Thanks Thanks:  0
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 120

Thread: Proposed GAGB Constitution

  1. #51
    NattyBooshka Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Tim and June+Jan 16 2004, 04:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Tim and June @ Jan 16 2004, 04:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--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. [/b][/quote]
    hmmm looks like semantics to me...

    "either cease and desist or we&#39;ll issue a cease and decist notice"

    regardless of whether a notice was served, it was threatened.

    At the bottom of the main page it clearly says "Copyright 2003 Geocaching Association of Great Britain. All rights reserved " of which Teasel is an elected representative and you are NOT. We have entrusted the running of OUR association to the committee from which you decided to resign. At the time of your resignation you should, in my opinion, have handed the running of the GAGB to it&#39;s elected officials at the first possible opportunity.

    The words "toys" and "pram" spring to mind&#33;

  2. #52
    Teasel Guest

    Default

    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.
    Just to clarify, the domain name was registered back on 4th November and the full committee were informed of the admin password on the same day that it was registered. I also granted permission for any committee member to change the password if they felt it was necessary. Same arrangements went for the website hosting, which was registered on 9th November. I even recommended that the ownership be transferred to a &#39;less "excitable" member of the committee than myself&#39;. :lol: A suitably calm candidate stepped forward, though we have yet to sort out the actual transfers.

    I was quite careful to ensure that the committee as a whole was given responsibility for the administration of these resources, as I feel that events have shown that it is unwise for such responsibility to be invested in a single individual, and that would necessarily include me as much as anyone else.

    The decision to copy the existing web pages onto the new site was made at a committee "meeting" (conference call), and I announced that I had done it in the committee/FM forum on 25th November. At Tim&#39;s suggestion, I also installed the new version of the forum software on the new site, so that it could be configured / played with, pending Tim giving the committee access to the existing forum database.

    The fact that gagb.org was temporarily publically available (showing the same content as the gagb.org.uk, apart from the empty forum) was a technical mistake for which I unreservedly appologise and corrected within 10mins of El10t informing me of the problem (on 6th Jan).

    &#39;Fraid this is my last post before Monday, as I&#39;m on a training course this weekend.

  3. #53
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    "Membership of the GAGB will not involve any expense on the part of the members or prospective members".
    The wording in the "Aims" section is currently:

    The GAGB aims to keep membership of GAGB free of charge for members

    (the word "aims" is in there simply because it is in the "aims" section. Otherwise it may have been worded "intends" or similar)

    You asked for me to add something into the aims section. You suggested some wording, which after some thought I realised was NOT suitable (eg coming to a GAGB sponsored meeting would "involve expense on the part of the member"), so I simplified the wording as above


    The wording in the "subscriptions" section reads:

    The GAGB is a non-commercial organisation and does not charge a membership fee


    It is not possible to write something that will ENSURE that membership remains free for eternity.... after all, all that someone has to do is to change the constitution. I would CERTAINLY argue that such a change is NOT "substantial".


    And yes, I *could* forsee, IN THE FUTURE, potential reasons that there might be a desire to introduce a membership fee... but either (a) it would end up being very contentious, there would be a large turnout for the vote, and you&#39;d fail to get the required 2/3 majority; or (b) everyone would generally feel that it WAS reasoable at that point, and thus the turnout to vote would probably be low, but you&#39;d get the 2/3 needed.

    If (b) is the outcome, then how can you argue with the desires of the membership (after all, it&#39;s supposed to be democratic&#33;)

    (It doesn&#39;t matter WHAT you do, there ARE ways to introduce fees in the future, IF THE MEMBERSHIP WANT IT SO)


    Finally, can I ask everyone why it has taken a WEEK for all this to suddenly surface? Is there a problem with the wording in the proposed constitution?


    Unless I can get this issue resolved by later this evening, I shall be removing the constitution as-is, the vote will NOT happen, and there will be a substantial delay while the whole thing gets re-written.



    Paul

  4. #54
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Tim and June@Jan 16 2004, 04:54 PM
    <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>
    I was fully aware of it. Whilst my first feeling (re the copying of the website) was of unease, I quickly realised that it was a very sensible precaution.... "just in case".

    To be honest, I was rather worried on a couple of occasions that you might decide to carry out the threat which you had made PUBLICLY, that of closing down the GAGB website.

    Having another site / domain name ready (a) let us "fully & correctly" set up a new web site, in preparation for a formal handover of the GAGB domain name etc; (B) gave us "backup" in case the worst should happen.

    I agree it was a cock-up that it was publicly visible at that time.


    paul

  5. #55
    Chris n Maria Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Kouros@Jan 16 2004, 04:12 PM
    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.
    Congratulations Kouros, You have now officially joined that large group of people who are smarter than me

    Chris

  6. #56
    Kouros Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Tim and June@Jan 16 2004, 04:54 PM
    <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>
    I was aware that another site had been set up, however, I was unaware that it was under Ian&#39;s name (I had presumed it would solely be under the GAGB - who will own it if Teasel is not elected next year?) and I was also unaware that the existing site had been scraped, and would&#39;ve (if known) suggested liaising with Tim about mirroring the site.

    EDIT: I had thought that the site would forward visitors to this site (which admittedly was what was intended) or, if needed to be used in its own right, that it would be a "new" site.

    I think that these may both be more due to my own errors, rather than anyone elses.

  7. #57
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by NattyBooshka@Jan 16 2004, 04:57 PM
    Shouldn&#39;t the committee have it&#39;s own forum visible only to them?
    It will when the website moves....


    paul

  8. #58
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Hi Stan&#33;

    thanks for the feedback....

    1) How does the Chairman get elected? Is this done by the committee, or by the membership as a whole?
    Elected by the membership, as is the rest of the committee. But your implication is correct... it doesn&#39;t actually SPELL IT OUT, does it??&#33;&#33; Oops...

    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?
    Chairman&#39;s discretion.... probably like other organisations: if there is someone who it would be useful to have at a metting, then he could ask. Similarly, someone may well be aware that something is likely to be discussed at a meeting, and may ask to be involved. Whether they are then invited depends on what is going to be discussed.

    I believe that the committee will try & post meeting minutes on the website once we "have things running"...

    Whether meetings will be publicised may depend on how far in advance they are organised, and whether the "content" of the meeting needs it.


    paul

  9. #59

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    675

    Default

    Originally posted by Teasel+Jan 16 2004, 04:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Teasel @ Jan 16 2004, 04:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--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.?????


    . 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?



    [/b][/quote]
    Moss by your own words, you are going back on one of the core parts of this association, that it would be run democratically. When the Founding Members refused to take part in/pulled out of the elections, or resigned after being elected. You all lost the right to dictate to the committee and thru them the membership who elected them&#33; That&#39;s if this association is actual a democracy?

    Would the un-elected founding members, confirm or denied, that they refused the elected committee access to the GAGB membership data base, and explain why if true. Would they also explain why they are accessing, what should be a private forum for elected committee members only, when they as founding members, are now only members with a different title?

    I was going to request help from the committee, to help in negotiations regarding the placement of a cache, I have already made initial contact with the land management officer, of the company owning the land. He seemed agreeable to the idea, unfortunately it is now out for consultation with the land management organisations for the area.These are the county council ,Welsh and UK environmental organisations, the level to which the attention to Geocaching as a whole could be far reaching&#33; Having learned that un-elected members of this association, could have access to details of the negotiations, I have now decide to just wait for a reply to my request. As I feel it would be wrong for me to even ask the parties concerned to enter into negotiations, when I can not guarantee that the details would be confidential. Dave
    My post is my personal opinion and as such you do not have my permission to quote me outside of these forums!

    Dave
    Brenin Tegeingl
    Formerly known as Mancunian Pyrocacher on GC

  10. #60
    BugznElm&#39;r 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.
    Excuse me ... but this is off the front page of the GAGB website:

    "© Copyright 2003 Geocaching Association of Great Britain. All rights reserved"

    If there are issues over control of the site, it is essential that the elected members of the GAGB notify the members of this ... if there is coersion of the democratically elected body, then they need to breat free of this ASAP.

  11. #61
    BugznElm&#39;r 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.?????
    Moss, the website already says that the copyright holders are already the GAGB ... clarify please.

    So much for having a democratically elected committee creating a democratically elected association.

    :angry:

  12. #62

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chippenham, Wiltshire
    Posts
    2,145

    Default

    Originally posted by Tim and June@Jan 16 2004, 04:54 PM

    <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>
    I was aware of this except for the public visibility (it didn&#39;t occur to me to ask/check). The committee agreed to copy the existing webpages against the eventuality that the existing service was not available, so that it would not mean the end of GAGB.


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

  13. #63

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chippenham, Wiltshire
    Posts
    2,145

    Default

    Originally posted by Kouros@Jan 16 2004, 04:12 PM

    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.
    I&#39;d agree with this or wording to achieve the same purpose. However, the issue is not the current intention but whether it could be changed in the future by a democratic process.


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

  14. #64

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Why is it that it always seems to be the same members stiring the situation. Personally I have had enough.. charge what you like, charge who you like this is my last post ever on this forum.

    Teasle.. I belive you have alteria motives.. You pay for a similar domain name on Lunarpages.. the same pages as GCUK. U run the web site for GCUK.. Your insistance on the clause to allow the committee to change the constitution on membership fee&#39;s.. WHY&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

    Natty bookwash.. there has never been any mist to clear.. only in your own biggoted mind.. you don&#39;t like me fine.. you win.. I&#39;m out of it.. if GAGB flourishes fine.. if it Don&#39;t blame people like yourselves.

    You try to do something to keep some thig free and the barack room lawyers rear their heads.. To hell with you and to HELL with GAGB.. I totaly dissacotiate myself from this..


    Tim Remove me as a member from this FARCE and my name from the GAGB site as a founder member

    You people just havent a clue have you..
    Moss The Boss... Sorta

  15. #65
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Good Moss ... you&#39;ve been allowed a say, that&#39;s democracy. This isn&#39;t about charging, it&#39;s about democracy.

  16. #66
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jan 16 2004, 10:09 PM
    Your insistance on the clause to allow the committee to change the constitution on membership fee&#39;s.. WHY&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
    Excuse me, but there was NEVER a clause in the constitution to allow the COMMITTEE to make a constitutional change to have a membership fee.

    The way that the proposed constitution was written, it would require a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, which would require a 2/3 majority of those voting&#33;


    Anyway, it has become rather academic now: the proposed constitution has been retracted, and there will NOT be a vote.

    When the current issues have been resolved (in one way or another) then another constitution will be made available for comment / voting.


    Paul

  17. #67
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by paul.blitz+Jan 16 2004, 10:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (paul.blitz @ Jan 16 2004, 10:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Moss Trooper@Jan 16 2004, 10:09 PM
    Your insistance on the clause to allow the committee to change the constitution on membership fee&#39;s.. WHY&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
    Excuse me, but there was NEVER a clause in the constitution to allow the COMMITTEE to make a constitutional change to have a membership fee.

    The way that the proposed constitution was written, it would require a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, which would require a 2/3 majority of those voting&#33;


    Anyway, it has become rather academic now: the proposed constitution has been retracted, and there will NOT be a vote.

    When the current issues have been resolved (in one way or another) then another constitution will be made available for comment / voting.


    Paul [/b][/quote]
    Why wait .. why not vote and see what the membershp think?

  18. #68
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jan 16 2004, 10:09 PM
    just havent a clue have you..
    Teasle.. I belive you have alteria motives..
    And YOU don&#39;t???

    You pay for a similar domain name on Lunarpages
    And? It&#39;s a public server. If I were looking for a place for a website, where I knew the service was "not a problem" then I too would use it. I did just that recently when buying more domain names: I stayed with a provider I knew, and had used before.

    U run the web site for GCUK..
    Well, unless something has changes, I believe you are rather wrong. Teasel may well CONTRIBUTE (eg scripting), but it is RUN mainly by Mark Thompson.

    You try to do something to keep some thig free.....
    The problem is that there is nothing anyone can do to GUARANTEE such things FOREVER. Rules can ALWAYS be changes. That&#39;s democracy. Most people seem to like democracy.....


    Paul

  19. #69
    NattyBooshka Guest

    Default

    Nice to see the committee speaking sense here, I assume that the two parties hurling accusations towards Teasel will be big enough to apologise to him as it is clear that he has not posted anything from a private committee forum here, nor has he set up a new website without the committee&#39;s knowledge.

  20. #70

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Yep and its a non democracy that gives you it.. And Paul.. you have just shown your true colours.

    I&#39;m out of here.
    Moss The Boss... Sorta

  21. #71
    NattyBooshka Guest

    Default

    Why is it that it always seems to be the same members stiring the situation.
    I dunno maybe we should ask Devil&#39;s Advocate&#33; Oh, no, that trouble maker is you... silly me&#33;

    Teasle.. I belive you have alteria motives.. You pay for a similar domain name on Lunarpages.. the same pages as GCUK. U run the web site for GCUK.. Your insistance on the clause to allow the committee to change the constitution on membership fee&#39;s.. WHY&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
    Teasel didn&#39;t say he wanted such a clause, do you need your biggoted mind de-misting?

    Natty bookwash.. there has never been any mist to clear.. only in your own biggoted mind.. you don&#39;t like me fine.. you win.. I&#39;m out of it.. if GAGB flourishes fine.. if it Don&#39;t blame people like yourselves.
    Mossy troosers... I&#39;ve never met you, I don&#39;t win but the GAGB will. It will flourish, your way it would have been fine with 7 members.

    You try to do something to keep some thig free and the barack room lawyers rear their heads.. To hell with you and to HELL with GAGB.. I totaly dissacotiate myself from this..


    Tim Remove me as a member from this FARCE and my name from the GAGB site as a founder member

    You people just havent a clue have you..
    "Toys" and "Prams" springs to mind again. Thank god that you guys were not the elected committee as I think we&#39;d be electing a new one by now with all the resignations that would have been flying around.

    Personally speaking, good riddance, but somebody who has been around as long as you have could actually be good for this game if you could get over your ego.

  22. #72
    NattyBooshka Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jan 16 2004, 11:04 PM
    Paul.. you have just shown your true colours.
    Indeed he has... keep up the good work Paul

  23. #73
    Chris n Maria Guest

    Default

    Ok,

    So i&#39;ve ready everything that everyone has posted and I have to say - what exactly is this argument about?

    As per usual I&#39;m obviously being really dense, shurly if GAGB is set up as free thats a good thing ?
    If (and only if) we all vote to pay to be members, then that is our choice - whats wrong with that?

    I&#39;m probebly missing something vitally important: but in a democratic association if the majority vote to change things, shouldnt they be allowed to do so?

    Yours
    Confused of Essex

  24. #74
    NattyBooshka Guest

    Default

    It&#39;s about whether the unelected Secret seven have the right to put unchangable clauses into the constitution without the members ratifying it.

  25. #75

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Shows how blinkered you are.. has to be ratified by members in first place don&#39;t it.. but htey can&#39;t if it isn&#39;t in there.
    Moss The Boss... Sorta

  26. #76
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by NattyBooshka@Jan 16 2004, 11:21 PM
    It&#39;s about whether the unelected Secret seven have the right to put unchangable clauses into the constitution without the members ratifying it.
    The next question is - what other constraints are the elected committee under from the founders?

  27. #77
    NattyBooshka Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jan 16 2004, 11:26 PM
    Shows how blinkered you are.. has to be ratified by members in first place don&#39;t it.. but htey can&#39;t if it isn&#39;t in there.
    The SS, not being elected, have NO right to demand that a clause be put into the constitution. The attempt to hold the committee to ransom with this clause seems to prove those people who thought the SS wanted to control the GAGB were right all along. Nobody is arguing against free membership, just against undemoncratic control freaks telling us all what to do. If you read the whole of today&#39;s postings to this thread you will see that there&#39;s only the two of you who believe that you should be allowed to push the committee around... guess it&#39;s not me who&#39;s blinkered&#33;

  28. #78
    Kouros Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Chris n Maria@Jan 16 2004, 11:18 PM
    I&#39;m probebly missing something vitally important: but in a democratic association if the majority vote to change things, shouldnt they be allowed to do so?
    I believe that the founding members would like to protect certain promises that they made when GAGB was first launched - and I can understand that. Although the current committee would be staunchly against it, there is a possibility that a future committee would encourage the GAGB to become a revenue stream (perhaps under the guise of promoting Geocaching in the UK, or whatever).

    There is also the possibility that the non-commercial nature of GAGB could be compromised (insert pop-up ad for RL&#39;s GPS units here).

    Not especially likely, but both are valid points, and very emotive.

    Personally, I&#39;d suggest that we&#39;re actually swaying a little too much away from what Geocaching is all about. There is a certain famous sig-line, which read something along the lines of "It&#39;s only a hunt for a lunch-box, why be so serious" - there is a need for what is being strived for here, but there should be no requirment for it to be so politicised.

  29. #79
    NattyBooshka Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Kouros+Jan 16 2004, 11:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kouros @ Jan 16 2004, 11:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Chris n Maria@Jan 16 2004, 11:18 PM
    I&#39;m probebly missing something vitally important: but in a democratic association if the majority vote to change things, shouldnt they be allowed to do so?
    I believe that the founding members would like to protect certain promises that they made when GAGB was first launched - and I can understand that. Although the current committee would be staunchly against it, there is a possibility that a future committee would encourage the GAGB to become a revenue stream (perhaps under the guise of promoting Geocaching in the UK, or whatever).

    There is also the possibility that the non-commercial nature of GAGB could be compromised (insert pop-up ad for RL&#39;s GPS units here).

    Both are valid points, and very emotive.

    Personally, I&#39;d suggest that we&#39;re actually swaying a little too much away from what Geocaching is all about. There is a certain famous sig-line, which read something along the lines of "It&#39;s only a hunt for a lunch-box, why be so serious" - there is a need for what is being strived for here, but there should be no requirment for it to be so politicised. [/b][/quote]
    good points, well made, but if it is ever the will of the membership to remove the suggested clause, they must be allowed to do so.

  30. #80

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Originally posted by NattyBooshka@Jan 16 2004, 11:35 PM
    good points, well made, but if it is ever the will of the membership to remove the suggested clause, they must be allowed to do so.
    WHY? you want folks to be charged in the future for yousing the site?
    Moss The Boss... Sorta

  31. #81
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    There&#39;s nothing wrong with a paid membership option ... look at GC.com as an example - free membership for everyone, paid for those who want to give a little back and they sell trinkets.

    Personally, that&#39;s how I&#39;d like to see the GAGB ... but that&#39;s just me&#33;

  32. #82

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    134

    Default

    and please.. don&#39;t be so pathetic to pick up on the english.. if you do.. prove that you can speak, type and use english as it was intended.
    Moss The Boss... Sorta

  33. #83

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    134

    Default

    yep and I&#39;m a paid up member.. but they don&#39;t charge membership fees as a prerequisite of joining.. and I don&#39;t want to see membership fees period.. and any form of non commercial funding is OK.. but then look beyond that into the accounting.. liability.. who is ultimatley responsible.. who carries the can when things don&#39;t go write.. I do have experiance of this.. Secreteries/Treasures nicking off with the funds..

    Can anyone state that those on committee are 100% trustworthy.. ??? ( I would like to add that that is not an indication of my feeling that anyone on the committee is untrustworthy in that sense)
    Moss The Boss... Sorta

  34. #84
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jan 16 2004, 11:52 PM
    and I don&#39;t want to see membership fees period..
    And as a member you&#39;d be free to vote against it.

    Why is choice a bad thing?

  35. #85

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Would it not be better if there was NEVER any need for funds.. then there would be no need for Treasures.. No need for accounts.. no need for acountants.. (who have to be paid).. No need for one person to be accountable in law.. If you don&#39;t have funds and rely on good will.. which seems to be sorely lacking in this case.. then the former is invalid.

    Don&#39;t it make sense to have constitution that won&#39;t allow charging membership.. period" and remember.. we are only talking membership.. and commercial..

    Keeping money out of the association will simplifie the running of it for one.
    Moss The Boss... Sorta

  36. #86
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jan 16 2004, 11:52 PM
    Can anyone state that those on committee are 100% trustworthy.. ??? ( I would like to add that that is not an indication of my feeling that anyone on the committee is untrustworthy in that sense)
    Trust is earned through being open and transparent and clear. Trust is about not letting the few be in charge and run the show but letting the members in on it. Every company or organization relies on trust at one level or another and nothing is foolproof.

  37. #87

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r+Jan 16 2004, 11:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BugznElm&#39;r @ Jan 16 2004, 11:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Moss Trooper@Jan 16 2004, 11:52 PM
    and I don&#39;t want to see membership fees period..
    And as a member you&#39;d be free to vote against it.

    Why is choice a bad thing? [/b][/quote]
    The choice is the members.. but we are having trouble getting the actuall wording in the constitution.. Thats what this is all about.. the wording of the constitution..
    Moss The Boss... Sorta

  38. #88
    concerned Guest

    Default

    Are you not at all worried that there maybe landowners reading this thread and drawing their own conclusions as to the reliabilty, validity, resposiblity of the infighting?

  39. #89
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jan 17 2004, 12:02 AM
    Keeping money out of the association will simplifie the running of it for one.
    So who/what will pay for web space, stuff for events, out of pocket for committee members ...

    Look at how GC.com outgrew their forum servers ... who would pay for that kind of upgrade here? Committee members?

    In an ideal world, yes, keeping money out of it would simplify things but none of the above grow on trees.

    bottom line though, this isn&#39;t about money, it&#39;s about being democratic and about the possibility for future change.

  40. #90

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Bug.. you see what you see.. thats it.. you don&#39;t know me from Adam.. if you did you would know that all I ever wanted was a platform to stop what was happening in US..

    Funds don&#39;t come into it.. Look at GC:UK.. they have members.. they are free.. but the members don&#39;t own the site.. Mark has always said he won&#39;t charge.. fine that is acceptable. yet seems to be unacceptable here..&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33 ;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
    Moss The Boss... Sorta

  41. #91
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Moss Trooper+Jan 17 2004, 12:06 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Moss Trooper @ Jan 17 2004, 12:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
    Originally posted by -BugznElm&#39;r@Jan 16 2004, 11:57 PM
    <!--QuoteBegin--Moss Trooper
    @Jan 16 2004, 11:52 PM
    and I don&#39;t want to see membership fees period..

    And as a member you&#39;d be free to vote against it.

    Why is choice a bad thing?
    The choice is the members.. but we are having trouble getting the actuall wording in the constitution.. Thats what this is all about.. the wording of the constitution.. [/b][/quote]
    Wording that will, in my mind, dictate the future democracy of the association.

    Anyway, I don&#39;t have any more to say ... Moss, I appreciate that you have deep views about this so let&#39;s just agree to disagree on this one for now&#33;

  42. #92

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Bug.. you see what you see.. thats it.. you don&#39;t know me from Adam.. if you did you would know that all I ever wanted was a platform to stop what was happening in US..

    Funds don&#39;t come into it.. Look at GC:UK.. they have members.. they are free.. but the members don&#39;t own the site.. Mark has always said he won&#39;t charge.. fine that is acceptable. yet seems to be unacceptable here..&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33 ;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
    Moss The Boss... Sorta

  43. #93

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r+Jan 17 2004, 12:15 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BugznElm&#39;r @ Jan 17 2004, 12:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
    Originally posted by -Moss Trooper@Jan 17 2004, 12:06 AM
    Originally posted by -BugznElm&#39;r@Jan 16 2004, 11:57 PM
    <!--QuoteBegin--Moss Trooper
    @Jan 16 2004, 11:52 PM
    and I don&#39;t want to see membership fees period..

    And as a member you&#39;d be free to vote against it.

    Why is choice a bad thing?

    The choice is the members.. but we are having trouble getting the actuall wording in the constitution.. Thats what this is all about.. the wording of the constitution..
    Wording that will, in my mind, dictate the future democracy of the association.

    Anyway, I don&#39;t have any more to say ... Moss, I appreciate that you have deep views about this so let&#39;s just agree to disagree on this one for now&#33; [/b][/quote]
    Agreed..

    Moss The Boss... Sorta

  44. #94
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jan 17 2004, 12:14 AM
    Funds don&#39;t come into it.. Look at GC:UK.. they have members.. they are free.. but the members don&#39;t own the site.. Mark has always said he won&#39;t charge.. fine that is acceptable. yet seems to be unacceptable here..&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33 ;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
    We all see what we want to see ... and that&#39;s fine. However, GC:UK is not an association controlled by members. It&#39;s a personal site.

    Free, not free. Really, that&#39;s not the point. The real point here is that some issue over site copyright (when the site is currently already copyright to the GAGB) is being haggled over here over wording that should go into the constitution.

  45. #95

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r+Jan 17 2004, 12:15 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BugznElm&#39;r @ Jan 17 2004, 12:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
    Originally posted by -Moss Trooper@Jan 17 2004, 12:06 AM
    Originally posted by -BugznElm&#39;r@Jan 16 2004, 11:57 PM
    <!--QuoteBegin--Moss Trooper
    @Jan 16 2004, 11:52 PM
    and I don&#39;t want to see membership fees period..

    And as a member you&#39;d be free to vote against it.

    Why is choice a bad thing?

    The choice is the members.. but we are having trouble getting the actuall wording in the constitution.. Thats what this is all about.. the wording of the constitution..
    Wording that will, in my mind, dictate the future democracy of the association.

    Anyway, I don&#39;t have any more to say ... Moss, I appreciate that you have deep views about this so let&#39;s just agree to disagree on this one for now&#33; [/b][/quote]
    Agreed..

    Moss The Boss... Sorta

  46. #96
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jan 17 2004, 12:18 AM
    Agreed..

    Super&#33; I hope you don&#39;t take any of this personally ... I don&#39;t &#33; And by the way, we did meet at the HCC bash&#33;


  47. #97

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    134

    Default

    No I don&#39;t take it personally.. just defending what I feel is right.. as you are.. and strangly that is what makes this democratic in a cranky sort of way..

    I belive we both have learned something.. nothing is ever as simple as it seems..

    PS.. may see you at the Late Chrissy cache bash if I can get down..
    Moss The Boss... Sorta

  48. #98
    NattyBooshka Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by concerned@Jan 17 2004, 12:09 AM
    Are you not at all worried that there maybe landowners reading this thread and drawing their own conclusions as to the reliabilty, validity, resposiblity of the infighting?
    No, anybody who has any inderstanding of associations knows that not everybody agrees on things. Personally I&#39;d be happy to see a bunch of people willing to stand up and fight for what they believe in, as I believe that both sides have done here. Notice that there is no arguement in the guideline discussion, just some suggestions of better wording, which have been adopted or discussed and rejected in a very civil manner.

    Of course, those willing to stand up and fight for something have the guts to do so under their own name. I have to then assume that you have another motive here. Why do you want to stop a democratic conversation? Do you want to come out and tell us who you really are? Or would you like to remain anonymous and spineless?

  49. #99
    NattyBooshka Guest

    Default

    ..to stop what was happening in US
    Not sure what in the US you are refering to here... care to enlighten us?

    G:UK is not a democratic association, it is an owned service and the owners of that service choose to supply if for free and pick uo the bills. If the GAGB went down that road, we&#39;d have to either:

    A ) Hope the SS with their tendancy to be oversensitive, history of resignation and attitude that "we were here first, we know best" would keep footing the bills, and keep the power switched on (it&#39;s been turned off once I seem to remember) Apologies to all members of the SS who have not got such a history of course, but I didn&#39;t want to get personal. Now, you were not here first in the respect that many of us have enjoyed walking in the countryside for many years, also people on here (that I know of) have been hunting lunchboxes for over 20 years now. This is simply a new way of doing it, and those of you who have been playing this varient for 3 years now think you know it all. You don&#39;t. Sadly you turned down help from those who do when offered it... how sad.

    B ) Expect the committee to pay the bills. This seems a little unfair, there should be no prerequisite of having available funds to be able to stand for committee.

    C ) Raise funds some other way.

    Now, I agree that membership should be free to all, but not that it should be cast in stone as free, purely and simply for the reasons quoted above... it&#39;s undemocratic. I like the idea of "premium" membership... maybe those paying would be a lot more responsible with any extra privilages that this got them that you have been with yours, commenting on committee discussions and then suggesting that it was the committee member who did so.

    The arguement of accountants and the likes is all well and good, but as the GAGB will have, at some stage at least, bills to pay, expenses incurred, etc etc... it seems pretty obvious to me that we&#39;re going to have to have some funds kept somewhere. Like I said, I&#39;m against the committee being MADE to pay for everything. Those funds need looking after, and they need accounting too I guess... maybe we have an accountant member who could take a look at them for free? Whilst it&#39;s a small fund with not too many transactions that could be a possiblility.

    The reason Marks very noble statement that he will never charge is not acceptable here is a simple one... he OWNS that site. If he could no longer afford to run it, I assume he&#39;d either look to pass it on to someone else, or close it down. Of course I don;t want anyone to have the power to close this down... one reasone we need to get off this server... and if we cannot afford to run this on contributions I&#39;d rather pay for it than kill it off. I would, of course, rather it be free, and I HOPE it is free forever, but I feel it is wrong to make this an unchangeable rule.

    As for other comments claiming that you only wanted this in the constitution, so we could vote on it:

    1) To date it seems most people would prefer different words.

    2) Unlike all other suggestions made and accepted/declined, we haven&#39;t seen the words that the SS actually want in. Teasel has hinted at them, and I have seen them (with many thanks to the one of your number who sent them) and I have to say, I would be even more appauled by them than I am of the suggestion that we make this clause unchangeable. So simply, so we all understand it, I ask this... IF YOU HAVE SOME SUGGESTED WORDS FOR THE CONSTITUTION, PUT THEM HERE FOR US TO COMMENT ON LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE HAS, thus folowing the protocol and procedure that the ELECTED committee have decided upon.

    Furthermore, if the SS want a nice free club that they can do what they like with, why not set up a secret seven website. You may find that more to your tatses than this association that has now, it seems, grown into something that you no longer like. I, and I&#39;m sure I speak for a lot of people here, actually prefer the way this is going. I have trust in each and every committee member, and I have a growing respect for them as they have worked on a very sensible document with the founder members trying to muscle in and control it.

    I beg the owners of the site to hand it over to the ELECTED committee who, on behalf of the MEMBERSHIP can be the guardians of the site... that could be cast in stone... words like "all copyright of gagb.org/gagb.org.uk belongs to the elected committee of the GAGB" would be fairly easy to come up with.

    Now, I&#39;d ask those of the SS who cannot accept the fact that we want a say in how our association is run in future to either accept that they are in the minority and let the committee get on with things, or resign membership and leave us all alone.

  50. #100
    Wood Smoke Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Wood Smoke@Jan 10 2004, 09:05 PM
    2. Section 2 last bit to read - The GAGB aims to keep membership of GAGB free of charge for members if possible.

    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.

    I have reposted above my original comments on this issue, and I still think the wording is appropriate.

    Unfortunately I missed the discussion in here yesterday, but I will post MY opinion here now.

    1. I believe in democracy, I don&#39;t accept being dictated to by anyone within a democratic organisation (which this is supposed to be) unless they have the majority vote behind them.

    2. I would like to see GAGB stay free to members, but lets be practical about it, that is unlikely. The voting members will decide that, not one or any small group of people.

    Yours Roy
    WoodSmoke

Posting Permissions

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