I also understand what you're saying, Jan. My fear (and it's held by many) is that if we try to include the definition of "prominent" in the proposed amendment, it will never pass and we'll be stuck right where we are again, and with folks that are arguing that we can't require the USGenWeb National logo to be linked ONLY to the USGenWeb site, not to some site(s) that do nothing more than try to damage the Project and/or its image. If you want to write a proposal and can get MIGenWeb CCs to agree to be the "owner" of the proposal, by all means, go for it. Submit it to your Reps to be published on the notices page and have it put out for other states to co-sponsor it. Get the 4 other states to agree to co-sponsor and we can have them both on the ballot in July (assuming that this first proposed amendment gets the 4 other states to agree to co-sponsor it.) In my eyes, it's like building blocks. We can take the pieces and make them work together over time or we can plan the castle and never get it built because no single source can supply the required materials. Do we take what we can get from one and find the remainder of the materials somewhere else, or keep looking forever for a single source for the materials, and when/if we ever find that source, deal with the fact that the materials' price has doubled and the budget won't stretch far enough to build it? Sherri -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jan Cortez Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 4:39 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Proposed Bylaws Amendment Sherri, I understand what you are saying here, but, don't you think that one of the biggest problems we have within this project is bylaws that are not clear and concise? They can be interpreted several different ways. In this instance - why do we need the second sentence: "A state project logo may be required depending on the guidelines/standards in effect for that state. If linked, a state project logo may only be linked to the appropriate state site." I believe that National is stepping on states rights, by including this sentence. I also believe that where the National Logo is linked is not the only problem faced here. How about a definition of "Prominent". That has surfaced over and over again as to its meaning. The way I look at it is, if we are going to amend, why not fix the whole problem and be all inclusive. Remove the second sentence on state logos and define prominent, otherwise all we are doing is putting a small bandage on a very large sore. Just my three and a half cents worth. Jan Cortez MIGenWeb ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sherri" <[email protected]> >I know there's been a lot of discussion about the state logo in this > proposal. I think too much is being read into it. > > The statement is "If linked, a state project logo may only be linked to > the > appropriate state site." That says that the KYGenWeb state logo shouldn't > be linked to the ALGenWeb state site. Make sense to me - why would a KY > CC > be using the KYGenWeb logo to link to anything other than the KYGenWeb > state > site? > > If a state has bylaws, rules or requirements in place that say that the > state logo should be linked to the county selection page (or any other > page) > on the respective state site, that's what the CC is responsible for > complying with. > > Sherri > _____________________________________________ > From: Sherri [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 7:43 PM > To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; > '[email protected]' > Subject: Proposed Bylaws Amendment > > > As per Article XVI. B of the USGenWeb Project bylaws, the WVGenWeb > Project, > with the support of the majority of the WVGenWeb CCs, sponsors the > following > amendment to the USGenWeb Bylaws: > > Currently ARTICLE IX. A. reads: > > IX. GUIDELINES/STANDARDS FOR WEBSITES/MEMBERS > > A. All websites shall include prominent display of The USGenWeb Project > logo > on the home page. A state project logo may be required depending on the > guidelines/standards in effect for that state. > > The corrected proposed change to read: > > IX. GUIDELINES/STANDARDS FOR WEBSITES/MEMBERS > > A. All websites shall include prominent display of The USGenWeb Project > logo > on the home page. If linked, this logo may only be linked to the USGenWeb > National site. A state project logo may be required depending on the > guidelines/standards in effect for that state. If linked, a state project > logo may only be linked to the appropriate state site. > > Please post this in the proper locations so that other states will have a > chance to cosponsor this bylaws change. > > Les Shockey > SC WVGenWeb > > Article XVI. B. states that for a bylaws amendment to be placed on the > ballot during the annual election there must be 5 co-sponsors (of which WV > counts as one) of the proposed change. > > You will find the proposed amendment at > http://usgenweb.org/volunteers/notice.shtml Any state that wants to join > WVGenWeb in co-sponsoring this amendment, please notify your regional AB > representatives, Tina Vickery as RAL or myself as NC and we'll get your > state listed as co-sponsor. > > > Sherri Bradley > National Coordinator > USGenWeb Project > Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org > Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.142/2623 - Release Date: 01/15/10 07:35:00 ------------------------------- 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

How about removing second sentence re state logo and instead of prominent, put in the sentence.  It will be located at the top of the home/main page . It can be left , right or in the center. Sharon A. Craig Hamilton Co. InGenWeb Coordinator Assistant In GenWeb State Coordinator   --- On Fri, 1/15/10, Sherri <[email protected]> wrote: From: Sherri <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Proposed Bylaws Amendment To: [email protected] Date: Friday, January 15, 2010, 5:43 PM I also understand what you're saying, Jan.  My fear (and it's held by many) is that if we try to include the definition of "prominent" in the proposed amendment, it will never pass and we'll be stuck right where we are again, and with folks that are arguing that we can't require the USGenWeb National logo to be linked ONLY to the USGenWeb site, not to some site(s) that do nothing more than try to damage the Project and/or its image. If you want to write a proposal and can get MIGenWeb CCs to agree to be the "owner" of the proposal, by all means, go for it.  Submit it to your Reps to be published on the notices page and have it put out for other states to co-sponsor it.  Get the 4 other states to agree to co-sponsor and we can have them both on the ballot in July (assuming that this first proposed amendment gets the 4 other states to agree to co-sponsor it.) In my eyes, it's like building blocks.  We can take the pieces and make them work together over time or we can plan the castle and never get it built because no single source can supply the required materials.  Do we take what we can get from one and find the remainder of the materials somewhere else, or keep looking forever for a single source for the materials, and when/if we ever find that source, deal with the fact that the materials' price has doubled and the budget won't stretch far enough to build it? Sherri -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jan Cortez Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 4:39 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Proposed Bylaws Amendment Sherri, I understand what you are saying here, but, don't you think that one of the biggest problems we have within this project is bylaws that are not clear and concise?  They can be interpreted several different ways. In this instance - why do we need the second sentence: "A state project logo may be required depending on the guidelines/standards in effect for that state.  If linked, a state project  logo may only be linked to the appropriate state site." I believe that National is stepping on states rights, by including this sentence. I also believe that where the National Logo is linked is not the only problem faced here.  How about a definition of "Prominent".  That has surfaced over and over again as to its meaning. The way I look at it is, if we are going to amend, why not fix the whole problem and be all inclusive.    Remove the second sentence on state logos and define prominent, otherwise all we are doing is putting a small bandage on a very large sore. Just my three and a half cents worth. Jan Cortez MIGenWeb ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sherri" <[email protected]> >I know there's been a lot of discussion about the state logo in this > proposal.  I think too much is being read into it. > > The statement is "If linked, a state project logo may only be linked to > the > appropriate state site."  That says that the KYGenWeb state logo shouldn't > be linked to the ALGenWeb state site.  Make sense to me - why would a KY > CC > be using the KYGenWeb logo to link to anything other than the KYGenWeb > state > site? > > If a state has bylaws, rules or requirements in place that say that the > state logo should be linked to the county selection page (or any other > page) > on the respective state site, that's what the CC is responsible for > complying with. > > Sherri > _____________________________________________ > From: Sherri [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 7:43 PM > To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; > '[email protected]' > Subject: Proposed Bylaws Amendment > > > As per Article XVI. B of the USGenWeb Project bylaws, the WVGenWeb > Project, > with the support of the majority of the WVGenWeb CCs, sponsors the > following > amendment to the USGenWeb Bylaws: > > Currently ARTICLE IX. A. reads: > > IX.  GUIDELINES/STANDARDS FOR WEBSITES/MEMBERS > > A. All websites shall include prominent display of The USGenWeb Project > logo > on the home page. A state project logo may be required depending on the > guidelines/standards in effect for that state. > > The corrected proposed change to read: > > IX.  GUIDELINES/STANDARDS FOR WEBSITES/MEMBERS > > A. All websites shall include prominent display of The USGenWeb Project > logo > on the home page.  If linked, this logo may only be linked to the USGenWeb > National site.  A state project logo may be required depending on the > guidelines/standards in effect for that state.  If linked, a state project > logo may only be linked to the appropriate state site. > > Please post this in the proper locations so that other states will have a > chance to cosponsor this bylaws change. > > Les Shockey > SC WVGenWeb > > Article XVI. B. states that for a bylaws amendment to be placed on the > ballot during the annual election there must be 5 co-sponsors (of which WV > counts as one) of the proposed change. > > You will find the proposed amendment at > http://usgenweb.org/volunteers/notice.shtml Any state that wants to join > WVGenWeb in co-sponsoring this amendment, please notify your regional AB > representatives,  Tina Vickery as RAL or myself as NC and we'll get your > state listed as co-sponsor. > > > Sherri Bradley > National Coordinator > USGenWeb Project > Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org > Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.142/2623 - Release Date: 01/15/10 07:35:00 ------------------------------- 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

This would most likely guarantee that the motion would not pass. There are too many who do not want to ruin the beauty of their creation by having the USGenWeb logo visible when the page opens. This is sad but true. Les Sharon Craig wrote: > How about removing second sentence re state logo and instead of prominent, put in the sentence. It will be located at the top of the home/main page . It can be left , right or in the center. > > > Sharon A. Craig > Hamilton Co. InGenWeb Coordinator > Assistant In GenWeb State Coordinator > > > --- On Fri, 1/15/10, Sherri <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From: Sherri <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Proposed Bylaws Amendment > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, January 15, 2010, 5:43 PM > > > I also understand what you're saying, Jan. My fear (and it's held by many) > is that if we try to include the definition of "prominent" in the proposed > amendment, it will never pass and we'll be stuck right where we are again, > and with folks that are arguing that we can't require the USGenWeb National > logo to be linked ONLY to the USGenWeb site, not to some site(s) that do > nothing more than try to damage the Project and/or its image. > > If you want to write a proposal and can get MIGenWeb CCs to agree to be the > "owner" of the proposal, by all means, go for it. Submit it to your Reps to > be published on the notices page and have it put out for other states to > co-sponsor it. Get the 4 other states to agree to co-sponsor and we can > have them both on the ballot in July (assuming that this first proposed > amendment gets the 4 other states to agree to co-sponsor it.) > > In my eyes, it's like building blocks. We can take the pieces and make them > work together over time or we can plan the castle and never get it built > because no single source can supply the required materials. Do we take what > we can get from one and find the remainder of the materials somewhere else, > or keep looking forever for a single source for the materials, and when/if > we ever find that source, deal with the fact that the materials' price has > doubled and the budget won't stretch far enough to build it? > > Sherri > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jan Cortez > Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 4:39 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Proposed Bylaws Amendment > > Sherri, > > I understand what you are saying here, but, don't you think that one of the > biggest problems we have within this project is bylaws that are not clear > and concise? They can be interpreted several different ways. > > In this instance - why do we need the second sentence: > > "A state project logo may be required depending on the guidelines/standards > in effect for that state. If linked, a state project logo may only be > linked to the appropriate state site." > > I believe that National is stepping on states rights, by including this > sentence. > > I also believe that where the National Logo is linked is not the only > problem faced here. How about a definition of "Prominent". That has > surfaced over and over again as to its meaning. > > The way I look at it is, if we are going to amend, why not fix the whole > problem and be all inclusive. Remove the second sentence on state logos > and define prominent, otherwise all we are doing is putting a small bandage > on a very large sore. > > Just my three and a half cents worth. > > Jan Cortez > MIGenWeb > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sherri" <[email protected]> > > >> I know there's been a lot of discussion about the state logo in this >> proposal. I think too much is being read into it. >> >> The statement is "If linked, a state project logo may only be linked to >> the >> appropriate state site." That says that the KYGenWeb state logo shouldn't >> be linked to the ALGenWeb state site. Make sense to me - why would a KY >> CC >> be using the KYGenWeb logo to link to anything other than the KYGenWeb >> state >> site? >> >> If a state has bylaws, rules or requirements in place that say that the >> state logo should be linked to the county selection page (or any other >> page) >> on the respective state site, that's what the CC is responsible for >> complying with. >> >> Sherri >> _____________________________________________ >> From: Sherri [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 7:43 PM >> To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; >> '[email protected]' >> Subject: Proposed Bylaws Amendment >> >> >> As per Article XVI. B of the USGenWeb Project bylaws, the WVGenWeb >> Project, >> with the support of the majority of the WVGenWeb CCs, sponsors the >> following >> amendment to the USGenWeb Bylaws: >> >> Currently ARTICLE IX. A. reads: >> >> IX. GUIDELINES/STANDARDS FOR WEBSITES/MEMBERS >> >> A. All websites shall include prominent display of The USGenWeb Project >> logo >> on the home page. A state project logo may be required depending on the >> guidelines/standards in effect for that state. >> >> The corrected proposed change to read: >> >> IX. GUIDELINES/STANDARDS FOR WEBSITES/MEMBERS >> >> A. All websites shall include prominent display of The USGenWeb Project >> logo >> on the home page. If linked, this logo may only be linked to the USGenWeb >> National site. A state project logo may be required depending on the >> guidelines/standards in effect for that state. If linked, a state project >> logo may only be linked to the appropriate state site. >> >> Please post this in the proper locations so that other states will have a >> chance to cosponsor this bylaws change. >> >> Les Shockey >> SC WVGenWeb >> >> Article XVI. B. states that for a bylaws amendment to be placed on the >> ballot during the annual election there must be 5 co-sponsors (of which WV >> counts as one) of the proposed change. >> >> You will find the proposed amendment at >> http://usgenweb.org/volunteers/notice.shtml Any state that wants to join >> WVGenWeb in co-sponsoring this amendment, please notify your regional AB >> representatives, Tina Vickery as RAL or myself as NC and we'll get your >> state listed as co-sponsor. >> >> >> Sherri Bradley >> National Coordinator >> USGenWeb Project >> Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org >> Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.142/2623 - Release Date: 01/15/10 > 07:35:00 > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Sharon, Any change to the proposed amendment will require starting all over with finding a state to sponsor it, finding 4 other states to co-sponsor, etc. If you think, get with others, write a proposal, find states to sponsor and co-sponsor, and go through the process. Personally, I doubt that even your suggestion below about making the requirement that the logo be at the top of the page will pass, either. But that's just me. Sherri -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sharon Craig Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 6:15 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Proposed Bylaws Amendment How about removing second sentence re state logo and instead of prominent, put in the sentence.  It will be located at the top of the home/main page . It can be left , right or in the center. Sharon A. Craig Hamilton Co. InGenWeb Coordinator Assistant In GenWeb State Coordinator   --- On Fri, 1/15/10, Sherri <[email protected]> wrote: From: Sherri <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Proposed Bylaws Amendment To: [email protected] Date: Friday, January 15, 2010, 5:43 PM I also understand what you're saying, Jan.  My fear (and it's held by many) is that if we try to include the definition of "prominent" in the proposed amendment, it will never pass and we'll be stuck right where we are again, and with folks that are arguing that we can't require the USGenWeb National logo to be linked ONLY to the USGenWeb site, not to some site(s) that do nothing more than try to damage the Project and/or its image. If you want to write a proposal and can get MIGenWeb CCs to agree to be the "owner" of the proposal, by all means, go for it.  Submit it to your Reps to be published on the notices page and have it put out for other states to co-sponsor it.  Get the 4 other states to agree to co-sponsor and we can have them both on the ballot in July (assuming that this first proposed amendment gets the 4 other states to agree to co-sponsor it.) In my eyes, it's like building blocks.  We can take the pieces and make them work together over time or we can plan the castle and never get it built because no single source can supply the required materials.  Do we take what we can get from one and find the remainder of the materials somewhere else, or keep looking forever for a single source for the materials, and when/if we ever find that source, deal with the fact that the materials' price has doubled and the budget won't stretch far enough to build it? Sherri -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jan Cortez Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 4:39 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Proposed Bylaws Amendment Sherri, I understand what you are saying here, but, don't you think that one of the biggest problems we have within this project is bylaws that are not clear and concise?  They can be interpreted several different ways. In this instance - why do we need the second sentence: "A state project logo may be required depending on the guidelines/standards in effect for that state.  If linked, a state project  logo may only be linked to the appropriate state site." I believe that National is stepping on states rights, by including this sentence. I also believe that where the National Logo is linked is not the only problem faced here.  How about a definition of "Prominent".  That has surfaced over and over again as to its meaning. The way I look at it is, if we are going to amend, why not fix the whole problem and be all inclusive.    Remove the second sentence on state logos and define prominent, otherwise all we are doing is putting a small bandage on a very large sore. Just my three and a half cents worth. Jan Cortez MIGenWeb ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sherri" <[email protected]> >I know there's been a lot of discussion about the state logo in this > proposal.  I think too much is being read into it. > > The statement is "If linked, a state project logo may only be linked to > the > appropriate state site."  That says that the KYGenWeb state logo shouldn't > be linked to the ALGenWeb state site.  Make sense to me - why would a KY > CC > be using the KYGenWeb logo to link to anything other than the KYGenWeb > state > site? > > If a state has bylaws, rules or requirements in place that say that the > state logo should be linked to the county selection page (or any other > page) > on the respective state site, that's what the CC is responsible for > complying with. > > Sherri > _____________________________________________ > From: Sherri [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 7:43 PM > To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; > '[email protected]' > Subject: Proposed Bylaws Amendment > > > As per Article XVI. B of the USGenWeb Project bylaws, the WVGenWeb > Project, > with the support of the majority of the WVGenWeb CCs, sponsors the > following > amendment to the USGenWeb Bylaws: > > Currently ARTICLE IX. A. reads: > > IX.  GUIDELINES/STANDARDS FOR WEBSITES/MEMBERS > > A. All websites shall include prominent display of The USGenWeb Project > logo > on the home page. A state project logo may be required depending on the > guidelines/standards in effect for that state. > > The corrected proposed change to read: > > IX.  GUIDELINES/STANDARDS FOR WEBSITES/MEMBERS > > A. All websites shall include prominent display of The USGenWeb Project > logo > on the home page.  If linked, this logo may only be linked to the USGenWeb > National site.  A state project logo may be required depending on the > guidelines/standards in effect for that state.  If linked, a state project > logo may only be linked to the appropriate state site. > > Please post this in the proper locations so that other states will have a > chance to cosponsor this bylaws change. > > Les Shockey > SC WVGenWeb > > Article XVI. B. states that for a bylaws amendment to be placed on the > ballot during the annual election there must be 5 co-sponsors (of which WV > counts as one) of the proposed change. > > You will find the proposed amendment at > http://usgenweb.org/volunteers/notice.shtml Any state that wants to join > WVGenWeb in co-sponsoring this amendment, please notify your regional AB > representatives,  Tina Vickery as RAL or myself as NC and we'll get your > state listed as co-sponsor. > > > Sherri Bradley > National Coordinator > USGenWeb Project > Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org > Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.142/2623 - Release Date: 01/15/10 07:35:00 ------------------------------- 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

You may be right Sherri, but, we won't know until we try. Actually we have already had one MI CC bring up a proposal. I don't know where it will go, but, we are going to discuss it. I suppose I should know the answer to this question, but, I don't. I am assuming that the name USGenWeb is trade marked? How about our logos? Are they trade marked, or whatever one would do with a logo? It seems to me that if they were and some one other a project member was using one of our logos and linking it where it shouldn't be linked, that we could simply send out a cease and desist letter. If they don't stop using it, then, since it is our trade mark, couldn't we go to their ISP and demand that it be removed? Same goes for a member, if they are using it for other than the intended purpose, couldn't they be delinked from the project and the same would then fall true for the above cease and desist. I do think that the proposed amendment , should it get the sponsorship, will fail because of the second sentence that I mentioned in my other email. Don't get me wrong, I think that it is only logical that the USGW logo be linked to the National USGW page and the State logo be linked to the State page. I guess I have a problem with National telling the states where they have to link. I think that is a State issue and has no business in the National bylaws. Not trying to be argumentative here, just stating my opinion. Jan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sherri" <[email protected]> >I also understand what you're saying, Jan. My fear (and it's held by many) > is that if we try to include the definition of "prominent" in the proposed > amendment, it will never pass and we'll be stuck right where we are again, > and with folks that are arguing that we can't require the USGenWeb > National > logo to be linked ONLY to the USGenWeb site, not to some site(s) that do > nothing more than try to damage the Project and/or its image. > > If you want to write a proposal and can get MIGenWeb CCs to agree to be > the > "owner" of the proposal, by all means, go for it. Submit it to your Reps > to > be published on the notices page and have it put out for other states to > co-sponsor it. Get the 4 other states to agree to co-sponsor and we can > have them both on the ballot in July (assuming that this first proposed > amendment gets the 4 other states to agree to co-sponsor it.) > > In my eyes, it's like building blocks. We can take the pieces and make > them > work together over time or we can plan the castle and never get it built > because no single source can supply the required materials. Do we take > what > we can get from one and find the remainder of the materials somewhere > else, > or keep looking forever for a single source for the materials, and when/if > we ever find that source, deal with the fact that the materials' price has > doubled and the budget won't stretch far enough to build it? > > Sherri > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jan Cortez > Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 4:39 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Proposed Bylaws Amendment > > Sherri, > > I understand what you are saying here, but, don't you think that one of > the > biggest problems we have within this project is bylaws that are not clear > and concise? They can be interpreted several different ways. > > In this instance - why do we need the second sentence: > > "A state project logo may be required depending on the > guidelines/standards > in effect for that state. If linked, a state project logo may only be > linked to the appropriate state site." > > I believe that National is stepping on states rights, by including this > sentence. > > I also believe that where the National Logo is linked is not the only > problem faced here. How about a definition of "Prominent". That has > surfaced over and over again as to its meaning. > > The way I look at it is, if we are going to amend, why not fix the whole > problem and be all inclusive. Remove the second sentence on state logos > and define prominent, otherwise all we are doing is putting a small > bandage > on a very large sore. > > Just my three and a half cents worth. > > Jan Cortez > MIGenWeb > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sherri" <[email protected]> > > >>I know there's been a lot of discussion about the state logo in this >> proposal. I think too much is being read into it. >> >> The statement is "If linked, a state project logo may only be linked to >> the >> appropriate state site." That says that the KYGenWeb state logo >> shouldn't >> be linked to the ALGenWeb state site. Make sense to me - why would a KY >> CC >> be using the KYGenWeb logo to link to anything other than the KYGenWeb >> state >> site? >> >> If a state has bylaws, rules or requirements in place that say that the >> state logo should be linked to the county selection page (or any other >> page) >> on the respective state site, that's what the CC is responsible for >> complying with. >> >> Sherri >> _____________________________________________ >> From: Sherri [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 7:43 PM >> To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; >> '[email protected]' >> Subject: Proposed Bylaws Amendment >> >> >> As per Article XVI. B of the USGenWeb Project bylaws, the WVGenWeb >> Project, >> with the support of the majority of the WVGenWeb CCs, sponsors the >> following >> amendment to the USGenWeb Bylaws: >> >> Currently ARTICLE IX. A. reads: >> >> IX. GUIDELINES/STANDARDS FOR WEBSITES/MEMBERS >> >> A. All websites shall include prominent display of The USGenWeb Project >> logo >> on the home page. A state project logo may be required depending on the >> guidelines/standards in effect for that state. >> >> The corrected proposed change to read: >> >> IX. GUIDELINES/STANDARDS FOR WEBSITES/MEMBERS >> >> A. All websites shall include prominent display of The USGenWeb Project >> logo >> on the home page. If linked, this logo may only be linked to the >> USGenWeb >> National site. A state project logo may be required depending on the >> guidelines/standards in effect for that state. If linked, a state >> project >> logo may only be linked to the appropriate state site. >> >> Please post this in the proper locations so that other states will have a >> chance to cosponsor this bylaws change. >> >> Les Shockey >> SC WVGenWeb >> >> Article XVI. B. states that for a bylaws amendment to be placed on the >> ballot during the annual election there must be 5 co-sponsors (of which >> WV >> counts as one) of the proposed change. >> >> You will find the proposed amendment at >> http://usgenweb.org/volunteers/notice.shtml Any state that wants to join >> WVGenWeb in co-sponsoring this amendment, please notify your regional AB >> representatives, Tina Vickery as RAL or myself as NC and we'll get your >> state listed as co-sponsor. >> >> >> Sherri Bradley >> National Coordinator >> USGenWeb Project >> Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org >> Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.142/2623 - Release Date: > 01/15/10 > 07:35:00 > > > ------------------------------- > 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.142/2623 - Release Date: 01/15/10 07:35:00