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.

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 >

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

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