We have had some feedback that USGenWeb is overstepping its bounds, messing in things that should be left to the state projects. I think that will translate to a "no" vote. It seems logical to me that the USGenWeb logo should only link to the main USGenWeb page and the state logo should only link to the main state page. Who thinks otherwise? Cheryl Rothwell ASC, ILGenWeb On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Sharon Craig <[email protected]>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 >

Cheryl, are you reading the proposed bylaw change to say something other than this? Les Cheryl Rothwell wrote: > It seems logical to me that the USGenWeb logo should only link to the main > USGenWeb page and the state logo should only link to the main state page. > Who thinks otherwise? > > Cheryl Rothwell > ASC, ILGenWeb