GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2011-11 > 1320888162


From: "Alister John Marsh" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Problems with some surname project admins
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:22:42 +1300
References: <20075112.3045397.1320883949465.JavaMail.root@vznit170136>
In-Reply-To: <20075112.3045397.1320883949465.JavaMail.root@vznit170136>


Jim,

You said
>>>>>>>
I think the only way is for FTDNA to bend a little (at the Max level)
and when there is a groundswell of valid complaints about a few projects
then Max either has to talk the Admin out of the Project or allow a second
one to be formed and all the complainers can move to the new project.
<<<<<<<

This seems a lot of good sense to me.

It could be like "a rule to allow bending the rules" in needy situations.
The one project per surname rule would be a good general rule, but if there
is a project administrator not satisfying all of the demands of a surname
group, then allowing a second project would be an expedient way to bypass
the issue without the need to fire a voluntary worker who may be serving
"some" of the project interests in a useful way.

If there are two projects serving the same surname, FTDNA might have the
ability to select which one appears first in their project indexes. Or
FTDNA might designate in some way one of the competing projects as the
primary project serving wider interests for that surname. That way new
people might see they have the option of joining two competing projects, but
they might see one has the FTDNA "seal of approval" for being the "primary
general project for that surname".

If Max is able to bend the rules in special cases where he is receiving a
lot of complaints, it should be a way of reducing the level of complaints
about that project, and free up his time for other tasks.

John.

This thread: