We've wandered far from the original objective in this discussion. Ideas have been mentioned about what specific individuals would like to see included as requirements, which, good or bad, the agenda items don't cover. Search engines, placement of logos, etc. are outside of the range of the agenda items. The AB, right now, is not looking to expand the requirements, simply to clarify wording in the document. I'm not saying that expanding the requirements is a bad thing - I agree with some that clearly delineating the requirements vs. 'should or suggested haves' (guidelines) would be of benefit, but in a large forum, you'd never come to a concensus about what should be included where. The AB has received a tremendous response to their request for comments on the subject of the two agenda items under discussion, and we thank you for that. A motion will be brought to the floor and a vote taken on these agenda items so that we can move on to other items. (We're trying to stay focused and make our way through the agenda so there's not constantly carried-over items from month to month. <g>) Once again, thank you, one and all, for your input. Sherri Bradley National Coordinator USGenWeb Project Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php