Meeting 9 May 2011
Note: Please comment or send note to GeneJ if you spot an oversight in the meeting record below. TY


(1) Mike: Has had commitments; looking forward to getting back to working on the wiki.
(2) Roger: See Louis’ comment: “So what I see is a repository (your library, public records, etc.) can have volunteers making GEDCOM files that are full of SOUR and EVID records only, that describe every item of evidence that they have. There will be no conclusions at all in this data. "Just the facts, ma'am". This would allow volunteers to transcribe this material mechanically without interpretation and create a resource (hopefully online) that you or I or anyone could search to try to see if there is some evidence in some source at that repository about our ancestor. Our search would involve searching through the names, events, dates, places and even the text in the evidence to narrow down possible connections.”
(3) Geir: Norway – wishes he’d had (or will have) a “data set” for project level parish work (births, marriages, burials).
(Geir is special [we knew that], he has 400,000 such records)

(4) Roger: Was able to import raw data from spreadsheet to Reunion regarding Moffat Scottish ppls; has 359,000 records about genealogy of Shetland Islands [we knew Roger was special, too]
See also

(5) Mike: Says that is precisely what an E&C model solves.


(1) Geir – Requirements Catalog moderator.
Focus has been E&C, not much direct work on the Requirements Catalog.
Adrian is trying to identify E&C requirements that arise from the work being done more directly to define E&C.
(2) Mike – E&C moderator.
Testuser, Adrian and Geir working on the Wiki to explore ideas about E&C.


(1) Community Rules-
Mike – Mike is working to incorporate ideas of others into a master document.
Overview about CARE – Rejected mostly because we don’t have enough wiki-ites to effectively have “roles,” much less than folks who have worked in a CARE-type environment who might relate to those roles without much structure.
Mike – Wants a way for the wiki to be transparent and easy to follow so that all (esp. new invites) can see how ideas move through the process of being developed and ultimately approved or not approved. 5-6 active members; we need more and more folks will participate when we have the rules.
Geir – We need wiki-ites.
Tamura – Why not work with the wiki better before developing alternative, possibly conflicting, methods or approaches? (Mike … particular idea that he had learned about posting comments to a page. Roger tested the practice; see the little yellow bubble to the upper right of the “Who are we” wiki page.)
There was general agreement that we should use the wiki tools better.
Geir – Use the FAQ to add the features we should be better using.

(2) Geir – See opening of the meeting minutes about “project level” work.
Requirement Catalog … Geir will create a little write up about the “project level” ideas.

(3) Wiki-ites wanted
Tamura – feels we need more high-level reminders and comments about our activities.
Mike – proceed with caution; constant reminders, yes. But thinks rules and guidelines should come first so that we don’t invite folks in without some basis for them to participate successfully.
Geir – agrees with Mike.
GeneJ –feels we have to have things to tell ppl about the things on which we are working. (She didn’t say it well, but feels “E&C” has overwhelmed users attempts to communicate needs at the family history level. Discussion and development continues mostly to the extent needs are generally consistent with tenants of E&C or about how E&C supposedly addresses those needs. She sees it as the story of the wiki from its inception.)
Andy – Change name of Developers Meeting to something more inviting.
Tamura … ideas
Mike – but … more ppl coming to the Developers Meeting the less effective the meeting will be.
Roger – Agrees with Mike; Geir agrees with Mike.
Geir – Large meeting for presentations.

(4) GeneJ moving name down from organizer to participant.