USGENWEB-ALL-L Archives

Archiver > USGENWEB-ALL > 2008-09 > 1221656736


From: "Tina S. Vickery" <>
Subject: Re: [ABChat] Website maintenance / website host issues
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:05:36 -0400
References: <B70C9036F75B4CFFA76F041AC0AE18A3@TinaSVickeryPC><48C99D7C.8060409@saintclair.org><45AA21E190DA4CF28D2952FA57958841@CyndieDell><01d001c91695$7c4c8ea0$7301a8c0@scott><15E1473EF414423B8CD2E587A9613F43@CyndieDell><96A004BE87FA4AC89729EA2DE54A26EA@TinaSVickeryPC><2F9B71414E5547DFAA940497A2E393E0@CyndieDell><E9A54FC4F80745DEAD612A7C4AC8910D@CyndieDell>
In-Reply-To: <E9A54FC4F80745DEAD612A7C4AC8910D@CyndieDell>


Never mind my last note (not enough coffee yet <g>), thanks Cyndie.
Tina
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cyndie" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 7:17 AM
Subject: Re: [ABChat] Website maintenance / website host issues


> Just to clarify my last statement, here is the link from last session
> where
> Phyllis volunteered to work on this:
> http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/USGENWEB-ALL/2008-08/121934391
> 6
> The position of assistant webmaster was discussed to be part of a
> Webmaster
> Duties and Qualifications formulation.
>
> And here is where you asked her to go forth with it:
> http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/USGENWEB-ALL/2008-08/121935957
> 5
>
> I believe the intent of this Webmasters Duties and Qualifications
> formulation was to incorporate it into our Standard Procedures and I feel
> we
> should continue to work on that this session.
>
> Thanks,
> Cyndie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Cyndie
> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 2:52 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [ABChat] Website maintenance / website host issues
>
> Tina,
>
> What happened to the draft that Phyllis started?
>
> Cyndie
> SP Rep.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Tina S. Vickery
> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 1:00 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [ABChat] Website maintenance / website host issues
>
> 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/2008-09/122140607
> 1
>
> 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
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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: