Thanks Thanks:  41
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 50 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 08:02 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 07:00 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

  16. #16
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose39uk View Post
    Like I said, when you have something new................
    Well, I guess the questions I asked above will not be answered.

    Given that I obviously feel the GAGB is not relevent and does not have the suffiecient mandate from me to speak to landowners on my behalf, would you, or one of you, point me in the direction of the link that enables me to withdraw my membership to this association?

    I would like that withdrawal to be reflected in the numbers of members please.

  17. #17
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jacobite View Post
    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.
    Not at all.

    I have never particularly agreed with the need for the GAGB or anything like it for caching. I placed a cache in the New Forst only last week and, I believe, I've complied with the landowners wishes, including informing the GAGB of the final location.

    I never have an issue with any restriction a landowner may wish to place on their land.

    I simply do not understand how the GAGB can make additional rules, both for NF and the guidelines, and then impose them outside of their own membership. This would not be a problem if the vast majority of cachers were members, but the information you guys provided above shows that you do not have that right.

    On the discussion about TC, I did, in fact, provide a suggestion. It's one I think is both workable and far more likely to yield results than emailing a guy that doesn't want to know. It's your, the GAGBs, issue as to whether you take up such a suggestion.

    But like so many threads in this forum, well those beyond the same old word games, many simple questions are ignored as the GAGB goes into a defensive mode.

    I don't set out to have an arguement in these forums. I would suggest that maybe a look at the quality of the spokesperson may help in the future.

    An association that wishes to operate in near secrecy and ignores it's own problems and members, choosing to listen to only those that agree, does not deserve my membership. Hence my earlier post.

    Kev (Icenians)

    Still going to be keeping an eye on you guys though
    Last edited by Icenians; 18th January 2009 at 07:23 PM. Reason: typos. One day I'll fix the 'B' key

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Longformacus
    Posts
    316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    Well, I guess the questions I asked above will not be answered.

    Given that I obviously feel the GAGB is not relevent and does not have the suffiecient mandate from me to speak to landowners on my behalf, would you, or one of you, point me in the direction of the link that enables me to withdraw my membership to this association?

    I would like that withdrawal to be reflected in the numbers of members please.
    I'll speak to the committee and see if we can arrange that for you.
    I'm just going outside, and may be some time!

    www.jacobitecaching.co.uk

  19. #19

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    321

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    Well, I do hope that all those that voted for you are impressed with the way you take your GAGB role.
    From what I've read recently on these GAGB related threads I'm happy with where we placed our vote .
    My ol' man likes to call a spade a spade.
    We like Greens

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Anywhere the mood takes us
    Posts
    2,538

    Default

    I am happy with what the GAGB commitee are doing.
    I just wish that all of the AAS's would just leave it be and let the commitee get on with what they are trying to do. As with the recent 'outbursts' concerning the Reviewers and Moderators over on the GC UK Forum, the minority just try impose their beliefs on the majority and end up ruining things.




    AAS = antagonistic attention seeker (my opinion only of course)

  21. #21
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrDick&Vick View Post
    I am happy with what the GAGB commitee are doing.
    I just wish that all of the AAS's would just leave it be and let the commitee get on with what they are trying to do. As with the recent 'outbursts' concerning the Reviewers and Moderators over on the GC UK Forum, the minority just try impose their beliefs on the majority and end up ruining things.




    AAS = antagonistic attention seeker (my opinion only of course)
    Er. The minority choose the gagb committee. That's been proven.

    If it wasn't for AAS as you put it, we would probably live in a very different world.

    I haven't tried to impose any believes here. I simply asked a question and asked what the GAGB was doing about it. If anything, the GAGB is imposing it's believes on me not the other way round.

    Please don't confuse me giving up membership of the GAGB with me being silent. While an unrepresetative and secretive association coninues to negociate in my name and impose rules on me without membership then I shall continue to comment.

    Kev

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    Icenians wrote:
    So effectivly you're position on the state of the GAGB is 'tough'!!
    Sorry, but could we have that in English, please?
    ​​Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)​


  23. #23
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose39uk View Post
    The GAGB exists, get over it.
    Sorry Bill, I don't know how to quote from two posts.

    My comment was based on this response. The implication is, we have your votes, the GAGB exists, so shut up and put up with it.

    I other words, Mongoose is saying the GAGB exists so Tough *****.

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Land of the Bear and Ragged Staff!
    Posts
    849

    Default

    Er. The minority choose the gagb committee. That's been proven.
    In the last Parliamentry Election only 30% of the electorate turned out in my area...
    I didn't vote for him.
    But he still represents me, and all the 70% who didn't vote, and all those that did vote, but voted for one of the other 3 candidates.

    GAGB-wise
    What do we do, make voting compulsory to all members?
    If you don't vote you are no longer a member?
    I have a Geocaching problem...
    Work gets in the way!

    * Cache Walker -Caching by byway, not highway! CacheWalker.co.uk
    Walking and Caching in Warwickshire, Worcestershire, Gloucestershire areas

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    Sorry Bill, I don't know how to quote from two posts.

    My comment was based on this response. The implication is, we have your votes, the GAGB exists, so shut up and put up with it.

    I other words, Mongoose is saying the GAGB exists so Tough *****.

    Please don't presume.

    That's your interpretation not mine.

  26. #26
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bear and Ragged View Post
    In the last Parliamentry Election only 30% of the electorate turned out in my area...
    I didn't vote for him.
    But he still represents me, and all the 70% who didn't vote, and all those that did vote, but voted for one of the other 3 candidates.

    GAGB-wise
    What do we do, make voting compulsory to all members?
    If you don't vote you are no longer a member?
    No. But GAGB isn't governing a country. It's generating red tape and extra rules way beyond it's membership. I argue that it doesn't have the right to do that.

  27. #27
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose39uk View Post
    Please don't presume.

    That's your interpretation not mine.
    All I can do is interpret. I'm unable to read your mind and I own my interpretation. It's all mine and belongs to me.

    Or should I get i approved first by Groundspeak

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    No. But GAGB isn't governing a country. It's generating red tape and extra rules way beyond it's membership. I argue that it doesn't have the right to do that.
    I assume that you're referring to our renegotiated agreement with the Forestry Commission in the New Forest. Should a landowner appoint us as its agent, as is the case here, then we have every right to put into place any rules that we consider appropriate. The landowner has given us the power to do that.

    The alternative is that we walk away saying no, we don't want to place caches on your land.
    ​​Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)​


  29. #29

    Default

    A word from one of the silent (perhaps apathetic?) majority.

    I think that an organisation in the UK to represent cachers is a good thing, and if the GAGB didn't exist then I think it would be necessary to invent them. I have been aware of the GAGB for most of the time I've been caching, and from what I've seen I think they do a good job, and therefore I never felt the need to get too involved and didn't vote as I was quite happy to accept any of the candidates who were standing. If you take the fact that I didn't vote as evidence that the GAGB don't represent me then you're mistaken, if I had been unhappy with the way the GAGB does things then I would have been standing or voting to get a candidate in to change them.

  30. #30
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill D (wwh) View Post
    I assume that you're referring to our renegotiated agreement with the Forestry Commission in the New Forest. Should a landowner appoint us as its agent, as is the case here, then we have every right to put into place any rules that we consider appropriate. The landowner has given us the power to do that.

    The alternative is that we walk away saying no, we don't want to place caches on your land.
    Well, it isn't just that. That's too simple an arguement. It's a combination of things.

    While I would be a fool to expect any committee to do anything just to please me, and indeed woud never expect them to, there are a number of concerns I have added together I just cannot remain as a member. I will always reserve the right to oppose such an oranisation.

    There areas that worry me are

    1. GAGB committee operates in secrecy. No minutes are published etc. We have nothing but the committees, whichever committee, word for any desicion made. Please do not be offended but I personally only know one member of the committee so I have nothing to build a level of trust on.

    2. The GAGB 'seems' (this is my impression and to me that is what counts and is irrefutably mine and so cannot be wrong) to want to bumble along as long as everyone behaves nicely etc. It has not come up with a single suggestion about how to increase interest and membership. Instead it points it at me as if it is my problem. It isn't you guys were voted there to do the job. In he event of silence and no feedback the rest of us members can do no more than fill in the blanks for ourselves. I see nothing whatsoever to be gained in keeping a discussion on how to increase membership outside the public domain, if indeed any such discussion even exists within committee.

    3. The GAGB was set up to promote it's best practise guidelines to it's members, feel free to read back at the start of the GAGB to see that I have always campaigned for your rules to be your rules. This has now migrated to becoming the GC rules for cache submission. It isn't the individual rules that I have a problem with it is the PRINCIPLE that GAGB rules are now enforced via a cosy arrangement with reviewers OUTSIDE of the GAGB.

    4. On the subject of the New Forest. Of course the landowner has every right to limit the cache placements on it's land. However, during those negociations you not only added, yourselves, the limit of ownership, but also carried out these negociations with reviewers from a site that won't even acknowledge the existence of other cache listing sites, these agreements were then imposed on those listing sites. I personally would have far preffered that the New Forest had said, yes GAGB can control caching but only for GC.

    On top of this I then find out that effectivly 56 members of the caching community gave te committee the mandate to do this. So you could say that this is just the straw that broke the camels back.

    The GAGB has support ON THESE FORUMS, but look outside of these forums. During the election there were number of posts on local forums that descried the GAGB as a waste of time and energy. By all means continue to work in this way. be happy with 11% voting, but please stop imposing the will of 55 people onto the rest of us. If we wanted it, we would have said so, joined and voted.

    Now I'm sure that someone will post a 'you're a ******* ' type post along the way and I'll be seen as the pain in the butt that stirred it all up again but I would ask three things of the committee

    1. Be open and frank with people all the way down the line. It's usually much less painfull route and it promotes discussion.

    2. Don't be afraid of discussion. This is a gme about hunting boxes, we are not going to war with anyone. Everyones view is valid. You might even find people out there that have the answer you hadn't thought of.

    3. Listen to your members. Listen to the people that post who are not members, try and see it from their point of view. If you want folk to join then you have to ask what it is that you are not providing that stops them joining.

    Kev

  31. #31
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by martybartfast View Post
    A word from one of the silent (perhaps apathetic?) majority.

    I think that an organisation in the UK to represent cachers is a good thing, and if the GAGB didn't exist then I think it would be necessary to invent them. I have been aware of the GAGB for most of the time I've been caching, and from what I've seen I think they do a good job, and therefore I never felt the need to get too involved and didn't vote as I was quite happy to accept any of the candidates who were standing. If you take the fact that I didn't vote as evidence that the GAGB don't represent me then you're mistaken, if I had been unhappy with the way the GAGB does things then I would have been standing or voting to get a candidate in to change them.
    Regardless of the figure used. 500 is hardly a mandate for representing all cachers or imposing GAB rules, something that was expressly denied would happen by the way, on every cacher whether a member or not. That is simply my arguement.

  32. #32

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    321

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post

    I personally would have far preffered that the New Forest had said, yes GAGB can control caching but only for GC.


    Kev
    .....and only G.C. caches placed under the terms of the gagb negotiated agreement and no others placed ?

    Or that only G.C. caches need to be placed within the guidelines of the gagb N.F.F.C. agreement conditions,
    and caches , from other listing sites, be placed within the guidelines of
    i.e. Terracache and /or Navicache separately negotiated agreement(s) with the N.F.F.C. ?
    We like Greens

  33. #33

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Land of the Bear and Ragged Staff!
    Posts
    849

    Default

    Or that only G.C. caches need to be placed within the guidelines of the gagb N.F.F.C. agreement conditions,
    and caches , from other listing sites, be placed within the guidelines of
    i.e. Terracache and /or Navicache separately negotiated agreement(s) with the N.F.F.C. ?
    But where are these sites, and why do they not reply to GAGB when asked about joining in the negotiations.
    Or why don't they say when asked "We would rather do our own negotiating with these bodies" ?
    I have a Geocaching problem...
    Work gets in the way!

    * Cache Walker -Caching by byway, not highway! CacheWalker.co.uk
    Walking and Caching in Warwickshire, Worcestershire, Gloucestershire areas

  34. #34

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bear and Ragged View Post
    But where are these sites, and why do they not reply to GAGB when asked about joining in the negotiations.
    Or why don't they say when asked "We would rather do our own negotiating with these bodies" ?
    Please don't see this as an attack on TC or NC - it isn't meant that way. But I think the answer to that question is that those sites see themselves solely as listing sites, and have no interest in whether or not a cache has been placed with the landowner's knowledge or approval.

    I can see where they're coming from, but I think it's an unfortunate attitude, and one that in the long term can only be damaging to caching. We only have to look at the prohibitions and the pay-to-place agreements in the US to see where going down that road could take us.
    ​​Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)​


  35. #35

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Longformacus
    Posts
    316

    Default

    Kev, From the details on our database, it would seem that you are not a member of the GAGB, but are a member of GAGB forum. Your instructions have been passed on to our webmasters, and we will removed your membership and details as request, as soon as possible.

    I'm sorry that you feel this is the only course of action available to you.
    If you feel that the GAGB can be of any assistance in the future, please don't hesitate to contact us.

    Jacobite.
    (GAGB Committee)
    I'm just going outside, and may be some time!

    www.jacobitecaching.co.uk

  36. #36
    StuartP Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    1. GAGB committee operates in secrecy. No minutes are published etc. We have nothing but the committees, whichever committee, word for any desicion made. Please do not be offended but I personally only know one member of the committee so I have nothing to build a level of trust on.
    It may be the case that previously no minutes have been made available, however I can assure you that 'we' the committee are working to try and find ways of making our actions more transparent. Please consider however that the majority of 'discussions' about GAGB matters take place over a substantial period of time, as such there may be no simple way to make the complete discussion available to members. Please also consider, that all of the committee have other commitments, should we be putting more time into documenting what we're doing rather than actually doing it ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    2. The GAGB 'seems' (this is my impression and to me that is what counts and is irrefutably mine and so cannot be wrong) to want to bumble along as long as everyone behaves nicely etc. It has not come up with a single suggestion about how to increase interest and membership. Instead it points it at me as if it is my problem. It isn't you guys were voted there to do the job. In he event of silence and no feedback the rest of us members can do no more than fill in the blanks for ourselves. I see nothing whatsoever to be gained in keeping a discussion on how to increase membership outside the public domain, if indeed any such discussion even exists within committee.
    I'm afraid that whilst it is your impression, it is not representative of the actual work being done by the committee behind the scenes.
    We are indeed looking at ways to increase the visibility and membership of the GAGB, this however also means that we need to look very carefully at the existing constitution of the GAGB, and as a result we are also now looking at what changes need to be made to the constitution. To try and put this into perspective. Within the committee forums, there are some 3000 posts an matters relating to the GAGB, this included LandOwner negotitaitons, this compares with some ~9500 posts in the main GAGB forums related to geocaching. I don't think 'we' as the committee are 'bumbling' along ?


    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    3. The GAGB was set up to promote it's best practise guidelines to it's members, feel free to read back at the start of the GAGB to see that I have always campaigned for your rules to be your rules. This has now migrated to becoming the GC rules for cache submission. It isn't the individual rules that I have a problem with it is the PRINCIPLE that GAGB rules are now enforced via a cosy arrangement with reviewers OUTSIDE of the GAGB.

    4. On the subject of the New Forest. Of course the landowner has every right to limit the cache placements on it's land. However, during those negociations you not only added, yourselves, the limit of ownership, but also carried out these negociations with reviewers from a site that won't even acknowledge the existence of other cache listing sites, these agreements were then imposed on those listing sites. I personally would have far preffered that the New Forest had said, yes GAGB can control caching but only for GC.

    On top of this I then find out that effectivly 56 members of the caching community gave te committee the mandate to do this. So you could say that this is just the straw that broke the camels back.

    The GAGB has support ON THESE FORUMS, but look outside of these forums. During the election there were number of posts on local forums that descried the GAGB as a waste of time and energy. By all means continue to work in this way. be happy with 11% voting, but please stop imposing the will of 55 people onto the rest of us. If we wanted it, we would have said so, joined and voted.
    Just because only 11% of the membership vote, dosn't mean that the remaining 89% are un-happy ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post

    Now I'm sure that someone will post a 'you're a ******* ' type post along the way and I'll be seen as the pain in the butt that stirred it all up again but I would ask three things of the committee

    1. Be open and frank with people all the way down the line. It's usually much less painfull route and it promotes discussion.

    2. Don't be afraid of discussion. This is a gme about hunting boxes, we are not going to war with anyone. Everyones view is valid. You might even find people out there that have the answer you hadn't thought of.

    3. Listen to your members. Listen to the people that post who are not members, try and see it from their point of view. If you want folk to join then you have to ask what it is that you are not providing that stops them joining.

    Kev
    I think it's safe to say we're happy to be open and frank, however, it's difficult when even when we are the result is a negative spin.
    At no point has anyone asked why only 55 people voted, was it that the mechanism for voting wasn't right for people ? Was it to difficult to vote ?

    I'm sure it would help if more of the disucssion was positive, or that there was a positive side to any negative discussion.

    Unfortionalty, 'we' the GAGB can't please all of the people all of the time!

    Stuart
    (GAGB Treasurer.)

  37. #37
    uktim Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StuartP View Post
    It may be the case that previously no minutes have been made available, however I can assure you that 'we' the committee are working to try and find ways of making our actions more transparent. Please consider however that the majority of 'discussions' about GAGB matters take place over a substantial period of time, as such there may be no simple way to make the complete discussion available to members. Please also consider, that all of the committee have other commitments, should we be putting more time into documenting what we're doing rather than actually doing it ?



    I'm afraid that whilst it is your impression, it is not representative of the actual work being done by the committee behind the scenes.
    We are indeed looking at ways to increase the visibility and membership of the GAGB, this however also means that we need to look very carefully at the existing constitution of the GAGB, and as a result we are also now looking at what changes need to be made to the constitution. To try and put this into perspective. Within the committee forums, there are some 3000 posts an matters relating to the GAGB, this included LandOwner negotitaitons, this compares with some ~9500 posts in the main GAGB forums related to geocaching. I don't think 'we' as the committee are 'bumbling' along ?

    There's a simple answer to these points. Make these committee forums open to viewing by the members!

  38. #38

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uktim View Post
    There's a simple answer to these points. Make these committee forums open to viewing by the members!
    Why so you can see the contact details of Landowners who have contacted them regarding caches on their land placed without Permission, or cachers who have contacted them in confidence regarding a cache issue. There is a lot of information which needs to remain confidential, making the Committee forums public means that no one could contact them and expect their details to remain confidential, or what about Landowner negotiations that have yet to be finalised. Where the Landowner does not wish details released until a Agreement is reached.

    Basically making the committee forums public, would just ham string the committee and prevent them working for the benefit of the community.

    So it is not a simple answer to open up the committee forums to all. If your that interested in seeing what's in them, why not stand for the committee, in the next election!

    Deci
    My post is my personal opinion and as such you do not have my permission to quote me outside of these forums!

    Dave
    Brenin Tegeingl
    Formerly known as Mancunian Pyrocacher on GC

  39. #39
    uktim Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mancunian View Post
    Why so you can see the contact details of Landowners who have contacted them regarding caches on their land placed without Permission, or cachers who have contacted them in confidence regarding a cache issue. There is a lot of information which needs to remain confidential, making the Committee forums public means that no one could contact them and expect their details to remain confidential, or what about Landowner negotiations that have yet to be finalised. Where the Landowner does not wish details released until a Agreement is reached.

    Basically making the committee forums public, would just ham string the committee and prevent them working for the benefit of the community.

    So it is not a simple answer to open up the committee forums to all. If your that interested in seeing what's in them, why not stand for the committee, in the next election!

    Deci
    There isn't a polite word to describe my feelings over the absurd view that only those on the committee get see any of the reasoning over what they are claiming to do on our behalf. At present it's nothing short of a joke that they effectively meet behind closed doors, puiblish no minutes and are therefore totally unaccountable to those they claim to represent. If anything that the committee is doing won't stand up to scrutiny by the members they shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

    A simple degree of moderation of what actually appears on the forum with removal of sensitive details would solve this problem. I would suggest that such sensitive details shouldn't be on any sort of forum in the first place, regardless of who can see it. I hope the forum servers have absolutely rock solid security. No committee that I've ever been associated with has been naive enough to publish the addresses of correspondants to all of it's members!

    Many more enlightened organisations are winning respect from their members by using modern technology to adopt a far more open approach, I wouldn't have expected an organisation as young and tech savvy as GAGB to be dragging along in the dark ages!

  40. #40

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    here of course
    Posts
    640

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by t.a.folk View Post
    From what I've read recently on these GAGB related threads I'm happy with where we placed our vote .
    My ol' man likes to call a spade a spade.
    Same here

  41. #41
    StuartP Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uktim View Post
    Many more enlightened organisations are winning respect from their members by using modern technology to adopt a far more open approach, I wouldn't have expected an organisation as young and tech savvy as GAGB to be dragging along in the dark ages!
    If this is the case, then can you provide an example that we can learn from ?

  42. #42
    uktim Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StuartP View Post
    If this is the case, then can you provide an example that we can learn from ?
    The example I was thinking of was the NFU. 100 years old and in spite of it's age with the inherant risk of being set in it's ways it's evolving to keep it's members informed. Many of it's meetings are now open to any interested member and those that aren't publish minutes in a timely manner.

    The example it is setting has encouraged me to leave more than one organisation that appears to have a policy of treating it's members like mushrooms

  43. #43

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Land of the Bear and Ragged Staff!
    Posts
    849

    Default

    Many of it's meetings are now open
    They have meetings.

    I suspect a lot of the GAGB dealings are done by email, as the committee members aren't local to each other, and therefore can't "Have a meeting" which could be open to non-committee cacxhers to attend.

    Maybe they should have meetings, to which we (non-committee) could attend.
    But. I suspect it would only be one or two meetings a year*, and very little would be done between meetings.

    *Where? One in the North one in the South? What about the cachers in the Midlands? When? Who pays for the venue? How many will attend?

    How much work will be done inbetween these meetings?
    I have a Geocaching problem...
    Work gets in the way!

    * Cache Walker -Caching by byway, not highway! CacheWalker.co.uk
    Walking and Caching in Warwickshire, Worcestershire, Gloucestershire areas

  44. #44

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Tim,
    I think that you have a fair point in that minutes should be available, and any decisions that affect cache placement or cache access should be backed up with documentation of the decision-making process. But I don't agree that the forums should necessarily be public, even though I also would expect that real names and addresses would be kept out of the general discussion.

    Making the internal discussions public would merely restrict the committee members to making guarded and ambiguous comments, and prevent their real opinions from being aired.

  45. #45

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uktim View Post
    The example I was thinking of was the NFU. 100 years old and in spite of it's age with the inherant risk of being set in it's ways it's evolving to keep it's members informed. Many of it's meetings are now open to any interested member and those that aren't publish minutes in a timely manner.

    The example it is setting has encouraged me to leave more than one organisation that appears to have a policy of treating it's members like mushrooms
    Would those be physical meetings in a pre booked room / lecture theatre ? funded from subscriptions by the tens of thousands of members of the NFU ?

    so as they (the GAGB) hold "virtual meetings" online what agenda items do you want them to discuss and publish minutes on ?

    Ill kick off with a suggestion

    can the GAGB hold a meeting at the next mega event in Weston S Mare (with help from the organisers)

    suggested agenda item no one
    How to get UK based cache notes into caches with the GAGB contact phone no on them

    ive noticed when critsizing people always become defensive so try to help out by saying things like

    other organisation hold public meetings why dont the GAGB hold one at the next mega event ?

    the NFU publish minutes of its meetings perhaps you could publish details of the landowners you are talking to or give us an idea of the number of negotiations your involved in

    or
    you are all volunteers with other jobs how much time does the committe devote to GAGB activities in a week

    possibly a bit more helpfull ??
    Last edited by markandlynn; 19th January 2009 at 02:34 PM. Reason: wrong mega event location
    "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning."

  46. #46
    uktim Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    Tim,
    I think that you have a fair point in that minutes should be available, and any decisions that affect cache placement or cache access should be backed up with documentation of the decision-making process. But I don't agree that the forums should necessarily be public, even though I also would expect that real names and addresses would be kept out of the general discussion.

    Making the internal discussions public would merely restrict the committee members to making guarded and ambiguous comments, and prevent their real opinions from being aired.

    If the forums are the meetings then there seems little reason not to publish them.

    Any committee member who wishes to hide their opinions or actions shouldn't be on the committee in the first place!

  47. #47
    uktim Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by markandlynn View Post
    Would those be physical meetings in a pre booked room / lecture theatre ? funded from subscriptions by the tens of thousands of members of the NFU ?

    so as they (the GAGB) hold "virtual meetings" online what agenda items do you want them to discuss and publish minutes on ?

    Ill kick off with a suggestion

    can the GAGB hold a meeting at the next mega event in Bristol (with help from the organisers)

    suggested agenda item no one
    How to get UK based cache notes into caches with the GAGB contact phone no on them

    ive noticed when critsizing people always become defensive so try to help out by saying things like

    other organisation hold public meetings why dont the GAGB hold one at the next mega event ?

    the NFU publish minutes of its meetings perhaps you could publish details of the landowners you are talking to or give us an idea of the number of negotiations your involved in

    or
    you are all volunteers with other jobs how much time does the committe devote to GAGB activities in a week

    possibly a bit more helpfull ??
    Thats why I suggested opening the committee forums to be read by members. It's a simple way of achieving a higher level of transparency.

  48. #48
    keehotee Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by markandlynn View Post

    can the GAGB hold a meeting at the next mega event in Bristol (with help from the organisers)
    Why would they need our help to hold a meeting?
    If it's a case of providing a room, there would be costs involved.
    If not, I fail to see how we could help.... other than in providing floor space in what may (hopefully) be a very busy area.

  49. #49

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by keehotee View Post
    Why would they need our help to hold a meeting?
    If it's a case of providing a room, there would be costs involved.
    If not, I fail to see how we could help.... other than in providing floor space in what may (hopefully) be a very busy area.
    Help / agreement / co operation is what the post should of said

    it would a bit of an impostion to just turn up and hold a public meeting !
    and obviously there are costs involved in holding any sort of public meeting as requested by Tim
    "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning."

  50. #50

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    here of course
    Posts
    640

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by markandlynn View Post
    can the GAGB hold a meeting at the next mega event in Bristol Weston S Mare (with help from the organisers)
    And how about a drive to try and get people to join the GAGB at the same time ?

Posting Permissions

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