.
That's a good idea, Nate, but the USGW logo is available as a small
graphic, which wouldn't take any time at all to load. Many versions were
made available for the convenience of the cc.
Linda
Nathan Zipfel wrote:
>
> Frances makes a very good point about the graphics which I hadn't ever
> really considered. I consider it important to show the association of the
> county with the Project. We might want to propose that in place of the
> graphic that a statement "This page is maintained in support of the USGenWeb
> Project" be an option for those who do not like graphics.
>
> Nate
I'm annoyed as I always get when someone else tries to regiment me, but I
figure if it gets too much, don't have to stay hooked to Gen Web (although I
think it absolutely marvelous that it is ALL volunteered time and effort!).
It would appear that something formal is necessary to accomplish things at
national level - why not just do what is mandatory and let it alone!
one national-type is upset I don't uses the USGENWEB graphic - I don't use
ANY graphics unless they fall into "1-picture-worth-1000-words" category;AND
I surf with "graphics off" and so don't even notice others' ! (is this what
it is all about?)
I guess I belong to "if it's not broke, don't fix it!" crowd and intend to
ignore the whole deal - this is by way of being sure you know you are being
ignored Nate! but you did ask!
Frances P. Morrison - fpm9944(a)ix.netcom.com
Web sites for Palmer, Morrison, Perry Co AL:
http://pw2.netcom.com/~fpm9944/index.html
Web site for Mongtomery Co PA:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~pamontgo/montgomery.html.
One of the requirements for hosting a county affiliated with The
USGenWeb Project is to place a USGW logo on the webpage, to identify it
as part of the project.
Information is on the main Project page:
http://www.usgenweb.org/volunteers/volunteers.html
and
http://www.usgenweb.org/volunteers/countypage.html
These rules and guidelines have been a part of The USGenWeb Project from
the beginning, and are based on the original rules of KYGenWeb, from
which The USGenWeb Project was expanded.
The draft by-laws are based on those original rules, with election
procedures added in. This will be the first election for national
coordinator. In the past, it has been a "handed-off" type change, but
now all the volunteers will be able to participate in electing a
national coordinator.
Nominations are needed for national coordinator, as well as for regional
representatives to serve on the advisory board. Send nominations to:
mailto:nominate@usgenweb.org
The list of regions is included in the draft by-laws.
Linda
The basic requirements for USGenWeb Project county pages have been in
place since the project began in June 1996. They are posted at the main
site:
http://www.usgenweb.org/volunteers/countypage.html
Linda