USGENWEB-SW-L Archives

Archiver > USGENWEB-SW > 2005-03 > 1109894520


From: Don Tharp <>
Subject: Re: [USGenWeb-SW] Re: [USGW-Discuss] Re: [BOARD-L] New Business: Archives vs County Site as Data Repository
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 18:02:00 -0600
References: <Version.32.20050303081534.00e82fc8@pop.central.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0503031333130.28983-100000@nyx3.nyx.net>


Well, I saw an entire Special Project disappear. If it hadn't been for the
dedication of those File Managers and Coordinators we would have lost a lot
more information than has ever been lost by disappearing CCs.

Strange, I find it just the opposite, I find our bylaws pro archives. If we
are all one project why don't we act like it. Why have different scenarios
for Archive and CC sites?

DonT


At 01:36 PM 3/3/2005 -1000, you wrote:
>
>I think we can agree that the tone of the bylaws is somewhat
>anti-archives.
>
>After seeing MANY cemeteries disappear from county web sites when the
>CC gets mad and quits, never to be recovered, I am all in favor of
>putting everything possible in the Archives. Personally, I put everything
>I can on both the county web site and the archives, but that is my choice.
>
>David
>
>
>On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Don Tharp wrote:
>
>> My thoughts on the recent item presented to the AB.
>>
>>
>> >Over the years, there has sometimes been misunderstandings and
>> >disagreements regarding just where transcribed data - either transcribed
>> >by the CC (or LC) him- or herself, or submitted by a researcher - should
>> >reside. Should data be placed only in The USGenWeb Archives? Must data
>> >reside within the county site itself? Is it up to the CC/LC? The
>> >submitter?
>>
>> My answers:
>> What do our bylaws say about this? They say:
>>
>> "ARTICLE II. PURPOSE
>>
>> Section 1. The USGenWeb Project is an organized group of volunteers working
>> to create an online center for genealogical research by linking every
>> county in the United States. The purpose of this organization shall be to
>> gather genealogical and historical information for free online access by
>> researchers
>>
>> Section 2. This purpose shall be accomplished by presenting websites which
>> shall be central repositories of historical and genealogical research data,
>> donated either by the website coordinator or other contributors. In
>> presenting this information, the foundation of the organization shall be at
>> the local websites (county, township, parish, town, etc.) which shall be
>> linked to the state websites which shall be linked to the national website.
>> The USGenWeb Project shall also provide a "digital library" called The
>> USGenWeb Project Archives."
>>
>> The article says, "accomplished by presenting websites which shall be
>> *central repositories of historical and genealogical research data*,
>> donated either by the website coordinator or other contributors".
>>
>> Foundation - The act of founding, especially the act of establishing an
>> institution with
>> provisions for future maintenance.
>> Presenting - To bring before the public.
>> Central - Having dominant or controlling power or influence.
>> Repository - One that contains or stores that which is specified.
>>
>> What part of the above is difficult to comprehend? Where does it allow one
>> wiggle room to maintain a CC/LC site and send material to the Archives
>> instead?
>>
>> >
>> >I would like to see the AB draft a basic policy statement to clear up
>>
>> >misconceptions and to give our County and Local Coordinators as much
>> >freedom and choice as possible.
>>
>> Completely unnecessary, we have a bylaw that details where material is to
>> appear if one is a LC/CC.
>>
>> Yes, there are those that have the time and are organized sufficiently to
>> work both sides of the project, power to them, but if one eventually feels
>> they can only accomplish one aspect of their duties then they should choose

>> where their efforts would be most affective.
>>
>> If they choose to be an LC/CC or to remain one, our bylaws direct them to
>> place material on the LC/CC web site.
>>
>> If they are unable or unwilling to perform the duties of a CC/LC then there
>> is ample opportunity to volunteer for one of the many openings in the
>> Archives.
>>
>> I believe some members have found it too demanding to maintain a county or
>> local site, or it may be that time constraints no longer allow them to
>> fully participate on the local level.
>> This happens. For these members, perhaps they would be much happier
>> volunteering for the Archives and thus allow others with the desire to
>> place material on the local sites to participate at the local level.
>>
>> Our bylaws do require material to be placed on the local sites. The only
>> time material should be on the Archives only is when a submitter refuses to
>> allow the material to be entered at the local site. However, would someone
>> please explain to me why a submitter would so refuse.
>>
>> Any researcher I have ever known always first searches for information in
>> the county in which their ancestors resided, hoping to find information
>> concerning them. The county court house, the county newspapers, the local
>> gen/hist society, etc. Why would these same people wish to deny other
>> researchers the same opportunity to find information at the local level by
>> restricting the CC/LC from placing it on their site? Would they insist that
>> the county court house send all of their material to the national archives
>> and delete it from the court house records? Should the county newspapers
>> all be archived in some government facility, etc.?
>> >
>> >The following is my opinion and, I believe, the opinion of many. The
>> >adoption of these statements, or something similar, as official USGenWeb
>> >policy would be fair to everyone involved, I think:
>> >
>> >
>> >1. No state will require its CC/LCs to place data on the county/local
>> >site instead of the Archives.
>>
>> Our bylaws require them to. You are placing the SCs in a position to
>> perform outside our bylaws, it is the SCs responsibility to see that the
>> LCs place material on the local sites.
>> Our bylaws state emphatically - "This purpose shall be accomplished by
>> presenting websites which shall be *central repositories* of historical and
>> genealogical research data, donated either by the website coordinator or
>> other contributors."
>>
>> The SC would be subject to removal for violating our bylaws if they
>> permitted the local maintainers to place material only in the archives. The
>> AB is remiss to even consider such an option.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >2. No state will discourage its CC/LCs from placing data in the
>> >Archives.
>>
>> I agree, the CC/LC should have this option. They have it now.
>> >
>> >3. No state will require its CC/LCs to place data in the Archives
>> >instead of the county/local site.
>>
>> I agree, no CC/LC should be restrained from placing material in both the
>> local site and the archives if they so choose. They have that option now.
>> >

>> >4. No state will discourage its CC/LCs from placing data within the
>> >structure of their county/local site.
>>
>> I agree. Further, it is their responsibility to insist that the CC/LC place
>> data on their local site. The SC and the CC/LC would be in violation of our
>> bylaws otherwise.
>>
>> >
>> >5. First and foremost, the wishes of the submitter will be honored as to
>> >where the data they have provided will reside.
>>
>> This is one of our weaknesses. We do not tell the submitters that they may
>> submit to either or both in a language they understand. Any information
>> given to the submitters should inform them fully as to their options.
>>
>> We have some sites that fail miserably to inform the submitters of such, in
>> fact forms found on some sites direct the submissions only to the archives
>> and bypasses the CC/LC site entirely. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
>>
>> >
>> >6. If the submitter IS the CC/LC, he or she may choose whether to house
>> >the data in the Archives, on their local site, or both.
>>
>> I disagree. When they joined this organization the CC/LC was aware of our
>> bylaw requirements to place material on the CC/LC site. Yes, they may also
>> put information in the Archives, but they are required to put information
>> on the Local Site as well. If they do not wish to place material on the
>> CC/LC site then they are a File Manager, not a CC/LC. They are using a
>> legitimate CC/LC site only to funnel material into the Archives. Wrong,
>> wrong, wrong and a disservice to our researchers.
>>
>> >
>> >7. If the submitter is a researcher (not the CC/LC), and the submitter
>> >has no preference one way or the other, the CC/LC may choose where to
>> >place the transcribed data.
>>
>> I disagree, the material should be entered on the Local site and then if
>> the CC/LC so desires, place it in the Archives also. Those that maintain
>> CC/LC sites are just that, they are a CC/LC not a file manager, they are
>> there to maintain a CC/LC site.
>> >
>> >8. Data that HAS been submitted to The USGenWeb Archives is subject to
>> >the policies of The USGenWeb Archives.
>>
>> Another of our weaknesses. Why should there be any exceptions made for the
>> Archives?
>> One bylaw requirement should be sufficient to cover all project activities.
>> Why confuse the submitters with conflicting information. One of our great
>> failings. In fact many of the pronouncement found on Archive sites violate
>> our bylaws and/or contradict what submitters are being told elsewhere.
>>
>> >
>> >For data that has NOT been submitted to The USGenWeb Archives:
>> >
>> >9. Data transcribed and submitted by the CC/LC belongs to the CC/LC and
>> >may be removed from the county/local site if the CC/LC chooses to do so.
>> >
>> I agree. However, this should apply equally with material submitted to the
>> Archives. What possible justification is there to have two different
>> policies for the project? Is it our intent to confuse the submitters.
>>
>> >10. Data transcribed and submitted by researchers belongs with the
>> >county/local site and will remain with the county/local site even
>> >through a CC/LC change.

>> I agree, unless the researcher later asks to have the material removed.
>> >
>> >
>> >What do you think about these statements? Do you agree? Is there
>> >anything you'd like to add or delete? What is fair to a) our
>> >submitters, b) our researchers, and c) our local coordinators?
>>
>> I believe several of the opinions subverts our bylaws. If you wish to
>> change the bylaws present an amendment for the membership to vote on. The
>> opinion of the membership should be the opinion of concern.
>>
>> Folks, there are several positions open to anyone caring to become a member
>> of the USGWP. There are SC, ASC, LC/CC and ALC/CC positions open to those
>> who wish to maintain state, county or local sites. There are AC, AAC, FM,
>> AFM, ArchiveStateC, AASC and Transcriber positions for those who wish to
>> work on Archive sites. In affect there is room for all. Why would one wish
>> to become a CC/LC and not put material on their web site? That is the
>> question that baffles me. Why become a CC/LC if you don't want to be one?
>> Anyone declining to put material on their CC/LC website subverts there
>> position and only stands in the way of another more willing member to
>> become a dedicated CC/LC.
>>
>> Persons wishing to place material only in the Archives should become
>> Special Project file managers or coordinators or transcribers. If they do
>> not believe in or are no longer capable of placing material on local sites
>> they should divest themselves of CC/LC responsibility and concentrate on
>> the archives, leaving an opening for those members and future members that
>> do wish to maintain a CC/LC site.
>>
>>
>> Of course the reverse is also true, those now working in the Archives that
>> become disenchanted with their work or feel the CC/LC position is more
>> meaningful or come to feel the material should be only on the local sites,
>> they should divest themselves of Archive hats and concentrate their efforts
>> only on the CC/LC sites.
>>
>> DonT
>> >
>> >Shari
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >==== BOARD Mailing List ====
>> >Standing Procedures for the Advisory Board are located at:
>> >http://www.usgenweb.org/volunteers/procedures.shtml
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==== USGENWEB-DISCUSS Mailing List ====
>> Celebrate the USGenWeb Project!
>> Visit WYGenWeb Project County/Parish and Local Project Pages
>> http://www.rootsweb.com/~wygenweb/
>>
>> Celebrate the USGenWeb Project!
>> Visit ITGenWeb Project County/Parish and Local Project Pages
>> http://www.rootsweb.com/~itgenweb/
>>
>> Celebrate the USGenWeb Project!
>> Visit RIGenWeb Project County/Parish and Local Project Pages
>> http://www.rootsweb.com/~rigenweb/
>>
>> Celebrate the USGenWeb Project!
>> Visit SCGenWeb Project County/Parish and Local Project Pages
>> http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Hills/3837/
>>
>> Celebrate the USGenWeb Project!
>> Visit SDGenWeb Project County/Parish and Local Project Pages
>> http://www.rootsweb.com/~sdgenweb
>>
>> ==============================
>> View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find
>> marriage announcements and more. Learn more:
>> http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx

>>
>
>David W. Morgan Honolulu Hawaii
>CC Representative, SWSC Region, USGenWeb Project
>http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/
>
>
>==== USGENWEB-SW Mailing List ====
>The CC representatives for the SW-SC region are currently David Morgan
>& Bettie Wood. The SC representative is Larry Flescher.
>


This thread: