Volunteer Agreement Sign up (existing transcribers)

[PatReynolds]

Decided and implement best method for implementing sign-up for existing volunteers on FreeREG

[Captainkirkdawson]

A user can edit their profile to indicate acceptance.

The default can be changed to acceptance or not

[Captainkirkdawson]

Do not understand what is required of the developers

[PatReynolds]

Need a page where existing volunteers can log in, read Transcription agreement, and indicate that they 'wish to open their data' 'decline to open their data' or 'have not decided at this time whether to open to decline'. The data from this then needs applying to records (issues #518, #525, #1150, #1157).

[richpomfret]

Merging with issue 1157 - ability to reset volunteer agreement to no indication. 'At the moment we have binary recording open / closed, we need a 'no indication' setting, to which all existing volunteers need to be set, before inviting them to decide now (if they want to)'.

[Captainkirkdawson]

Some clarification please before we go far,

3. We will write a page that enables people to download the agreements and that can be used for existing transcribers to register their acceptance or not. Do you wish the date of a download to be added to their profile? Do you wish us to record the date (and time?) of the acceptance

4, What is to happen to an existing transcriber who declines to accept the agreement? Are they permitted to continue contributing? Do we inactive them?

5. What is to happen to the data for an existing transcriber who declines the agreement, Do we offer them the option of our keeping the data but not as open data? Do we offer them the option of having the data removed?

[edickens]

Similar to the permissions needed to view, use or distribute the images, we need to record permissions to do the same with the transcriptions, which are the property of the transcriber, unless they have given over, or shared, their rights. So ultimately permissions will need to be recorded at Batch level. But to make it easier, perhaps we need it at UserID level, with anything entered at Batch level taking preference. This will allow for exceptions to the rule.

[Captainkirkdawson]

As noted in #1150 It is further assumed that open_data will be considered as such when a) the transcriber has accepted the agreement and b) we have documentation in the source collection that we have the required permission for it to considered open.

It thus is assuming the license is all or nothing. It is not a la carte To envisage it at the batch level is an invitation to chaos

[Sherlock21]

I like Eric D's last line in the preceding input. A good idea.

but are each of the developments in the concept of Agreement / partial Agreement / deferred decision, All cumulative changes to Pat's first post above?. Because it seems to me that original absolute statements seem to have changed somewhat. SO is there a revised Final single statement version?

Even as I write this, things are changing before my eyes! [ with Kirk's last input + his conclusion Not easy to get the true plan, and make a useful contribution!

E

[edickens]

The problem is that permissions come from different sources and each can make a different agreement. A transcriber can work from images with different permissions. For example the image permission could say that the transcription that the transcriber makes is for FreeREG only.

[Captainkirkdawson]

You have lost me EricD. That is what I thought my statement was saying. There can be multiple sources for images for a register. Each can have different permissions and those would be recorded in the source see #1150 . The license from a transcriber is separate and distinct from the permission of the source. Data is open when both conditions are satisfied.

[edickens]

Yes, we agree, but I find it difficult to define without knowing the data structure as we have not sorted out how the images will be grouped. I have mentioned "sets" as being groups of images, but would they be of all or part of a Register book. Or are we going to define actual sources and assign images to them?

[Captainkirkdawson]

But EricD we defined that months ago.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LwUNZTEszGP5sufHUcrk-WujQLPGbnew9UlIRmiar-o/edit

OK It has no working example because although the data model exists there is no software or data to for you to touch and feel. There will not be until there are additional programming resources

[edickens]

Hi Kirk,

I do remember it now, but it has been significantly improved since I read it last. In fact it is word perfect as far as I am concerned and I suggest that it should go into the Transcribers and Coordinators Help pages on the website.

Some very minor suggestions:-

• RAP The County Coordinator needs to be able to upload Images, information on which will then appear under R1)
• RAP R9) As it is shown, when a transcription is complete it goes on the DAP, as it should, and is no longer on the RAP. But I think it should still be shown on the RAP until the County Coordinator has signed it off as acceptable. If there are a lot of UCF then it should be marked as needing investigation, perhaps a new image needs to be found.
• You mention "Coordinator" throughout this report. I think you need to show whether it is the CC or SC. This is because it determines who allocates work to the transcriber and who checks the accuracy.
• These reports will need to be selectable by County/Place/Church and perhaps by Transcriber.
• I don't know how big the RAP will be. At present not very big. But if we get access to images, it could be very large because we are only, I estimate, about 10% through the work. All the images may not be on our image server, but if we have permission to look at them elsewhere, we need to be able to put an entry in the RAP to say that we have permission and where they can be found.

Many thanks,

Eric

[Captainkirkdawson]

Eric

Your comments are interesting but not relevant to a discussion on this story. They have been added to thestory on RAP/DAP/GAP #984 which was closed in November 2016 and has been implemented.

[PatReynolds]

Default should be "has not indicated". If it is problematic to move from a binary system, would it be possible to capture "date signed", default to "signed" status, but only treat as open those signed and dated?

Pat Reynolds Executive Director, Free UK Genealogy

On 7 Aug 2016 10:27 p.m., "Kirk Dawson" notifications@github.com wrote:

A user can edit their profile to indicate acceptance.

The default can be changed to acceptance or not

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar/issues/843#issuecomment-238109601, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGC5BvX08XA2SPgbqEiowEAFj3qIc9nmks5qdk2rgaJpZM4JA8HE .

[Captainkirkdawson]

The single page for both old and new registrants but with different paths is accepted. An existing transcriber can decline to accept the open data agreement. The date and time to be noted. The transcriber can accept later if they change their mind. If declined then data is not open.

[Vino-S]

Hi Kirk, I have added agreement for both existing and new members. I have pushed the code in Issue_842_843 branch. Please review it and let me know your feedback.

[Captainkirkdawson]

Comments provided to Vino

[Captainkirkdawson]

Clarification "An existing Member can decline to accept the open data agreement. The date and time to be noted. They can continue to function within FreeREG. If declined then their data is not open. The Member can accept later if they change their mind and their data becomes open

[Captainkirkdawson]

@Vino-S 1) We need to add the date/time of acceptance/declining of the agreement into the userid,

[Sherlock21]

Picking up from Kirks post in 1177, if this (843) is the home for defining the final version of the Agreement for Existing Members, then WHERE IS THE FINAL VERSION please?

Else, you are trying to resolve 1177 before you know what you are catering for!

[Captainkirkdawson]

On this point we can differ. Designing a process and system to support an agreement does not require a final version of that agreement.
However Pat has provided us with a copy of the agreement that was accepted by the Trustees, We will be incorporating that document into Refinery. I am not involved in the content of the agreement and my decision on it will be private.

[SteveBiggs]

Just to be absolutely sure Kirk, is your statement:

"Clarification "An existing Member can decline to accept the open data agreement. The date and time to be noted. They can continue to function within FreeREG....."

official FreeUKGenealogy policy (with no time limit) because I have not seen it endorsed by Pat.

[PatReynolds]

Official FreeUKGenealogy policy is that eventually we will stop accepting transcriptions from existing transcribers who decline to sign the agreement. We have no plans to stop accepting them: we are going to wait until (a) we have made all efforts we can to contact transcribers, and (b) we have built a body of evidence demonstrating the value of the records which are open. As you know, even where we have email addresses, we are not able to contact people due to spamcop and their ilk. Once the decision is taken, transcribers will be given a year to decide (as in the original plan).

On 7 April 2017 at 20:55, Stephen Biggs notifications@github.com wrote:

Just to be absolutely sure Kirk, is your statement:

"Clarification "An existing Member can decline to accept the open data agreement. The date and time to be noted. They can continue to function within FreeREG....."

official FreeUKGenealogy policy (with no time limit) because I have not seen it endorsed by Pat.

— You are receiving this because you were assigned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar/issues/843#issuecomment-292636416, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGC5Bh04RKgPa0WGKWus2Wiig2zKZem3ks5rtpTFgaJpZM4JA8HE .

-- - -

Dr Pat Reynolds Executive Director Free UK Genealogy http://www.freeukgenealogy.org.uk/ A Charitable Incorporated Organisation registered in England and Wales, number 1167484 VAT registration: 233 0105 70

​+44 ​1723 362616 ​ +44 7943 145387 Westwood House,Westwood, Scarborough YO11 2JD, UK

[SteveBiggs]

Thanks for the clarification, Pat

[PatReynolds]

Documentation: If there is an existing transcriber with out an ID: a CC can create ID, mark 'unknown' as the Transcription Agreement. Make sure you have added an email or postal address so we can contact this person.

[edickens]

Have we made progress on the 100 year rule? I ask because if anyone has transcribed more recent register, against this rule, they would not want their work made public, and so may not accept the Agreement.

[PatReynolds]

No progress yet. On it today!

On 19 April 2017 at 09:06, Eric Dickens notifications@github.com wrote:

Have we made progress on the 100 year rule? I ask because if anyone has transcribed more recent register, against this rule, they would not want their work made public, and so may not accept the Agreement.

— You are receiving this because you were assigned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar/issues/843#issuecomment-295152668, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGC5BhiEOHQ0PnJ-pSmrEpRhPM0K-kFZks5rxcCEgaJpZM4JA8HE .

-- - -

Dr Pat Reynolds Executive Director Free UK Genealogy http://www.freeukgenealogy.org.uk/ A Charitable Incorporated Organisation registered in England and Wales, number 1167484 VAT registration: 233 0105 70

​+44 ​1723 362616 ​ +44 7943 145387 Westwood House,Westwood, Scarborough YO11 2JD, UK

[Captainkirkdawson]

@PatReynolds wrote elsewhere The sign-up pages need to be different, in that the sign up for new volunteers does not offer any options about the Transcription, and the existing volunteers offers choices. Would it be helpful for me to make mock-ups of the two pages on google design?

[Sherlock21]

Having looked at the present Sign up Page ( onT3) it would benefit from having another tick box before the Accept/ Decline place, that says: I confirm that I have read and understand the attached Terms and Conditions. - or some similar phrase. There could perhaps even be the link alongside this point instead of at the top, disconnected from what one sees as the Terms.

Else there is nothing on the page as it stands, to direct the reader to explore the "?" link at the top of the page, to find a lot of relevant material.

[PatReynolds]

This is not the draft to comment on. That will be with you shortly.

On 15 May 2017 at 17:10, Sherlock21 notifications@github.com wrote:

Having looked at the present Sign up Page ( onT3) it would benefit from having another tick box before the Accept/ Decline place, that says: I confirm that I have read and understand the attached Terms and Conditions.

• or some similar phrase.

Else there is nothing on the page as it stands, to direct the reader to explore the "?" link at the top of the page, to find a lot of relevant material.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar/issues/843#issuecomment-301523556, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGC5Bv7sH66phdjdK6woAEjwfyCckRSBks5r6Hj1gaJpZM4JA8HE .

-- - -

Dr Pat Reynolds Executive Director Free UK Genealogy http://www.freeukgenealogy.org.uk/ A Charitable Incorporated Organisation registered in England and Wales, number 1167484 VAT registration: 233 0105 70

​+44 ​1723 362616 ​ +44 7943 145387 Westwood House,Westwood, Scarborough YO11 2JD, UK

[richpomfret]

To check on whether we have mock-ups/drafts for existing transcribers.

[PatReynolds]

Mock up resent for comment

[PatReynolds]

Needs to be after login - Pat to redesign on this basis.

[PatReynolds]

Potential link placing: https://docs.google.com/a/freeukgenealogy.org.uk/drawings/d/1vib0RXsl22cxKYqcaHoqD7XNNBjSjD4VLwDlmsU6HL0/edit?usp=sharing Would need to display different text for those who have signed, or declined to sign. Is this possible?

[PatReynolds]

Trustees have now agreed that for the time being, signup needs only one option (to sign). Option to decline is to be added later. 'Not at this time' does not need to be added. @Vino-S is the placement shown in the link in my previous comment possible? Does it seem a good placement to @SteveBiggs and others - just updated the text? I need to restructure the open data page(s) and FAQs before making this live.

[SteveBiggs]

The placement seems appropriate to me, although would it better to change the font colour to red or blue to highlight the need to respond? Also, the wording will now change as there is only one option.

[PatReynolds]

@Vino-S please change link colour to site standard, as Steve suggests, and change wording as I've suggested (i.e. delete 'or closed').

[Sherlock21]

Going back to Pat's input dated 15 May, and having regard to Kirk's input on story #1177: "Stick to the right story" where is the Draft to comment upon please? No mention of it in this story that I can see

[PatReynolds]

@Sherlock21 okwAW AWWhttps://docs.google.com/a/freeukgenealogy.org.uk/drawings/d/1vib0RXsl22cxKYqcaHoqD7XNNBjSjD4VLwDlmsU6HL0/edit?usp=sharing (noted above) is the draft.

This will now need amending to include a link to the forum. I suggest adding (after the link to the Open Data pages): If you have unanswered questions, or wish to discuss Open Data in general, please visit [Rich to supply link and any further information needed about accessing the forum] What do you all think to that wording?

[Sherlock21]

You may all like Google products, but I don't.

And once again, its no use putting things like Agreement Documents into there - either for comment or for any other purpose. Add them to emails please or they will not get dealt with.

[suffolkroots]

1.Pat said---

Need a page where existing volunteers can log in, read Transcription agreement, and indicate that they 'wish to open their data' 'decline to open their data' or 'have not decided at this time whether to open to decline'. The data from this then needs applying to records <

Transcribers will make their own decisions on this, and assume that, historically, all transcriptions have been done from allowed sources, when this may well not have been the case. If they accept the agreement, will all their uploads before the signing date be opened? And if so where does that leave them and the CC who may have provided those historic transcriptions?

2. Anything for UKGEN to access should be on UKGEN pages, not on Google docs.

[SteveBiggs]

@suffolkroots, agreement by the transcriber is only one part of what is required for Open Data. That states that they are happy to make their transcription open, but it's also necessary to get permission separately from the source data provider/owner (e.g. RO or church as appropriate)

[Sherlock21]

An interesting point there, Steve.

SO who is intended to do that part of the task please? [ i.e. the Records Office and the Church ]

[PatReynolds]

I am working on contacting the the document creators who might assert IPR (e.g. Borough Council for a civic graveyard) and trying to identify if any record office or other custodian of records has put any restriction on what we do with the transcriptions we make. I've got a (small) heap of the contracts/permissions, and now have a volunteer working with me on this.

[SteveBiggs]

@PatReynolds I think I already sent you the conditions set by West Sussex RO on the images they gave me for transcribing, but I will forward the email to you again anyway.

[PatReynolds]

Dependent on #35, then need to reset status for existing transcribers who have accepted or declined (at start of sign up). Not new transcribers since launch for them - they have all have signed.

[Vino-S]

In test3

[SteveBiggs]

Is the original 'Transcription agreement accepted' tick box still required:

After accepting the new one, that tick box remains unticked:

[Sherlock21]

Will the reader be able to read the Agreement link ( on the second line), before clicking the Agree button on the first line? If so, would it not be more logical to reverse the order of the lines?