USGENWEB-ALL-L Archives

Archiver > USGENWEB-ALL > 2008-10 > 1224965254


From: "Mike St. Clair/ST" <>
Subject: Re: [ABChat] Official Report of the Webmaster Study Group
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 14:07:34 -0600
References: <00a901c93648$c37093d0$6a01a8c0@Sherri><4902C887.2030009@saintclair.org> <4902D522.4070409@saintclair.org><022601c936d3$aec894b0$7301a8c0@scott>
In-Reply-To: <022601c936d3$aec894b0$7301a8c0@scott>


Scott has accurately identified some of the bylaw problems I alluded to
that would be introduced by the revision provided by the current
webmaster. Note that these aspects of Scott's message are not
applicable to the WSG proposal.

With regard to his statements that we should keep this very simple, I
will respond that the WSG tried to address very real issues that have
been encountered over the past year. We could pretend that none of
those have ever happened, and assume that they would never happen again,
but the group was trying to actually help the webmaster process work
better. That is, to see that there some backup, to see that there is
support for the webmaster, and to improve communication about activities
and problems. I urge you all not to throw away the work we have done,
but to give it a try.

I will note that a couple of modifications have been suggested over the
course of our discussion (I mean, besides just scrapping everything and
do a one paragraph statement that doesn't address the problems) and I
will post a slightly modified version that attempts to incorporate those
suggestions that appear to have some support. It will be very similar
to the WSG proposal, with only a couple of minor changes.

I really appreciate the input from all AB members who have spoken on
this. I again encourage any AB members who have input, but haven't
spoken up yet to do so so we can move on to a decision and take the next
step, which is issuing a call for webmaster candidates.

Mike St. Clair

Scott Burow wrote:
> General observations:
>
> These two lines create a situation that is in conflict with the bylaws:
>
> 4(a) The NC shall act as the Webmaster unless otherwise designated.
> 5(c) The Webmaster and/Content Managers may be replaced for failure to
> comply with Sections 2, 3 and 4, above.
>
> The NC cannot be 'removed' in this manner.
>
> The by-laws also state that a webmaster shall be appointed. Setting that
> assignment to be the NC in a standing or special rule subverts the
> requirements of by-law for the appointment.
>
> If the USGenWeb Project were a multi-national corporation with tens of
> thousands of pages and links, I could see that there is a difference between
> 'webmasters' and 'content managers'. But for the purposes of this project
> and the role performed by our webmaster it's way too complex for what are
> the simple duties we ask our webmaster to perform.
>
> There are a thousand tasks that we could ask of a webmaster - including all
> this talk of databases (that we don't use) and creating and managing
> subaccounts (which we also don't do). It's my opinion we should NOT be
> defining the role based upon everything that a webmaster could do in any
> given circumstance, nor what is feasibly possible, nor under current
> professional webmaster terminology.
>
> The job description should be based upon the actual tasks that the webmaster
> performs for this organization. Which has been updating the pages when
> requested, solving file errors (image and documentation) and checking
> links - editing or correcting when needed.
>
> Scott
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike St. Clair/ST" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 3:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [ABChat] Official Report of the Webmaster Study Group
>
>
>
>> Today I had several urgent issues arise at work that kept me from even
>> taking a lunch break. I also had a prior commitment at a local Family
>> History Conference that occupied my entire evening. Thus my posting of
>> the current national webmaster's comments and markup on the WSG draft
>> were delayed much beyond what I had expected. I was unable to come up
>> with a reasonable plan to post her markup in the text format required by
>> our mailing list so I posted the color coded markup at this URL:
>>
>> http://wsg.genweb.us/CurrentWebmaster_Markup_of_WSG_Proposal.html
>>
>> If any of you know of a way to do this in text, feel free to post a copy
>> directly to this list.
>>
>> The next three paragraphs are lead-in comments from Linda that provide
>> some explanation, which are posted here by permission.
>>
>> "Here are very specific changes. These things are misnamed but otherwise
>> a great separation of duties between a content manager and a webmaster..
>> What you have first perfectly defines a content manager. 95% or more of
>> it can be replaced by a CMS. The technical role webmaster role is your
>> second role. If content managers are replaced by a CMS you'd just add
>> developing and maintaining design, templates, and support for content
>> publishers. It is a perfect delineation of the duties between the
>> webmaster and the content manager people or system."
>>
>> "What is the criteria to determine who is Content Manager and who is
>> Assistant. Is the Asst at the CM's beck and call like a slave or just
>> does the crappy stuff? The difference in role and responsibility is
>> completely undefined. Why not two Content Managers to share the work and
>> no Assistant?"
>>
>> "All of my specific changes are in red. A lot of stuff is way too wordy
>> and clouds things, some makes no sense at all, no terms or dates defined
>> to allow things to drag out with no firm start or end date, no similar
>> accountability on all sides, no automated tools installed to do some of
>> the requirements, no standards, and the worst part -- no communication
>> channel."
>>
>> Now follow comments from Mike St. Clair:
>>
>> If I understand what she is saying correctly, the gist of it is that as
>> historically handled within USGENWEB, the functions performed by what we
>> have called our webmaster are actually the duties of a "Content Manager"
>> not a "Webmaster" and that the actual webmaster has been the National
>> Coordinator. It seems the changes she has made are her attempt to make
>> the WSG proposal map with this reality. While I sympathize somewhat
>> with what she is saying, I believe it would raise serious issues of
>> compliance with our bylaws and that fully discussing and addressing this
>> major of a change would be a much bigger effort than what was approved
>> by the Advisory Board. In fact, because it would likely require bylaw
>> changes, it would take longer than this current board year. I greatly
>> regret that we didn't get to hear Linda's input and interact with her
>> during our three week deliberations, but at this point I think it would
>> be best to stick closely to our present draft and leave the other issues
>> raised for future discussion when and if the Advisory Board felt to do
>> so. I remind you all that standing rules adopted by the AB can be
>> changed in the future by the AB as needed. I'm not suggesting they
>> should be changed willy nilly, but they aren't like bylaw changes that
>> require the planets to align properly and annual voting cycles. If we
>> find a brand new rule like this later requires a tweak or two, or even a
>> major rewrite, it is within our power to do so.
>>
>> Mike St. Clair

This thread: