Until Vivian mentioned it, I never noticed that their is no language of *approved* logos
in the bylaws (only on the logo page). I think it's an oversight that should be
fixed.
I haven't been involved in any of the discussions, but it seems likely that the links
from
the USGenWeb logo to inappropriate sites were the work of a hacker who added malicious
script to the image file. A couple of years ago, I used a pink ribbon graphic from a
"free graphics" site to add to my online newsletter for Breast Cancer Awareness
month. It
was infected with spyware. The bad guys are pretty clever.
Pat
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kemis Massey" <sobby(a)knology.net>
To: <gagen(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: [GAGEN] logo amendment before the AB
I have always thought that we had to use one of the approved USGWeb
Project
logos on at the least our home page. With that being said, it is important
to add "approved" to their terminology or we'll have anything that anyone
wants.
kemis
From: gagen-bounces(a)rootsweb.com [mailto:gagen-bounces@rootsweb.com]On
Behalf Of Michael and Vivian Saffold
>During the last election the AB and the Elections Committee was
>adamant
*were*
Vivian
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