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