PDA

View Full Version : Proposed GAGB Constitution



paul.blitz
9th January 2004, 10:48 PM
I have now finished creating a proposed GAGB Constitution (along with some "author's notes") which the committee have had a chance to comment on & help edit.

The proposed constitution will be found HERE (http://homepages.enterprise.net/paul0blitz/GAGB/constitution.htm), and the "author's notes" are HERE (http://homepages.enterprise.net/paul0blitz/GAGB/constitution_notes.htm).

The constitution is heavily based on the WHR (http://www.whr.org.uk) Constitution.

The plan is to ask for your comments over the next 7 days, and then next Friday we will run a poll for 7days, to vote on whether you want to accept the constitution: a simple majority of those voting will be needed to accept the constitution.... although we hope EVERYONE will vote in favour!

If you have any comments, please make them as constructive as possible: I'm sure many of you have some very valid ideas, and I am quite willing to make sensible changes to the proposed constitution, if it helps to make it more sensible, and more acceptable.


Paul Blitz
on behalf of the GAGB Committee

paul.blitz
9th January 2004, 10:51 PM
(wearing my own hat now...)

Before you ask.... the only reason the pages are placed where they are (rather than on the GAGB site) is simply that I have direct access to it, so can quickly post updates if required.

I hope the notes I've written help you make sense of the constitution, which *is* a bit formal in places.


Paul

TaureanTrackers
10th January 2004, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by paul.blitz@Jan 9 2004, 10:48 PM
I have now finished creating a proposed GAGB Constitution (along with some "author's notes") which the committee have had a chance to comment on & help edit.

The proposed constitution will be found HERE (http://homepages.enterprise.net/paul0blitz/GAGB/constitution.htm), and the "author's notes" are HERE (http://homepages.enterprise.net/paul0blitz/GAGB/constitution_notes.htm).

The constitution is heavily based on the WHR (http://www.whr.org.uk) Constitution.

The plan is to ask for your comments over the next 7 days, and then next Friday we will run a poll for 7days, to vote on whether you want to accept the constitution: a simple majority of those voting will be needed to accept the constitution.... although we hope EVERYONE will vote in favour!

If you have any comments, please make them as constructive as possible: I'm sure many of you have some very valid ideas, and I am quite willing to make sensible changes to the proposed constitution, if it helps to make it more sensible, and more acceptable.


Paul Blitz
on behalf of the GAGB Committee
I've just read your constitution and notes and think they sound "sound," but I've been caching only a few weeks, so have little experience on which to base an informed opinion. The caches I've done so far seem to fall into your guidelines, although one is within a drystone wall. It's very small and actually neatly tucked in, in a way that causes no damage to retrieve, but I can see your point; also, we mustn't been seen to go against the country code, it's been created for good reason.

;) I notice, not today as I haven't yet hit a wrong button, that I'm a non-voter so won't be able to take part in your poll next week. What do I have to do to become eligible?

Thanks for a good site and useful information. Keep on caching! :lol:

TaureanTrackers
10th January 2004, 12:44 AM
Whoops&#33; :rolleyes: Just noticed that I didn&#39;t need to hit a wrong button to see I&#39;m a non-voter&#33; Knew it was somewhere but hadn&#39;t been really looking whilst deciding to write the previous reply <_< Sorry. :)

Muggle
10th January 2004, 01:04 AM
One point that needs to be addressed. It needs to be stated what constitutes a "voting member"

and also as there does not appear to be a mechanism for membership to be renwed, requiring a 66.66% vote to change the constitution could allow a situation to develop where if there are a sizable number of lapsed members who will obviously not vote, then no constitutional reform will be able to be carried out. I suggest that item 11 is changed to read "Changes to the constitution must be carried by a majoriyy of at least 66.66% of votes cast".

Other that that it seems pretty good. Well done guys.

paul.blitz
10th January 2004, 01:36 AM
One point that needs to be addressed. It needs to be stated what constitutes a "voting member"

Yes, I agree, we need to address that point... I wasn&#39;t going to comment until I found out the "current status" of things.

I *believe* that the list of voters has NOT changed since we elected the committee. How would people feel if we simply stayed with the same list? The advantage is that it is "fairly well defined".

The DISadvantage of it is that it is unfair to recent, bona-fide, members, who ought to be able to vote. The *PROBLEM* is that if we go through the list of names, in order to "weed-out" the sock-puppets etc, and enable the valid ones, then we may still get it wrong&#33;

At the end of the day, does it ACTUALLY matter that much, I wonder?

============
Aside:
Tim: any chance of some very rough stats.... how many "voters", how many "non-voters", and how many of those "non-voters" are likely to be "legit"?
============

(After the voting for constitution / guidelines, the next thing we (the committee) need to address is the membership list. There needs to be reference to membership in the "Standing Orders" too... One thought, to keep the membership list fresh [and thus avoid the problem you describe] is to require an annual renewal - eg: we email everyone annually asking for them to confirm their membership, follow up again with those who don&#39;t ,to remind them ... I have other thoughts too, but this thread isn&#39;t the place to discuss them. Let me work out the draft Standing Orders & we&#39;ll thrash it all out there)




and also as there does not appear to be a mechanism for membership to be renwed, requiring a 66.66% vote to change the constitution could allow a situation to develop where if there are a sizable number of lapsed members who will obviously not vote, then no constitutional reform will be able to be carried out

An exellent example of where an extra pair of eyes spots something important&#33; What I MEANT was "2/3 of those who vote".... what was written CAN be interpreted either way... thanks for highlighting that one&#33; I&#39;ll go & change it.



Other that that it seems pretty good. Well done guys.

More thanks should go to whoever put together the WHR constitution that I based this on&#33; And thanks for the feedback&#33;



Paul

TaureanTrackers
10th January 2004, 08:19 AM
Originally posted by paul.blitz@Jan 10 2004, 01:36 AM

One point that needs to be addressed. It needs to be stated what constitutes a "voting member"

Yes, I agree, we need to address that point... I wasn&#39;t going to comment until I found out the "current status" of things.

I *believe* that the list of voters has NOT changed since we elected the committee. How would people feel if we simply stayed with the same list? The advantage is that it is "fairly well defined".

The DISadvantage of it is that it is unfair to recent, bona-fide, members, who ought to be able to vote. The *PROBLEM* is that if we go through the list of names, in order to "weed-out" the sock-puppets etc, and enable the valid ones, then we may still get it wrong&#33;

At the end of the day, does it ACTUALLY matter that much, I wonder?

============

<_< It actually matters to those of us who are non-voters, are not sure why so and, who are keen committed people to anything in which they join. It would seem that the whole thing could become very static, if the the status quo is maintained without clear guidance on what to do to become eligible to vote. I shall find it very frustrating to stay a &#39;member&#39; of a society which on &#39;does it matter anyway&#39; would appear to wish forever only to accept my participation to a certain point and no further.

I apologise if it&#39;s something I&#39;ve missed, but I would appeciate it, if someone would let me know if there is indeed a route to becoming a voting member. B)

Thanks again for a good site. :)

PS. What&#39;s a &#39;sock-puppet,&#39; please?

Muggle
10th January 2004, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by paul.blitz@Jan 10 2004, 01:36 AM
The DISadvantage of it is that it is unfair to recent, bona-fide, members, who ought to be able to vote. The *PROBLEM* is that if we go through the list of names, in order to "weed-out" the sock-puppets etc, and enable the valid ones, then we may still get it wrong&#33;

At the end of the day, does it ACTUALLY matter that much, I wonder?

I suspect that it doesn&#39;t. The sock puppet issue was blown up out of all proportion at the time. No one ever proved that the GAGB elections were affected by sock puppet votes and the only person who was accused of voting twice, actually didn&#39;t. The words "egg" and "face" sprang to mind at the time.

I find it rather sad that there are a husband and wife team of geocachers that I know who have found in excess of 300 caches, use the same name on geocaching.com, navicache.com and GAGB but are tagged as "non-voting" and cannot understand why.

The more members that the Association can attract means more views and a wider representation of geocachers in the UK. Maintaining a "them and us" voting system will do nothing but put off genuine cachers from participating in the business of the Association, and that can&#39;t be a good thing.

seifer
10th January 2004, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by TaureanTrackers@Jan 10 2004, 08:19 AM


<_< It actually matters to those of us who are non-voters, are not sure why so and, who are keen committed people to anything in which they join.

The reason that some members are voting, and some ore not is actually incredibly simple...

When we were electing the committee, any members that registered after two weeks (or however long it was) before the first vote, became "non voting". This was done to stop people from creating multiple accounts and therefore voting twice in the elections.


PS. What&#39;s a &#39;sock-puppet,&#39; please?

A sock puppet is an extra account created by a member in addition to their regular one. This is usually done when posting somethign controversial when the member in question fears the consequences of their comments. A row was sparked when Moss Trooper questioned the validity of the elections due tio an 11th hour vote cast by a member called "Piggly". The questuion was raised as to whether Piggly was a sock puppet or a bona-fide geocacher.


I apologise if it&#39;s something I&#39;ve missed, but I would appeciate it, if someone would let me know if there is indeed a route to becoming a voting member. B)

Don&#39;t worry, we were all new to gagb at sometime&#33;

Something the current committee are looking at (I belive) is a system where in order to vote, you must be a full member of the GAGB. In order to be a full member, you must have provided a means of contact (email address, mail address etc). This is no different to almost every other organistaion in existance. This also means is that you can remain annoymous if you wish to, but you won&#39;t be able to vote. Anyway, these changes are not for the very near future, and are an idea not a certainty, so this is not the place to discuss them please. Let&#39;s at least try to keep this thread on topic&#33; :P

Mike

paul.blitz
10th January 2004, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by Muggle@Jan 10 2004, 12:17 PM
I find it rather sad that there are a husband and wife team of geocachers that I know who have found in excess of 300 caches, use the same name on geocaching.com, navicache.com and GAGB but are tagged as "non-voting" and cannot understand why.

The answer to THAT question is that, when the voting was started several months ago, it was decided that anyone who had signed up BEFORE that point could vote, and anyone who signed up AFTER couldn&#39;t... that was done simply to stop anyone signing up with (silly example follows...) twenty names, and claiming 20 votes: such a situation would clearly be rediculous and very non-democratic.

OK, a quick update: I have just been looking at the membership list, and it seems that my earlier assumption was *incorrect*. I believe that anyone who signed up before Xmas is currently on the "allowed to vote" list. A quick manual count shows 26 people who have signed up since Xmas, of a total of some 360 names

Maybe if we convert anyone who joined before yesterday into a voting member, how would that sound? Yes, I&#39;m sure there will still be some "invalid" names in the list then.... but the effect they are likely to have on this vote is pretty small I would guess.

(if you&#39;d like to email me - ie off-list - with their name, I&#39;ll happily confirm their voting status)


paul
(speaking personally)

NattyBooshka
10th January 2004, 05:36 PM
As many of you may know, NattyBooshka is a team of two. One of that team had a self-outed sock puppet (fairly obviously named&#33;&#33;) that he now intends to use as his legitimate id for voting purposes. We assume that this will be acceptable to the committee and that that account will be given voting rights. We do intend, however, to remain as one id for all other purposes.

Constitution looks good, just wanted to state our intention of making this sock puppet into the vote that the consititution states we are entitled to.

Thanks for your hard work.
Cheers
Emily & Neil

BugznElm&#39;r
10th January 2004, 08:33 PM
:D Looks like a good start&#33;

Wood Smoke
10th January 2004, 09:05 PM
Ok here are my suggestions

1. Section 2, point 3, to read (change in bold) - establishing good caching practices by accepting advice from land, environmental, archaeological, historical, and other relevant bodies.

2. Section 2 last bit to read - The GAGB aims to keep membership of GAGB free of charge for members if possible.

3. Section 3 - What is a &#39;bona-fide geocacher&#39;? There will need to be a definition, or change it to read &#39;geocacher&#39;.

4. Section 4 - If this is there, then the bit I mention above (in 2) should be removed completely. What would be better would be to combine both statements so section 4 would read - The GAGB is a non-commercial organisation and aims to keep membership of GAGB free of charge for members if possible. - and remove the other statemnet completely.

5. Section 6, para 1 should read - The GAGB is an “online organisation”, and does not plan to hold formal meetings.

6. Section 6, para 2 - A definition of &#39;voting members&#39; is required.

7. Section 7, para 1 - Replace &#39;Chairman&#39; with &#39;Chair&#39;, and any other references.

8. Section 7, para 2 - This is not standard voting procedure as detailed in the &#39;Rules of Chairmanship&#39;. The Chair should be entitled to a vote on all items and a casting vote in the event of a tie.

9. Section 7, para 3 should read - In the event of a member of the EC resigning, the EC may appoint a caretaker to fill the post until the next annual election.

10. Section 7, para 4 should read - The EC may co-opt such additional members as it may require.

11. Section 7, para 5 is unconstitutional. You cannot appeal to the same committee that votes to expel a member. The idea is correct but the wording is bad. eg there is a reference to &#39;him&#39;, what about &#39;her&#39;. It needs rewording. I will email something to you Paul when I have a chance to think about it more.

12. Section 7, para 6 is again badly worded and some stuff missing. eg How members are contacted and with what notice. As it stands 3 members can agree to have a meeting without even contacting the others.

13. Section 8b, last sentance, I would suggest - Any expenditure must have prior approval of at least three members of the Executive Committee.

14. Section 8e, should read - A independantly audited statement of accounts for the previous financial year shall be submitted by the Chairman to the members annually in January.

15. Section 9, Chair - these are too restrictive. What happens if the Chair is unavailable there is no option for replacement. My suggestion is to remove this bit completely.

16. Section 11 - It would be better to restrict changes to constitution to &#39;once a year&#39;, as you would when having an AGM.

17. Section 11, last para - I&#39;m sorry but you can&#39;t have this. GAGB is a democratic organisation and &#39;the majority rules&#39;. If the majority want to change something it must be....that is democracy.

18. There is no section that allows members to make proposals. Perhaps it should need a required number of members before a proposal is accepted?

Yours Roy
WoodSmoke

Bill D (wwh)
10th January 2004, 10:15 PM
Section 7 para 1 implies that the committee must always consist of Chair and five other members. Thus if a member or the Chair resigns, there is no legal committee to appoint a replacement. Perhaps this should be reworded a little?

paul.blitz
11th January 2004, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Wood Smoke@Jan 10 2004, 09:05 PM


Wow, thanks for all the feedback&#33; The response is over several messages coz of the message size limit&#33;

Let me take it step-by-step.... Oh, and please bear in mind the background of the constitution is that the original is used by a charity (and as such, is approved by the Charity Commission, so must be reasonably ok).


1. Section 2, point 3, to read (change in bold) - establishing good caching practices by accepting advice from land, environmental, archaeological, historical, and other relevant bodies.
Yup, happy to include that, makes sense (the bullet points were simply stolen from the aims published online&#33;)


2. Section 2 last bit to read - The GAGB aims to keep membership of GAGB free of charge for members if possible.
I think that ANY aim is always "if possible" isn&#39;t it?


3. Section 3 - What is a &#39;bona-fide geocacher&#39;? There will need to be a definition, or change it to read &#39;geocacher&#39;.
I was thinking about someone who goes hunting for caches (and is thus, by definition, a geocacher&#33;) who has the sole aims of (a) putting blatently commercial items into caches; (B) trashing caches; &copy; bringing geocaching into disrepute. It is clear that they are NOT a bona-fide geocacher.

If such a person is known about, then we have a very easy way to prevent that person from joing GAGB at the outset. With out that, then we have to let them in, and then have to expel them.

(just went & got a dictionary... "bona fides n. (Law). honest intention, sincerity")


4. Section 4 - If this is there, then the bit I mention above (in 2) should be removed completely.
Yes, it is to some extent superfluous. The reason I left it in both was:

a) it is specifically an AIM of GAGB to remain free
B) The "subscriptions" paragraph came from the WHR constitution, and keeping it there lets us state the current position.

If, for example, we decided at some future point to introduce some form of optional subscription (eg like GC.com did with premium membership), then that&#39;s where it would be defined.


5. Section 6, para 1 should read - The GAGB is an “online organisation”, and does not plan to hold formal meetings.
Yup, that is better wording, thanks.


6. Section 6, para 2 - A definition of &#39;voting members&#39; is required.
Yes, and will be included in the Standing Orders. (This very comment was made in the committee discussion, and everyone was happy with that)


7. Section 7, para 1 - Replace &#39;Chairman&#39; with &#39;Chair&#39;, and any other references.
The position is the chair, the person doing it is chairman (and under sex equality rules, means either male of female)


8. Section 7, para 2 - This is not standard voting procedure as detailed in the &#39;Rules of Chairmanship&#39;. The Chair should be entitled to a vote on all items and a casting vote in the event of a tie.
I&#39;ve been on committees where chairman has (a) vote plus casting vote; (B) just casting vote. Advantages of a chairman without a vote: - can stay more impartial during discussions; - with 5 committee, a 6th vote plus casting vote would lead to the chairman being in a position to "swing a vote". (Had there been 6 committee, I would have gone for the vote plus casting vote)

I would be very interested to see the "Rules of Chairmanship"... do you have a URL or a copy you could forward, please?

Any other comments on this please? Again, it was one of the topics we discussed in committee.


9. Section 7, para 3 should read - In the event of a member of the EC resigning, the EC may appoint a caretaker to fill the post until the next annual election.
(note: that para stolen almost verbating from WHR constit.)

Are you wanting the rest of that para deleting too? Or were you just wanting the "new" member specifically called a "caretaker"?

I&#39;m just thinking along the lines that if there were a requirement to call another election to fill the vacancy, then that member is indeed a caretaker. But if they stay for the rest of the term, until the next scheduled election, then they are hardly a "caretaker". In any case, the reason for bringing that person onboard is to act as a full member of the committee, so they have to have responsibility, and a vote.


10. Section 7, para 4 should read - The EC may co-opt such additional members as it may require.
Again, you meaning that as a complete replacement for the para, of just the first bit?

paul.blitz
11th January 2004, 04:48 PM
11. Section 7, para 5 is unconstitutional. You cannot appeal to the same committee that votes to expel a member. The idea is correct but the wording is bad. eg there is a reference to &#39;him&#39;, what about &#39;her&#39;.

It is very constitutional, and again comes from the WHR constitution:

The Executive Committee shall have power, after proper investigation (a) to reject any application for membership of Winchester Radio, and (B) after proper enquiry to expel any member acting to the detriment of Winchester Radio after giving such member written notice of the intention to expel him or her from Winchester Radio, which notice shall state that the member has a right to appear before the Executive Committee and to be heard in his or her own defence after giving not less than 28 days notice in writing to the Chairman of his or her intention to do so. The decision of the Executive Committee as to the rejection of the applications for membership or the expulsion of members shall be final, save that no expulsion shall be valid unless it complies in all respects with the provisions of this Clause.

(The WHR constitution includes the para "All references to any one Gender should be considered as referring to both", but the sexual equality act means it automatically includes "her" without any need to say so)

I think you will find it is quite normal for a committee to have the power (on behalf of its membership) to decide who may / may not be members. Its interesting to note that membership of WHR requires acceptance by the committee, whilst with GAGB, that is not the case.


12. Section 7, para 6 is again badly worded and some stuff missing. eg How members are contacted and with what notice. As it stands 3 members can agree to have a meeting without even contacting the others.
That doesn&#39;t need to be in the constitution (and its not in the WHR one either, where we DO have meetings). I agree that something needs to go into the Standing Orders though.

I specifically left out the requirement for notice for a meeting, as there WILL be times (eg New Forest meeting) when a meeting HAS to be held at short notice... but then covered the potential problems by requiring ratification later on.

At WHR, as Chief Engineer, I may need to do something that affects the organisation at very short notice. In such a case, I would probably speak with "a representive selection" of the rest of the committee (on the phone) and take action, but would then ask for full ratification at the next committee meeting.


13. Section 8b, last sentance, I would suggest - Any expenditure must have prior approval of at least three members of the Executive Committee.
Yes, good idea, much more workable.


14. Section 8e, should read - A independantly audited statement of accounts for the previous financial year shall be submitted by the Chairman to the members annually in January.
WHR just changed its constitution to remove the word "audited", and replaced it with "examined", and turns over about £8k per year. A legal "audit" would probably cost as much as the funds themselves&#33; So there&#39;s no way I can support the inclusion of the word "audited".

I think any accounts will be sufficiently simple that all members will be able to "independantly examine" them&#33;

When turnover reaches say £1k pa, then maybe external / independant examination is more relevant.


15. Section 9, Chair - these are too restrictive. What happens if the Chair is unavailable there is no option for replacement. My suggestion is to remove this bit completely.
The reaason for having a "job description" there is (a) so that potential chairmen know what is expected; (B) lets you see if a current chairman is doing the job&#33;

Also, if you don&#39;t define what specific roles that person has, then why HAVE that role? That&#39;s indeed the reason that, at the moment, there are "5 other committee members", rather than web-master, secretary, treasurer etc.....

So what ARE the chairman&#39;s specific responsibilities? All suggestions welcome&#33; (I can say that coz I&#39;m NOT chairman :-) )



16. Section 11 - It would be better to restrict changes to constitution to &#39;once a year&#39;, as you would when having an AGM.

Why? it&#39;s a needless restriction, and could actually cause problems. For example, we change the constitution, to discover that something we just did was not legal... oops&#33;

At WHR (mainly for convenience) changes are *usually* made at the AGM, but I know that last year we did one part-way through the year, as we wanted to reduce the size of the committee, and wanted the changes in place for the annual elections at the AGM.

paul.blitz
11th January 2004, 04:48 PM
17. Section 11, last para - I&#39;m sorry but you can&#39;t have this. GAGB is a democratic organisation and &#39;the majority rules&#39;. If the majority want to change something it must be....that is democracy.

Not true. The members CAN change the aims, but only as long as they don&#39;t cause a major change of direction.

OK, silly example: "I propose that GAGB should fight for the banning of all caches in the UK, should ask members to remove / trash existing caches, and should lobby parliament to make geocaching illegal". That would make GAGB do a complete u-turn.

No, if a group of members want SUBSTANTIAL changes to the aims, then the correct thing to do is to set up a DIFFERENT organisation.


18. There is no section that allows members to make proposals. Perhaps it should need a required number of members before a proposal is accepted?

Section 6, para 2 covers it, doesn&#39;t it?

"Any formal discussions and voting which might normally be carried out at AGM’s, EGM’s etc will be carried out online. Formal proposals will require a minimum of 6 days notice, and require a simple majority of those members voting to be carried. Voting will last for at least 4 days, and no more than 14 days."

Details of "how is a vote held" etc would go into Standing Orders.

MANY thanks for all those comments. I&#39;m not disagreeing in places just to be contentious, but because that&#39;s just the way *I* see things. If others also think I&#39;m wrong, please speak up and change my mind&#33;&#33;


Paul

paul.blitz
11th January 2004, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Bill D (wwh)@Jan 10 2004, 10:15 PM
Section 7 para 1 implies that the committee must always consist of Chair and five other members. Thus if a member or the Chair resigns, there is no legal committee to appoint a replacement. Perhaps this should be reworded a little?
Here&#39;s the original WHR words:

The Executive Committee shall be responsible for the conduct of Winchester Radio and shall consist of a Chairman, Vice Chairman, Treasurer, Chief Engineer, Station Manager, Programme Controller and Fundraising Manager. One representative of the Health Authorities in the catchment area of Winchester Radio shall also have the right to attend meetings the Executive Committee.

I think that is quite "normal" wording... given that the above is acceptable to the Charity Commision, I&#39;m sure it will be ok for us&#33;

You happy with that?


(I&#39;m working on simple principles re the constitution:

- the more like the WHR constitution it is then the more likely it is to be legal / reasonable
- keep the constitution simple where you can
- you don&#39;t need lots of minute details in there, when they could better go in another document (eg standing orders)
)

For example, WHR has a set of "station rules". They are actually set by the committee (as per section 7 of the WHR constitution&#33;&#33;), without any vote by the membership.... but at the end of the day, a group of members are welcome to take over on the committee, and change the rules if they don&#39;t like them (we keep hoping that will happen, but it never does&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;)


paul

BugznElm&#39;r
11th January 2004, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by paul.blitz@Jan 11 2004, 04:48 PM

16. Section 11 - It would be better to restrict changes to constitution to &#39;once a year&#39;, as you would when having an AGM.

Why? it&#39;s a needless restriction, and could actually cause problems. For example, we change the constitution, to discover that something we just did was not legal... oops&#33;

A good reason is to allow the association to move forward as opposed to being caught up in its own red tape. Something unlawful aside, it focuses the association on caching instead of internal aims. I think Wood smoke&#39;s suggestion has merit still.

BugznElm&#39;r
11th January 2004, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by paul.blitz@Jan 11 2004, 04:48 PM

17. Section 11, last para - I&#39;m sorry but you can&#39;t have this. GAGB is a democratic organisation and &#39;the majority rules&#39;. If the majority want to change something it must be....that is democracy.

Not true. The members CAN change the aims, but only as long as they don&#39;t cause a major change of direction.

Who then decides if any proposed change is a major chance of direction or not then Paul? Another vote? That&#39;s the problem with democracy but you cannot go half way. I don&#39;t like this. Again I have to side with Woodsmoke that with a democratic org, the majority rules. Otherwise, who does? Muddy areas like this only lead to conflict between members and entrenched committee representatives.

Sorry if I&#39;m coming across as picky but this needs to be right&#33; :D

Wood Smoke
11th January 2004, 06:02 PM
8. Section 7, para 2 - This is not standard voting procedure as detailed in the &#39;Rules of Chairmanship&#39;. The Chair should be entitled to a vote on all items and a casting vote in the event of a tie.
I&#39;ve been on committees where chairman has (a) vote plus casting vote; (B) just casting vote. Advantages of a chairman without a vote: - can stay more impartial during discussions; - with 5 committee, a 6th vote plus casting vote would lead to the chairman being in a position to "swing a vote". (Had there been 6 committee, I would have gone for the vote plus casting vote)

I would be very interested to see the "Rules of Chairmanship"... do you have a URL or a copy you could forward, please?

The book that is classed as the bible for Chairmanship is ABC of Chairmanship (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716350017/qid=1073843836/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_8_6/026-3026111-7998034). I am not aware of an online version and I can’t find mine.



9. Section 7, para 3 should read - In the event of a member of the EC resigning, the EC may appoint a caretaker to fill the post until the next annual election.
(note: that para stolen almost verbating from WHR constit.)

Are you wanting the rest of that para deleting too? Or were you just wanting the "new" member specifically called a "caretaker"?

I&#39;m just thinking along the lines that if there were a requirement to call another election to fill the vacancy, then that member is indeed a caretaker. But if they stay for the rest of the term, until the next scheduled election, then they are hardly a "caretaker". In any case, the reason for bringing that person onboard is to act as a full member of the committee, so they have to have responsibility, and a vote.

‘Caretaker’ in this context is a recognised term for the position. Yes remove all the rest.



10. Section 7, para 4 should read - The EC may co-opt such additional members as it may require.
Again, you meaning that as a complete replacement for the para, of just the first bit?

Yes remove all the rest, why complicate things?

WoodSmoke

Wood Smoke
11th January 2004, 08:11 PM
16. Section 11 - It would be better to restrict changes to constitution to &#39;once a year&#39;, as you would when having an AGM.

Why? it&#39;s a needless restriction, and could actually cause problems. For example, we change the constitution, to discover that something we just did was not legal... oops&#33;

Ok look at this example which is not as far fetched as it seems…..

A group wishes to take over GAGB (why, I’ve no idea, but assume).

First, every week/month/etc they put forward a proposal to change the constitution.

All the members get fed up of voting on petty constitutional changes, so stop voting.

Elections come around, the only people left voting are the people wanting to take over.

One of the main reasons why you have an AGM only once a year, and it takes a number of members to call an EGM, is to get the members caring only once a year, that way they show they care.




18. There is no section that allows members to make proposals. Perhaps it should need a required number of members before a proposal is accepted?

Section 6, para 2 covers it, doesn&#39;t it?

"Any formal discussions and voting which might normally be carried out at AGM’s, EGM’s etc will be carried out online. Formal proposals will require a minimum of 6 days notice, and require a simple majority of those members voting to be carried. Voting will last for at least 4 days, and no more than 14 days."

But it still doesn’t say how a member makes a proposal?

Eg. Does it just need a proposer and seconder, or does it have to have the backing of say, five other members?

WoodSmoke

MCL
12th January 2004, 01:56 AM
One thing I noticed was the bit that says what constitues a quorum at an EC meeting. I think it should be just more than half the commitee for one very simple reason:

It is concievable in the future that a committee might be split over a particular issue and therefore possible for two separate meetings to take place each with three of the six members and come to opposing decisions. If this happens, which one is the "legal" decision? Each one can claim validity under the constitution.

I have seen this happen in reality, just once, but once is enough to demostrate it is a possibility. Better to set the quorate number at 4, which removes this possibility completely OR make it a stipulation that the chairman must be present, which is actually a rather awkward one to live with.

NattyBooshka
12th January 2004, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by MCL@Jan 12 2004, 01:56 AM
One thing I noticed was the bit that says what constitues a quorum at an EC meeting. I think it should be just more than half the commitee for one very simple reason:

It is concievable in the future that a committee might be split over a particular issue and therefore possible for two separate meetings to take place each with three of the six members and come to opposing decisions. If this happens, which one is the "legal" decision? Each one can claim validity under the constitution.

I have seen this happen in reality, just once, but once is enough to demostrate it is a possibility. Better to set the quorate number at 4, which removes this possibility completely OR make it a stipulation that the chairman must be present, which is actually a rather awkward one to live with.
In principal I agree, but as the chairman is non-voting (except for casting vote) we effectivly have a voting committee of 5.... so 3 would be above half. I would, though, be more comfortable with 4 being deemed as a quorum.

paul.blitz
12th January 2004, 12:04 PM
The book that is classed as the bible for Chairmanship is ABC of Chairmanship (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716350017/qid=1073843836/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_8_6/026-3026111-7998034). I am not aware of an online version and I can’t find mine.
Thanks... I&#39;ll have a look down the library later in the week... and if I can&#39;t find THAT book, I&#39;m sure I&#39;ll find others.




9. Section 7, para 3 should read - In the event of a member of the EC resigning, the EC may appoint a caretaker to fill the post until the next annual election.
(note: that para stolen almost verbating from WHR constit.)

Are you wanting the rest of that para deleting too? Or were you just wanting the "new" member specifically called a "caretaker"?


‘Caretaker’ in this context is a recognised term for the position. Yes remove all the rest.
Would that still imply that the caretaker DOES have all the rights & responsibilities of the original post-holder? Or should that be spelt out (like the current version does?)




10. Section 7, para 4 should read - The EC may co-opt such additional members as it may require.
Again, you meaning that as a complete replacement for the para, of just the first bit?

Yes remove all the rest, why complicate things?

(as well as it being a straight copy of the WHR constitution) you don&#39;t feel we need to make clear "who can do what (eg vote)" as far as co-optees is concerned?

paul.blitz
12th January 2004, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by Wood Smoke@Jan 11 2004, 08:11 PM
But it still doesn’t say how a member makes a proposal?

Ah, something like that would definitely be a candidate for the Standing Orders&#33;

paul

paul.blitz
12th January 2004, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by MCL@Jan 12 2004, 01:56 AM
One thing I noticed was the bit that says what constitues a quorum at an EC meeting. I think it should be just more than half the commitee for one very simple reason:

It is concievable in the future that a committee might be split over a particular issue and therefore possible for two separate meetings to take place each with three of the six members and come to opposing decisions. If this happens, which one is the "legal" decision? Each one can claim validity under the constitution.

I have seen this happen in reality, just once, but once is enough to demostrate it is a possibility. Better to set the quorate number at 4, which removes this possibility completely OR make it a stipulation that the chairman must be present, which is actually a rather awkward one to live with.
Valid point....we had a brief discussion on this in the committee: I just looked back, and find that we never actually reached a conclusion&#33;

One suggestion was that you could define the quorum in a different way, requiring 3 votes to pass a motion. That would work fine if the chairman has ONLY a casting vote, as a meeting of chairman + 2 others would only ever manage 2 votes in favour&#33;&#33;

I think I was shying away from 4 so that (on a practical level) when people were busy / away, and we were missing members (like now), it would be possible to organise meetings fairly easily.

Insisting that the chairman is there would make life very difficuly (and impossible right now&#33;&#33;&#33;)

So, if people would feel happier with 4, I&#39;ll make it 4&#33;


Paul

BugznElm&#39;r
12th January 2004, 03:31 PM
I&#39;d be happier with 4 after what MCL said&#33; :D

The Wombles
12th January 2004, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by paul.blitz@Jan 12 2004, 12:18 PM

.........I think I was shying away from 4 so that (on a practical level) when people were busy / away, and we were missing members (like now), it would be possible to organise meetings fairly easily.

Insisting that the chairman is there would make life very difficuly (and impossible right now&#33;&#33;&#33;)

So, if people would feel happier with 4, I&#39;ll make it 4&#33;


Paul

I was also thinking about the practicality of meetings, but would be happy to settle for a quorum of 4 in light of the concerns raised.

paul.blitz
14th January 2004, 01:27 AM
Originally posted by The Wombles+Jan 12 2004, 08:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (The Wombles @ Jan 12 2004, 08:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--paul.blitz@Jan 12 2004, 12:18 PM

.........I think I was shying away from 4 so that (on a practical level) when people were busy / away, and we were missing members (like now), it would be possible to organise meetings fairly easily.

Insisting that the chairman is there would make life very difficuly (and impossible right now&#33;&#33;&#33;)

So, if people would feel happier with 4, I&#39;ll make it 4&#33;


Paul

I was also thinking about the practicality of meetings, but would be happy to settle for a quorum of 4 in light of the concerns raised. [/b][/quote]
Ok, no probs, 4 it will be&#33; I&#39;ll post an updated copy tomorrow (whoops, later today&#33;)


Paul

Wood Smoke
14th January 2004, 08:34 AM
The book that is classed as the bible for Chairmanship is ABC of Chairmanship (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716350017/qid=1073843836/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_8_6/026-3026111-7998034). I am not aware of an online version and I can’t find mine.
Thanks... I&#39;ll have a look down the library later in the week... and if I can&#39;t find THAT book, I&#39;m sure I&#39;ll find others.


9. Section 7, para 3 should read - In the event of a member of the EC resigning, the EC may appoint a caretaker to fill the post until the next annual election.
(note: that para stolen almost verbating from WHR constit.)


‘Caretaker’ in this context is a recognised term for the position. Yes remove all the rest.
Would that still imply that the caretaker DOES have all the rights & responsibilities of the original post-holder? Or should that be spelt out (like the current version does?)

It’s not needed, in ‘the bible’ it is a recognised position and they take over full responsibilities.





10. Section 7, para 4 should read - The EC may co-opt such additional members as it may require.
Again, you meaning that as a complete replacement for the para, of just the first bit?

Yes remove all the rest, why complicate things?

(as well as it being a straight copy of the WHR constitution) you don&#39;t feel we need to make clear "who can do what (eg vote)" as far as co-optees is concerned?

By default ‘co-optees’ don’t have rights unless stated otherwise.

WoodSmoke

paul.blitz
15th January 2004, 08:12 PM
Ok, am about to put final version of the constitution online, ready for voting tomorrow. The author&#39;s notes do not farm part of the document, so you&#39;re not voting on that bit&#33;

Changes are:
----------------------------
(Changed text, based on Woodsmoke&#39;s suggestions:)

"In the event of an Executive Committee vacancy, the EC may appoint a caretaker to fill the post until the next annual election."

"The Executive Committee may co-opt such additional members as it may require."

"Any expenditure must have prior approval by at least 3 members of the Executive Committee."

"historical, and other relevant bodies"

"The GAGB, is an “online organisation”, and does not plan to hold formal meetings"

(Other:)

EC quorum now 4, not 3.

-------------------------------

I hope I got everything&#33;



Paul

yorkstan
16th January 2004, 09:39 AM
A couple of questions (if I am not too late):

1) How does the Chairman get elected? Is this done by the committee, or by the membership as a whole?

2) As a follow on from the final paragraph of Section 7. How will the Chairman exercise his "discretion"? Will there be minutes of each meeting posted on the GAGB website, or how will the membership follow the activities of the committee? Will the notification of the timing of meetings be available to all members?

Stan

Teasel
16th January 2004, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r@Jan 11 2004, 05:25 PM
Who then decides if any proposed change is a major chance of direction or not then Paul?
Yes, maybe this paragraph is a little woolly. To take an example, say a future committee (and 2/3 of the membership, of course&#33;) wanted to introduce a membership fee. Now don&#39;t worry, I&#39;ve not heard any suggestions that we charge for membership, and personally I&#39;d resign from the committee if things went that way, but say we&#39;re talking 5 or 10 years in the future here. Is this a sufficiently major change that it should be permanently constitutionally banned? I&#39;d strongly suggest not&#33; But who decides? The committee as a whole? The chairperson? A vote of the membership? The founder members?&#33;

If paragraph 11 is to remain, I do think that it should be clarified who decides.

Tim and June
16th January 2004, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Teasel@Jan 16 2004, 11:08 AM
To take an example, say a future committee (and 2/3 of the membership, of course&#33;) wanted to introduce a membership fee. Now don&#39;t worry, I&#39;ve not heard any suggestions that we charge for membership <snip>
Yes you have &#33;

The topic was raised in the committee forums, suggested by one committee member and supported by another. You made no comment &#33;

Sorry to divulge that here Teasel, but I don&#39;t think misleading the members is the right thing to do.

As you are well aware this topic is being discussed right now on the committee forum, hell, just over 30 minutes ago you posted a reply &#33; And then you try to slip it in, in the members forum.



Just so that members are aware:-

On behalf of the founding members June and I have agreed to pass the domain names, copyright to the website etc. etc. to the committee once there is an undertaking that the GAGB will remain as was originally intended and promised, free of cost, open to all geocachers and non-commercial. Which was the premise under which people joined the GAGB.

We are having a great deal of difficulty getting a firm agreement on this. We have objected to the very weak wording used and the weak way in which it is mentioned as simply an aside in the GAGB aims (part of the constitution).

We have asked the following :


Please add that clause as a bullet point and therefore as an integral part of the GAGB aims. If I might suggest the wording "Membership of the GAGB will not involve any expense on the part of the members or prospective members".

Moss Trooper
16th January 2004, 12:33 PM
As one of the SS (Sectet Seven as we seem to have been irreverently christened) I am totally opposed the membership fees. There are other methods of raising funds if that is what you wish.

The clause put forward by Tim & June doesn&#39;t stop you making funds from other sources as in FUND raising events, just that you can not Charge members a fee to join now or in the future.

You seem to have taken on the role of committee and to pot with others.

Your action today does not instill my faith in you as a committee member and therefor I feel I must put forward a vote of no confidence in you as a member of the committee.

I am livid at the thought that a content of cofidential conversation can just be made public

NattyBooshka
16th January 2004, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jan 16 2004, 12:33 PM
You seem to have taken on the role of committee and to pot with others.

Your action today does not instill my faith in you as a committee member and therefor I feel I must put forward a vote of no confidence in you as a member of the committee.

I am livid at the thought that a content of cofidential conversation can just be made public
Sorry Moss, who we talking about here? I agree that committee discussions should not be public unless in minutes, maybe that needs to go in the constitution too?&#33;

Chris n Maria
16th January 2004, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Tim and June@Jan 16 2004, 11:59 AM
We have asked the following :


Please add that clause as a bullet point and therefore as an integral part of the GAGB aims. If I might suggest the wording "Membership of the GAGB will not involve any expense on the part of the members or prospective members".
Hmmm,

Someone cleverer than me may have to reword that as for example if GAGB decide to have an event or meet, that would involve me in some expense (i.e. petrol).

Moss says that "there are other ways of raising funds" - fair point but if we used (off the top of my head) a raffle would I not be able to buy a ticket ??

I agree with the sentiments but the wording might need to be changed :) perhaps "any Expense" could be changed to something like "any direct membership fees" ????

In addition something might be needed to prevent popup ads & or selling of the membership list, to raise funds.

Chris

NattyBooshka
16th January 2004, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by Tim and June@Jan 16 2004, 11:59 AM
On behalf of the founding members June and I have agreed to pass the domain names, copyright to the website etc. etc. to the committee once there is an undertaking that the GAGB will remain as was originally intended and promised, free of cost, open to all geocachers and non-commercial. Which was the premise under which people joined the GAGB.

We are having a great deal of difficulty getting a firm agreement on this. We have objected to the very weak wording used and the weak way in which it is mentioned as simply an aside in the GAGB aims (part of the constitution).

We have asked the following :


Please add that clause as a bullet point and therefore as an integral part of the GAGB aims. If I might suggest the wording "Membership of the GAGB will not involve any expense on the part of the members or prospective members".
With all due respect, and thanks for hosting this site and all the work you have done in getting a GAGB up and running...

Who does the GAGB represent? It seems to me that whilst the logos, name and internet address(es) may technically be registered in the name of an individual, or group of individuals, it morally belongs to the membership. Therefore, I see no reason why a member, committee member, founder member, or even past chairman can demand that the committee put in the constitution ANY conditions. In effect this is dictating to the membership that we can have a GAGB as long as it&#39;s run the way a couple fo teams want it running. To have a "no fees, not now not ever" clause in the constitution is wrong. What happens if other fundraising techniques do not work? I don&#39;t see why members of the committee should be expected to pay for everything.

If the attitude of the copyright owners is that "you, the hundreds, play the way that we, the few, want or not at all" then I think we should disband the GAGB now and found the Democratic Association of British Geocachers right now... I&#39;m sure we have the skills between us to write the code to have a nice new website, and I&#39;m sure that we can find other places to host it.

I feel that the membership of this association are adult enough to decide if we want to pay for membership. Of course, we all like something for free, but given the choice of a pay GAGB or no GAGB, I feel that all of those of us who believe in having an organisation to represent us would choose to pay for it. I feel that any cast in stone rule of this organisation dictated by somebody rather than democratically decided is wrong. I feel that the ownership of the site and the copyright of it, it&#39;s content and graphics should be turned over to "the chairman" or "the committee" as soon as possible.

Thanks,
Neil.

Moss Trooper
16th January 2004, 03:18 PM
The whole intention is to hand over copyright to GAGB when WE the SS are happy and that the FREE membership is guaranteed. Is it such a BIG issue in the whole gambit of things.?????

Teasel
16th January 2004, 03:21 PM
The topic was raised in the committee forums, suggested by one committee member and supported by another. You made no comment &#33;
Nope, sorry, I have no idea what you&#39;re talking about&#33; I honestly don&#39;t remember hearing or reading anything of the sort. Any chance of a link to the relevant topic?

Sorry to divulge that here Teasel, but I don&#39;t think misleading the members is the right thing to do.
Tim, you are more than welcome to divulge anything which I have written on any forum, or the contents of any email you have received from me. This may well prove that I&#39;m a bad committee member, for not having noted the contents of every forum post, but it should dispel any suggestions of deliberate deception&#33; :rolleyes:

As you are well aware this topic is being discussed right now on the committee forum, hell, just over 30 minutes ago you posted a reply &#33; And then you try to slip it in, in the members forum.
Your post on the "committee" forum indicated that some people thought that the current committee intended to introduce a membership charge. You requested an official statement by the committee on the "committee" forum. If committee members views are being misrepresented by gossip, then a public forum is the place to set things straight&#33; Your post on the "committee" forum requested a response and my pair of responses provided my personal stance.

We have asked the following :
Please add that clause as a bullet point and therefore as an integral part of the GAGB aims. If I might suggest the wording "Membership of the GAGB will not involve any expense on the part of the members or prospective members".
Nobody has objected to including such a phrase&#33; (Though I fully agree with Chris n Maria&#39;s comments above).

All that needs to be made clear is whether a future committee should be allowed to remove that aim (with the support of 2/3 of the membership). I myself would vote against such a motion (and I have made it clear that I would not be part of a committee which proposed it to the membership) but I would not seek to constitutionally prevent such a motion from being put before the membership. I believe that it would be irresponsible and undemocratic to prevent future memberships from reconsidering any change to the constitution, which is consistent with GAGB remaining a body of people dedicated to promoting geocaching.

NattyBooshka
16th January 2004, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jan 16 2004, 03:18 PM
The whole intention is to hand over copyright to GAGB when WE the SS are happy and that the FREE membership is guaranteed. Is it such a BIG issue in the whole gambit of things.?????
so the intent is to hand copyright IF we all agree to do as we&#39;re told? That&#39;s a big issue in my book. The members of the committee have been elected by us, the SS have NOT. We have entrusted the committee to draw up a constitution for us to ratify, the SS have not been given a mandate to demand anything is put in there. As far as I&#39;m concerned, any members of the SS have no right making ANY demands. Those on committee have had their say in the drawing up of the constitution. The SS have now got the right to request changes to it, here in the PUBLIC forum just like the ordinary members they now are, unless of course they are on committee. The committee have the right to resfuse such a request, and present the constitution in its current form if they so desire. The SS and the rest of the membership will then have the choice of ratifying it or rejecting it. That is the way it should be.

Personally, I am appauled that a founder member, not on committee, is posting comments regarding the committee forums on this public forum.

Moss Trooper
16th January 2004, 04:08 PM
And is it not worse for a committee member to do likewise&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Remeber that I DID NOT bring the subject out of the committee forum, that was brought into this thread in a rather underhanded way by a committee member who had just been discussing it in the committee forum only 30 minuets earlier.

As you keep saying GAGB is supposed to be democratic, but as a Founder Member am I therfore not allowed to voice my concern and anger at such an act.

Kouros
16th January 2004, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by Chris n Maria@Jan 16 2004, 02:27 PM
In addition something might be needed to prevent popup ads & or selling of the membership list, to raise funds.

In my own name...

I fully agree with you Chris.

Perhaps the wording could be:

The GAGB and its elected Committee will not require any necessary funds to be taken from individuals in return for membership or rights thereof, nor will it earn any income from any form of named sponsorship or advertising.

This would allow a company if it so desired to offer free webhosting, or whatever, yet not receive any credit (not so obscure as it may seem), but does rule out the possibility of popups, or other advertising content, as well as membership fees.

Kouros

NattyBooshka
16th January 2004, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jan 16 2004, 04:08 PM
And is it not worse for a committee member to do likewise&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Remeber that I DID NOT bring the subject out of the committee forum, that was brought into this thread in a rather underhanded way by a committee member who had just been discussing it in the committee forum only 30 minuets earlier.

As you keep saying GAGB is supposed to be democratic, but as a Founder Member am I therfore not allowed to voice my concern and anger at such an act.
Absolutly you can voice you concerns and air your views... that is the right of all members.

Now, the committee is not DEMANDING anything... they have drawn up a constitution, but as yet that is NOT the constitution of the GAGB. It becomes the constitution of the GAGB when, and only when, the poll closes with a majority of members who voted voting to accept it. I fail to see how this can be then seen as dictating from the committee.

As there was no opposition from Teasel to T&J&#39;s suggested wording of the statement of free membership, may I suggest that maybe that is not the sticking point here? Are the SS asking/demanding that it&#39;s free now and always free? If so, let&#39;s see the words the SS would like in there... right here in the public forum, which is the correct place for suggestions to changes to the committee.

Maybe I&#39;m missing something... Teasel said he&#39;d "not heard any suggestions that we charge for membership" which as he&#39;d not heard it is not bringing "the subject out of the committee forum" quite obviously. The only mention of committee discussion of this point is made by you and T&J as far as I can see... which does lead to other questions I suppose.

Teasel
16th January 2004, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jan 16 2004, 03:18 PM
The whole intention is to hand over copyright to GAGB when WE the SS are happy and that the FREE membership is guaranteed. Is it such a BIG issue in the whole gambit of things.?????
When the GAGB was first announced to an unsuspecting world, the founder members placed great emphasis on the fact that it was to be democratically run. Now you are seeking to go back on this promise.

I realise that setting up a democracy runs the risk that people you don&#39;t like will be elected to the committee, or that someday, perhaps, more than two thirds of the membership may hold a view which you do not. But you have created an organisation that is bigger the founders, and bigger than any current or future committee. That&#39;s a considerable achievement, why can you not trust it to choose its own destiny democratically? We have well over 300 members, have elected a committee and are about to vote on a constitution. Surely now is a good time to handover control of the GAGB to its members?

I think that it is a big issue, and it certainly seems like the founder members agree, as your actions over the past months have shown. By refusing to give the committee access to the GAGB membership database and web site, can you not see that you are harming the association you yourselves created? Threatening to take legal action for breach of copyright when it was discovered that the committee had taken a copy of the website and were in the process of bringing it up to date is not the best way to help GAGB to fulfil its aims&#33;

Also, please be clear what you mean when you speak of handing over copyright to the GAGB membership. Your original position was that T&J would permanently retain the copyright, and that GAGB would be licenced to use it, only so long as it did not charge a membership fee or become a commercial entity. If the GAGB membership ever decided by 2/3 majority that it needed to charge money, sell pin badges etc, then the licence to use the material and domain name would cease. Is this still your position?

The issue of whether GAGB is controlled by its members, or by the unelected founder members is very important, and now is the time for the membership to decide how the GAGB should be run.

NattyBooshka
16th January 2004, 04:31 PM
OK... I think the mists are clearing... who has access to the committee forums?

Kouros
16th January 2004, 04:45 PM
As far as I am aware, the elected committee members (Paul, Dave, Ian, Sarah and Myself (Pete)), and the Founding Members.

Tim and June
16th January 2004, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by Teasel@Jan 16 2004, 04:26 PM
Threatening to take legal action for breach of copyright when it was discovered that the committee had taken a copy of the website and were in the process of bringing it up to date is not the best way to help GAGB to fulfil its aims&#33;

I do not have time to go through and reply to this post in detail, but, You have again misled the members. I have not threatened to take legal action at all. Here&#39;s a quote from my post on the committee forum that you refer to :


You did not mention that you were applying the pages to another domain name. Moreover, this domain was accessible by the internet as a whole. I have been advised to issue you with a cease and decist notice but thought I would wait until Paul&#39;s meet at the end of January and speak nicely with you all.

So, you scraped the website, as you have scraped the membership list.

<edit> Just thought, would ANY committee member who was aware that Teasel had registered another domain name GAGB.ORG (himself personally as the domain holder) and scraped the website and made it publicly available under that domain please say so here. </edit>

NattyBooshka
16th January 2004, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by Kouros@Jan 16 2004, 04:45 PM
As far as I am aware, the elected committee members (Paul, Dave, Ian, Sarah and Myself (Pete)), and the Founding Members.
So, to address Moss Trooper&#39;s wild accusation that Teasel had brought something out of &#39;committee&#39; forum and into public view, how can this be so when there is no COMMITTEE forum, but there is in fact a COMMITTEE/SS forum.... which is visible to UNELECTED members of this association. When I voted for a committee I was not aware that others were already effectively on the committee without being elected. Shouldn&#39;t the committee have it&#39;s own forum visible only to them? and shouldn&#39;t the SS post their suggestions here in public like everyone else, or have they got something to hide?

NattyBooshka
16th January 2004, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by Tim and June+Jan 16 2004, 04:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Tim and June @ Jan 16 2004, 04:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Teasel@Jan 16 2004, 04:26 PM
Threatening to take legal action for breach of copyright when it was discovered that the committee had taken a copy of the website and were in the process of bringing it up to date is not the best way to help GAGB to fulfil its aims&#33;

I do not have time to go through and reply to this post in detail, but, You have again misled the members. I have not threatened to take legal action at all. Here&#39;s a quote from my post on the committee forum that you refer to :


You did not mention that you were applying the pages to another domain name. Moreover, this domain was accessible by the internet as a whole. I have been advised to issue you with a cease and decist notice but thought I would wait until Paul&#39;s meet at the end of January and speak nicely with you all.

So, you scraped the website, as you have scraped the membership list. [/b][/quote]
hmmm looks like semantics to me...

"either cease and desist or we&#39;ll issue a cease and decist notice"

regardless of whether a notice was served, it was threatened.

At the bottom of the main page it clearly says "Copyright 2003 Geocaching Association of Great Britain. All rights reserved " of which Teasel is an elected representative and you are NOT. We have entrusted the running of OUR association to the committee from which you decided to resign. At the time of your resignation you should, in my opinion, have handed the running of the GAGB to it&#39;s elected officials at the first possible opportunity.

The words "toys" and "pram" spring to mind&#33;

Teasel
16th January 2004, 05:55 PM
Just thought, would ANY committee member who was aware that Teasel had registered another domain name GAGB.ORG (himself personally as the domain holder) and scraped the website and made it publicly available under that domain please say so here.
Just to clarify, the domain name was registered back on 4th November and the full committee were informed of the admin password on the same day that it was registered. I also granted permission for any committee member to change the password if they felt it was necessary. Same arrangements went for the website hosting, which was registered on 9th November. I even recommended that the ownership be transferred to a &#39;less "excitable" member of the committee than myself&#39;. :lol: A suitably calm candidate stepped forward, though we have yet to sort out the actual transfers.

I was quite careful to ensure that the committee as a whole was given responsibility for the administration of these resources, as I feel that events have shown that it is unwise for such responsibility to be invested in a single individual, and that would necessarily include me as much as anyone else.

The decision to copy the existing web pages onto the new site was made at a committee "meeting" (conference call), and I announced that I had done it in the committee/FM forum on 25th November. At Tim&#39;s suggestion, I also installed the new version of the forum software on the new site, so that it could be configured / played with, pending Tim giving the committee access to the existing forum database.

The fact that gagb.org was temporarily publically available (showing the same content as the gagb.org.uk, apart from the empty forum) was a technical mistake for which I unreservedly appologise and corrected within 10mins of El10t informing me of the problem (on 6th Jan).

&#39;Fraid this is my last post before Monday, as I&#39;m on a training course this weekend.

paul.blitz
16th January 2004, 06:08 PM
"Membership of the GAGB will not involve any expense on the part of the members or prospective members".

The wording in the "Aims" section is currently:

The GAGB aims to keep membership of GAGB free of charge for members

(the word "aims" is in there simply because it is in the "aims" section. Otherwise it may have been worded "intends" or similar)

You asked for me to add something into the aims section. You suggested some wording, which after some thought I realised was NOT suitable (eg coming to a GAGB sponsored meeting would "involve expense on the part of the member"), so I simplified the wording as above


The wording in the "subscriptions" section reads:

The GAGB is a non-commercial organisation and does not charge a membership fee


It is not possible to write something that will ENSURE that membership remains free for eternity.... after all, all that someone has to do is to change the constitution. I would CERTAINLY argue that such a change is NOT "substantial".


And yes, I *could* forsee, IN THE FUTURE, potential reasons that there might be a desire to introduce a membership fee... but either (a) it would end up being very contentious, there would be a large turnout for the vote, and you&#39;d fail to get the required 2/3 majority; or (b) everyone would generally feel that it WAS reasoable at that point, and thus the turnout to vote would probably be low, but you&#39;d get the 2/3 needed.

If (b) is the outcome, then how can you argue with the desires of the membership (after all, it&#39;s supposed to be democratic&#33;)

(It doesn&#39;t matter WHAT you do, there ARE ways to introduce fees in the future, IF THE MEMBERSHIP WANT IT SO)


Finally, can I ask everyone why it has taken a WEEK for all this to suddenly surface? Is there a problem with the wording in the proposed constitution?


Unless I can get this issue resolved by later this evening, I shall be removing the constitution as-is, the vote will NOT happen, and there will be a substantial delay while the whole thing gets re-written.



Paul

paul.blitz
16th January 2004, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by Tim and June@Jan 16 2004, 04:54 PM
<edit> Just thought, would ANY committee member who was aware that Teasel had registered another domain name GAGB.ORG (himself personally as the domain holder) and scraped the website and made it publicly available under that domain please say so here. </edit>
I was fully aware of it. Whilst my first feeling (re the copying of the website) was of unease, I quickly realised that it was a very sensible precaution.... "just in case".

To be honest, I was rather worried on a couple of occasions that you might decide to carry out the threat which you had made PUBLICLY, that of closing down the GAGB website.

Having another site / domain name ready (a) let us "fully & correctly" set up a new web site, in preparation for a formal handover of the GAGB domain name etc; (B) gave us "backup" in case the worst should happen.

I agree it was a cock-up that it was publicly visible at that time.


paul

Chris n Maria
16th January 2004, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by Kouros@Jan 16 2004, 04:12 PM
Perhaps the wording could be:

The GAGB and its elected Committee will not require any necessary funds to be taken from individuals in return for membership or rights thereof, nor will it earn any income from any form of named sponsorship or advertising.

Congratulations Kouros, You have now officially joined that large group of people who are smarter than me :D

Chris

Kouros
16th January 2004, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Tim and June@Jan 16 2004, 04:54 PM
<edit> Just thought, would ANY committee member who was aware that Teasel had registered another domain name GAGB.ORG (himself personally as the domain holder) and scraped the website and made it publicly available under that domain please say so here. </edit>
I was aware that another site had been set up, however, I was unaware that it was under Ian&#39;s name (I had presumed it would solely be under the GAGB - who will own it if Teasel is not elected next year?) and I was also unaware that the existing site had been scraped, and would&#39;ve (if known) suggested liaising with Tim about mirroring the site.

EDIT: I had thought that the site would forward visitors to this site (which admittedly was what was intended) or, if needed to be used in its own right, that it would be a "new" site.

I think that these may both be more due to my own errors, rather than anyone elses.

paul.blitz
16th January 2004, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by NattyBooshka@Jan 16 2004, 04:57 PM
Shouldn&#39;t the committee have it&#39;s own forum visible only to them?
It will when the website moves....


paul

paul.blitz
16th January 2004, 08:06 PM
Hi Stan&#33;

thanks for the feedback....


1) How does the Chairman get elected? Is this done by the committee, or by the membership as a whole?

Elected by the membership, as is the rest of the committee. But your implication is correct... it doesn&#39;t actually SPELL IT OUT, does it??&#33;&#33; Oops...


How will the Chairman exercise his "discretion"? Will there be minutes of each meeting posted on the GAGB website, or how will the membership follow the activities of the committee? Will the notification of the timing of meetings be available to all members?

Chairman&#39;s discretion.... probably like other organisations: if there is someone who it would be useful to have at a metting, then he could ask. Similarly, someone may well be aware that something is likely to be discussed at a meeting, and may ask to be involved. Whether they are then invited depends on what is going to be discussed.

I believe that the committee will try & post meeting minutes on the website once we "have things running"...

Whether meetings will be publicised may depend on how far in advance they are organised, and whether the "content" of the meeting needs it.


paul

Brenin Tegeingl
16th January 2004, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by Teasel+Jan 16 2004, 04:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Teasel @ Jan 16 2004, 04:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Moss Trooper@Jan 16 2004, 03:18 PM
The whole intention is to hand over copyright to GAGB when WE the SS are happy and that the FREE membership is guaranteed. Is it such a BIG issue in the whole gambit of things.?????



. By refusing to give the committee access to the GAGB membership database and web site, can you not see that you are harming the association you yourselves created?



[/b][/quote]
Moss by your own words, you are going back on one of the core parts of this association, that it would be run democratically. When the Founding Members refused to take part in/pulled out of the elections, or resigned after being elected. You all lost the right to dictate to the committee and thru them the membership who elected them&#33; That&#39;s if this association is actual a democracy?

Would the un-elected founding members, confirm or denied, that they refused the elected committee access to the GAGB membership data base, and explain why if true. Would they also explain why they are accessing, what should be a private forum for elected committee members only, when they as founding members, are now only members with a different title?

I was going to request help from the committee, to help in negotiations regarding the placement of a cache, I have already made initial contact with the land management officer, of the company owning the land. He seemed agreeable to the idea, unfortunately it is now out for consultation with the land management organisations for the area.These are the county council ,Welsh and UK environmental organisations, the level to which the attention to Geocaching as a whole could be far reaching&#33; Having learned that un-elected members of this association, could have access to details of the negotiations, I have now decide to just wait for a reply to my request. As I feel it would be wrong for me to even ask the parties concerned to enter into negotiations, when I can not guarantee that the details would be confidential. Dave

BugznElm&#39;r
16th January 2004, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by Tim and June@Jan 16 2004, 11:59 AM
On behalf of the founding members June and I have agreed to pass the domain names, copyright to the website etc. etc. to the committee once there is an undertaking that the GAGB will remain as was originally intended and promised, free of cost, open to all geocachers and non-commercial.
Excuse me ... but this is off the front page of the GAGB website:

"© Copyright 2003 Geocaching Association of Great Britain. All rights reserved"

If there are issues over control of the site, it is essential that the elected members of the GAGB notify the members of this ... if there is coersion of the democratically elected body, then they need to breat free of this ASAP.

BugznElm&#39;r
16th January 2004, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jan 16 2004, 03:18 PM
The whole intention is to hand over copyright to GAGB when WE the SS are happy and that the FREE membership is guaranteed. Is it such a BIG issue in the whole gambit of things.?????
Moss, the website already says that the copyright holders are already the GAGB ... clarify please.

So much for having a democratically elected committee creating a democratically elected association.

:angry:

The Wombles
16th January 2004, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by Tim and June@Jan 16 2004, 04:54 PM

<edit> Just thought, would ANY committee member who was aware that Teasel had registered another domain name GAGB.ORG (himself personally as the domain holder) and scraped the website and made it publicly available under that domain please say so here. </edit>


I was aware of this except for the public visibility (it didn&#39;t occur to me to ask/check). The committee agreed to copy the existing webpages against the eventuality that the existing service was not available, so that it would not mean the end of GAGB.

The Wombles
16th January 2004, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by Kouros@Jan 16 2004, 04:12 PM

The GAGB and its elected Committee will not require any necessary funds to be taken from individuals in return for membership or rights thereof, nor will it earn any income from any form of named sponsorship or advertising.


I&#39;d agree with this or wording to achieve the same purpose. However, the issue is not the current intention but whether it could be changed in the future by a democratic process.

Moss Trooper
16th January 2004, 10:09 PM
Why is it that it always seems to be the same members stiring the situation. Personally I have had enough.. charge what you like, charge who you like this is my last post ever on this forum.

Teasle.. I belive you have alteria motives.. You pay for a similar domain name on Lunarpages.. the same pages as GCUK. U run the web site for GCUK.. Your insistance on the clause to allow the committee to change the constitution on membership fee&#39;s.. WHY&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Natty bookwash.. there has never been any mist to clear.. only in your own biggoted mind.. you don&#39;t like me fine.. you win.. I&#39;m out of it.. if GAGB flourishes fine.. if it Don&#39;t blame people like yourselves.

You try to do something to keep some thig free and the barack room lawyers rear their heads.. To hell with you and to HELL with GAGB.. I totaly dissacotiate myself from this..


Tim Remove me as a member from this FARCE and my name from the GAGB site as a founder member

You people just havent a clue have you..

BugznElm&#39;r
16th January 2004, 10:15 PM
Good Moss ... you&#39;ve been allowed a say, that&#39;s democracy. This isn&#39;t about charging, it&#39;s about democracy.

paul.blitz
16th January 2004, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jan 16 2004, 10:09 PM
Your insistance on the clause to allow the committee to change the constitution on membership fee&#39;s.. WHY&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Excuse me, but there was NEVER a clause in the constitution to allow the COMMITTEE to make a constitutional change to have a membership fee.

The way that the proposed constitution was written, it would require a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, which would require a 2/3 majority of those voting&#33;


Anyway, it has become rather academic now: the proposed constitution has been retracted, and there will NOT be a vote.

When the current issues have been resolved (in one way or another) then another constitution will be made available for comment / voting.


Paul

BugznElm&#39;r
16th January 2004, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by paul.blitz+Jan 16 2004, 10:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (paul.blitz @ Jan 16 2004, 10:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Moss Trooper@Jan 16 2004, 10:09 PM
Your insistance on the clause to allow the committee to change the constitution on membership fee&#39;s.. WHY&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Excuse me, but there was NEVER a clause in the constitution to allow the COMMITTEE to make a constitutional change to have a membership fee.

The way that the proposed constitution was written, it would require a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, which would require a 2/3 majority of those voting&#33;


Anyway, it has become rather academic now: the proposed constitution has been retracted, and there will NOT be a vote.

When the current issues have been resolved (in one way or another) then another constitution will be made available for comment / voting.


Paul [/b][/quote]
Why wait .. why not vote and see what the membershp think?

paul.blitz
16th January 2004, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jan 16 2004, 10:09 PM
just havent a clue have you..

Teasle.. I belive you have alteria motives..
And YOU don&#39;t???


You pay for a similar domain name on Lunarpages
And? It&#39;s a public server. If I were looking for a place for a website, where I knew the service was "not a problem" then I too would use it. I did just that recently when buying more domain names: I stayed with a provider I knew, and had used before.


U run the web site for GCUK..
Well, unless something has changes, I believe you are rather wrong. Teasel may well CONTRIBUTE (eg scripting), but it is RUN mainly by Mark Thompson.


You try to do something to keep some thig free.....
The problem is that there is nothing anyone can do to GUARANTEE such things FOREVER. Rules can ALWAYS be changes. That&#39;s democracy. Most people seem to like democracy.....


Paul

NattyBooshka
16th January 2004, 11:04 PM
Nice to see the committee speaking sense here, I assume that the two parties hurling accusations towards Teasel will be big enough to apologise to him as it is clear that he has not posted anything from a private committee forum here, nor has he set up a new website without the committee&#39;s knowledge.

Moss Trooper
16th January 2004, 11:04 PM
Yep and its a non democracy that gives you it.. And Paul.. you have just shown your true colours.

I&#39;m out of here.

NattyBooshka
16th January 2004, 11:14 PM
Why is it that it always seems to be the same members stiring the situation.

I dunno maybe we should ask Devil&#39;s Advocate&#33; Oh, no, that trouble maker is you... silly me&#33;


Teasle.. I belive you have alteria motives.. You pay for a similar domain name on Lunarpages.. the same pages as GCUK. U run the web site for GCUK.. Your insistance on the clause to allow the committee to change the constitution on membership fee&#39;s.. WHY&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Teasel didn&#39;t say he wanted such a clause, do you need your biggoted mind de-misting?


Natty bookwash.. there has never been any mist to clear.. only in your own biggoted mind.. you don&#39;t like me fine.. you win.. I&#39;m out of it.. if GAGB flourishes fine.. if it Don&#39;t blame people like yourselves.

Mossy troosers... I&#39;ve never met you, I don&#39;t win but the GAGB will. It will flourish, your way it would have been fine with 7 members.


You try to do something to keep some thig free and the barack room lawyers rear their heads.. To hell with you and to HELL with GAGB.. I totaly dissacotiate myself from this..


Tim Remove me as a member from this FARCE and my name from the GAGB site as a founder member

You people just havent a clue have you..

"Toys" and "Prams" springs to mind again. Thank god that you guys were not the elected committee as I think we&#39;d be electing a new one by now with all the resignations that would have been flying around.

Personally speaking, good riddance, but somebody who has been around as long as you have could actually be good for this game if you could get over your ego.

NattyBooshka
16th January 2004, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jan 16 2004, 11:04 PM
Paul.. you have just shown your true colours.
Indeed he has... keep up the good work Paul

Chris n Maria
16th January 2004, 11:18 PM
Ok,

So i&#39;ve ready everything that everyone has posted and I have to say - what exactly is this argument about?

As per usual I&#39;m obviously being really dense, shurly if GAGB is set up as free thats a good thing ?
If (and only if) we all vote to pay to be members, then that is our choice - whats wrong with that?

I&#39;m probebly missing something vitally important: but in a democratic association if the majority vote to change things, shouldnt they be allowed to do so?

Yours
Confused of Essex

NattyBooshka
16th January 2004, 11:21 PM
It&#39;s about whether the unelected Secret seven have the right to put unchangable clauses into the constitution without the members ratifying it.

Moss Trooper
16th January 2004, 11:26 PM
Shows how blinkered you are.. has to be ratified by members in first place don&#39;t it.. but htey can&#39;t if it isn&#39;t in there.

BugznElm&#39;r
16th January 2004, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by NattyBooshka@Jan 16 2004, 11:21 PM
It&#39;s about whether the unelected Secret seven have the right to put unchangable clauses into the constitution without the members ratifying it.
The next question is - what other constraints are the elected committee under from the founders?

NattyBooshka
16th January 2004, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jan 16 2004, 11:26 PM
Shows how blinkered you are.. has to be ratified by members in first place don&#39;t it.. but htey can&#39;t if it isn&#39;t in there.
The SS, not being elected, have NO right to demand that a clause be put into the constitution. The attempt to hold the committee to ransom with this clause seems to prove those people who thought the SS wanted to control the GAGB were right all along. Nobody is arguing against free membership, just against undemoncratic control freaks telling us all what to do. If you read the whole of today&#39;s postings to this thread you will see that there&#39;s only the two of you who believe that you should be allowed to push the committee around... guess it&#39;s not me who&#39;s blinkered&#33;

Kouros
16th January 2004, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by Chris n Maria@Jan 16 2004, 11:18 PM
I&#39;m probebly missing something vitally important: but in a democratic association if the majority vote to change things, shouldnt they be allowed to do so?
I believe that the founding members would like to protect certain promises that they made when GAGB was first launched - and I can understand that. Although the current committee would be staunchly against it, there is a possibility that a future committee would encourage the GAGB to become a revenue stream (perhaps under the guise of promoting Geocaching in the UK, or whatever).

There is also the possibility that the non-commercial nature of GAGB could be compromised (insert pop-up ad for RL&#39;s GPS units here).

Not especially likely, but both are valid points, and very emotive.

Personally, I&#39;d suggest that we&#39;re actually swaying a little too much away from what Geocaching is all about. There is a certain famous sig-line, which read something along the lines of "It&#39;s only a hunt for a lunch-box, why be so serious" - there is a need for what is being strived for here, but there should be no requirment for it to be so politicised.

NattyBooshka
16th January 2004, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by Kouros+Jan 16 2004, 11:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kouros @ Jan 16 2004, 11:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Chris n Maria@Jan 16 2004, 11:18 PM
I&#39;m probebly missing something vitally important: but in a democratic association if the majority vote to change things, shouldnt they be allowed to do so?
I believe that the founding members would like to protect certain promises that they made when GAGB was first launched - and I can understand that. Although the current committee would be staunchly against it, there is a possibility that a future committee would encourage the GAGB to become a revenue stream (perhaps under the guise of promoting Geocaching in the UK, or whatever).

There is also the possibility that the non-commercial nature of GAGB could be compromised (insert pop-up ad for RL&#39;s GPS units here).

Both are valid points, and very emotive.

Personally, I&#39;d suggest that we&#39;re actually swaying a little too much away from what Geocaching is all about. There is a certain famous sig-line, which read something along the lines of "It&#39;s only a hunt for a lunch-box, why be so serious" - there is a need for what is being strived for here, but there should be no requirment for it to be so politicised. [/b][/quote]
good points, well made, but if it is ever the will of the membership to remove the suggested clause, they must be allowed to do so.

Moss Trooper
16th January 2004, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by NattyBooshka@Jan 16 2004, 11:35 PM
good points, well made, but if it is ever the will of the membership to remove the suggested clause, they must be allowed to do so.
WHY? you want folks to be charged in the future for yousing the site?

BugznElm&#39;r
16th January 2004, 11:42 PM
There&#39;s nothing wrong with a paid membership option ... look at GC.com as an example - free membership for everyone, paid for those who want to give a little back and they sell trinkets.

Personally, that&#39;s how I&#39;d like to see the GAGB ... but that&#39;s just me&#33;

Moss Trooper
16th January 2004, 11:44 PM
and please.. don&#39;t be so pathetic to pick up on the english.. if you do.. prove that you can speak, type and use english as it was intended.

Moss Trooper
16th January 2004, 11:52 PM
yep and I&#39;m a paid up member.. but they don&#39;t charge membership fees as a prerequisite of joining.. and I don&#39;t want to see membership fees period.. and any form of non commercial funding is OK.. but then look beyond that into the accounting.. liability.. who is ultimatley responsible.. who carries the can when things don&#39;t go write.. I do have experiance of this.. Secreteries/Treasures nicking off with the funds..

Can anyone state that those on committee are 100% trustworthy.. ??? ( I would like to add that that is not an indication of my feeling that anyone on the committee is untrustworthy in that sense)

BugznElm&#39;r
16th January 2004, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jan 16 2004, 11:52 PM
and I don&#39;t want to see membership fees period..
And as a member you&#39;d be free to vote against it.

Why is choice a bad thing?

Moss Trooper
17th January 2004, 12:02 AM
Would it not be better if there was NEVER any need for funds.. then there would be no need for Treasures.. No need for accounts.. no need for acountants.. (who have to be paid).. No need for one person to be accountable in law.. If you don&#39;t have funds and rely on good will.. which seems to be sorely lacking in this case.. then the former is invalid.

Don&#39;t it make sense to have constitution that won&#39;t allow charging membership.. period" and remember.. we are only talking membership.. and commercial..

Keeping money out of the association will simplifie the running of it for one.

BugznElm&#39;r
17th January 2004, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jan 16 2004, 11:52 PM
Can anyone state that those on committee are 100% trustworthy.. ??? ( I would like to add that that is not an indication of my feeling that anyone on the committee is untrustworthy in that sense)
Trust is earned through being open and transparent and clear. Trust is about not letting the few be in charge and run the show but letting the members in on it. Every company or organization relies on trust at one level or another and nothing is foolproof.

Moss Trooper
17th January 2004, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r+Jan 16 2004, 11:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BugznElm&#39;r @ Jan 16 2004, 11:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Moss Trooper@Jan 16 2004, 11:52 PM
and I don&#39;t want to see membership fees period..
And as a member you&#39;d be free to vote against it.

Why is choice a bad thing? [/b][/quote]
The choice is the members.. but we are having trouble getting the actuall wording in the constitution.. Thats what this is all about.. the wording of the constitution..

concerned
17th January 2004, 12:09 AM
Are you not at all worried that there maybe landowners reading this thread and drawing their own conclusions as to the reliabilty, validity, resposiblity of the infighting?

BugznElm&#39;r
17th January 2004, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jan 17 2004, 12:02 AM
Keeping money out of the association will simplifie the running of it for one.
So who/what will pay for web space, stuff for events, out of pocket for committee members ...

Look at how GC.com outgrew their forum servers ... who would pay for that kind of upgrade here? Committee members?

In an ideal world, yes, keeping money out of it would simplify things but none of the above grow on trees.

bottom line though, this isn&#39;t about money, it&#39;s about being democratic and about the possibility for future change.

Moss Trooper
17th January 2004, 12:14 AM
Bug.. you see what you see.. thats it.. you don&#39;t know me from Adam.. if you did you would know that all I ever wanted was a platform to stop what was happening in US..

Funds don&#39;t come into it.. Look at GC:UK.. they have members.. they are free.. but the members don&#39;t own the site.. Mark has always said he won&#39;t charge.. fine that is acceptable. yet seems to be unacceptable here..&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

BugznElm&#39;r
17th January 2004, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by Moss Trooper+Jan 17 2004, 12:06 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Moss Trooper @ Jan 17 2004, 12:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -BugznElm&#39;r@Jan 16 2004, 11:57 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Moss Trooper@Jan 16 2004, 11:52 PM
and I don&#39;t want to see membership fees period..
And as a member you&#39;d be free to vote against it.

Why is choice a bad thing?
The choice is the members.. but we are having trouble getting the actuall wording in the constitution.. Thats what this is all about.. the wording of the constitution.. [/b][/quote]
Wording that will, in my mind, dictate the future democracy of the association.

Anyway, I don&#39;t have any more to say ... Moss, I appreciate that you have deep views about this so let&#39;s just agree to disagree on this one for now&#33; :)

Moss Trooper
17th January 2004, 12:16 AM
Bug.. you see what you see.. thats it.. you don&#39;t know me from Adam.. if you did you would know that all I ever wanted was a platform to stop what was happening in US..

Funds don&#39;t come into it.. Look at GC:UK.. they have members.. they are free.. but the members don&#39;t own the site.. Mark has always said he won&#39;t charge.. fine that is acceptable. yet seems to be unacceptable here..&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Moss Trooper
17th January 2004, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r+Jan 17 2004, 12:15 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BugznElm&#39;r @ Jan 17 2004, 12:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Moss Trooper@Jan 17 2004, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by -BugznElm&#39;r@Jan 16 2004, 11:57 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Moss Trooper@Jan 16 2004, 11:52 PM
and I don&#39;t want to see membership fees period..
And as a member you&#39;d be free to vote against it.

Why is choice a bad thing?
The choice is the members.. but we are having trouble getting the actuall wording in the constitution.. Thats what this is all about.. the wording of the constitution..
Wording that will, in my mind, dictate the future democracy of the association.

Anyway, I don&#39;t have any more to say ... Moss, I appreciate that you have deep views about this so let&#39;s just agree to disagree on this one for now&#33; :) [/b][/quote]
Agreed..

:D

BugznElm&#39;r
17th January 2004, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jan 17 2004, 12:14 AM
Funds don&#39;t come into it.. Look at GC:UK.. they have members.. they are free.. but the members don&#39;t own the site.. Mark has always said he won&#39;t charge.. fine that is acceptable. yet seems to be unacceptable here..&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
We all see what we want to see ... and that&#39;s fine. However, GC:UK is not an association controlled by members. It&#39;s a personal site.

Free, not free. Really, that&#39;s not the point. The real point here is that some issue over site copyright (when the site is currently already copyright to the GAGB) is being haggled over here over wording that should go into the constitution.

Moss Trooper
17th January 2004, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r+Jan 17 2004, 12:15 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BugznElm&#39;r @ Jan 17 2004, 12:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Moss Trooper@Jan 17 2004, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by -BugznElm&#39;r@Jan 16 2004, 11:57 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Moss Trooper@Jan 16 2004, 11:52 PM
and I don&#39;t want to see membership fees period..
And as a member you&#39;d be free to vote against it.

Why is choice a bad thing?
The choice is the members.. but we are having trouble getting the actuall wording in the constitution.. Thats what this is all about.. the wording of the constitution..
Wording that will, in my mind, dictate the future democracy of the association.

Anyway, I don&#39;t have any more to say ... Moss, I appreciate that you have deep views about this so let&#39;s just agree to disagree on this one for now&#33; :) [/b][/quote]
Agreed..

:D

BugznElm&#39;r
17th January 2004, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jan 17 2004, 12:18 AM
Agreed..

:D
Super&#33; I hope you don&#39;t take any of this personally ... I don&#39;t &#33; And by the way, we did meet at the HCC bash&#33;

:)

Moss Trooper
17th January 2004, 12:25 AM
No I don&#39;t take it personally.. just defending what I feel is right.. as you are.. and strangly that is what makes this democratic in a cranky sort of way..

I belive we both have learned something.. nothing is ever as simple as it seems..

PS.. may see you at the Late Chrissy cache bash if I can get down..

NattyBooshka
17th January 2004, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by concerned@Jan 17 2004, 12:09 AM
Are you not at all worried that there maybe landowners reading this thread and drawing their own conclusions as to the reliabilty, validity, resposiblity of the infighting?
No, anybody who has any inderstanding of associations knows that not everybody agrees on things. Personally I&#39;d be happy to see a bunch of people willing to stand up and fight for what they believe in, as I believe that both sides have done here. Notice that there is no arguement in the guideline discussion, just some suggestions of better wording, which have been adopted or discussed and rejected in a very civil manner.

Of course, those willing to stand up and fight for something have the guts to do so under their own name. I have to then assume that you have another motive here. Why do you want to stop a democratic conversation? Do you want to come out and tell us who you really are? Or would you like to remain anonymous and spineless?

NattyBooshka
17th January 2004, 09:10 AM
..to stop what was happening in US
Not sure what in the US you are refering to here... care to enlighten us?

G:UK is not a democratic association, it is an owned service and the owners of that service choose to supply if for free and pick uo the bills. If the GAGB went down that road, we&#39;d have to either:

A ) Hope the SS with their tendancy to be oversensitive, history of resignation and attitude that "we were here first, we know best" would keep footing the bills, and keep the power switched on (it&#39;s been turned off once I seem to remember) Apologies to all members of the SS who have not got such a history of course, but I didn&#39;t want to get personal. Now, you were not here first in the respect that many of us have enjoyed walking in the countryside for many years, also people on here (that I know of) have been hunting lunchboxes for over 20 years now. This is simply a new way of doing it, and those of you who have been playing this varient for 3 years now think you know it all. You don&#39;t. Sadly you turned down help from those who do when offered it... how sad.

B ) Expect the committee to pay the bills. This seems a little unfair, there should be no prerequisite of having available funds to be able to stand for committee.

C ) Raise funds some other way.

Now, I agree that membership should be free to all, but not that it should be cast in stone as free, purely and simply for the reasons quoted above... it&#39;s undemocratic. I like the idea of "premium" membership... maybe those paying would be a lot more responsible with any extra privilages that this got them that you have been with yours, commenting on committee discussions and then suggesting that it was the committee member who did so.

The arguement of accountants and the likes is all well and good, but as the GAGB will have, at some stage at least, bills to pay, expenses incurred, etc etc... it seems pretty obvious to me that we&#39;re going to have to have some funds kept somewhere. Like I said, I&#39;m against the committee being MADE to pay for everything. Those funds need looking after, and they need accounting too I guess... maybe we have an accountant member who could take a look at them for free? Whilst it&#39;s a small fund with not too many transactions that could be a possiblility.

The reason Marks very noble statement that he will never charge is not acceptable here is a simple one... he OWNS that site. If he could no longer afford to run it, I assume he&#39;d either look to pass it on to someone else, or close it down. Of course I don;t want anyone to have the power to close this down... one reasone we need to get off this server... and if we cannot afford to run this on contributions I&#39;d rather pay for it than kill it off. I would, of course, rather it be free, and I HOPE it is free forever, but I feel it is wrong to make this an unchangeable rule.

As for other comments claiming that you only wanted this in the constitution, so we could vote on it:

1) To date it seems most people would prefer different words.

2) Unlike all other suggestions made and accepted/declined, we haven&#39;t seen the words that the SS actually want in. Teasel has hinted at them, and I have seen them (with many thanks to the one of your number who sent them) and I have to say, I would be even more appauled by them than I am of the suggestion that we make this clause unchangeable. So simply, so we all understand it, I ask this... IF YOU HAVE SOME SUGGESTED WORDS FOR THE CONSTITUTION, PUT THEM HERE FOR US TO COMMENT ON LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE HAS, thus folowing the protocol and procedure that the ELECTED committee have decided upon.

Furthermore, if the SS want a nice free club that they can do what they like with, why not set up a secret seven website. You may find that more to your tatses than this association that has now, it seems, grown into something that you no longer like. I, and I&#39;m sure I speak for a lot of people here, actually prefer the way this is going. I have trust in each and every committee member, and I have a growing respect for them as they have worked on a very sensible document with the founder members trying to muscle in and control it.

I beg the owners of the site to hand it over to the ELECTED committee who, on behalf of the MEMBERSHIP can be the guardians of the site... that could be cast in stone... words like "all copyright of gagb.org/gagb.org.uk belongs to the elected committee of the GAGB" would be fairly easy to come up with.

Now, I&#39;d ask those of the SS who cannot accept the fact that we want a say in how our association is run in future to either accept that they are in the minority and let the committee get on with things, or resign membership and leave us all alone.

Wood Smoke
17th January 2004, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by Wood Smoke@Jan 10 2004, 09:05 PM
2. Section 2 last bit to read - The GAGB aims to keep membership of GAGB free of charge for members if possible.

4. Section 4 - If this is there, then the bit I mention above (in 2) should be removed completely. What would be better would be to combine both statements so section 4 would read - The GAGB is a non-commercial organisation and aims to keep membership of GAGB free of charge for members if possible. - and remove the other statemnet completely.


I have reposted above my original comments on this issue, and I still think the wording is appropriate.

Unfortunately I missed the discussion in here yesterday, but I will post MY opinion here now.

1. I believe in democracy, I don&#39;t accept being dictated to by anyone within a democratic organisation (which this is supposed to be) unless they have the majority vote behind them.

2. I would like to see GAGB stay free to members, but lets be practical about it, that is unlikely. The voting members will decide that, not one or any small group of people.

Yours Roy
WoodSmoke

NattyBooshka
17th January 2004, 09:36 AM
I agree 100% with the words originally posted, for what it&#39;s worth.

BugznElm&#39;r
17th January 2004, 09:41 AM
My problem with something funded behind the scenes by anyone is that they command unfair leverage. Let&#39;s say, for example, that someone donates to keep the website/forum up. They do this for a few years. Then they want more say over what happens. No matter that they are an elected committee member or not, that is unfair, undemocratic coercion.

Let&#39;s face it, there&#39;s not such thing as a free lunch (or lunch box).

I have to agree with NattyBooshka, it&#39;s now time for the owners of this site to hand it over to the elected committee. If that is not forthcoming then it is time to either dispense with that property and move on (URLs and logos aren&#39;t as important as democracy) or disband the association and start again with a clean slate and clear, open motives and principals. Control from the shadows cannot be allowed, especially at this early stage as it will only get worse.

Really, I think that the time as come where if the founding memebers feel this strongly that this association has slipped from their fingers and no longer back it that it is time to resign or accept democracy ...

Personally, I&#39;m glad we have an elected committee now ...

BugznElm&#39;r
17th January 2004, 11:36 AM
To the committee members:

A serious plea ...

Over the past 24 hours we have read some disturbing posts on this forum about leverage being placed on the committee by non-elected members. I for one thing that this, one way or another, has to end. It has to end because for a geocaching association to work, any association for that matter, there has to be trust. Other cachers have to trust the association, landowners have to trust the association and cachers and members, both old and new, need to feel that their voice is equal, not dictated by how long they&#39;ve been caching or whether they decided to set up the association or not.

Democracy is also important, not just over membership fees but for deciding the direction of the association both now and in the future. By allowing for democracy what you are doing is leveling out the peaks and troughs of opinion and ultimately steering a middle ground that by default, given the membership of the organization, will respect the rights of landowners and the game itself. Take this away and there is no such control in place. Today it is over membership fees, tomorrow it could be over something else. I believe that during the consultation stages of a constitution that all members should be heard but I don&#39;t believe that any one voice should hold more sway than another based on time served, being a founder member or having set up the website.

I ask you, the committee, to think about whether democracy is now possible in the GAGB. Can the GAGB move forward from this point or has the rot set in too deep and the tendrils of control and coercion gone too deep for the membership to ever trust the association? If you cannot assure the membership that there is a future where the association can and will be membership driven, I call on you to ask yourselves whether carrying on with this association is both practical and desirable or is it time to lay it to rest and perhaps go back to how things were pre-GAGB for 6 - 18 months and perhaps come back to this idea in the GC.com forum on a later date and set things up properly next time. This now, in my opinion, has to be the time when this is decided. Both geocachers and landowners deserve a strong, united, democratic association. If you cannot provide this in face of how the association was set up, it&#39;s time to call it a day as no good can ultimately come of this feud.

Please, come to an honest decision.

paul.blitz
17th January 2004, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jan 17 2004, 12:14 AM
Look at GC:UK.. they have members.. they are free.. but the members don&#39;t own the site.. Mark has always said he won&#39;t charge.. fine that is acceptable. yet seems to be unacceptable here..&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
And exactly the same can be said for GC.com, although there IS an option to pay for premium "membership". And as a "member", like at GC:UK, you have no say in things.


Paul

LoisInTheForest
17th January 2004, 07:39 PM
I have read (and tried to understand with considerable difficulty as I am an enthusiastic newcomer to geocaching without knowledge of the history of the GAGB) the many posts on this topic. I thought that, as a newcomer, I ought to keep quiet and let the people with far more experience and knowledge than I have administer the Association&#39;s business and be grateful that there are those among us who are prepared to put themselves out on our behalf and for the good of the hobby. I just wanted to ask if I am not alone in being a little surprised and perturbed at the (sometimes quite vitriolic) nature of the arguments that have been aired in this open forum. Only a few members have posted comments.

I should add that I am a firm believer in democracy and have been a member of associations through my employment where all officers are elected and policy is determined by a majority vote. I realise that the GAGB is slightly different in that it is a "virtual" body where many members have not met other members but this should not affect policy decisions and the only difficulty with the nature of the organisation is when it comes to re-election of officers. I should say that I make that comment without knowledge of how or when the present committee members were elected and I don&#39;t know if this is intended to be done on a regular basis. Maybe it&#39;s in the proposed constitution - sorry if it is and I&#39;ve forgotten I&#39;ve read that part&#33;

Anyway, that&#39;s my five eggs and I hope that the post is taken in the spirit in which it is intended - to say I appreciate the work done by the few and to indicate that I do care about what is happening.

Nigel

paul.blitz
18th January 2004, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by LoisInTheForest@Jan 17 2004, 07:39 PM
I should say that I make that comment without knowledge of how or when the present committee members were elected and I don&#39;t know if this is intended to be done on a regular basis. Maybe it&#39;s in the proposed constitution - sorry if it is and I&#39;ve forgotten I&#39;ve read that part&#33;

Nigel:

The current committee were elected back in November 2003, for a year (so next elections due Nov 2004).

We did have a chariman (Tim P) but he stood down. We are hoping to have a new election for chairman by the end of Feb.

Obviously Xmas has got in the way, but we are all still "finding our feet" to some extent.

Paul

TheCat
18th January 2004, 11:00 PM
Well as a few things have been said in this thread about GC:UK I supose I should say a few words.
1, Teasel is one of the Admins on GeocacheUK.com he does not run the site for me. He does remarcable work on our stats system as that is what he does well. We also have another Admin Brian "Deego" He is to be found in the Communications Centre looking after that part of the site. I on the other hand mainley work in the background adding new features etc to the site and also ship merchandise all over the world now. This is where the site gets some of its running costs from. So as can be seen we are a team. I realise that GC:UK is bigger than me and have put in place provision that if I get run over by a number 20 bus tomorow and killed the site will continue into the future.

GC:UK is a free service and as I have said many times before will be as long as I have breath in my body.

I cant for the life of me see why GC:UK has been dragged into ths argument sure Teasel helps out on GC:UK but he also works with the Mountain Rescue that is not dragged up here. Could it be that some still doubt that GC:UK is just what it says on the box a free service for UK Geocachers.

After the success of the last CIN Event I asked what charity we should raise cash for next time and a few people said it might be a good idea to raise funds for GAGB after some chat we thought a 50/50 split between GAGB and another organisation to be decided nearer to the time.

One last point I have always said that no one is indespensable they might like to think so but in truth if anyone of us die the world just goes on. Sometimes with a hicup but it still goes on.




TheCat

BugznElm&#39;r
19th January 2004, 12:22 AM
I don&#39;t understand why GC:UK has been dragged into this either ... there is no comparison. GC:UK is your site and you can take it in whatever direction you want. You offer some great services for UK geocachers and I think if the GAGB manage 10% of what you offer they&#39;ll be doing well. What you have done is said "here&#39;s some stuff that you might find useful". Personally I think that this would have been a good place for the GAGB to begin before moving into geocaching politics.
My initial problem with the GAGB was that it was born as a result of the coming together of several cachers (that&#39;s not a great image there but it does :D ) and when this happens ideas are thrown about and plans made. One you throw democracy into the deal things change because those initial views have to not only withstand external criticisms but they also have to change. I know how hard this can be and given the make up of the founders I could see problems with this. A long time ago I raised this but I don&#39;t think many believed it. Well ...
Cat, keep up the good work mate ... my advice is to mind your mind or it will surely spoil&#33;

MCL
19th January 2004, 02:33 AM
Ah what a fascinating discussion I have come back to.

The way I see it there are two issues here that are becoming blurred together.

1. The issue of whether the GAGB should charge its members any sort of fee (ie the "Money" issue)
2. The issue as to whether anything in the constitution *now* may be changed by any present or future membership (the "Democracy" issue)

It is an unfortunate fact of 2. that if it is allowed to run as intended then there is the chance that any decision made *now* about 1. may end up being altered in years to come.

I say "an unfortunate fact" mainly for the benefit of those who find certain aspects of unfettered democracy as disturbing as those who find certain aspects of unfettered dictatorship. They *both* have drawbacks, with Saddam Hussein being an example of the drawbacks of unfettered dictatorship while on the other hand the possibility that our children might vote in compulsory use of WMD in all caches being an an example of the unfettered democracy.

The question is, do we want, or can we afford, or even is there such a happy medium as "fettered democracy"?

I don&#39;t believe there is such a thing as fettered democracy. I believe such a thing actually amounts to a dictatorship-in-the-making. Robert Mugabe is a classic example of this. He was quite properly elected under a democratic system, but once in power the only way he could stay in power was if he changed the system to ensure that he couldn&#39;t easily be removed. He "fettered" (limited) the democracy he had inherited. Now that limited democracy is useless. It is no democracy at all.

Coming back to GAGB. I belive quite passionately that the constitution *must* be allowed to be altered by our descendants if they wish because frankly, we cannot forsee what problems and issues they may have to face years down the road. We have no right to fetter them to a policy which is fine and right for us now (and I will argue as strongly as Moss Trooper for the retention of a free GAGB) but may be entirely inappropriate in 50 years time. We must be aware that the constitution we write now will hopefully be standing and working many years from now, and the only way it can do that is if the members of the day have full control over it. *We* have full control over it in *our* time, so *they* should have full control over it in *their* time.

If we take that away from them by saying that there are some things we will not allow them to change (*whatever* those things might be...fees, armed cachers, nude caching..you name it&#33;) then *we* are being selfish and untrusting to our decendants.

This means, Moss, that while I totally agree the GAGB should be free and devoid of funds/monies/etc I cannot agree that it is right to shackle future generations with a constitution set in stone. The principle of democracy in my book overrides all other considerations, however worthy they are. Our government is unable to make law that a future parliament could not repeal. It is a system that has served this country for almost a thousand years. The same principle should serve the GAGB for just as long.

NattyBooshka
19th January 2004, 07:28 AM
I think this arguement highlights the need for a constitution in the best possible way&#33;

A constitution is a set of rules that the committee itself cannot change and must work within. The whole point of a constitution is to protect democracy. The adding of any permanent clauses is, therefore, a contradiction of the word "constitution."

To take an extreme example... the US constitution and Bill of Rights contains a clause that allows the bearing of arms by citizens of the US. At the time of writing it was a useful clause. Now, and I&#39;m not argueing for or against it, it allows a country to have as many guns as citizens, and a gun-culture where as many people are killed by guns each year in the state of Florida alone as the rest of the world outside the US put together (wars excepted.) Whilst it is true that most of these deaths are caused by illegally owned guns, the fact is that if they were all illegal, there would be a lot less guns available to become owned illegally. This is something that many citizens in the Us would like to change, but thier "constitution" does not allow this ammendment to be changed.

We are not, I believe, arguing for payment of fees here... this arguement could apply to any clause of the proposed constitution. I believe, and every November I will believe the same, that the current committee will act in our interests, and take the will/mood of the membership into account when making decisions. The constitution will kick in to protect that if my belief is ever shattered. I am pleased, and grateful, thet the SS decided to take the GAGB down the democratic route, and now only wish them to continue down that road. Nobody should "own" the GAGB, as it appears they do until the copyright is handed over. However, all that is owned is the name, url, graphics and content of this site. The membership can, en-mass or individually, join any other organization. If the current committee cannot wrestle control off those wishing to become dictators (benevolent or otherwise) then I for one, and I&#39;m sure I speak for many of us, would be happy to follow them to any other website they choose, and start a new association with them as the elected committee until re-election in November (ie as we stand right now.)

G:UK is a wonderful service, thanks Mark, and we are VERY fortunate to have it available free of charge. It gives more value add, IMHO, than premium membership to GC.com (which I pay for) has ever done. I wish that members of this association who have attacked it desist from doing so in future. I respect the people who run it, and appreciate their statement that it will ALWAYS be free. I also appreciate the statements from the committee that they will always AIM to make this a free-to-join association. I think that this is a small issue, and I doubt that 67% of us will ever vote to pay for anything we get for free already. If we remain free forever, I&#39;ll be happy. If we are forced to add that as a permanet clause to the constitution (as said I don&#39;t think this is actually something that belongs in a constitution) then I will leave this place in the hands of the SS to do with as they wish.

Once a committee was elected, democracy had been accepted... now please allow democracy to reign.

Wood Smoke
19th January 2004, 07:40 AM
As MCL & Nattybooshka have covered all the points I would raise I will just say

"I agree with them"

Let democracy reign, or we will be off somewhere else, and that would be a shame.

WoodSmoke

BugznElm&#39;r
19th January 2004, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by NattyBooshka@Jan 19 2004, 07:28 AM
Once a committee was elected, democracy had been accepted... now please allow democracy to reign.
That&#39;s a good point ... however, recent events have made me believe that we were never "meant" to have true democracy here. Take a look at the history on this forum in the early days where there was very much a "take it or leave it" attitude and many members felt that their voice wasn&#39;t welcome. If it wasn&#39;t for resignations and pressure from members, we&#39;d now have a committee that could, quite possibly, be made up of founder members (after all, it&#39;s quite uncommon to have an association where the founding members leave so early on).
I&#39;ve said it before and I&#39;ve said it again - from too early on the GAGB wanted "control" (a few months ago when I said this I got some very unsavory responses on the GC.com forums from certain founder members) instead of pausing and thinking and debating about how things should be. An association cannot be created behind closed doors. The GAGB "seemed" like it was and we are suffering. Even when democracy appears to be winning, we now get to find out about just how far some are willing to go to retain control or leave their mark.
Let democracy win - let the constitution that contained Woodsmoke&#39;s revision ideas be voted on and let&#39;s move on or pack up&#33;

NattyBooshka
19th January 2004, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r+Jan 19 2004, 11:56 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BugznElm&#39;r @ Jan 19 2004, 11:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--NattyBooshka@Jan 19 2004, 07:28 AM
Once a committee was elected, democracy had been accepted... now please allow democracy to reign.
That&#39;s a good point ... however, recent events have made me believe that we were never "meant" to have true democracy here. Take a look at the history on this forum in the early days where there was very much a "take it or leave it" attitude and many members felt that their voice wasn&#39;t welcome. If it wasn&#39;t for resignations and pressure from members, we&#39;d now have a committee that could, quite possibly, be made up of founder members (after all, it&#39;s quite uncommon to have an association where the founding members leave so early on).
I&#39;ve said it before and I&#39;ve said it again - from too early on the GAGB wanted "control" (a few months ago when I said this I got some very unsavory responses on the GC.com forums from certain founder members) instead of pausing and thinking and debating about how things should be. An association cannot be created behind closed doors. The GAGB "seemed" like it was and we are suffering. Even when democracy appears to be winning, we now get to find out about just how far some are willing to go to retain control or leave their mark.
Let democracy win - let the constitution that contained Woodsmoke&#39;s revision ideas be voted on and let&#39;s move on or pack up&#33; [/b][/quote]
Have to agree on the issues of the past... but let&#39;s see where we go from now on. Let&#39;s get the constitution ratified and let our representatives get on with it. I feel that the committee will take the necessary steps to create a committee only board once they have control of the site. Then, hopefully, we can stop wondering how much pressure was put on them by those not elected. Maybe a lack of founder member forum would further improve that feeling?

To Paul Blitz and the committee... My words in this (heated) discussion have been in no way intended to belittle what you are doing for us. Thanks very much for the hard work thus far, and in the future. The elected committee have my full support. The constitution in the last form that I saw it in would certainly get my vote&#33;

BugznElm&#39;r
19th January 2004, 12:36 PM
The committee get our full support too&#33; The hard work that they have put in combined with the pressure they appear to have been under I think shows that we have a darn good committee on board.

Respect&#33;

Let&#39;s vote&#33;

paul.blitz
20th January 2004, 07:51 PM
Given that there is a (hopefully) popular social event coming up this weekend, I&#39;d like to try & have a pleasant an event as possible.

Therefore, I hope you all won&#39;t mind if I sit & do nothing until AFTER then.

And a plea to you ALL: when you arrive at the pub on Sunday, please leave all the GAGB politics at the door: lets agree to disagree for the day, and let&#39;s try & have a fun day&#33;

I have a cache lined up for you (should be a bit of fun for the youngsters too, I hope, and you&#39;ll even find a nice playground on the way to the cache)... I just hope this year YOU won&#39;t be lining up for IT&#33;

See you Sunday&#33;


Paul

Nzbuu
26th January 2004, 12:44 AM
I was discussing the GAGB with MCL and others after everyone else left at the Late Xmas Cache Bash today, and it has occured to me and others that we will need new elections or similar once the constitution has been ratified. This is because there have, as yet, never been any elections under any constitution of the GAGB, therefore we can not have been voting for the committee members in accordance with an official aim of the association as laid out in an official constitution.

The GAGB proper only really comes into existence once the constitution has been ratified by its would-be-members. Therefore, the committee elected last time is the committee for the pre-GAGB, or an adhoc committee charged with forming the GAGB, constitution and all. This is not to diminish in any way the fantastic work that has already been done by the existing committee, but it would be unconstitutional to just assume that they can just carry on in their roles under the title of GAGB committee members without a fresh endorsement from the membership in the context of the constitution.

I must confess to not having read anything of this thread since the draft proposal when it was first published so I&#39;ve not been following what&#39;s been going on. If this has been discussed already then I apologise.

(Where&#39;s the current version of the constitution?)

Nzbuu
26th January 2004, 12:47 AM
Hang on a sec. Why am I not a voting member?

NattyBooshka
26th January 2004, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by Nzbuu@Jan 26 2004, 12:44 AM
I was discussing the GAGB with MCL and others after everyone else left at the Late Xmas Cache Bash today, and it has occured to me and others that we will need new elections or similar once the constitution has been ratified. This is because there have, as yet, never been any elections under any constitution of the GAGB, therefore we can not have been voting for the committee members in accordance with an official aim of the association as laid out in an official constitution.

The GAGB proper only really comes into existence once the constitution has been ratified by its would-be-members. Therefore, the committee elected last time is the committee for the pre-GAGB, or an adhoc committee charged with forming the GAGB, constitution and all. This is not to diminish in any way the fantastic work that has already been done by the existing committee, but it would be unconstitutional to just assume that they can just carry on in their roles under the title of GAGB committee members without a fresh endorsement from the membership in the context of the constitution.

I must confess to not having read anything of this thread since the draft proposal when it was first published so I&#39;ve not been following what&#39;s been going on. If this has been discussed already then I apologise.

(Where&#39;s the current version of the constitution?)
Personally I don&#39;t feel a whole new election process is needed. We&#39;ve only just elected these people. I don&#39;t see why they cannot continue the good work until November. If the feeling is that they need electing again though, can we just have one vote to re-elect all of them again please? I don&#39;t fancy another 6 weeks of polls&#33;&#33;&#33;

Brenin Tegeingl
26th January 2004, 10:22 AM
I&#39;m with Natty on this one. If after we formally adopt a constitution, it&#39;s felt that another vote for committee members is needed, it should just be one to confirm or reject the current committee&#33; They were all fairly voted in, so why change the status quo, when they are doing sterling work.
Nzbuu to answer your question about voting rights, a cut off date is placed before any vote, anyone joining after that date is unable to take part in that vote. Looking at your joining date, it looks like you joined after the cut off date for the last vote. I&#39;m sure the committee will change your status before the next vote. This is done to keep votes fair, and to stop anyone creating a sockpuppet account just before a vote to skew the results. If you look back thru the forums you&#39;ll find claims of sockpuppet accounts voting in other poles, fortunately there&#39;s never been any evidence of this, hence the current measure. Dave

paul.blitz
26th January 2004, 08:50 PM
Dear all

I&#39;m "cutting lose" this thread and locking it: I&#39;m going to be re-working the constitution shortly, and I&#39;ll start a new thread then.

At the same time, or very shortly afterwards, I&#39;ll be releasing a set of "standing orders" which will basically define how elections will be done (needed for the chairman election) and that sort of stuff.

Paul