Thank you, Tina.
My thoughts fwiw....
For one thing, the phrase, "...entities that may be detrimental to
the USGenWeb Project," is subjective. I guarantee Daryl Lytton
wouldn't think linking our logo to his Search site, or to Theresa
Lindquists twisted version of USGW history would be detrimental,
though you and I probably would.
Secondly, there is no conflict with the bylaws on this issue. An
amendment would be a serious case of over-kill at the behest of busy-bodies.
I have withdrawn from many USGW volunteer activities because of the
constant harping and nasties who do not care about the mission of the
project, only the politics and control. Sadly I see it still thrives.
It wouldn't take much more for me to withdraw from all of it.
I'll now leave my soap box, and just watch and see what happens.
Ellen Pack
At 04:09 PM 1/21/2010, you wrote:
This discussion I believe was precipitated by a
recent call for sponsorship of a USGenWeb Project
Bylaw sponsored by WVGenWeb Project. To be placed
on the ballot, 5 states need to co-sponsor it. MAK
replied to the State Coordinator list with the idea
of a banner and in turn brought here to all of you
for discussion.
I will forward the proposed Bylaw amendment here
for discussion and will conduct and vote if you all
wish to vote on WIGenWeb Project sponsoring it.
That along with MAK's note this all may perhaps
make more sense.
There was a motion being discussed by the Board to
update the SC/CC guidelines and that was what has
brought all of this discussion across the Project.
It has to do with the USGenWeb Project logo being
linked to the National site only and not to other
entities that may be detrimental to the USGenWeb
Project. It is already a requirement that USGenWeb
Project logo be present on Project pages. A charge
to an still un-seated committee to address the
SC/CC guidelines included (by me actually) that if
the USGenWeb Project logo is linked that it be
linked to the National USGenWenb Project site and
not to pages detrimental to the Project as a whole.
That motion charge failed as it was tought to be
circumventing the bylaws and creating new rules
which required a vote of the general membership.
I am sure this is clear as mud <g>.
Tina
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ellen Pack" <e.j.pack(a)speakeasy.net>
To: <wigen(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: [WIGEN] Fw: Branding and the USGenWeb sites
> Define branding, please, as it's being discussed.
>
> Thanks,
> Ellen Pack
>
> At 02:38 PM 1/21/2010, you wrote:
>>OK - it is pouring out - so I am really reading all my emails -
>>sorry for the length of this - but, some of the issues the SCs are
>>discussing right now, will directly impact our WI CCs - here is my
>>response to the recent proposed bylaw change -
>>
>>I would love to hear your thoughts on why or why not branding would
>>work in Wisconsin and what level of branding would you like to see
>>implemented, if any (ie banner only, all graphics, to include
>>background, index formatting, etc) - consider what changes would
>>need to occur, and how it would affect our researchers, and the
>>timeline needed to implement across all the counties - Example - I
>>know many of us are already branding our own counties - so would you
>>consider just using a "Wisconsin banner" for the top of the pages
>>and keeping the rest of your site as is???)
>>
>>Whether you are for it - or against it - I would love to hear your
>>thoughts - to avoid any "hurt" feelings or perceived personal
>>attacks - please keep your comments on task - that is, keep your
>>post impersonal - it is not necessary to say I agree with xyz - or I
>>disagree with xyz - just discuss your thoughts - it will be apparent
>>who you agree with and don't agree with - and it will allow the more
>>quieter individuals to voice their opinion - remember, once you post
>>your point of view and thoughts - it is NOT necessary to agree or
>>disagree with every post - just sit back and read the "discussion" -
>>and process what is being said or NOT said - lol -
>>
>>If you would like to comment but not have your name on the post -
>>send it directly to me - and I will remove all your personal
>>identifiers and post it for you -
>>
>>
>>
>>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Forwarded Message ----
>>From: MAK - Transcriber <maktranscriber(a)yahoo.com>
>>To: state-coord(a)rootsweb.com
>>Sent: Thu, January 21, 2010 11:14:31 AM
>>Subject: Branding and the USGenWeb sites
>>
>>I tend to agree this recent by-law proposal is a guideline issue -
>>however, Right now, we are requiring the SC to "police" for the
>>USGenWeb logo onall their CCs site's and we can't control that, so,
>>the new proposed
>>bylaws or guidelines suggest SCs will now be responsible to try to
>>enforce it on"non-USGenWeb" sites - sorry I am ROFLOL -
>>
>>Rather than put another rule in the by-laws - Has anyone discussed
>>having only ONE official logo (banner) for all USGenWeb pages at the
>>National level and watermark it, and copyright it and have them in
>>the National pages graphics to link to all the National pages -
>>
>>The same could also be done at each of the State's level - one
>>offical State Logo (banner) for each state (they agree upon it,
>>which includes the official National logo with clickable link) - in
>>the state directory, that all CCs link to - don't have to download
>>upload etc - or it could be a simple cut and paste code - or a
>>template which cc's could use - especially ones who have difficulty
>>with code sourcing -
>>
>>With all the computer guru's we have, not only would that would
>>eliminate a lot of the problems - but linking to graphics, rather
>>than have how many hundreds of CCs downloading the graphic to their
>>computers and then uploading would allow more space on the servers
>>and faster uploading of pages - and also it would discourage other's
>>from using the logos/links without permission - as a spider search
>>could find and report them.
>>
>>Also, it makes more sense in terms of branding - In most
>>professional organizations, branding is an important concept -
>>branding allows the public to immediately recognize the "brand",
>>letting their customers know it is a legitimate page within the site
>>- (example - look at the coca cola symbol which has been around for
>>a half century - we all recognize it when we see it - can the same
>>be said about USGenWeb???)
>>
>>I applaud all the states that have made a conscious decision to
>>brand their state pages - you go to their state and CC pages - and
>>you KNOW it is an offical page under that state - no one has to tell
>>you - the banners are all the same - as are the logos - it is easy
>>for the SC to "police" and their researchers immediately recognize
>>the offical pages within the projects - (examples which come to mind
>>immediately are below)
>>KY -
http://www.kygenweb.net/
>>KS -
http://skyways.lib.ks.us/genweb/index.html
>>
>>With those of you not familiar with the way other states "do it" -
>>go to the index at
http://usgenweb.org/ and take some time going
>>through the other states - you will immediate see how much easier it
>>is to research in a state which is more cohesive -
>>
>>Yes - there are some obstacles, and it would require compromise and
>>teamwork - but it could be do-able - even though, Early on, when the
>>USGenWeb decided each CC and SC could have a wide berth on
>>originality and creativity - we weren't as big - and we needed
>>volunteer incentives - however, as USGenWeb grew - the lack of
>>cohesion within the state projects has contributed to some of the
>>confusion and conflict with "outside sources" using USGenWeb like
>>logos on non-USGenWeb pages -
>>
>>While I personally like having my own "stamp" on my pages - I
>>understand how the "branding" would give our states our own identity
>>- but still fall within the National USGenWeb guidelines - and still
>>allow any researcher to go from state to state without wondering if
>>it were a USGenWeb project page - Personally, I have "branded" all
>>my county pages - so as a researcher goes from page to page, they
>>immediately KNOW when they are not in that county project -
>>
>>I would really love it if all our states would "consider" discussing
>>this with their CCs - right now, we are asking for a national and
>>state logo on all the pages - so, would it really be pushing it much
>>to ask for a "consistent" state banner on all the state pages, to
>>include the county CC pages - ??? below it - they still can have
>>anything they like - or each state can develope guidelines on their
>>"index" page - etc - there is still room for a LOT of creativity -
>>and teamwork -
>>
>>Just my thoughts - for more information on "branding" - why and why
>>nots - and how to do-s -There are several great articles at
>>http://www.usmansheikh.com/?s=branding
>>
>>I would love to see a discussion on "branding" and alternatives from
>>SCs who have tried it and it has worked sucessfully for your state -
>>and/or those of you who have proposed it and it fell to dear ears,
>>pro's and con's - problems with implementation - etc - thank you in
>>advance -
>>
>>R/S MAK
>>
>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>>----- Original Message ----
>>To: state-coord(a)rootsweb.com
>>Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 4:14:51 PM
>>Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Proposed Bylaws Amendment
>>
>>At 05:57 PM 1/15/2010, you wrote:
>> >There are those CCs out there right now linking the USGenWeb logo to
>> >sites
>> >that are not even a part of the USGenWeb and don't reflect well on the
>> >USGenWeb. With nothing in the bylaws about what the logo can be linked
>> >to,
>> >there's not really anything that we can do if the State Coordinator
>> >won't
>> >deal with the situation even when it's reported to them.
>>
>>And what are you going to do when it is part of the bylaws and the
>>State Coordinator STILL won't do anything?
>>
>>Quoting one of the AR CCs who said it much better than I can:
>>
>>Bylaws structure an organization and provide the broad rules under
>>which the organization will operate. They are meant to be permanent
>>and not change over time.
>>
>>Standard rules and guidelines are for day-to-day operational needs,
>>which often do change over time.
>>
>>As a functional directive, instructions on how the logo may be linked
>>belong in the Guidelines, NOT the Bylaws.
>>
>>Name snipped
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>>WIGEN-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
> WIGEN-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
WIGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message