World Families Forums - New Policy at FTDNA: no more R1b subclade projects

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 02, 2014, 01:13:35 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  New Policy at FTDNA: no more R1b subclade projects
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: New Policy at FTDNA: no more R1b subclade projects  (Read 1328 times)
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« on: November 02, 2011, 09:45:49 PM »


Those of you who don't read the DNA forum may not know that some people asked to establish a Z196 project at FTDNA, and it was denied. They were told that FTDNA will not allow the establishment of any new R1b subclade projects.

I am reliably informed that this policy evolved out a situation a month or two ago, when there was an attempt to establish new projects for one or more of the newly discovered U106 subclades. For some reason the administrators of the U106 project strongly objected to this, and they were successful in persuading FTDNA to ban any new U106 subclade projects. This will make it very difficult to ever examine U106 by subclade, and its monolithic status will continue, however illogical that may be.

It appears this policy has now been extended to new P312 subclades as well. It makes no sense that L21 and U152 will continue to have their projects, while other subclades are banned. SRY2627 will have a project, but their parent SNP Z196 will not. It also means the possible split off of P312* into a separate project will not now take place.

I also think it will hamper our ability to unravel the mystery of R1b in Europe.

Perhaps if there are enough complaints, FTDNA will reconsider, at least as to P312 subclades. But I don't expect to see any new projects for U106 subclades.

Logged
Arch Y.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2011, 10:55:49 PM »

That doesn't seem right. What would be gained out of this?

Arch
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2011, 05:32:33 PM »


Those of you who don't read the DNA forum may not know that some people asked to establish a Z196 project at FTDNA, and it was denied. They were told that FTDNA will not allow the establishment of any new R1b subclade projects.

I am reliably informed that this policy evolved out a situation a month or two ago, when there was an attempt to establish new projects for one or more of the newly discovered U106 subclades. For some reason the administrators of the U106 project strongly objected to this, and they were successful in persuading FTDNA to ban any new U106 subclade projects. This will make it very difficult to ever examine U106 by subclade, and its monolithic status will continue, however illogical that may be.

It appears this policy has now been extended to new P312 subclades as well. It makes no sense that L21 and U152 will continue to have their projects, while other subclades are banned. SRY2627 will have a project, but their parent SNP Z196 will not. It also means the possible split off of P312* into a separate project will not now take place.

I also think it will hamper our ability to unravel the mystery of R1b in Europe.

Perhaps if there are enough complaints, FTDNA will reconsider, at least as to P312 subclades. But I don't expect to see any new projects for U106 subclades.
Can the advocates of Z196 combine forces with the SRY2627 project administrators?  SRY2627 is the biggest component, so far, anyway.
The SRY2627 project extended itself to include L176.2 already.

I'm not at all saying that FTDNA should hold firm on their stance, but since I'm a mouse and they are the elephant I look for work arounds to get things done.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #3 on: November 11, 2011, 09:17:01 PM »


Those of you who don't read the DNA forum may not know that some people asked to establish a Z196 project at FTDNA, and it was denied. They were told that FTDNA will not allow the establishment of any new R1b subclade projects.

I am reliably informed that this policy evolved out a situation a month or two ago, when there was an attempt to establish new projects for one or more of the newly discovered U106 subclades. For some reason the administrators of the U106 project strongly objected to this, and they were successful in persuading FTDNA to ban any new U106 subclade projects. This will make it very difficult to ever examine U106 by subclade, and its monolithic status will continue, however illogical that may be.

It appears this policy has now been extended to new P312 subclades as well. It makes no sense that L21 and U152 will continue to have their projects, while other subclades are banned. SRY2627 will have a project, but their parent SNP Z196 will not. It also means the possible split off of P312* into a separate project will not now take place.

I also think it will hamper our ability to unravel the mystery of R1b in Europe.

Perhaps if there are enough complaints, FTDNA will reconsider, at least as to P312 subclades. But I don't expect to see any new projects for U106 subclades.
Can the advocates of Z196 combine forces with the SRY2627 project administrators?  SRY2627 is the biggest component, so far, anyway.
The SRY2627 project extended itself to include L176.2 already.

I'm not at all saying that FTDNA should hold firm on their stance, but since I'm a mouse and they are the elephant I look for work arounds to get things done.

Combining Z196 into the SRY2627 project would be an excellent idea, but it doesn't solve the underlying problem. The real  problem as I see it is that a blanket policy prohibiting ANY new R1b subclade projects is likely to negatively effect the progress of research into R1b in the future.
Logged
F James
Project Coordinator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 11, 2011, 10:43:53 PM »

Is it possible for the people wanting the new project to act as a "Subgroup' Co Admin within the larger project,  to take on the duties of studying that subgroup.

So you have your general Admins of the whole U106 Project and then Co Admins for each of the smaller subgroups etc...
Logged
Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2011, 12:05:54 PM »

Is it possible for the people wanting the new project to act as a "Subgroup' Co Admin within the larger project,  to take on the duties of studying that subgroup.

So you have your general Admins of the whole U106 Project and then Co Admins for each of the smaller subgroups etc...


Whilst it may be possible it seems unlikely that the U106 project admin would cooperate with this either, apart from anything else they don't seem interested in creating groups bases on SNPs which I find more than a little odd for a haplogroup project.
Logged

Y-DNA R-DF49*
MtDNA J1c2e
Kit No. 117897
Ysearch 3BMC9

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #6 on: November 12, 2011, 04:19:33 PM »

It may be about control.

New downstream SNP projects slice off a little power and control from the upstream project each time they are created.

That doesn't bother me personally. You all can create projects for SNPs downstream of P312 and L21 all day long, if you wish. But I have had guys quit the R-L21 Plus Project to join the downstream project, and I can see how that might trouble some admins.

I can also see the project scene getting a little wild and bewildering with so many new SNPs coming out - some of them more than a little shaky - and so many cooks stirring the broth.
Logged

Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2011, 08:08:30 PM »

It may be about control.

New downstream SNP projects slice off a little power and control from the upstream project each time they are created.

That doesn't bother me personally. You all can create projects for SNPs downstream of P312 and L21 all day long, if you wish. But I have had guys quit the R-L21 Plus Project to join the downstream project, and I can see how that might trouble some admins.

I can also see the project scene getting a little wild and bewildering with so many new SNPs coming out - some of them more than a little shaky - and so many cooks stirring the broth.

Yes I definitely think this situation came about because of a control issue.

We managed to sneak the Z18 project in whilst the U106 admin were sleeping, the current situation looks to be a consequence of there reaction. My guess is FTDNA felt they couldn't shut us down (despite hints from the U106 admin that this is what they wanted) but have introduced this blanket ban on new SNP projects in order to appear even handed with there approach to the U106 haplogroup.

The problem is the U106 admin’s vice like grip (combined with there apparent lack of interest in downstream SNPs) is stifling research into a very important haplogroup.

At the moment research into P312 & L21 (I can't speak for U152 since I haven't really spent much time looking into it) is cracking along at breakneck speed, lead by many able and enthusiastic individuals, not least of which is you. However this situation could change and without the room to grow new investigators could easily be put off or find other venues (less easy to locate than FTDNA projects) to present there data.

You are right that if we found ourselves in a situation where every time a new (and often small SNP) were discovered the people concerned created a new project for themselves and removed to that then this would also not be particularly good, but I don't really see this happening.

I did unsubscribe from the P312 project, but that was only because I felt my results were clogging up an already large project and were better off in just the L21 project. I would have no problem whatsoever in rejoining the P312 project.

Currently we are still waiting for a defining SNP for the large ‘Scots Modal’ cluster. when that eventually turns up (which it will one day) who’s going to explain to the people who have spent so long researching this group why they can’t actually have a project for it !!
« Last Edit: November 12, 2011, 09:04:26 PM by Jdean » Logged

Y-DNA R-DF49*
MtDNA J1c2e
Kit No. 117897
Ysearch 3BMC9

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 13, 2011, 02:12:31 AM »

It may be about control.
Yes I definitely think this situation came about because of a control issue.
I received word from a project administrator who attended the FTDNA conference that FTDNA does not have a blanket policy against new haplogroup projects, just that the approval requirement is at a higher level in the organization now.

I guess, anyone who wants to start a new project should just pick up the phone and call FTDNA and ask them what the process is and what the requirements are.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2011, 02:14:02 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #9 on: November 13, 2011, 09:20:24 AM »

It may be about control.
Yes I definitely think this situation came about because of a control issue.
I received word from a project administrator who attended the FTDNA conference that FTDNA does not have a blanket policy against new haplogroup projects, just that the approval requirement is at a higher level in the organization now.

I guess, anyone who wants to start a new project should just pick up the phone and call FTDNA and ask them what the process is and what the requirements are.

Hmmm FTDNA seem to be putting out some pretty mixed messages at the moment, hopefully they will get round to deciding what their current policy is sometime soon.

This is from the email quoted on DNA-Forums 1st November 2011

Quote
Creating projects with overlapping themes can cause confusion for our customers and may unnecessarily duplicate efforts. Therefore, FTDNA has decided that we will not be creating anymore subclade projects, and we highly encourage you to contact the group administrators of the R1b project(s) to become a group co-administrator. The group administrator must make the final decision about accepting you as a co-administrator.
 

I also saw a copy of another email about a week before this when somebody applied to set up another SNP project, the wording was extremely similar but included the phrase ‘FTDNA has a firm policy’

Edit:

I've just noticed that ALL of the people with this SNP have now left the U106 project, of course it would be highly speculative of me to suggest that this looks like some sort of protest.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2011, 09:51:50 AM by Jdean » Logged

Y-DNA R-DF49*
MtDNA J1c2e
Kit No. 117897
Ysearch 3BMC9

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #10 on: November 13, 2011, 03:02:40 PM »


. . .

Edit:

I've just noticed that ALL of the people with this SNP have now left the U106 project, of course it would be highly speculative of me to suggest that this looks like some sort of protest.


I understand why that would happen, but it is still bad news. Such protests are likelier to lead to even more Draconian restrictions than to the loosening of the ones under which we currently labor.

I recently tried to join the British Isles Project based on my surname and my 65/67 match with a man born and raised in England. I was turned down. I know for a fact there are many people in that project who cannot get their y-dna lines out of North America, but c'est la vie. I guess that project has been tightened up.

The thing is, whoever is first out of the gate and starts an FTDNA project controls the field and calls the shots. It has to be that way, otherwise there would be a plethora of duplicate projects. It's a pity that it has come to mean no new downstream SNP projects, however.

Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 14, 2011, 10:48:31 AM »

It may be about control.
Yes I definitely think this situation came about because of a control issue.
I received word from a project administrator who attended the FTDNA conference that FTDNA does not have a blanket policy against new haplogroup projects, just that the approval requirement is at a higher level in the organization now.

I guess, anyone who wants to start a new project should just pick up the phone and call FTDNA and ask them what the process is and what the requirements are.

Hmmm FTDNA seem to be putting out some pretty mixed messages at the moment, hopefully they will get round to deciding what their current policy is sometime soon.

This is from the email quoted on DNA-Forums 1st November 2011

Quote
Creating projects with overlapping themes can cause confusion for our customers and may unnecessarily duplicate efforts. Therefore, FTDNA has decided that we will not be creating anymore subclade projects, and we highly encourage you to contact the group administrators of the R1b project(s) to become a group co-administrator. The group administrator must make the final decision about accepting you as a co-administrator.
 
 
Who signed that letter from FTDNA? Please publish a full copy of the letter? There may have been another paragraph that qualifies a new FTDNA project approval process.

I also saw a copy of another email about a week before this when somebody applied to set up another SNP project, the wording was extremely similar but included the phrase ‘FTDNA has a firm policy’
Edit:
I've just noticed that ALL of the people with this SNP have now left the U106 project, of course it would be highly speculative of me to suggest that this looks like some sort of protest.
Unfortunately, this kind of thing can happen.

I maintain the real problem is FTDNA's lack of nesting in haplogroup projects. You should be able to join one project, i.e. the R1b and Subclades Project, and boom, you are automatically dropped into every project that your SNP trail fits into. Different administrators run each subproject so they can set up the view they want to.

The current FTDNA project system is only one dimensional in terms of member subgrouping.  This IS the problem.  It becomes very unwieldy to try to break out who's tested for some new SNP and who's not while at the same time trying to maintain geographic origins subgrouping and/or a cluster based subgrouping.

The whole bit about members having to join a multitude of projects or decide which to be in according to some very brief description is a waste of time, as far as haplogroup projects go. I agree on that.... but the current functionality forces this.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2011, 10:58:58 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #12 on: November 14, 2011, 08:23:41 PM »

It may be about control.
Yes I definitely think this situation came about because of a control issue.
I received word from a project administrator who attended the FTDNA conference that FTDNA does not have a blanket policy against new haplogroup projects, just that the approval requirement is at a higher level in the organization now.

I guess, anyone who wants to start a new project should just pick up the phone and call FTDNA and ask them what the process is and what the requirements are.

Hmmm FTDNA seem to be putting out some pretty mixed messages at the moment, hopefully they will get round to deciding what their current policy is sometime soon.

This is from the email quoted on DNA-Forums 1st November 2011

Quote
Creating projects with overlapping themes can cause confusion for our customers and may unnecessarily duplicate efforts. Therefore, FTDNA has decided that we will not be creating anymore subclade projects, and we highly encourage you to contact the group administrators of the R1b project(s) to become a group co-administrator. The group administrator must make the final decision about accepting you as a co-administrator.
 
 
Who signed that letter from FTDNA? Please publish a full copy of the letter? There may have been another paragraph that qualifies a new FTDNA project approval process.

I also saw a copy of another email about a week before this when somebody applied to set up another SNP project, the wording was extremely similar but included the phrase ‘FTDNA has a firm policy’
Edit:
I've just noticed that ALL of the people with this SNP have now left the U106 project, of course it would be highly speculative of me to suggest that this looks like some sort of protest.
Unfortunately, this kind of thing can happen.

I maintain the real problem is FTDNA's lack of nesting in haplogroup projects. You should be able to join one project, i.e. the R1b and Subclades Project, and boom, you are automatically dropped into every project that your SNP trail fits into. Different administrators run each subproject so they can set up the view they want to.

The current FTDNA project system is only one dimensional in terms of member subgrouping.  This IS the problem.  It becomes very unwieldy to try to break out who's tested for some new SNP and who's not while at the same time trying to maintain geographic origins subgrouping and/or a cluster based subgrouping.

The whole bit about members having to join a multitude of projects or decide which to be in according to some very brief description is a waste of time, as far as haplogroup projects go. I agree on that.... but the current functionality forces this.

Your nesting suggestion has some merits, but I see two problems. First, I'm not at all certain that FTDNA's IT department would be willing or able to set it up. Secondly, I suspect such a plan would require the cooperation of the administrators of the parent group. If, as rumoured, the U106 project administrators are dead set against the formation of any U106 subclade projects, they would probably not be very cooperative with the nesting operation.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2011, 08:24:52 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #13 on: November 14, 2011, 08:42:21 PM »

Your nesting suggestion has some merits, but I see two problems. First, I'm not at all certain that FTDNA's IT department would be willing or able to set it up. Secondly, I suspect such a plan would require the cooperation of the administrators of the parent group. If, as rumoured, the U106 project administrators are dead set against the formation of any U106 subclade projects, they would probably not be very cooperative with the nesting operation.

I suspect it could be quite difficult running a project when your 'overlord' is apparently diametrically opposed to the existence of your project and appears to dislike the way you manage it to boot.
Logged

Y-DNA R-DF49*
MtDNA J1c2e
Kit No. 117897
Ysearch 3BMC9

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 14, 2011, 09:48:22 PM »

Your nesting suggestion has some merits, but I see two problems. First, I'm not at all certain that FTDNA's IT department would be willing or able to set it up. Secondly, I suspect such a plan would require the cooperation of the administrators of the parent group. If, as rumoured, the U106 project administrators are dead set against the formation of any U106 subclade projects, they would probably not be very cooperative with the nesting operation.
I agree, this would cost FTDNA some money. However, if their project system worked better and more people could access and manipulate different views of the data, they'd essentially have more "champions" advocating deeper and more extensive testing.  This would bring in some additional revenues and build a bigger competitive "moat" for them. Yes, it's their business decision.

As far as cooperation of among administrators, it is always a good thing, but isn't required extensively.  FTDNA does not have to make the nested super-haplogroup project administrator the "overlord" over all sub-projects. Each proposed sub-project administrator could make their case to FTDNA to be enabled with their own "sub-project."  Simple rules could be set up. For example, anyone who receives a L159.2+ could automatically be dropped into the "ungrouped" view for the L159.2 subproject.  All L21* untested L159.2 people could by default pop-up in the L159.2 subproject view. The "overlord" project admin would have not control over who drops into the subprojects and how the subproject admin sets up views.

This also calls for some subtleties like more advanced options for "ungrouped". First it should always be a the end regardless of where "u" falls in the alphabet. A part of "ungrouped" could be designated not valid for the subproject by that administrator and the remain hidden.

If and until FTDNA enhances their systems along these lines, you'll have the continual problems with unwieldly project administration, run ins between administrators, confused members unsure which projects to join and why, etc., etc.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2011, 09:52:43 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #15 on: November 15, 2011, 06:10:59 AM »

Your nesting suggestion has some merits, but I see two problems. First, I'm not at all certain that FTDNA's IT department would be willing or able to set it up. Secondly, I suspect such a plan would require the cooperation of the administrators of the parent group. If, as rumoured, the U106 project administrators are dead set against the formation of any U106 subclade projects, they would probably not be very cooperative with the nesting operation.
I agree, this would cost FTDNA some money. However, if their project system worked better and more people could access and manipulate different views of the data, they'd essentially have more "champions" advocating deeper and more extensive testing.  This would bring in some additional revenues and build a bigger competitive "moat" for them. Yes, it's their business decision.

As far as cooperation of among administrators, it is always a good thing, but isn't required extensively.  FTDNA does not have to make the nested super-haplogroup project administrator the "overlord" over all sub-projects. Each proposed sub-project administrator could make their case to FTDNA to be enabled with their own "sub-project."  Simple rules could be set up. For example, anyone who receives a L159.2+ could automatically be dropped into the "ungrouped" view for the L159.2 subproject.  All L21* untested L159.2 people could by default pop-up in the L159.2 subproject view. The "overlord" project admin would have not control over who drops into the subprojects and how the subproject admin sets up views.

This also calls for some subtleties like more advanced options for "ungrouped". First it should always be a the end regardless of where "u" falls in the alphabet. A part of "ungrouped" could be designated not valid for the subproject by that administrator and the remain hidden.

If and until FTDNA enhances their systems along these lines, you'll have the continual problems with unwieldly project administration, run ins between administrators, confused members unsure which projects to join and why, etc., etc.


To be fair set out like this the idea doesn't sound bad.

I suspect the biggest stumbling block is more likely to be FTDNA's IT department rather than money though, how long have we been waiting for micro-allele results now ? and they still seem to be having problems with GDs on multi-copy markers.

A thought that springs to mind though is if this idea, or something like it, were pursued then there would need to be a method for turning off email reports for entire groups inside of projects or people running the larger upstream ones would get completely deluged. Probably being able to hide groups would be handy as well !!
Logged

Y-DNA R-DF49*
MtDNA J1c2e
Kit No. 117897
Ysearch 3BMC9

Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.127 seconds with 19 queries.