Before everyone gets their nose out of joint and allows the sky to fall on them, the amendment process is simple. Approval by the Bylaws Revision Committee is only the first step. As the name says, we are only a Committee. We will hand off our completed work to the AB, which in turn, will open the floor for discussion. Only after discussion is complete, will the AB vote. Please correct me if I have misspoken, Mr. Parliamentarian. The current discussion is not so much about the size or dimension of our logo as it is in pride and affiliation. If any Project member came aboard for any reason other than to serve others, they are here for the wrong motivation. If we are more concerned in making a name than in making a contribution, we need to re-focus our energy. Membership in the USGenWeb Project is a source of pride to me. I hope it is to you as well. Derick S. Hartshorn State Coordinator, NCGenWeb Project PS: Rather than appear a hypocrite, I have changed my pages to comply. http://www.rootsweb.com/~nccatawb/ http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncburke/ http://www.rootsweb.com/~nccconov/ At 07:06 PM 5/4/03, Rob wrote: >Not wanting to get behind, and having the dictators 'fire' (or worse) >me, I decided to "comply" with the logo dictation in advance. > >I was not 100% positive exactly which logo to prominently display at >the top of the page, so I placed both there. > >Hopefully, this will satisfy all requirements.. I surely do not wish >to cross anyone! >http://www.usgennet.org/usa/nc/county/pasquotank/ > >Robert > > > > We have seen the rapidly eroding intellectual rights of the title > > "GenWeb." There are now several entities that use the NCGenWeb, >USGenWeb > > and other variations in their logo. In order to make a >differentiation > > between our organization and the pretenders, the committee discussed >this > > issue at length. > >It doesn't matter how many county pages have USGW logos or where they >place >them -- if another organization is using "USGenWeb Project," "XXGenWeb >Project," or closely similar variations, they may be guilty of >trademark/service mark infringement. You could replace the index page >of >every USGW county with a giant logo, and it will have no effect on >what >another organization is doing. By the way, do you have any examples >of >projects and/or pages with this sort of violation? I'd like to take a >look >-- if they're county pages, it's possible that they're in violation of >their own project's guidelines if they're copying USGW logos. > > >There was one particular NCGenWeb page that was used as an example of >how > >only grudging support is being given to the Project. > >And in my opinion, that page is already in violation of the by-law as >currently written. There's no need to re-write the by-laws, only the >necessity of a way to enforce what we already have. > > >The intent is for the page to be recognizable as a member project of >the > >USGWP. This can only be effectively achieved by making the logo >visable > >without scrolling. The specified minimum size (100 X 100) should not >be > >interpreted as the determining factor for page compliance. Some pages > >currently make it difficult to determine who the sponsoring >organization > >is and further confuse the issue by using a hodge-podge of logos. > > >Sponsoring organization? My page doesn't exist thanks to the USGWP, >the >USGWP exists thanks to my page and hundreds of others like it. Maybe >I'm >being overly picky about the semantics, but the USGWP doesn't sponsor >me. If anyone sponsors me, I suppose you could say that Rootsweb >does, >since they provide my webspace. I'm a volunteer and a member of the >USGWP. > >I think it's just silly to say that a page can't be recognizable as a >USGWP >member unless the logo slaps you in the face. Again, we have dozens >of >pages withing NCGW that have the logo further down the page, but >there's no >doubt about their membership. Again, if you can't tell that a page >belongs >to the USGWP, then it's already in violation of the by-law as is >currently >written. Take it up with that particular webmaster. > > >Without entering a discussion regarding the future of the >organization, I > >can only say that without immediate recognition of who we are, we >could > >become another genealogical entity suffering from lack of >sponsorship. > >Apples and oranges. If the USGWP is so pitiful and on such a shaky >foundation that my putting a logo "below the fold," so to speak, is >going >to be catastrophic, then maybe we're all wasting our time trying to >prop it >up. > > >There was no suggestion that page hosts abandon their current >affiliations > >with other entities, only that the USGWP page be given its due and >appear > >preeminent. Further discussion (Section 2) will be devoted to other >issues. > >Ahhh, but call me suspicious. I tend to think that this "us first! >us >first!" hue and cry is just the first step towards demanding an all or >nothing allegiance to the USGWP. And I don't like that, not one bit. >I >don't think that's how you attract and keep hard-working volunteers. >I >think it's far better to set the minimal requirements and then let >your >volunteers run with it. Any organization that can't function unless >the >members are basically caged is in deep trouble. > >Angie > >--Boundary_(ID_3uXBMEoDgXk67O4cC9PFPQ) >Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; > x-avg-checked=avg-ok-222E6FF7 >Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT >Content-disposition: inline > > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 4/24/2003 > >--Boundary_(ID_3uXBMEoDgXk67O4cC9PFPQ)--