The committee is charged with making revisions to clarify as needed and to add sections as necessary to facilitate continued growth of the project. The project has experienced significant growth since the bylaws were adopted and has established a respectable web presence. As website content expands and more links are included the greater the chance of repercussions. Better to ward off potential problems if possible. Section 1.3 of the recently signed hosting agreement extents authority to the project for governing use, privacy policy, intellectual property notices "(so long as the notices adequately protect the rights of both parties)". Roger Swafford BRC-Chairman ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan W Pieroth" <pieroth@ix.netcom.com> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 6:03 PM Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Bylaws Revision - News > This really annoys me. Could someone on the committee please point out > all the sites they have visited that show this disclaimer? I have seen > sites where a specific link gets that kind of statement, but a generic, > across the board one? I'm sure some, do, but RootsWeb doesn't request > this, why the BRC????? Would the lawyer please stand up? > {snip} > Susan > -- > Coordinator Rhode Island USGenWeb ~ http://www.rootsweb.com/~rigenweb/

My opinion is that the last couple of proposed revisions would be better placed in the guidelines where the wording could be periodically reviewed and updated without having to go through the amendment process. These types of specific statements regarding the design and content of webpages get into an area that can and has changed frequently over the years. Look at all that has happened to web design in just the last couple of years. You may need to have an amendment process every year just to update specific articles such as you are proposing. Will you be able to get five states to sign on to that process every year? I would like to see a committee set up to do periodically review and update the guidelines. Perhaps it would be better if it were not an official board committee, but an independent committee composed of members from the various projects that could propose changes to update them. If you look at them now, there are some that need to have links and wording updated. Just as an example, GenConnect is still mentioned as one way to collect queries. Has anyone looked at the pages on copyright lately to see if they need updating? Connie Roger Swafford wrote: > The committee is charged with making revisions to clarify as needed and to > add sections as necessary to facilitate continued growth of the project. The > project has experienced significant growth since the bylaws were adopted and > has established a respectable web presence. As website content expands and > more links are included the greater the chance of repercussions. Better to > ward off potential problems if possible. > Section 1.3 of the recently signed hosting agreement extents authority to > the project for governing use, privacy policy, intellectual property notices > "(so long as the notices adequately protect the rights of both parties)". > > Roger Swafford > BRC-Chairman > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Susan W Pieroth" <pieroth@ix.netcom.com> > To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 6:03 PM > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Bylaws Revision - News > > > This really annoys me. Could someone on the committee please point out > > all the sites they have visited that show this disclaimer? I have seen > > sites where a specific link gets that kind of statement, but a generic, > > across the board one? I'm sure some, do, but RootsWeb doesn't request > > this, why the BRC????? Would the lawyer please stand up? > > > {snip} > > Susan > > -- > > Coordinator Rhode Island USGenWeb ~ http://www.rootsweb.com/~rigenweb/

I agree. I don't feel that mandates will work. The less mandates we have, the better it will be. I don't intend to start de-linking counties because they don't have some disclaimer on the pages. If we do this, then it is time to provide an "approved template" and only link to those sites who are using it. I have still not seen the question of whether these revisions or amendments will be voted on separately or all as one package. If it is a package deal, there is no way I will be voting for them. These are not what I consider revisions - they are a major rewrite of the bylaws. Betsy On 12:16 AM 5/13/2003 -0500, Connie Snyder said: >My opinion is that the last couple of proposed revisions would be better >placed >in the guidelines where the wording could be periodically reviewed and updated >without having to go through the amendment process. These types of specific >statements regarding the design and content of webpages get into an area that >can and has changed frequently over the years. Look at all that has >happened to >web design in just the last couple of years. You may need to have an amendment >process every year just to update specific articles such as you are proposing. >Will you be able to get five states to sign on to that process every year? > >I would like to see a committee set up to do periodically review and >update the >guidelines. Perhaps it would be better if it were not an official board >committee, but an independent committee composed of members from the various >projects that could propose changes to update them. If you look at them now, >there are some that need to have links and wording updated. Just as an >example, >GenConnect is still mentioned as one way to collect queries. Has anyone looked >at the pages on copyright lately to see if they need updating? > >Connie > >Roger Swafford wrote: > > > The committee is charged with making revisions to clarify as needed and to > > add sections as necessary to facilitate continued growth of the > project. The > > project has experienced significant growth since the bylaws were > adopted and > > has established a respectable web presence. As website content expands and > > more links are included the greater the chance of repercussions. Better to > > ward off potential problems if possible. > > Section 1.3 of the recently signed hosting agreement extents authority to > > the project for governing use, privacy policy, intellectual property > notices > > "(so long as the notices adequately protect the rights of both parties)". > > > > Roger Swafford > > BRC-Chairman > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Susan W Pieroth" <pieroth@ix.netcom.com> > > To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> > > Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 6:03 PM > > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Bylaws Revision - News > > > > > This really annoys me. Could someone on the committee please point out > > > all the sites they have visited that show this disclaimer? I have seen > > > sites where a specific link gets that kind of statement, but a generic, > > > across the board one? I'm sure some, do, but RootsWeb doesn't request > > > this, why the BRC????? Would the lawyer please stand up? > > > > > {snip} > > > Susan > > > -- > > > Coordinator Rhode Island USGenWeb ~ http://www.rootsweb.com/~rigenweb/