Thanks Thanks:  0
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 92

Thread: Just to let you know.

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    209

    Default

    As the committee has not posted anything here, we thought that we would let the members know the current situation.

    There were a number of promises made by the Founding Members, among those was the following :-

    1.) The GAGB would never become commercial.
    2.) There would never be any cost involved with becoming or being a member of the GAGB (partly because we were financing it).

    We have, after discussion with Founding Members, agreed to pass over control of the domain names (gagb.org.uk & gagb.co.uk) and copyright of the website to the committee on the proviso that the above two points are agreed and maintained.
    <span style=\'font-size:10pt;line-height:100%\'><span style=\'color:green\'><span style=\'font-family:Arial\'>totally brassed off </span></span></span>

  2. #2
    Chris n Maria Guest

    Default

    Well done.

    Just a question does this mean the site will move from your (generously provided for free) servers or will you still be hosting ??

  3. #3
    Kouros Guest

    Default

    Thanks for clearing that up.

    Just so nobody thinks that the committee were sitting on their laurels, I believe I speak for all of us (but in case I don&#39;t, I am posting under my own name) when I say that we were to include these nuggets of gloriously golden information along with the proposed constitution (of which they will be a part) once that is completed and when we present it to the members.

    However, due to the fact that we all work (yes, it&#39;s true&#33 not all of us on the committee may have yet had the chance to be aware of this situation, and I know that one or two of us would like to have discussed it further before posting it. Nevermind, not the end of the world.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Originally posted by Chris n Maria@Nov 7 2003, 02:15 PM
    Well done.

    Just a question does this mean the site will move from your (generously provided for free) servers or will you still be hosting ??
    Seems that the committee don&#39;t think it&#39;s too good an idea for us to host the site.

    Also seems that it&#39;s time for us (T&J) to sadly close the doors on our connections with the association.

    Sorry Kouros, wasn&#39;t trying to upstage the committee but we have recieved two emails asking. Thought it would be a reasonable idea to let the members know.
    <span style=\'font-size:10pt;line-height:100%\'><span style=\'color:green\'><span style=\'font-family:Arial\'>totally brassed off </span></span></span>

  5. #5
    Chris n Maria Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Tim and June@Nov 7 2003, 06:09 PM
    Seems that the committee don&#39;t think it&#39;s too good an idea for us to host the site.
    Oh well, thanks for what you have done (here and for caching in general) and as you say damned if you do, dammned if you don&#39;t <_<

    Happy Caching
    Chris

  6. #6
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Three question for the committee ...

    1 - Where will the new site be hosted?
    2 - When is the move expected?
    3 - How are the bills being paid when the GAGB has no cash? What controls are in place to prevent someone getting hacked off and threatening to pull the plug?

  7. #7
    Kouros Guest

    Default

    Under my name...

    Oh well, thanks for what you have done (here and for caching in general) and as you say damned if you do, dammned if you don&#39;t
    Indeed - I said it privately a little earlier, and I&#39;ll say it publicly now: It&#39;s a shame.

    For the benefit of members who may not be aware, the committee are concerned that their freedom to talk may be limited if non-committee members have access to the committee forums - obviously, if T&J host the site they would (in theory, even if not in practice) have access to those boards.

    This isn&#39;t intended to be a dig at T&J, who have done a lot of good work for Geocaching in the UK, including being founding members of this site, and would be the same if I hosted the site (and wasn&#39;t on the committee), or if anyone else did.

    But I hope you "closing the doors" will not include turning your back on the GAGB entirely - I&#39;m sure that you will agree that Geocaching needs people who are vocal in their beliefs, and as such, if the GAGB is to succeed, it needs you, even if you aren&#39;t on the committee.

  8. #8
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Kouros@Nov 7 2003, 06:48 PM
    For the benefit of members who may not be aware, the committee are concerned that their freedom to talk may be limited if non-committee members have access to the committee forums - obviously, if T&J host the site they would (in theory, even if not in practice) have access to those boards.
    I honestly do think that this is rather a lame reason considering that seifer came on these forums only a few days ago claiming committee level access. I&#39;m not nit picking here nor do I want to cause trouble but if TnJ are being cut out of the loop because of this, I for one need assurances that this cannot happen. As far as I remeber it wasn&#39;t Team Blitz that was voted in but Paul. It this as meant to be a team vote that should have been made clear from the start.

  9. #9
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    I just also want to add that while Tim and I have crossed swords here in these forums over issues relating to the GAGB (despite anything that was said I don&#39;t hold any grudge at all), but I wouldn&#39;t think for one second that he would tamper with anything here.

    TnJ, we met in person in the past and got on fine, I hope that we can do that again ... things go smoother when dealing face-to-face that&#39;s for sure.

    My best wishes to you both and happy caching&#33;

  10. #10
    Kouros Guest

    Default

    Under my own name, and an honest, non-sarcastic or otherwise adulterated question...

    Where would you draw the line, in a perfect scenario, as to whom should be granted access to committee forums?

  11. #11
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Kouros@Nov 7 2003, 07:33 PM
    Under my own name, and an honest, non-sarcastic or otherwise adulterated question...

    Where would you draw the line as to whom should be granted access to committee forums?
    I don&#39;t know ...but it sounds like one has been drawn and I guess I&#39;m trying to find out where that is&#33;

  12. #12
    Kouros Guest

    Default

    My argument would be - and again, this is my opinion, and may not reflect the rest of the committee - that only the committee should have access to the committee forums. And that priviledged access would not include family members, in case of accidental slip-ups.

    At least if a committee member slips, it is that persons fault (most likely mine - watch this space) rather than someone who should not have read something and said more than they should.

  13. #13
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Kouros@Nov 7 2003, 07:40 PM
    My argument would be - and again, this is my opinion, and may not reflect the rest of the committee - that only the committee should have access to the committee forums. And that priviledged access would not include family members, in case of accidental slip-ups.

    At least if a committee member slips, it is that persons fault (most likely mine - watch this space) rather than someone who should not have read something and said more than they should.
    That would be best by far ...

  14. #14
    Paul G0TLG Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Kouros@Nov 7 2003, 07:33 PM
    Where would you draw the line, in a perfect scenario, as to whom should be granted access to committee forums?
    This question isn&#39;t as easy as it seems: when we elected T & J to the chair, we knew we were electing both of them, and in that case we&#39;d have expected them both to have access - we agreed somewhere that we were voting for a team, not an individual.

    Now we&#39;ve elected Team Tate, and although Sarah is the active one, in theory that certainly includes Bob, and technically Beckie and George as well.

    So I&#39;d say...where an individual is elected, that individual only. Where a team is elected, perhaps only bona fide adult members of that team. And perhaps a rider that in future, named individuals only for election, rather than team names.

    Paul

  15. #15
    Kouros Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Paul G0TLG@Nov 7 2003, 08:21 PM
    So I&#39;d say...where an individual is elected, that individual only. Where a team is elected, perhaps only bona fide adult members of that team. And perhaps a rider that in future, named individuals only for election, rather than team names.
    That seems very sensible to me. What do the other committee members think?

Posting Permissions

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