BOARD-L Archives

Archiver > BOARD > 2001-10 > 1002324964


From: "Jana Black" <>
Subject: RE: [BOARD-L] Discussion: Special Projects
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 16:36:04 -0700


Hi Pam,

I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I do not pretend to have all the
answers here, but will offer replies using *** *** below. I am looking to
understand what would be the best next step for the Project. Thank you so
much for offering ...Jana

-----Original Message-----
From: Pam Reid [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 2:40 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Discussion: Special Projects


It doesn't surprise me at all for a discussion of eliminating Board
representation for SPs to come up. I have really been expecting that for
some time and I have no objection to it. When Megan created the first Board
it was simply because she didn't want to be all alone in the decision making
process. She requested that certain people join her on the Board and these
people were selected because Megan knew them, knew of their commitment to
USGW and they provided a broad representation of the various areas of the
Project. When the original group went about drafting Bylaws, each SP got a
seat based on some intense lobbying by Kay Mason. She was, if I recall
correctly (it has been quite a long time) the chairman of the committee and
therefore wielded quite a bit of influence on the committee as a whole.

I don't feel that it is necessary for each SP to have a Board seat. By the
same token I don't feel that having a rep of each SP (except Census) has
been detrimental to the Board. What you have is a group of USGW volunteers
from various capacities trying to work together to "govern" the Project and
I don't think it matters all that much where these Reps. actually come from.
What has been detrimental is the controversy surrounding just one SP - The
Census Project. It has been difficult to even attempt to resolve that issue
since many of the parties involved are unwilling to compromise. This
comment is not a criticism, BTW, just a statement. It is possible that too
much has gone on for compromise to be possible.

*** My purpose was to open up the discussion to gain fuller understanding. I
am glad you see you do not object to discussion :) We have come a long way
since the beginning of this Project and it is good to take a time out
occasionally and revisit who we got to where we are. I agree that
representation has not been detrimental, but I am just not sure it is in the
best interest of the Project as a whole to divide our energies when you (as
SPs) do such an excellent job in your special areas that we can "tag" on to
w/o being involved in conflict/competition between various SPs. ***

That said, it would seem that popular opinion favors eliminating these seats
and as I said before, I have no objection. Phyllis made the point that in
order to do this, the Bylaws have to be changed. It shouldn't be very
difficult to get this change passed since the membership seems to be in
favor.

*** Agreed ***

I do feel strongly that people need to think long and hard about removing
SPs from the umbrella of USGW. I see that the sentiment runs toward
returning the Project to the original goal of being county oriented. I
disagree with those who have said that researchers have difficulty using a
web page geared towards one type of record with a nationwide scope. I truly
believe that the SPs bring something pretty wonderful to USGW. In the case
of the Tombstone Project, a large majority of the surveys that have been
submitted aren't available anywhere else. Even if they were, their
availability would be limited to a book or pamplet in a local genealogical
society or library. The transcriptions would not be widely available as
they are now. These files represent an extrememly valuble (and potentially
endangered) resource.

*** I agree, we "need to think long and hard;" we also need to *discuss it*
openly which is why I opened it up for discussion. I also agree "that the
sentiment runs toward returning the Project to the original goal of being
county oriented." And, I do not think people have trouble using a "page
geared towards one type of record with a nationwide scope" either. BUT, I
think it may take novice researchers time to learn that a variety of SPs
exist, therefore, anything we can do as the USGW Project to lead them
effectively to the resources is a good thing. I see a simple reorganization
involved that would create a complimentary win-win partnership between the
USGW Project and SPs while leaving the SPs responsible to develop their own
standards of excellence beyond the USGW scope. ***

If we eliminate SPs from the USGW umbrella, what happens to records donated
to the SPs? The submitters were under the impression when they donated the
work that they were donating to a USGW Project. If SPs are eliminated, this
would no longer hold true.

*** Why would the records not stay exactly where they are??? I thought the
impression data was going to anything but the SPs was corrected long ago ***

In calling for the elimination of SPs from the Project umbrella, are you all
including the Archives as an SP? If so, this proposal brings with it some
very major problems. While many counties have put records online in HTML
format, just as many others chose to use the Archives as a digital library
for the records submitted to their counties. So, if they are in the
Archives and the Archives is no longer an official part of USGW, how will
this work?

*** I currently *do* see the Archives as a SP... if I am incorrect, please
tell me how and where to find the correct back up information. Can counties
not simply create links to files in the Archives??? I know Linda has said
yes to this before as I am awaiting completion of the 1870 for my county as
we speak :) ***

I have long lobbied that ALL records submitted to the USGW be archived.
This just makes so much sense to me. County coordinators come and go - many
take their work with them when they leave. If a file is archived, it is a
permenant part of the USGW digital library. This just seems to be the
perfect way to make certain records are available on a very long term basis.
This belief in the value of the Archives as a permenant repository for all
records was the reason that I chose to upload all files that were submitted
to the TP to the Archives. Requesting separate space for TP files seemed
redundent. I felt then and still feel that our central digital library is
where they belong.

Pam

*** I guess it would help me if you define your interpretation of "ALL
records submitted to the USGW" ... are you suggesting that all data on
county sites has been donated to the USGW Project? I suspect lots of CCs do
not agree with his idea right now. PLEASE UNDERSTAND, I am not saying I
disagree with you that it *ought to be donated* but IF all data is donated
tot he USGW Project on county sites, how can CCs "take down" sites if they
choose to leave the Project??? Wouldn't the data belong to the Project, no
matter who the current CC is? Let me say upfront that this is my own
personal approach. I see my county site as bigger than me and when I can no
longer be the CC, I will want to find someone to honor and continue my hard
work and the work of my volunteers.

It looks to me that you are viewing the Archives as a solution/protection
for a bigger problem we may need to address as the USGW Project: that a
minimum set of standards need to be developed that CCs have to agree to
abide by in order to become CCs in the first place. If our objective as a
Project is to make data freely available and accessible online to all 24/7,
CCs must understand coming in what kind of Project they are making a
commitment to participate in.... ***

I hope we van keep this discussion as respectful as it is so far, thank you
Pam.

Jana

This thread: