Thanks Thanks:  0
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 92 of 92

Thread: Just to let you know.

  1. #51
    Seasider Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Chris n Maria+Nov 9 2003, 10:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chris n Maria @ Nov 9 2003, 10:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--BugznElm&#39;r@Nov 9 2003, 09:32 PM
    Why does "fun" need a commitee? An association?
    Fun dosn&#39;t - the pursuit of fun via negotiation with landowners etc does. That is really the main point/thrust of GAGB and (even to the untrained eye) it appears that events in the New forest (if nowhere else) prove that official representation might help us all.

    <just wondering> If you don&#39;t see the need for the association then why are you here? </just wondering>
    Chris [/b][/quote]
    We all know the main thrust/point of GAGB.

    We all have fun caching and I agree the GAGB must be a serious organisation and electoral legitimacy is central to this.

    No-one should be able to by-pass scrutiny when it suits them by saying it doesn&#39;t matter.

    Teasel (who I voted for) & Paul Blitz (who I didn&#39;t because I don&#39;t know him) stood as individual candidates and they must honour their mandate as individuals. The fact that they would almost certainly have been voted in as a family is not legally relevant.

    Sorry to press the point but ending this issue now saves problems in the new year.

    Seasider

  2. #52
    MCL Guest

    Default

    In my opinion it comes down to the comittee. If the current committee are happy to share their forum with someone (whoever, its their choice since its their words being shared&#33 then let them.

    As has been pointed out, the moment someone comes onto the committee who does not want the sharing to continue, then that sharing will cease. So where is the problem?

    From this end, it seems that some people are trying to tell our committee who they can and can&#39;t share their conversations with. This would seem to be a power that is *not* vested in individual members, and for good reason.

  3. #53
    NattyBooshka Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by MCL@Nov 10 2003, 02:10 AM
    In my opinion it comes down to the comittee. If the current committee are happy to share their forum with someone (whoever, its their choice since its their words being shared&#33 then let them.

    As has been pointed out, the moment someone comes onto the committee who does not want the sharing to continue, then that sharing will cease. So where is the problem?

    From this end, it seems that some people are trying to tell our committee who they can and can&#39;t share their conversations with. This would seem to be a power that is *not* vested in individual members, and for good reason.
    As access to the committee forum is a privilage that was bestowed upon committee members by a vote from the membership, we consider that access to that forum is not a privilage that should be bestowed on others, by the committee, at any time other than the co-option of a new committee member.

  4. #54
    Chris n Maria Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Seasider+Nov 9 2003, 10:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Seasider @ Nov 9 2003, 10:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
    Originally posted by -Chris n Maria@Nov 9 2003, 10:25 PM
    <!--QuoteBegin--BugznElm&#39;r
    @Nov 9 2003, 09:32 PM
    Why does "fun" need a commitee? An association?
    We all know the main thrust/point of GAGB.
    [/b][/quote]
    If "we all know then" then why did BugznElm&#39;r ask?

    It just all to complicated for a bear of little brain like me and I thought UTM conversion formulas were complicated :unsure:

    Chris

  5. #55
    Paul G0TLG Guest

    Default

    We&#39;re not talking state secrets here: Even if the committee members&#39; families can&#39;t read the committee forum, the committee members will still tell their families what&#39;s going on: The alternative is a ridiculous situation where a committee member going to hold negotiations with a landowner can&#39;t tell his wife where he&#39;s going&#33;

    As I see it, the point of keeping committee discussions private is not to keep things secret from the "legitimate" membership (by which I mean, those of us who joined because we wanted to support the aims of the GAGB). This is a public forum and anyone can read it, including those representatives of landowing bodies who wish to oppose geocaching. While I&#39;m sure none of us would post anything here which could turn a landowner against us (yes, I&#39;m being ironic here), some people are opposed to geocaching for all sorts of reasons and it doesn&#39;t help our cause for those people to know how our negotiations are going.

    I know a couple of excellent examples to illustrate this point, but I was told them in confidence...

    In other words, let the committee hide their discussions from the public forum, where we don&#39;t know who&#39;s going to read them. But if committee members choose to share information with people they trust (whether family members or not), I don&#39;t have a problem with that.

    I hope it&#39;s clear what I mean here...my brain is in Monday Morning Mode&#33;

    Paul

  6. #56
    NattyBooshka Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Paul G0TLG@Nov 10 2003, 08:55 AM
    We&#39;re not talking state secrets here: Even if the committee members&#39; families can&#39;t read the committee forum, the committee members will still tell their families what&#39;s going on: The alternative is a ridiculous situation where a committee member going to hold negotiations with a landowner can&#39;t tell his wife where he&#39;s going&#33;

    As I see it, the point of keeping committee discussions private is not to keep things secret from the "legitimate" membership (by which I mean, those of us who joined because we wanted to support the aims of the GAGB). This is a public forum and anyone can read it, including those representatives of landowing bodies who wish to oppose geocaching. While I&#39;m sure none of us would post anything here which could turn a landowner against us (yes, I&#39;m being ironic here), some people are opposed to geocaching for all sorts of reasons and it doesn&#39;t help our cause for those people to know how our negotiations are going.

    I know a couple of excellent examples to illustrate this point, but I was told them in confidence...

    In other words, let the committee hide their discussions from the public forum, where we don&#39;t know who&#39;s going to read them. But if committee members choose to share information with people they trust (whether family members or not), I don&#39;t have a problem with that.

    I hope it&#39;s clear what I mean here...my brain is in Monday Morning Mode&#33;

    Paul
    Sure, a committee member not talking to his/her family would be ridiculous... but none of the committees I&#39;ve served on would allow family members to come in and out of meetings as and when they pleased. Family members would probably be aware of the minutes of a meeting quicker than the membership in any organisation... but they should not be given access to personal information of the members, either as a part of an offline discussion or in their own right.

    We, the members, should all have access to minutes of committee meetings, but nobody other than the serving committee should be able to see the actual transcript of a meeting/committee discussion, regardless of relationship to any committee member.

    What I&#39;m saying here is there should be no difference between a committee memeber&#39;s relatives account and that of a normal member.

    Also, minutes should contain comments telling us that negotiations with landowners (including who) are ongoing and who has picked up that action... so for example "Paul Blitz to continue negotiations with the FC" but they should not contain any detail of those negotiations.

    Minutes of meetings, once agreed as a correct and true representation of a meeting (usually at the next meeting) should be supplied to any member requesting them... I hope & trust that this is something the commitee intend to do... otherwise how do we know who is representing us well when it comes to re-elections in due course?

    The only exception to this I have experience of is when a member is invited to a part of a committee meeting to defend themselves against any accusation or to give information to a meeting.

  7. #57
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Chris n Maria+Nov 10 2003, 08:45 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chris n Maria @ Nov 10 2003, 08:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
    Originally posted by -Seasider@Nov 9 2003, 10:57 PM
    Originally posted by -Chris n Maria@Nov 9 2003, 10:25 PM
    <!--QuoteBegin--BugznElm&#39;r
    @Nov 9 2003, 09:32 PM
    Why does "fun" need a commitee? An association?

    We all know the main thrust/point of GAGB.
    If "we all know then" then why did BugznElm&#39;r ask?

    It just all to complicated for a bear of little brain like me and I thought UTM conversion formulas were complicated :unsure:

    Chris [/b][/quote]
    Why did I ask? Because as soon as the pressure is on and questions are asked, people start saying "It&#39;s all fun, why be so serious?" If I didn&#39;t think it was serious I wouldn&#39;t worry but obviously there are others who feel that because geocaching is "fun" and a hobby, the association need not be a serious thing.

    Let&#39;s remember the past and think a little about the future. Think back to those HCC/GAGB guidelines. No matter what anyone thinks, we saw there how fast something coming from the GAGB could affect GC.com and then geocachers as a whole. OK, there was nothing really restrictive in those guidelines but now wind up to the FC talks ... what if they say (rather unlikely but it could happen) "no geocaching&#33;" If they said that without the association existing they&#39;d have to find them and get rid of each one themselves. However, put the association in the middle with fast-trak links to GC.com and no more caches on FC land ... within three years all the existing caches will have decayed.

    OK, that&#39;s unlikely but what about something a little more likely ... what if what a little bird tells me is true and the FC don&#39;t like plastic tupperware boxes on their land and would rather all ammo boxes? How would you feel if something that sounded innocuous like that made its way into FC guidelines? How would that make you feel?

    The biggest disagreement that Tim and I had over the GAGB was that I believe that any association is a form of control. Might be good, might be bad. But you have control either way and control that can sway one way or another.

    Remember too what was set up – A Geocaching Association of Great Britain … surely this association, set up by a few, has responsibilities to every geocacher in Britain, not just the committee or those on the forum. That sounds serious to me.

    Also (final point – promise) Paul mentioned TnJ being “hounded” from the GAGB. What Paul didn’t mention and I feel should, is the rough end of the stick used against many in the early days who disagreed with the GAGB vision. As far as I could see, no one “hounded” anyone – a forum was set up for discussion and a discussion took place. Issues of conflicts on interest and dual standards of saying one thing and doing another were raised by members and people chose to leave. If you don’t believe me, most of the forum postings are there … check them out for yourselves.

    If you think we need the GAGB, then take it seriously. Geocaching is a game but an association isn’t.

  8. #58
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by NattyBooshka@Nov 10 2003, 10:22 AM
    Minutes of meetings, once agreed as a correct and true representation of a meeting (usually at the next meeting) should be supplied to any member requesting them... I hope & trust that this is something the commitee intend to do... otherwise how do we know who is representing us well when it comes to re-elections in due course?
    I would hope so too. I would lose faith in any committee that chose not to.

    Secrecy in negotiations is one thing; secrecy between the committee and the members is another.

  9. #59
    Chris n Maria Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r@Nov 10 2003, 11:21 AM
    OK, that&#39;s unlikely but what about something a little more likely ... what if what a little bird tells me is true and the FC don&#39;t like plastic tupperware boxes on their land and would rather all ammo boxes? How would you feel if something that sounded innocuous like that made its way into FC guidelines? How would that make you feel?
    Now I really am confused. If the FC wanted only ammo boxes, (or even bright purple ammo boxes) surely that is what we should be using if we are caching on their land? If those are the guidelines that the FC want then surly those are what we should use if we cache on their land :unsure:

    Unless what you ment to type was not FC guidlines but GC guidelines?

    Confused
    Chris

  10. #60
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Chris n Maria@Nov 10 2003, 11:32 AM
    Unless what you ment to type was not FC guidlines but GC guidelines?

    Confused
    Chris
    I did ... I meant an FC guideline making its way into a GC guideline.

    However, I&#39;d be pretty annoyed at the FC making any such demand, especially since I have given them at least 6 co-ords of dumped cars and rubbish piles on their land that are still there 3 - 4 years on.

    Sorry ... too many abbreviations&#33;

  11. #61
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r+Nov 10 2003, 12:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BugznElm&#39;r @ Nov 10 2003, 12:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Chris n Maria@Nov 10 2003, 11:32 AM
    Unless what you ment to type was not FC guidlines but GC guidelines?

    Confused
    Chris
    I did ... I meant an FC guideline making its way into a GC guideline.

    However, I&#39;d be pretty annoyed at the FC making any such demand, especially since I have given them at least 6 co-ords of dumped cars and rubbish piles on their land that are still there 3 - 4 years on.

    Sorry ... too many abbreviations&#33; [/b][/quote]
    I&#39;ll take the car dumping and fly tipping example further. Laws exist prohibiting this but it still goes on (The FC say they don&#39;t have the time or money to combat it) ... but wouldn&#39;t it be a lot easier to control it if a car dumping association existed? I know this is pushing extremes but it does go to show that an association can be a very effective instrument of control. In this example the FC go to the GAGB and say "geocachers - get lost" and off we all go ... even though I and many others have caches on FC land that have the warden&#39;s permission&#33; In this case the involvment of a single association *could* invalidate caches that some of us already have permission for.

  12. #62
    Chris n Maria Guest

    Default

    Slightly less confused

    Agreed - from its inception one of the major worries about GAGB, has been the imposition of new restrictions on all caches caused by negotiations with a particular landowner (mind you GCV.com seem to add arbitary rules (like restrictions on virtuals) whenever they please - but that is a different story). When GAGB was run by the same people who approved caches their was a huge potential for conflict of interest. Since then things have changed somewhat.

    Our 2 hardworking approvers are not on the GAGB comittee and have both shown themselves very willing to rule on the side of allowing a cache rather than strict interpretation of the rules. However if the FC (or any other landowner) were to mail GC.com and say "only approve caches that meet xyz criteria on our land" they would have no choice but to accept it.
    At the end of the day the landowner gets the final say - hence the ban on caching in US national parks.

    So as far as I can see the comittee don&#39;t really have any "power" as such only the mandate to make representations to major landowners. The risk with this is that they could wake up organisations to our presence and lead to total bans or on the other hand they may just get us cart blanch to cache in a lot more places. Or do you see the comittee having more control then I have outlined?

    <just trying to understand and clarify positions rather than arguee the toss>
    Chris

  13. #63
    Paul G0TLG Guest

    Default

    Correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but...

    Current situation
    No caches allowed on FC land. Caches which ARE planted are removed (although of course there&#39;s no evidence that that was done with official FC blessing)

    Hypothetical future situation
    Caching allowed, providing each cache is in the smallest size of ammo box, painted pink and with the owner&#39;s email address painted on it.

    OK, the HFS isn&#39;t that desirable, but surely it&#39;s better than what we have at the moment? As for any hypothetical future FC guidelines being part of the GC guidlines: Surely once a landowner states the requirements for getting permission to plant a cache on their land, that automatically becomes part of the GC rules, because of the rule about permission being required?

    Paul
    Just want to cache...

  14. #64
    NattyBooshka Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Paul G0TLG@Nov 10 2003, 12:55 PM
    Surely once a landowner states the requirements for getting permission to plant a cache on their land, that automatically becomes part of the GC rules, because of the rule about permission being required?
    Yes... in theory as we all tick the box to say we meet the GC.com guidelines when we plant a cache, and one of them says we have landowner permission. However, if this was actually the case, there would be no caches in the NF at all at this time. Approvers don&#39;t have the time or the instruction from TPTB to check this, and in most cases it would be difficult if not impossible for them to do. Who owns that wooded area marked on the map at then end of a given road? Very few places show this information. So with GC.com guidelines we are trusted to have followed them. People like the FC (especially in the NF) will review any agreement we get and maybe GC.com will adopt them, but like I say in most cases how will the approver know who owns the land?

    If we get agreement with a major landowner, we will have to keep ourselves in check if we are to keep that agreement. We will need to satisfy them that the rules are being followed. This will be an unenviable task, which I assume would lie with the committee/chair of this association. The problem is we have no policing mechanism, so if I wanted to place something outside the rules, there&#39;s nothing in place to stop me. Do we need a to police ourselves? Yes... but who would do this and how? As a landowner I&#39;d expect someone to be able to tell me that I have X caches on my land and that they all meet the requirements I put on their being placed. At best the GAGB will be able to tell me the value of X, but without visiting all of the caches they won&#39;t be able to tell me that they are all within my rules. In that case I would be thinking that maybe I should rip up the argeement and ask that all caches be removed. This is not an easy task, but I do fear that whilst we will gain approval from some major landowners, we will lose those agreements at a future date.

    Neil.

  15. #65
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Chris n Maria@Nov 10 2003, 12:42 PM
    The risk with this is that they could wake up organisations to our presence and lead to total bans or on the other hand they may just get us cart blanch to cache in a lot more places. Or do you see the comittee having more control then I have outlined?
    No, I don&#39;t think you are arguing the toss Chris ...

    Spot on Chris ... an association gives major land owners single point of contact to ban or approve caching. Good enough reason for me to take the whole thing seriously.

    I also think that one powerful point that the GAGB can make to major land owners is that if geocaching is outlawed, outlaws will geocache. Sensible guidelines encurage sensible behaviour. Bans will just encourage bad behaviour.

  16. #66
    NattyBooshka Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r@Nov 10 2003, 01:40 PM
    Sensible guidelines encurage sensible behaviour. Bans will just encourage bad behaviour.
    I think, and hope, that most open to the public landowners think the same way... after all, most want people to come and use their land.

  17. #67
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Paul G0TLG@Nov 10 2003, 12:55 PM
    Correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but...

    Current situation
    No caches allowed on FC land. Caches which ARE planted are removed (although of course there&#39;s no evidence that that was done with official FC blessing)

    Hypothetical future situation
    Caching allowed, providing each cache is in the smallest size of ammo box, painted pink and with the owner&#39;s email address painted on it.

    OK, the HFS isn&#39;t that desirable, but surely it&#39;s better than what we have at the moment? As for any hypothetical future FC guidelines being part of the GC guidlines: Surely once a landowner states the requirements for getting permission to plant a cache on their land, that automatically becomes part of the GC rules, because of the rule about permission being required?

    Paul
    Just want to cache...
    One solution here is for the GAGB to make it clear that they don&#39;t have policing powers but can simply recommend guidelines to members.

  18. #68
    Chris n Maria Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by NattyBooshka+Nov 10 2003, 01:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (NattyBooshka @ Nov 10 2003, 01:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--BugznElm&#39;r@Nov 10 2003, 01:40 PM
    Sensible guidelines encurage sensible behaviour. Bans will just encourage bad behaviour.
    I think, and hope, that most open to the public landowners think the same way... after all, most want people to come and use their land. [/b][/quote]
    Agreed,

    In my (all be it) limited discussions with landowners I have been surprised at how keen they were to encorage people to enjoy their land. Looks like the days of the grumpy park keeper are behind us&#33; Big beauracratic organisations are a different kettle of lobsters, because you need everyone to say yes to get a change through but only 1 person to say no to stop things.


    "if geocaching is outlawed, outlaws will geocache. " I love that expresion it conjurs up a wonderfull vision of masked cachers

    Chris

  19. #69
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    I think that the conclusion we are coming to is that one of the early mistakes the GAGB did was take the HCC guidelines and use them are rules on GC.com. That simply overstepped the mark, making the GAGB simply a tool of the GC moderators and a policing body ... especially when no attempt was made to make sure that existing caches complied.

  20. #70
    Chris n Maria Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r@Nov 10 2003, 02:01 PM
    I think that the conclusion we are coming to is that one of the early mistakes the GAGB did was take the HCC guidelines and use them are rules on GC.com. That simply overstepped the mark, making the GAGB simply a tool of the GC moderators and a policing body ... especially when no attempt was made to make sure that existing caches complied.
    IMHO I think a lot of people would agree with those sentiments - still "the past is not within the realms of managment" and we should learn from the past and move on as best we can.

  21. #71
    NattyBooshka Guest

    Default

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing... I believe that the decision to apply HCC rules to GC.com approvals was taken in good faith and the interest of the game. I personally would hope that anybody placing a cache in Hampshire would follow these guidelines anyway and that approvers could take it as read. The only problem is that on managed land we may well be asked to prove that all of our caches (regardless of age) comply with the guidelines... as a landowner I wouldn&#39;t take to kindly to the "that was there before we agreed the guidelines" argument... and that could prove to be our biggest problem in the future. Personally team NattyBooshka will change/remove our caches to reflect changing guidelines and issues.

  22. #72

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Lets be honest here.. You don&#39;t believe that the UK approvers actually apply the GC.com guidelines implicitly.. That would be ludicrous.. given that this is UK and the guidelines were originally drawn up for the USA.

    When I tried to apply the HCC guidelines it was to simplify things. We even added a guideline in HCC to cover dry stone walls.. there aren’t any in HC.

    If a US approver checks out a UK cache, and it is possible and used to be the norm, how would he approve a cache near or by a bridge. He wouldn&#39;t as in US they are deemed soft targets for terrorists.. (over the top.. it isn&#39;t believe me).

    Then there is the problem covering SAM&#39;s, SSSI&#39;s etc. The whole idea was to bring things onto an even keel applicable to UK. Any cache that was within HCC guidelines would automatically be in line with GC.com guidelines.. the reverse however would not be true. I think what most are forgetting that there are no Guidelines specific to UK (things were in pipeline for a change on this) Eckers and Lacto may know better.

    If the approvers actually adhered to GC.com guidelines then I doubt if many caches would be approved straight off. Indeed when UK approvers ( and good ones they are too ) have a problem with a cache.. they usually come to a mutual agreement with the person placing the cache. In US it would be archived and the onus is on the cacher to get it approved.
    Moss The Boss... Sorta

  23. #73
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by NattyBooshka@Nov 10 2003, 02:28 PM
    Personally team NattyBooshka will change/remove our caches to reflect changing guidelines and issues.
    For the record, so will Team BugznElm&#39;r.

  24. #74

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r@Nov 10 2003, 02:01 PM
    I think that the conclusion we are coming to is that one of the early mistakes the GAGB did was take the HCC guidelines and use them are rules on GC.com. That simply overstepped the mark, making the GAGB simply a tool of the GC moderators and a policing body ... especially when no attempt was made to make sure that existing caches complied.
    You think that I was in the process of making the GAGB a tool for GC.com and a policing body.. well Eckers and Lacto are the policing body not GAGB, that was never the intention.

    What you are actually saying though that if GAGB got blanket approval for FE, EH, EN etc on a well thought out set of guide lines , the GC.com approvers should not follow them??
    Moss The Boss... Sorta

  25. #75
    Chris n Maria Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Nov 10 2003, 03:17 PM



    You think that I was in the process of making the GAGB a tool for GC.com and a policing body.. well Eckers and Lacto are the policing body not GAGB, that was never the intention.
    I am sure it never was the intention but the appearence (to those of us not "in the know" and who dont really understood the innerworkings of GC.com) was that it was a possibility. A lot of people only saw your imposition of HCC rules as a set of extra restrictions (not that anyone really had any problem with the actual rules) and didnt/couldnt see that you were negating some of the effects of US moderators.

    Really all it needed was some discussion of the reasoning behind the decision and it wouldnt have been seen so negativley - perhaps some spin was in order

    What you are actually saying though that if GAGB got blanket approval for FE, EH, EN etc on a well thought out set of guide lines , the GC.com approvers should not follow them??
    No - but they should only follow them for the relevant areas of land. If EH say that all caches should be micros we dont want the micros to be the only caches aproved in the UK.

    Chris

  26. #76
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Nov 10 2003, 03:17 PM
    You think that I was in the process of making the GAGB a tool for GC.com and a policing body..
    I don&#39;t know ... I wasn&#39;t in the know&#33; But was I and others wrong to ask the questions we did? Did the founding members need to take offence to questions and criticism? I know the founding memebers must have put in a lot of hard work and effort into the whole thing but did you really expect zero resistance?

    I&#39;m not trying to be a pain here but really just trying to understand what happened.

  27. #77
    Teasel Guest

    Default

    Exactly, Chris&#33; I think "one of the early mistakes the GAGB did was take the HCC guidelines and use them as rules on GC.com" outside of HCC controlled land. IMHO, another missed opportunity was that this change of policy was presented as a fait accomplis. I&#39;d bet that if we&#39;d started a thread saying "GC.com are allowing us to choose our own rules, what should they be?", then what would have been decided would be virtually indistinguishable to the HCC rules, and everyone would have felt a lovely warm empowered feeling. Ain&#39;t hindsight wonderful, eh?

    As for policing, I do not feel that it should be up to GAGB to enforce the regulations which are agreed with landowners. That should be down to the individual listings sites.

    The real danger, of course, is not that someone like the FC will say they "support caching, but only if we use only metal containers". It is that they will say they don&#39;t want caching at all. There are around 70 county councils out there, plus unitary authorities, plus land owning quangos like EN, FC, EH, BW etc, plus the national parks, plus.... Let&#39;s face it folks, GAGB is quite likely to awaken some sleeping giant who&#39;s going to ban caching on their land entirely&#33; For this reason we need to i) be careful in what order we approach people, so that the balance of precedent is always on our side and ii) discuss beforehand, and in a rational manner, how we should react if and when this happens.

  28. #78
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Teasel@Nov 10 2003, 05:03 PM
    Let&#39;s face it folks, GAGB is quite likely to awaken some sleeping giant who&#39;s going to ban caching on their land entirely&#33;
    Hindsight is a wonderful thing but so is listening ... this is what I and others have been saying for months and only now is it being taken seriously.

    I am glad that someone finally takes this point seriously. This is a big step away from the early days where the GAGB could do no harm.

    Yes, I agree. Take it slow and steady. Get the members on board first (after all, this is a geocacher&#39;s association, not a land owner&#39;s association&#33. Things looked to me like they were moving along way too fast way too early before ... my opinion of the committee improves daily with the positive and reasonable comments I see here.

  29. #79
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by NattyBooshka@Nov 10 2003, 06:19 AM

    As access to the committee forum is a privilage that was bestowed upon committee members by a vote from the membership, we consider that access to that forum is not a privilage that should be bestowed on others, by the committee, at any time other than the co-option of a new committee member.
    No, the voting was about being elected to a committee&#33;

    Now, there happens to be a forum set up on here that the committee use: where does it say who may / may NOT use that forum? Surely it is up to the committee? Maybe if we renamed it to be "committe and invited others" it would all be ok then? (heck, maybe it has already been renamed: you won&#39;t know&#33

    If the committee hold an actual face-to-face meeting, what is there to stop us inviting anyone else we wish to? And exclude anyone we wish to? Surely we are allowed to do that? Where is there a difference with the forums?

    Taking things another step: one of the things GAGB will be doing will be to talk with landowners: we might decide to create another "restricted forum" for those people involved oin such negotiations: access would be limited, and may not include EVERYONE who is talking to landowners, but could easily include committee and NON committee members.


    We seem to have yet another big deal going on about nothing&#33;


    Paul speaking personally

  30. #80
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r@Nov 10 2003, 02:01 PM
    I think that the conclusion we are coming to is that one of the early mistakes the GAGB did was take the HCC guidelines and use them are rules on GC.com. That simply overstepped the mark, making the GAGB simply a tool of the GC moderators and a policing body ... especially when no attempt was made to make sure that existing caches complied.
    Bear in mind that the background of those "HCC Guidelines" was that the "secret 7" had worked out a sensible list of caching rules, and presented this to HCC.

    HCC basically took that list as their guidelines, but in order to cover themselves legally, adding a couple more like "nightime caching is discouraged".

    Now, if you look at the "GAGB Guidelines" page, the words are quite "unclear" (probably on purpose&#33... nowhere does it ACTUALLY say "these are the GAGB caching guidelines".

    Yes, the page has a title "Geocaching Guidelines for the UK"... which is not quite "GAGB caching guidelines". It also notes that "Below is the final draft which is awaiting the seal of approval from Hampshire County Council Countryside Services".

    So, the way *I* read it, there are no actual formally published GAGB guidelines on this website.... yet.


    Paul&#39;s personal opinion

  31. #81
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by paul.blitz@Nov 12 2003, 09:59 PM
    No, the voting was about being elected to a committee&#33;
    I guess I do have to ask though ... currently is there a real reason for a non-committee memeber to have such access ... especially since it is a touchy issue right now?

  32. #82
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by paul.blitz@Nov 12 2003, 10:15 PM
    So, the way *I* read it, there are no actual formally published GAGB guidelines on this website.... yet.
    Are you saying that those who said early on that the GAGB was being used a a vehicle to control caches over at GC.com were right? In that case these unofficial guidelines became official ones over on GC.com before they were official at GAGB. Which also gives a lot more weight to the "conflict of interest" accusations too.

    Looks like all the accusations of jumping the gun were well founded.

    I don&#39;t was to sound picky, I&#39;m just trying to get this clear.

  33. #83
    MCL Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r@Nov 12 2003, 11:26 PM
    I guess I do have to ask though ... currently is there a real reason for a non-committee memeber to have such access ... especially since it is a touchy issue right now?
    I can see a real reason, though I don&#39;t know whether the committee share it or not:

    It is both instructive and an encouragement to the younger members to let them see first hand that way the machinery works in the background, so that they might learn and become (in time) better candidates for committee themselves.

    Provided proper safeguards are in place I can see a real benefit in the long run with showing Mike and others how an organisation is run. And for those of you about to say "what if its NOT run well?", then it is an instructive lesson to a potential future committee member on how NOT to do things.

    "Place a boy on the straight and narrow, and, as a man, he will not deviate from it." Ah I knew my bible came in handy for something&#33;

    I see no reason why this should be a touchy issue in the first place, but obviously some feel it is.

  34. #84

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    10

    Default

    I have not been involved in GAGB for a long time now, so these observations are from the point of view of (almost) an outsider.

    Committee forums: as far as I can tell, the committee can let whoever they want have access to the committee forums. The committee forum is a tool for use by the committee as they see fit. It&#39;s not some hallowed symbol that the rest of us bestow on them. If I was the committee I&#39;d probably make all the threads readable but not writeable to ordinary members to maintain some transparency or I might publish them at some point when a decision is made and the discussion is over. Of course, whatever decision about who sees the forums is made has to be a consensus of the whole committee.

    It&#39;s worth pointing out that in most voluntary committtee situations, it is normal to coopt members for specific tasks without having to elect them.

    Site administration: I&#39;d be a little bit concerned from some of the posts about the way this is heading, purely from a practical point of view. In my opinion, rather than just give all committee members admin rights, a site administrator should be appointed by the committee to run the site i.e. make sure the forums are running smoothly and the web pages work, implementing changes on behalf of the committee and members etc etc. This is a distinct role from moderating the forums and deciding what content should be in the site. It goes without saying that the site admin should be somebody who knows how to run a site without breaking it - which will not be the case if all of the committee are jointly given the task (I am speaking in general terms here, the current committee may well all be ace web designers, but that won&#39;t always be the case).

    Current site: I came through the introductory pages to get to the forums. Now I&#39;m here it is pretty obvious that the committee has been elected and is up and running. I suggest the GAGB pages are updated to reflect that :-)

  35. #85
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Jeremy P@Nov 28 2003, 01:37 PM
    Current site: I came through the introductory pages to get to the forums. Now I&#39;m here it is pretty obvious that the committee has been elected and is up and running. I suggest the GAGB pages are updated to reflect that :-)
    I noticed that just today too ...

  36. #86
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Jeremy P@Nov 28 2003, 01:37 PM
    Current site: I came through the introductory pages to get to the forums. Now I&#39;m here it is pretty obvious that the committee has been elected and is up and running. I suggest the GAGB pages are updated to reflect that :-)
    100% correct&#33; You can claim your prize on Jan 25th&#33;

    But given that we are in the middle of preparing to move the web site, I guess we all just felt we should get on with the job of doing that, and THEN (or as we do the move) edit stuff.

    Paul

  37. #87

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    10

    Default

    If moving the web site is getting in the way of doing the job of getting GAGB going, perhaps you should think again about whether now is the appropriate time.

  38. #88
    Team Paradise Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by paul.blitz@Nov 30 2003, 07:03 PM
    But given that we are in the middle of preparing to move the web site...
    Takes about 10 minutes to move the whole site... If you need/want to move the site, what&#39;s the delay ?

  39. #89
    Teasel Guest

    Default

    There are a couple of issues, particularly with migrating the forums and membership database, which will take more than 10mins to sort out. We need to move the whole site at once, so that all links will continue to work.

    The committee don&#39;t have admin access to the current website (it&#39;s hosted on the same server which holds Tim&#39;s clients&#39; websites), so we&#39;ve just been putting any edited pages on the new web server for the timebeing, ready for the switch. If it&#39;s really such a big deal, I&#39;m sure I could email some edited pages to Tim, but as JeremyP says, why let it get in the way of getting GAGB going?

  40. #90

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Originally posted by Teasel@Nov 30 2003, 11:06 PM

    The committee don&#39;t have admin access to the current website (it&#39;s hosted on the same server which holds Tim&#39;s clients&#39; websites), so we&#39;ve just been putting any edited pages on the new web server for the timebeing, ready for the switch. If it&#39;s really such a big deal, I&#39;m sure I could email some edited pages to Tim, but as JeremyP says, why let it get in the way of getting GAGB going?
    The business of the committee is to run GAGB, not to play at web hosting. How long is it since the last committee member was decided? How long would it have taken somebody to get the pages onto the site (pages which you have already written)?

    I&#39;ve been away for the last month or three and nothing on the front page has changed in the meantime. If I was a cacher looking to join up, I think I would have given up assuming the site was dead. Get your flippin&#39; priorities right.

    While we&#39;re on the subject I don&#39;t understand the compelling need to move the web site. The committee do not necessarily need to have admin rights to the site, they only need control over the content. Why not just appoint T&J as web admins? In fact I think it would be a good idea to appoint a non committee member as web admin even when you do get this move sorted out to stop this taking the eye off the ball thing happening again.

    A compelling reason to stay here is that this site is being provided free.

  41. #91
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Jeremy P@Dec 2 2003, 08:56 AM
    I&#39;ve been away for the last month or three and nothing on the front page has changed in the meantime. If I was a cacher looking to join up, I think I would have given up assuming the site was dead. Get your flippin&#39; priorities right.
    I this is a good point ... a front page to a site that is both static (that is, doesn&#39;t appear to change often) and out of date is not compelling. In fact, it looks quite bad. OK, fine, existing members can post asking why it hasn&#39;t changed but non-members might thing that it&#39;s, well, boring.

    Also, while this is tricky and time consuming, I think that the site needs more content ... content, content, content. Most of the geocachers that will come by here aren&#39;t interested in the politics of geocaching but would like to read geocaching related content.

  42. #92
    MCL Guest

    Default

    ..on the other hand the committee are in fact only volunteers and do have lives of their own.

    I think the fact that they have successfully sorted in a very short time the enduring problem of the New Forest is evidence enough that they *are* getting their priorities right.

    Their priority it would seem was to get caches sorted before websites and thats the way it should be. I agree the website needs to be quite high on the list but I don&#39;t feel that the committee have been particularly idle.

    We don&#39;t pay them, so while we might call the tune, we can&#39;t always dictate the tempo.

Posting Permissions

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