USGENWEB-ALL-L Archives

Archiver > USGENWEB-ALL > 2008-09 > 1221415963


From: "Scott Burow" <>
Subject: Re: [ABChat] Website maintenance / website host issues
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:12:43 -0500
References: <B70C9036F75B4CFFA76F041AC0AE18A3@TinaSVickeryPC><48C99D7C.8060409@saintclair.org><45AA21E190DA4CF28D2952FA57958841@CyndieDell>


Perhaps the wisest thing to do at this juncture would be to place a call to
the membership for interested parties who would like to volunteer for the
webmaster and assistant webmaster positions.

There is precedent for having an assistant webmaster, so no additional
special rules or standing rules would need to be adjusted or amended to
provide for such a position.

In that way, we're fair to all members who may wish to volunteer for the
positions, as well as have the greatest pool of interested members to draw
from.

Then once selecting those to fill the positions, we would benefit from their
input relating to a job description (rather than a procedure) for the
positions.

Scott


----- Original Message -----
From: "Cyndie" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 6:43 AM
Subject: Re: [ABChat] Website maintenance / website host issues


> I'm mostly in agreement with Mike.
>
> I think developing a Standard Procedure related to the Webmaster's
> responsibilities and evaluating our goals for the long term regarding
> webhosting could be done by a few of the AB members while we move on to
> other items. #1 could possibly be taken care of by monitoring the logs,
> tracking any reports of trouble and performing routine maintenance (such
> as
> link checks) as part of a Standard Procedure.
>
> Cyndie
> SP Rep.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Mike St. Clair/ST
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 6:37 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [ABChat] Website maintenance / website host issues
>
> I think there are really four discrete but closely related issues that we
> should talk about, which I have listed below in the order I think they
> would
> best be discussed. Then we should take action on any of these where the
> majority of the board feel action is called for. I acknowledge that this
> is
> just one way this subject could be divided; a division that makes sense to
> me. I will certainly listen to any other suggested ways to divide this set
> of issues.
>
> I think that subissue #1 can be quickly decided by the entire board and
> that
> subissue #2 should be discussed by the entire board. I suggest that a
> small
> subset of volunteers from within the AB (perhaps 3) should discuss and
> investigate subissues #3 and #4 (in that order), presenting the results to
> the AB for discussion and confirmation. As part of the work on both, I
> suggest that small surveys be done to gather information on what other
> similar organizations are doing. In the case of #4, I suggest that we
> survey
> the states and USGENWEB members about the web hosting providers they are
> using and their satisfaction with those providers. This would provide a
> starting point for the subset of the many such available providers that
> would be examined in deciding whether we would be best served by moving,
> or
> staying with our current provider.
>
> My breakdown of these issues into four separate subissues follows:
>
> 1 -- Performance and Capabilities of the current web hosting provider, IX
>
> I and some others, including our webmaster, encountered serious
> performance
> problems at times with our current provider from the time our website
> moved
> until sometime in August. As Cyndie mentioned, there has recently been a
> noticeable improvement. Since I noticed the same sorts of problems during
> the same period with the server used by ILGenWeb (also from IX) I was
> concerned this was much broader than our server. I took the time to do a
> little research and found many other complaints from IX account holders,
> most of them appearing during the past year. It may be coincident, but IX
> made a major data center move in 2007, and I noticed many of the
> complaints
> were concurrent with that move and the following months.
>
> Based on the significant improvements that started in late August,
> however,
> I think we could probably take this part of the combined webhosting issues
> and drop it's priority, unless the former problems return. As long as that
> doesn't happen, I suggest we just let item #4 address comparing IX with
> other potential web host providers, and helping us decide whether we
> should
> stay or whether we would be better served by moving to another alternative
> in the long run.
>
> 2 -- What portion of the web maintenance responsibility belongs to the NC
> and what portion belongs to the Advisory Board.
>
> The only mentions of website maintenance and webmaster appointment
> appearing
> in the bylaws refer to the AB, not the NC. But it appears that this has
> traditionally left to the NC, perhaps under their operational duties role.
> I'd like us to discuss, decide and document, how this is really to operate
> while remaining in line with what the bylaws call for.
> Perhaps deciding this would help in deciding subissue #3. On the other
> hand,
> discussing and deciding subissue #3 might help with this one. I tend to
> think #2 should come before #3, but I will listen to what the rest of you
> have to say about it.
>
> 3 -- Webmaster responsibilities: What should they be? Who should assist
> (e.g. should there be an assistant webmaster)? Who should provide
> oversight,
> support, and assistance from within the AB?
>
> I understand that Phyllis Rippee started drafting something, but I haven't
> seen that. Has anyone? If that exists, it might be a starting point for
> discussion. In any event, I think discussion and documentation of a formal
> list of responsibilities in the form of a position description would help
> us
> resolve the obvious differences that appeared during earlier discussion;
> differences between various conceptions held by board and project members
> of
> what a webmaster should be doing. Our target should be a documented list
> that the majority of the board can sign off on. Then we should give the
> webmaster the capability and responsibility to so perform and ask for
> regular reports back on problems, accomplishments, suggested improvements,
> etc. I'm suggesting that the same subset of the AB to address subissue #4
> be tasked to address this one also, with the final decision to be made by
> the full board, of course.
>
> 4 -- Long Term, what should our arrangments be for: web hosting, domain
> registration, and DNS.
>
> After many years at Rootsweb, we made a quick move to another option for
> webhosting. I think a more organized evaluation of the options available
> would be useful before we decide to confirm that quick decision for the
> longer term. The other two items I mention are perhaps less crucial, but
> they are related and I think could be readily examined at the same time.
> This examination should include comparisons of the best options, ideas of
> how to pay the bills, etc.
>
> Mike St. Clair
>
>
>
> Tina S. Vickery wrote:
>> This agenda item is carried over as Old business. As Chair, I re-open
>> the
> discussion of this item.
>>
>> Tina Vickery
>> National Coordinator
>> USGenWeb Project
>
> -------------------------------
> 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
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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: