I> Motion 00-17 - made by Ginger, seconded by Virginia: YES > Motion 00-18 - made by Joe, seconded by Maggie: NO Virginia (Ginger) Cisewski NW-Plains CC Rep

>Teri and other Board Members, > >I, hereby, withdraw the following motion so that Teri can negotiate >with Mr. Smoot and USGenNet over the change of the Logos and >the wording "The Nonprofit UGenWeb Project". > >Teri, I will accept your results because I know that you have the best >interests of the Project at heart and want it more friendly and harmonious. >If you are not successful, I reserve the right to reintroduce my motion. > Maggie, I am in the process of drafting a letter right now. I will Cc the Board on it. -- Teri

Teri and other Board Members, I, hereby, withdraw the following motion so that Teri can negotiate with Mr. Smoot and USGenNet over the change of the Logos and the wording "The Nonprofit UGenWeb Project". Teri, I will accept your results because I know that you have the best interests of the Project at heart and want it more friendly and harmonious. If you are not successful, I reserve the right to reintroduce my motion. ===== I move to adopt the following resolution; Whereas, This link http://www.usgennet.org/usgenweb.html leads to pages hosted by USGenNet Inc., entitled ""USGenNet's Index to The NonProfit USGenWeb Project" and contains a number of logos bearing the words "The Nonprofit USGenWeb Project". These pages are considered an obvious attempt to inflict harm upon the name and reputation of The USGenWeb Project. Resolved, That The USGenWeb Project Advisory Board formally demand removal of all references within 7 days, including index and logos, regarding any supposed "Nonprofit USGenWeb Project", or words to that effect from USGenNet Inc. and from any other USGenWeb Project web site on which these items may appear; and Resolved, That failure to comply shall result in the person(s) and/or website(s) declared as not in good standing with The USGenWeb Project by authority of Article VI Section 9 to wit failure in "serving as a good example of the guidelines and standards of The USGenWeb Project". ===== Maggie

Fellow Board Members, I would like all of you to consider very carefully the question of the April 1 cutoff date. While I am aware there appears to be a movement by some folks, to adopt counties for the sole purpose of being able to vote in a region, establishing the April 1 date is just as wrong as those folks are. I know it's an old saw with me, but I still believe that, online or offline, two wrongs never equal one right. Establishing the April 1 cut-off date smacks just as much of vote manipulation as what the folks adopting counties for no other reason than to gain a vote are doing. Personally, I find any attempt at manipulation, no matter who is doing it, highly distasteful and really question what this organization is degenerating to. This is supposed to be a hobby folks. I like and respect the chair of the EC but find his statement as to the reasoning behind the April 1 cutoff date to be either a lame excuse for the real reason or patronizing in the extreme. To the best of my knowledge there has never been a "probationary" period in USGW, neither have we ever tested voters to see how informed they are on the issues. I'd like to urge you all to have a little courage and show some faith in the membership of the USGW Project. I still believe that the good folks far outweigh those that would engage in less than honorable tactics. I think it would behoove us far more to encourage folks to get out and vote than to attempt to prevent some folks from voting. Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Monday, June 12, 2000 1:59 AM Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 00-17 - 'Cut-off date' >This motion made by Ginger and I believe seconded by Virginia?: > >I move that the April 1, 2000 cut off date for voter >eligibility be declared contrary to the Bylaws of the >USGenWeb Project and that this Board instruct >the Elections Committee that all members of the >USGenWeb Project are eligible to vote in accordance >with the duly adopted Bylaws of The USGenWeb >Project. > >is numbered 00-17 - and the floor is open for discussion on it. >

Regarding the motion and accompanying details made by Joe and seconded by Maggie: While I have a concern that a few worthy CCs may not get to vote this time. I would bet you a dime to a bagel that if they feel as strongly about this Project as I do they would gracefully give up the vote so that the other several hundred voting members would feel that their vote fell where they aimed it to fall. Tell me, dear friends, is it more right that one voter or a few voters be denied than for the hundreds that part with their apathy and vote be denied their due rights? I think not. Remember last time when ten votes separated the runoff for the NC position? Eleven more phony votes would have disenfrancised a true majority. Keep this in mind if nit picking starts over the motion below. Until just a few days ago I sided with those who protested the April 1, 2000 date. I am quite naive at times believing that all feel as I do about honesty and such. But the evidence will continue to mount that the motion below is the right course to take. And remember, this Board and any Board has the right and duty to make motions not specifically prohibited by the ByLaws. I hereby move that the April 1, 2000 cutoff date be affirmed. ------ it is now given Motion number 00-18. The floor is now open for discussion on this. Tim

This motion made by Ginger and I believe seconded by Virginia?: I move that the April 1, 2000 cut off date for voter eligibility be declared contrary to the Bylaws of the USGenWeb Project and that this Board instruct the Elections Committee that all members of the USGenWeb Project are eligible to vote in accordance with the duly adopted Bylaws of The USGenWeb Project. is numbered 00-17 - and the floor is open for discussion on it.

Please cast your vote on Motion 00-16 'Good Standing' by sending your equivalent of Yes, No or abstain. Motion 00-16 made by Maggie and seconded by Barbara: I move to adopt the following standing rule; "It is the responsibility of each member of The USGenWeb Project to demonstrate membership in good standing by; promoting a positive public image of the project, and working to enhance its good name and reputation, and contributing to its operations. In addition, members must respond promptly to email, actively support researchers' efforts to find information, maintain their website with appropriate, up-to-date content, and serving as a good example of the guidelines and standards of The USGenWeb Project." Tim

Regarding Motion 00-14: "By submitting these grievances to the Board the "aggrieved" party(s) is/are invoking Section I of Article XIV which requests the Advisory Board to advise on issues related to grievances and appeals. My advice is that the grievances are purely spiteful and meant to disrupt and cause disarray among the Project members." Motion 00-14 "Therefore, I move that the grievances be dismissed as frivolous and purely political in nature." Joe came back later in response to questioning - to say that the grievances in question were the 5 made by Carole Hammett. Yes - 9; No - 3; Abstain - 0; Not voting - 3 The motion regarding Carole Hammett's grievances passes. Ms. Hammett's grievances are dismissed. A note to this effect has been sent to Ms. Hammett. Tim

I like the ideas you have come up with, Teri. I also like Shari's logos. I think those would be great choices for them and for others to use. I was going to make some similar links logos, but Shari already did it, there is no reason for me to. Thanks Shari. You saved me some much needed time!!! Plus, you did a great job. Pam Teri Pettit wrote: > > At 8:47 AM -0700 6/9/00, Maggie Stewart wrote: > >Teri, > > > > I'll withdraw my motion if you agree to handle the > >negotiations with Mr. Smoot and USGenNet. I will > >reserve the right to put the motion back out if those > >negotiations should fall through. > > Maggie, > > Thanks, I'll do what I can. (Sorry for the delay in getting back to > you, but I took yesterday off work to celebrate my birthday, and I do > all of my email from the office.) I appreciate your giving this a chance. > > I would like to be able to tell USGenNet that they can return to > using the real USGenWeb logo as a link on their index page, providing: > > 1. That the large-size logo is not used, only the small or mid-sized > logos. > > 2. That the logo not appear in a position that seems to identify the > USGenNet's index page as itself being an official page of the USGenWeb > Project (e.g., it should not be at the top of the page, nor right > above the list of states.) The placement and/or caption text should > make it plainly identifiable as a "courtesy link". > > 3. That the USGenWeb logo link to either the official USGenWeb home page > at http://www.usgenweb.org/ , or to one of the official state link > pages: > http://www.usgenweb.org/thestates.html > http://www.usgenweb.org/statelinks.html > http://www.usgenweb.org/statelinks-table.html > http://www.usgenweb.org/statelinkstext.html > > I don't like their use of the pink and white "peppermint swirl" graphics, > but we did kind of back Fred and USGenNet into a corner by refusing them > permission to use the real logo as a link button. Links with no graphics > look so dull, and I expect it will be much harder to negotiate the > removal of those or any other substitute graphics if they can't use > the real logo. > > There are so many motions on the table it is getting past confusing. > Do we have to make a motion to be able to restore permission to use > the real logos? I don't think I can say so on my own, since Tim already > sent USGenNet a letter saying that they had to remove them. > > -- Teri

Splendid, Shari! You are in deeeep trouble now. With talent like that there will always be a place for you in this Project. Er, Shari, ND needs...<G>. Joe Shari wrote: > > I've played around with the logo and came up with a couple of possibilities for link logos such as you suggested, Teri. > I've uploaded them to http://www.rootsweb.com/~mdsomers/graphics.htm if you'd like to take a look. I can change them > around pretty easily if you've got any suggestions for improvements. > > Shari Handley > shari@tyaskin.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Teri Pettit <pettit@Adobe.COM> > To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2000 9:46 PM > Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Motion Re: "Nonprofit USGenWeb Project" > > <snip> > : > : The idea was just that a smaller logo looks more like a link button. > : Large logos tend to look too much like identifying labels for the > : page they are on. (What I would most like to see is for us to have > : an official link graphic, that looks basically like the regular > : logo but has the word "Visit" or "Go to" on it. You don't usually > : say "Visit" or "Go to" somewhere if you're already there. Then it > : could be any size; it could take up half a page if you wanted. > > <snip> -- Zsedeny Genealogy - http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm NDGenWeb Archives - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/nd/ndfiles.htm Pembina County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm Ramsey County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm

I've played around with the logo and came up with a couple of possibilities for link logos such as you suggested, Teri. I've uploaded them to http://www.rootsweb.com/~mdsomers/graphics.htm if you'd like to take a look. I can change them around pretty easily if you've got any suggestions for improvements. Shari Handley shari@tyaskin.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Teri Pettit <pettit@Adobe.COM> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2000 9:46 PM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Motion Re: "Nonprofit USGenWeb Project" <snip> : : The idea was just that a smaller logo looks more like a link button. : Large logos tend to look too much like identifying labels for the : page they are on. (What I would most like to see is for us to have : an official link graphic, that looks basically like the regular : logo but has the word "Visit" or "Go to" on it. You don't usually : say "Visit" or "Go to" somewhere if you're already there. Then it : could be any size; it could take up half a page if you wanted. <snip>

Sounds good to me, too. Shari Handley shari@tyaskin.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny <jzsed@slic.com> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2000 9:02 PM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Motion Re: "Nonprofit USGenWeb Project" : I agree with Teri about the motion problem and would have no : problem if Tim just agreed with the proposed solution. How : about the rest? : : Joe : : Teri Pettit wrote: : > : > At 8:47 AM -0700 6/9/00, Maggie Stewart wrote: : > >Teri, : > > : > > I'll withdraw my motion if you agree to handle the : > >negotiations with Mr. Smoot and USGenNet. I will : > >reserve the right to put the motion back out if those : > >negotiations should fall through. : > : > Maggie, : > : > Thanks, I'll do what I can. (Sorry for the delay in getting back to : > you, but I took yesterday off work to celebrate my birthday, and I do : > all of my email from the office.) I appreciate your giving this a chance. : > : > I would like to be able to tell USGenNet that they can return to : > using the real USGenWeb logo as a link on their index page, providing: : > : > 1. That the large-size logo is not used, only the small or mid-sized : > logos. : > : > 2. That the logo not appear in a position that seems to identify the : > USGenNet's index page as itself being an official page of the USGenWeb : > Project (e.g., it should not be at the top of the page, nor right : > above the list of states.) The placement and/or caption text should : > make it plainly identifiable as a "courtesy link". : > : > 3. That the USGenWeb logo link to either the official USGenWeb home page : > at http://www.usgenweb.org/ , or to one of the official state link : > pages: : > http://www.usgenweb.org/thestates.html : > http://www.usgenweb.org/statelinks.html : > http://www.usgenweb.org/statelinks-table.html : > http://www.usgenweb.org/statelinkstext.html : > : > I don't like their use of the pink and white "peppermint swirl" graphics, : > but we did kind of back Fred and USGenNet into a corner by refusing them : > permission to use the real logo as a link button. Links with no graphics : > look so dull, and I expect it will be much harder to negotiate the : > removal of those or any other substitute graphics if they can't use : > the real logo. : > : > There are so many motions on the table it is getting past confusing. : > Do we have to make a motion to be able to restore permission to use : > the real logos? I don't think I can say so on my own, since Tim already : > sent USGenNet a letter saying that they had to remove them. : > : > -- Teri : : -- : Zsedeny Genealogy - http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm : NDGenWeb Archives - : http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/nd/ndfiles.htm : Pembina County, ND - : http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm : Ramsey County, ND - : http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm

I agree with this. Gloria Ginger wrote: > > Sounds fine to me. > > Ginger > gingerh@shawneelink.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Garnett JJoe Zsedeny <jzsed@slic.com> > To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> > Date: Saturday, June 10, 2000 8:07 PM > Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Motion Re: "Nonprofit USGenWeb Project" > > >I agree with Teri about the motion problem and would have no > >problem if Tim just agreed with the proposed solution. How > >about the rest? > > > >Joe > > > >Teri Pettit wrote: > >> > >> At 8:47 AM -0700 6/9/00, Maggie Stewart wrote: > >> >Teri, > >> > > >> > I'll withdraw my motion if you agree to handle the > >> >negotiations with Mr. Smoot and USGenNet. I will > >> >reserve the right to put the motion back out if those > >> >negotiations should fall through. > >> > >> Maggie, > >> > >> Thanks, I'll do what I can. (Sorry for the delay in getting back to > >> you, but I took yesterday off work to celebrate my birthday, and I do > >> all of my email from the office.) I appreciate your giving this a chance. > >> > >> I would like to be able to tell USGenNet that they can return to > >> using the real USGenWeb logo as a link on their index page, providing: > >> > >> 1. That the large-size logo is not used, only the small or mid-sized > >> logos. > >> > >> 2. That the logo not appear in a position that seems to identify the > >> USGenNet's index page as itself being an official page of the USGenWeb > >> Project (e.g., it should not be at the top of the page, nor right > >> above the list of states.) The placement and/or caption text should > >> make it plainly identifiable as a "courtesy link". > >> > >> 3. That the USGenWeb logo link to either the official USGenWeb home page > >> at http://www.usgenweb.org/ , or to one of the official state link > >> pages: > >> http://www.usgenweb.org/thestates.html > >> http://www.usgenweb.org/statelinks.html > >> http://www.usgenweb.org/statelinks-table.html > >> http://www.usgenweb.org/statelinkstext.html > >> > >> I don't like their use of the pink and white "peppermint swirl" graphics, > >> but we did kind of back Fred and USGenNet into a corner by refusing them > >> permission to use the real logo as a link button. Links with no graphics > >> look so dull, and I expect it will be much harder to negotiate the > >> removal of those or any other substitute graphics if they can't use > >> the real logo. > >> > >> There are so many motions on the table it is getting past confusing. > >> Do we have to make a motion to be able to restore permission to use > >> the real logos? I don't think I can say so on my own, since Tim already > >> sent USGenNet a letter saying that they had to remove them. > >> > >> -- Teri > > > >-- > >Zsedeny Genealogy - http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm > >NDGenWeb Archives - > >http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/nd/ndfiles.htm > >Pembina County, ND - > >http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm > >Ramsey County, ND - > >http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm > > -- Southwest/South Central CC Representative, USGenWeb Advisory Board Personal page http://www.angelfire.com/tx2/gmayfield/index.html TX Tombstone Project Manager http://www.rootsweb.com/~cemetery/Texas/ Texas Surnames http://www.rootsweb.com/~txrusk/txsurnames.html Panola County TX USGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txpanola/ Rusk County TX USGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txrusk/index.htm

At 06:46 PM 6/10/00 -0700, Teri Pettit wrote: >What we are hoping to see is a page that clearly refers to the real >USGenWeb Project, and yet is recognizable as not being an official >USGenWeb Project page. It is just a page of links, with special >emphasis given to the states that are stored on USGenNet, similar >to the link pages that Rootsweb has that give special emphasis >to USGenWeb pages stored on Rootsweb. correct, to me this is the critical factor after all, a page could still be made to look/feel like a USGenWeb page using the small logo Holly

I know it wasn't intentional, Teri, what with email overload tonight but you are referring to Holly's post. Joe Teri Pettit wrote: > > >At 09:02 PM 6/10/00 -0400, Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny wrote: > > > >Only comment I have is that I don't see why it has to be the small logo, > >appropriate usage of the USGenWeb logo is okay by me whichever size. > > The idea was just that a smaller logo looks more like a link button. > Large logos tend to look too much like identifying labels for the > page they are on. (What I would most like to see is for us to have > an official link graphic, that looks basically like the regular > logo but has the word "Visit" or "Go to" on it. You don't usually > say "Visit" or "Go to" somewhere if you're already there. Then it > could be any size; it could take up half a page if you wanted. > > I'm pretty sure that Tim's main reason for telling USGenNet not to > use our logo was that their original index page looked too much like > it was the official USGenWeb Project state links page. Now it doesn't > have that problem, now it instead looks like it is a state links page > for some hypothetical other project named "the Nonprofit USGenWeb > Project." > > I suppose with enough identifying text, such as "Click on this logo > to go to the home page of The USGenWeb Project", a full-size logo > could be OK on a non-USGenWeb page. > > What we are hoping to see is a page that clearly refers to the real > USGenWeb Project, and yet is recognizable as not being an official > USGenWeb Project page. It is just a page of links, with special > emphasis given to the states that are stored on USGenNet, similar > to the link pages that Rootsweb has that give special emphasis > to USGenWeb pages stored on Rootsweb. > > -- Teri -- Zsedeny Genealogy - http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm NDGenWeb Archives - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/nd/ndfiles.htm Pembina County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm Ramsey County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm

At 09:02 PM 6/10/00 -0400, Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny wrote: >I agree with Teri about the motion problem and would have no >problem if Tim just agreed with the proposed solution. How >about the rest? Only comment I have is that I don't see why it has to be the small logo, appropriate usage of the USGenWeb logo is okay by me whichever size. >Joe > >Teri Pettit wrote: > > > > At 8:47 AM -0700 6/9/00, Maggie Stewart wrote: > > >Teri, > > > > > > I'll withdraw my motion if you agree to handle the > > >negotiations with Mr. Smoot and USGenNet. I will > > >reserve the right to put the motion back out if those > > >negotiations should fall through. > > > > Maggie, > > > > Thanks, I'll do what I can. (Sorry for the delay in getting back to > > you, but I took yesterday off work to celebrate my birthday, and I do > > all of my email from the office.) I appreciate your giving this a chance. > > > > I would like to be able to tell USGenNet that they can return to > > using the real USGenWeb logo as a link on their index page, providing: > > > > 1. That the large-size logo is not used, only the small or mid-sized > > logos. > > > > 2. That the logo not appear in a position that seems to identify the > > USGenNet's index page as itself being an official page of the USGenWeb > > Project (e.g., it should not be at the top of the page, nor right > > above the list of states.) The placement and/or caption text should > > make it plainly identifiable as a "courtesy link". > > > > 3. That the USGenWeb logo link to either the official USGenWeb home page > > at http://www.usgenweb.org/ , or to one of the official state link > > pages: > > http://www.usgenweb.org/thestates.html > > http://www.usgenweb.org/statelinks.html > > http://www.usgenweb.org/statelinks-table.html > > http://www.usgenweb.org/statelinkstext.html > > > > I don't like their use of the pink and white "peppermint swirl" graphics, > > but we did kind of back Fred and USGenNet into a corner by refusing them > > permission to use the real logo as a link button. Links with no graphics > > look so dull, and I expect it will be much harder to negotiate the > > removal of those or any other substitute graphics if they can't use > > the real logo. > > > > There are so many motions on the table it is getting past confusing. > > Do we have to make a motion to be able to restore permission to use > > the real logos? I don't think I can say so on my own, since Tim already > > sent USGenNet a letter saying that they had to remove them. > > > > -- Teri > >-- >Zsedeny Genealogy - http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm >NDGenWeb Archives - >http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/nd/ndfiles.htm >Pembina County, ND - >http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm >Ramsey County, ND - >http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm

Sounds fine to me. Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Garnett JJoe Zsedeny <jzsed@slic.com> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Saturday, June 10, 2000 8:07 PM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Motion Re: "Nonprofit USGenWeb Project" >I agree with Teri about the motion problem and would have no >problem if Tim just agreed with the proposed solution. How >about the rest? > >Joe > >Teri Pettit wrote: >> >> At 8:47 AM -0700 6/9/00, Maggie Stewart wrote: >> >Teri, >> > >> > I'll withdraw my motion if you agree to handle the >> >negotiations with Mr. Smoot and USGenNet. I will >> >reserve the right to put the motion back out if those >> >negotiations should fall through. >> >> Maggie, >> >> Thanks, I'll do what I can. (Sorry for the delay in getting back to >> you, but I took yesterday off work to celebrate my birthday, and I do >> all of my email from the office.) I appreciate your giving this a chance. >> >> I would like to be able to tell USGenNet that they can return to >> using the real USGenWeb logo as a link on their index page, providing: >> >> 1. That the large-size logo is not used, only the small or mid-sized >> logos. >> >> 2. That the logo not appear in a position that seems to identify the >> USGenNet's index page as itself being an official page of the USGenWeb >> Project (e.g., it should not be at the top of the page, nor right >> above the list of states.) The placement and/or caption text should >> make it plainly identifiable as a "courtesy link". >> >> 3. That the USGenWeb logo link to either the official USGenWeb home page >> at http://www.usgenweb.org/ , or to one of the official state link >> pages: >> http://www.usgenweb.org/thestates.html >> http://www.usgenweb.org/statelinks.html >> http://www.usgenweb.org/statelinks-table.html >> http://www.usgenweb.org/statelinkstext.html >> >> I don't like their use of the pink and white "peppermint swirl" graphics, >> but we did kind of back Fred and USGenNet into a corner by refusing them >> permission to use the real logo as a link button. Links with no graphics >> look so dull, and I expect it will be much harder to negotiate the >> removal of those or any other substitute graphics if they can't use >> the real logo. >> >> There are so many motions on the table it is getting past confusing. >> Do we have to make a motion to be able to restore permission to use >> the real logos? I don't think I can say so on my own, since Tim already >> sent USGenNet a letter saying that they had to remove them. >> >> -- Teri > >-- >Zsedeny Genealogy - http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm >NDGenWeb Archives - >http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/nd/ndfiles.htm >Pembina County, ND - >http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm >Ramsey County, ND - >http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm >

>At 09:02 PM 6/10/00 -0400, Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny wrote: > >Only comment I have is that I don't see why it has to be the small logo, >appropriate usage of the USGenWeb logo is okay by me whichever size. The idea was just that a smaller logo looks more like a link button. Large logos tend to look too much like identifying labels for the page they are on. (What I would most like to see is for us to have an official link graphic, that looks basically like the regular logo but has the word "Visit" or "Go to" on it. You don't usually say "Visit" or "Go to" somewhere if you're already there. Then it could be any size; it could take up half a page if you wanted. I'm pretty sure that Tim's main reason for telling USGenNet not to use our logo was that their original index page looked too much like it was the official USGenWeb Project state links page. Now it doesn't have that problem, now it instead looks like it is a state links page for some hypothetical other project named "the Nonprofit USGenWeb Project." I suppose with enough identifying text, such as "Click on this logo to go to the home page of The USGenWeb Project", a full-size logo could be OK on a non-USGenWeb page. What we are hoping to see is a page that clearly refers to the real USGenWeb Project, and yet is recognizable as not being an official USGenWeb Project page. It is just a page of links, with special emphasis given to the states that are stored on USGenNet, similar to the link pages that Rootsweb has that give special emphasis to USGenWeb pages stored on Rootsweb. -- Teri

Hi Teri, Happy Birthday! Let me think on this for a while and get back with you. I have to weigh some issues and correspond with the many CCs in my region that supported this motion. Maggie ----- Original Message ----- From: Teri Pettit <pettit@Adobe.COM> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2000 8:32 PM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Motion Re: "Nonprofit USGenWeb Project" At 8:47 AM -0700 6/9/00, Maggie Stewart wrote: >Teri, > > I'll withdraw my motion if you agree to handle the >negotiations with Mr. Smoot and USGenNet. I will >reserve the right to put the motion back out if those >negotiations should fall through. Maggie, Thanks, I'll do what I can. (Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, but I took yesterday off work to celebrate my birthday, and I do all of my email from the office.) I appreciate your giving this a chance. I would like to be able to tell USGenNet that they can return to using the real USGenWeb logo as a link on their index page, providing: 1. That the large-size logo is not used, only the small or mid-sized logos. 2. That the logo not appear in a position that seems to identify the USGenNet's index page as itself being an official page of the USGenWeb Project (e.g., it should not be at the top of the page, nor right above the list of states.) The placement and/or caption text should make it plainly identifiable as a "courtesy link". 3. That the USGenWeb logo link to either the official USGenWeb home page at http://www.usgenweb.org/ , or to one of the official state link pages: http://www.usgenweb.org/thestates.html http://www.usgenweb.org/statelinks.html http://www.usgenweb.org/statelinks-table.html http://www.usgenweb.org/statelinkstext.html I don't like their use of the pink and white "peppermint swirl" graphics, but we did kind of back Fred and USGenNet into a corner by refusing them permission to use the real logo as a link button. Links with no graphics look so dull, and I expect it will be much harder to negotiate the removal of those or any other substitute graphics if they can't use the real logo. There are so many motions on the table it is getting past confusing. Do we have to make a motion to be able to restore permission to use the real logos? I don't think I can say so on my own, since Tim already sent USGenNet a letter saying that they had to remove them. -- Teri

I agree with Teri and Joe.... Jim "Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny" wrote: > I agree with Teri about the motion problem and would have no > problem if Tim just agreed with the proposed solution. How > about the rest? > > Joe > > Teri Pettit wrote: > > > > At 8:47 AM -0700 6/9/00, Maggie Stewart wrote: > > >Teri, > > > > > > I'll withdraw my motion if you agree to handle the > > >negotiations with Mr. Smoot and USGenNet. I will > > >reserve the right to put the motion back out if those > > >negotiations should fall through. > > > > Maggie, > > > > Thanks, I'll do what I can. (Sorry for the delay in getting back to > > you, but I took yesterday off work to celebrate my birthday, and I do > > all of my email from the office.) I appreciate your giving this a chance. > > > > I would like to be able to tell USGenNet that they can return to > > using the real USGenWeb logo as a link on their index page, providing: > > > > 1. That the large-size logo is not used, only the small or mid-sized > > logos. > > > > 2. That the logo not appear in a position that seems to identify the > > USGenNet's index page as itself being an official page of the USGenWeb > > Project (e.g., it should not be at the top of the page, nor right > > above the list of states.) The placement and/or caption text should > > make it plainly identifiable as a "courtesy link". > > > > 3. That the USGenWeb logo link to either the official USGenWeb home page > > at http://www.usgenweb.org/ , or to one of the official state link > > pages: > > http://www.usgenweb.org/thestates.html > > http://www.usgenweb.org/statelinks.html > > http://www.usgenweb.org/statelinks-table.html > > http://www.usgenweb.org/statelinkstext.html > > > > I don't like their use of the pink and white "peppermint swirl" graphics, > > but we did kind of back Fred and USGenNet into a corner by refusing them > > permission to use the real logo as a link button. Links with no graphics > > look so dull, and I expect it will be much harder to negotiate the > > removal of those or any other substitute graphics if they can't use > > the real logo. > > > > There are so many motions on the table it is getting past confusing. > > Do we have to make a motion to be able to restore permission to use > > the real logos? I don't think I can say so on my own, since Tim already > > sent USGenNet a letter saying that they had to remove them. > > > > -- Teri > > -- > Zsedeny Genealogy - http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm > NDGenWeb Archives - > http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/nd/ndfiles.htm > Pembina County, ND - > http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm > Ramsey County, ND - > http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm