USGENWEB-SW-L Archives

Archiver > USGENWEB-SW > 2006-10 > 1160754062


From: "Donal O'Kelly" <>
Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-SW] Mlotion 06-18a
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 08:41:36 -0700
References: <452E4BC8.6010700@tatumtel.net><20061012203254.XPDI23863.eastrmmtao03.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net>


Yes. This is the correct procedure to first define appropriate use. DonK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Tharp" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-SW] Mlotion 06-18a


> Hello Bettie,
>
> My concerns pretty much follow those of Mr. Anderson's. To summerize mine:
> this motion appears to be placing the cart before the horse. That is, you
> are being asked to authorize the NC to give others permission to use our
> logo before the proper use of our logo has been established. We all need
> to
> know what is or is not the proper use of our logo, and that policy should
> be established before we authorize any one person or any group to begin
> giving permission to others to use our logo, others connected or not
> connected with USGenWeb, for profit or not for profit, printed or
> electronic use, etc.
>
> All of our logos use our trademark, i.e., The USGenWeb Project, so in
> affect, we would be giving others permission to use our trademark. Is this
> something we wish to do? Or, if we do let others use our logo/trademark,
> should we perhaps give that permission in writing and with whatever
> restrictions are deemed necessary to prevent the misuse of them?
>
> Do we need this now, before we give the present NC permission to
> authorized
> its use, probably not, I see a one time authorization for the Indiana
> Historical Society to use the logo as having no affect that is detrimental
> to the Project in the long run, but what I fear is that the AB will let
> the
> matter die without a clear cut policy for future members and officers to
> use and adhere to. So, if there is no commitment to establish such a
> policy, I would urge you to vote no on this amendment.
>
> DonT
>
>
>
> DonT
>
>
> At 12:44 PM 10/12/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>>Hello Bettie,
>> I still raise the same concerns and objections as previously posted on
>>10/06/06 and 10/07/06 for both 06-18 and Motion 06-18a, for which Scott
>>the
>>NC, stated he posted a reply in response on 10/05/06.
>> Also, the motion 06-18 now reading, "In the event a request for
>>permission to use one of the USGenWeb Logos in a publication is received,
>>the NC shall notify the AB of his/her intent to accept or reject the
>>request. Unless an objection is registered the NC's decision will stand."
>>I
>
>>suppose if I had tunnel vision I would assume the second sentence, "Unless
>>an objection is registered the NC's...", means an objection registered by
>>the AB? Or does it mean an objection by any USGenWeb member? Or does it
>>mean, an objection by one member of the AB? Or, two membes of the AB? Or
>>two
>>members of the USGenWeb? Or an objection by Flipper? :-) THE SENTENCE
>>TRANSITION AND RELATION OF A COMMON SUBJECT IS ABSENT within this motion
>>and
>>objection could mean anyone or anything that could object. If it is
>>implied
>>to mean AB member(s) can object then say how many or what. If it means
>>just
>>one can object then please read the following and I rest my case. What
>>happens after an objection is made. If I get any kind of answer to any of
>>these concerns, then I suppose the email I get in explation is part of the
>>motion. Or, if a motion is made to do something or perform an action,
>>etc.,
>>and it should not require any explanation?
>> My previous responses and still concerns to motion 06-18 are as
>> follows:
>>10/06/06 "...It seems this motion has
>>gone initially of one with decreased oversight by the AB and membership,
>>to
>>a modified one with somewhat increased oversight, to an evermore modified
>>motion with less oversight and really no strings attached. However, with
>>much of the discussion concerned about who is and who is not utilizing the
>>USGenWeb logo with or without authorization, who is and who is not
>>utilizing
>>the USGenWeb logo for profit or non-profit, and/or in books, literature,
>>pamphlets, seminars, etc. What does happen in the course of the approved
>>use of the USGenWeb logo will have an affect on each and every one of us
>>for
>>the duration. Nothing in this motion describes the other side concerning
>>withdrawal of this approval for use of the USGenWeb logo. (Maybe this
>>will
>>occur in an emergency session, date and time to be announced.)
>>Furthermore,
>>if approval should be may for any case, a publicly posted list should be
>>posed on the USGenWeb site detailing each and every approved use and the
>>date of approval, along with any limitations involved with approval and
>>use,
>>and the NC/AB that allowed the approval. With something like this,
>>mistakes
>>can only happen once. This motion is still like "Cart Blanche" with no
>>strings attached. Therefore, there needs to be more public accountability
>>to prevent possible political use, for profit use, individual agendas) and
>>other subversive uses of the USGenWeb logo. If the approval is going to
>>be
>>allowed for whatever, then the ground rules need to be in place to protect
>
>>the project and its' volunteers. We will not always have the truly honest
>>and open NC and AB we have now, for this motion is for now on. As far as
>>I
>>am concerned, this open ended, vague, motion provides nothing more than an
>>easy way to get into trouble.
>> However, it is a worthy concept to authorize the use of the logo for
>>many great things. There are certainly many positive ways the USGenWeb
>>logo
>>could be used, i.e. Public Relations (PR for who and what?), to correct
>>past
>>inconsistencies where individuals and organizations that have been and/or
>>currently utilizing the USGenWeb logo improperly (If it has a grandfather
>>clause? It may get some individuals off the hook. :>), and as an
>>advertisement to gain a better position in the realm of genealogical
>>research, attract volunteers, etc."
>>
>>10/07/06 "...To establish a legislative precedent, one board member
>>approval and denial is not the way
>>to go (secular). A set of Public criteria to meet certain standards for
>>usage of logo is good. There are many issues that may not be right at the
>>moment, but make us an SOP. It can be trimmed, altered, read, re-read,
>>adjusted, conformed, more appealing, etc. as is requires. Who knows, it
>>may
>>even reach a point to become a bylaw and set a standard for usage policies
>>for local logo use. A picture is worth a thousand words as long as the
>>organization behind it has the right qualities. This should not be behind
>>closed doors with the ability to close the doors to many geographical
>>entities requesting utilization the logo. This would in my opinion set
>>the
>>project backwards. A judicious allowance of logo usage would enhance the
>>spirit of the USGenWeb project propelling it forward."
>>
>>
>>10/07/06 "...with this motion, the door is open for specific geographic
>>locations to be passed over and favoritism for other geographical
>>locations.
>>I see this as a very unfair method to allocate the logo usage for various
>>activities. And with the approach currently being taken with 06-18,
>>without
>>pubic acknowledgement and awareness in future proceedings regarding any
>>logo
>>issues, I perceive there will always be a cloud of doubt.
>>
>>Sincrely,
>>Douglas Anderson
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Bosque Lover" <>
>>To: "SWSC list" <>
>>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 9:06 AM
>>Subject: [USGENWEB-SW] Mlotion 06-18a
>>
>>
>>> Any discussion or comments?
>>> The main motion now reads:
>>>
>>> In the event a request for permission to use one of the USGenWeb Logos
>>> in
>>a publication is received, the NC shall notify the AB of his/her intent to
>>accept or reject the request. Unless an objection is registered the NC's
>>> decision will stand."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>> 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
> 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
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.3/473 - Release Date: 10/12/2006
>
>

This thread: