Thanks Thanks:  41
Results 1 to 50 of 161

Thread: Why the secrecy at GAGB?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  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

    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

  8. #8
    keehotee Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sandvika View Post
    (Note - a lot more posting since I started to write this, however, does not change my point)

    I think that Icenians, UKtim, StuartP and Deceangi all make valid points (as do others).

    There are committee discussions that could be held before our members and I would agree that there's a case for doing so, it could certainly provide better engagement between the committee and non-committee members and help new ideas to emerge, encourage members to get more involved.

    However, I would also agree that the committee has to be rigorous in respecting and maintaining people's privacy, so private discussions areas are indeed necessary.

    At the moment the membership of GAGB is separated form the forum membership. As it stands, it would not be possible for the committee to have discussions before our members, but only in public. GAGB is not a public body so I don't think there's a case for having the discussions in public. Thus changes to the system would be required to enable committee discussions to be shared. This thread, for example, is open to the world, no login required to read it.

    Roderick (posting as individual)
    GAGB is indeed not a public body - but if in it's negotiations it is claiming to represent it's members, then shouldn't those members be privy to the negotiations? After all, none of this is "in the interest of national security...."

    As an aside, I think this discussion and thread would probably have disappeared and been forgotten by now if the OP's original post hadn't been responded to quite so antagonistically......
    Last edited by keehotee; 20th January 2009 at 06:10 AM.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    North Brizzle
    Posts
    156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    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't see an answer to Icenians original question in this thread anywhere. I'd also be really interested to see the answer. Any chance you can publish the results please?? Thanks in advance

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Ashbourne, Derbyshire
    Posts
    449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by *mouse* View Post
    I can't see an answer to Icenians original question in this thread anywhere. I'd also be really interested to see the answer. Any chance you can publish the results please?? Thanks in advance
    Post two to this thread contains that info.
    Ian
    "I Cache, therefore I am"

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Firstly I would like to apologise to Kev (Icenians) for my antagonistic approach. Also to thank him for his suggestion of using the terracaching wiki as a way of communicating to terracahers. An idea we have taken on board Roderick (Sandvika) has taken some time to put this in place.


    A few other things come to mind.


    I still believe that terracachers could be more active in negotiating with landowners etc. Perhaps a way forward with this is for them to get together and have a representative work with us on this?


    Some people seem to want the GAGB to go away and not exist for various reasons. I do not think it will (just being realistic here). I think it is necessary, it needs to change and become more attractive to a wider range of people for sure. I think it needs to exist for several reasons, if for nothing else but to keep a reasonable image with the public and enforcement agencies. From experience the government tends to leave alone activities that have some form of representative body.


    Do the GAGB want to dictate how caching is run in the UK, A firm no from me on this one. Do we want to be a vehicle through which people can express their views, yes.


    A few people have mentioned that we seem to be in Geocaching.com's pocket. No. I think you will find we have bitten back quietly once or twice. Do we work closely with their reviewers, yes. After all there is no point having guidelines and landowner agreements if the listing sites will just ride roughshod over them. I am sure we would like a closer relationship with the other listing sites.


    A few good comments have been made about how we can become more open and attractive to people. We are listening and actioning these things.


    Happy Humphrey mentioned somewhere about making membership more attractive. I think his comment about about benefits for joining is a good one and certainly something we had already been discussing.




    Please keep your suggestions coming.

  12. #12
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose39uk View Post
    Firstly I would like to apologise to Kev (Icenians) for my antagonistic approach.
    Absolutly no apology needed. I'm fully aware that I come across in not the best of ways on forums. I not really the Mr. Angry I come across as.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose39uk View Post
    I still believe that terracachers could be more active in negotiating with landowners etc. Perhaps a way forward with this is for them to get together and have a representative work with us on this?
    There are not that many of us and non of us, I believe, were asked to take part in the recent negociations. I'm not sure that is such an issue ow that Sandvika is a GAGB Committee member of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose39uk View Post
    Some people seem to want the GAGB to go away and not exist for various reasons. I do not think it will (just being realistic here). I think it is necessary, it needs to change and become more attractive to a wider range of people for sure. I think it needs to exist for several reasons, if for nothing else but to keep a reasonable image with the public and enforcement agencies. From experience the government tends to leave alone activities that have some form of representative body.


    Do the GAGB want to dictate how caching is run in the UK, A firm no from me on this one. Do we want to be a vehicle through which people can express their views, yes.


    A few people have mentioned that we seem to be in Geocaching.com's pocket. No. I think you will find we have bitten back quietly once or twice. Do we work closely with their reviewers, yes. After all there is no point having guidelines and landowner agreements if the listing sites will just ride roughshod over them. I am sure we would like a closer relationship with the other listing sites.


    A few good comments have been made about how we can become more open and attractive to people. We are listening and actioning these things.


    Happy Humphrey mentioned somewhere about making membership more attractive. I think his comment about about benefits for joining is a good one and certainly something we had already been discussing.




    Please keep your suggestions coming.
    I don't wish to see the GAGB fold, true, it wouldn't bother me either if it did, I simply want the GAGB to not force it's opinions and rules on those of us that choose not to be members. Nothing more really.

    I'm sorry if some out there feel that I am an opinionated minority. As I said in another post, almost eveyone has an opinion just those that agree with each other don't voice it. That doesn't mean my opinion of an organisation, that is taking a part in shaping and controlling the game I play, shouldn't be voiced.

    Kev

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    North Brizzle
    Posts
    156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by studlyone View Post
    Post two to this thread contains that info.
    Ian
    Hi Ian

    Maybe I misinterpreted Icenians original post, but I believe they were asking for the votes each individual candidate received, and not the total number of votes cast.
    I'd be really interested to know how the votes were spread - any chance you can publish them?

    thanks

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Hi Mouse

    the simple answer is that we have no idea. The votes were counted by someone outside the GAGB.....

    However, will se what we can do.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Its been said on here that the GAGB has a mandate from 56 people.

    This is wrong it means 56 people voted to decide the fate of two of the nominees

    This was hardly an earthshattering election where hundreds were in the running it was about two people not being automatic members of the committe if you choose to vote or not vote.

    Are we allowed to dismiss election results based on turnout ? only those who care one way or the other ever vote

    As false leads and manipulation of figures goes this is straight from the good book by Darryl Huff

    So we actually have

    9.454746% of UK cachers are members of the GAGB (figures courtesy of AW)

    Therefore
    it has a mandate from its 9.5% of GSP members

    So 10% of cachers in the UK are members of the GAGB this probably represents a pretty fair cross section but could do with building on.
    "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning."

  16. #16
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by markandlynn View Post
    Its been said on here that the GAGB has a mandate from 56 people.

    This is wrong it means 56 people voted to decide the fate of two of the nominees

    This was hardly an earthshattering election where hundreds were in the running it was about two people not being automatic members of the committe if you choose to vote or not vote.

    Are we allowed to dismiss election results based on turnout ? only those who care one way or the other ever vote

    As false leads and manipulation of figures goes this is straight from the good book by Darryl Huff

    So we actually have

    9.454746% of UK cachers are members of the GAGB (figures courtesy of AW)

    Therefore
    it has a mandate from its 9.5% of GSP members

    So 10% of cachers in the UK are members of the GAGB this probably represents a pretty fair cross section but could do with building on.
    Given that I apparently wasn't a member and yet was allowed to vote and several others thought they were members and now find they are not, I'll wait until the GAGB get's it databases sorted out before reckoning on 9.5% being a good statistic in any shape or form. If the association doesn't know how many there are then known us can either

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Anywhere the mood takes us
    Posts
    2,537

    Default

    I have always been a believer of the Encourage and Criticise method of getting the best from people and organisations/committees. But have also found that if you constantly criticise without any encouragment then you gain nothing.
    That is my opinion for what it is worth.

    Now I shall go out and find some tupperware boxes.:socool:

  18. #18
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrDick&Vick View Post
    I have always been a believer of the Encourage and Criticise method of getting the best from people and organisations/committees. But have also found that if you constantly criticise without any encouragment then you gain nothing.
    That is my opinion for what it is worth.

    Now I shall go out and find some tupperware boxes.:socool:
    Tried that before. It didn't work

    Given that since this thread started you GAGB members now have a forum to see discussions of the committees activities and we have had the results of the election published I would argue that the approach has worked. Certainly other approaches received a flat no.

    Kev

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    Tried that before. It didn't work

    Given that since this thread started you GAGB members now have a forum to see discussions of the committees activities and we have had the results of the election published I would argue that the approach has worked. Certainly other approaches received a flat no.

    Kev

    To be honest that would be a no, these were things that we were already working on.

  20. #20
    Desk Pilot Guest

    Wink Hmmm.....

    Well, as a new member I find these posts a little confusing. I have not found anyone else on the web who has set up a similar organisation, except Geocaching.com, which is American.. So, if he GAGB is NOT the prime UK organisation, please point me towards the one that is. This is supposed to be a hobby, not a party political broadcast. If the guys at GAGB are fulfilling a role, good for them. If only 56 people voted, then that is 100% of the UK Geocaching population. The rest are either only self-interested or do not want to be organised and therefore have no voice. Those who do not participate cannot complain that a group of dedicated people do not represent their views. Well, that's a shot across the bows from an opinionated newbie!

Posting Permissions

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