Thanks Thanks:  0
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 120

Thread: Proposed GAGB Constitution

  1. #1
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    I have now finished creating a proposed GAGB Constitution (along with some "author's notes") which the committee have had a chance to comment on & help edit.

    The proposed constitution will be found HERE, and the "author's notes" are HERE.

    The constitution is heavily based on the WHR Constitution.

    The plan is to ask for your comments over the next 7 days, and then next Friday we will run a poll for 7days, to vote on whether you want to accept the constitution: a simple majority of those voting will be needed to accept the constitution.... although we hope EVERYONE will vote in favour!

    If you have any comments, please make them as constructive as possible: I'm sure many of you have some very valid ideas, and I am quite willing to make sensible changes to the proposed constitution, if it helps to make it more sensible, and more acceptable.


    Paul Blitz
    on behalf of the GAGB Committee

  2. #2
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    (wearing my own hat now...)

    Before you ask.... the only reason the pages are placed where they are (rather than on the GAGB site) is simply that I have direct access to it, so can quickly post updates if required.

    I hope the notes I've written help you make sense of the constitution, which *is* a bit formal in places.


    Paul

  3. #3
    TaureanTrackers Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by paul.blitz@Jan 9 2004, 10:48 PM
    I have now finished creating a proposed GAGB Constitution (along with some "author's notes") which the committee have had a chance to comment on & help edit.

    The proposed constitution will be found HERE, and the "author's notes" are HERE.

    The constitution is heavily based on the WHR Constitution.

    The plan is to ask for your comments over the next 7 days, and then next Friday we will run a poll for 7days, to vote on whether you want to accept the constitution: a simple majority of those voting will be needed to accept the constitution.... although we hope EVERYONE will vote in favour!

    If you have any comments, please make them as constructive as possible: I'm sure many of you have some very valid ideas, and I am quite willing to make sensible changes to the proposed constitution, if it helps to make it more sensible, and more acceptable.


    Paul Blitz
    on behalf of the GAGB Committee
    I've just read your constitution and notes and think they sound "sound," but I've been caching only a few weeks, so have little experience on which to base an informed opinion. The caches I've done so far seem to fall into your guidelines, although one is within a drystone wall. It's very small and actually neatly tucked in, in a way that causes no damage to retrieve, but I can see your point; also, we mustn't been seen to go against the country code, it's been created for good reason.

    I notice, not today as I haven't yet hit a wrong button, that I'm a non-voter so won't be able to take part in your poll next week. What do I have to do to become eligible?

    Thanks for a good site and useful information. Keep on caching! :lol:

  4. #4
    TaureanTrackers Guest

    Default

    Whoops&#33; Just noticed that I didn&#39;t need to hit a wrong button to see I&#39;m a non-voter&#33; Knew it was somewhere but hadn&#39;t been really looking whilst deciding to write the previous reply <_< Sorry.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    117

    Default

    One point that needs to be addressed. It needs to be stated what constitutes a "voting member"

    and also as there does not appear to be a mechanism for membership to be renwed, requiring a 66.66% vote to change the constitution could allow a situation to develop where if there are a sizable number of lapsed members who will obviously not vote, then no constitutional reform will be able to be carried out. I suggest that item 11 is changed to read "Changes to the constitution must be carried by a majoriyy of at least 66.66% of votes cast".

    Other that that it seems pretty good. Well done guys.
    Muggle - One Voice - One Vote

  6. #6
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    One point that needs to be addressed. It needs to be stated what constitutes a "voting member"
    Yes, I agree, we need to address that point... I wasn&#39;t going to comment until I found out the "current status" of things.

    I *believe* that the list of voters has NOT changed since we elected the committee. How would people feel if we simply stayed with the same list? The advantage is that it is "fairly well defined".

    The DISadvantage of it is that it is unfair to recent, bona-fide, members, who ought to be able to vote. The *PROBLEM* is that if we go through the list of names, in order to "weed-out" the sock-puppets etc, and enable the valid ones, then we may still get it wrong&#33;

    At the end of the day, does it ACTUALLY matter that much, I wonder?

    ============
    Aside:
    Tim: any chance of some very rough stats.... how many "voters", how many "non-voters", and how many of those "non-voters" are likely to be "legit"?
    ============

    (After the voting for constitution / guidelines, the next thing we (the committee) need to address is the membership list. There needs to be reference to membership in the "Standing Orders" too... One thought, to keep the membership list fresh [and thus avoid the problem you describe] is to require an annual renewal - eg: we email everyone annually asking for them to confirm their membership, follow up again with those who don&#39;t ,to remind them ... I have other thoughts too, but this thread isn&#39;t the place to discuss them. Let me work out the draft Standing Orders & we&#39;ll thrash it all out there)



    and also as there does not appear to be a mechanism for membership to be renwed, requiring a 66.66% vote to change the constitution could allow a situation to develop where if there are a sizable number of lapsed members who will obviously not vote, then no constitutional reform will be able to be carried out
    An exellent example of where an extra pair of eyes spots something important&#33; What I MEANT was "2/3 of those who vote".... what was written CAN be interpreted either way... thanks for highlighting that one&#33; I&#39;ll go & change it.


    Other that that it seems pretty good. Well done guys.
    More thanks should go to whoever put together the WHR constitution that I based this on&#33; And thanks for the feedback&#33;



    Paul

  7. #7
    TaureanTrackers Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by paul.blitz@Jan 10 2004, 01:36 AM
    One point that needs to be addressed. It needs to be stated what constitutes a "voting member"
    Yes, I agree, we need to address that point... I wasn&#39;t going to comment until I found out the "current status" of things.

    I *believe* that the list of voters has NOT changed since we elected the committee. How would people feel if we simply stayed with the same list? The advantage is that it is "fairly well defined".

    The DISadvantage of it is that it is unfair to recent, bona-fide, members, who ought to be able to vote. The *PROBLEM* is that if we go through the list of names, in order to "weed-out" the sock-puppets etc, and enable the valid ones, then we may still get it wrong&#33;

    At the end of the day, does it ACTUALLY matter that much, I wonder?

    ============
    <_< It actually matters to those of us who are non-voters, are not sure why so and, who are keen committed people to anything in which they join. It would seem that the whole thing could become very static, if the the status quo is maintained without clear guidance on what to do to become eligible to vote. I shall find it very frustrating to stay a &#39;member&#39; of a society which on &#39;does it matter anyway&#39; would appear to wish forever only to accept my participation to a certain point and no further.

    I apologise if it&#39;s something I&#39;ve missed, but I would appeciate it, if someone would let me know if there is indeed a route to becoming a voting member. B)

    Thanks again for a good site.

    PS. What&#39;s a &#39;sock-puppet,&#39; please?

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    117

    Default

    Originally posted by paul.blitz@Jan 10 2004, 01:36 AM
    The DISadvantage of it is that it is unfair to recent, bona-fide, members, who ought to be able to vote. The *PROBLEM* is that if we go through the list of names, in order to "weed-out" the sock-puppets etc, and enable the valid ones, then we may still get it wrong&#33;

    At the end of the day, does it ACTUALLY matter that much, I wonder?
    I suspect that it doesn&#39;t. The sock puppet issue was blown up out of all proportion at the time. No one ever proved that the GAGB elections were affected by sock puppet votes and the only person who was accused of voting twice, actually didn&#39;t. The words "egg" and "face" sprang to mind at the time.

    I find it rather sad that there are a husband and wife team of geocachers that I know who have found in excess of 300 caches, use the same name on geocaching.com, navicache.com and GAGB but are tagged as "non-voting" and cannot understand why.

    The more members that the Association can attract means more views and a wider representation of geocachers in the UK. Maintaining a "them and us" voting system will do nothing but put off genuine cachers from participating in the business of the Association, and that can&#39;t be a good thing.
    Muggle - One Voice - One Vote

  9. #9
    seifer Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by TaureanTrackers@Jan 10 2004, 08:19 AM
    <_< It actually matters to those of us who are non-voters, are not sure why so and, who are keen committed people to anything in which they join.
    The reason that some members are voting, and some ore not is actually incredibly simple...

    When we were electing the committee, any members that registered after two weeks (or however long it was) before the first vote, became "non voting". This was done to stop people from creating multiple accounts and therefore voting twice in the elections.

    PS. What&#39;s a &#39;sock-puppet,&#39; please?
    A sock puppet is an extra account created by a member in addition to their regular one. This is usually done when posting somethign controversial when the member in question fears the consequences of their comments. A row was sparked when Moss Trooper questioned the validity of the elections due tio an 11th hour vote cast by a member called "Piggly". The questuion was raised as to whether Piggly was a sock puppet or a bona-fide geocacher.

    I apologise if it&#39;s something I&#39;ve missed, but I would appeciate it, if someone would let me know if there is indeed a route to becoming a voting member. B)
    Don&#39;t worry, we were all new to gagb at sometime&#33;

    Something the current committee are looking at (I belive) is a system where in order to vote, you must be a full member of the GAGB. In order to be a full member, you must have provided a means of contact (email address, mail address etc). This is no different to almost every other organistaion in existance. This also means is that you can remain annoymous if you wish to, but you won&#39;t be able to vote. Anyway, these changes are not for the very near future, and are an idea not a certainty, so this is not the place to discuss them please. Let&#39;s at least try to keep this thread on topic&#33; :P

    Mike

  10. #10
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Muggle@Jan 10 2004, 12:17 PM
    I find it rather sad that there are a husband and wife team of geocachers that I know who have found in excess of 300 caches, use the same name on geocaching.com, navicache.com and GAGB but are tagged as "non-voting" and cannot understand why.
    The answer to THAT question is that, when the voting was started several months ago, it was decided that anyone who had signed up BEFORE that point could vote, and anyone who signed up AFTER couldn&#39;t... that was done simply to stop anyone signing up with (silly example follows...) twenty names, and claiming 20 votes: such a situation would clearly be rediculous and very non-democratic.

    OK, a quick update: I have just been looking at the membership list, and it seems that my earlier assumption was *incorrect*. I believe that anyone who signed up before Xmas is currently on the "allowed to vote" list. A quick manual count shows 26 people who have signed up since Xmas, of a total of some 360 names

    Maybe if we convert anyone who joined before yesterday into a voting member, how would that sound? Yes, I&#39;m sure there will still be some "invalid" names in the list then.... but the effect they are likely to have on this vote is pretty small I would guess.

    (if you&#39;d like to email me - ie off-list - with their name, I&#39;ll happily confirm their voting status)


    paul
    (speaking personally)

  11. #11
    NattyBooshka Guest

    Default

    As many of you may know, NattyBooshka is a team of two. One of that team had a self-outed sock puppet (fairly obviously named&#33;&#33 that he now intends to use as his legitimate id for voting purposes. We assume that this will be acceptable to the committee and that that account will be given voting rights. We do intend, however, to remain as one id for all other purposes.

    Constitution looks good, just wanted to state our intention of making this sock puppet into the vote that the consititution states we are entitled to.

    Thanks for your hard work.
    Cheers
    Emily & Neil

  12. #12
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Looks like a good start&#33;

  13. #13
    Wood Smoke Guest

    Default

    Ok here are my suggestions

    1. Section 2, point 3, to read (change in bold) - establishing good caching practices by accepting advice from land, environmental, archaeological, historical, and other relevant bodies.

    2. Section 2 last bit to read - The GAGB aims to keep membership of GAGB free of charge for members if possible.

    3. Section 3 - What is a &#39;bona-fide geocacher&#39;? There will need to be a definition, or change it to read &#39;geocacher&#39;.

    4. Section 4 - If this is there, then the bit I mention above (in 2) should be removed completely. What would be better would be to combine both statements so section 4 would read - The GAGB is a non-commercial organisation and aims to keep membership of GAGB free of charge for members if possible. - and remove the other statemnet completely.

    5. Section 6, para 1 should read - The GAGB is an “online organisation”, and does not plan to hold formal meetings.

    6. Section 6, para 2 - A definition of &#39;voting members&#39; is required.

    7. Section 7, para 1 - Replace &#39;Chairman&#39; with &#39;Chair&#39;, and any other references.

    8. Section 7, para 2 - This is not standard voting procedure as detailed in the &#39;Rules of Chairmanship&#39;. The Chair should be entitled to a vote on all items and a casting vote in the event of a tie.

    9. Section 7, para 3 should read - In the event of a member of the EC resigning, the EC may appoint a caretaker to fill the post until the next annual election.

    10. Section 7, para 4 should read - The EC may co-opt such additional members as it may require.

    11. Section 7, para 5 is unconstitutional. You cannot appeal to the same committee that votes to expel a member. The idea is correct but the wording is bad. eg there is a reference to &#39;him&#39;, what about &#39;her&#39;. It needs rewording. I will email something to you Paul when I have a chance to think about it more.

    12. Section 7, para 6 is again badly worded and some stuff missing. eg How members are contacted and with what notice. As it stands 3 members can agree to have a meeting without even contacting the others.

    13. Section 8b, last sentance, I would suggest - Any expenditure must have prior approval of at least three members of the Executive Committee.

    14. Section 8e, should read - A independantly audited statement of accounts for the previous financial year shall be submitted by the Chairman to the members annually in January.

    15. Section 9, Chair - these are too restrictive. What happens if the Chair is unavailable there is no option for replacement. My suggestion is to remove this bit completely.

    16. Section 11 - It would be better to restrict changes to constitution to &#39;once a year&#39;, as you would when having an AGM.

    17. Section 11, last para - I&#39;m sorry but you can&#39;t have this. GAGB is a democratic organisation and &#39;the majority rules&#39;. If the majority want to change something it must be....that is democracy.

    18. There is no section that allows members to make proposals. Perhaps it should need a required number of members before a proposal is accepted?

    Yours Roy
    WoodSmoke

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    Section 7 para 1 implies that the committee must always consist of Chair and five other members. Thus if a member or the Chair resigns, there is no legal committee to appoint a replacement. Perhaps this should be reworded a little?
    ​​Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)​


  15. #15
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Wood Smoke@Jan 10 2004, 09:05 PM

    Wow, thanks for all the feedback&#33; The response is over several messages coz of the message size limit&#33;

    Let me take it step-by-step.... Oh, and please bear in mind the background of the constitution is that the original is used by a charity (and as such, is approved by the Charity Commission, so must be reasonably ok).

    1. Section 2, point 3, to read (change in bold) - establishing good caching practices by accepting advice from land, environmental, archaeological, historical, and other relevant bodies.
    Yup, happy to include that, makes sense (the bullet points were simply stolen from the aims published online&#33

    2. Section 2 last bit to read - The GAGB aims to keep membership of GAGB free of charge for members if possible.
    I think that ANY aim is always "if possible" isn&#39;t it?

    3. Section 3 - What is a &#39;bona-fide geocacher&#39;? There will need to be a definition, or change it to read &#39;geocacher&#39;.
    I was thinking about someone who goes hunting for caches (and is thus, by definition, a geocacher&#33 who has the sole aims of (a) putting blatently commercial items into caches; (B) trashing caches; &copy; bringing geocaching into disrepute. It is clear that they are NOT a bona-fide geocacher.

    If such a person is known about, then we have a very easy way to prevent that person from joing GAGB at the outset. With out that, then we have to let them in, and then have to expel them.

    (just went & got a dictionary... "bona fides n. (Law). honest intention, sincerity")

    4. Section 4 - If this is there, then the bit I mention above (in 2) should be removed completely.
    Yes, it is to some extent superfluous. The reason I left it in both was:

    a) it is specifically an AIM of GAGB to remain free
    B) The "subscriptions" paragraph came from the WHR constitution, and keeping it there lets us state the current position.

    If, for example, we decided at some future point to introduce some form of optional subscription (eg like GC.com did with premium membership), then that&#39;s where it would be defined.

    5. Section 6, para 1 should read - The GAGB is an “online organisation”, and does not plan to hold formal meetings.
    Yup, that is better wording, thanks.

    6. Section 6, para 2 - A definition of &#39;voting members&#39; is required.
    Yes, and will be included in the Standing Orders. (This very comment was made in the committee discussion, and everyone was happy with that)

    7. Section 7, para 1 - Replace &#39;Chairman&#39; with &#39;Chair&#39;, and any other references.
    The position is the chair, the person doing it is chairman (and under sex equality rules, means either male of female)

    8. Section 7, para 2 - This is not standard voting procedure as detailed in the &#39;Rules of Chairmanship&#39;. The Chair should be entitled to a vote on all items and a casting vote in the event of a tie.
    I&#39;ve been on committees where chairman has (a) vote plus casting vote; (B) just casting vote. Advantages of a chairman without a vote: - can stay more impartial during discussions; - with 5 committee, a 6th vote plus casting vote would lead to the chairman being in a position to "swing a vote". (Had there been 6 committee, I would have gone for the vote plus casting vote)

    I would be very interested to see the "Rules of Chairmanship"... do you have a URL or a copy you could forward, please?

    Any other comments on this please? Again, it was one of the topics we discussed in committee.

    9. Section 7, para 3 should read - In the event of a member of the EC resigning, the EC may appoint a caretaker to fill the post until the next annual election.
    (note: that para stolen almost verbating from WHR constit.)

    Are you wanting the rest of that para deleting too? Or were you just wanting the "new" member specifically called a "caretaker"?

    I&#39;m just thinking along the lines that if there were a requirement to call another election to fill the vacancy, then that member is indeed a caretaker. But if they stay for the rest of the term, until the next scheduled election, then they are hardly a "caretaker". In any case, the reason for bringing that person onboard is to act as a full member of the committee, so they have to have responsibility, and a vote.

    10. Section 7, para 4 should read - The EC may co-opt such additional members as it may require.
    Again, you meaning that as a complete replacement for the para, of just the first bit?

  16. #16
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    11. Section 7, para 5 is unconstitutional. You cannot appeal to the same committee that votes to expel a member. The idea is correct but the wording is bad. eg there is a reference to &#39;him&#39;, what about &#39;her&#39;.
    It is very constitutional, and again comes from the WHR constitution:

    The Executive Committee shall have power, after proper investigation (a) to reject any application for membership of Winchester Radio, and (B) after proper enquiry to expel any member acting to the detriment of Winchester Radio after giving such member written notice of the intention to expel him or her from Winchester Radio, which notice shall state that the member has a right to appear before the Executive Committee and to be heard in his or her own defence after giving not less than 28 days notice in writing to the Chairman of his or her intention to do so. The decision of the Executive Committee as to the rejection of the applications for membership or the expulsion of members shall be final, save that no expulsion shall be valid unless it complies in all respects with the provisions of this Clause.

    (The WHR constitution includes the para "All references to any one Gender should be considered as referring to both", but the sexual equality act means it automatically includes "her" without any need to say so)

    I think you will find it is quite normal for a committee to have the power (on behalf of its membership) to decide who may / may not be members. Its interesting to note that membership of WHR requires acceptance by the committee, whilst with GAGB, that is not the case.

    12. Section 7, para 6 is again badly worded and some stuff missing. eg How members are contacted and with what notice. As it stands 3 members can agree to have a meeting without even contacting the others.
    That doesn&#39;t need to be in the constitution (and its not in the WHR one either, where we DO have meetings). I agree that something needs to go into the Standing Orders though.

    I specifically left out the requirement for notice for a meeting, as there WILL be times (eg New Forest meeting) when a meeting HAS to be held at short notice... but then covered the potential problems by requiring ratification later on.

    At WHR, as Chief Engineer, I may need to do something that affects the organisation at very short notice. In such a case, I would probably speak with "a representive selection" of the rest of the committee (on the phone) and take action, but would then ask for full ratification at the next committee meeting.

    13. Section 8b, last sentance, I would suggest - Any expenditure must have prior approval of at least three members of the Executive Committee.
    Yes, good idea, much more workable.

    14. Section 8e, should read - A independantly audited statement of accounts for the previous financial year shall be submitted by the Chairman to the members annually in January.
    WHR just changed its constitution to remove the word "audited", and replaced it with "examined", and turns over about £8k per year. A legal "audit" would probably cost as much as the funds themselves&#33; So there&#39;s no way I can support the inclusion of the word "audited".

    I think any accounts will be sufficiently simple that all members will be able to "independantly examine" them&#33;

    When turnover reaches say £1k pa, then maybe external / independant examination is more relevant.

    15. Section 9, Chair - these are too restrictive. What happens if the Chair is unavailable there is no option for replacement. My suggestion is to remove this bit completely.
    The reaason for having a "job description" there is (a) so that potential chairmen know what is expected; (B) lets you see if a current chairman is doing the job&#33;

    Also, if you don&#39;t define what specific roles that person has, then why HAVE that role? That&#39;s indeed the reason that, at the moment, there are "5 other committee members", rather than web-master, secretary, treasurer etc.....

    So what ARE the chairman&#39;s specific responsibilities? All suggestions welcome&#33; (I can say that coz I&#39;m NOT chairman :-) )


    16. Section 11 - It would be better to restrict changes to constitution to &#39;once a year&#39;, as you would when having an AGM.
    Why? it&#39;s a needless restriction, and could actually cause problems. For example, we change the constitution, to discover that something we just did was not legal... oops&#33;

    At WHR (mainly for convenience) changes are *usually* made at the AGM, but I know that last year we did one part-way through the year, as we wanted to reduce the size of the committee, and wanted the changes in place for the annual elections at the AGM.

  17. #17
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    17. Section 11, last para - I&#39;m sorry but you can&#39;t have this. GAGB is a democratic organisation and &#39;the majority rules&#39;. If the majority want to change something it must be....that is democracy.
    Not true. The members CAN change the aims, but only as long as they don&#39;t cause a major change of direction.

    OK, silly example: "I propose that GAGB should fight for the banning of all caches in the UK, should ask members to remove / trash existing caches, and should lobby parliament to make geocaching illegal". That would make GAGB do a complete u-turn.

    No, if a group of members want SUBSTANTIAL changes to the aims, then the correct thing to do is to set up a DIFFERENT organisation.

    18. There is no section that allows members to make proposals. Perhaps it should need a required number of members before a proposal is accepted?
    Section 6, para 2 covers it, doesn&#39;t it?

    "Any formal discussions and voting which might normally be carried out at AGM’s, EGM’s etc will be carried out online. Formal proposals will require a minimum of 6 days notice, and require a simple majority of those members voting to be carried. Voting will last for at least 4 days, and no more than 14 days."

    Details of "how is a vote held" etc would go into Standing Orders.

    MANY thanks for all those comments. I&#39;m not disagreeing in places just to be contentious, but because that&#39;s just the way *I* see things. If others also think I&#39;m wrong, please speak up and change my mind&#33;&#33;


    Paul

  18. #18
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Bill D (wwh)@Jan 10 2004, 10:15 PM
    Section 7 para 1 implies that the committee must always consist of Chair and five other members. Thus if a member or the Chair resigns, there is no legal committee to appoint a replacement. Perhaps this should be reworded a little?
    Here&#39;s the original WHR words:

    The Executive Committee shall be responsible for the conduct of Winchester Radio and shall consist of a Chairman, Vice Chairman, Treasurer, Chief Engineer, Station Manager, Programme Controller and Fundraising Manager. One representative of the Health Authorities in the catchment area of Winchester Radio shall also have the right to attend meetings the Executive Committee.

    I think that is quite "normal" wording... given that the above is acceptable to the Charity Commision, I&#39;m sure it will be ok for us&#33;

    You happy with that?


    (I&#39;m working on simple principles re the constitution:

    - the more like the WHR constitution it is then the more likely it is to be legal / reasonable
    - keep the constitution simple where you can
    - you don&#39;t need lots of minute details in there, when they could better go in another document (eg standing orders)
    )

    For example, WHR has a set of "station rules". They are actually set by the committee (as per section 7 of the WHR constitution&#33;&#33, without any vote by the membership.... but at the end of the day, a group of members are welcome to take over on the committee, and change the rules if they don&#39;t like them (we keep hoping that will happen, but it never does&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33


    paul

  19. #19
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by paul.blitz@Jan 11 2004, 04:48 PM
    16. Section 11 - It would be better to restrict changes to constitution to &#39;once a year&#39;, as you would when having an AGM.
    Why? it&#39;s a needless restriction, and could actually cause problems. For example, we change the constitution, to discover that something we just did was not legal... oops&#33;
    A good reason is to allow the association to move forward as opposed to being caught up in its own red tape. Something unlawful aside, it focuses the association on caching instead of internal aims. I think Wood smoke&#39;s suggestion has merit still.

  20. #20
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by paul.blitz@Jan 11 2004, 04:48 PM
    17. Section 11, last para - I&#39;m sorry but you can&#39;t have this. GAGB is a democratic organisation and &#39;the majority rules&#39;. If the majority want to change something it must be....that is democracy.
    Not true. The members CAN change the aims, but only as long as they don&#39;t cause a major change of direction.
    Who then decides if any proposed change is a major chance of direction or not then Paul? Another vote? That&#39;s the problem with democracy but you cannot go half way. I don&#39;t like this. Again I have to side with Woodsmoke that with a democratic org, the majority rules. Otherwise, who does? Muddy areas like this only lead to conflict between members and entrenched committee representatives.

    Sorry if I&#39;m coming across as picky but this needs to be right&#33;

  21. #21
    Wood Smoke Guest

    Default

    8. Section 7, para 2 - This is not standard voting procedure as detailed in the &#39;Rules of Chairmanship&#39;. The Chair should be entitled to a vote on all items and a casting vote in the event of a tie.
    I&#39;ve been on committees where chairman has (a) vote plus casting vote; (B) just casting vote. Advantages of a chairman without a vote: - can stay more impartial during discussions; - with 5 committee, a 6th vote plus casting vote would lead to the chairman being in a position to "swing a vote". (Had there been 6 committee, I would have gone for the vote plus casting vote)

    I would be very interested to see the "Rules of Chairmanship"... do you have a URL or a copy you could forward, please?
    The book that is classed as the bible for Chairmanship is ABC of Chairmanship. I am not aware of an online version and I can’t find mine.

    9. Section 7, para 3 should read - In the event of a member of the EC resigning, the EC may appoint a caretaker to fill the post until the next annual election.
    (note: that para stolen almost verbating from WHR constit.)

    Are you wanting the rest of that para deleting too? Or were you just wanting the "new" member specifically called a "caretaker"?

    I&#39;m just thinking along the lines that if there were a requirement to call another election to fill the vacancy, then that member is indeed a caretaker. But if they stay for the rest of the term, until the next scheduled election, then they are hardly a "caretaker". In any case, the reason for bringing that person onboard is to act as a full member of the committee, so they have to have responsibility, and a vote.
    ‘Caretaker’ in this context is a recognised term for the position. Yes remove all the rest.

    10. Section 7, para 4 should read - The EC may co-opt such additional members as it may require.
    Again, you meaning that as a complete replacement for the para, of just the first bit?
    Yes remove all the rest, why complicate things?

    WoodSmoke

  22. #22
    Wood Smoke Guest

    Default

    16. Section 11 - It would be better to restrict changes to constitution to &#39;once a year&#39;, as you would when having an AGM.
    Why? it&#39;s a needless restriction, and could actually cause problems. For example, we change the constitution, to discover that something we just did was not legal... oops&#33;
    Ok look at this example which is not as far fetched as it seems…..

    A group wishes to take over GAGB (why, I’ve no idea, but assume).

    First, every week/month/etc they put forward a proposal to change the constitution.

    All the members get fed up of voting on petty constitutional changes, so stop voting.

    Elections come around, the only people left voting are the people wanting to take over.

    One of the main reasons why you have an AGM only once a year, and it takes a number of members to call an EGM, is to get the members caring only once a year, that way they show they care.


    18. There is no section that allows members to make proposals. Perhaps it should need a required number of members before a proposal is accepted?
    Section 6, para 2 covers it, doesn&#39;t it?

    "Any formal discussions and voting which might normally be carried out at AGM’s, EGM’s etc will be carried out online. Formal proposals will require a minimum of 6 days notice, and require a simple majority of those members voting to be carried. Voting will last for at least 4 days, and no more than 14 days."
    But it still doesn’t say how a member makes a proposal?

    Eg. Does it just need a proposer and seconder, or does it have to have the backing of say, five other members?

    WoodSmoke

  23. #23
    MCL Guest

    Default

    One thing I noticed was the bit that says what constitues a quorum at an EC meeting. I think it should be just more than half the commitee for one very simple reason:

    It is concievable in the future that a committee might be split over a particular issue and therefore possible for two separate meetings to take place each with three of the six members and come to opposing decisions. If this happens, which one is the "legal" decision? Each one can claim validity under the constitution.

    I have seen this happen in reality, just once, but once is enough to demostrate it is a possibility. Better to set the quorate number at 4, which removes this possibility completely OR make it a stipulation that the chairman must be present, which is actually a rather awkward one to live with.

  24. #24
    NattyBooshka Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by MCL@Jan 12 2004, 01:56 AM
    One thing I noticed was the bit that says what constitues a quorum at an EC meeting. I think it should be just more than half the commitee for one very simple reason:

    It is concievable in the future that a committee might be split over a particular issue and therefore possible for two separate meetings to take place each with three of the six members and come to opposing decisions. If this happens, which one is the "legal" decision? Each one can claim validity under the constitution.

    I have seen this happen in reality, just once, but once is enough to demostrate it is a possibility. Better to set the quorate number at 4, which removes this possibility completely OR make it a stipulation that the chairman must be present, which is actually a rather awkward one to live with.
    In principal I agree, but as the chairman is non-voting (except for casting vote) we effectivly have a voting committee of 5.... so 3 would be above half. I would, though, be more comfortable with 4 being deemed as a quorum.

  25. #25
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    The book that is classed as the bible for Chairmanship is ABC of Chairmanship. I am not aware of an online version and I can’t find mine.
    Thanks... I&#39;ll have a look down the library later in the week... and if I can&#39;t find THAT book, I&#39;m sure I&#39;ll find others.

    9. Section 7, para 3 should read - In the event of a member of the EC resigning, the EC may appoint a caretaker to fill the post until the next annual election.
    (note: that para stolen almost verbating from WHR constit.)

    Are you wanting the rest of that para deleting too? Or were you just wanting the "new" member specifically called a "caretaker"?
    ‘Caretaker’ in this context is a recognised term for the position. Yes remove all the rest.
    Would that still imply that the caretaker DOES have all the rights & responsibilities of the original post-holder? Or should that be spelt out (like the current version does?)

    10. Section 7, para 4 should read - The EC may co-opt such additional members as it may require.
    Again, you meaning that as a complete replacement for the para, of just the first bit?
    Yes remove all the rest, why complicate things?
    (as well as it being a straight copy of the WHR constitution) you don&#39;t feel we need to make clear "who can do what (eg vote)" as far as co-optees is concerned?

  26. #26
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Wood Smoke@Jan 11 2004, 08:11 PM
    But it still doesn’t say how a member makes a proposal?
    Ah, something like that would definitely be a candidate for the Standing Orders&#33;

    paul

  27. #27
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by MCL@Jan 12 2004, 01:56 AM
    One thing I noticed was the bit that says what constitues a quorum at an EC meeting. I think it should be just more than half the commitee for one very simple reason:

    It is concievable in the future that a committee might be split over a particular issue and therefore possible for two separate meetings to take place each with three of the six members and come to opposing decisions. If this happens, which one is the "legal" decision? Each one can claim validity under the constitution.

    I have seen this happen in reality, just once, but once is enough to demostrate it is a possibility. Better to set the quorate number at 4, which removes this possibility completely OR make it a stipulation that the chairman must be present, which is actually a rather awkward one to live with.
    Valid point....we had a brief discussion on this in the committee: I just looked back, and find that we never actually reached a conclusion&#33;

    One suggestion was that you could define the quorum in a different way, requiring 3 votes to pass a motion. That would work fine if the chairman has ONLY a casting vote, as a meeting of chairman + 2 others would only ever manage 2 votes in favour&#33;&#33;

    I think I was shying away from 4 so that (on a practical level) when people were busy / away, and we were missing members (like now), it would be possible to organise meetings fairly easily.

    Insisting that the chairman is there would make life very difficuly (and impossible right now&#33;&#33;&#33

    So, if people would feel happier with 4, I&#39;ll make it 4&#33;


    Paul

  28. #28
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    I&#39;d be happier with 4 after what MCL said&#33;

  29. #29

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

    Default

    Originally posted by paul.blitz@Jan 12 2004, 12:18 PM

    .........I think I was shying away from 4 so that (on a practical level) when people were busy / away, and we were missing members (like now), it would be possible to organise meetings fairly easily.

    Insisting that the chairman is there would make life very difficuly (and impossible right now&#33;&#33;&#33

    So, if people would feel happier with 4, I&#39;ll make it 4&#33;


    Paul
    I was also thinking about the practicality of meetings, but would be happy to settle for a quorum of 4 in light of the concerns raised.

  30. #30
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by The Wombles+Jan 12 2004, 08:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (The Wombles @ Jan 12 2004, 08:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--paul.blitz@Jan 12 2004, 12:18 PM

    .........I think I was shying away from 4 so that (on a practical level) when people were busy / away, and we were missing members (like now), it would be possible to organise meetings fairly easily.

    Insisting that the chairman is there would make life very difficuly (and impossible right now&#33;&#33;&#33

    So, if people would feel happier with 4, I&#39;ll make it 4&#33;


    Paul
    I was also thinking about the practicality of meetings, but would be happy to settle for a quorum of 4 in light of the concerns raised. [/b][/quote]
    Ok, no probs, 4 it will be&#33; I&#39;ll post an updated copy tomorrow (whoops, later today&#33


    Paul

  31. #31
    Wood Smoke Guest

    Default

    The book that is classed as the bible for Chairmanship is ABC of Chairmanship. I am not aware of an online version and I can’t find mine.
    Thanks... I&#39;ll have a look down the library later in the week... and if I can&#39;t find THAT book, I&#39;m sure I&#39;ll find others.
    9. Section 7, para 3 should read - In the event of a member of the EC resigning, the EC may appoint a caretaker to fill the post until the next annual election.
    (note: that para stolen almost verbating from WHR constit.)

    ‘Caretaker’ in this context is a recognised term for the position. Yes remove all the rest.
    Would that still imply that the caretaker DOES have all the rights & responsibilities of the original post-holder? Or should that be spelt out (like the current version does?)
    It’s not needed, in ‘the bible’ it is a recognised position and they take over full responsibilities.

    10. Section 7, para 4 should read - The EC may co-opt such additional members as it may require.
    Again, you meaning that as a complete replacement for the para, of just the first bit?
    Yes remove all the rest, why complicate things?
    (as well as it being a straight copy of the WHR constitution) you don&#39;t feel we need to make clear "who can do what (eg vote)" as far as co-optees is concerned?
    By default ‘co-optees’ don’t have rights unless stated otherwise.

    WoodSmoke

  32. #32
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Ok, am about to put final version of the constitution online, ready for voting tomorrow. The author&#39;s notes do not farm part of the document, so you&#39;re not voting on that bit&#33;

    Changes are:
    ----------------------------
    (Changed text, based on Woodsmoke&#39;s suggestions

    "In the event of an Executive Committee vacancy, the EC may appoint a caretaker to fill the post until the next annual election."

    "The Executive Committee may co-opt such additional members as it may require."

    "Any expenditure must have prior approval by at least 3 members of the Executive Committee."

    "historical, and other relevant bodies"

    "The GAGB, is an “online organisation”, and does not plan to hold formal meetings"

    (Other

    EC quorum now 4, not 3.

    -------------------------------

    I hope I got everything&#33;



    Paul

  33. #33
    yorkstan Guest

    Default

    A couple of questions (if I am not too late):

    1) How does the Chairman get elected? Is this done by the committee, or by the membership as a whole?

    2) As a follow on from the final paragraph of Section 7. How will the Chairman exercise his "discretion"? Will there be minutes of each meeting posted on the GAGB website, or how will the membership follow the activities of the committee? Will the notification of the timing of meetings be available to all members?

    Stan

  34. #34
    Teasel Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r@Jan 11 2004, 05:25 PM
    Who then decides if any proposed change is a major chance of direction or not then Paul?
    Yes, maybe this paragraph is a little woolly. To take an example, say a future committee (and 2/3 of the membership, of course&#33 wanted to introduce a membership fee. Now don&#39;t worry, I&#39;ve not heard any suggestions that we charge for membership, and personally I&#39;d resign from the committee if things went that way, but say we&#39;re talking 5 or 10 years in the future here. Is this a sufficiently major change that it should be permanently constitutionally banned? I&#39;d strongly suggest not&#33; But who decides? The committee as a whole? The chairperson? A vote of the membership? The founder members?&#33;

    If paragraph 11 is to remain, I do think that it should be clarified who decides.

  35. #35

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Originally posted by Teasel@Jan 16 2004, 11:08 AM
    To take an example, say a future committee (and 2/3 of the membership, of course&#33 wanted to introduce a membership fee. Now don&#39;t worry, I&#39;ve not heard any suggestions that we charge for membership <snip>
    Yes you have &#33;

    The topic was raised in the committee forums, suggested by one committee member and supported by another. You made no comment &#33;

    Sorry to divulge that here Teasel, but I don&#39;t think misleading the members is the right thing to do.

    As you are well aware this topic is being discussed right now on the committee forum, hell, just over 30 minutes ago you posted a reply &#33; And then you try to slip it in, in the members forum.



    Just so that members are aware:-

    On behalf of the founding members June and I have agreed to pass the domain names, copyright to the website etc. etc. to the committee once there is an undertaking that the GAGB will remain as was originally intended and promised, free of cost, open to all geocachers and non-commercial. Which was the premise under which people joined the GAGB.

    We are having a great deal of difficulty getting a firm agreement on this. We have objected to the very weak wording used and the weak way in which it is mentioned as simply an aside in the GAGB aims (part of the constitution).

    We have asked the following :

    Please add that clause as a bullet point and therefore as an integral part of the GAGB aims. If I might suggest the wording "Membership of the GAGB will not involve any expense on the part of the members or prospective members".
    <span style=\'font-size:10pt;line-height:100%\'><span style=\'color:green\'><span style=\'font-family:Arial\'>totally brassed off </span></span></span>

  36. #36

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    134

    Default

    As one of the SS (Sectet Seven as we seem to have been irreverently christened) I am totally opposed the membership fees. There are other methods of raising funds if that is what you wish.

    The clause put forward by Tim & June doesn&#39;t stop you making funds from other sources as in FUND raising events, just that you can not Charge members a fee to join now or in the future.

    You seem to have taken on the role of committee and to pot with others.

    Your action today does not instill my faith in you as a committee member and therefor I feel I must put forward a vote of no confidence in you as a member of the committee.

    I am livid at the thought that a content of cofidential conversation can just be made public
    Moss The Boss... Sorta

  37. #37
    NattyBooshka Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jan 16 2004, 12:33 PM
    You seem to have taken on the role of committee and to pot with others.

    Your action today does not instill my faith in you as a committee member and therefor I feel I must put forward a vote of no confidence in you as a member of the committee.

    I am livid at the thought that a content of cofidential conversation can just be made public
    Sorry Moss, who we talking about here? I agree that committee discussions should not be public unless in minutes, maybe that needs to go in the constitution too?&#33;

  38. #38
    Chris n Maria Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Tim and June@Jan 16 2004, 11:59 AM
    We have asked the following :

    Please add that clause as a bullet point and therefore as an integral part of the GAGB aims. If I might suggest the wording "Membership of the GAGB will not involve any expense on the part of the members or prospective members".
    Hmmm,

    Someone cleverer than me may have to reword that as for example if GAGB decide to have an event or meet, that would involve me in some expense (i.e. petrol).

    Moss says that "there are other ways of raising funds" - fair point but if we used (off the top of my head) a raffle would I not be able to buy a ticket ??

    I agree with the sentiments but the wording might need to be changed perhaps "any Expense" could be changed to something like "any direct membership fees" ????

    In addition something might be needed to prevent popup ads & or selling of the membership list, to raise funds.

    Chris

  39. #39
    NattyBooshka Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Tim and June@Jan 16 2004, 11:59 AM
    On behalf of the founding members June and I have agreed to pass the domain names, copyright to the website etc. etc. to the committee once there is an undertaking that the GAGB will remain as was originally intended and promised, free of cost, open to all geocachers and non-commercial. Which was the premise under which people joined the GAGB.

    We are having a great deal of difficulty getting a firm agreement on this. We have objected to the very weak wording used and the weak way in which it is mentioned as simply an aside in the GAGB aims (part of the constitution).

    We have asked the following :

    Please add that clause as a bullet point and therefore as an integral part of the GAGB aims. If I might suggest the wording "Membership of the GAGB will not involve any expense on the part of the members or prospective members".
    With all due respect, and thanks for hosting this site and all the work you have done in getting a GAGB up and running...

    Who does the GAGB represent? It seems to me that whilst the logos, name and internet address(es) may technically be registered in the name of an individual, or group of individuals, it morally belongs to the membership. Therefore, I see no reason why a member, committee member, founder member, or even past chairman can demand that the committee put in the constitution ANY conditions. In effect this is dictating to the membership that we can have a GAGB as long as it&#39;s run the way a couple fo teams want it running. To have a "no fees, not now not ever" clause in the constitution is wrong. What happens if other fundraising techniques do not work? I don&#39;t see why members of the committee should be expected to pay for everything.

    If the attitude of the copyright owners is that "you, the hundreds, play the way that we, the few, want or not at all" then I think we should disband the GAGB now and found the Democratic Association of British Geocachers right now... I&#39;m sure we have the skills between us to write the code to have a nice new website, and I&#39;m sure that we can find other places to host it.

    I feel that the membership of this association are adult enough to decide if we want to pay for membership. Of course, we all like something for free, but given the choice of a pay GAGB or no GAGB, I feel that all of those of us who believe in having an organisation to represent us would choose to pay for it. I feel that any cast in stone rule of this organisation dictated by somebody rather than democratically decided is wrong. I feel that the ownership of the site and the copyright of it, it&#39;s content and graphics should be turned over to "the chairman" or "the committee" as soon as possible.

    Thanks,
    Neil.

  40. #40

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    134

    Default

    The whole intention is to hand over copyright to GAGB when WE the SS are happy and that the FREE membership is guaranteed. Is it such a BIG issue in the whole gambit of things.?????
    Moss The Boss... Sorta

  41. #41
    Teasel Guest

    Default

    The topic was raised in the committee forums, suggested by one committee member and supported by another. You made no comment &#33;
    Nope, sorry, I have no idea what you&#39;re talking about&#33; I honestly don&#39;t remember hearing or reading anything of the sort. Any chance of a link to the relevant topic?
    Sorry to divulge that here Teasel, but I don&#39;t think misleading the members is the right thing to do.
    Tim, you are more than welcome to divulge anything which I have written on any forum, or the contents of any email you have received from me. This may well prove that I&#39;m a bad committee member, for not having noted the contents of every forum post, but it should dispel any suggestions of deliberate deception&#33;
    As you are well aware this topic is being discussed right now on the committee forum, hell, just over 30 minutes ago you posted a reply &#33; And then you try to slip it in, in the members forum.
    Your post on the "committee" forum indicated that some people thought that the current committee intended to introduce a membership charge. You requested an official statement by the committee on the "committee" forum. If committee members views are being misrepresented by gossip, then a public forum is the place to set things straight&#33; Your post on the "committee" forum requested a response and my pair of responses provided my personal stance.
    We have asked the following :
    Please add that clause as a bullet point and therefore as an integral part of the GAGB aims. If I might suggest the wording "Membership of the GAGB will not involve any expense on the part of the members or prospective members".
    Nobody has objected to including such a phrase&#33; (Though I fully agree with Chris n Maria&#39;s comments above).

    All that needs to be made clear is whether a future committee should be allowed to remove that aim (with the support of 2/3 of the membership). I myself would vote against such a motion (and I have made it clear that I would not be part of a committee which proposed it to the membership) but I would not seek to constitutionally prevent such a motion from being put before the membership. I believe that it would be irresponsible and undemocratic to prevent future memberships from reconsidering any change to the constitution, which is consistent with GAGB remaining a body of people dedicated to promoting geocaching.

  42. #42
    NattyBooshka Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jan 16 2004, 03:18 PM
    The whole intention is to hand over copyright to GAGB when WE the SS are happy and that the FREE membership is guaranteed. Is it such a BIG issue in the whole gambit of things.?????
    so the intent is to hand copyright IF we all agree to do as we&#39;re told? That&#39;s a big issue in my book. The members of the committee have been elected by us, the SS have NOT. We have entrusted the committee to draw up a constitution for us to ratify, the SS have not been given a mandate to demand anything is put in there. As far as I&#39;m concerned, any members of the SS have no right making ANY demands. Those on committee have had their say in the drawing up of the constitution. The SS have now got the right to request changes to it, here in the PUBLIC forum just like the ordinary members they now are, unless of course they are on committee. The committee have the right to resfuse such a request, and present the constitution in its current form if they so desire. The SS and the rest of the membership will then have the choice of ratifying it or rejecting it. That is the way it should be.

    Personally, I am appauled that a founder member, not on committee, is posting comments regarding the committee forums on this public forum.

  43. #43

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    134

    Default

    And is it not worse for a committee member to do likewise&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Remeber that I DID NOT bring the subject out of the committee forum, that was brought into this thread in a rather underhanded way by a committee member who had just been discussing it in the committee forum only 30 minuets earlier.

    As you keep saying GAGB is supposed to be democratic, but as a Founder Member am I therfore not allowed to voice my concern and anger at such an act.
    Moss The Boss... Sorta

  44. #44
    Kouros Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Chris n Maria@Jan 16 2004, 02:27 PM
    In addition something might be needed to prevent popup ads & or selling of the membership list, to raise funds.
    In my own name...

    I fully agree with you Chris.

    Perhaps the wording could be:

    The GAGB and its elected Committee will not require any necessary funds to be taken from individuals in return for membership or rights thereof, nor will it earn any income from any form of named sponsorship or advertising.

    This would allow a company if it so desired to offer free webhosting, or whatever, yet not receive any credit (not so obscure as it may seem), but does rule out the possibility of popups, or other advertising content, as well as membership fees.

    Kouros

  45. #45
    NattyBooshka Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jan 16 2004, 04:08 PM
    And is it not worse for a committee member to do likewise&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Remeber that I DID NOT bring the subject out of the committee forum, that was brought into this thread in a rather underhanded way by a committee member who had just been discussing it in the committee forum only 30 minuets earlier.

    As you keep saying GAGB is supposed to be democratic, but as a Founder Member am I therfore not allowed to voice my concern and anger at such an act.
    Absolutly you can voice you concerns and air your views... that is the right of all members.

    Now, the committee is not DEMANDING anything... they have drawn up a constitution, but as yet that is NOT the constitution of the GAGB. It becomes the constitution of the GAGB when, and only when, the poll closes with a majority of members who voted voting to accept it. I fail to see how this can be then seen as dictating from the committee.

    As there was no opposition from Teasel to T&J&#39;s suggested wording of the statement of free membership, may I suggest that maybe that is not the sticking point here? Are the SS asking/demanding that it&#39;s free now and always free? If so, let&#39;s see the words the SS would like in there... right here in the public forum, which is the correct place for suggestions to changes to the committee.

    Maybe I&#39;m missing something... Teasel said he&#39;d "not heard any suggestions that we charge for membership" which as he&#39;d not heard it is not bringing "the subject out of the committee forum" quite obviously. The only mention of committee discussion of this point is made by you and T&J as far as I can see... which does lead to other questions I suppose.

  46. #46
    Teasel Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jan 16 2004, 03:18 PM
    The whole intention is to hand over copyright to GAGB when WE the SS are happy and that the FREE membership is guaranteed. Is it such a BIG issue in the whole gambit of things.?????
    When the GAGB was first announced to an unsuspecting world, the founder members placed great emphasis on the fact that it was to be democratically run. Now you are seeking to go back on this promise.

    I realise that setting up a democracy runs the risk that people you don&#39;t like will be elected to the committee, or that someday, perhaps, more than two thirds of the membership may hold a view which you do not. But you have created an organisation that is bigger the founders, and bigger than any current or future committee. That&#39;s a considerable achievement, why can you not trust it to choose its own destiny democratically? We have well over 300 members, have elected a committee and are about to vote on a constitution. Surely now is a good time to handover control of the GAGB to its members?

    I think that it is a big issue, and it certainly seems like the founder members agree, as your actions over the past months have shown. By refusing to give the committee access to the GAGB membership database and web site, can you not see that you are harming the association you yourselves created? Threatening to take legal action for breach of copyright when it was discovered that the committee had taken a copy of the website and were in the process of bringing it up to date is not the best way to help GAGB to fulfil its aims&#33;

    Also, please be clear what you mean when you speak of handing over copyright to the GAGB membership. Your original position was that T&J would permanently retain the copyright, and that GAGB would be licenced to use it, only so long as it did not charge a membership fee or become a commercial entity. If the GAGB membership ever decided by 2/3 majority that it needed to charge money, sell pin badges etc, then the licence to use the material and domain name would cease. Is this still your position?

    The issue of whether GAGB is controlled by its members, or by the unelected founder members is very important, and now is the time for the membership to decide how the GAGB should be run.

  47. #47
    NattyBooshka Guest

    Default

    OK... I think the mists are clearing... who has access to the committee forums?

  48. #48
    Kouros Guest

    Default

    As far as I am aware, the elected committee members (Paul, Dave, Ian, Sarah and Myself (Pete)), and the Founding Members.

  49. #49

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Originally posted by Teasel@Jan 16 2004, 04:26 PM
    Threatening to take legal action for breach of copyright when it was discovered that the committee had taken a copy of the website and were in the process of bringing it up to date is not the best way to help GAGB to fulfil its aims&#33;
    I do not have time to go through and reply to this post in detail, but, You have again misled the members. I have not threatened to take legal action at all. Here&#39;s a quote from my post on the committee forum that you refer to :

    You did not mention that you were applying the pages to another domain name. Moreover, this domain was accessible by the internet as a whole. I have been advised to issue you with a cease and decist notice but thought I would wait until Paul&#39;s meet at the end of January and speak nicely with you all.
    So, you scraped the website, as you have scraped the membership list.

    <edit> Just thought, would ANY committee member who was aware that Teasel had registered another domain name GAGB.ORG (himself personally as the domain holder) and scraped the website and made it publicly available under that domain please say so here. </edit>
    <span style=\'font-size:10pt;line-height:100%\'><span style=\'color:green\'><span style=\'font-family:Arial\'>totally brassed off </span></span></span>

  50. #50
    NattyBooshka Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Kouros@Jan 16 2004, 04:45 PM
    As far as I am aware, the elected committee members (Paul, Dave, Ian, Sarah and Myself (Pete)), and the Founding Members.
    So, to address Moss Trooper&#39;s wild accusation that Teasel had brought something out of &#39;committee&#39; forum and into public view, how can this be so when there is no COMMITTEE forum, but there is in fact a COMMITTEE/SS forum.... which is visible to UNELECTED members of this association. When I voted for a committee I was not aware that others were already effectively on the committee without being elected. Shouldn&#39;t the committee have it&#39;s own forum visible only to them? and shouldn&#39;t the SS post their suggestions here in public like everyone else, or have they got something to hide?

Posting Permissions

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