BOARD-L Archives

Archiver > BOARD > 2008-10 > 1225271668


From: "Sherri" <>
Subject: Re: [BOARD] Motion 2008/09-04: 'Webmaster Qualifications'
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 05:14:30 -0400
In-Reply-To: <49073E64.8010504@saintclair.org>


Thanks, Mike, for answering these questions. Sorry I've been out of touch,
a very busy time at work and a couple of things here at home at the end of
the day made me unavailable.

For your Section 1 question, I would also add that the full AB had indicated
they felt a liason between the AB and the webmaster(s) would be a good idea
since the bylaws made the responsibility for the National website the AB's,
not solely the NC's.

In response to the Section 2 question, we made a concerted effort to ensure
that these requirements would fit both the current way the website is
handled and what might be useful in the future. I personally don't see
necessarily that a database would be useful on the National site, but since
I don't hold a crystal ball, can see where there's the possibility in the
future.

In response to the Section 4 question, there again it's dealing with the
current situation and also the possible future. The NC will have the
passwords - they're the ones that 'own' the National account. Currently,
there's no way to give anyone access to the Control Panel without giving
them access to every sub-account and the financial information of the
account holder. Currently, if the webmaster was given Control Panel access,
they'd also have access to the Election Committee's site and the Grievance
Committee's site. The webmaster of the National site shouldn't be able to
access their sites by FTP if he/she isn't responsible for those websites.

Does that help?
Sherri

-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of Mike St. Clair/ST
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 12:32 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [BOARD] Motion 2008/09-04: 'Webmaster Qualifications'

I'll take a stab at answering. Maybe some other WSG members will have
another take or will have more to add. See my comments below.

Mike St. Clair

Scott Burow wrote:
> Questions from constituents organized into Sections:
>
> Section 1: Why is it necessary to add an AB member to act as liaison
> between the Board/NC and the Webmaster?
>

Since it is the AB's responsibility to oversee the webmaster, and not solely
the NC's responsibility, we felt a liaison should be assigned to help us
take care of that and to ensure that the webmaster had the support of the
AB. This is somewhat similar to the assigned liaison from the AB to the
Election Committee. We also recognized that the NC, as our operational
executive, often had reason to work with the webmaster in the performance of
their own duties. We felt this additional support to the webmaster would be
useful to both the webmaster and the AB.

> Section 2: Php and database? Why are these even considered helpful
> if we do not use them?
>

Even though we don't currently use PHP or databases on the national website,
a significant portion of websites do now use one or both because they make
doing the job easier, many times reducing the amount of code to be written,
or simplifying the code required to accomplish a desired objective, reducing
maintenance effort, and preventing errors.
If you explore the project, you will find these facilities are increasingly
being used within USGENWEB. I'm pretty sure we would already be using one
or both if we had not been on Rootsweb until recently, which does not offer
the option. If a webmaster does have those skills, we will have the option
to consider them if they will make the job for effective and efficient.
> Section 4: Doesn't (a) conflict with (b) and (c). If the
> responsibilities of the NC include providing the codes for access
> under (a), how would it occur that they don't have access under (b)
> and (c)? If you're talking different sets of codes (ftp v. control
> panel) it should be so designated for clarity.
>

I don't see any conflict at all. The whole of 4 says that the NC or
designated person, if the AB appoints one, would provide access codes to the
webmaster/assistant, and/or provide access to error logs and the support
organization if some sorts of direct access are not currently available
directly to the webmaster/assistant. We were recognizing some of the
current constraints in place to protect financial information and because of
the shared hosting account environment we are using where the national
website and other websites are running on the same account. We were also
anticipating that perhaps those constraints wouldn't always be with us, and
therefore the webmaster could directly perform some of these functions
rather than force them to be upon the NC or another designated individual.

With regard to getting even more specific, we've heard from some folks
(including you) that we were already getting more detailed than they would
prefer. We were trying to be as specific as required to address areas that
have been areas of disagreement in the past few months, while not so
specific that changes would be constantly required.

> Scott
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tina S. Vickery" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 8:01 PM
> Subject: [BOARD] Motion 2008/09-04: 'Webmaster Qualifications'
>
>
>
>> Motion 2008/09-04: 'Webmaster Qualifications'
>>
>> Presented by Sherri Bradley and seconded by Ann Allen Geoghegan,
>> 'Webmaster Qualifications' dated October 27, 2008, is numbered Motion
>> 2008/09-04.
>>
>> Motion reads:
>>
>> I move that the following webmaster qualifications and duties
>> proposed by the Webmaster Study Group be approved and added to the
>> Standard Rules of the USGenWeb Project.
>>
>> Sherri [Bradley]
>>
>> -----

USGenWeb Project information can be found at: http://www.usgenweb.com
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in
the subject and the body of the message

This thread: