PDA

View Full Version : Just to let you know.



Tim and June
7th November 2003, 12:58 PM
As the committee has not posted anything here, we thought that we would let the members know the current situation.

There were a number of promises made by the Founding Members, among those was the following :-

1.) The GAGB would never become commercial.
2.) There would never be any cost involved with becoming or being a member of the GAGB (partly because we were financing it).

We have, after discussion with Founding Members, agreed to pass over control of the domain names (gagb.org.uk & gagb.org.uk) and copyright of the website to the committee on the proviso that the above two points are agreed and maintained.

Chris n Maria
7th November 2003, 02:15 PM
Well done.

Just a question does this mean the site will move from your (generously provided for free) servers or will you still be hosting ??

Kouros
7th November 2003, 05:27 PM
Thanks for clearing that up.

Just so nobody thinks that the committee were sitting on their laurels, I believe I speak for all of us (but in case I don't, I am posting under my own name) when I say that we were to include these nuggets of gloriously golden information along with the proposed constitution (of which they will be a part) once that is completed and when we present it to the members.

However, due to the fact that we all work (yes, it's true!) not all of us on the committee may have yet had the chance to be aware of this situation, and I know that one or two of us would like to have discussed it further before posting it. Nevermind, not the end of the world. :)

Tim and June
7th November 2003, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Chris n Maria@Nov 7 2003, 02:15 PM
Well done.

Just a question does this mean the site will move from your (generously provided for free) servers or will you still be hosting ??

Seems that the committee don't think it's too good an idea for us to host the site. :(

Also seems that it's time for us (T&J) to sadly close the doors on our connections with the association.

Sorry Kouros, wasn't trying to upstage the committee but we have recieved two emails asking. Thought it would be a reasonable idea to let the members know.

Chris n Maria
7th November 2003, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Tim and June@Nov 7 2003, 06:09 PM
Seems that the committee don't think it's too good an idea for us to host the site. :(

Oh well, thanks for what you have done (here and for caching in general) and as you say damned if you do, dammned if you don&#39;t <_<

Happy Caching
Chris

BugznElm&#39;r
7th November 2003, 06:41 PM
Three question for the committee ...

1 - Where will the new site be hosted?
2 - When is the move expected?
3 - How are the bills being paid when the GAGB has no cash? What controls are in place to prevent someone getting hacked off and threatening to pull the plug?

Kouros
7th November 2003, 06:48 PM
Under my name...


Oh well, thanks for what you have done (here and for caching in general) and as you say damned if you do, dammned if you don&#39;t

Indeed - I said it privately a little earlier, and I&#39;ll say it publicly now: It&#39;s a shame.

For the benefit of members who may not be aware, the committee are concerned that their freedom to talk may be limited if non-committee members have access to the committee forums - obviously, if T&J host the site they would (in theory, even if not in practice) have access to those boards.

This isn&#39;t intended to be a dig at T&J, who have done a lot of good work for Geocaching in the UK, including being founding members of this site, and would be the same if I hosted the site (and wasn&#39;t on the committee), or if anyone else did.

But I hope you "closing the doors" will not include turning your back on the GAGB entirely - I&#39;m sure that you will agree that Geocaching needs people who are vocal in their beliefs, and as such, if the GAGB is to succeed, it needs you, even if you aren&#39;t on the committee.

BugznElm&#39;r
7th November 2003, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by Kouros@Nov 7 2003, 06:48 PM
For the benefit of members who may not be aware, the committee are concerned that their freedom to talk may be limited if non-committee members have access to the committee forums - obviously, if T&J host the site they would (in theory, even if not in practice) have access to those boards.

I honestly do think that this is rather a lame reason considering that seifer came on these forums only a few days ago claiming committee level access. I&#39;m not nit picking here nor do I want to cause trouble but if TnJ are being cut out of the loop because of this, I for one need assurances that this cannot happen. As far as I remeber it wasn&#39;t Team Blitz that was voted in but Paul. It this as meant to be a team vote that should have been made clear from the start.

BugznElm&#39;r
7th November 2003, 07:08 PM
I just also want to add that while Tim and I have crossed swords here in these forums over issues relating to the GAGB (despite anything that was said I don&#39;t hold any grudge at all), but I wouldn&#39;t think for one second that he would tamper with anything here.

TnJ, we met in person in the past and got on fine, I hope that we can do that again ... things go smoother when dealing face-to-face that&#39;s for sure.

My best wishes to you both and happy caching&#33;

Kouros
7th November 2003, 07:33 PM
Under my own name, and an honest, non-sarcastic or otherwise adulterated question...

Where would you draw the line, in a perfect scenario, as to whom should be granted access to committee forums?

BugznElm&#39;r
7th November 2003, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by Kouros@Nov 7 2003, 07:33 PM
Under my own name, and an honest, non-sarcastic or otherwise adulterated question...

Where would you draw the line as to whom should be granted access to committee forums?
I don&#39;t know ...but it sounds like one has been drawn and I guess I&#39;m trying to find out where that is&#33;

Kouros
7th November 2003, 07:40 PM
My argument would be - and again, this is my opinion, and may not reflect the rest of the committee - that only the committee should have access to the committee forums. And that priviledged access would not include family members, in case of accidental slip-ups.

At least if a committee member slips, it is that persons fault (most likely mine - watch this space) rather than someone who should not have read something and said more than they should.

BugznElm&#39;r
7th November 2003, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by Kouros@Nov 7 2003, 07:40 PM
My argument would be - and again, this is my opinion, and may not reflect the rest of the committee - that only the committee should have access to the committee forums. And that priviledged access would not include family members, in case of accidental slip-ups.

At least if a committee member slips, it is that persons fault (most likely mine - watch this space) rather than someone who should not have read something and said more than they should.
That would be best by far ...

Paul G0TLG
7th November 2003, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by Kouros@Nov 7 2003, 07:33 PM
Where would you draw the line, in a perfect scenario, as to whom should be granted access to committee forums?
This question isn&#39;t as easy as it seems: when we elected T & J to the chair, we knew we were electing both of them, and in that case we&#39;d have expected them both to have access - we agreed somewhere that we were voting for a team, not an individual.

Now we&#39;ve elected Team Tate, and although Sarah is the active one, in theory that certainly includes Bob, and technically Beckie and George as well.

So I&#39;d say...where an individual is elected, that individual only. Where a team is elected, perhaps only bona fide adult members of that team. And perhaps a rider that in future, named individuals only for election, rather than team names.

Paul

Kouros
7th November 2003, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by Paul G0TLG@Nov 7 2003, 08:21 PM
So I&#39;d say...where an individual is elected, that individual only. Where a team is elected, perhaps only bona fide adult members of that team. And perhaps a rider that in future, named individuals only for election, rather than team names.
That seems very sensible to me. What do the other committee members think?

Moss Trooper
7th November 2003, 10:27 PM
Kouros.

I think that, as a committee member you should not be asking what other committee members think on a subject that effects the committee in open forum..

Muggle
8th November 2003, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Nov 7 2003, 10:27 PM
Kouros.

I think that, as a committee member you should not be asking what other committee members think on a subject that effects the committee in open forum..
Why not??

Why is there a need for secrecy in such a small organisation?

Then again, maybe it&#39;s better to discuss things on the committee forum where the unelected Founder Memebers (& Sprog Blitz) can see what the proper committee are up to. ;) :D

Kouros
8th November 2003, 09:36 AM
This being something that affects the entire membership, and does not involve outside parties (and by no means a secretive issue), I felt was something that should be discussed on an open forum. There are some matters that, in my honest opinion, should be dealt with in a closed room, and some that needn&#39;t be, where feedback from all members would be beneficial. Since this one is already out in the open, why shouldn&#39;t the opinions of the committee be too? Mine are for that very reason.

However, if any of the committee members would prefer to discuss it on the closed forum, that&#39;s fine too.

Tim and June
8th November 2003, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by Muggle@Nov 8 2003, 01:12 AM
(& Sprog Blitz)
Muggle, that is a very offensive post and has been reported to admin 3 times.

We do not welcome this sort of behaviour on our services. Please do not behave in this manner again.

BugznElm&#39;r
8th November 2003, 03:19 PM
Trying to get back on topic ... how will the new internet presence be funded? Will the GAGB be looking for donations?

THE BRAMBLERS
8th November 2003, 04:39 PM
I am sure that when the committee have made their decisions, they will let the members know.

In the meantime let&#39;s all trust their judgement and wait.

Debbie

Muggle
8th November 2003, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by Tim and June+Nov 8 2003, 01:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Tim and June @ Nov 8 2003, 01:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Muggle@Nov 8 2003, 01:12 AM
(& Sprog Blitz)
Muggle, that is a very offensive post and has been reported to admin 3 times.

We do not welcome this sort of behaviour on our services. Please do not behave in this manner again.[/b][/quote]
Perhaps you might like to explain what was offensive about it?


And while you are at it perhaps you could define who "WE" are in this case?

Team Tate
8th November 2003, 05:43 PM
Thank you Bramblers.
As the committee is still in its infancy, we are all aware that there are alot of things that need to be addressed. This will take some time, but be assured we will let everyone know what is happening when & where it is going to happen and as soon as anything has been arranged or decided, we won&#39;t treat you all as mushrooms, but inform everyone as soon as it is possible.
A constitution is currently being processed which will available as soon as we have dotted the i&#39;s & crossed the t&#39;s, but as we all aren&#39;t able to communicate together on a daily basis it will take a little time.
On another note a meeting with the FC re the New Forest is also in the process of being organised & we will inform you of that when we have some more information but it will be on a date later this month.
Thank you all for your patience&#33;
Sarah x

Chris n Maria
8th November 2003, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by Team Tate@Nov 8 2003, 05:43 PM
On another note a meeting with the FC re the New Forest is also in the process of being organised & we will inform you of that when we have some more information but it will be on a date later this month.
Glad to see someone doing something useful rather than just arguing the whys and wherefores :rolleyes:

Chris

paul.blitz
8th November 2003, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by Tim and June@Nov 7 2003, 06:09 PM
Seems that the committee don&#39;t think it&#39;s too good an idea for us to host the site. :(

Also seems that it&#39;s time for us (T&J) to sadly close the doors on our connections with the association.

Sorry Kouros, wasn&#39;t trying to upstage the committee but we have recieved two emails asking. Thought it would be a reasonable idea to let the members know.
(Paul with his own hat on:)

I should point out that the initial "impetus" was not actually from the committee: there were several comments made in open forum that questioned the "effects" of T&J continuing to host the GAGB web site & forums: specifically, I seem to remember someone comment along the lines of "well, they&#39;ve already threatened to pull the plug twice".... another comment was something like "one person should not have the ability to ....."

I believe it was with these sort of feelings in mind that the committee felt that it needed to be able to reassure the membership that "things are ok", and that required that we secure a "safe" long-term home for the GAGB site.

Personally, I would have had NO problems leaving the site hosted by Tim & June - I trust their integrity - but I am VERY aware that if as a committee we had decided to take that route, then we would have to suffer a LOT of negative comments from some members who do not know T&J that well.

I am actually very sad that T&J have effectively been "hounded" out of GAGB by certain members putting them in a position where nothing they could do was deemed to be right. I am VERY aware of the hurt this has caused T&J too... I don&#39;t think many people realise QUITE how much effort was spent by T&J (and others of the "secret seven" too&#33;) in getting GAGB started up. Most of you are blissfully unaware of all that, and some are just happy to complain when things are not going the way THEY think things should.

At the moment, I want to see GAGB moving forwards, and NOT sitting around "arguing the toss".... if that means that I have to bite my tongue occasionally, then I&#39;m gonna have to do it, and I hope others on the committee (and other members too&#33;) will do the same...


Finally, can I re-iterate what Kouros has said: most of us have lives to lead. Normally I am at work (sometimes away from home) during the day, and have other things to do in the evenings too (many of us have kids) - although this week I have suffered from an extremely bad back, meaning that for several days & evenings I have been flat on my back in bed..... its not easy to do much when you&#39;re like that.

Things WILL take time, we ALL have a limited number of hours available per week, and even though I&#39;ve agreed to be on the committee, that is NOT going to stop me having a life / going caching.


Paul

paul.blitz
8th November 2003, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by Muggle@Nov 8 2003, 01:12 AM

Why is there a need for secrecy in such a small organisation?


Alex

Have you ever actually SERVED on a committee?

If you have, then you will KNOW that there are times when things need to be discussed discretely.


Let&#39;s take a hypothetical example (which is actually very relevant): should GAGB move the website & forum away from T&J&#39;s servers, and if so, where to? (and, just as importantly, where NOT to). Various options will need to be discussed, but to discuss them IN PUBLIC would NOT be very useful: people (including YOU, I have no doubt) would very quickly get all uptight because maybe they manage to read something into our messages which was never there.

Another example: what should we, the committee, do about sockpuppets? Who ARE the sock-puppets? Wow, people would go BALLISTIC if we had an open & honest discussion on THAT in public.


So, Alex, get real, and understand that there IS a reason for a certain amount of "confidentiality".


Now, before you say ANYTHING about my son, Michael, being able to read the committee forum:

(i) before Michael was allowed to read anything, I asked if any other committee members had any objections. I think most, if not all, of the committee have met Michael, so they were able to make "an informed decision". There were no objections - if there had been, I would NOT have allowed Michael to read the forum;

(ii) Michael is a very intelligent 14 year old, and as such, has actually a lot to contribute to GAGB. However, he is also very aware that he has to keep the confidentiality of committee discussions. His posting saying that he was able to see the committee forum was not a good thing to have done (as has been demonstrated by the subsequent postings);

(iii) I, too, do not like my son being called a "sprog"...... it is NOT the sort of phrase that one should use unless one is DELIBERATELY trying to stir things up. I would have said nothing, but it seems that 3 others have already voiced their "displeasure" at that phrase.

(iv) if at any time, any of the committee feel that they no longer want Michael to read the forum, then I will ensure that is the case. If that happens, I may well then question about other&#39;s partners access.

(v) In any case, I feel that, in the same way I might talk (on a personal level) to other non-committee members about what the committee are doing, then I would still discuss things with Michael. I don&#39;t discuss them with my wife, as she doesn&#39;t really have much interest in caching.


Well, my back is hurting again, so the TV is about to win again&#33;

Paul Blitz (speaking his OWN mind)

BugznElm&#39;r
8th November 2003, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by paul.blitz@Nov 8 2003, 07:38 PM
I seem to remember someone comment along the lines of "well, they&#39;ve already threatened to pull the plug twice".... another comment was something like "one person should not have the ability to ....."

So Tim actually making a post on this forum on at least two separate occasions saying that he was ready to pull the plug on it didn&#39;t come into it at all ... it was that that someone bought it up again afterwards.

el10t
8th November 2003, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by Muggle@Nov 8 2003, 05:35 PM

Perhaps you might like to explain what was offensive about it?


Personally I&#39;d have thought the fact that three people found it offensive is enough. Just because you don&#39;t find it offensive doesn&#39;t mean other people don&#39;t. Please have some respect for other people&#39;s feelings.

Muggle
8th November 2003, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by paul.blitz@Nov 8 2003, 08:08 PM
(iii) I, too, do not like my son being called a "sprog"...... it is NOT the sort of phrase that one should use unless one is DELIBERATELY trying to stir things up. I would have said nothing, but it seems that 3 others have already voiced their "displeasure" at that phrase.


In this neck of the woods the term "sprog" isn&#39;t offensive. I certainly did not use that term to "DELIBERATELY trying to stir things up". If you see it as that way, then I am more than happy to withdraw the remark.

I wonder why the same people who voiced their displeasure did not do the same over the barrage of vitriol, whispers and untruths that I have been subjected to on this forum over the past couple of weeks. Fortunately I have a thicker skin.

I suppose I should have been happy that Michael wanted to investigate the identity of Piggly. Had he succeeded where the others had previously failed, at least it would have perhaps convinced the doubters that it wasn&#39;t me. ;)

Muggle
8th November 2003, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by el10t@Nov 8 2003, 08:27 PM
Personally I&#39;d have thought the fact that three people found it offensive is enough. Just because you don&#39;t find it offensive doesn&#39;t mean other people don&#39;t. Please have some respect for other people&#39;s feelings.
Just like the author of this post had respect for my feelings??

we all know yer a puppet, troll, pain in the ass.. so are you man/woman (sorry ladies) enough to come clean.. if not then shut up.. and get out.. you are not wanted or welcome.

el10t
8th November 2003, 09:41 PM
Sorry Alex - I didn&#39;t realise you were tit-for-tatting.
Carry on.

Moss Trooper
8th November 2003, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by Muggle+Nov 8 2003, 09:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Muggle @ Nov 8 2003, 09:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--el10t@Nov 8 2003, 08:27 PM
Personally I&#39;d have thought the fact that three people found it offensive is enough. Just because you don&#39;t find it offensive doesn&#39;t mean other people don&#39;t. Please have some respect for other people&#39;s feelings.
Just like the author of this post had respect for my feelings??

we all know yer a puppet, troll, pain in the ass.. so are you man/woman (sorry ladies) enough to come clean.. if not then shut up.. and get out.. you are not wanted or welcome. [/b][/quote]
Alex? Who said my name was Alex? "comment on being accused of being Muggle"

That IS your name though, isn&#39;t it Alex.

I like the Slytherin/Muggle connection - very clever.

(I also thought your "Norfolk and Goode" pseudonym was an amusing, if somewhat crude, pun. It was a shame it was changed it to "The Goode Guys".)

Was my Put up or Shut up that done it.. sorry to put a spanner in yer works Alex..

Did flush out a Sock puppet/troll though didn&#39;t it..

Apart from the fact that you were not invited into the secret seven.. Is there any other reason that you just seem to do nothing else but try and wreck everything that GAGB is trying to do?

BY the way.. the little contact I&#39;ve had with Master Blitz.. he&#39;s a canny lad.. and prolly more sence than you an me put together..

Muggle
9th November 2003, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Nov 8 2003, 11:05 PM
Did flush out a Sock puppet/troll though didn&#39;t it..

Well actually you didn&#39;t.

The only sock puppet who has been exposed on these forums was in fact Devils Advocate who turned out to be none other than.... Moss Trooper. Well who would have thought that&#33;&#33;&#33;

I have stated this before, but you choose to ignore the facts.

a ) I have never posted on GAGB or GC.COM on any matter to do with GAGB using a sock puppet.

b ) I have never voted more than once in any GAGB election.

You have no evidence whatsoever that I have done anything that you accuse me of.

Quite frankly I&#39;m tiring of this but I&#39;m not going away. Not as long as you keep spouting lies. Your choice.

Give it a rest and let the new committee get on and get things going. If you have anything else to say, i suggest you take it to email as I am not prepared to discuss your foundless accusastions any further on this forum.

BugznElm&#39;r
9th November 2003, 10:37 AM
Seeing Moss&#39;s post above and I just realized that he is posting under the group "Founder Member/Committee" ... is this group on this forum now outdated as the GAGB have an elected committee?

For clarity might I suggest that this be changed.

BugznElm&#39;r
9th November 2003, 10:49 AM
I&#39;m amazed that three people thought that the word "sprog" was offensive while nobody seemed to think that the following post by Moss Trooper, laced with abuse and threats:


"If your a sock puppet .. sod off.. your not wanted or welcome and I&#39;ll do as suggested in another thread and pull yer plug.

If yer a troll.. hope it&#39;s under a bridge in the Cheviots.. cos yer will be part of the foundation.. thats what happens to stiffs."

Teasel
9th November 2003, 01:47 PM
Oh dear, oh dear, things are rather volatile round here at the moment&#33; How come every discussion seems to end up talking about sock puppets? Meanwhile, back on topic...


Three question for the committee ...

1 - Where will the new site be hosted?
2 - When is the move expected?
3 - How are the bills being paid when the GAGB has no cash? What controls are in place to prevent someone getting hacked off and threatening to pull the plug?

Unsurprisingly enough, the committee has been discussing the future of the website, both amongst ourselves and with T&J. When I met T&J about 3 weeks ago, they expressed a desire that a new home be found at some point, but said they were happy for it to remain on their server in the meantime. Whilst I have argued strongly that the website should be controlled by the committee as a whole, rather than by any individual, I appreciate equally strongly their generous provision of top-notch web hosting, without which GAGB would have not got off the ground&#33;

For technical reasons, the present committee cannot have all the administrative access we&#39;d ideally like on Tim&#39;s server, for the simple reason that it is a production server he uses for his business clients. Politically, having any individual single-handedly controlling the GAGB server is not ideal. That goes for anyone: me, T&J, Mark, Peter, whoever.

Speaking personally, I&#39;d like to see the following
- The website should be controllable by any and all members of the committee
- The website innards should be inaccessible to anyone not on the committee
- Nobody should be seen to have undue influence on GAGB through their provision of a website
- The website should be as immune to having the plug pulled as possible

As for the "where, when and how" questions, the answer has to be that we&#39;re discussing it and that we&#39;ll let you know as soon as we&#39;ve decided&#33; Patience, puleeeeze&#33;

Teasel
9th November 2003, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by paul.blitz@Nov 8 2003, 08:08 PM
(iv) if at any time, any of the committee feel that they no longer want Michael to read the forum, then I will ensure that is the case.
Can&#39;t speak for the others but I myself have no problems at all with Michael reading the committee forums, being present at committee meetings etc. I hope and expect that Jayne, Bob, Debbie, Nicky etc will be afforded the same courtesy without all these mutterings in the forums&#33;

BugznElm&#39;r
9th November 2003, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by Teasel+Nov 9 2003, 04:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Teasel @ Nov 9 2003, 04:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--paul.blitz@Nov 8 2003, 08:08 PM
(iv) if at any time, any of the committee feel that they no longer want Michael to read the forum, then I will ensure that is the case.
Can&#39;t speak for the others but I myself have no problems at all with Michael reading the committee forums, being present at committee meetings etc. I hope and expect that Jayne, Bob, Debbie, Nicky etc will be afforded the same courtesy without all these mutterings in the forums&#33; [/b][/quote]
I&#39;m not saying that there&#39;s anything wrong with this but I would urge the committee not to do something that could result in confidence being lost in the current committee. Things still seem touchy and it might be wise to play things carefully for the next few months ... just in case&#33; :o

Seasider
9th November 2003, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Teasel+Nov 9 2003, 04:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Teasel @ Nov 9 2003, 04:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--paul.blitz@Nov 8 2003, 08:08 PM
(iv) if at any time, any of the committee feel that they no longer want Michael to read the forum, then I will ensure that is the case.
Can&#39;t speak for the others but I myself have no problems at all with Michael reading the committee forums, being present at committee meetings etc. I hope and expect that Jayne, Bob, Debbie, Nicky etc will be afforded the same courtesy without all these mutterings in the forums&#33; [/b][/quote]
Surely this is clear cut?

Paul Blitz & Teasel stood for election not Team Blitz & Team Teasel.

Therefore, other family members should not have access to committee forums etc.

It is unacceptable for unelected cachers to have anything to do with an elected committee.

Seasider

THE BRAMBLERS
9th November 2003, 06:34 PM
The committee are not deciding the fate of the world here.

It&#39;s geocaching - FAMILY FUN&#33;&#33;&#33;

Debbie

NattyBooshka
9th November 2003, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by Seasider+Nov 9 2003, 06:23 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Seasider @ Nov 9 2003, 06:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Teasel@Nov 9 2003, 04:47 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--paul.blitz@Nov 8 2003, 08:08 PM
(iv) if at any time, any of the committee feel that they no longer want Michael to read the forum, then I will ensure that is the case.
Can&#39;t speak for the others but I myself have no problems at all with Michael reading the committee forums, being present at committee meetings etc. I hope and expect that Jayne, Bob, Debbie, Nicky etc will be afforded the same courtesy without all these mutterings in the forums&#33;
Surely this is clear cut?

Paul Blitz & Teasel stood for election not Team Blitz & Team Teasel.

Therefore, other family members should not have access to committee forums etc.

It is unacceptable for unelected cachers to have anything to do with an elected committee.

Seasider [/b][/quote]
We agree totally... where do we draw the line? Can we look at them if we have a friends friends uncles grandsons aunt on the committee? :P

We do think it should be ONLY the ELECTED committee who have admin access of any type. We assume that all data we provided when signing up is protected from ALL eyes that should not be seeing it (including those of family members of committee) in accordance with data protection regulations. It would not be acceptable for our bank manager to allow her son access to our account details, and we fail to see the difference here.

Chris n Maria
9th November 2003, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by THE BRAMBLERS@Nov 9 2003, 06:34 PM
The committee are not deciding the fate of the world here.

It&#39;s geocaching - FAMILY FUN&#33;&#33;&#33;

Debbie
Ahh, A sane voice amongst the madness.

I bet it gets drowned out :D
Chris

Gavotteers
9th November 2003, 07:07 PM
[QUOTE=THE BRAMBLERS The committee are not deciding the fate of the world here.

It&#39;s geocaching - FAMILY FUN&#33;&#33;&#33;


It Used to be until we started reading this forum

Inch by Inch Life&#39;s a Cinch
Yard by yard it&#39;s Very hard

So why not give PEACE a Chance

Mel

Seasider
9th November 2003, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by THE BRAMBLERS@Nov 9 2003, 06:34 PM
The committee are not deciding the fate of the world here.

It&#39;s geocaching - FAMILY FUN&#33;&#33;&#33;

Debbie
No, but to have credibility as an organisation it is necessary to follow an accepted framework.

If we are to elect a committee and adopt rules & procedures then &#39;legal technicalities&#39; such as only elected representatives having certain privileges must be followed.

I can see how this is of little interest to the average cacher but it is an important issue.

Seasider

Ashandes
9th November 2003, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by paul.blitz@Nov 8 2003, 07:38 PM
I am actually very sad that T&J have effectively been "hounded" out of GAGB by certain members putting them in a position where nothing they could do was deemed to be right.
Is there any chance you could let this drop at some point? As many people have pointed out (yourself included) a full committee has been elected (at last&#33;) and it&#39;s time to move forward. Continual vague accusations at unnamed members of an organisation that has elected you is just plain terrible for morale. Just as a member continually making vague accusations of vote rigging would not be a good for morale and a way of moving on.

If we need to let some "issues" of the past drop and remain in the past then this needs to go for everyone. If you have specific evidence or accusations you should present it or perhaps take it up with the person in question. But these sorts of blanket accusations really do no one any good.

Omally
9th November 2003, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by Chris n Maria+Nov 9 2003, 07:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chris n Maria @ Nov 9 2003, 07:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--THE BRAMBLERS@Nov 9 2003, 06:34 PM
The committee are not deciding the fate of the world here.

It&#39;s geocaching - FAMILY FUN&#33;&#33;&#33;

Debbie
Ahh, A sane voice amongst the madness.

I bet it gets drowned out :D
Chris [/b][/quote]
Maybe not if enough of us say it loud enough:

The committee are not deciding the fate of the world here. It&#39;s geocaching - FAMILY FUN&#33;&#33;&#33;

:D

BugznElm&#39;r
9th November 2003, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by Omally+Nov 9 2003, 09:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Omally @ Nov 9 2003, 09:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Chris n Maria@Nov 9 2003, 07:02 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--THE BRAMBLERS@Nov 9 2003, 06:34 PM
The committee are not deciding the fate of the world here.

It&#39;s geocaching - FAMILY FUN&#33;&#33;&#33;

Debbie
Ahh, A sane voice amongst the madness.

I bet it gets drowned out :D
Chris
Maybe not if enough of us say it loud enough:

The committee are not deciding the fate of the world here. It&#39;s geocaching - FAMILY FUN&#33;&#33;&#33;

:D [/b][/quote]
Why does "fun" need a commitee? An association?

el10t
9th November 2003, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r@Nov 9 2003, 09:32 PM
Why does "fun" need a commitee? An association?
I think the reasons and aims of GAGB are easy to find on this site. I&#39;m surprised you haven&#39;t seen them.

Brenin Tegeingl
9th November 2003, 10:07 PM
I am sorry that elected members of the committee, have stated that it&#39;s ok for non members of the committee to be allowed to read what is supposed to be a private forum for the committees eyes only&#33; If its private, only the committee should read it, if it&#39;s not it should be posted on the public forums. Otherwise you are creating what is a privileged group of members who have not been elected by the membership&#33; Also how can the committee enter into confidential negotiations with landowners, when the details of those negotiations can be accessed by non elected members of this Association. As all ready has been seen negotiations can come to a halt thru comments made on forums. As for geocaching being family fun, yes it is&#33; But this association was set up to provide support and give a stable base for geocaching in the UK, as such it has to be serious, and act in a credible manner at all times if its going to represent geocaching in the UK. Dave Palmer

Chris n Maria
9th November 2003, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r@Nov 9 2003, 09:32 PM
Why does "fun" need a commitee? An association?
Fun dosn&#39;t - the pursuit of fun via negotiation with landowners etc does. That is really the main point/thrust of GAGB and (even to the untrained eye) it appears that events in the New forest (if nowhere else) prove that official representation might help us all.

<just wondering> If you don&#39;t see the need for the association then why are you here? </just wondering>
Chris

Seasider
9th November 2003, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by Chris n Maria+Nov 9 2003, 10:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chris n Maria @ Nov 9 2003, 10:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--BugznElm&#39;r@Nov 9 2003, 09:32 PM
Why does "fun" need a commitee? An association?
Fun dosn&#39;t - the pursuit of fun via negotiation with landowners etc does. That is really the main point/thrust of GAGB and (even to the untrained eye) it appears that events in the New forest (if nowhere else) prove that official representation might help us all.

<just wondering> If you don&#39;t see the need for the association then why are you here? </just wondering>
Chris [/b][/quote]
We all know the main thrust/point of GAGB.

We all have fun caching :) and I agree the GAGB must be a serious organisation and electoral legitimacy is central to this.

No-one should be able to by-pass scrutiny when it suits them by saying it doesn&#39;t matter.

Teasel (who I voted for) & Paul Blitz (who I didn&#39;t because I don&#39;t know him) stood as individual candidates and they must honour their mandate as individuals. The fact that they would almost certainly have been voted in as a family is not legally relevant.

Sorry to press the point but ending this issue now saves problems in the new year.

Seasider

MCL
10th November 2003, 02:10 AM
In my opinion it comes down to the comittee. If the current committee are happy to share their forum with someone (whoever, its their choice since its their words being shared&#33;) then let them.

As has been pointed out, the moment someone comes onto the committee who does not want the sharing to continue, then that sharing will cease. So where is the problem?

From this end, it seems that some people are trying to tell our committee who they can and can&#39;t share their conversations with. This would seem to be a power that is *not* vested in individual members, and for good reason.

NattyBooshka
10th November 2003, 06:19 AM
Originally posted by MCL@Nov 10 2003, 02:10 AM
In my opinion it comes down to the comittee. If the current committee are happy to share their forum with someone (whoever, its their choice since its their words being shared&#33;) then let them.

As has been pointed out, the moment someone comes onto the committee who does not want the sharing to continue, then that sharing will cease. So where is the problem?

From this end, it seems that some people are trying to tell our committee who they can and can&#39;t share their conversations with. This would seem to be a power that is *not* vested in individual members, and for good reason.
As access to the committee forum is a privilage that was bestowed upon committee members by a vote from the membership, we consider that access to that forum is not a privilage that should be bestowed on others, by the committee, at any time other than the co-option of a new committee member.

Chris n Maria
10th November 2003, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by Seasider+Nov 9 2003, 10:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Seasider @ Nov 9 2003, 10:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Chris n Maria@Nov 9 2003, 10:25 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--BugznElm&#39;r@Nov 9 2003, 09:32 PM
Why does "fun" need a commitee? An association?
We all know the main thrust/point of GAGB.
[/b][/quote]
If "we all know then" then why did BugznElm&#39;r ask?

It just all to complicated for a bear of little brain like me and I thought UTM conversion formulas were complicated :unsure:

Chris

Paul G0TLG
10th November 2003, 08:55 AM
We&#39;re not talking state secrets here: Even if the committee members&#39; families can&#39;t read the committee forum, the committee members will still tell their families what&#39;s going on: The alternative is a ridiculous situation where a committee member going to hold negotiations with a landowner can&#39;t tell his wife where he&#39;s going&#33;

As I see it, the point of keeping committee discussions private is not to keep things secret from the "legitimate" membership (by which I mean, those of us who joined because we wanted to support the aims of the GAGB). This is a public forum and anyone can read it, including those representatives of landowing bodies who wish to oppose geocaching. While I&#39;m sure none of us would post anything here which could turn a landowner against us (yes, I&#39;m being ironic here), some people are opposed to geocaching for all sorts of reasons and it doesn&#39;t help our cause for those people to know how our negotiations are going.

I know a couple of excellent examples to illustrate this point, but I was told them in confidence...

In other words, let the committee hide their discussions from the public forum, where we don&#39;t know who&#39;s going to read them. But if committee members choose to share information with people they trust (whether family members or not), I don&#39;t have a problem with that.

I hope it&#39;s clear what I mean here...my brain is in Monday Morning Mode&#33;

Paul

NattyBooshka
10th November 2003, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by Paul G0TLG@Nov 10 2003, 08:55 AM
We&#39;re not talking state secrets here: Even if the committee members&#39; families can&#39;t read the committee forum, the committee members will still tell their families what&#39;s going on: The alternative is a ridiculous situation where a committee member going to hold negotiations with a landowner can&#39;t tell his wife where he&#39;s going&#33;

As I see it, the point of keeping committee discussions private is not to keep things secret from the "legitimate" membership (by which I mean, those of us who joined because we wanted to support the aims of the GAGB). This is a public forum and anyone can read it, including those representatives of landowing bodies who wish to oppose geocaching. While I&#39;m sure none of us would post anything here which could turn a landowner against us (yes, I&#39;m being ironic here), some people are opposed to geocaching for all sorts of reasons and it doesn&#39;t help our cause for those people to know how our negotiations are going.

I know a couple of excellent examples to illustrate this point, but I was told them in confidence...

In other words, let the committee hide their discussions from the public forum, where we don&#39;t know who&#39;s going to read them. But if committee members choose to share information with people they trust (whether family members or not), I don&#39;t have a problem with that.

I hope it&#39;s clear what I mean here...my brain is in Monday Morning Mode&#33;

Paul
Sure, a committee member not talking to his/her family would be ridiculous... but none of the committees I&#39;ve served on would allow family members to come in and out of meetings as and when they pleased. Family members would probably be aware of the minutes of a meeting quicker than the membership in any organisation... but they should not be given access to personal information of the members, either as a part of an offline discussion or in their own right.

We, the members, should all have access to minutes of committee meetings, but nobody other than the serving committee should be able to see the actual transcript of a meeting/committee discussion, regardless of relationship to any committee member.

What I&#39;m saying here is there should be no difference between a committee memeber&#39;s relatives account and that of a normal member.

Also, minutes should contain comments telling us that negotiations with landowners (including who) are ongoing and who has picked up that action... so for example "Paul Blitz to continue negotiations with the FC" but they should not contain any detail of those negotiations.

Minutes of meetings, once agreed as a correct and true representation of a meeting (usually at the next meeting) should be supplied to any member requesting them... I hope & trust that this is something the commitee intend to do... otherwise how do we know who is representing us well when it comes to re-elections in due course?

The only exception to this I have experience of is when a member is invited to a part of a committee meeting to defend themselves against any accusation or to give information to a meeting.

BugznElm&#39;r
10th November 2003, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by Chris n Maria+Nov 10 2003, 08:45 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chris n Maria @ Nov 10 2003, 08:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Seasider@Nov 9 2003, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by -Chris n Maria@Nov 9 2003, 10:25 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--BugznElm&#39;r@Nov 9 2003, 09:32 PM
Why does "fun" need a commitee? An association?
We all know the main thrust/point of GAGB.

If "we all know then" then why did BugznElm&#39;r ask?

It just all to complicated for a bear of little brain like me and I thought UTM conversion formulas were complicated :unsure:

Chris [/b][/quote]
Why did I ask? Because as soon as the pressure is on and questions are asked, people start saying "It&#39;s all fun, why be so serious?" If I didn&#39;t think it was serious I wouldn&#39;t worry but obviously there are others who feel that because geocaching is "fun" and a hobby, the association need not be a serious thing.

Let&#39;s remember the past and think a little about the future. Think back to those HCC/GAGB guidelines. No matter what anyone thinks, we saw there how fast something coming from the GAGB could affect GC.com and then geocachers as a whole. OK, there was nothing really restrictive in those guidelines but now wind up to the FC talks ... what if they say (rather unlikely but it could happen) "no geocaching&#33;" If they said that without the association existing they&#39;d have to find them and get rid of each one themselves. However, put the association in the middle with fast-trak links to GC.com and no more caches on FC land ... within three years all the existing caches will have decayed.

OK, that&#39;s unlikely but what about something a little more likely ... what if what a little bird tells me is true and the FC don&#39;t like plastic tupperware boxes on their land and would rather all ammo boxes? How would you feel if something that sounded innocuous like that made its way into FC guidelines? How would that make you feel?

The biggest disagreement that Tim and I had over the GAGB was that I believe that any association is a form of control. Might be good, might be bad. But you have control either way and control that can sway one way or another.

Remember too what was set up – A Geocaching Association of Great Britain … surely this association, set up by a few, has responsibilities to every geocacher in Britain, not just the committee or those on the forum. That sounds serious to me.

Also (final point – promise) Paul mentioned TnJ being “hounded” from the GAGB. What Paul didn’t mention and I feel should, is the rough end of the stick used against many in the early days who disagreed with the GAGB vision. As far as I could see, no one “hounded” anyone – a forum was set up for discussion and a discussion took place. Issues of conflicts on interest and dual standards of saying one thing and doing another were raised by members and people chose to leave. If you don’t believe me, most of the forum postings are there … check them out for yourselves.

If you think we need the GAGB, then take it seriously. Geocaching is a game but an association isn’t.

BugznElm&#39;r
10th November 2003, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by NattyBooshka@Nov 10 2003, 10:22 AM
Minutes of meetings, once agreed as a correct and true representation of a meeting (usually at the next meeting) should be supplied to any member requesting them... I hope & trust that this is something the commitee intend to do... otherwise how do we know who is representing us well when it comes to re-elections in due course?

I would hope so too. I would lose faith in any committee that chose not to.

Secrecy in negotiations is one thing; secrecy between the committee and the members is another.

Chris n Maria
10th November 2003, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r@Nov 10 2003, 11:21 AM
OK, that&#39;s unlikely but what about something a little more likely ... what if what a little bird tells me is true and the FC don&#39;t like plastic tupperware boxes on their land and would rather all ammo boxes? How would you feel if something that sounded innocuous like that made its way into FC guidelines? How would that make you feel?

Now I really am confused. If the FC wanted only ammo boxes, (or even bright purple ammo boxes) surely that is what we should be using if we are caching on their land? If those are the guidelines that the FC want then surly those are what we should use if we cache on their land :unsure:

Unless what you ment to type was not FC guidlines but GC guidelines?

Confused
Chris

BugznElm&#39;r
10th November 2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Chris n Maria@Nov 10 2003, 11:32 AM
Unless what you ment to type was not FC guidlines but GC guidelines?

Confused
Chris
I did ... I meant an FC guideline making its way into a GC guideline.

However, I&#39;d be pretty annoyed at the FC making any such demand, especially since I have given them at least 6 co-ords of dumped cars and rubbish piles on their land that are still there 3 - 4 years on.

Sorry ... too many abbreviations&#33;

BugznElm&#39;r
10th November 2003, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r+Nov 10 2003, 12:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BugznElm&#39;r @ Nov 10 2003, 12:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Chris n Maria@Nov 10 2003, 11:32 AM
Unless what you ment to type was not FC guidlines but GC guidelines?

Confused
Chris
I did ... I meant an FC guideline making its way into a GC guideline.

However, I&#39;d be pretty annoyed at the FC making any such demand, especially since I have given them at least 6 co-ords of dumped cars and rubbish piles on their land that are still there 3 - 4 years on.

Sorry ... too many abbreviations&#33; [/b][/quote]
I&#39;ll take the car dumping and fly tipping example further. Laws exist prohibiting this but it still goes on (The FC say they don&#39;t have the time or money to combat it) ... but wouldn&#39;t it be a lot easier to control it if a car dumping association existed? I know this is pushing extremes but it does go to show that an association can be a very effective instrument of control. In this example the FC go to the GAGB and say "geocachers - get lost" and off we all go ... even though I and many others have caches on FC land that have the warden&#39;s permission&#33; In this case the involvment of a single association *could* invalidate caches that some of us already have permission for.

Chris n Maria
10th November 2003, 12:42 PM
Slightly less confused :rolleyes:

Agreed - from its inception one of the major worries about GAGB, has been the imposition of new restrictions on all caches caused by negotiations with a particular landowner (mind you GCV.com seem to add arbitary rules (like restrictions on virtuals) whenever they please - but that is a different story). When GAGB was run by the same people who approved caches their was a huge potential for conflict of interest. Since then things have changed somewhat.

Our 2 hardworking approvers are not on the GAGB comittee and have both shown themselves very willing to rule on the side of allowing a cache rather than strict interpretation of the rules. However if the FC (or any other landowner) were to mail GC.com and say "only approve caches that meet xyz criteria on our land" they would have no choice but to accept it.
At the end of the day the landowner gets the final say - hence the ban on caching in US national parks.

So as far as I can see the comittee don&#39;t really have any "power" as such only the mandate to make representations to major landowners. The risk with this is that they could wake up organisations to our presence and lead to total bans or on the other hand they may just get us cart blanch to cache in a lot more places. Or do you see the comittee having more control then I have outlined?

<just trying to understand and clarify positions rather than arguee the toss>
Chris

Paul G0TLG
10th November 2003, 12:55 PM
Correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but...

Current situation
No caches allowed on FC land. Caches which ARE planted are removed (although of course there&#39;s no evidence that that was done with official FC blessing)

Hypothetical future situation
Caching allowed, providing each cache is in the smallest size of ammo box, painted pink and with the owner&#39;s email address painted on it.

OK, the HFS isn&#39;t that desirable, but surely it&#39;s better than what we have at the moment? As for any hypothetical future FC guidelines being part of the GC guidlines: Surely once a landowner states the requirements for getting permission to plant a cache on their land, that automatically becomes part of the GC rules, because of the rule about permission being required?

Paul
Just want to cache...

NattyBooshka
10th November 2003, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by Paul G0TLG@Nov 10 2003, 12:55 PM
Surely once a landowner states the requirements for getting permission to plant a cache on their land, that automatically becomes part of the GC rules, because of the rule about permission being required?
Yes... in theory as we all tick the box to say we meet the GC.com guidelines when we plant a cache, and one of them says we have landowner permission. However, if this was actually the case, there would be no caches in the NF at all at this time. Approvers don&#39;t have the time or the instruction from TPTB to check this, and in most cases it would be difficult if not impossible for them to do. Who owns that wooded area marked on the map at then end of a given road? Very few places show this information. So with GC.com guidelines we are trusted to have followed them. People like the FC (especially in the NF) will review any agreement we get and maybe GC.com will adopt them, but like I say in most cases how will the approver know who owns the land?

If we get agreement with a major landowner, we will have to keep ourselves in check if we are to keep that agreement. We will need to satisfy them that the rules are being followed. This will be an unenviable task, which I assume would lie with the committee/chair of this association. The problem is we have no policing mechanism, so if I wanted to place something outside the rules, there&#39;s nothing in place to stop me. Do we need a to police ourselves? Yes... but who would do this and how? As a landowner I&#39;d expect someone to be able to tell me that I have X caches on my land and that they all meet the requirements I put on their being placed. At best the GAGB will be able to tell me the value of X, but without visiting all of the caches they won&#39;t be able to tell me that they are all within my rules. In that case I would be thinking that maybe I should rip up the argeement and ask that all caches be removed. This is not an easy task, but I do fear that whilst we will gain approval from some major landowners, we will lose those agreements at a future date.

Neil.

BugznElm&#39;r
10th November 2003, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Chris n Maria@Nov 10 2003, 12:42 PM
The risk with this is that they could wake up organisations to our presence and lead to total bans or on the other hand they may just get us cart blanch to cache in a lot more places. Or do you see the comittee having more control then I have outlined?
No, I don&#39;t think you are arguing the toss Chris ...

Spot on Chris ... an association gives major land owners single point of contact to ban or approve caching. Good enough reason for me to take the whole thing seriously.

I also think that one powerful point that the GAGB can make to major land owners is that if geocaching is outlawed, outlaws will geocache. Sensible guidelines encurage sensible behaviour. Bans will just encourage bad behaviour.

NattyBooshka
10th November 2003, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r@Nov 10 2003, 01:40 PM
Sensible guidelines encurage sensible behaviour. Bans will just encourage bad behaviour.
I think, and hope, that most open to the public landowners think the same way... after all, most want people to come and use their land.

BugznElm&#39;r
10th November 2003, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by Paul G0TLG@Nov 10 2003, 12:55 PM
Correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but...

Current situation
No caches allowed on FC land. Caches which ARE planted are removed (although of course there&#39;s no evidence that that was done with official FC blessing)

Hypothetical future situation
Caching allowed, providing each cache is in the smallest size of ammo box, painted pink and with the owner&#39;s email address painted on it.

OK, the HFS isn&#39;t that desirable, but surely it&#39;s better than what we have at the moment? As for any hypothetical future FC guidelines being part of the GC guidlines: Surely once a landowner states the requirements for getting permission to plant a cache on their land, that automatically becomes part of the GC rules, because of the rule about permission being required?

Paul
Just want to cache...
One solution here is for the GAGB to make it clear that they don&#39;t have policing powers but can simply recommend guidelines to members.

Chris n Maria
10th November 2003, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by NattyBooshka+Nov 10 2003, 01:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (NattyBooshka @ Nov 10 2003, 01:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--BugznElm&#39;r@Nov 10 2003, 01:40 PM
Sensible guidelines encurage sensible behaviour. Bans will just encourage bad behaviour.
I think, and hope, that most open to the public landowners think the same way... after all, most want people to come and use their land. [/b][/quote]
Agreed,

In my (all be it) limited discussions with landowners I have been surprised at how keen they were to encorage people to enjoy their land. Looks like the days of the grumpy park keeper are behind us&#33; Big beauracratic organisations are a different kettle of lobsters, because you need everyone to say yes to get a change through but only 1 person to say no to stop things.


"if geocaching is outlawed, outlaws will geocache. " I love that expresion it conjurs up a wonderfull vision of masked cachers :D :D

Chris

BugznElm&#39;r
10th November 2003, 02:01 PM
I think that the conclusion we are coming to is that one of the early mistakes the GAGB did was take the HCC guidelines and use them are rules on GC.com. That simply overstepped the mark, making the GAGB simply a tool of the GC moderators and a policing body ... especially when no attempt was made to make sure that existing caches complied.

Chris n Maria
10th November 2003, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r@Nov 10 2003, 02:01 PM
I think that the conclusion we are coming to is that one of the early mistakes the GAGB did was take the HCC guidelines and use them are rules on GC.com. That simply overstepped the mark, making the GAGB simply a tool of the GC moderators and a policing body ... especially when no attempt was made to make sure that existing caches complied.
IMHO I think a lot of people would agree with those sentiments - still "the past is not within the realms of managment" and we should learn from the past and move on as best we can.

NattyBooshka
10th November 2003, 02:28 PM
Hindsight is a wonderful thing... I believe that the decision to apply HCC rules to GC.com approvals was taken in good faith and the interest of the game. I personally would hope that anybody placing a cache in Hampshire would follow these guidelines anyway and that approvers could take it as read. The only problem is that on managed land we may well be asked to prove that all of our caches (regardless of age) comply with the guidelines... as a landowner I wouldn&#39;t take to kindly to the "that was there before we agreed the guidelines" argument... and that could prove to be our biggest problem in the future. Personally team NattyBooshka will change/remove our caches to reflect changing guidelines and issues.

Moss Trooper
10th November 2003, 03:12 PM
Lets be honest here.. You don&#39;t believe that the UK approvers actually apply the GC.com guidelines implicitly.. That would be ludicrous.. given that this is UK and the guidelines were originally drawn up for the USA.

When I tried to apply the HCC guidelines it was to simplify things. We even added a guideline in HCC to cover dry stone walls.. there aren’t any in HC.

If a US approver checks out a UK cache, and it is possible and used to be the norm, how would he approve a cache near or by a bridge. He wouldn&#39;t as in US they are deemed soft targets for terrorists.. (over the top.. it isn&#39;t believe me).

Then there is the problem covering SAM&#39;s, SSSI&#39;s etc. The whole idea was to bring things onto an even keel applicable to UK. Any cache that was within HCC guidelines would automatically be in line with GC.com guidelines.. the reverse however would not be true. I think what most are forgetting that there are no Guidelines specific to UK (things were in pipeline for a change on this) Eckers and Lacto may know better. :)

If the approvers actually adhered to GC.com guidelines then I doubt if many caches would be approved straight off. Indeed when UK approvers ( and good ones they are too ) have a problem with a cache.. they usually come to a mutual agreement with the person placing the cache. In US it would be archived and the onus is on the cacher to get it approved.

BugznElm&#39;r
10th November 2003, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by NattyBooshka@Nov 10 2003, 02:28 PM
Personally team NattyBooshka will change/remove our caches to reflect changing guidelines and issues.
For the record, so will Team BugznElm&#39;r.

Moss Trooper
10th November 2003, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r@Nov 10 2003, 02:01 PM
I think that the conclusion we are coming to is that one of the early mistakes the GAGB did was take the HCC guidelines and use them are rules on GC.com. That simply overstepped the mark, making the GAGB simply a tool of the GC moderators and a policing body ... especially when no attempt was made to make sure that existing caches complied.
You think that I was in the process of making the GAGB a tool for GC.com and a policing body.. well Eckers and Lacto are the policing body not GAGB, that was never the intention.

What you are actually saying though that if GAGB got blanket approval for FE, EH, EN etc on a well thought out set of guide lines , the GC.com approvers should not follow them??

Chris n Maria
10th November 2003, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Nov 10 2003, 03:17 PM





You think that I was in the process of making the GAGB a tool for GC.com and a policing body.. well Eckers and Lacto are the policing body not GAGB, that was never the intention.
I am sure it never was the intention but the appearence (to those of us not "in the know" and who dont really understood the innerworkings of GC.com) was that it was a possibility. A lot of people only saw your imposition of HCC rules as a set of extra restrictions (not that anyone really had any problem with the actual rules) and didnt/couldnt see that you were negating some of the effects of US moderators.

Really all it needed was some discussion of the reasoning behind the decision and it wouldnt have been seen so negativley - perhaps some spin was in order :D


What you are actually saying though that if GAGB got blanket approval for FE, EH, EN etc on a well thought out set of guide lines , the GC.com approvers should not follow them??

No - but they should only follow them for the relevant areas of land. If EH say that all caches should be micros we dont want the micros to be the only caches aproved in the UK.

Chris

BugznElm&#39;r
10th November 2003, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Nov 10 2003, 03:17 PM
You think that I was in the process of making the GAGB a tool for GC.com and a policing body..
I don&#39;t know ... I wasn&#39;t in the know&#33; But was I and others wrong to ask the questions we did? Did the founding members need to take offence to questions and criticism? I know the founding memebers must have put in a lot of hard work and effort into the whole thing but did you really expect zero resistance?

I&#39;m not trying to be a pain here but really just trying to understand what happened.

Teasel
10th November 2003, 05:03 PM
Exactly, Chris&#33; I think "one of the early mistakes the GAGB did was take the HCC guidelines and use them as rules on GC.com" outside of HCC controlled land. IMHO, another missed opportunity was that this change of policy was presented as a fait accomplis. I&#39;d bet that if we&#39;d started a thread saying "GC.com are allowing us to choose our own rules, what should they be?", then what would have been decided would be virtually indistinguishable to the HCC rules, and everyone would have felt a lovely warm empowered feeling. :) Ain&#39;t hindsight wonderful, eh?

As for policing, I do not feel that it should be up to GAGB to enforce the regulations which are agreed with landowners. That should be down to the individual listings sites.

The real danger, of course, is not that someone like the FC will say they "support caching, but only if we use only metal containers". It is that they will say they don&#39;t want caching at all. There are around 70 county councils out there, plus unitary authorities, plus land owning quangos like EN, FC, EH, BW etc, plus the national parks, plus.... Let&#39;s face it folks, GAGB is quite likely to awaken some sleeping giant who&#39;s going to ban caching on their land entirely&#33; For this reason we need to i) be careful in what order we approach people, so that the balance of precedent is always on our side and ii) discuss beforehand, and in a rational manner, how we should react if and when this happens.

BugznElm&#39;r
10th November 2003, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by Teasel@Nov 10 2003, 05:03 PM
Let&#39;s face it folks, GAGB is quite likely to awaken some sleeping giant who&#39;s going to ban caching on their land entirely&#33;
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but so is listening ... this is what I and others have been saying for months and only now is it being taken seriously.

I am glad that someone finally takes this point seriously. This is a big step away from the early days where the GAGB could do no harm.

Yes, I agree. Take it slow and steady. Get the members on board first (after all, this is a geocacher&#39;s association, not a land owner&#39;s association&#33;). Things looked to me like they were moving along way too fast way too early before ... my opinion of the committee improves daily with the positive and reasonable comments I see here.

paul.blitz
12th November 2003, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by NattyBooshka@Nov 10 2003, 06:19 AM

As access to the committee forum is a privilage that was bestowed upon committee members by a vote from the membership, we consider that access to that forum is not a privilage that should be bestowed on others, by the committee, at any time other than the co-option of a new committee member.
No, the voting was about being elected to a committee&#33;

Now, there happens to be a forum set up on here that the committee use: where does it say who may / may NOT use that forum? Surely it is up to the committee? Maybe if we renamed it to be "committe and invited others" it would all be ok then? (heck, maybe it has already been renamed: you won&#39;t know&#33;)

If the committee hold an actual face-to-face meeting, what is there to stop us inviting anyone else we wish to? And exclude anyone we wish to? Surely we are allowed to do that? Where is there a difference with the forums?

Taking things another step: one of the things GAGB will be doing will be to talk with landowners: we might decide to create another "restricted forum" for those people involved oin such negotiations: access would be limited, and may not include EVERYONE who is talking to landowners, but could easily include committee and NON committee members.


We seem to have yet another big deal going on about nothing&#33;


Paul speaking personally

paul.blitz
12th November 2003, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r@Nov 10 2003, 02:01 PM
I think that the conclusion we are coming to is that one of the early mistakes the GAGB did was take the HCC guidelines and use them are rules on GC.com. That simply overstepped the mark, making the GAGB simply a tool of the GC moderators and a policing body ... especially when no attempt was made to make sure that existing caches complied.
Bear in mind that the background of those "HCC Guidelines" was that the "secret 7" had worked out a sensible list of caching rules, and presented this to HCC.

HCC basically took that list as their guidelines, but in order to cover themselves legally, adding a couple more like "nightime caching is discouraged".

Now, if you look at the "GAGB Guidelines" page, the words are quite "unclear" (probably on purpose&#33;)... nowhere does it ACTUALLY say "these are the GAGB caching guidelines".

Yes, the page has a title "Geocaching Guidelines for the UK"... which is not quite "GAGB caching guidelines". It also notes that "Below is the final draft which is awaiting the seal of approval from Hampshire County Council Countryside Services".

So, the way *I* read it, there are no actual formally published GAGB guidelines on this website.... yet.


Paul&#39;s personal opinion

BugznElm&#39;r
12th November 2003, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by paul.blitz@Nov 12 2003, 09:59 PM
No, the voting was about being elected to a committee&#33;

I guess I do have to ask though ... currently is there a real reason for a non-committee memeber to have such access ... especially since it is a touchy issue right now?

BugznElm&#39;r
12th November 2003, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by paul.blitz@Nov 12 2003, 10:15 PM
So, the way *I* read it, there are no actual formally published GAGB guidelines on this website.... yet.

Are you saying that those who said early on that the GAGB was being used a a vehicle to control caches over at GC.com were right? In that case these unofficial guidelines became official ones over on GC.com before they were official at GAGB. Which also gives a lot more weight to the "conflict of interest" accusations too.

Looks like all the accusations of jumping the gun were well founded.

I don&#39;t was to sound picky, I&#39;m just trying to get this clear.

MCL
13th November 2003, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r@Nov 12 2003, 11:26 PM
I guess I do have to ask though ... currently is there a real reason for a non-committee memeber to have such access ... especially since it is a touchy issue right now?
I can see a real reason, though I don&#39;t know whether the committee share it or not:

It is both instructive and an encouragement to the younger members to let them see first hand that way the machinery works in the background, so that they might learn and become (in time) better candidates for committee themselves.

Provided proper safeguards are in place I can see a real benefit in the long run with showing Mike and others how an organisation is run. And for those of you about to say "what if its NOT run well?", then it is an instructive lesson to a potential future committee member on how NOT to do things.

"Place a boy on the straight and narrow, and, as a man, he will not deviate from it." Ah I knew my bible came in handy for something&#33; :)

I see no reason why this should be a touchy issue in the first place, but obviously some feel it is.

Jeremy P
28th November 2003, 01:37 PM
I have not been involved in GAGB for a long time now, so these observations are from the point of view of (almost) an outsider.

Committee forums: as far as I can tell, the committee can let whoever they want have access to the committee forums. The committee forum is a tool for use by the committee as they see fit. It&#39;s not some hallowed symbol that the rest of us bestow on them. If I was the committee I&#39;d probably make all the threads readable but not writeable to ordinary members to maintain some transparency or I might publish them at some point when a decision is made and the discussion is over. Of course, whatever decision about who sees the forums is made has to be a consensus of the whole committee.

It&#39;s worth pointing out that in most voluntary committtee situations, it is normal to coopt members for specific tasks without having to elect them.

Site administration: I&#39;d be a little bit concerned from some of the posts about the way this is heading, purely from a practical point of view. In my opinion, rather than just give all committee members admin rights, a site administrator should be appointed by the committee to run the site i.e. make sure the forums are running smoothly and the web pages work, implementing changes on behalf of the committee and members etc etc. This is a distinct role from moderating the forums and deciding what content should be in the site. It goes without saying that the site admin should be somebody who knows how to run a site without breaking it - which will not be the case if all of the committee are jointly given the task (I am speaking in general terms here, the current committee may well all be ace web designers, but that won&#39;t always be the case).

Current site: I came through the introductory pages to get to the forums. Now I&#39;m here it is pretty obvious that the committee has been elected and is up and running. I suggest the GAGB pages are updated to reflect that :-)

BugznElm&#39;r
28th November 2003, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by Jeremy P@Nov 28 2003, 01:37 PM
Current site: I came through the introductory pages to get to the forums. Now I&#39;m here it is pretty obvious that the committee has been elected and is up and running. I suggest the GAGB pages are updated to reflect that :-)
I noticed that just today too ... :D

paul.blitz
30th November 2003, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by Jeremy P@Nov 28 2003, 01:37 PM
Current site: I came through the introductory pages to get to the forums. Now I&#39;m here it is pretty obvious that the committee has been elected and is up and running. I suggest the GAGB pages are updated to reflect that :-)
100% correct&#33; You can claim your prize on Jan 25th&#33; ;)

But given that we are in the middle of preparing to move the web site, I guess we all just felt we should get on with the job of doing that, and THEN (or as we do the move) edit stuff.

Paul

Jeremy P
30th November 2003, 08:53 PM
If moving the web site is getting in the way of doing the job of getting GAGB going, perhaps you should think again about whether now is the appropriate time.

Team Paradise
30th November 2003, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by paul.blitz@Nov 30 2003, 07:03 PM
But given that we are in the middle of preparing to move the web site...
Takes about 10 minutes to move the whole site... If you need/want to move the site, what&#39;s the delay ?

Teasel
30th November 2003, 11:06 PM
There are a couple of issues, particularly with migrating the forums and membership database, which will take more than 10mins to sort out. We need to move the whole site at once, so that all links will continue to work.

The committee don&#39;t have admin access to the current website (it&#39;s hosted on the same server which holds Tim&#39;s clients&#39; websites), so we&#39;ve just been putting any edited pages on the new web server for the timebeing, ready for the switch. If it&#39;s really such a big deal, I&#39;m sure I could email some edited pages to Tim, but as JeremyP says, why let it get in the way of getting GAGB going?

Jeremy P
2nd December 2003, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by Teasel@Nov 30 2003, 11:06 PM

The committee don&#39;t have admin access to the current website (it&#39;s hosted on the same server which holds Tim&#39;s clients&#39; websites), so we&#39;ve just been putting any edited pages on the new web server for the timebeing, ready for the switch. If it&#39;s really such a big deal, I&#39;m sure I could email some edited pages to Tim, but as JeremyP says, why let it get in the way of getting GAGB going?
The business of the committee is to run GAGB, not to play at web hosting. How long is it since the last committee member was decided? How long would it have taken somebody to get the pages onto the site (pages which you have already written)?

I&#39;ve been away for the last month or three and nothing on the front page has changed in the meantime. If I was a cacher looking to join up, I think I would have given up assuming the site was dead. Get your flippin&#39; priorities right.

While we&#39;re on the subject I don&#39;t understand the compelling need to move the web site. The committee do not necessarily need to have admin rights to the site, they only need control over the content. Why not just appoint T&J as web admins? In fact I think it would be a good idea to appoint a non committee member as web admin even when you do get this move sorted out to stop this taking the eye off the ball thing happening again.

A compelling reason to stay here is that this site is being provided free.

BugznElm&#39;r
2nd December 2003, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by Jeremy P@Dec 2 2003, 08:56 AM
I&#39;ve been away for the last month or three and nothing on the front page has changed in the meantime. If I was a cacher looking to join up, I think I would have given up assuming the site was dead. Get your flippin&#39; priorities right.
I this is a good point ... a front page to a site that is both static (that is, doesn&#39;t appear to change often) and out of date is not compelling. In fact, it looks quite bad. OK, fine, existing members can post asking why it hasn&#39;t changed but non-members might thing that it&#39;s, well, boring.

Also, while this is tricky and time consuming, I think that the site needs more content ... content, content, content. Most of the geocachers that will come by here aren&#39;t interested in the politics of geocaching but would like to read geocaching related content.

MCL
3rd December 2003, 12:17 AM
..on the other hand the committee are in fact only volunteers and do have lives of their own.

I think the fact that they have successfully sorted in a very short time the enduring problem of the New Forest is evidence enough that they *are* getting their priorities right.

Their priority it would seem was to get caches sorted before websites and thats the way it should be. I agree the website needs to be quite high on the list but I don&#39;t feel that the committee have been particularly idle.

We don&#39;t pay them, so while we might call the tune, we can&#39;t always dictate the tempo.