Thanks Thanks:  0
Results 1 to 45 of 45

Thread: A radical proposal

  1. #1
    The Hornet Guest

    Default

    There seems to have been some discussion about the validity of the current election process

    How about this as a way round the arguments. I know it's not strictly in line with the original, agreed process but it could be a small price to pay for peace and quiet.

    Now that Tim has resigned from the chair we are looking for a total of 6 people to run the shop. Including already elected members we have 8 people willing to devote their time and effort to GAGB. How's about we have ALL EIGHT of them and dispense with the elections all together?

    They would be totally responsible for choosing a chairman from amongst themselves.

    So we have 8 rather than 6 but, what the hell! Surely it's better than what we have at the moment.

    I suggest that we DON'T hold a poll on this suggestion, rather general consensus of the replies will determine its outcome.

    Comments?....................................

  2. #2
    sockpuppet Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by The Hornet@Nov 1 2003, 09:09 PM
    There seems to have been some discussion about the validity of the current election process

    How about this as a way round the arguments. I know it's not strictly in line with the original, agreed process but it could be a small price to pay for peace and quiet.

    Now that Tim has resigned from the chair we are looking for a total of 6 people to run the shop. Including already elected members we have 8 people willing to devote their time and effort to GAGB. How's about we have ALL EIGHT of them and dispense with the elections all together?

    They would be totally responsible for choosing a chairman from amongst themselves.

    So we have 8 rather than 6 but, what the hell! Surely it's better than what we have at the moment.

    I suggest that we DON'T hold a poll on this suggestion, rather general consensus of the replies will determine its outcome.

    Comments?....................................
    Most sensible thing I ever heard on here

  3. #3
    Wood Smoke Guest

    Default

    Got my vote :-)

    WoodSmoke

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chippenham, Wiltshire
    Posts
    2,143

    Default

    Speaking personally, I'd be happy with this approach - in fact it would enhance the committee and eradicate the suggestions of unfairness. I just hope that one of the eight will be willing to take on the Chair


    Caching since 2001
    Founder member of GAGB (2003)
    Committee (2003-2013)
    Chair of GAGB (2010-2012)
    Negotiator of 18 Landowner Agreements
    GAGB Friend

  5. #5
    Chris n Maria Guest

    Default

    Oh yes please - great idea.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    134

    Default

    OK.. I'll go along with that if Tim does.. I's his bandwidth..

    But one point .. there were actually 9 on original poll..

    Kouros, Lost in Space, MCL, Paul Blitz, Pharisee, Team Paradise, Team Tate, Teasel, The Wombles.

    If they are still willing.!!!

    But only on condition that they acept the position.. Then chair to be appointed by the committee with no outside interferance from ANYONE..

    We all know of the old boy network.. What I would like to see is that the committee can put there hand on heart and say " I will do this for GAGB" not an affiliated friend etc.

    When I/we set out on this, what seems a long long long road, I had a vision of a group standing for all in cacheing in the UK.. and what happened.. we have degenerated into infighting, sock puppets and basically making those we wish to attract turn away.

    Yes.. I'm as guilty as the next man.. but I will say one thing.. Tim is the most honrouble person amongst us.. backed up by one hell of a lady.. and any one who tries to bring that into doubt will have moi to answer to.

    Now.. can we do what we are here to to.. get GAGB noticed for all the right reasons..

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

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

    Now let us all applaude the new committee.. voted for or otherwise.. ( poor ******s) and go fer them there hill.. if it has a box.. then all the better..

    Moss has spoken.. (didn't realise was that many words in dictionary)
    Moss The Boss... Sorta

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    I'd be happy with this. I'd also be happy with sticking to the election results. I just want to see a committee in place and left to get on with things.
    ​​Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)​


  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    117

    Default

    Excellent idea. And I would hope that Pharisee would be included.

    He is probably the only candidate in the whole shooting match who has the confidence and respect of all concerned.

    As GAGB has no constitution at the moment, I can't see any reason at all why this proposal to vary the previously agreed procedures cannot be put to the membership (socks and all) for a vote.

    If this proposal is accepted, I for one am prepared to put all behind me, bury the hatchet and support the furtherance of the aims of the association. Provided of course that those who have so vociferously attacked me in the past couple of days are prepared at publicly acknowledge these FACTS

    a ) Muggle is not Piggly and Piggly is not Muggle.
    and that
    b ) Muggle (aka Slytherin on G:COM) has never used any sock puppet accounts to post on the GAGB forums and has not voted in GAGB elections under any other name.

    You may have suspected or been told otherwise, but it is not true.

    OK, Moss Trooper, now it's your turn to put up or shut up!!!
    Muggle - One Voice - One Vote

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Amesbury Wiltshire
    Posts
    76

    Default

    We will go along with that suggestion.

    But please please stop all the bickering, you are behaving like 5 year olds and not as we assume you to be adults.

    All of you stop it NOW before you do any more damage to the good name of the GAGB and of Geocaching in general.

    Happy Caching

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Gosport
    Posts
    28

    Default

    Best Idea since sliced bread it's the way to go

    Mel & Barbara
    Geocachers do it by Degrees

  11. #11
    The Hornet Guest

    Default

    I know this particular discussion topic hasn't been running long but from the replies so far there seems to be approval for the idea in principle. I can't see that that changing very much even if the debate continues for days.

    I didn't include John (Pharisee) as he had previously indicated that he wouldn't be standing.

    So Mr/Mrs Admin, how about a short, sharp poll on my proposal. Something along the lines of: "All previous polls for committee/chairman be declared null and void. The proposal is that Kouros, Lost in Space, MCL, Paul Blitz, Team Paradise, Team Tate, Teasel, The Wombles be invited to form the committee for GAGB and once elected they shall choose a Chairman from amongst their number. Do you agree - Yes or No"

    I also suggest that this poll should last no longer than one week and that any votes cast after an agreed cutoff time as defined by the server clock shall not be counted. I realise one week isn't long and some people who are away might be disenfranchised but this is less of a problem than lengthy "discussion".

    As far as sock puppets are concerned, I guess a number might vote but I would ask their "alter egos" to do the decent thing and refrain from using them to distort the figures. Some will and some won't but I reckon overall I reckon the majority view will probably prevail.

  12. #12
    Omally Guest

    Default

    Gets my vote. The suggestion is not unreasonable in the least.
    I think this could well be our last chance to show we can act like grown-ups, but it may already be too late. Really, first and foremost and before we can prove it to anyone else*, we need to prove to ourselves that there is an element of common sense among us. Trouble is, that seed is buried exceedingly deep and certainly very well mulched... for those of you not of a metaphorical mind, I simply mean there is far too much crap covering up the whole purpose of the GAGB.

    I'm inclined to agree with TnJ and The Wombles: it's over. A great idea but sadly pulled apart by those who sought to destroy it, whether intentionally or through sheer ignorance. I suppose that's just the British Way. Other countries can manage a similar operation without going through a trial by ordeal, why can't we? Not like me to lose faith in something that's clearly a good thing, but this ain't fun any more. Isn't that what Geocaching is meant to be about? Fun? OK so a certain amount of healthy discussion is good for any hobby/sport/thing, but reading these fora I can't help thinking of that scene from Fantasia where Mickey Mouse is having problems with a multitude of brooms keen to add their own bucket of water to the situation. The only differences are that here we have socks instead of brooms and what they have in their buckets is certainly not water.

    Please, feel free to prove me totally and utterly wrong.

    * like Land Managers: remember them?

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    209

    Default

    And on the other side of the coin :

    The current elections will be completed in 2 days time, What is the point of adding another week to that. Then there will be complaints that "I was not available during that period because I was away ".

    (been there dun that)

    BUT, what annoys me most is that when the GAGB was first announced the seven who started it all and dedicated their time and efforts to it were given so much flack, were told that they had not been elected by anybody, called "The Secret Seven" etc etc. that they were mostly "run out of town" and gave up. Three of them even resigned as Admin for GC.com in order to give the GAGB all they could.

    Now you want to give it to a largly unelected body. !

    It just does not make sense !

    I have another even more radical idea. Let's ask the original "Secret Seven" to take it on again because there is little difference to what you are proposing now. Except of course, the original "SS" put their all into it and some of the "Unelected Eight" were not even supportive of the GAGB when it was founded.
    <span style=\'font-size:10pt;line-height:100%\'><span style=\'color:green\'><span style=\'font-family:Arial\'>totally brassed off </span></span></span>

  14. #14
    Paul G0TLG Guest

    Default

    Personally I&#39;ll come out in favour of ANYTHING which gets a committee up and running.

    An imperfect committee (they all are, anyway) is FAR FAR BETTER than no committee at all. But come on folks, lets give them a chance...

    Paul

  15. #15
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Tim and June@Nov 2 2003, 11:18 AM
    Now you want to give it to a largly unelected body. &#33;
    I have to say it seems wierd too. However, it seems to have a lot of support.

    Perhaps the secret seven (where did that come from???) were seen to have too much control over geocaching? Can&#39;t see why but something obviously disturbed folks :-(

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    676

    Default

    Can we please just get this Association up and running&#33; I for one don&#39;t care if it&#39;s a elected committee, un-elected committee or the secret seven, lets just stop the bickering, ripping apart and attempts at destroying things. And all pull together with getting it up and running and helping Geocaching forward, which this "Association" was thought up to do&#33;
    Dave Palmer
    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

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Hampshire
    Posts
    88

    Default

    I can&#39;t help but agree with T&J.

    We appear to have gone full circle. I think some of the most vociferous posters on this board don&#39;t really know
    what they want.

    Oh well, as long as a committee is formed then so much the better. Shame the original members bothered listening to the dissenters - we could all have saved so much time and bad feeling.
    Rich

  18. #18
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by el10t@Nov 2 2003, 12:49 PM
    Shame the original members bothered listening to the dissenters - we could all have saved so much time and bad feeling.
    Problem is, any organization needs trust and support to succeed. Another point is that an organization that wants to lay down new rules needs to seem democratic to gain that trust and support ... otherwise you can&#39;t claim to be a voice of geocachers.

    Ask for opinions and you&#39;ll get them&#33;

    They also need to win over the many who didn&#39;t see the need for the GAGB.

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Hampshire
    Posts
    88

    Default

    Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r+Nov 2 2003, 12:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BugznElm&#39;r @ Nov 2 2003, 12:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--el10t@Nov 2 2003, 12:49 PM
    Shame the original members bothered listening to the dissenters - we could all have saved so much time and bad feeling.
    Problem is, any organization needs trust and support to succeed. Another point is that an organization that wants to lay down new rules needs to seem democratic to gain that trust and support ... otherwise you can&#39;t claim to be a voice of geocachers.

    Ask for opinions and you&#39;ll get them&#33;

    They also need to win over the many who didn&#39;t see the need for the GAGB.[/b][/quote]
    Fine - I accept that (which is why it was done as it has been, with elections etc).

    Why, then, is the U-turn so suddenly acceptable to all?

    Just an innocent question.
    Rich

  20. #20
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by el10t@Nov 2 2003, 01:07 PM
    Why, then, is the U-turn so suddenly acceptable to all?

    Just an innocent question.
    I think it is a reaction to the GAGB teetering on the edge of collapse.

    My predictions are more troubles ahead no matter what road is taken. Many of these issues were raised months ago and ignored and now they&#39;re real issues. Personally, I&#39;m saddened to say I can&#39;t see a real way forward.

    Maybe the GAGB tried to become too big and introduce too many changes to quickly.

  21. #21
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    I think that one of the main problems was that no one asked geocachers as a whole "What do YOU want US to do?" From there, open up a frank discussion (trying not to take offense to anything said) and build on that.

    The GAGB started representing geocachers before they had given it their seal of approval. Anyway, that&#39;s how I see it.

  22. #22
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by The Hornet@Nov 1 2003, 09:09 PM
    Now that Tim has resigned from the chair we are looking for a total of 6 people to run the shop. Including already elected members we have 8 people willing to devote their time and effort to GAGB. How&#39;s about we have ALL EIGHT of them and dispense with the elections all together?
    My problem with this is that SOMEONE out there will complain that GAGB is then being run by a group of non-elected people (hmmm... sounds very familiar).

    Personally, I am of the opinion that if people are incapable of constructively helping the formation of the GAGB, then there is no reason for such people to be members.

    Now, if you look, much of the stirring is done by people using "assumed names"... ie not "real" or even "GC.com" names. Maybe by deleting such names from teh membership would solve many of the current problems?


    Paul Blitz

  23. #23
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by paul.blitz+Nov 2 2003, 01:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (paul.blitz @ Nov 2 2003, 01:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--The Hornet@Nov 1 2003, 09:09 PM
    Now that Tim has resigned from the chair we are looking for a total of 6 people to run the shop. Including already elected members we have 8 people willing to devote their time and effort to GAGB. How&#39;s about we have ALL EIGHT of them and dispense with the elections all together?
    My problem with this is that SOMEONE out there will complain that GAGB is then being run by a group of non-elected people (hmmm... sounds very familiar).

    Personally, I am of the opinion that if people are incapable of constructively helping the formation of the GAGB, then there is no reason for such people to be members.

    Now, if you look, much of the stirring is done by people using "assumed names"... ie not "real" or even "GC.com" names. Maybe by deleting such names from teh membership would solve many of the current problems?


    Paul Blitz [/b][/quote]
    Define constructive though ... seems to me that a lot of the time the problem is people not agreeing with someone else. If the whole thing is to be democratic, everyone is entitled to a view. Also, I hope that membership isn&#39;t going to be all about the formation of the GAGB&#33; Think beyond that, please&#33; As to deleting assumed names ... how can you or anyone else manage that?

    That is, unless it&#39;s paid membership.

  24. #24
    Chris n Maria Guest

    Default

    [quote]Originally posted by el10t@Nov 2 2003, 01:07 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by el10t,Nov 2 2003, 12:49 PM
    Why, then, is the U-turn so suddenly acceptable to all?
    Just an innocent question.
    [&#092;QUOTE]
    I think the reason it is acceptable is that most people have just had a gut-full of all the bickering and ill feeling and just want to see things progress.

    My position is the same as pyrocachers - whatever happens lets just get on with it & stop the silliness and bickering.
    Just an innocent answer

    Chris

  25. #25
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Chris n Maria@Nov 2 2003, 02:21 PM
    I think the reason it is acceptable is that most people have just had a gut-full of all the bickering and ill feeling and just want to see things progress.
    3 months of voting is also a lot&#33;

  26. #26
    seifer Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Tim and June@Nov 2 2003, 11:18 AM
    Except of course, the original "SS" put their all into it and some of the "Unelected Eight" were not even supportive of the GAGB when it was founded.
    I&#39;m supportive of TnJ here, you all have your opinions, you all have the right to them, you all have the right to express them, how loudly you do it is up to you. Remember all the s**t on the GC.com forums when it was announced, those of you who chose to voice your opinion loudly did so, you can&#39;t expect to be looked upon the same way after that, you can&#39;t just make a U-Turn and expect people to just go along with you. The "Secret Seven" as you call them put a lot of time and effort into the GAGB only to be accused of "Working behind closed doors", well of course they&#39;re working behind closed doors, look what happened when those doors were opened. Why waste all the time and effort put into the elections just to stop them now?

    On the subject of sock puppets, it&#39;s not big and it&#39;s not clever. Yes I use an alias, but a quick google search of my username and forums will quickly reveal who I am. I use the same alias on almost every site I go on so people can recognise me, I even know a few of you lot that have migrated to forums I am a member of. With the elections, they have been and gone. So what if Mr. Piggly (and yes I do have my ideas of who you are, and I&#39;m sure if I had access to an admin account on GC:UK and GC.com like I do here I could find out exactly who you are) voted, it&#39;s over, and if you&#39;re going to take his vote off, then it&#39;s not fair because how do you know that 20 odd sock puppets didn&#39;t vote for the oppoisition.Get Over it, Teasel is on the commitee now, and I&#39;m sure almost everyone here just cant be a****d to go through the whole election process again.

    Rant over

    Michael Blitz

    aka:
    Seifer on Murphyz, RP, Puzzledonkey etc
    chrismoylesfan101 on celebdaq
    simpleplan on the old USQL forums

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    117

    Default

    Originally posted by seifer@Nov 2 2003, 03:02 PM
    ... if I had access to an admin account on GC:UK and GC.com like I do here......


    Michael Blitz
    Hold on a minute.

    You, Michael Blitz have access to an admin account on GAGB???

    How exactly does that work?? Can I have one too?

  28. #28
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Muggle+Nov 2 2003, 03:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Muggle @ Nov 2 2003, 03:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--seifer@Nov 2 2003, 03:02 PM
    ... if I had access to an admin account on GC:UK and GC.com like I do here......


    Michael Blitz
    Hold on a minute.

    You, Michael Blitz have access to an admin account on GAGB???

    How exactly does that work?? Can I have one too? [/b][/quote]
    Uh-oh&#33; Hull breach&#33;

  29. #29
    Teasel Guest

    Default

    How exactly does that work?? Can I have one too?
    I guess it works because Paul&#39;s a duly elected committee member of GAGB and lets Michael read the admin forums. Is that a problem? I don&#39;t remember that a condition of standing for election was that admin discussions must be kept secret from other members of the household&#33;

    I&#39;m sure if I had access to an admin account on GC:UK and GC.com like I do here I could find out exactly who you are
    If it&#39;s of any interest, Piggly has never posted to either the GAGB forums, nor the G:UK forums. Nor does he use the G:UK stats pages.

    The only extra info the admins get is the IP address of the machine making the post. Unfortunately, judging posts on this alone is prone to errors. For example, there are three GAGB IDs who have posted from 62.49.6.31, and only one of them is me.

  30. #30
    seifer Guest

    Default

    OK that post was poory pheased, I mean I can see the moderation options, I am not an admin and have no intention of abusing my privilidge of having access to my dads account. For a start it&#39;s way against my ethics, I wasn&#39;t elected so have no right to even read the comitee forum

  31. #31
    Teasel Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by The Hornet@Nov 2 2003, 10:34 AM
    Something along the lines of: "All previous polls for committee/chairman be declared null and void.
    Now hang on a minute&#33; On what grounds should the previous polls be declared null and void? :angry:

    The voting procedure was agreed in advance; the problems of sock puppets voting was debated; the voting membership was frozen as a precaution; I&#39;ve seen no evidence that anyone voted more than once. If there is any evidence of improper voting during any of the polls, now would be a good time for that evidence to be brought forward&#33; h34r: :unsure: h34r:

    By Tuesday, we will have done exactly what was originally agreed. Polls have been held and a chair and five committee members have been voted into office. We now face the question of what to do when the chair (or indeed any committee member) resigns. I would hope that the new committee will very quickly be able to put together a proposed constitution for GAGB and put it to the membership. That constitution will contain instructions on how to hold by-elections to replace members of the committee, which will then be carried out. Come on guys, one step at a time&#33;

    If the membership no longer believes that "small is beautiful" and now wants a larger committee then, fine, let&#39;s put it to the vote. But to declare the elections null and void and instead co-opt an entire unelected committee would be a grave folly&#33;

  32. #32

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    117

    Default

    Originally posted by seifer@Nov 2 2003, 04:39 PM
    OK that post was poory pheased, I mean I can see the moderation options, I am not an admin and have no intention of abusing my privilidge of having access to my dads account. For a start it&#39;s way against my ethics, I wasn&#39;t elected so have no right to even read the comitee forum
    If you are signed in under your own log-in, you can&#39;t see the moderator options or the committee forums.

    Can you? Well I can&#39;t.

    and if you can only see the moderation options and not IP information, how were you proposing to track down Piggly?

    Just to help, I&#39;ll give you a head start:-

    It&#39;s not me
    Muggle - One Voice - One Vote

  33. #33
    Omally Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Teasel+Nov 2 2003, 04:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Teasel @ Nov 2 2003, 04:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--The Hornet@Nov 2 2003, 10:34 AM
    Something along the lines of: "All previous polls for committee/chairman be declared null and void.
    Now hang on a minute&#33; On what grounds should the previous polls be declared null and void? :angry:
    [/b][/quote]
    This suggestion probably popped up due to the seemingly imminent foreclosure of the GAGB. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and I assume (probably foolishly, but there ya go ) that those who agree with Hornets suggestion want to see the GAGB continue even if it means the work of the last few weeks is wasted.

    Forgive my previously gloomy post from this morning: having gone out, found a couple of caches and got caught in a thunderstorm of epic proportions I&#39;ve had time to think and remind myself what it&#39;s all about: let&#39;s just finish the original plan of electing a committee, who can then sort out a chair and then get on with GAGBing. This, of course, depends upon T n J not throwing the switch just yet...

    C&#39;mon everyone, let&#39;s not give up just yet&#33;&#33; We should be pulling together instead of pulling things apart. Only we can make this whole thing work properly.

  34. #34
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Nov 1 2003, 11:34 PM
    If yer a troll.. hope it&#39;s under a bridge in the Cheviots.. cos yer will be part of the foundation.. thats what happens to stiffs.
    This kind of stuff is just beyond decency.

    It&#39;s not woder this forum is in the cesspoll with this kind of bull from a founding memeber.

  35. #35
    The Hornet Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by paul.blitz+Nov 2 2003, 01:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (paul.blitz @ Nov 2 2003, 01:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--The Hornet@Nov 1 2003, 09:09 PM
    Now that Tim has resigned from the chair we are looking for a total of 6 people to run the shop. Including already elected members we have 8 people willing to devote their time and effort to GAGB. How&#39;s about we have ALL EIGHT of them and dispense with the elections all together?
    My problem with this is that SOMEONE out there will complain that GAGB is then being run by a group of non-elected people (hmmm... sounds very familiar).

    Personally, I am of the opinion that if people are incapable of constructively helping the formation of the GAGB, then there is no reason for such people to be members.

    Now, if you look, much of the stirring is done by people using "assumed names"... ie not "real" or even "GC.com" names. Maybe by deleting such names from teh membership would solve many of the current problems?


    Paul Blitz [/b][/quote]
    As I&#39;m being quoted I will assume this post is aimed at me. I also remember questioning right back at the beginning of GAGB whether it was the right way of promoting geocaching in the UK so I understand why some people do not like my views.

    I have stayed with GAGB even though I&#39;ve not been 100% convinced that it was doing the right things all the time. I thought that the best way to ensure change was to argue from within. From the quoted comments this is obviously frowned upon.

    Despite my misgivings I thought that getting the organisation formed was vital if was to do ANY good at any time. This was the sole reason for making my original suggestion at the start of this thread. I thought we might be able to cut through the c**p and move forward.

    Sorry, but it seems I was mistaken. It was a silly idea and I apologise for wasting your time. I realise from the sentiments clearly expressed by a number of founder members that my efforts are not appreciated. They are seen as a U-turn and as in politics this is unacceptable.

    I will take Paul&#39;s suggestion on board and would request that an elected ADMIN remove me from your list of members as soon as practical. This is not done in a fit of pique, I&#39;ve thought about it for some time and at present I&#39;m stone cold sober .

    I will remain a very active geocacher and user of GC.COM and GCUK. I&#39;ve got two ammo boxes painted up ready to go and hope to set up more caches over the coming weeks/months. I might look in here from time to time to see how things are going but will obviously not contribute nor vote. Good luck in the future.

    Hornet -> Peter Howard

    p.s. I hope to attend events during the year and will stand ANYBODY a pint (and will accept the same&#33

  36. #36
    Ashandes Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by The Hornet@Nov 2 2003, 05:06 PM
    I have stayed with GAGB even though I&#39;ve not been 100% convinced that it was doing the right things all the time. I thought that the best way to ensure change was to argue from within. From the quoted comments this is obviously frowned upon.
    I support the GAGB. I support what you are trying to do. I am grateful for the time and energy that has and will be expended on my behalf as a geocacher should I choose to remain a member or not.

    But In the last few weeks I&#39;ve felt much the same way as Hornet. I feel very uncomfortable when genuine concerns are raised by GAGB members and these concerns are then written off by someone elected to represent the same members as "crap the committee has to deal with". I feel very uncomfortable being a member of an organisation where I am wary of offering any kind of dissenting view for fear of being labelled an "ingrate" or "troublemaker". If input from members is of so little value I just can&#39;t see why it makes any difference if I&#39;m a member or not.

    As a member I would like to see the views of all members, be they on the committe or not, treated with the same level of respect. I hope Hornet reconsiders handing in his membership card as he strikes me as exactly the sort of member the GAGB should be embracing rather than alienating.

    As for the elections, if my voice counts for anything, I agree with Teasel. I see no reason why the elections shouldn&#39;t continue as planned.

    Ash

    (edited only to add my name. As this is only one half of Ashandes posting )

  37. #37

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    St Helens, Lancs, UK
    Posts
    90

    Default

    I think I am having a jinx on this forum. Every time I go away for a few days something blows up&#33;
    I&#39;ve not read the forums since Thursday and have now struggled to make sense of all the opinions which have been given and am not sure I&#39;ve succeded.
    I&#39;ve been at the game for quite a while and appreciate all the effort others have put into it to make it better for the rest of us - I&#39;m sorry I&#39;m not naming names as I would almost certainly leave someone out. But I&#39;m not ashamed either of using my own name or anyone knowing who I am - maybe I was a bit naive to use it when I first registered but I did and was only sorry nt to have included my Christian name, as that would have made life easier at events.
    Now I&#39;m rambling off topic - to get back, my opinion is that the committee elections we been dragging though for so long should be completed and the elected members should then be allowed to get on with it. If they want to coopt others who have contributions to make they should do so within limits and that could include a chairman if none of them can do it. The important thing is that they should be able to work together and get things done. If not GAGB is a dead duck - quack, quack&#33;
    How they will do it I don&#39;t know but I wish them luck.
    Enjoy your caching!

  38. #38
    The Hornet Guest

    Default

    Thanks for the suggestion Andy but, no, there will be no reconsidering. No recriminations, just slight sadness.

    Peter <_< (the closest I can get to a wry smilie)

  39. #39
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Muggle+Nov 2 2003, 03:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Muggle @ Nov 2 2003, 03:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--seifer@Nov 2 2003, 03:02 PM
    ... if I had access to an admin account on GC:UK and GC.com like I do here......


    Michael Blitz
    Hold on a minute.

    You, Michael Blitz have access to an admin account on GAGB???

    How exactly does that work?? Can I have one too? [/b][/quote]
    Michael Blitz is part of Team Blitz, and as such he *currently* is allowed to access the committee forums. As are the original "secret 7", as are other family members of the other elected committee members. (That could always change in the future though, if it is felt to be relevant)

    As far as I am concerned, that access (for all concerned, I hope) is self-restricted to "read-only" access: if anyone (Michael included) oversteps the lime by as much as a millimetre, I for one will insist that such access is immediately concerned&#33;

    (And in Michael&#39;s case, he would have ME, as his father, to answer to as well&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33.

    As a child, I read papers relating to court cases that, perhaps theoretically, I should not have been allowed to see. I even went to the court on one occasion to watch, having discussed the cases with my dad both before and after (he was a magistrate). However, it was absolutely obvious to me that the details that I read were 100% confidential, and were NOT for public discussion. I apply the same feelings to committee discussions, both here, and on ANY committee I am involved with. It&#39;s not a big deal, honest&#33;


    Paul Blitz

  40. #40
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Ashandes@Nov 2 2003, 05:40 PM
    As a member I would like to see the views of all members, be they on the committe or not, treated with the same level of respect. I hope Hornet reconsiders handing in his membership card as he strikes me as exactly the sort of member the GAGB should be embracing rather than alienating.
    It&#39;s only when you&#39;re told to **** off do you realize the respect that the founding members have for the membership.

  41. #41
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by The Hornet+Nov 2 2003, 05:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (The Hornet @ Nov 2 2003, 05:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
    Originally posted by -paul.blitz@Nov 2 2003, 01:59 PM
    <!--QuoteBegin--The Hornet
    @Nov 1 2003, 09:09 PM


    Personally, I am of the opinion that if people are incapable of constructively helping the formation of the GAGB, then there is no reason for such people to be members.
    I have stayed with GAGB even though I&#39;ve not been 100% convinced that it was doing the right things all the time. I thought that the best way to ensure change was to argue from within. From the quoted comments this is obviously frowned upon. [/b][/quote]
    (bits removed from above)

    By "formation of the GAGB" I was meaning the election of a committee, allowing the committee to then get on & create a workable constitution, rules etc.

    There are some people here, who seem to have joined up to SUPPORT the concept, and before the committee have even been elected, are complaining that we are doing nothing.

    If the (partial) committee had started to do things, there would be complaints that "a partial committee is not fully representative", and that we should hold off until the elections were over.

    Look, imagine we are at an AGM, and we are in the middle of the elections. Some posts have been announced to be non-contended, so thos people are already "in", but for the other posts, we have voted, and the current meeting chairman has suggested that some "other" business can continue whilst the votes are counted, you would NOT expect anything that is in ANY WAY controvertial to be discussed in that period, would you? I certainly wouldn&#39;t. You would certainly not stand up and suggest that the way we just voted on the committee should be declared null & void... you had your chance to say that 10 minutes ago&#33; Nor would I expect you to suggest changing the committee structure at that point either. You let things roll, wait for the results to be announced, see who the new committee will be, and THEN make your points

    Currently we are in that "limbo period"... the full committe is NOT elected, so there is NOT YET a mandate for the committee to do ANYTHING... we are NOT a committee yet, voting is still in progress. Thus the current committee&#39;s inaction.


    So all I was asking was that people should be supportive of getting things rolling.... and yes, once we are "an organisation" then yes, things continue.


    Paul Blitz

  42. #42
    seifer Guest

    Default

    {message deleted by Paul Blitz, wearing both committee / moderator and father hats}

  43. #43
    The Peak Plodders Guest

    Default

    Tim and June:
    BUT, what annoys me most is that when the GAGB was first announced the seven who started it all and dedicated their time and efforts to it were given so much flack, were told that they had not been elected by anybody, called "The Secret Seven" etc etc. that they were mostly "run out of town" and gave up. Three of them even resigned as Admin for GC.com in order to give the GAGB all they could.

    Now you want to give it to a largly unelected body. &#33;
    But at least after opening up committee posts to the membership, each member has had the opportunity to present themselves for election, and had the opportunity to consider whether they want certain individuals representing their interests in geocaching in Britain.
    Whether in the end the initial committee is actually elected, at least each member has had the opportunity to be a part of it.

    Until proper proceedures are in place to deal with for example resignation of committee members, voting practices and standing orders, are in place I think we are best to stick with what was decided before voting began, as that was what the candidates agreed to be voted in, on.

    By Tuesday we will have an elected committee (so what if one member has decided to resign before the work began). I would have thought that by being elected to a fledgling committee the membership has confidence that they will be able to sort out what to do when one resigns. (Otherwise why were they voted in the firat place - I am assuming here that the people voting thought about what they were doing, and were acting in what they thought were the best interests of GAGB)

  44. #44
    Mr &amp; Mrs Hedgehog Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Paul G0TLG@Nov 2 2003, 11:36 AM
    Personally I&#39;ll come out in favour of ANYTHING which gets a committee up and running.

    An imperfect committee (they all are, anyway) is FAR FAR BETTER than no committee at all. But come on folks, lets give them a chance...

    Paul
    I&#39;ll go along with this.

  45. #45
    MCL Guest

    Default

    I&#39;m loathe to say too much at this stage since it might be seen as coming from someone with an interest in the elections (ie I was standing) but now the main elections are over I feel I can say something at least.

    My earlier post was really only a clarificatioon as to the status and number of elections. I can see the point made by Tim and June, and Teasel, in that the current elections really ought to stand. I can also see why Peter may have suggested what he did, and I thank him for that, but I think that honestly I would have felt a "second-class" committee member if I had ended up on the committee without winning an election.

    On the other hand, if the members still want me to do it, I am willing to stand, but I must feel sure in my mind that it is the will of the members. An election is still probably the best way to manifest this will.

    I have to say right now that the committee members that I know personally are all honourable and dedicated people. I also absolutely agree with Moss, that Tim and June are completely honourable. I have met (and here I refer back to another post of mine where I mention the importance of meeting people in person) most of the committee members now and can&#39;t think of a better bunch to run the organisation.

    The current committee have my full support.

    There are ways and ways of expressing any given opinion. Even the most outrageous opinions can be expressed in a "nice" way, for discussion purposes. Lets all try and think twice before putting fingers to keyboard and asking ourselves if the text we just typed could be better expressed in another way.

Posting Permissions

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