Greetings:
This is truly a question, and not at all rhetorical. I do have
an opinion on the subject, and I will express it, but this is
one of those things where I would like to know what the State
Coordinator and list members think, before I create a rule. If
you want to know what *that* means, think of it as a non-binding
referendum.
Please understand -- this is not a veiled criticism of those who
posted the messages that raised the question. If I want to
criticize you, I know how to do it without being veiled [grin].
Politely. *PRIVATELY*.
Since VTGEN awakened from its coma, the messages posted on it
have not for the most part been specifically VTGenWeb related.
They have been general genealogy. Now, some general genealogy
questions have specific ramifications for VTGenWeb, such as:
if an extinct town was divided between two current towns, should
data about that town be: (a) on both town sites; (b) on one town
site, and linked from the other; or, (c) have its own town
coordinator?!?! (Think: Baltimore, Hancock, and Sterling, if
my memory serves.) What if the two current towns are in separate
counties? But some general questions, such as the one about the
town of "Crosburgh" (I agree it is almost certainly Enosburg)
might be better posted (and more quickly answered) on VERMONT-L.
Plus, a lot more people will benefit from the answer when it is
posted.
So: Do we want to post general genealogical questions, that do
not have a discernable effect on VTGenWeb organizational work,
to VTGEN-L?
My opinion is NO. I would prefer that such continue to appear on
VERMONT-L. On the other hand, if only the SC, CCs, TCs, and
authorized volunteers, are subscribed to the list, I can't see
any danger of the list becoming a "rival" to VERMONT-L. Still, I
do not want to see the Vermont RootsWeb community to be divided
even in minor ways.
What do *YOU* think?
Darrell
VTGEN list admin
Darrell A. Martin
working from web-based Earthlink mail
darrellm(a)sprynet.com