Oops... not sure why my post showed the way it did. History sleuth did not write my prior email. LOL Thanks. Denise

Oh, I know that, Sherri. Fighting is not my intention either. And I certainly understand the frustration that sometimes comes with national level jobs. However, the job of the EC members would not be nearly as frustrating, if they would leave the page-checking to the state organizations. Being charged with reconciling the SC's list with the county index table and the actual site AND checking for compliance is a guaranteed recipe for frustration. And, forcing a "correct" or "approved" logo, when there really is no such thing, certainly is not the answer. This is not a issue of site compliance. It is a question of appropriate authority and proper procedure. The EC is a *committee.* It is not part of the governing body. Because the EC members are not elected, they are not accountable to the membership. The AB certainly has the authority (and responsibility) to require the state organizations to have compliant sites. The EC does not. Voting and site compliance are separate issues. Here is just one example of how well-meaning people, using unclear rules and given an inappropriate task, can really ruin a CC's (and an SC's) day. A long-time county coordinator was still flying the same national logo he was given when he joined. Since the word "approved" appears nowhere in the bylaws, an SC has no grounds to make him change. He's a solid coordinator in every other respect. The SC says he's a card-carrying member. The EC won't let him vote. He voted in every election since the AB was formed... until this one. It just wasn't worth the fight. Perhaps, if you have uncooperative SCs, they are the ones who should not be allowed to vote. Vivian At 06:19 PM 10/10/2009, you wrote: >I don't mean to pick a fight, either, but - > >Why would a State Coordinator that KNOWS a coordinator is displaying an >incorrect/unapproved logo not take the initiative to make sure the >coordinator updates the logo to one of the approved logos so that the issue >doesn't come up in the first place? > >Article XII, Section 6 states: " It shall be the responsibility of each >state project to periodically review local-level project websites to ensure >compliance with The USGenWeb Project/XXGenWeb Project established >guidelines/standards." > >It's the State Project's responsibility, so how can you blame it on either >the AB or the EC if a coordinator whose sites don't meet the guidelines is >not eligible to vote? The SC and/or ASC and/or the individual coordinator >is contacted if there are issues with the sites meeting the established >guidelines - at least once, so it's not like it's happening in a vacuum, and >there's plenty of time to get the problems fixed before the election. There >were issues with one or more Project sites in at least half of the XXGenWeb >State Projects before this last election. The individual site coordinators >and the State Coordinators were contacted by one of three AB members >personally - at least once, often twice or more, and sometimes by more than >one of us. <g> > >Sherri > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael and Vivian >Saffold >Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 5:46 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Fw: [ABChat] Next Agenda Items > >Since we already a requirement for display of the USGW logo, what is >the purpose of the current discussion? > >I am concerned that this might be leading up to authorizing either >the Advisory Board or the Elections Committee to disqualify >coordinators who display an incorrect logo (or display a correct logo >in an unsatisfactory manner) from either voting or membership. > >Vivian Price Saffold >State Coordinator >The GAGenWeb Project > > > > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without >the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

In a message dated 10/10/2009 6:49:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: If specific logos are not mandated how can anyone be displaying the "wrong" one? Why would it not make sense that it needs to be an "approved" logo? Do people think they can just make one up and use it because they feel like it? Why would we have logos displayed on a National page for use by the coordinators if they weren't the "approved" logos? I mean, that just seems like common sense, especially if you are aligned with a large project like UGW. Denise NJ State Coordiantor

It's an excellent suggestion, Vivian. Sherri -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael and Vivian Saffold Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 6:20 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Fw: [ABChat] Next Agenda Items I don't think anyone would object to the word "approved" being added. By the way, I had one suggestion from a county coordinator: Build a simple chart with one column for required elements and another for suggested. Vivian Price Saffold State Coordinator The GAGenWeb Project At 05:53 PM 10/10/2009, you wrote: >Cheryl, > >Neither the bylaw or the CC guidelines specify that you must use one of the >APPROVED logos. Both just refer to 'logo'. I think it was understood by >most when the logos were selected by the membership that the one used on our >sites should be one of those, but there are some that do not use one of the >logos and they still expect their sites to be recognized as USGenWeb sites >and they expect to be able to vote in our elections. > >The object of this discussion was/is to clarify that one of the >member-approved logos must be used on all project sites for them to be >recognized as such. > >To give some perspective to the history of why these items were added to the >agenda, I was one of the AB members that was aiding the Election Committee >in July to try to get the status of all of the unverified voters updated to >verified so those members would be eligible to vote in the election held >this past July. There were over 45 sites that had no USGenWeb Project logo >at all and another 15 or so that weren't using one of the approved logos. >There were also about half a dozen that didn't have the coordinator's name >and/or contact info on the sites. > >Sherri Bradley >National Coordinator >USGenWeb Project >Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org >Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cheryl Rothwell >Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 5:21 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Fw: [ABChat] Next Agenda Items > >Am I to understand that at the moment there is not a requirement that we use >one of those logos? Or is it just that the requirement is often ignored? >Just a clarification question. > > > > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without >the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

We have coordinators who have been with the project since the beginning or shortly thereafter. I'm sure other projects do too. They may be using a logo from the early days. It was certainly approved then. I wasn't suggesting they made one up. Why would we have logos displayed on a National page for use by the > coordinators if they weren't the "approved" logos? > "Approved" and "required" are not the same word nor do they mean the same thing. Cheryl

Yes, I use one of the "approved" logos on my websites but: If the bylaws just state a *logo*, then CC's should have the expectation that they are going to be able to vote, if they have a *logo*.. For the EC to deny them a vote is wrong. I'm not sure when this logo thing started but it never used to be so when I was on the EC. Who told the EC that they must look for *approved logos*? jic ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sherri" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 5:53 PM Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Fw: [ABChat] Next Agenda Items > Cheryl, > > Neither the bylaw or the CC guidelines specify that you must use one of > the > APPROVED logos. Both just refer to 'logo'. I think it was understood by > most when the logos were selected by the membership that the one used on > our > sites should be one of those, but there are some that do not use one of > the > logos and they still expect their sites to be recognized as USGenWeb sites > and they expect to be able to vote in our elections. > > The object of this discussion was/is to clarify that one of the > member-approved logos must be used on all project sites for them to be > recognized as such. > > To give some perspective to the history of why these items were added to > the > agenda, I was one of the AB members that was aiding the Election Committee > in July to try to get the status of all of the unverified voters updated > to > verified so those members would be eligible to vote in the election held > this past July. There were over 45 sites that had no USGenWeb Project > logo > at all and another 15 or so that weren't using one of the approved logos. > There were also about half a dozen that didn't have the coordinator's name > and/or contact info on the sites. > > Sherri Bradley > National Coordinator > USGenWeb Project > Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org > Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cheryl Rothwell > Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 5:21 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Fw: [ABChat] Next Agenda Items > > Am I to understand that at the moment there is not a requirement that we > use > one of those logos? Or is it just that the requirement is often ignored? > Just a clarification question. > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.9/2427 - Release Date: 10/10/09 06:39:00

I don't think anyone would object to the word "approved" being added. By the way, I had one suggestion from a county coordinator: Build a simple chart with one column for required elements and another for suggested. Vivian Price Saffold State Coordinator The GAGenWeb Project At 05:53 PM 10/10/2009, you wrote: >Cheryl, > >Neither the bylaw or the CC guidelines specify that you must use one of the >APPROVED logos. Both just refer to 'logo'. I think it was understood by >most when the logos were selected by the membership that the one used on our >sites should be one of those, but there are some that do not use one of the >logos and they still expect their sites to be recognized as USGenWeb sites >and they expect to be able to vote in our elections. > >The object of this discussion was/is to clarify that one of the >member-approved logos must be used on all project sites for them to be >recognized as such. > >To give some perspective to the history of why these items were added to the >agenda, I was one of the AB members that was aiding the Election Committee >in July to try to get the status of all of the unverified voters updated to >verified so those members would be eligible to vote in the election held >this past July. There were over 45 sites that had no USGenWeb Project logo >at all and another 15 or so that weren't using one of the approved logos. >There were also about half a dozen that didn't have the coordinator's name >and/or contact info on the sites. > >Sherri Bradley >National Coordinator >USGenWeb Project >Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org >Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cheryl Rothwell >Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 5:21 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Fw: [ABChat] Next Agenda Items > >Am I to understand that at the moment there is not a requirement that we use >one of those logos? Or is it just that the requirement is often ignored? >Just a clarification question. > > > > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without >the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I don't mean to pick a fight, either, but - Why would a State Coordinator that KNOWS a coordinator is displaying an incorrect/unapproved logo not take the initiative to make sure the coordinator updates the logo to one of the approved logos so that the issue doesn't come up in the first place? Article XII, Section 6 states: " It shall be the responsibility of each state project to periodically review local-level project websites to ensure compliance with The USGenWeb Project/XXGenWeb Project established guidelines/standards." It's the State Project's responsibility, so how can you blame it on either the AB or the EC if a coordinator whose sites don't meet the guidelines is not eligible to vote? The SC and/or ASC and/or the individual coordinator is contacted if there are issues with the sites meeting the established guidelines - at least once, so it's not like it's happening in a vacuum, and there's plenty of time to get the problems fixed before the election. There were issues with one or more Project sites in at least half of the XXGenWeb State Projects before this last election. The individual site coordinators and the State Coordinators were contacted by one of three AB members personally - at least once, often twice or more, and sometimes by more than one of us. <g> Sherri -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael and Vivian Saffold Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 5:46 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Fw: [ABChat] Next Agenda Items Since we already a requirement for display of the USGW logo, what is the purpose of the current discussion? I am concerned that this might be leading up to authorizing either the Advisory Board or the Elections Committee to disqualify coordinators who display an incorrect logo (or display a correct logo in an unsatisfactory manner) from either voting or membership. Vivian Price Saffold State Coordinator The GAGenWeb Project

Following is the entire section: >Section 5. The Advisory Board shall also have the responsibility to >remove links from the national website, as appropriate, to websites >which fail to meet the established guidelines/standards for The >USGenWeb Project or to websites which display inappropriate content. >Coordinators of any websites found to be in non-compliance shall be >notified of such and shall be given a period of two (2) weeks in >which to bring their website into compliance. The two-week time >limit shall be flexible based on justifiable reasons presented by >the website coordinator. Are there any county/local Web sites linked to the national site? Would not the Advisory Board have to require the state coordinators to de-link a non-complying/inappropriate site? In such case, it would seem that the compliance issue would fall to the state organization. The flexibility issue is addressed here, but the state organization seems to be completely out of the picture. This section appears to reserve the discretion for the Advisory Board. Perhaps this section should be clearer and more realistic. Vivian Price Saffold State Coordinator The GAGenWeb Project At 04:23 PM 10/10/2009, you wrote: >Playing devil's advocate here, if we're talking about replacing a logo or >adding the coordinator's name and contact info to at least the main page of >a Project site, why would two weeks not be sufficient in most cases? >Article VI, Section 5 of the bylaws already include this statement right >after the portion that David quoted: > >"The two-week time limit shall be flexible based on justifiable reasons >presented by the website coordinator." > >That would give the leeway needed, if additional time is required, to extend >the 2-week period if a coordinator is unavailable for whatever reason. > >Sherri > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Larry Flesher >Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 2:34 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > >It's OK - I agree with you anyway <grin>. > >Two weeks is insufficient to mandate a correction - also not enough time. >(Four weeks/one month is better, in my opinion). > >Larry >SC MOGenWeb Project >SWSC SC Rep, USGenWeb Project AB > > >--- On Sat, 10/10/09, Nola Duffy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From: Nola Duffy <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Saturday, October 10, 2009, 12:41 PM > > Excuse please, I was intending to > > respond to Katherine. > > > > Nola > > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version > > of virus signature database 4495 (20091010) __________ > > > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >[email protected] > > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the > > subject and the body of the message > > > > > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without >the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael and Vivian Saffold" <[email protected]> > I am concerned that this might be leading up to authorizing either > the Advisory Board or the Elections Committee to disqualify > coordinators who display an incorrect logo (or display a correct logo > in an unsatisfactory manner) from either voting or membership. I believe that this is happening and has been in the last few elections already. The EC has the final say on whether a person is qualified to vote, not the SC. Jan

Cheryl, Neither the bylaw or the CC guidelines specify that you must use one of the APPROVED logos. Both just refer to 'logo'. I think it was understood by most when the logos were selected by the membership that the one used on our sites should be one of those, but there are some that do not use one of the logos and they still expect their sites to be recognized as USGenWeb sites and they expect to be able to vote in our elections. The object of this discussion was/is to clarify that one of the member-approved logos must be used on all project sites for them to be recognized as such. To give some perspective to the history of why these items were added to the agenda, I was one of the AB members that was aiding the Election Committee in July to try to get the status of all of the unverified voters updated to verified so those members would be eligible to vote in the election held this past July. There were over 45 sites that had no USGenWeb Project logo at all and another 15 or so that weren't using one of the approved logos. There were also about half a dozen that didn't have the coordinator's name and/or contact info on the sites. Sherri Bradley National Coordinator USGenWeb Project Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cheryl Rothwell Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 5:21 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Fw: [ABChat] Next Agenda Items Am I to understand that at the moment there is not a requirement that we use one of those logos? Or is it just that the requirement is often ignored? Just a clarification question.

If specific logos are not mandated how can anyone be displaying the "wrong" one?

Since we already a requirement for display of the USGW logo, what is the purpose of the current discussion? I am concerned that this might be leading up to authorizing either the Advisory Board or the Elections Committee to disqualify coordinators who display an incorrect logo (or display a correct logo in an unsatisfactory manner) from either voting or membership. Vivian Price Saffold State Coordinator The GAGenWeb Project At 05:20 PM 10/10/2009, you wrote: >Am I to understand that at the moment there is not a requirement that we use >one of those logos? Or is it just that the requirement is often ignored? >Just a clarification question. > >On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Tina S. Vickery <[email protected]> wrote: > > > This agenda item is now under discussion on AB-CHAT > > by the Advisory Board and is shared here with > > permission. I would be very interested in input > > from Project members as the Board addresses this item. > > > > I look forward to your input. > > > > Tina Vickery > > Representative at Large > > [email protected] > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Sherri" <[email protected]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 7:06 PM > > Subject: [ABChat] Next Agenda Items > > > > > > > The next two items on the agenda both deal with the CC Guidelines > > document > > > so I'm going to put them together for discussion as I was the one > > > responsible for adding them to the agenda. > > > > > > Item #1 - Discussion of the requirement that the USGenWeb logo on Project > > > sites be one of the approved logos posted at > > > http://usgenweb.org/volunteers/logos.shtml. > > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without >the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Sherry - I have read every ones comments - and seems like we have this same conversation every time there is a new NC. So, here are my thoughts - It would be interesting to know how many CC's do have logos as opposed to how many do not and what percent is in the same state/region, before expending all this time and energy to resolve an issue which might be a regionally specific problem, and could be solved by educating that group of individuals. What works for one state / region may not work for another. Specific time restraints - If we were working for a company, 2 weeks sounds very reasonable, but, with all volunteers, there are many valid reasons in which the SC should be allowed to exercise their judgment - I personally don't believe the time restraint should be national's concern - instead, focus on what the SC's options are after they have exhausted every means available to them and still can not get the individual to respond. Townships. local projects, etc - This really needs to be clarified in the by-laws - as some states have the TCs / LCCs as part of the state page, in other states, they have links on their MAIN page to the TC's/ LCC's stand-a-lone pages -and some states link them at the county level. It is logical that the logo be on the main page for TCs/LCCs, as it is for CCs. (Personally, for the researcher - it is wonderful if the logos are on each page - to clearly identify it as the USGenWeb Project or StateGenWeb or CountyGenWeb) As for having the correct Logo, there would be a lot LESS confusion, if there was only ONE logo - However, it is also unreasonable to be expected to redo all your pages, every time someone decides to "change" the logo - Design one that will work with all color schemes and keep it - Branding is a good thing - it easily identifies the organization - Personally, I would be delighted if it could be as easy as having a nicely designed black/white graphic with just the words USGenWeb Project - (so those CC's which want to put it at the top of all their pages, can do so) -. If you check throughout the different states, many of them have designed wonderful banners which work for their states - all national should be doing is providing the national graphics for the SCs to incorporate into their state and CC's pages. How they incorporate it, should be the SC/state's decision. Guess what I am saying is, rather than change the by-laws, Let the SCs and CCs handle it -the vast majority are doing a pretty great job!!! Micro-management does not work - for competent people, it is frustrating at best, as they will follow the rules to the best of their ability, regardless, and communicate problems/solutions to the State Admin list or SC/ASC. No matter what the "rule", there will always be the 1% who will be problematic. Just my thoughts - R/S MAK "If you try to please all the people, all the time, you will end up pleasing none of the people all of the time." ..... MAKtranscriber WIGenWeb ASC http://wigenweb.org/ WoodCoWI CC http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwood PortageCoWI CC http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiportag MonroeCoWI CC http://www.rootsweb.com/~wimonroe ----- Original Message ---- From: Sherri <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sat, October 10, 2009 8:12:27 AM Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Fw: [ABChat] Next Agenda Items

I wholeheartedly agree with Cheryl's assessment. It is the responsibility of the SC to make sure CCs are abiding by the rules. It also should be the prerogative of the SC to grant deadline extensions as individual situations warrant. Vivian Price Saffold State Coordinator The GAGenWeb Project At 05:08 PM 10/10/2009, you wrote: >A workable option might be to give the SCs almost unlimited >discretion in this. They know their CCs and generally know if they are >getting a run around or there are valid reasons.

Thanks. That clarifies it for me. On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Sherri <[email protected]> wrote: > Cheryl, > > Neither the bylaw or the CC guidelines specify that you must use one of the > APPROVED logos. Both just refer to 'logo'. I think it was understood by > most when the logos were selected by the membership that the one used on > our > sites should be one of those, but there are some that do not use one of the > logos and they still expect their sites to be recognized as USGenWeb sites > and they expect to be able to vote in our elections. > > The object of this discussion was/is to clarify that one of the > member-approved logos must be used on all project sites for them to be > recognized as such. > > To give some perspective to the history of why these items were added to > the > agenda, I was one of the AB members that was aiding the Election Committee > in July to try to get the status of all of the unverified voters updated to > verified so those members would be eligible to vote in the election held > this past July. There were over 45 sites that had no USGenWeb Project logo > at all and another 15 or so that weren't using one of the approved logos. > There were also about half a dozen that didn't have the coordinator's name > and/or contact info on the sites. > > Sherri Bradley > National Coordinator > USGenWeb Project > Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org > Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cheryl Rothwell > Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 5:21 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Fw: [ABChat] Next Agenda Items > > Am I to understand that at the moment there is not a requirement that we > use > one of those logos? Or is it just that the requirement is often ignored? > Just a clarification question. > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

To repeat myself, some pretty stupid things have happened in the past in the name of enforcing rules. On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Michael and Vivian Saffold < [email protected]> wrote: > Since we already a requirement for display of the USGW logo, what is > the purpose of the current discussion? > > I am concerned that this might be leading up to authorizing either > the Advisory Board or the Elections Committee to disqualify > coordinators who display an incorrect logo (or display a correct logo > in an unsatisfactory manner) from either voting or membership. > > Vivian Price Saffold > State Coordinator > The GAGenWeb Project > > > At 05:20 PM 10/10/2009, you wrote: > >Am I to understand that at the moment there is not a requirement that we > use > >one of those logos? Or is it just that the requirement is often ignored? > >Just a clarification question. > > > >On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Tina S. Vickery <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > This agenda item is now under discussion on AB-CHAT > > > by the Advisory Board and is shared here with > > > permission. I would be very interested in input > > > from Project members as the Board addresses this item. > > > > > > I look forward to your input. > > > > > > Tina Vickery > > > Representative at Large > > > [email protected] > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Sherri" <[email protected]> > > > To: <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 7:06 PM > > > Subject: [ABChat] Next Agenda Items > > > > > > > > > > The next two items on the agenda both deal with the CC Guidelines > > > document > > > > so I'm going to put them together for discussion as I was the one > > > > responsible for adding them to the agenda. > > > > > > > > Item #1 - Discussion of the requirement that the USGenWeb logo on > Project > > > > sites be one of the approved logos posted at > > > > http://usgenweb.org/volunteers/logos.shtml. > > > > > > >------------------------------- > >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > >[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > >the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Exactly (In my opinion.) Therefore the two weeks is not the problem here.. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Harold Kilmer, NMGenWeb SC ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sherri" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 4:19 PM Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Fw: [ABChat] Next Agenda Items >I don't mean to pick a fight, either, but - > > Why would a State Coordinator that KNOWS a coordinator is displaying an > incorrect/unapproved logo not take the initiative to make sure the > coordinator updates the logo to one of the approved logos so that the > issue > doesn't come up in the first place? > > Article XII, Section 6 states: " It shall be the responsibility of each > state project to periodically review local-level project websites to > ensure > compliance with The USGenWeb Project/XXGenWeb Project established > guidelines/standards." > > It's the State Project's responsibility, so how can you blame it on either > the AB or the EC if a coordinator whose sites don't meet the guidelines is > not eligible to vote? The SC and/or ASC and/or the individual coordinator > is contacted if there are issues with the sites meeting the established > guidelines - at least once, so it's not like it's happening in a vacuum, > and > there's plenty of time to get the problems fixed before the election. > There > were issues with one or more Project sites in at least half of the > XXGenWeb > State Projects before this last election. The individual site > coordinators > and the State Coordinators were contacted by one of three AB members > personally - at least once, often twice or more, and sometimes by more > than > one of us. <g> > > Sherri > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael and Vivian > Saffold > Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 5:46 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Fw: [ABChat] Next Agenda Items > > Since we already a requirement for display of the USGW logo, what is > the purpose of the current discussion? > > I am concerned that this might be leading up to authorizing either > the Advisory Board or the Elections Committee to disqualify > coordinators who display an incorrect logo (or display a correct logo > in an unsatisfactory manner) from either voting or membership. > > Vivian Price Saffold > State Coordinator > The GAGenWeb Project > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Playing devil's advocate here, if we're talking about replacing a logo or adding the coordinator's name and contact info to at least the main page of a Project site, why would two weeks not be sufficient in most cases? Article VI, Section 5 of the bylaws already include this statement right after the portion that David quoted: "The two-week time limit shall be flexible based on justifiable reasons presented by the website coordinator." That would give the leeway needed, if additional time is required, to extend the 2-week period if a coordinator is unavailable for whatever reason. Sherri -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Larry Flesher Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 2:34 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist It's OK - I agree with you anyway <grin>. Two weeks is insufficient to mandate a correction - also not enough time. (Four weeks/one month is better, in my opinion). Larry SC MOGenWeb Project SWSC SC Rep, USGenWeb Project AB --- On Sat, 10/10/09, Nola Duffy <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Nola Duffy <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > To: [email protected] > Date: Saturday, October 10, 2009, 12:41 PM > Excuse please, I was intending to > respond to Katherine. > > Nola > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version > of virus signature database 4495 (20091010) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the > subject and the body of the message > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Am I to understand that at the moment there is not a requirement that we use one of those logos? Or is it just that the requirement is often ignored? Just a clarification question. On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Tina S. Vickery <[email protected]> wrote: > This agenda item is now under discussion on AB-CHAT > by the Advisory Board and is shared here with > permission. I would be very interested in input > from Project members as the Board addresses this item. > > I look forward to your input. > > Tina Vickery > Representative at Large > [email protected] > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sherri" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 7:06 PM > Subject: [ABChat] Next Agenda Items > > > > The next two items on the agenda both deal with the CC Guidelines > document > > so I'm going to put them together for discussion as I was the one > > responsible for adding them to the agenda. > > > > Item #1 - Discussion of the requirement that the USGenWeb logo on Project > > sites be one of the approved logos posted at > > http://usgenweb.org/volunteers/logos.shtml. >