I'm in agreement!
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: Webmaster [mailto:webmaster@chartiers.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 1998 4:03 PM
To: PAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: What _do_ we want?
At 01:56 PM 5/31/98 -0400, Nate wrote:
You are correct that we need to hear from more of your CC's on
this issue.
Based on the messages that I've seen, there has been comments from 17 of
our
67 counties (now some of us have more than one county). 16 of those
17
counties are singing a very similar song in that they do not see the
national project doing the right thing for the counties.
Hmmmm... This has me thinking. What is we would like to see?
I've been in this since July 1996, have been on and off the various
mailing lists, volunteered at one point for some of the "national
committees",
got off both, etc. I have really appreciated Gary Steiner's approach to
managing the state level and allowing us to stay focused. As I said in
private email to someone, this reflects the real frontier attitudes of my
self-
sufficient, Scotch-Irish ancestors who always pushed west when government
caught up with them.
Here's what I'd like to see, whether it involves USGenWeb or not. Be aware
that I assume one thing: current and future Penna. CCs have a common
interest in providing good service to county researchers. This common
interest joins us together as a loosely affiliated group that support each
other
in our efforts to provide that service.
1. A philosophical acceptance that each CC is an individual, trying to
do the best they can, with varying levels of experience, with unique
abilities and insights that have value and that can be shared.
This philosophical acceptance implies civilized, high-quality, low-noise
communication intended to enhance each CCs ability to provide
better web pages with excellent content that satisfy our readers.
And not only a philosophical acceptance, but an overt acknowledgement
of these things.
2. A regular state-wide communication.
How often? Monthly or bi-monthly.
What kind? This would be a "push" communication versus a "pull"
communication. It would be pushed to the CCs, versus us having to
"pull" it from a web page. Of course it should be archived on a web
page.
What content? Any changes in CCs, welcomes to new folks, thanks
to those who have gone beyond the call of "duty", send-offs for people
who are leaving the fold. Changes on the state page: new links added,
etc.
Cool new pages out there that we all should be aware of (e.g. bureau of
land management land patent page, etc.) Updates on automated software
that are working well for people and that can be shared easily by other
CCs. Tips and tricks that would make our pages better based on feedback
from our readers.
Also, let's get rid of the erroneous assumption that all the CCs have
been part
of this project since mid-1996, that they all are computer geeks, that
they all subscribe to the noisy national email lists, etc.
I will volunteer to do a newsletter if people would find it valuable.
3. An invitation to Penna. CCs to participate in coordinating activities.
For instance, this has been tried at the national level for queries
pages
and was pretty much a confusing failure for a variety of reasons, mostly
having to do with communication and support. It was a good idea, but
execution and follow-through just weren't there.
Another instance would be the state-wide communication itself. Folks
would
need a clear process for how to send in ideas, tips, content, etc. to
shared
with the group.
3. A state-wide mechanism for pursuing issues that require majority buy-in.
This would be used infrequently. Think of it as a town hall approach
for providing a way to get visibility for some important issue.
This would be a "pull" mechanism where a CC or group of CCs
speak up and are interested in seeking the opinions of the group at
large.
This would not be a "push" mechanism where a group of unempowered
people impose what they want us all to do.
Put in place a process for:
a. Raising an issue that might interest the group
b. Discussing the issue
c. Registering opinions about the issue
All this could be handled via software _other than_ and email
discussion group
which often turns into nothing more than an uncivilized house of babel
with no
apparent goal, process, or conclusion.
I really believe that the group of Penna. CCs have great potential for
advancing
genealogical research in Penna. There may come a point where, as a group,
our collective aspiration would require a more formal organization, at
which time
I would expect we could do a better job of executing on the formation of
that
organization than what's being done at the national level.
Jean Suplick Matuson