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
At 01:19 AM 5/21/2016, Patrice wrote:
>Pat, Deloris and Members,
>
>Pat, when RootsWeb went down it was not possible to subscribe those
>at Board-L, to the Google Group. RootsWeb was down and we didn't
>have access to the subscriber lists.
I stand corrected. I remember seeing an announcement
*somewhere/somehow* about the googlegroups list and how to subscribe myself.
Pat
I am subscribed to all lists available to us members of the project,
Someone stated that Denise Wells had again picked up the reigns as NC?
Should not t that have been reported to the membership? I certainly have
seen nothing indicating that she had returned. Are we back to the days of
business being conducted in the dark and then foisted on the membership?
The first,business is this: is in charge, ie who at this point is the
Denise or Patrice? The last word on that subject was several weeks ago
when Denise announced to the project she was handing the reins over to
Patrice for health reasons. Where is the announcement to the membership
she has returned to her chair as NC? Right now it seems no one knows is in
charge or is it only a few are deemed worthy to know that the NC has
returned?
Seemingly this new rule has come out of the blue with no discussion or
anything since when? ? April? we are well into June now? Where is all this
we are ruled from the bottom up BS?
think that should be discussed with the membership prior to any action by
the AB and in all fairness it should be something that is voted on by the
membership. Things have been quiet for a while now with nothing going on
period so the AB has gotten complacent and decides we, the members, have
forgotten what YOUR role really is, so you to overstep your bounds and
leave us out of any decision on something that will affect us all!
You should remember elections are just around the corner!
Laverne Tornow
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 3:09 PM, geanie via <usgenweb-discuss(a)rootsweb.com>
wrote:
> Although I certainly praise the intent of the proposals and the effort to
> clarify a question that has been around for awhile, I really think the
> proposal is going to far in that there is wording directing the states on
> how to conduct policy. Remove the mandate on how a state should conduct
> itself re the matter and it then looks really good.
> Mike Peterson
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> USGENWEB-DISCUSS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
On 05/20/2016 10:19 PM, Patrice via wrote:
> Pat, Deloris and Members,
>
> Pat, when RootsWeb went down it was not possible to subscribe those
> at Board-L, to the Google Group. RootsWeb was down and we didn't
> have access to the subscriber lists.
Some one should *always* have access to the subscriber lists.
NC should have address's for ALL SC and ASC, then those have access to
all their people.
No excuse.
This is an organization.
Thats what we do, organize.
We have lists of so many things we forget to list the people who are the
project?, some place ( just in case) a communication line breaks?
We have messages on our computers with all the people who reply,
that includes their address, its simple to spend a little time back
tracking messages and gleaning at least the ones who are replying.
And using 2 lists now that rw is up again, leaves out those who
never joined the google list which it apparently showing as some are
saying now.
Just seems, those who can do; arn't.
Dan M
I won't apologize for putting my comments on the project discussion lists. It is where project members discuss. The Board List, rightfully so, is not the place for project member discussion. This subject has been on within the project for a few months now. If you want to know what the Board is doing, subscribe to it or check rootsweb archive list. At some point in time, the Board has to take all of the discussion going on with a subject and from that develop a proposal. Those usually create more discussion but also usually more focused.
What I do apologize for is that I was wrong in assuming that project members were monitoring the Board activity. What I should have done is either provide the link to the proposal or copied it within my message. Sorry for that and I'll try to keep that in mind in the future.
I was glad though to see some discussion on the issue even though there was plenty of aside discussion about multiple message boards.
Sincerely,
Mike Peterson
---- Deloris Williams via <usgenweb-discuss(a)rootsweb.com> wrote:
=============
My major complaint is, that to start a discussion on one List, and then to
continue right in the middle of it on another list, is not the way that we
should be informed of things. One can choose to be subscribed to whatever
lists one wants, but to not be aware of a discussion that is taking place on
another list and to expect there to be no confusion over what is going on is
not logical. It's like starting a conversation on the Smith Mailing list,
and responding to it on the Jones Mailing list.
I don't know what was lost in the Board list regarding the proposal, there
is only the one message in May showing the proposal. But for the record, I
don't disagree with the proposal, especially with your suggested changes, so
hope that something to that effect is what is passed.
Deloris Williams
NCGenWeb-SC
-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Asher
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 5:49 PM
To: Deloris Williams ; usgenweb-discuss(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Board Discussion on Social Media
At 06:21 PM 5/20/2016, Deloris Williams via wrote:
>Thanks for the link Pat. Now, I know this isn’t your fault since you
>didn’t post the original message, so I am addressing this to the Board.
>For a proposal like that which affects all of us, shouldn’t this have
>been presented to the all of the members on a list, such as this Discussion
>List, instead of just on the Board list? If it wasn’t for Mike’s
>posting a response on this List, most of us wouldn’t have know about the
>proposal. I think that this is something that the entire membership should
>have input on, before presenting it before the Board as a proposal. Deloris
>Williams NCGenWeb -SC http://www.ncgenweb.us/
Deloris, I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. Any
member of the USGW Project can subscribe to
Board-L(a)rootsweb.com in read only mode if they
care to follow the discussions on Board.
Unfortunately, because of the RootsWeb server
failure, most of the posts during the month of
March when this discussion started were lost from
the RootsWeb archives. BUT, if you had been
subscribed to board-L(a)rootsweb.com at the time of
the RootsWeb server failure, you would have also
been subscribed to the googlegroops.com list
which substituted for board-L(a)rootsweb.com during their problems.
IOW, the choice to follow policy discussions and
motions of the USGW Advisory Board is yours. You
choose whether or not to subscribe to the
national and regional lists that will keep you
informed about what issues are being considered
at the national or regional level. If you choose
not to subscribe to those lists, you can't complain that you were not
informed.
Pat A.
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to USGENWEB-DISCUSS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Pat, Deloris and Members,
Pat, when RootsWeb went down it was not possible to subscribe those
at Board-L, to the Google Group. RootsWeb was down and we didn't
have access to the subscriber lists.
Deloris, sometimes the only way to get something done is to do
it. The social media discussion began with a CCs request for
guidance in February, if I remember correctly. I am glad there was
discussion then and even more so now. It's past time to provide an answer.
I only want to do what is right for the Project, the CCs and the States.
Rel@ively,
Patrice
At 5/21/2016 01:01 AM, usgenweb-discuss-request(a)rootsweb.com wrote:
>From: Pat Asher
>Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 5:49 PM
>To: Deloris Williams ; usgenweb-discuss(a)rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Board Discussion on Social Media
>
>At 06:21 PM 5/20/2016, Deloris Williams via wrote:
> >Thanks for the link Pat. Now, I know this isn???t your fault since you
> >didn???t post the original message, so I am addressing this to the Board.
> >For a proposal like that which affects all of us, shouldn???t this have
> >been presented to the all of the members on a list, such as this Discussion
> >List, instead of just on the Board list? If it wasn???t for Mike???s
> >posting a response on this List, most of us wouldn???t have know about the
> >proposal. I think that this is something that the entire membership should
> >have input on, before presenting it before the Board as a proposal. Deloris
> >Williams NCGenWeb -SC http://www.ncgenweb.us/
>
>Deloris, I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. Any
>member of the USGW Project can subscribe to
>Board-L(a)rootsweb.com in read only mode if they
>care to follow the discussions on Board.
>Unfortunately, because of the RootsWeb server
>failure, most of the posts during the month of
>March when this discussion started were lost from
>the RootsWeb archives. BUT, if you had been
>subscribed to board-L(a)rootsweb.com at the time of
>the RootsWeb server failure, you would have also
>been subscribed to the googlegroops.com list
>which substituted for board-L(a)rootsweb.com during their problems.
>
>IOW, the choice to follow policy discussions and
>motions of the USGW Advisory Board is yours. You
>choose whether or not to subscribe to the
>national and regional lists that will keep you
>informed about what issues are being considered
>at the national or regional level. If you choose
>not to subscribe to those lists, you can't complain that you were not
>informed.
>
>Pat A.
The discussion that took place back in March is available for anyone
to read at Google Groups:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/board-l/-fBoRe8VGW4
I'm still posting to both list and group by choice or laziness -- not
sure which...
I do not have a problem revising the motion, so please, talk to your
representatives and tell them what you want.
Rel@ively,
Patrice
Denise returned this morning and again took over as the NC.
Les
On 5/20/2016 11:14 PM, Tina Vickery via wrote:
> My initial concern with Patrice's email to Board was the phrase "I
> move". Patrice is Acting National Coordinator, at present, and can not
> make a motion in that role. If the phrase was used conversationally, I
> would suggest that the Board and the membership also look at the the
> Standard Rule for use of USGenWeb Project logo. It may prove be a good
> jumping off point or at least something to be mindful of as the
> Project discusses its logo use in the social media phenomenon.
>
>
> "IV. PERMISSION TO USE A USGenWeb LOGO. (Adopted 17 October 2006
> (Motion 06-18)) In the event a request for permission to use one of
> the USGenWeb Logos in a publication is received, the National
> Coordinator shall notify the Advisory Board of his/her intent to
> accept or reject the request. Unless an objection is registered the
> National Coordinator's decision will stand."
>
>
> http://usgenweb.org/volunteers/standard-rules.shtml
>
>
> Tina
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to USGENWEB-DISCUSS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
My major complaint is, that to start a discussion on one List, and then to
continue right in the middle of it on another list, is not the way that we
should be informed of things. One can choose to be subscribed to whatever
lists one wants, but to not be aware of a discussion that is taking place on
another list and to expect there to be no confusion over what is going on is
not logical. It's like starting a conversation on the Smith Mailing list,
and responding to it on the Jones Mailing list.
I don't know what was lost in the Board list regarding the proposal, there
is only the one message in May showing the proposal. But for the record, I
don't disagree with the proposal, especially with your suggested changes, so
hope that something to that effect is what is passed.
Deloris Williams
NCGenWeb-SC
-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Asher
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 5:49 PM
To: Deloris Williams ; usgenweb-discuss(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Board Discussion on Social Media
At 06:21 PM 5/20/2016, Deloris Williams via wrote:
>Thanks for the link Pat. Now, I know this isn’t your fault since you
>didn’t post the original message, so I am addressing this to the Board.
>For a proposal like that which affects all of us, shouldn’t this have
>been presented to the all of the members on a list, such as this Discussion
>List, instead of just on the Board list? If it wasn’t for Mike’s
>posting a response on this List, most of us wouldn’t have know about the
>proposal. I think that this is something that the entire membership should
>have input on, before presenting it before the Board as a proposal. Deloris
>Williams NCGenWeb -SC http://www.ncgenweb.us/
Deloris, I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. Any
member of the USGW Project can subscribe to
Board-L(a)rootsweb.com in read only mode if they
care to follow the discussions on Board.
Unfortunately, because of the RootsWeb server
failure, most of the posts during the month of
March when this discussion started were lost from
the RootsWeb archives. BUT, if you had been
subscribed to board-L(a)rootsweb.com at the time of
the RootsWeb server failure, you would have also
been subscribed to the googlegroops.com list
which substituted for board-L(a)rootsweb.com during their problems.
IOW, the choice to follow policy discussions and
motions of the USGW Advisory Board is yours. You
choose whether or not to subscribe to the
national and regional lists that will keep you
informed about what issues are being considered
at the national or regional level. If you choose
not to subscribe to those lists, you can't complain that you were not
informed.
Pat A.
Good point on the copyright violation Pat. As for the rest, I've gotten confused with all the notes. Time to see a complete new proposal. For sure, the original presented on board seems too much with all the words about state.
Mike Peterson
First, you are assuming that the creator of a social media site is a
CC, or a member of a State or Special USGW Project. What if they are
Joe Blow with a personal connection to the area, but no connection at
all to the USGWP? Do you want them to be able to display a State Project logo?
===================
Pat,
I think the first part of your comment is covered very well where it indicated the creator had to be coordinator. Although, if Joe Blow displays USGW logo what are you going to do about it? I think the point of the rule is that hey guys, it's OK to display the logo on your county social page. My point was that the USGW would be better off just addressing the USGW logo and let each state decide what to do about state logos.
Sincerely,
Mike Peterson
At 06:24 PM 5/20/2016, Pat Asher wrote:
>To: geanie <geanie(a)cox.net>, usgenweb-discuss(a)rootsweb.com
>From: Pat Asher <arbenton(a)att.net>
>Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Board Discussion on Social Media
>In-Reply-To: <20160520181752.DOF9V.161221.imail@fed1rmwml207>
>References: <20160520181752.DOF9V.161221.imail@fed1rmwml207>
>
>At 06:17 PM 5/20/2016, you wrote:
>>Pat,
>>thanks, the proposed rewrite is much better. Having said that I
>>still don't see
>>the necessity for telling cc they need approval from sc to use the
>>state logo.
>>Wouldn't that be a state decision? What if the state doesn't give a hoot?
First, you are assuming that the creator of a social media site is a
CC, or a member of a State or Special USGW Project. What if they are
Joe Blow with a personal connection to the area, but no connection at
all to the USGWP? Do you want them to be able to display a State Project logo?
>>Why
>>the majority vote for approval when the state may already require 2/3's, for
>>example, for policy decisions. I think removal of the last sentence
>>in 1. and
>>the last in 2. in the original would be a good idea, or remove the
>>last sentence
>>in your proposed rewrite.
>>Mike Peterson
Covered that in my suggested changes --
"or by whatever procedure has been established for creating
or changing guidelines and policy for that project."
Pat A.
P.S. For some reason, when the RootsWeb servers went down and members
of usgenweb-discuss(a)rootsweb.com were subscribed to the
googlegroups.com replacement list, I was subscribed with a different
email address to the googlegroups list. Thus, I can not send one
message and copy both lists because one or the other subscribed email
addresses will bounce as a non-subscriber <sigh>
>>
>>Original:
>>
>>I move County, State and Project Coordinators be allowed to use one
>>of the official USGenWeb Project logos on their social media sites as
>>long as they coordinate the matching county, state or special project.
>>County Coordinators must have approval from their State Coordinator
>>to use their state logo on social media sites.
>>
>>State Coordinators can, at their option, add a social media policy
>>for their state as long as it does not conflict with the national
>>policy. The policy shall be approved by a majority of CCs voting
>>within that individual state.
>>
>>If the Coordinator leaves the county, state or project, they must
>>remove the official logos. They may use one of the "Explore USGenWeb" logos.
>>---- Pat Asher <pjroots(a)att.net> wrote:
>>
>>=============
>>Larry,
>>
>>I would suggest two further changes to the motion, i.e.
>>
>>1) That the order of paragraphs be reordered to keep "national
>>policy" together and sequential, i.e. paragraph four (4) be moved to
>>become paragraph two (2)
>>
>>2) that the new paragraph four (formerly 3) be changed to read:
>>
>>"State or Special Project Coordinators can at their option, add a
>>social media policy for their State or Special Project so long as it
>>does not conflict with the national policy. The policy shall be
>>approved by a majority of coordinators voting within that individual
>>project, or by whatever procedure has been established for creating
>>or changing guidelines and policy for that project."
>>
>>Mike,
>>
>>I concur with Larry that the proposed policy does not direct the
>>states to "do" anything. It says they "may" do such and such if they
>>so desire. Local Bylaws can not conflict with national bylaws. It
>>stands to reason that local policies may not conflict either :)
>>
>>
>>Pat Asher
>>
>>At 03:25 PM 5/20/2016, Larry Flesher via wrote:
>> >Mike-
>> >My take on that part is not that we are directing the states on how
>> >to conduct their business, but we are merely placing a restriction
>> >on the states that any policy they may institute may not be in
>> >conflict with the (proposed) national policy.
>> >Larry
>> >
>> >
>> > From: geanie via <usgenweb-disMeb-discuss(a)rootsweb.com
>> > Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 2:09 PM
>> > Subject: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Board Discussion on Social Media
>> >
>> >Although I certainly praise the intent of the proposals and the
>> >effort to clarify a question that has been around for awhile, I
>> >really think the proposal is going to far in that there is wording
>> >directing the states on how to conduct policy. Remove the mandate on
>> >how a state should conduct itself re the matter and it then looks
>> really good.
>> >Mike Peterson
>>
>>
>>-------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>>USGENWEB-DISCUSS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe'
>>without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
At 06:21 PM 5/20/2016, Deloris Williams via wrote:
>Thanks for the link Pat. Now, I know this
>isnât your fault since you didnât post the
>original message, so I am addressing this to the
>Board. For a proposal like that which affects
>all of us, shouldnât this have been presented
>to the all of the members on a list, such as
>this Discussion List, instead of just on the
>Board list? If it wasnât for Mikeâs posting
>a response on this List, most of us wouldnât
>have know about the proposal. I think that this
>is something that the entire membership should
>have input on, before presenting it before the
>Board as a proposal. Deloris Williams NCGenWeb -SC http://www.ncgenweb.us/
Deloris, I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. Any
member of the USGW Project can subscribe to
Board-L(a)rootsweb.com in read only mode if they
care to follow the discussions on Board.
Unfortunately, because of the RootsWeb server
failure, most of the posts during the month of
March when this discussion started were lost from
the RootsWeb archives. BUT, if you had been
subscribed to board-L(a)rootsweb.com at the time of
the RootsWeb server failure, you would have also
been subscribed to the googlegroops.com list
which substituted for board-L(a)rootsweb.com during their problems.
IOW, the choice to follow policy discussions and
motions of the USGW Advisory Board is yours. You
choose whether or not to subscribe to the
national and regional lists that will keep you
informed about what issues are being considered
at the national or regional level. If you choose
not to subscribe to those lists, you can't complain that you were not informed.
Pat A.
Pat,
thanks, the proposed rewrite is much better. Having said that I still don't see
the necessity for telling cc they need approval from sc to use the state logo.
Wouldn't that be a state decision? What if the state doesn't give a hoot? Why
the majority vote for approval when the state may already require 2/3's, for
example, for policy decisions. I think removal of the last sentence in 1. and
the last in 2. in the original would be a good idea, or remove the last sentence
in your proposed rewrite.
Mike Peterson
Original:
I move County, State and Project Coordinators be allowed to use one
of the official USGenWeb Project logos on their social media sites as
long as they coordinate the matching county, state or special project.
County Coordinators must have approval from their State Coordinator
to use their state logo on social media sites.
State Coordinators can, at their option, add a social media policy
for their state as long as it does not conflict with the national
policy. The policy shall be approved by a majority of CCs voting
within that individual state.
If the Coordinator leaves the county, state or project, they must
remove the official logos. They may use one of the "Explore USGenWeb" logos.
---- Pat Asher <pjroots(a)att.net> wrote:
=============
Larry,
I would suggest two further changes to the motion, i.e.
1) That the order of paragraphs be reordered to keep "national
policy" together and sequential, i.e. paragraph four (4) be moved to
become paragraph two (2)
2) that the new paragraph four (formerly 3) be changed to read:
"State or Special Project Coordinators can at their option, add a
social media policy for their State or Special Project so long as it
does not conflict with the national policy. The policy shall be
approved by a majority of coordinators voting within that individual
project, or by whatever procedure has been established for creating
or changing guidelines and policy for that project."
Mike,
I concur with Larry that the proposed policy does not direct the
states to "do" anything. It says they "may" do such and such if they
so desire. Local Bylaws can not conflict with national bylaws. It
stands to reason that local policies may not conflict either :)
Pat Asher
At 03:25 PM 5/20/2016, Larry Flesher via wrote:
>Mike-
>My take on that part is not that we are directing the states on how
>to conduct their business, but we are merely placing a restriction
>on the states that any policy they may institute may not be in
>conflict with the (proposed) national policy.
>Larry
>
>
> From: geanie via <usgenweb-disMeb-discuss(a)rootsweb.com
> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 2:09 PM
> Subject: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Board Discussion on Social Media
>
>Although I certainly praise the intent of the proposals and the
>effort to clarify a question that has been around for awhile, I
>really think the proposal is going to far in that there is wording
>directing the states on how to conduct policy. Remove the mandate on
>how a state should conduct itself re the matter and it then looks really good.
>Mike Peterson
Larry,
I would suggest two further changes to the motion, i.e.
1) That the order of paragraphs be reordered to keep "national
policy" together and sequential, i.e. paragraph four (4) be moved to
become paragraph two (2)
2) that the new paragraph four (formerly 3) be changed to read:
"State or Special Project Coordinators can at their option, add a
social media policy for their State or Special Project so long as it
does not conflict with the national policy. The policy shall be
approved by a majority of coordinators voting within that individual
project, or by whatever procedure has been established for creating
or changing guidelines and policy for that project."
Mike,
I concur with Larry that the proposed policy does not direct the
states to "do" anything. It says they "may" do such and such if they
so desire. Local Bylaws can not conflict with national bylaws. It
stands to reason that local policies may not conflict either :)
Pat Asher
At 03:25 PM 5/20/2016, Larry Flesher via wrote:
>Mike-
>My take on that part is not that we are directing the states on how
>to conduct their business, but we are merely placing a restriction
>on the states that any policy they may institute may not be in
>conflict with the (proposed) national policy.
>Larry
>
>
> From: geanie via <usgenweb-disMeb-discuss(a)rootsweb.com
> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 2:09 PM
> Subject: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Board Discussion on Social Media
>
>Although I certainly praise the intent of the proposals and the
>effort to clarify a question that has been around for awhile, I
>really think the proposal is going to far in that there is wording
>directing the states on how to conduct policy. Remove the mandate on
>how a state should conduct itself re the matter and it then looks really good.
>Mike Peterson
>
>-------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>USGENWEB-DISCUSS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe'
>without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
>
>
>
>-------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>USGENWEB-DISCUSS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe'
>without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Although I certainly praise the intent of the proposals and the effort to clarify a question that has been around for awhile, I really think the proposal is going to far in that there is wording directing the states on how to conduct policy. Remove the mandate on how a state should conduct itself re the matter and it then looks really good.
Mike Peterson
As Billie stated, what is this all about? Is there a discussion on this list which some of us may have missed? And if so, could someone please repost those communications or provide a link to where this is being discussed which seems to be something that would affect the entire membership?
Deloris Williams
NCGenWeb -State Coordinator
http://www.ncgenweb.us/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Flesher via
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 2:25 PM
To: geanie ; usgenweb-discuss(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Board Discussion on Social Media
Mike-
My take on that part is not that we are directing the states on how to conduct their business, but we are merely placing a restriction on the states that any policy they may institute may not be in conflict with the (proposed) national policy.
Larry
From: geanie via <usgenweb-disMeb-discuss(a)rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 2:09 PM
Subject: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Board Discussion on Social Media
Although I certainly praise the intent of the proposals and the effort to clarify a question that has been around for awhile, I really think the proposal is going to far in that there is wording directing the states on how to conduct policy. Remove the mandate on how a state should conduct itself re the matter and it then looks really good.
Mike Peterson
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to USGENWEB-DISCUSS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to USGENWEB-DISCUSS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
On 05/20/2016 02:23 PM, Timothy Stowell via wrote:
> Lynne,
>
> There is also a Google discuss group that was set up during the outage of
> Rootsweb earlier this year. I suspect that is the one you are referring to?
>
> Tim
>
Evidently, not every one is subscribed there.
Would be nice to use just one list for discussions.
Dan
I wish I could have gone So pleased to hear the conference was well
attended and the USGW booth was a beehive!!!!!! have not met Joy or Denise
yet face to face, but I have met Patrice, she is a lot of fun to be
around!!;
Laverne Tornow
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Nancy_Janyszeski via <
state-coord(a)rootsweb.com> wrote:
> Hi, I was there also and got to meet Joy, Patrice and Denise. It was a
> very well attended event and the USGenWeb table was busy.
> I was able to send lots of our Genealogical Society of Pennsylvania
> visitors over to USGenWeb to check out their research in other states and
> introduce them.
> It was a nice, time super weather -
>
>
> ~ Nancy
>
>
> http://www.PAGenweb.org
>
>
>
> From: Tina Vickery via <state-coord(a)rootsweb.com>
> To: state-coord <state-coord(a)rootsweb.com>; usgenweb-discuss <
> usgenweb-discuss(a)rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 12:48 AM
> Subject: [STATE-COORD] NGS conference
>
> Denise,
>
> I recently saw a picture that you posted from the 2016 NGS Conference
> in Fort Lauderdale, FL. I would love to hear about your time and
> participation there promoting the USGenWeb Project on its 20th
> anniversary.
>
> Tina
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> STATE-COORD-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> STATE-COORD-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
Denise,
I recently saw a picture that you posted from the 2016 NGS Conference
in Fort Lauderdale, FL. I would love to hear about your time and
participation there promoting the USGenWeb Project on its 20th
anniversary.
Tina
Well, its several days since I seen any comments on this group.
I hope ya'll into getting all those gardens going. ;)
Once in a while, I see books for other counties when I go book hunting.
I know people are looking for some of them.
I cant make free offers, but just what I give for them.
Also, if any one has any outside projects other than genweb, I would
link them on my website.
Dan