Thanks Thanks:  41
Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 161

Thread: Why the secrecy at GAGB?

  1. #1
    Icenians Guest

    Default Why the secrecy at GAGB?

    Hi all

    It's been 2 months now since the GAGB elections. Can we please have the results posted? I'm talking here of the numbers of votes cast not just the names that won.

    I can find this infomation for my MP, councillors, and Parish Councillors. I see no reason for it to be hidden for GAGB.

    I have reasons for asking this information. It's no secret that I have in the past been opposed to the GAGB. I would like to be able to gauge for myself the relevence of the GAGB as an organisation. It makes claims to speak for and represent cachers in the UK. It negociates landowner permissions as the UK association. I see the number that voted as an indication of the number of ACTIVE members to the GAGB and therefore shows the extent of representation the GAGB has in the UK caching community.

    Can we please have at least the number of people who voted published and if not, why not.

    Cheers

    Kev

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    Though GAGB members and forum users have now been separated, the best indication of how many users are active is perhaps the figure at the bottom of the forum home page, which currently stands at 515.

    Most of those who belong to one of those groups also belong to the other, though there are a handful of exceptions in both groups.

    The total number who voted in the committee elections last November was a disappointing 56 (cachers/caching teams, not individuals). That certainly doesn't give any indication of active numbers, as the forums have more logged-in visitors than that every single day, and I would imagine that many of the guests who visit are also registered users but haven't bothered to log in.
    ​​Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)​


  3. #3
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Thanks for that Bill.

    I would argue that perhaps 56 is more of an indication of those active enough to show interest in voting. It's very possible that as you cannot stop being a member that some of the 515 are not even active cachers.

    Kev

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Ashbourne, Derbyshire
    Posts
    449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    I would argue that perhaps 56 is more of an indication of those active enough to show interest in voting.
    No argument there its a fact, only 56 showed an interest in voting.
    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians
    It's very possible that as you cannot stop being a member that some of the 515 are not even active cachers.
    Those figures are generated automatically to show the number of member accounts that have logged in over a rolling period. A better indication of activity levels can be seen in the area above those statistcs where registered members who have visited that day are listed (reset at midnight). Although this does only show the members who logged in and not those who have just dropped in to read the new posts.
    Last edited by studlyone; 18th January 2009 at 07:02 AM. Reason: Clarity
    "I Cache, therefore I am"

  5. #5
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by studlyone View Post
    No argument there its a fact, only 56 showed an interest in voting. Those figures are generated automatically to show the number of member accounts that have logged in over a rolling period. A better indication of activity levels can be seen in the area above those statistcs where registered members who have visited that day are listed (reset at midnight). Although this does only show the members who logged in and not those who have just dropped in to read the new posts.
    Ah you twist my meaning a little methinks

    My point is that the GAGB has a mandate from 56 cachers to negociate on it's behalf. That is, I would imagine as I no longer have the figures for the number of active CACHERS in the UK, somewhat low. It's appalling turnout from the members let alone the rest of the caching community.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    A very weird way to look at an election result.

  7. #7
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose39uk View Post
    A very weird way to look at an election result.
    You think?

    Tell me, are you pleased at a 10% turnout?

    Do you really think the GAGB can claim to speak for the UK Cachers when only 56 people could be bothered?

    I fail to see how those figures, can be anything other than of concern to the organisation.

    At best you could say that 450 members couldn't care who was on the committee.

    Spin it anyway you like. I bet if the voting had been 5000 members and they all voted, the GAGB would have trumpeted it. Instead you decided not to tell anyone until the question was asked.

    Tell me, do the GAGB tell landowners how many folk they are speaking on behalf?

    Kev

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    An election is an election no matter how many people vote.

    Yes the turnout was poor.

    You are very good at criticising this organisation and very poor in my opinion at suggesting alternatives.

    10% fair enough may not be very high. It is however 10% more other than any other organisation.

    Yes we do need to do more to get people involved in the GAGB.

    Thinking about it though, if you look how many people use geocaching forums we get a pretty big chunk.

    If you don't appreciate the GAGB, then please feel free to set up an alternative.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Longformacus
    Posts
    316

    Angry

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    Ah you twist my meaning a little methinks

    My point is that the GAGB has a mandate from 56 cachers to negociate on it's behalf. That is, I would imagine as I no longer have the figures for the number of active CACHERS in the UK, somewhat low. It's appalling turnout from the members let alone the rest of the caching community.
    Since yesterday all your posts have either been an attack, or a lead to an attack of the GAGB. You seem very quick to lay the blame for non-communication between terra and the GAGB at the feet of the GAGB, when in fact, it's terra's structure that stops this from happening. It's not the GAGB's responsibility to sort out a spokesperson for terra, so I suggest terra sort that out themselves.

    Personally, I'm not prepared to offer an olive branch to anyone who would throw it back in my face (and I don't see why the GAGB should either)

    Incidentally, 56 is a very poor turn out, but at least it's an election this year, and a step in the right direction.
    I'm just going outside, and may be some time!

    www.jacobitecaching.co.uk

  10. #10
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose39uk View Post
    An election is an election no matter how many people vote.

    Yes the turnout was poor.

    You are very good at criticising this organisation and very poor in my opinion at suggesting alternatives.

    10% fair enough may not be very high. It is however 10% more other than any other organisation.

    Yes we do need to do more to get people involved in the GAGB.

    Thinking about it though, if you look how many people use geocaching forums we get a pretty big chunk.

    If you don't appreciate the GAGB, then please feel free to set up an alternative.
    I don't suggest that an election isn't valid. I'm simply trying to have a discussion of whether representing, at best 500 folk, is a legitimate position for the organisation to claim it's role as the UK Geocaching representatives. That is not an attack on anyone or anything.

    If by offering alternatives you are referring perhaps to the other thread then I would once again refer you to the suggestion I made in about the 3rd or 4th post in. I'm not claiming anywhere to have the answers.

    This organisation was set up to be a voice for geocaching and cachers in the UK, no just the ones that use the forums. I really don't have a problem with the GAGB having only 500 members. My beef is that this 500 members, or more correctly the committee, create a position that ends up with the rules of GAGB and negotiations of the GAGB being applied to 99.9% of all cachers in the UK. I come up with that figure on the basis that I am, probably, the only UK cacher that doesn't cache on GC. Oh no, maybe 2 of us.

    Why is it that the solution to the fact that many cachers see the GABA as irrelevent greeted with, 'Why not set up your own'? Do we really need two irrelevant caching associations?

    You have so far accused me of attacking the GAGB and not coming up with alteratives. May I turn that around then as you guys seem aware of the prolem. What are you, the elected committee, going to do about it? Leaving aside any issues with TC, what are you going to do about making this organisation more relevent nd attractive to the majority of cachers so that you can TRUELY claim to speak for UK cachers?

    How many people do the New Forest think the GAGB represent?

    Kev

  11. #11
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jacobite View Post
    Since yesterday all your posts have either been an attack, or a lead to an attack of the GAGB. You seem very quick to lay the blame for non-communication between terra and the GAGB at the feet of the GAGB, when in fact, it's terra's structure that stops this from happening. It's not the GAGB's responsibility to sort out a spokesperson for terra, so I suggest terra sort that out themselves.

    Personally, I'm not prepared to offer an olive branch to anyone who would throw it back in my face (and I don't see why the GAGB should either)

    Incidentally, 56 is a very poor turn out, but at least it's an election this year, and a step in the right direction.
    Nope, can't see any reference to Terracaching before this post here. (Well apart from the link in my signature)

    This isn't about TC. It's about 500 members and 56 votes and whether the GAGB has the right to affect UK caching for all.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    I don't suggest that an election isn't valid. I'm simply trying to have a discussion of whether representing, at best 500 folk, is a legitimate position for the organisation to claim it's role as the UK Geocaching representatives. That is not an attack on anyone or anything.

    If by offering alternatives you are referring perhaps to the other thread then I would once again refer you to the suggestion I made in about the 3rd or 4th post in. I'm not claiming anywhere to have the answers.

    This organisation was set up to be a voice for geocaching and cachers in the UK, no just the ones that use the forums. I really don't have a problem with the GAGB having only 500 members. My beef is that this 500 members, or more correctly the committee, create a position that ends up with the rules of GAGB and negotiations of the GAGB being applied to 99.9% of all cachers in the UK. I come up with that figure on the basis that I am, probably, the only UK cacher that doesn't cache on GC. Oh no, maybe 2 of us.

    Why is it that the solution to the fact that many cachers see the GABA as irrelevent greeted with, 'Why not set up your own'? Do we really need two irrelevant caching associations?

    You have so far accused me of attacking the GAGB and not coming up with alteratives. May I turn that around then as you guys seem aware of the prolem. What are you, the elected committee, going to do about it? Leaving aside any issues with TC, what are you going to do about making this organisation more relevent nd attractive to the majority of cachers so that you can TRUELY claim to speak for UK cachers?

    How many people do the New Forest think the GAGB represent?

    Kev

    The other way of looking at it is that cachers are happy (with the exception of a vocal minority) to let us just get on with it.

    Going round in circles is not my bag. Sorry unless you have something new to say I wil wander of and cut my toe nails, it is after all more interesting.

    The GAGB exists, get over it.
    Last edited by Mongoose39uk; 18th January 2009 at 06:00 PM.

  13. #13
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose39uk View Post
    Going round in circles is not my bag. Sorry unless you have something new to say I wil wander of and cut my toe nails, it is after all more interesting.

    The GAGB exists, get over it.
    So effectivly you're position on the state of the GAGB is 'tough'!!

    Well, I do hope that all those that voted for you are impressed with the way you take your GAGB role.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Like I said, when you have something new................

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Longformacus
    Posts
    316

    Default

    Kev, You're full of questions, yet have no answers yourself. You expect the GAGB to jump through hoops at your behest, but view that organization with contempt.

    I question the motivation of your attacks over the past 24hrs, and it's my personal opinion that, that motivation lies somewhere in the detail of a recent permission agreement.
    I'm just going outside, and may be some time!

    www.jacobitecaching.co.uk

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •