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
Very well said, Ed. Thank you. :)
As I stated in a message to the usgenweb-all list, the USGenWeb Archives
volunteers know that goodwill and honesty go a lot further than
greediness, stubborness and illwill.
The planners of the Archives also knew that if the project was
successful, it would become attractive to profit-mongers, and we've
taken every step possible to insure that no one, individually or
corporately, will use the data in the Archives for profit. Believe me
they've tried. Broderbund expressed an interest early on, and other
commercial genealogical websites have tried to "lock" the Archives files
into a frame to make it look like THEY are providing the data, while
charging a fee to access their sites.
Linda
Steve and Barb wrote:
>
> Um while I may be new here. Which I really am. Don't the words permanent use of
> - imply loss of copyright?
>
If an author contributes a file to a library, is that not for permanent
use, but the author still retains the copyright? The library cannot take
all the files they have on their bookshelves, press them onto a cd and
sell them, for example.
Linda
Nate Zipfel wrote:
>
> Linda,
>
> Sorry, but your mixing apples and oranges. You make it sound as if I'm
> trying to make myself out as being better that other county coordinators.
> I'd never stoop to that. PA has a great bunch of coordinators and I look
> around what some of them are doing and have accomplished. I'm really
> impressed. Have I ever stated that the sponsorship that I solicit is for
> personal reimbursement? It is NOT FOR MY PERSONAL BENFIT. CAN I SAY IT
> ANYMORE CLEARLY?????? NO, it pays for the webspace. I would never seek
> personal reimbursement to support my counties. If I were hosting a
Nate I never said that and knowing you and the work you did for the
USGenWeb Archives when you were a PA file manager, I don't think you
would, either. The point is, that if individual county coordinators
started trying to use their involvement in the USGenWeb Project for
their own gain or profit, they could point to your request for help pay
for the webspace, and say, "Nate Zipfel is doing it. Why can't I?"
It's something that the state coordinators have been against since the
beginning of the project, with maybe the exception of a few that aren't
with the project any longer.
And Billie, I was not referring to reimbursement for copies to send to
researchers in a lookup request or whatever. I'm talking about making
copies to send to volunteers to transcribe, and postage to get those
copies to them. For example, with the USGenWeb Archives census project,
I've split a large county, and have provided partial census images to
several volunteer transcribers. I don't request reimbursement for that.
Believe me, since the USGenWeb Archives was established, I've found
hundreds of generous volunteers, willing to give of their time to get
data online for free access to help other researchers. You don't have to
tell me what a wonderful group of people there is involved in this
Project. I deal with them everyday.
Linda
Ed -- You're right that the by-laws have had some work put in them.
Interestingly, it appears that the meetings to discuss them were held in
secret IRC chats. Perhaps that explains why there are still a lot of
problems.
First, they say "parliamentary authority," but they don't specify one. Who
decides? It should be part of the by-laws.
Second, they say no amendments may be proposed except once each year at the
undesignated annual meeting time. That means we are stuck with these
"embryonic" ones for a year?!!!! Then, if we don't like something, we
can't change it until another year's meeting? I don't think so!
They say the organization must be an "unincorporated non-profit
association." This entity designation has no legal standing in most of the
United States. In order for it to have legal standing, the USGenWeb
project will have to align itself with a state that does recognize it.
Let's see 1600 volunteers agree on the headquarters location of this
project!
The proposed by-laws say that individuals who donate material to the
project essentially lose their copyright interest. That is a flagrant slap
in the face to our hardworking volunteers and data transcribers.
There are numerous other small problems with this revision -- these are the
first big ones that I can see.
I think you're a fine man, Ed, but I have to respectfully disagree with you
here. This set of by-laws must NOT be adopted.
At 03:39 AM 6/25/98 -0400, Ed Book wrote:
>At 10:43 PM 6/24/98 -0400, Nate Zipfel wrote:
>>Hi all, just saw a message that the revised proposed by-laws have been
>>posted for our review at
>>
>>http://www.usgenweb.org/official/propbylaws.html
>>
>>Nate
>
>Nate,
>
>Thanks.
>
>I just read through them fairly quickly, and they seem to be vastly improved
>in regards to some of the issues that were discussed here previously.
>There's obviously been some serious thought and hard work by the by-laws
>committee.
>
>Are there some things that I'd still like to see changed? A few. Are these
>things serious enough to prevent me supporting them? No. Will I vote for
>them. Yes.
>
>I'd urge everybody to take a look at the by-laws personally and see what you
>think.
>
>Ed Book
>
Hey, everybody. I'm not trying to stir up trouble here, but I do feel
compelled to share something that was sent to me yesterday. This is a
portion of a message between Brian Leverich and Joanne Abby (a NYGenWeb
volunteer). Joanne is concerned that the USGenWeb "board" may have
intentions or funding or other things of which we, the volunteers who make
up this project, are unaware. It's Brian's last sentence that frightens
the living daylights out of me.
I have been "Bambi" in this context. Our own Nate Zipfel is on the table
right now with a big ole target on his back (as it were) over his requests
for supporters for his PA-Roots domain. The current "advisory board" can't
decide if it's okay for Nate -- while we're all but told to solicit
donations to RootsWeb.
I just feel really strongly about this issue, especially since the whole
election procedure and by-laws creation have been done without a dime's
worth of input from the county volunteers. If we try to get something
changed, they ignore us. For instance, the majority of those voicing an
opinion on the USGenWeb-All mailing list apparently wanted all voters to be
able to vote for every regional representative in the upcoming elections.
The way it was originally set up, the county volunteers vote for county
representatives, and the state project coordinators vote for their own
state representatives because "they have different needs that require
special representation." You can imagine that that flew in the face of
most county volunteers. When we all demanded that the election procedures
be changed, we were told it was "too late."
I can't believe it's too late to change something that the volunteers on
this project want. That's an autocratic attitude with no basis in a
project of this nature.
I hope you will be as concerned about "power" as I am and that you will
share this with others outside our fine state's project list as you see
fit. And, I hope you will vote in this illegal election -- against any
by-laws provisions or any individuals who support this kind of "power"
structure. I know our Nate doesn't support it. I know Nancy Trice doesn't
support it. I don't think our fearless leader, Gary, does -- but we
haven't heard from him on the issue <g>.
I'll climb down off my soapbox now -- and leave you with Brian Leverich's
chilling words, which speak for themselves.
>> One important point here is that the USGENWEB Project wuld not be able to
>> field another KSGENWEB site in the future if the "board" decided to boot
>> each and everyone of them for some infraction of those bylaws we keep
>> hearing about.... well that is not without a fight in a Kansas court. How
>> many board members would be willing to pay legal fees ourt of their own
>> pocket to test the theory? Not many I would surmise.
>
>The Board would have no trouble fielding another KSGenWeb. With as
>many users as USGenWeb has, it could raise a $20k defense fund in a
>week if need be. Folks don't seem to clearly understand just how
>much potential power the Board has but chooses not to use -- this is
>sort of a Godzilla meets Bambi thing. -B
>
>
> ------------------
>
>
>--
>Dr. Brian Leverich Co-moderator, soc.genealogy.methods/GENMTD-L
>RootsWeb Genealogical Data Cooperative http://www.rootsweb.com/
>P.O. Box 6798, Frazier Park, CA 93222-6798 leverich(a)rootsweb.com
>
>
Nate, there are hundreds of volunteers, that are collecting data,
spending their own money, and uploading it for free access to
researchers. If each one of them starting asking for financial
reimbursement, and/or donations to defray thier personal expenditures,
don't you think the USGenWeb Project would look a leeeetle bit
commercial? Or.. wouldn't it look like volunteers are taking advantage
of being part of the Project?
The USGenWeb Project has a reputation of being a VOLUNTEER effort, with
no financial benefit to any one of us. How many of us have spent
hundreds of dollars on photocopies, postage, etc etc for this
coordinated effort to help researchers? LOTS!! We are not asking for
reimbursement.
Linda
>The proposed by-laws say that individuals who donate material to the
>project essentially lose their copyright interest. That is a flagrant slap
>in the face to our hardworking volunteers and data transcribers.
WHERE does it say that?? It says just the opposite. From the beginning,
the USGenWeb project has said that copyrights remain with the submitter,
and it still does.
Linda
Billie R. McNamara wrote:
>
> Hey, everybody. I'm not trying to stir up trouble here, but I do feel
> compelled to share something that was sent to me yesterday. This is a
> portion of a message between Brian Leverich and Joanne Abby (a NYGenWeb
> volunteer). Joanne is concerned that the USGenWeb "board" may have
> intentions or funding or other things of which we, the volunteers who make
> up this project, are unaware. It's Brian's last sentence that frightens
> the living daylights out of me.
Billie, I'm on the Board (Brian is not) and the only "funding" we've
discussed was collecting the money amongst ourselves, at about $100
each, when Jerry offered to sell USGenWeb, Inc. to us. We discussed
paying it, and then dissolving the corporation. It was formed in secrecy
by someone who tried to tell everyone he *owned* usgenweb.com. That has
been proven wrong, too, as it's been returned to its rightful/legal
owner.
>
> I have been "Bambi" in this context. Our own Nate Zipfel is on the table
> right now with a big ole target on his back (as it were) over his requests
> for supporters for his PA-Roots domain. The current "advisory board" can't
> decide if it's okay for Nate -- while we're all but told to solicit
> donations to RootsWeb.
The difference here is: Nate is a county coordinator, solilicting funds
to pay for his page. Brian is not a county coordinator and is not
soliciting funds to keep his county page online. What Nate is doing is
totally against the concept of the USGenWeb Project, as you well know
from being on the state coordinator mailing list for over a year. You
remember the dicussions about selling advertisements for our pages and
that Jeff Murphy even came up with a "fee-breakdown".. so much for the
National page, so much for the state pages, and so much for the county
pages. That idea didn't fly, as you remember... thank goodness.
Nate has every right, however, to turn his server into a co-op and sell
memberships, offering all kinds of services like Rootsweb does, and any
pages that he hosts for free could put an "appreciation" blurb on their
pages, for the free space, and encourage folks to become members. Brian
offers membership at $12 a year, but does not limit the services to only
"members."
> I just feel really strongly about this issue, especially since the whole
> election procedure and by-laws creation have been done without a dime's
> worth of input from the county volunteers. If we try to get something
> changed, they ignore us. For instance, the majority of those voicing an
> opinion on the USGenWeb-All mailing list apparently wanted all voters to be
> able to vote for every regional representative in the upcoming elections.
> The way it was originally set up, the county volunteers vote for county
> representatives, and the state project coordinators vote for their own
> state representatives because "they have different needs that require
> special representation." You can imagine that that flew in the face of
> most county volunteers. When we all demanded that the election procedures
> be changed, we were told it was "too late."
If you will look at the candidates, there is only one current board
member running for state coord rep - Megan. And she hasn't even taken
part in the by-laws discussion, as she's been on vaction most of June. I
could see your point if all the current board sc reps were running for
office, but then again.. there's no guarantee that their fellow sc's
would vote for them. They would have to believe that the current sc rep
has done a good job to cast their vote for them.
> I can't believe it's too late to change something that the volunteers on
> this project want. That's an autocratic attitude with no basis in a
> project of this nature.
>
> I hope you will be as concerned about "power" as I am and that you will
> share this with others outside our fine state's project list as you see
> fit. And, I hope you will vote in this illegal election -- against any
> by-laws provisions or any individuals who support this kind of "power"
> structure. I know our Nate doesn't support it. I know Nancy Trice doesn't
> support it. I don't think our fearless leader, Gary, does -- but we
> haven't heard from him on the issue <g>.
>
> I'll climb down off my soapbox now -- and leave you with Brian Leverich's
> chilling words, which speak for themselves.
>
> >> One important point here is that the USGENWEB Project wuld not be able to
> >> field another KSGENWEB site in the future if the "board" decided to boot
> >> each and everyone of them for some infraction of those bylaws we keep
> >> hearing about.... well that is not without a fight in a Kansas court. How
> >> many board members would be willing to pay legal fees ourt of their own
> >> pocket to test the theory? Not many I would surmise.
> >
> >The Board would have no trouble fielding another KSGenWeb. With as
> >many users as USGenWeb has, it could raise a $20k defense fund in a
> >week if need be. Folks don't seem to clearly understand just how
> >much potential power the Board has but chooses not to use -- this is
> >sort of a Godzilla meets Bambi thing. -B
> >
>From all indications, in a private message to me from Carolyn Ward,
KSGenWeb sc, (which she requested I not forward to ANYone) KSGenWeb,
Inc. is not committing to staying with The USGenWeb Project. My feeling
is that they will allign themselves with Jerry Dill, Inc. It through a
wrench in that group's plans, when they lost usgenweb.com. How do I
know? Because I used to be a USIGS officer and I saw many discussions on
USGenWeb and how *they* wanted it OFF of Rootsweb, because they couldn't
stand Brian. (which is actually what all this boils down to, and (in my
experienced opinion) the fact that Jerry and his friends want any
USGenWeb funding potentials to benefit USIGS and Jerry's server. Would
it make sense to incorporate USGenWeb, Inc. secretly if that was in the
back of thier minds?? Sure would! Also, why were several USIGS officers
and board members nominated at the last minute, right after they lost
the usgenweb.com domain?
Yes, there is a plot, but it's not being planned by the really dedicated
USGenWeb volunteers. It's being planned by those who want to take
advantage of what the USGenWeb Project has become.
Linda
At 10:43 PM 6/24/98 -0400, Nate Zipfel wrote:
>Hi all, just saw a message that the revised proposed by-laws have been
>posted for our review at
>
>http://www.usgenweb.org/official/propbylaws.html
>
>Nate
Nate,
Thanks.
I just read through them fairly quickly, and they seem to be vastly improved
in regards to some of the issues that were discussed here previously.
There's obviously been some serious thought and hard work by the by-laws
committee.
Are there some things that I'd still like to see changed? A few. Are these
things serious enough to prevent me supporting them? No. Will I vote for
them. Yes.
I'd urge everybody to take a look at the by-laws personally and see what you
think.
Ed Book
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------5D053BDA4900
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The message was sent to admin(a)usgenweb.org, the contact address for the
Project on the main USGenWeb page. I don't know who hosts Montgomery
County, or if they are on this list. Could someone make sure they get
this lady's info as a lookup volunteer?
Thanks,
Linda
--------------5D053BDA4900
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Return-Path: <cgsnyder(a)uiuc.edu>
Received: from staff1.cso.uiuc.edu (staff1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59])
by ixmail3.ix.netcom.com (8.8.7-s-4/8.8.7/(NETCOM v1.01)) with ESMTP id RAA16572;
for <cityslic(a)ix.netcom.com>; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 17:13:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.126.26.34] (naples-6.slip.uiuc.edu [130.126.26.34])
by staff1.cso.uiuc.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA13566
for <cityslic(a)ix.netcom.com>; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 19:13:54 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 19:13:54 -0500 (CDT)
X-Sender: cgsnyder(a)staff.uiuc.edu
Message-Id: <v04003a04b1b70058406a(a)[130.126.26.34]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: cityslic(a)ix.netcom.com
From: "Celia G. Snyder" <cgsnyder(a)uiuc.edu>
Subject: Fwd: Re: USGENWEB question
Hi Linda,
Are you a volunteer in PA? I received the following message - can't
believe someone wouldn't want this lady's help. Could be she didn't
explain herself very well (see her first message to me). Do you know who
the Montgomery Co, PA Coordinator is? Any suggestions? Thanks!
Celia
>X-Sender: blue341(a)mail.mco.bellsouth.net
>Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 18:31:30 -0400
>To: "Celia G. Snyder" <cgsnyder(a)uiuc.edu>
>From: SusanWalters <blue341(a)bellsouth.com>
>Subject: Re: USGENWEB question
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>
>hi I have volunteered to help with several PA couties pages. Especially
>the Montgomery Couty PA page. When i email the coordinator of Montgomery
>County she said she no idea what i was talking about. I have 3 books i
>have offed to do lookups in and she has not posted it. I am interested in
>any PA site that needs my help. I am disabled and ahve alot of time on my
>hands. So where ever I am needed I can help.
>
>
>At 04:54 PM 6/24/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>Hi Susan,
>>
>>Sorry, I'm not following you very well. Could you provide a little more
>>explanation of the problem.
>>
>>It appears that you have volunteered for something, but whomever you are
>>trying to volunteer with doesn't answer. Is that correct?
>>
>>What are you trying to volunteer for and who won't answer? If I know this
>>I can try to find out why or refer you to someone who can take care of the
>>problem.
>>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>Celia
>>
>>>I have voluteered several time to no avail. I never get any asnwer
>>>from anyone concerning this issue. Would you be able to get me a reason
>>>why? Thanks for taking the time to answer these questions.
>>>
>>> Thanks Susan Walters blue341(a)bellsouth.net
>>
>>
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Celia G. Snyder, Graduate Programs Coordinator (mailto:cgsnyder@uiuc.edu)
>>Dept. of Mech. and Indus. Engr., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>>140 Mechanical Engineering Building (MC-244), 1206 West Green Street,
>>Urbana, IL 61801
>>
>>UIUC WEB SITES RELATED TO GRADUATE SCHOOL:
>>UIUC: http://www.uiuc.edu
>>Mechanical and Industrial Engineering: http://www.mie.uiuc.edu
>>Graduate College: http://www.grad.uiuc.edu
>>M&IE Graduate Program Information:
>>http://www.mie.uiuc.edu/academic-programs/graduate/grad.html
>>Financial Aid: http://www.grad.uiuc.edu/financial_aid
>>Off-Campus Housing: http://www.news-gazette.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--------------5D053BDA4900--
Ya got my vote! <g>
At 11:37 PM 6/17/98 -0400, Nathan Zipfel wrote:
>My fellow PA County Coordinators,
>
>Below is the bio that I will have posted for the upcoming elections.
My fellow PA County Coordinators,
Below is the bio that I will have posted for the upcoming elections.
Nate
---------------------------------------
I've been involved with genealogical research for 20 years. The internet
has opened a whole new real of possibilities for researchers. The USGenWeb
Project has proven to be an invaluable resource for the researchers, and I'm
committed to seeing the project continue and grow into the future.
I look forward to representing my fellow County Coordinators. My Goals for
the Project include:
- a commitment to the county level project. The counties are the key
component of the project. The USGenWeb is the "door" that opens the way for
the visitors to begin their search through the state and county pages. I
firmly believe that the rules and guidelines must be kept to the bare
essentials. We should avoid unnecessary rules and guidelines.
- the National Project Board should be an advisory body and not a
legislative
body.
- a more formal structure for The USGenWeb Project. We should take steps to
"officially" organize. The past year has been at times rocky for the
National Project. In light of what has transpired this past year a formal
structure needs to be instituted. This formal structure is a separate issue
than incorporation. This formal structure would be decided upon by all
1600+ volunteers that make up this great project. This formal organization
would include by-laws that are developed by and agreed upon by the county
coordinators. The currently proposed by-laws were not developed by the
united effort of the county coordinators and do not meet my vision for the
project.
- The USGenWeb Project belongs to the volunteers. The recipients of the
project's efforts are the users -- whose interests should be primary in our
thoughts and motivation.
I would like to introduce a new member to the PAGenWeb crew. She is Sheila
Barr Helser <hhelser(a)mail.bright.net> and she has taken over the CC
position for Venango Co. from me. My job and travel have made it
impossible for me to keep up with everything. So, I thought it would be in
the best interest of Venango County online genealogy that I give up the
county to someone with the time and energy to maintain it as it should be
maintained.
Sheila is the WorldGenWeb coordinator for County Sligo, Ireland:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~irlsli/index.html
She also has a homepage at:
http://www.bright.net/~hhelser/sheila.html
Her homepage is a real treat ... especially for violinists!!!
Sheila has just started creating, modifying, and uploading pages to the
Venango Co. site (http://www.rootsweb.com/~pavenang/) and things are still
under construction. I have left all the queries, surnames, and misc. data
for Sheila to use on her new pages.
So, give Sheila a big welcome!
I am still CC for Mercer Co. ... for now. The 60+ hour work weeks and 100%
travel are starting to take their toll.
Mike
_________________________________________
Mercer County, Pennsylvania
USGenWeb County Coordinator and Listowner
http://www.rootsweb.com/~pamercer/
Ed,
I had no problem accessing the site at http://www.usigs.org/index.htm I saw
no mention to usroots or Rootsquest.
Nate
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Book [mailto:edbook@alpha.clarion-net.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 5:35 AM
To: PAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: USIGS
Hi,
I wanted everybody to be aware that I'm getting some replies from various
people that they are seeing quite different content at the location
http://www.usigs.org than I am. The content that they report pertains to
USIGS, not RootQuest.Com.
I've reloaded, cleared my cache, and I still see the content about
RootQuest.Com. I've had a report from another CC (also in Pennsylvania)
that she's seeing the same thing.
Based on what others are reporting I suspect that I'm getting bad DNS
(domain name service) from a router somewhere? Did this domain name change
its physical location recently?
I've asked three web-by-e-mail services, located in Canada, Germany, and
Britain, to send me the contents of the website by e-mail, and just got the
first reply back from Canada. It sent me the content at the actual USIGS
site, so apparently it has something to do with a router between me and the
usigs site.
Web-by-email servers are a nifty (but very slow) way for people with just
e-mail to get info from the web. (Yes, there are still some people out
there with this problem.) Here's how it's done if anybody interested in
knowing so they can help out genealogists in this situation.
Send the following commands (in the body of an e-mail) to one of the
following addresses if you want to check it out.
E-mail address: getweb(a)unganisha.idrc.ca
Command: GET http://www.usigs.org/
or:
E-mail address: w3mail(a)w3gate.de
Command: get -u http://www.usigs.org
or:
E-mail address: agora(a)www.eng.dmu.ac.uk
Command: send http://www.usigs.org/
Thanks for your patience and sorry for any confusion that I may have caused.
Ed Book
Hi,
I wanted everybody to be aware that I'm getting some replies from various
people that they are seeing quite different content at the location
http://www.usigs.org than I am. The content that they report pertains to
USIGS, not RootQuest.Com.
I've reloaded, cleared my cache, and I still see the content about
RootQuest.Com. I've had a report from another CC (also in Pennsylvania)
that she's seeing the same thing.
Based on what others are reporting I suspect that I'm getting bad DNS
(domain name service) from a router somewhere? Did this domain name change
its physical location recently?
I've asked three web-by-e-mail services, located in Canada, Germany, and
Britain, to send me the contents of the website by e-mail, and just got the
first reply back from Canada. It sent me the content at the actual USIGS
site, so apparently it has something to do with a router between me and the
usigs site.
Web-by-email servers are a nifty (but very slow) way for people with just
e-mail to get info from the web. (Yes, there are still some people out
there with this problem.) Here's how it's done if anybody interested in
knowing so they can help out genealogists in this situation.
Send the following commands (in the body of an e-mail) to one of the
following addresses if you want to check it out.
E-mail address: getweb(a)unganisha.idrc.ca
Command: GET http://www.usigs.org/
or:
E-mail address: w3mail(a)w3gate.de
Command: get -u http://www.usigs.org
or:
E-mail address: agora(a)www.eng.dmu.ac.uk
Command: send http://www.usigs.org/
Thanks for your patience and sorry for any confusion that I may have caused.
Ed Book
At 03:25 PM 6/15/98 -0400, Billie R. McNamara wrote:
>Ed! Tom Ward is a wonderful guy! We've been cyberbuddies for before the
>USGenWeb even started -- like me and Linda Lewis <g>.
At 01:19 PM 6/15/98 +0000, Linda Lewis wrote:
>I agree with Billie... Tom Ward is a great guy. But.. I feel he is being
>influenced by others.
Hi, Billie and Linda,
I'm relieved to hear that both of you think that Tom Ward is a
wonderful/great guy. I just became rather suspicious when I saw the link to
USIGS on his state page, went to that location, found the content to be a
privately owned RootQuest.Com with Jerry Dill as system administrator and an
address given as USGenWeb, Inc. in Idaho.
I've since given it some more thought, and I'm wondering if USIGS is in a
'domain name registration' similar to the one involving the USGenWeb Project
and www.usgenweb.com. If so, then I suppose the reasonable explanation for
the presence of this link on the Kansas state page is that it's an old link
to something that used to be at that location? Is that possibly the situation?
Can anybody tell me:
1) What exactly is USIGS?
2) Who are the people in charge of USIGS? I assume it has a board or owners
or something?
3) Is USIGS in a similar 'domain registration' situation like the USGenWeb
Project?
4) If so, is there another web site somewhere for USIGS?
(I've tried www.usigs.net & www.usigs.org; they're not valid.)
Thanks for any help you can give me in understanding this,
Ed Book
Ed Book wrote:
>
> Can anybody tell me:
>
> 1) What exactly is USIGS?
United States Internet Genealogical Society
The non-profit corporation was formed as a means to provide a place
where folks could make tax deductible donations to help defray the costs
of USGenWeb pages at www.dsenter.com (where the main pages used to be),
and www.rootsweb.com, which provides free space for USGenWeb Project
pages. To be fair, the founders wrote the by-laws, etc., to cover
financial assistance for any Internet project that provided free data to
researchers... the main goal of USIGS.
>
> 2) Who are the people in charge of USIGS? I assume it has a board or owners
> or something?
The board and officers are listed on their web pages, but I hope they've
taken my name off since I resigned as secretary.
http://www.usigs.org/index.htm
> 3) Is USIGS in a similar 'domain registration' situation like the USGenWeb
> Project?
No, the domain "www.usigs.org" is owned by James Streeter, the president
of USIGS. He registered the name for the non-profit corporation, and it
is under the control of the officers and board.
> 4) If so, is there another web site somewhere for USIGS?
> (I've tried www.usigs.net & www.usigs.org; they're not valid.)
See above URL.
A litte more explanation... www.usigs.org is residing on either
usroots.com or rootsquest.com, owned by Jerry Dill, who was the
treasurer until recently. According to the recent board minutes
(online), they elected a new treasurer this month. Jerry must have
resigned.
Why did I resign after helping to found it and serving as an officer?
Because I questioned too many things, including conflict of interest
issues regarding the treasurer owning the server that USIGS was paying
an outfit called SISNA to service for USIGS and USGW pages. The other
officers thought I was out of line, and I realized I was losing my
effectiveness as an officer, and felt both projects, USIGS and The
USGenWeb Project, would be better served if I concentrated on only one.
I was even accused of being on Rootsweb's payroll by a few of the
officers because I felt USIGS should use free Rootsweb space instead of
paying $400 a month for service. It got ugly at times. <g> The last
thing I questioned was the fact that Jerry Dill, Lucy Dill and Pat Smith
(owners of USGenWeb, Inc.) voted to approve the payment for USGenWeb
pages on usroots.com, after that had incorporated USGenWeb, Inc. as a
for-profit corporation, but did not reveal that fact to the officers.
That vote took place in Jan, Feb or March.. I forgot.. but it's in the
logged minutes.. again online. When I questioned that.... I was again
besieged with messages like, "why don't you stop this vendetta against
the Dills??" What I could never convince them, was that I was not on any
vendetta... I was merely trying to keep the business of USIGS clean..
and felt it was my duty as an officer.
Billie is also a founding member of USIGS, but resigned as board member
several months ago.
Linda
Ed! Tom Ward is a wonderful guy! We've been cyberbuddies for before the
USGenWeb even started -- like me and Linda Lewis <g>.
I have talked personally with several Kansas volunteers. Here's what I
understand to be their motivation (remember, this is third-hand cuz I
wasn't involved in the actual events):
1. They want to protect their project and the investments of the volunteers
-- both county hosts and submitters -- and ensure that it will continue
regardless of any personal politics that might enter into things in the
future.
2. They have a unique relationship with the state of Kansas, whereby their
webpages are hosted on state-owned machines. They do not want anything
bizarre that might happen to USGenWeb to affect that relationship.
3. They want to ensure that they have a legal entity that can own the
assets donated to the KSGenWeb project. By incorporating, they have that.
4. They want to have some liability protection if someone should choose to
sue the KSGenWeb project for some reason.
5. They want to have some autonomy and structure in their government.
I think that's pretty much it.
Tom didn't do anything unethical, nor did the other county coordinators who
are on the project. They had a discussion, and they voted. As I
understand it, only 3 of their county coordinators voted against
incorporation. Those 3 chose to accept the majority vote.
This is me, speaking for me: I can understand their concern. Somewhere
along the way, I feel we've lost the sense of what this project was when it
began. We were a group of volunteers who had an interest in providing
information for researchers. We were commonly linked to a single-entry
location that made it easy for people to find us. We put a logo and a link
to that single-entry location on our pages. We were independent, and our
work was for our counties (or whatever jurisdiction).
Now, however, there is a sense among a lot of volunteers -- especially
those who have come on in the past year -- that we should be working our
butts off for the Project. They feel that any work we do should be donated
without strings to the Project. As far as I can see, the only place where
those donations are protected is on the Archives Project that Linda Lewis
manages.
If I were to leave PAGenWeb and leave my Clarion County pages for the next
person to use, he or she could mutilate or delete them as he felt suited
his purpose. I'm sorry, but I haven't ignored my husband, others, and my
own best interests over the past two years just to see that happen. I have
consistently maintained the belief that the work I do is for the good of
researchers looking for Clarion County resources. I design my site as
though I were coming there for information. But, I treasure my autonomy
and my belief that I choose to continue with USGenWeb, rather than vice
versa. If it ever changes, the project will become a truly sad, desolate
place.
And, this is an ideal place to discuss the goings-on in other states. I
know some states' coordinators who are violently opposed to their states'
business being discussed outside their lists. But, if we don't converse
with our peers, how will we ever get fresh ideas?
At 02:41 PM 6/15/98 -0400, Ed Book wrote:
>I went to the Kansas USGenWeb site today to check out some rumors that were
>floating around USGenWeb-ALL list today. They state that they are
>'affiliated' with USGenWeb, and they have a link back to USGenWeb at the
>bottom of their page
<snipped>
>
>Quite frankly, this Kansas organization is starting to smell badly to me. I
>can assure you that if Tom Ward chooses to run, I won't be voting for him
>unless he has some pretty slick explanations
<snipped>