Sorry, everyone. This was meant to be a private reply.
Vivian
At 02:27 PM 1/19/2010, you wrote:
Good morning, Doris,
I'm sorry I have not written you sooner.
Thank goodness for this warmer weather. I was really tired of working
wearing a coat.
I agree with your assessment of the amendment. I don't think the
Georgia project will be a sponsor. Nothing saying we couldn't come up
with a rule or two about logos ourselves.
I do talk to community groups about DeKalb/Atlanta history. I don't
charge. Gas money is always nice, though, if I go more than a few
miles from home. Is there a topic you'd like to hear about? If so,
maybe I can cook up something.
Vivian
At 04:24 PM 1/18/2010, you wrote:
>Vivian,
>
>My office is slowly thawing out. Today is the first day I have been
>on the computer is several days, so a little slow in answering e-mail.
>
>The amendment is not clear and should be re-written. The CCs do
>need some guidelines, but as the amendment is written it is too open
>to personal interpretation and will lead to even more confusion.
>
>Doris
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
> >From: Michael and Vivian Saffold <msaffold(a)bellsouth.net>
> >Sent: Jan 16, 2010 7:16 AM
> >To: GAGEN(a)rootsweb.com
> >Subject: [GAGEN] logo amendment before the AB
> >
> >No one asked for my opinion, but here it is anyway.
> >
> >The USGWeb Project has had logo issues for years; inappropriate
> >linking is just one. This amendment is an opportunity to address
> >those issues, but it is not specific or comprehensive enough.
> >Example: The proposed amendment does not specify that the logo must
> >be an official one. This might seem to be an insignificant point, but
> >many sites are using old logos.
> >
> >During the last election the AB and the Elections Committee was
> >adamant that if one of the four logos on the national Web page was
> >not displayed, a member could not vote. However, nothing in the
> >current bylaws requires this.
> >
> >The definition of "prominent" placement needs to be addressed, but
> >the membership has repeatedly resisted any efforts at regulation.
> >
> >The National Coordinator proposes to address the problems in steps,
> >which would make it necessary to do this all over again some time in
> >the future.
> >
> >I would prefer that the national organization severely limit its
> >restriction and direction of state business. Including requirements
> >concerning state logos is this amendment is "scope creep." The
> >national project already has enough pressing issues.
> >
> >Of our 104 coordinators, only five have responded regarding the issue
> >of the GA project sponsoring the amendment. Unless there is a
> >groundswell of support or opposition in the next couple of days, I
> >will consider it dead.
> >
> >Vivian
> >
>
>
>-------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>GAGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com 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
GAGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message