PDA

View Full Version : Rib-P312 Project



GoldenHind
06-22-2013, 12:14 AM
It appears that Henry Z., the administrator of the P312 amd Subclades Project at FTDNA, has for some reason gone AWOL. Apparently he hasn't answered emails for some time- possibly since early April. Nor does he appear to have updated the P312 project DNA list since sometime in April. As he was always very conscientious and devoted to the project, I suspect some catastrophic event must have occurred. It would be a shame to lose him, but the current state of affairs can not continue. There are two co-adminsitrators, but neither is able to assume the duties of running the project.

In the event he is unable to continue, is there anyone who would be interested in taking it over? The chief focus of the project is DF27 and it's many subclades, with DF19, L238 and P312** taking a secondary role. Of couse L21 and U152 are included, but they have their own projects. For the rest of us, the P312 Project is it.

rms2
06-22-2013, 01:21 AM
I'm sorry to hear that about Henry. I fear the worst, since, as you said, he was pretty into genetic genealogy.

GoldenHind
06-22-2013, 07:32 PM
I have discovered that Henry has suffered a stroke, and is not expected to be able to resume his duties as project administrator. That is certainly a great loss to our hobby, and especially to the study of DF27.

If anyone is interested in taking over the project, please let me know by PM.

R.Rocca
06-23-2013, 01:28 AM
I have discovered that Henry has suffered a stroke, and is not expected to be able to resume his duties as project administrator. That is certainly a great loss to our hobby, and especially to the study of DF27.

If anyone is interested in taking over the project, please let me know by PM.

I'm sorry to hear that and I wish Henry a quick recovery.

Regarding the P312 project, I think there are many qualified folks on this forum (you included) that would be a great asset to the project.

rms2
06-23-2013, 04:50 PM
I hope no one will get angry with me, but I just want to express my opinion and make a suggestion, and, since Rick Arnold and I were the two guys who started the original R-P312 and Subclades Project in the first place, I feel I should be able to do that. Anyway, honestly, I would recommend the current R1b-P312 and Subclades Project be disbanded. An R-DF27 (or R1b-DF27) and Subclades Project could be created, as could an R-DF19 Project, and so on. The guys who are truly P312* (negative for the currently known P312+ SNPs) could organize their own project. The L21+ and U152+ guys don't really need a P312 project, anyway, since they already have comprehensive projects of their own, not to mention numerous subclade projects.

All of these spin-off projects would be smaller and much more easily managed than the too-massive, cumbersome, and catch-all R1b-P312 and Subclades project. Their admins and members could focus much more narrowly on their own clades and to greater effect.

With the recent and on-going explosion of P312+ SNPs, it's nearly impossible to run a true "R1b-P312 and Subclades Project", anyway. I can testify, it's hard enough to keep up with all the new, merely L21+ SNPs, let alone all of those under the much broader rubric of P312+.

When the original R-P312 and Subclades Project was created, P312 was a brand new discovery and as far up the tree from the root as those of us who were P312+ could get. Now P312 is, pardon the expression, "old hat": far down the trunk and back up the river. It's too broad a category to be manageable as the defining SNP for a project. Can you imagine if the R1b-P312 and Subclades Project were truly run as comprehensive, with all the terminal SNP categories possible for every P312+ haplogroup and subclade? What an administrative nightmare!

Probably the best way to handle it would be to reorganize it under a new group admin as the R1b-DF27 and Subclades Project and send out a bulk email letting the members know. The non-DF27 guys would be removed from the project and advised to petition FTDNA to create the appropriate projects for their subgroups, where they don't already exist.

Just my opinion.

Scarlet Ibis
06-23-2013, 05:37 PM
I have discovered that Henry has suffered a stroke, and is not expected to be able to resume his duties as project administrator.

That's terrible news; I hope he'll be alright.

Webb
06-23-2013, 05:45 PM
I agree with rms2's assessment. I think the only problem is there is a hold on creating anymore R1b projects by FTDNA. If that's the case then as rms2 suggests reorganize the current project so it is any clade of P312 other than L21 and U152, until the hold is lifted. Remove the L21 and U152 kits and suggest they join their respective snp projects, if they haven't done so already. Give the P312* people a drop date for testing for one of the big three, in order to clean up that bracket. And as people request to join as just P312, give them a window to test for further clades under P312 before being removed. This way the P312 project could be transitioned slowly into an all other than L21 and U152 group.

Webb
06-23-2013, 05:53 PM
I'm sorry to hear that and I wish Henry a quick recovery.

Regarding the P312 project, I think there are many qualified folks on this forum (you included) that would be a great asset to the project.

The second thing I would like to add, touches on this topic. I think there needs to be numerous admins. if this is to be transitioned. Each subclade should have an admin. in the event the hold on forming new projects is lifted, these individuals would be prepared to form a new group, such as GoldenHind withe the P312** group, someone for DF27, someone for L238, etc.

Clinton P
06-23-2013, 07:10 PM
rms2, I agree with your suggestion.

However as far as FamilyTreeDNA is concerned, new subclade projects are 'verboten', especially R subclade projects.

I know, I've tried.

Clinton P

jdean
06-23-2013, 07:33 PM
rms2, I agree with your suggestion.

However as far as FamilyTreeDNA is concerned, new subclade projects are 'verboten', especially R subclade projects.

I know, I've tried.

Clinton P

Only under U106, unless you're lucky ; )

rms2
06-23-2013, 07:40 PM
Only under U106, unless you're lucky ; )

That's true. New L21+ projects appear on a regular basis. I just started one myself for my haplotype cluster. FTDNA has an approval process now that takes a couple of weeks, but it's not a problem.

In this case, I would write Mr. Greenspan himself and explain the situation.

I just added several new SNP categories to the R-L21 Plus Project today. We have so many SNP categories now, the project is becoming a little tough to administer. If that is true for the L21 Project, how much more so for the R1b-P312 and Subclades Project?

Of course, some of the admin difficulties could be fixed by allowing admins to arrange categories by dragging and dropping instead of lettering and/or numbering. It would also be nice if we could move a member from one category to another from the Member Information page instead of having to go and find him in the old category he's in.

rms2
06-23-2013, 08:04 PM
The second thing I would like to add, touches on this topic. I think there needs to be numerous admins. if this is to be transitioned. Each subclade should have an admin. in the event the hold on forming new projects is lifted, these individuals would be prepared to form a new group, such as GoldenHind withe the P312** group, someone for DF27, someone for L238, etc.

It would be REALLY tough to coordinate a project with a separate admin for each subgroup, that is, if each co-admin is allowed to move members around and otherwise tamper with the public web site. The group admin would go nuts trying to keep track of everything. It would be a chaotic situation.

Projects work best when the group admin runs the project and co-admins are there to help out as requested and to step in, as in this case, if something happens to the group admin. I am a co-admin for a few projects. As a co-admin, I don't mess with anything unless I get permission first or am asked to do so.

TigerMW
06-24-2013, 01:10 PM
rms2, I agree with your suggestion.

However as far as FamilyTreeDNA is concerned, new subclade projects are 'verboten', especially R subclade projects.

I know, I've tried.

Clinton P

Is that a U106 statement, or is that a concern for all R1b projects?

We do have a plethora of L21 downstream subclade projects.

If R1b projects are hard to get started, we may want to just just change the name rather than try to create new projects. P312 and Subclades (as in all subclades) is not really needed.

DF19 and DF27 should have their own projects. This reminds me a little bit of M222 and L21 and how they came about. SRY2627 is already going and has been there for a long time. It is a significant part of DF27. Practically speaking, Z209 and the N-S cluster are large enough to have their own project for sure.

I guess I don't have any good answers other than what I recommended to FTDNA long ago. They need to have a gigantic "nested" haplogroup project system where members in one project automatically are added to appropriate sub-projects as SNP results warrant. The higher level projects don't maintain deep detail, just the general subgroupings of the underlying major subclades/sub-projects.

I guess that is along the lines of "tool" limitations and what Richard is saying,

Of course, some of the admin difficulties could be fixed by allowing admins to arrange categories by dragging and dropping instead of lettering and/or numbering. It would also be nice if we could move a member from one category to another from the Member Information page instead of having to go and find him in the old category he's in.

The real problem is that when they updated the GAP tool they didn't do much to help us on subgrouping.

razyn
06-24-2013, 02:46 PM
This isn't the only forum on which this is being discussed, but it's the only one where I've seen Henry's present co-admins (and the previous admin, rms2). I think Webb has also posted to the Facebook group for P312; I have, and several other well informed, well intentioned people including Stephen Parrish and David Carlisle. There are some decent ideas being floated, and maybe a few loose cannon rolling around the deck. For some reason, I couldn't find this thread between the wee hours of Saturday when I first saw it, and this AM. Obviously several of you could.

Anyway, I pretty much agree with rms2 about the structural stuff. I don't understand the process quite well enough to follow Mike's analysis, but I know he does and suspect it's correct -- about what the software is letting (or not letting) admins do.

I've volunteered to help out with a DF27 group if it's possible either to start one, or spin one off from the one under discussion. But I also raised a caveat about what we'd have to do if a missing link SNP gets discovered above DF27, that means it should go into a project (yet unborn) with DF19, L21 or somebody. John Mancha and I tried to start a Z196 project nearly two years ago and that request was denied; in retrospect, I think that's a good thing. The concept of a Z209-N/S cluster subclade project (to parallel SRY2627 & co.) is not very different, as a concept. And it would still have to deal with the existing M153 group. These things are getting more obvious now than they were in 2011, but it's the same structural problem we had then. I think most of us want to get the science sorted, not to fight turf wars and generally be politicians.

GoldenHind
06-24-2013, 07:11 PM
I think Rich has a number of valid points, but I see a downside to forming a new DF27 project (assuming it is in fact possible) and letting the current P312 project lapse. Certainly there isn't much point in the P312 project trying to keep up with the U152 and L21 SNPs. That is better left to those individual projects.

Here are some of the downsides I see.

There are a large number of people in the P312 project currently characterized as P312*: that is XL21,U152. Henry took on the challenge of trying to encourage these people to test for DF27, with some success. He felt there was a an 80% chance they would test DF27. These people would not be included in a DF27 project, and the administrator of a DF27 project would have no way of contacting them to urge them to test for DF27. A large pool of potential DF27 individuals would be lost.

If the P312 project is allowed to lapse and a new DF27 project is formed, the following groups would be left without a project: P312*(XL21,U152), DF19, L238 and P312** (XL21,U152,DF27,DF19,L238). There is no point is establishing a project for the first group, as the only thing they have in common is they haven't tested for DF27, etc. I think the situation will soon be the same for P312**. There are a number of things in the works which I have every confidence will in the near future publically identify a few new SNPs directly below P312 and divide the P312** group into a number of new subclades. It would be advantageous to be able to inform P312** individuals of these new SNPs as they are identified and suggest likely ones for them to test. We have to remember that most people in the P312 project don't follow new developments in the same way many of us do.

But even if we simply abandon those two groups, we still have DF19 and L238. I suspect someone could be found to form a DF19 project (assuming again permission would be granted), but I think L238 might be much more problematic. I have little doubt that L238 will sooner or later be further divided or perhaps connected with other subclades. Someone needs to keep an eye on this.

As an alternative, I suggest the following course of action. We need someone to take over the current P312 project. As Rich pointed out, it has largely become a de facto DF27 project, so someone familiar with DF27 and it's complex substructure would be ideal. I suspect a co-administrator could then be found to handle DF19 and another could take on the responsibilty for L238 and P312**. I believe these people could work together, focusing on their individual responsibilities, without stepping on each others' toes. The L21 and U152 categories could simply be ignored, though I'm not certain ejecting those members is an appropriate course of action. All of this is of course contingent on finding someone willing and capable enough to take over.

T

Webb
06-24-2013, 07:47 PM
I think Rich has a number of valid points, but I see a downside to forming a new DF27 project (assuming it is in fact possible) and letting the current P312 project lapse. Certainly there isn't much point in the P312 project trying to keep up with the U152 and L21 SNPs. That is better left to those individual projects.

Here are some of the downsides I see.

There are a large number of people in the P312 project currently characterized as P312*: that is XL21,U152. Henry took on the challenge of trying to encourage these people to test for DF27, with some success. He felt there was a an 80% chance they would test DF27. These people would not be included in a DF27 project, and the administrator of a DF27 project would have no way of contacting them to urge them to test for DF27. A large pool of potential DF27 individuals would be lost.

If the P312 project is allowed to lapse and a new DF27 project is formed, the following groups would be left without a project: P312*(XL21,U152), DF19, L238 and P312** (XL21,U152,DF27,DF19,L238). There is no point is establishing a project for the first group, as the only thing they have in common is they haven't tested for DF27, etc. I think the situation will soon be the same for P312**. There are a number of things in the works which I have every confidence will in the near future publically identify a few new SNPs directly below P312 and divide the P312** group into a number of new subclades. It would be advantageous to be able to inform P312** individuals of these new SNPs as they are identified and suggest likely ones for them to test. We have to remember that most people in the P312 project don't follow new developments in the same way many of us do.

But even if we simply abandon those two groups, we still have DF19 and L238. I suspect someone could be found to form a DF19 project (assuming again permission would be granted), but I think L238 might be much more problematic. I have little doubt that L238 will sooner or later be further divided or perhaps connected with other subclades. Someone needs to keep an eye on this.

As an alternative, I suggest the following course of action. We need someone to take over the current P312 project. As Rich pointed out, it has largely become a de facto DF27 project, so someone familiar with DF27 and it's complex substructure would be ideal. I suspect a co-administrator could then be found to handle DF19 and another could take on the responsibilty for L238 and P312**. I believe these people could work together, focusing on their individual responsibilities, without stepping on each others' toes. The L21 and U152 categories could simply be ignored, though I'm not certain ejecting those members is an appropriate course of action. All of this is of course contingent on finding someone willing and capable enough to take over.

T

This was my sentiment as well. I understand how having too many adminstrators could muck things up. But this case might be the exception. It would be a good training tool to get the co-admins properly trained and prepared to start their own projects, in the event some of the P312** individuals fall into a yet discovered snp, or at some point the L238 people decide that they would like to have a project to themselves. The future of the P312 project depends on, I think, what the initial intention of the project was in the first place. If it is a gateway project, then once a person who is P312 tests positive for a snp, I would think the goal would be to pass them on to the proper downstream project. I did not mean to just remove people all willy nilly, but after you have helped them downstream of P312* status, then the objective is accomplished and they can be removed from the P312 group and join the proper group, depending on their subclade. As in most things, there should always be succesion planning also. I think bringing on someone like Razyn, GoldenHind, etc. prepares them for starting their own project down the road.

rms2
06-24-2013, 10:38 PM
You wouldn't have to eject P312+ men who have not yet tested for DF27. We have a separate category for people in the same position relative to L21 at the R-L21 Plus Project. When they join, they are advised to test for L21 and placed in the "Need L21 Testing" category. Some of them have been there a long time without ever testing for L21, but periodically one or more of them will pop up with an L21+ result. You could do something like that with your members who have not yet tested for DF27.

The R1b-P312 and Subclades Project wouldn't "lapse" under what I suggested. It would simply be reorganized, retaining a large number of its current members, but as the R1b-DF27 and Subclades Project. That is what I think you ought to do, but it's not my project anymore; I'm not even a member of it.

The DF19, L238, and P312* guys would be better off with their own, much smaller projects instead of riding in the back of a de facto DF27 bus with "R1b-P312" still painted on the side of it.

I also think you all would be better off without those large L21 and U152 categories to manage and to attract new L21+ or U152+ members. A slimmed down project, however you configure it SNP-wise, would be an improvement over what is there now and definitely easier to manage.

This is just my opinion, but having separate admins handling different SNP categories in a single project is an invitation to conflict, chaos, and disaster.

Clinton P
06-24-2013, 10:48 PM
Is that a U106 statement, or is that a concern for all R1b projects?

We do have a plethora of L21 downstream subclade projects.

If R1b projects are hard to get started, we may want to just just change the name rather than try to create new projects. P312 and Subclades (as in all subclades) is not really needed.

Here's exactly what FamilyTreeDNA had to say about it in an email to me dated 14 October 2011....


Thank you for your e-mail/submitting your application. While we appreciate your enthusiasm for leading a project, FTDNA has a firm policy against creating new projects which have overlapping themes and goals of existing projects. 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.


Clinton P

rms2
06-24-2013, 11:18 PM
Is that a U106 statement, or is that a concern for all R1b projects?

We do have a plethora of L21 downstream subclade projects.

If R1b projects are hard to get started, we may want to just just change the name rather than try to create new projects. P312 and Subclades (as in all subclades) is not really needed.

DF19 and DF27 should have their own projects. This reminds me a little bit of M222 and L21 and how they came about. SRY2627 is already going and has been there for a long time. It is a significant part of DF27. Practically speaking, Z209 and the N-S cluster are large enough to have their own project for sure.

I guess I don't have any good answers other than what I recommended to FTDNA long ago. They need to have a gigantic "nested" haplogroup project system where members in one project automatically are added to appropriate sub-projects as SNP results warrant. The higher level projects don't maintain deep detail, just the general subgroupings of the underlying major subclades/sub-projects.
. . .


I think a reasonable solution, if folks are afraid they won't be able to start new projects for DF19, L238, P312*, etc., is, as Mike suggests above, to rename the project "The R1b-P312 Project", minus the "and Subclades" part, and jettison the big L21+ and U152+ categories, since those groups already have their own projects. You could hang onto the rest of the non-DF27 members until such time as they are able to form their own terminal SNP projects.

Personally, I think now is the time to act decisively, while you have the chance (or the excuse), and create a new R1b-DF27 and Subclades Project, but I've said that already a couple of times.




I guess that is along the lines of "tool" limitations and what Richard is saying,


The real problem is that when they updated the GAP tool they didn't do much to help us on subgrouping.

Remember a couple of years ago, when FTDNA tried that new dashboard thingy? I actually mastered it and liked it, but just about everyone else complained about it, so FTDNA pulled it.

I don't remember if it was the greatest thing since Cheez-Whiz, or would have even solved the problems I mentioned, but it was pretty cool, as I recall.

TigerMW
06-25-2013, 10:34 PM
I guess that is along the lines of "tool" limitations and what Richard is saying,...
The real problem is that when they updated the GAP tool they didn't do much to help us on subgrouping.


... Remember a couple of years ago, when FTDNA tried that new dashboard thingy? I actually mastered it and liked it, but just about everyone else complained about it, so FTDNA pulled it.

I don't remember if it was the greatest thing since Cheez-Whiz, or would have even solved the problems I mentioned, but it was pretty cool, as I recall.

Ouch. Sometimes we (project admins) are our own worst enemies. If they would even break down the Y DNA SNP report by subgrouping or have another report that was the Y DNA SNP report by subgrouping that would help. It's so hard to see the SNP changes and then figure out who is in the right category. You really need to have a pencil/pad or spreadsheet to track who needs to go where in these subgroupings,

TigerMW
06-25-2013, 10:37 PM
Here's exactly what FamilyTreeDNA had to say about it in an email to me dated 14 October 2011....

Clinton P
I'm going to "no comment" so I don't hack someone off. When converting "R1b" into a "gateway" project I ran into some anomalies related to your haplogroup.

TigerMW
06-25-2013, 11:00 PM
Let me list some of the options:

1) If someone comes forward, give P312 to them and then they figure it out.

2) If no one comes forward, do nothing and let it go to the land of inactivity.

3) Look at additional sub-project creation and figure out a good scenario

Note: P312? means P312 undifferentiated, potentially P312* but not yet tested fully for the major subclades.

3a) P312?, P312*, L238 remain and become the focus of the current P312 project.
DF27 is separated as a new project.
L176.2/SRY2627, U152, L21 are already separate projects.

3b) P312?, P312*, L238 and DF27xZ209xL176.2 remain and become the focus of the current P312 project.
Z209 is separated as a new project.
L176.2/SRY2627, U152, L21 are already separate projects.

3d&e) The above but less DF19 as they also kick-off their own separate project, which I recommend.

The only thing I will say that FTDNA does not like is to kick-out people of the existing project without their permission.

rms2
06-25-2013, 11:19 PM
Ouch. Sometimes we (project admins) are our own worst enemies. If they would even break down the Y DNA SNP report by subgrouping or have another report that was the Y DNA SNP report by subgrouping that would help. It's so hard to see the SNP changes and then figure out who is in the right category. You really need to have a pencil/pad or spreadsheet to track who needs to go where in these subgroupings,

I usually monitor the Received Lab Results page every morning, with a pen and paper handy. I wish they had a "drag-and-drop" procedure for moving a member from one category to another that could be used from the Member Information page or from any of the pages where that member is listed.

It would be nice if we could use bold, larger-font headings for the major branch SNP categories, with their respective SNP offspring in smaller, non-bold font beneath them. That would make things easier to read for those looking at the site's Y-DNA Results page.

rms2
06-25-2013, 11:21 PM
Let me list some of the options:

1) If someone comes forward, give P312 to them and then they figure it out.

2) If no one comes forward, do nothing and let it go to the land of inactivity.

3) Look at additional sub-project creation and figure out a good scenario

Note: P312? means P312 undifferentiated, potentially P312* but not yet tested fully for the major subclades.

3a) P312?, P312*, L238 remain and become the focus of the current P312 project.
DF27 is separated as a new project.
L176.2/SRY2627, U152, L21 are already separate projects.

3b) P312?, P312*, L238 and DF27xZ209xL176.2 remain and become the focus of the current P312 project.
Z209 is separated as a new project.
L176.2/SRY2627, U152, L21 are already separate projects.

3d&e) The above but less DF19 as they also kick-off their own separate project, which I recommend.

The only thing I will say that FTDNA does not like is to kick-out people of the existing project without their permission.

I think if you sent out a bulk email explaining what is going on and why, the L21+ and U152+ guys, and any others who already have active projects, would leave on their own.

TigerMW
06-25-2013, 11:41 PM
I think if you sent out a bulk email explaining what is going on and why, the L21+ and U152+ guys, and any others who already have active projects, would leave on their own.

In the R1b project conversion a few did. Unfortunately many don't seem to care, but it doesn't really matter we can just assign them to the bottom as far as subgroups with recommendations in the title like U0. U152+ (please join the u152 project)

rms2
06-26-2013, 12:13 PM
I would send out the bulk email, give it a week or so, and then remove any leftovers who no longer qualify for the revamped project. I doubt there would be a problem. You have to give each member a reason in the little explanation box when you remove them, but it would be easy to have a stock explanation like, "The R1b-P312 and Subclades Project no longer exists". Hard to argue with that.

TigerMW
06-26-2013, 02:00 PM
I would send out the bulk email, give it a week or so, and then remove any leftovers who no longer qualify for the revamped project. I doubt there would be a problem. You have to give each member a reason in the little explanation box when you remove them, but it would be easy to have a stock explanation like, "The R1b-P312 and Subclades Project no longer exists". Hard to argue with that.

I understand moving people out who are just superfluous (in terms of the project purpose) or remnants. We still need a place for P312* and L238 people to go, regardless... I think.

Webb
06-26-2013, 02:21 PM
I understand moving people out who are just superfluous (in terms of the project purpose) or remnants. We still need a place for P312* and L238 people to go, regardless... I think.

Mike, I like Rms2's plan: "3a) P312?, P312*, L238 remain and become the focus of the current P312 project.
DF27 is separated as a new project. L176.2/SRY2627, U152, L21 are already separate projects."

I think it makes the most sense logistically. I believe Razyn might be looking into creating a DF27 project anyway. If that happens, then the above proposal would be a gateway project for U152, L21, and DF27 and could concentrate on the other groups.

I wasn't clear, but I assume that DF19 stays "in" in this scenario.

TigerMW
06-26-2013, 02:25 PM
Mike, I like Rms2's plan: "3a) P312?, P312*, L238 remain and become the focus of the current P312 project.
DF27 is separated as a new project. L176.2/SRY2627, U152, L21 are already separate projects."

I think it makes the most sense logistically. I believe Razyn might be looking into creating a DF27 project anyway. If that happens, then the above proposal would be a gateway project for U152, L21, and DF27 and could concentrate on the other groups.

Razyn or anyone? Is there is an active proponent volunteer for DF27?

razyn
06-26-2013, 02:56 PM
Yes, I've been chatting with Robert about it. There may be minor differences of vision (about how or whether the project's title is revised, and the extent to which U152 and L21 guys are "dumped" or relocated). There may be other volunteers, as a result of the bulk mailing about Henry. And there may be restrictions imposed by FTDNA, that we don't know about. But I have in fact volunteered, and also asked Wim V last night if he'd be interested (on behalf of DF19).

TigerMW
06-26-2013, 03:29 PM
Yes, I've been chatting with Robert about it. There may be minor differences of vision (about how or whether the project's title is revised, and the extent to which U152 and L21 guys are "dumped" or relocated). There may be other volunteers, as a result of the bulk mailing about Henry. And there may be restrictions imposed by FTDNA, that we don't know about. But I have in fact volunteered, and also asked Wim V last night if he'd be interested (on behalf of DF19).

Coincidentally, I asked (via email) Wim last night also if he would head a separate DF19 project. I haven't heard anything back but we know he'll get the message at least.

Are you saying you are volunteering for DF27 project administration? That would be great.

There are some administrative tool problems on the P312 project right now. I'm not sure if there is something that Henry did but I'm asking FTDNA for help so I can update the subgroupings, at the least.

Webb
06-26-2013, 03:36 PM
Yes, I've been chatting with Robert about it. There may be minor differences of vision (about how or whether the project's title is revised, and the extent to which U152 and L21 guys are "dumped" or relocated). There may be other volunteers, as a result of the bulk mailing about Henry. And there may be restrictions imposed by FTDNA, that we don't know about. But I have in fact volunteered, and also asked Wim V last night if he'd be interested (on behalf of DF19).


I am glad. I hate to see the whole thing stalled. There has been a lot of forward progress made recently in snp discovery and a jump in people testing.

razyn
06-26-2013, 03:49 PM
Are you saying you are volunteering for DF27 project administration? That would be great.

I had, sort of, but in conversations with Robert it appears it's more necessary to hang on to what we already have in the R1b-P312 and Subclades project than to start a new one (or three), for clades that may suddenly discover they all have a parent we don't know about. I do think it might be good to keep the size of a "research" project down under 5K members or so, if possible -- and somehow stripping off L21 and U152 would facilitate that. Some of the browsers, &c. start acting up with these big projects, e.g. the Irish one I was looking at the other day. There may be a fix for that -- and at the moment it's not our biggest problem -- but it gets in the way of quick agreement on results, modals &c. when not everyone can even view them.

I'm volunteering to substitute for Henry in whatever way is required, and to address the DF27 component in particular since I am (as Henry is) a Z220+ guy.

TigerMW
06-26-2013, 04:16 PM
I had, sort of, but in conversations with Robert it appears it's more necessary to hang on to what we already have in the R1b-P312 and Subclades project than to start a new one (or three), for clades that may suddenly discover they all have a parent we don't know about. I do think it might be good to keep the size of a "research" project down under 5K members or so, if possible -- and somehow stripping off L21 and U152 would facilitate that. Some of the browsers, &c. start acting up with these big projects, e.g. the Irish one I was looking at the other day. There may be a fix for that -- and at the moment it's not our biggest problem -- but it gets in the way of quick agreement on results, modals &c. when not everyone can even view them.

I'm volunteering to substitute for Henry in whatever way is required, and to address the DF27 component in particular since I am (as Henry is) a Z220+ guy.

I'm not sure what Robert thinks about this, but it is possible for a person to be a primary project administrator on one project, DF27, while a co-administrator on another, say P312.

This would allow the DF27 project admin to have access to email people in the P312 project that might be NS-Cluster or other wise strong DF27 cluster matches and ask them to test and then join to the DF27 project. This does require coordination and respect for the primary project administrator but I don't think should be a problem.

Although project size is a concern, I personally don't consider it a huge issue in all of this. The L21 project is over 2500 and will always be much bigger than P312. P312's has about 1600 members. By proper subgrouping (using the alphabetic sorting of subgroupings) you can put people at the end that are not of focus in the project. That is not to say we shouldn't move people out as is appropriate, though.

TigerMW
06-26-2013, 04:19 PM
I am glad. I hate to see the whole thing stalled. There has been a lot of forward progress made recently in snp discovery and a jump in people testing.

Webb, are you interested in helping, being a project admin or co-admin, at least as far as the DF27 side of things?

TigerMW
06-26-2013, 04:21 PM
... There may be minor differences of vision (about how or whether the project's title is revised, and the extent to which U152 and L21 guys are "dumped" or relocated). ...

The important is get the vision/purpose and project definitions down. We can play with the title to support the purpose but the titles are limited in number of characters. The About your project background, goals and results pages are a key area to describe the purpose/goals/scope properly.

R.Rocca
06-26-2013, 04:38 PM
I don't have skin in this game, so I'll try to make some neutral observations...

- Lumping in P312** and DF19 folks with a large majority of DF27 makes no more sense than having them in the U152 project or L21 project.
- I understand the fears of a smaller P312**/P312? project, but I think that not creating a DF27 project today is only delaying the inevitable. Doing so a few years from now will be an even bigger nightmare.

TigerMW
06-26-2013, 04:48 PM
... I think that not creating a DF27 project today is only delaying the inevitable. Doing so a few years from now will be an even bigger nightmare.
I think I'm beginning to agree with you. We'll end up there some time anyway, with DF27 as a separate project that is.

razyn
06-26-2013, 04:49 PM
There is a certain amount of tap-dancing around what FTDNA will allow, what they feel fosters "competition" among projects and dismiss out of hand, and that sort of thing. Since Henry had been running this one as a de facto DF27 project, with some fellow travelers (who were not neglected), it has a certain cachet -- a bird in the hand being worth two in the bush, etc. I think you guys need to talk amongst yourselves a little more. I'm willing, reasonably able, and have skin in the game. But not everybody is playing the exact same game, yet.

GoldenHind
06-26-2013, 07:29 PM
Let me make my position clear. I am for keeping the P312 project substantially as is. I suggest replacing Henry with Razyn (assuming he is willing) to keep an overall eye on things but with primary responsibilty for DF27. I think we then need to add a co-administrator with responsibilty for DF19. I am willing to stay on with responsibilty for L238 and P312**, which I believe will be further defined and divided shortly. I realize that some feel this would be unmanageable, but Henry was able to manage it quite well. The only real change from Henry's regime would be that we add a co-administrator for DF19. I suggest we at least give it a try, and if it doesn't work out, we can then consider the alternatives.

With regard to the current L21 and U152 members, I suggest we allow them to stay, but suggest they join the appropriate projects, and otherwise treat them with benign neglect.

If both DF27 and DF19 form new projects, the current P312 project will be left with:

1) a large number of people who are L21- and U152-, but haven't tested for both DF27 and DF19.

2) a smaller group of the above who have tested either DF27- or DF19-, but haven't tested for the other SNP.

3) a small group of L238

4) a small group of P312**, which is certain to be further refined and divided into different subclades fairly soon.

5) a group of miscellaneous people, some of whom haven't tested beyond P312

I don't know who would be willing to take on these remainders in a separate project, but it certainly wouldn't be me.

TigerMW
06-27-2013, 06:11 PM
Let me make my position clear. I am for keeping the P312 project substantially as is. I suggest replacing Henry with Razyn (assuming he is willing) to keep an overall eye on things but with primary responsibilty for DF27. I think we then need to add a co-administrator with responsibilty for DF19. I am willing to stay on with responsibilty for L238 and P312**, which I believe will be further defined and divided shortly. I realize that some feel this would be unmanageable, but Henry was able to manage it quite well. The only real change from Henry's regime would be that we add a co-administrator for DF19. I suggest we at least give it a try, and if it doesn't work out, we can then consider the alternatives.

With regard to the current L21 and U152 members, I suggest we allow them to stay, but suggest they join the appropriate projects, and otherwise treat them with benign neglect.

If both DF27 and DF19 form new projects, the current P312 project will be left with:

1) a large number of people who are L21- and U152-, but haven't tested for both DF27 and DF19.

2) a smaller group of the above who have tested either DF27- or DF19-, but haven't tested for the other SNP.

3) a small group of L238

4) a small group of P312**, which is certain to be further refined and divided into different subclades fairly soon.

5) a group of miscellaneous people, some of whom haven't tested beyond P312

I don't know who would be willing to take on these remainders in a separate project, but it certainly wouldn't be me.

If it will help, and apparently it will, I'll volunteer to manage the P312 project overall, but I think it is time to break off the DF27 folks.

There is a lot of work there and they are clearly significant subclade in their own right. I think Dick is willing to manage DF27 and I'll help them get started on how to use the GAP tool but if the concern is management of the P312 project itself I'll do that.

I recognize there is a concern also about the "critical mass" for a project but there are still plenty of folks to remain. I can assure you I am not afraid to promote SNP testing to people. I don't care what their terminal SNP actually is, we need to keep pumping to get people to complete full testing, be it a la carte, Geno 2.0, WTY or something else. We probably should see if any of these folks want to do fullgenomes testing. We've already got over 20 L21+ folks in that program so I expect some exciting results. Heck, maybe we'll even find a P312+ L21- Z249+ or Z290+ person.

What I'm trying to say is, although my personal interests are in L21, Z220 (under DF27) and R1a, I have enough deep ancestral/archaeological/historical interest I want to see P312xU152xL21xDF27 fully tested out/discovered.

I'll focus on P312 and let Dick (and maybe someone like Webb too???) focus on DF27. I am definitely interested in it as it is one of my lineages but I see the advocacy (passion) in those guys so I'm not worried about DF27 is not getting its focus.

It's just the inevitable. We are already over 20 subclade projects of L21. The smaller projects typically show a lot of vigor. It's easier to get donations when you feel like you know the project admins and you know the mission.

rms2
06-27-2013, 06:38 PM
If it will help, I can send out a bulk email to the L21 guys explaining the state of the P312 Project and asking them to leave it.

TigerMW
06-27-2013, 06:55 PM
After looking at deeper at the subgrouping structure (for L21) in the P312/Atlantic project, we owe Henry more thanks and appreciation than he probably got. He was going down to the STR level to classify people on what to test for next. I can see that in the case of DF27+ Z220+ that the 14-18-10 NS cluster would be a natural but there are so many clusters in P312, that to look at STRs comprehensively can only be done at the small project level. For instance 492=14 is very meaningful, but probably only the U152 guys understand that; meanwhile 492=13 implies something completely different. However, within Irish II haplotypes, 492=13 is different yet.

For R1b1a2 predicted people there is a similar challenge but at a much broader level. I've tried to set up a mechanism, called the R1b 67STR compare tool, that is "do it yourself" over on the R1b Gateway project. The willingness of newbies to bite on this is somewhat limited so I will not try to sell the compare tool as the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it does provide a "do it yourself" way to consider a la carte SNP testing. Even though Henry did not like it, I have to agree with Vince Vizachero's general guidance for R1b - if you don't know where you fit, Geno 2 is a good, cost-effective answer. I say that even considering that P312 itself and DF27 are not in Geno 2 package.:\ However, most of the downstream stuff is so the odds of being true DF27** or P312** are pretty low.

I didn't think we'd get into SNP testing recommendations on this topic, but any large discussion of R1b haplogroup projects, gets into the nuances of SNP testing recommendations. I think, in general, haplogroup project administrators are driving for deeper SNP testing to discover the full tree - so this is what it is all about.

TigerMW
06-27-2013, 07:00 PM
If it will help, I can send out a bulk email to the L21 guys explaining the state of the P312 Project and asking them to leave it.

Thanks for the offer, but please do not do that. I'm personally okay with that eventually, but I think we need to settle the mission/direction of the P312 project.

TigerMW
06-27-2013, 07:05 PM
Richard S, here are the current L21 subgroupings. As you can see, it is behind the complexity of L21's tree structure. As a next phase, I think it can be consolidated and simplified.

S. R1b-L21
Sa. R1b-M222 (Subclade of R-L21)
Sb. R1b-L159.2 (Subclade of R-L21)
Sc. R1b-L193 (Subclade of R-L21)
Sd. R1b-L226 (Subclade of R-L21)
Se. R1b-P314.2 (Subclade of R-L21)

As a next step, I propose

Sa. R1b-L21 (please join the R-L21plus project and test for DF13)
Sb. R1b-L21>DF13 and DF13 Subclades (please join the R-L21plus project)
Sb. R1b-L21>DF63 and DF63 Subclades (please join the R-L21plus project)

TigerMW
06-27-2013, 07:25 PM
Richard R/Steve G, here are the current U152 subgroupings. As you can see, it also a bit behind the complexity of U152's tree structure. As a next phase, I think it can be consolidated and simplified.

R. R1b-U152
Ra. R1b-L2 (Subclade of U152)
Rab. R1b-L196 (Subclade of L2)
Rac. R1b-Z49 (Subclade of L2)
Raca. R1b-Z42 (Subclade of Z49)
Racb. R1b-L562 (Subclade of Z142)
Rad. R1b-L20 (Subclade of L2 / Z367)
Rae. R1b-Z35 (Subclade of L2 / Z367 / L34)
Rb. R1b-Z36 (subclade of U152)
Rc. R1b-Z56 (subclade of U152)
Rca. R1b-L4 (Subclade of Z56)
Rcb. R1b-S47 (subclade of Z56)
Rcc. R1b-Z144, Z145, Z146 (subclade of Z56)

As a next step, I propose

Ra. R1b-U152 (please join the R1b-U152 project and test for L2)
Rb. R1b-U152>L2 and L2 Subclades (please join the R1b-U152 project)
Rc. R1b-U152>Z36 and Z36 Subclades (please join the R1b-U152 project)
Rd. R1b-U152>Z56 and Z56 Subclades (please join the R1b-U152 project)

P.S. - Don't worry, I won't touch the rest but we might as well straighten L21 and U152 up and in concert with their project admins. There is no communication expressed that anyone needs to leave the P312 project but they might feel they want to if they join the appropriate lower level project. Some do leave, but unfortunately many don't care. Others seem to want to be any project known to mankind. I've got an L513- guy who keeps joining the L513+ project no matter what is communicated.

Richard and Richard: just say go and I'll proceed on U152 and L21.

Webb
06-27-2013, 07:53 PM
Webb, are you interested in helping, being a project admin or co-admin, at least as far as the DF27 side of things?

Mike, thanks for thinking of me, however, I have a five year old to raise and he keeps me busy. I would not be opposed to volunteering for a co-admin if a DF27 group gets started, however, I think there are enough people who would be able to devote more time than me. Chris1 of the ROXX group comes to mind.

R.Rocca
06-27-2013, 07:55 PM
Richard R/Steve G, here are the current U152 subgroupings. As you can see, it also a bit behind the complexity of U152's tree structure. As a next phase, I think it can be consolidated and simplified.

R. R1b-U152
Ra. R1b-L2 (Subclade of U152)
Rab. R1b-L196 (Subclade of L2)
Rac. R1b-Z49 (Subclade of L2)
Raca. R1b-Z42 (Subclade of Z49)
Racb. R1b-L562 (Subclade of Z142)
Rad. R1b-L20 (Subclade of L2 / Z367)
Rae. R1b-Z35 (Subclade of L2 / Z367 / L34)
Rb. R1b-Z36 (subclade of U152)
Rc. R1b-Z56 (subclade of U152)
Rca. R1b-L4 (Subclade of Z56)
Rcb. R1b-S47 (subclade of Z56)
Rcc. R1b-Z144, Z145, Z146 (subclade of Z56)

As a next step, I propose

Ra. R1b-U152 (please join the R1b-U152 project and test for L2)
Rb. R1b-U152>L2 and L2 Subclades (please join the R1b-U152 project)
Rc. R1b-U152>Z36 and Z36 Subclades (please join the R1b-U152 project)
Rd. R1b-U152>Z56 and Z56 Subclades (please join the R1b-U152 project)

P.S. - Don't worry, I won't touch the rest but we might as well straighten L21 and U152 up and in concert with their project admins. There is no communication expressed that anyone needs to leave the P312 project but they might feel they want to if they join the appropriate lower level project. Some do leave, but unfortunately many don't care. Others seem to want to be any project known to mankind. I've got an L513- guy who keeps joining the L513+ project no matter what is communicated.

Richard and Richard: just say go and I'll proceed on U152 and L21.

I think for these high level projects, it can be kept to the level you propose. I guess the only changes I would make is to put all DYS492=14 into the Z56 group and call it:

"Rd. R1b-U152>Z56+ and DYS492=14 (please join the R1b-U152 project)"

Also, a recommendation, I would get rid of the "...and L2 subclades", "...and Z36 subclades", "...and Z56 subclades". If you simply put the "plus" in the group name (L2+, Z36+, Z56+) it will take care of the subclades part.

rms2
06-27-2013, 07:58 PM
That's fine with me, but I think that however the P312 Project is configured, it would be better off unencumbered by the L21+ and U152+ guys. But, of course, I respect your request, and I won't send out a bulk email asking the L21+ guys to leave, at least not until that's what you all want, anyway.

I've said this already, but I would use this opportunity to create a lean, mean, effective DF27 project and encourage the rest - DF19, L238, P312*, etc. - to spin off their own projects.

TigerMW
06-27-2013, 08:06 PM
Mike, thanks for thinking of me, however, I have a five year old to raise and he keeps me busy. I would not be opposed to volunteering for a co-admin if a DF27 group gets started, however, I think there are enough people who would be able to devote more time than me. Chris1 of the ROXX group comes to mind.

Okay. Sorry. One always has to ask for the order and some times the best way is an "assumptive close".

Wow, you must be young!

Is Chris1 on this forum? That's a great idea. It would be good to get a DF27 ROXX guy so we keep a more balanced perspective and don't go overboard on Z220, which I would probably tend to do. If you can, PM me his email ID.

TigerMW
06-27-2013, 08:08 PM
That's fine with me, but I think that however the P312 Project is configured, it would be better off unencumbered by the L21+ and U152+ guys. But, of course, I respect your request, and I won't send out a bulk email asking the L21+ guys to leave, at least not until that's what you all want, anyway.

I've said this already, but I would use this opportunity to create a lean, mean, effective DF27 project and encourage the rest - DF19, L238, P312*, etc. - to spin off their own projects.

Thanks, let's just this settle out a little bit on the xU152 xL21 side of things.

BTW, something FTDNA agreed to let me institute on the R1b project was to insert this statement in the goals and follow-up and act on it - "The R1b project administrators will automatically add members to the appropriate R1b subclade project as test results dictate. This project is only for those R1b people who are willing to be added to the appropriate subclade projects." I had to send out a broadcast email first and let some time pass before acting to make sure everyone had a chance to read the change and then withdraw if they wanted. From my own perspective I think all of the R1b subclade projects should have the same statement/caveat/clause. Some project administrators would probably cringe, but I think as long as you tell everyone and give them a chance to opt out, so be it.

GoldenHind
06-28-2013, 01:16 AM
If it will help, and apparently it will, I'll volunteer to manage the P312 project overall, but I think it is time to break off the DF27 folks.

There is a lot of work there and they are clearly significant subclade in their own right. I think Dick is willing to manage DF27 and I'll help them get started on how to use the GAP tool but if the concern is management of the P312 project itself I'll do that.

I recognize there is a concern also about the "critical mass" for a project but there are still plenty of folks to remain. I can assure you I am not afraid to promote SNP testing to people. I don't care what their terminal SNP actually is, we need to keep pumping to get people to complete full testing, be it a la carte, Geno 2.0, WTY or something else. We probably should see if any of these folks want to do fullgenomes testing. We've already got over 20 L21+ folks in that program so I expect some exciting results. Heck, maybe we'll even find a P312+ L21- Z249+ or Z290+ person.

What I'm trying to say is, although my personal interests are in L21, Z220 (under DF27) and R1a, I have enough deep ancestral/archaeological/historical interest I want to see P312xU152xL21xDF27 fully tested out/discovered.

I'll focus on P312 and let Dick (and maybe someone like Webb too???) focus on DF27. I am definitely interested in it as it is one of my lineages but I see the advocacy (passion) in those guys so I'm not worried about DF27 is not getting its focus.

It's just the inevitable. We are already over 20 subclade projects of L21. The smaller projects typically show a lot of vigor. It's easier to get donations when you feel like you know the project admins and you know the mission.

I am relieved to hear that you are willing to stay on and manage the P312 project. I do think it can survive the split off of DF27 as long as DF19 remains. At some point, a separate DF27 project would be a good idea, but I don't think it needs to happen now.

As for Rich's suggestion that someone split off separate projects for L238 and P312**, I don't think there is any realistic chance this is going to happen any time in the near future. I don't know of anyone likely to form an L238 project aside from myself, and I'm not going to do it. As for P312**, I have little doubt that it is composed of several different subclades, and the only thing they have in common, other than that they are comparatively rare, is they haven't been identified (at least publicly) yet. I suspect they will have very different histories and distributions. I don't see any reason to lump them all into one separate project.

TigerMW
06-28-2013, 01:33 AM
I am relieved to hear that you are willing to stay on and manage the P312 project. I do think it can survive the split off of DF27 as long as DF19 remains. At some point, a separate DF27 project would be a good idea, but I don't think it needs to happen now.

As for Rich's suggestion that someone split off separate projects for L238 and P312**, I don't think there is any realistic chance this is going to happen any time in the near future. I don't know of anyone likely to form an L238 project aside from myself, and I'm not going to do it. As for P312**, I have little doubt that it is composed of several different subclades, and the only thing they have in common, other than that they are comparatively rare, is they haven't been identified (at least publicly) yet. I suspect they will have very different histories and distributions. I don't see any reason to lump them all into one separate project.

My personal opinion is there are still many P312 undifferentiated folks out there who need to fully test for DF19, L238, etc. as well as the big three of U152, L21 and DF27. We need a project for these P312*/lesser SNP people to go to, but it involves really just the first level of advice / SNP testing guidance. The majority will end up in one of the big three and we need to send them over to those projects as soon as that is determined, on an individual basis.

I totally agree, we need to keep P312 alive. DF19 is a good home for it to go along with L238 and whatever new comes up.

DF27, though, needs its own focus. Rocca pushed me over the edge on that. (see Richard, I am not totally bull-headed. You, Dick and I can still have good argument on DF27 origins. We need Sam for that too. :))

Dick, are you okay with everything? If so, I'll go to FTDNA tomorrow and ask for a DF27 project with you as the lead administrator. I think they'll agree. It doesn't make any sense not to, but I'll work on them as needed.

rms2
06-28-2013, 01:43 AM
I am relieved to hear that you are willing to stay on and manage the P312 project. I do think it can survive the split off of DF27 as long as DF19 remains. At some point, a separate DF27 project would be a good idea, but I don't think it needs to happen now.

As for Rich's suggestion that someone split off separate projects for L238 and P312**, I don't think there is any realistic chance this is going to happen any time in the near future. I don't know of anyone likely to form an L238 project aside from myself, and I'm not going to do it. As for P312**, I have little doubt that it is composed of several different subclades, and the only thing they have in common, other than that they are comparatively rare, is they haven't been identified (at least publicly) yet. I suspect they will have very different histories and distributions. I don't see any reason to lump them all into one separate project.

They're all lumped together now in a common project with people with whom they don't share a common terminal SNP. At least a smaller project would allow the focus to be on finding some of those new SNPs.

I understand the concern that no one can be found to head up certain projects, like an L238 project. That's a dilemma, sure. But has anyone tried? Of course, quite a few of those guys don't speak English or don't speak it well.

rms2
06-28-2013, 01:51 AM
I guess if you all are breaking DF27 off for its own major project, that is a good thing (that is pretty much what I suggested very early in this thread). What's left over will be the DF19/L238/Lost Boys Project. ;)

No problem with that. I remember when we were all the Lost Boys of R-M269. Who was it that coined that term? Mike, was it you? I seem to remember that it was.

TigerMW
06-28-2013, 01:55 AM
I guess if you all are breaking DF27 off for its own major project, that is a good thing (that is pretty much what I suggested very early in this thread). What's left over will be the DF19/L238/Lost Boys Project. ;)

No problem with that. I remember when we were all the Lost Boys of R-M269. Who was it that coined that term? Mike, was it you? I seem to remember that it was.

No, it wasn't me. I always knew who I was and where I am, it's just the DNA wouldn't say where I'm from.

razyn
06-28-2013, 02:07 AM
Dick, are you okay with everything? If so, I'll go to FTDNA tomorrow and ask for a DF27 project with you as the lead administrator. I think they'll agree. It doesn't make any sense not to, but I'll work on them as needed.

I'm OK with it, as I understand the emails today from you and Robert. As long as you guys agree it's not shooting P312 in the foot, to create a DF27 project initially from its membership. I mentioned to Robert privately that I have several unrelated but imminent deadlines (and some travel) between now and Aug. 15. But this reorganization process isn't going to happen much faster than that, anyhow -- and after that I'm just a retired guy with some music gigs from time to time. This has been my main hobby since early 2011, and seems not to be slowing down.

Sorry I just got onto this -- had one of those gigs this afternoon/evening.

GoldenHind
06-28-2013, 03:53 AM
I guess if you all are breaking DF27 off for its own major project, that is a good thing (that is pretty much what I suggested very early in this thread). What's left over will be the DF19/L238/Lost Boys Project. ;)

No problem with that. I remember when we were all the Lost Boys of R-M269. Who was it that coined that term? Mike, was it you? I seem to remember that it was.

I remember the days when a lot of use were dismissed as "Atlantic fringe aboriginals," and I also remember who coined that term, and it wasn't you me, or Mike.

rms2
06-28-2013, 12:21 PM
No, it wasn't me. I always knew who I was and where I am, it's just the DNA wouldn't say where I'm from.

Maybe it was Mike Whalen or Mike O'Connor. It was somebody named Mike, I think. :)

rms2
06-28-2013, 12:22 PM
I remember the days when a lot of use were dismissed as "Atlantic fringe aboriginals," and I also remember who coined that term, and it wasn't you me, or Mike.

I remember that, too. Seems pretty silly now.

Webb
06-28-2013, 12:31 PM
Okay. Sorry. One always has to ask for the order and some times the best way is an "assumptive close".

Wow, you must be young!

Is Chris1 on this forum? That's a great idea. It would be good to get a DF27 ROXX guy so we keep a more balanced perspective and don't go overboard on Z220, which I would probably tend to do. If you can, PM me his email ID.

I PM'nd you Chris's information. I will be 39 on July 10th. Not young, but not old. Because of the cost of living in the D.C. area, people tend to have families a little later than say Pittsburgh or Nebraska. It is hard to start a family until you are fiscally sound. My wife is from Pittsburgh, so we made the move from the D.C. area here in 2006 for the very purpose of starting a family. Much more reasonable cost of living here, which helps in funding my genetic hobby.

TigerMW
06-28-2013, 02:17 PM
Thanks, Webb.

I'll try to reach Chris, but if anyone has any concerns please let me know. You can PM me here or find my email on the P312 project background screen.

I have applied with FTDNA to start up a DF27 project. Dick, you might be seeing an email on it as I've added your name and email into the application so you'll be authorized from the git-go. I don't see why FTDNA wouldn't approve. If they are reticent, I'll put a hard press on. I can't imagine that won't work. We just need a little patience and then elbow grease.

Dick, or anyone, if you need help with the GAP tool you can email me directly.

TigerMW
06-28-2013, 10:49 PM
I did a lot of subgrouping today on L21 and U152 to simplify things. It's still a bit convoluted but there are less buckets and at least we point people to the join the right projects (i.e. L21 and U152).

I tell you, that GAP tool is no fun for subgrouping when the terminal SNP is buried in a laundry list of SNPs and the haplogroup label is meaningless... yikes!!! Thats it for me. It's time for the pool and a beer. :beerchug:

As I mentioned before, previously there were a lot of subgrouping recommendations for specific SNPs, i.e. - this group tests for L21, this one for something else, etc. but I don't think we can do a great job of that at the large project level.

I think a good case can be made for NS cluster guys to dive right into DF27's line, particularly since DF27 is not in Geno 2.0, but other than that I'm thinking the general recommendation should be either
1) do your research and pick a la carte testing if you feel like you have good reasons to do so
2) test the big 3 a la carte, L21, U152 and DF27 in no particular order other than perhaps by geography
3) fall back to the Geno 2.0 and spend twice as much as the big 3 but perhaps discover something really specific and worst case get some mt and autosomal DNA thrown in.

I guess I'm saying option 3 (Geno 2) is best for most people, particularly those that feel lost.

If we get the DF27 project approved, we can specifically and proactively communicate with the good DF27 prospects.

razyn
06-30-2013, 09:58 PM
Dick, or anyone, if you need help with the GAP tool you can email me directly.

I played with the Ungrouped (brown) group today, checked everybody against SNP results -- a lot of them can be placed in other groups. I sort of assumed that would have been on Henry's to-do list, when he got incapacitated. I'll send you my findings; don't know that I should necessarily be messing with the GAP tool on this project, if DF27 is likely soon to become separate.

(By "other groups" I just mean the specific subclades, etc. of P312. Although there are about a dozen who have only been told they are M269, so far.)

rms2
07-01-2013, 01:15 AM
I want to make a suggestion regarding the names and descriptions of the categories. This is something I swiped from the U106 Project and modified a bit to suit myself for the R-L21 Plus Project. I list the categories by terminal SNP followed by a little short SNP pedigree in parentheses, like this: Z220+ (P312>DF27>Z196>Z220).

It makes things clear and easy to understand. Of course, you don't have to start with P312. For the DF27 Project, starting with DF27 would make sense. In the R-L21 Plus Project, I start the little pedigree with L21.

It's up to you all how you want to do things. Just a suggestion.

TigerMW
07-01-2013, 01:29 PM
I want to make a suggestion regarding the names and descriptions of the categories. This is something I swiped from the U106 Project and modified a bit to suit myself for the R-L21 Plus Project. I list the categories by terminal SNP followed by a little short SNP pedigree in parenthesis, like this: Z220+ (P312>DF27>Z196>Z220).

It makes things clear and easy to understand. Of course, you don't have to start with P312. For the DF27 Project, starting with DF27 would make sense. In the R-L21 Plus Project, I start the little pedigree with L21.

It's up to you all how you want to do things. Just a suggestion.

I started using the terminal SNP first in the L21 topic of this forum after I noticed you did it for DF41 and it made it easier to pick out.

TigerMW
07-01-2013, 01:53 PM
I played with the Ungrouped (brown) group today, checked everybody against SNP results -- a lot of them can be placed in other groups. I sort of assumed that would have been on Henry's to-do list, when he got incapacitated. I'll send you my findings; don't know that I should necessarily be messing with the GAP tool on this project, if DF27 is likely soon to become separate.

(By "other groups" I just mean the specific subclades, etc. of P312. Although there are about a dozen who have only been told they are M269, so far.)

Does L238 and DF19 have clear STR signature patterns? I think L238 does for sure. If so, I can see specific SNP testing recommendations based on those patterns in the P312 project, but I think you are right. When we get the DF27 project going that would be the place to get specific.

As far as all the P312 undifferentiated that could be either U152, L21 or DF27 that is the tough area. I don't think we want to do specific single SNP test recommendations as the normal mode of operations for these guys. Perhaps it should be "test for all three (in squence)" or "order Geno 2.0". We should discuss this. The only way to really cover the myriad of STR signatures is by something like the R1b 67 STR compare tool. Perhaps NS-Cluster is an exception.

It only takes a few a la carte SNPs and you are bumping up against the Geno 2.0 price. Four for $156? versus what, $199? Even if we recommend DF27, and have a hit, there could be several Z SNPs to test for in the Z209/Z220 line before getting to a terminal SNP. On the other hand, Geno 2.0 doesn't cover everything yet.

razyn
07-01-2013, 03:17 PM
Perhaps it should be "test for all three (in sequence)" or "order Geno 2.0". We should discuss this.

I agree that it could use a little discussion. Some of the recommendations that Henry favored are already built into the captions for specific groupings (by SNP), and those could use some tweaking. The encouragement to jump straight to DF27 is I believe a little broader than is necessary. And if the haplotype looks as if something else (DF19, L238, whatever) is a better bet, I'm all for better bets. On the other hand, that's hard to automate; and I don't want to doom volunteer administrators to more micromanagement than is really necessary. Especially if I am one.

PStar
07-01-2013, 03:54 PM
I am a member of the group and L238. I'm not opposed to heading up an L238 group in the near future, but at this point my knowledge base is fairly limited.

RobertCasey
07-01-2013, 04:20 PM
Goldenhind, could you please post your FTDNA ID and oldest proven ancestor's surname. Also, when your Full Genomes results come back, could you send a copy of your results to
David Reynolds for R-L21 research. Even though you are P312**, your results would assist David in separating L21 mutations from pre-L21 mutations. Here is a summary of the
known L21 related tests pending at Full Genomes:

Relevant SNPs FTDNA ID Surname

DF13* 186947 Edgecombe
DF13* N55408 Smith
DF13* 148326 Jost
DF21/L658 28714 Cain
DF21/L627 20437 Reynolds
DF21/S190 19604 Williamson
DF21* N3362 Maher
DF49/DF23- 129036 Harrison
DF49/DF23- 117117 Holladay
DF49/M222 8999 Wilson
DF49/M222 (2nd) Unk Unk
DF49/M222 8999 Wilson
DF49/Z2961* 159039 Trainor
Z253/L226 77349 Casey
Z253/Z2534* 233265 Le Gall
DF41 240201 Walker
DF41 (3rd) 176148 Duffy
DF41 (2nd) Unk Unk
Z251 139697 Munn
Z251/L583 193834 Yurzditsky
L513* 228772 Reid
L1335/L1065 107327 Iles
L1335/L1065 258447 Taylor

P312** Unk Goldenhind
(determine pre-L21 SNPs)

GoldenHind
07-02-2013, 01:46 AM
Goldenhind, could you please post your FTDNA ID and oldest proven ancestor's surname. Also, when your Full Genomes results come back, could you send a copy of your results to
David Reynolds for R-L21 research. Even though you are P312**, your results would assist David in separating L21 mutations from pre-L21 mutations. P312** Unk Goldenhind
(determine pre-L21 SNPs)

I will send the information to you by PM, as I would prefer to retain whatever vestiges of anonymity I have here. I will of course forward the results, assuming they ever come in, to Dave R.

GoldenHind
07-02-2013, 02:09 AM
Does L238 and DF19 have clear STR signature patterns? I think L238 does for sure. If so, I can see specific SNP testing recommendations based on those patterns in the P312 project, but I think you are right. When we get the DF27 project going that would be the place to get specific.

As far as all the P312 undifferentiated that could be either U152, L21 or DF27 that is the tough area. I don't think we want to do specific single SNP test recommendations as the normal mode of operations for these guys. Perhaps it should be "test for all three (in squence)" or "order Geno 2.0". We should discuss this. The only way to really cover the myriad of STR signatures is by something like the R1b 67 STR compare tool. Perhaps NS-Cluster is an exception.

It only takes a few a la carte SNPs and you are bumping up against the Geno 2.0 price. Four for $156? versus what, $199? Even if we recommend DF27, and have a hit, there could be several Z SNPs to test for in the Z209/Z220 line before getting to a terminal SNP. On the other hand, Geno 2.0 doesn't cover everything yet.

I am unable to speak for DF19, but L238 definitely appears, or at least appeared, to have an STR signature pattern. However someone who doesn't closely match that pattern got an L238 result a couple of months ago, so that theory may need rethinking.

Henry Z. believed that about 80% of those who had tested L21- and U152- would turn out to be DF27+. This was based on his observations of DF27 testing results. I suspect the figure probably varies by region, with 95% or so for those of Iberian origin being DF27, but perhaps far less than 80% for those from other areas. However it appears to me that DF27 is larger numerically than DF19, L238 and P312** put together.

Henry also had separate groupings for those he felt had STR signatures which made it more likely they would be other than DF27. For instance, he has a small "please test for L238" and "please test for DF19" sections based on STR markers.

As for Geno 2, I believe it includes DF19, but I'm not sure it includes DF27, and I am reasonably certain many DF27 and DF19 subclades aren't included. I not certain if it tests for L238.

TigerMW
07-02-2013, 02:45 AM
.... I will of course forward the results, assuming they ever come in, to Dave R.

For anyone, to get your Geno 2.0 results to David R, please read the following.
http://daver.info/geno/

BTW, as far as the application for a DF27 project, I've haven't heard anything back from FTDNA yet. I'll call them tomorrow after lunch if they don't respond before them.

DavidCar
07-02-2013, 04:54 AM
...

As for Geno 2, I believe it includes DF19, but I'm not sure it includes DF27, and I am reasonably certain many DF27 and DF19 subclades aren't included. I not certain if it tests for L238.

The Geno 2.0 raw data file includes DF19, not DF27, not L238. I don't know if DF19 works in Geno 2.0, even though it is in the raw data.

razyn
07-02-2013, 02:08 PM
Henry also had separate groupings for those he felt had STR signatures which made it more likely they would be other than DF27. For instance, he has a small "please test for L238" and "please test for DF19" sections based on STR markers.

I haven't had much time yet to study the DF27 subclades with which I wasn't already familiar, but I noticed this verbiage (presumably Henry's) that appears to be an STR pattern suggesting DF17: "dys390=23, dys19=>15, dys448<=18"

There are probably other such patterns, including some that Henry hadn't yet found; and they might well be extended into other panels (higher resolution STR testing). Anyway, that's what I found was the case with my L484 bunch. This proposed DF17 STR "signature" is visible in a 37 marker test -- as is the N/S Cluster signature, associated with most of the Z220 line.

TigerMW
07-02-2013, 10:17 PM
BTW, as far as the application for a DF27 project, I've haven't heard anything back from FTDNA yet. I'll call them tomorrow after lunch if they don't respond before them.

I called them today and we are probably talking about the end of this week. They have a backlog of requests.

TigerMW
07-03-2013, 03:35 PM
I called them today and we are probably talking about the end of this week. They have a backlog of requests.

I updated the Background screen in the P312 project to try to add clear instructions and emphasize the P312*, L238 and DF19 focus. Of course, we are still waiting for the DF27 approval but I want to set the stage that we can join people to appropriate sub-projects, in accordance with guidelines FTDNA has given me. At least according to instructions to me they are fine with joining people to a project as long as they have good notice, but they are not okay with removing people without their overt action. Anyway, we have long way to go before worrying about that.

I'm assuming we will (a pretty sure) we'll get the DF27 project going. If so, what really is the focus of the new P312 project?

Should it be the investigation and encouragement of SNP testing to discern subclades of P312*, L238 and DF19? If we have a good feeling about the purpose I can write a "goals" background page.

TigerMW
07-05-2013, 05:24 PM
I'm assuming we will (a pretty sure) we'll get the DF27 project going. If so, what really is the focus of the new P312 project?

We have lift-off, Houston. The R1b-DF27 project is up. I'm not sure if the public web site updates and access are immediate but I suspect they will be by tomorrow morning. http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b-DF27/

I've added the words P312*, L238 and DF19 into the P312 project title and inserted this sentence into the "About your project" Backgrounds screen.
"The research and focus of this project is on the P312* paragroup, the subclades of DF19, L238 and any new subclades that are discovered."

DavidCar
07-06-2013, 10:33 PM
I think you should add CTS7768 to your SNP list in the DF27 project

TigerMW
07-18-2013, 05:47 PM
I just want to update all of you on the P312/S116 project at FTDNA.

As you probably know, Robert, Dick, Wim, George and myself are now handling project administration. Regretfully, Henry is no longer able to participate in our project activity. I will try to get FTDNA to remove his email ID from the project screens.

Our member classification by subgrouping had fallen behind the last couple of months so I'm in the process of updating that now. I am trying to simplify and streamline some of the subgroupings to emphasize actual SNP results and make the project more manageable and more focused. I don't know how Henry was doing it, to be honest. P312's phylogenetic tree is large and complex.

When viewing the project screens over the next couple of days, please hold your nose. It is a work in progress. I'll give you an update when I get through with my first pass at it.

TigerMW
07-23-2013, 02:21 AM
I just want to update all of you on the P312/S116 project at FTDNA.

As you probably know, Robert, Dick, Wim, George and myself are now handling project administration. Regretfully, Henry is no longer able to participate in our project activity. I will try to get FTDNA to remove his email ID from the project screens.

Our member classification by subgrouping had fallen behind the last couple of months so I'm in the process of updating that now. I am trying to simplify and streamline some of the subgroupings to emphasize actual SNP results and make the project more manageable and more focused. I don't know how Henry was doing it, to be honest. P312's phylogenetic tree is large and complex.

When viewing the project screens over the next couple of days, please hold your nose. It is a work in progress. I'll give you an update when I get through with my first pass at it.

I've completed a first pass in simplifying the project subgroupings and putting more focus on P312*, P312**, DF19 and L238.

I'll have to confess I'm still trying to figure out Henry's (the old project admins) subgroupings for some of his recommendations. Perhaps someone can help.

One of his subgroupings was P312+ but 80% chance of DF27+ so recommend DF27 test.
However another also was P312+ U152- L21- recommend DF27 test.

I thought the first group was NS-Cluster but it is not so I'm not sure how he differentiated. Anyone have any clues?

MitchellSince1893
08-03-2013, 02:17 AM
Based on comments in this thread I left the P312 project today as I'm already a member of the U152 group. I got the impression it would be of benefit for all L21+ U152+ and D27+folks to leave and join their respective projects (if they haven't already done so).

TigerMW
08-03-2013, 04:45 PM
Based on comments in this thread I left the P312 project today as I'm already a member of the U152 group. I got the impression it would be of benefit for all L21+ U152+ and D27+folks to leave and join their respective projects (if they haven't already done so).

I am the P312 (R1b Atlantic) lead project administrator.

There is no advantage for you to leave the P312 project if you are P312+ or positive for one of the downstream subclades. There is also no advantage to me for you to leave.

However, I am emphatic that you join the right downstream subclade projects, specifically L21, U152 and DF27. I'm very, very supportive of that and that is why I've added this recommendation to the subgrouping titles in the P312 project.

There is one disadvantage to leaving the P312 project. I check the P312 project every week for Y STR upgrade and Y SNP results and update spreadsheets of all the P312 people I can find and try to classify people by STR signature based variety and Genetic Distance. If you leave the P312 project I may not see your latest upgrades or test results.

This disadvantage doesn't apply if you are in the L21 project as I check it every week also.

GoldenHind
08-03-2013, 07:10 PM
I've completed a first pass in simplifying the project subgroupings and putting more focus on P312*, P312**, DF19 and L238.

I'll have to confess I'm still trying to figure out Henry's (the old project admins) subgroupings for some of his recommendations. Perhaps someone can help.

One of his subgroupings was P312+ but 80% chance of DF27+ so recommend DF27 test.
However another also was P312+ U152- L21- recommend DF27 test.

I thought the first group was NS-Cluster but it is not so I'm not sure how he differentiated. Anyone have any clues?

I am reasonably certain his large group "Aa R1b P312* Please test DF27 for which you have an 80% chance of positive results" was those who had already tested negative for L21 and U152, probably in the old R1b deep clade test. The 80% comment was based on his observation that somewhere around 80% of those in this category who ordered DF27 got a positive result. Group Ab was the same but for those who had 111 markers. I don't know about the other category you mention. What was it's letter designation?

One of Henry's primary interests was to encourage testing for DF27 (he is DF27 himself). This led to his brilliant scheme of offering a "free" DF19 test for anyone who ordered DF27 and got a negative result. The "free" test was actually paid for by Henry out of his own pocket. He thought he would only have to pay for about 20% of those who took him up on his offer, but it turned out to be more expensive than he assumed. It was brilliant because it killed three birds with one stone (at least for those who had already tested L21- and U152-), dividing people into either DF27, DF19 or P312**.

Perhaps some of the odd categories were for those who accepted his offer but hadn't already tested negative for L21 and U152.

TigerMW
08-03-2013, 08:38 PM
... One of Henry's primary interests was to encourage testing for DF27 (he is DF27 himself). This led to his brilliant scheme of offering a "free" DF19 test for anyone who ordered DF27 and got a negative result. The "free" test was actually paid for by Henry out of his own pocket. He thought he would only have to pay for about 20% of those who took him up on his offer, but it turned out to be more expensive than he assumed. It was brilliant because it killed three birds with one stone (at least for those who had already tested L21- and U152-), dividing people into either DF27, DF19 or P312** ...

My hat is off to Henry. I don't know him personally other than our on-line conversations. He was truly intelligent, passionate and as we can see, generous. It saddens me that he is unable to continue on. I just hope he can read along from time to time as we make progress.