Two weeks would be more than sufficient in many cases IF all they are doing is adding their name to a page AND they were home, not sick, on vacation, out of the country, doing hospice duty, etc. However, are you going to write a rule that says "two weeks except ..." and then write three pages of exceptions? I know at least one SC who is away from home in another state with iffy dial up service once or twice a year for an extended period. After Ivan I had no service for 7 weeks. There are so many exceptions and life is too short to list them. I also understand that giving a long deadline only encourages procrastination. 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. Cheryl On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Sherri <[email protected]> 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 >