In the EC Procedures, this is what I find and I cannot for the life of me find anything that says a current and approved logo or what is considered a USGenWeb Project logo. What am I missing here?: C. Eligibility of voters All members of the Project (as defined in USGenWeb By-Laws ARTICLE IV. MEMBERSHIP) shall be eligible to register to vote and to vote in any election or poll in which they are a qualified voter. ******And this is Article IV. Membership:****** ARTICLE IV. MEMBERSHIP Section 1. The only requirement for membership in The USGenWeb Project is a desire to assist in gathering and disseminating genealogical and historical information for free online access by researchers. Section 2. The USGenWeb Project is an equal opportunity organization and will not tolerate discrimination in any form because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, marital status, disability, sexual orientation, etc. ******Where in this Article does it say that a site must have an approved logo?***** *****In this section it does say a project logo is required:******* ARTICLE IX. GUIDELINES/STANDARDS FOR WEBSITES/MEMBERS Section 1. 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. ******It doesn't say current or approved, just a USGenWeb Project logo. ******* *****I still fail to see where the EC has the right to say a person cannot vote because of a logo.****** *****I'm not trying to start an argument here, but, what we have is not clear and I fail to see how a CC can be denied the right to vote based on what we have in place. An email from Vivian Saffold indicates one member who was not allowed to vote in the last election when this is what has been in place. How many others were there? No wonder people aren't interested in voting.******** No, I am not picking on the EC, as all they are doing is what the Reps from the AB to the EC are telling them to do. I realize they have a difficult job, but, by the same token the AB is making it even more difficult. Blame is put on the EC when it should be on the AB for not ensuring that properly established procedure, supported by the bylaws are in place. I, like Denise, agree that this should all be common sense and we probably should know what logos are and are not approved. I certainly do. How many CC's though are only interested in doing their websites and not interested in the politics of this project and figure the logo they had in 1996 is a project logo? How many times in this project have things gone from bad to worse on something because of picking nits? Well, they wouldn't be if we were clear and concise. I also agree with Sharon Craig, I believe it was, that said something to the effect that logos were not our problem here, but rather dead links. So amend the bylaws through proper channels to state a current and approved USGenWeb project logo and then let's set about the task of working with members, showing our appreciation for what they do and encourage better checking of dead links and shell sites. Most of that should be done by the SC of each State. If an SC is not doing their job, then it is incumbent upon the members of that State organization to do something about it. And while MAK and I have never much agreed on many things, I do like most of her thoughts on a lot of what has been going on. We are sweating the small stuff and forgetting the real reason while we are all here. The Patrons of our websites. Let's think about that for a change and how to encourage them to continue to come back. Jan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sherri" <[email protected]> > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BOARD/2009-01/1232156087