USGENWEB-ALL-L Archives

Archiver > USGENWEB-ALL > 2008-09 > 1221627618


From: "Tina S. Vickery" <>
Subject: Re: [ABChat] Website maintenance / website host issues
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 01:00:18 -0400
References: <B70C9036F75B4CFFA76F041AC0AE18A3@TinaSVickeryPC><48C99D7C.8060409@saintclair.org><45AA21E190DA4CF28D2952FA57958841@CyndieDell><01d001c91695$7c4c8ea0$7301a8c0@scott><15E1473EF414423B8CD2E587A9613F43@CyndieDell>
In-Reply-To: <15E1473EF414423B8CD2E587A9613F43@CyndieDell>


Cyndie, if I understand you correctly, (please correct me if I
haven't), you are suggesting a Standard Procedure for the
USGenWeb Project to have both a web master and an assistant web
master? If so, do you have a draft procedure to share with the
Board for discussion?

The web master call that I posted here a few days ago has
received no comment. Are there comments from either you or
other Board members on the content of that call?

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/USGENWEB-ALL/2008-09/1221406071

Tina

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cyndie" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: [ABChat] Website maintenance / website host issues


> We have had an assistant some years and not had one others, so future AB's
> may opt not to have one based on past precedent. I think it is a good
> idea
> to have an assistant and having a Standard Procedure that specifies it
> will
> help encourage future AB's to have one (unless, of course, they change the
> procedure or there are no volunteers).
>
> I think we need to be consistent in putting out calls for volunteers. We
> reappointed the secretary and discuss list folks by asking if they wanted
> to
> continue to serve and since they did, we did not put out a call.
>
> Thanks,
> Cyndie
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Scott Burow
> Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 2:13 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [ABChat] Website maintenance / website host issues
>
> 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
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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: