Thanks Thanks:  5
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: The GAGB

  1. #1
    nobbynobbs Guest

    Default The GAGB

    The idealisms behind the original thoughts behind gagb were genuine in that they wanted to be able to influence groundspeak, the (as yet) non profit making firm, in the running of caching in the UK so that there was a voice to stand up to the USA firm.
    They did this by working with the then reviewers to amend the rules imposed by Groundspeak, so that they better fitted the UK, allowing caches near railways and similar.

    The GAGB have attempted several times to communicate with other firms that run versions of caching with, to the best of my knowledge, no success. The only one that pays any lip service to them is Garmin's site that lists them as local guidelines to be adhered to , the others have just ignored attempts to connect.

    The reviewers and Groundspeak have used the GAGB to hold the list of landowner agreements and set the guidelines for cache placements. This is effectively only used by one firm, who are now a profit making organisation.
    Groundspeak have a very good situation going, they have volunteers publishing caches for them with no reward, and they have the GAGB to make the rules and take the heat when the Police or landowners etc need to complain or impose new guidelines to distance themselves from the negative publicity that comes attached.
    So... effectively the GAGB act as an admin call centre or, a customer complaints department!

    The individuals on the committee are honourable people who believe that they are doing their bit to enhance the hobby and stand up to the non UK firm, though in practice they do not appear to stand up against Groundspeak in any way-well, at least not publically.

    It's a very difficult position. Groundspeak are not really accountable, the reviewers have openly said that they do not represent UK cachers and are just representatives of Groundspeak.
    So... who is there to loudly and publicly stand up for the UK cacher who may have an issue?
    Do we need such a body as The GAGB? How can we accountably elect those without the call of elitism? They must carry the mandate of the community otherwise they cannot impose anything upon them.
    The counter to this is that too many people do not bother to vote in the general elections of the UK, let alone to vote people onto a committee that administers guidelines of a hobby.
    How many actually have any idea that the GAGB exist, or what role they take when all that they do is download an app and occasionally look for a cache.
    Those that do know of, and are aware of the guidelines... how many of those actually pay any attention to them, or just say that they have and still place caches saying that they have adhered to them?
    Should the apathy of the masses prevent the few from setting an example of good practice?

    To whom do the guidelines even apply? Do the setters of Terracaches,Opencaches ( of either type) or Navicache even realise that they are bound by them?
    Or, is it just a list of Groundspeak local rules that are imposed upon only those that choose to use that site? Reviewers are able to impose them without incurring angst against themselves (even when they are ignored)

    The urban rule is one such case, the problem was passed to the GAGB to sort out and take the blame but it effectively only gets imposed by Groundspeak.


    This is not an attack on the committee, it's not even a full blown attack on the GAGB - rather it addresses issues raised by many people over the years questioning the validity of the committee and the organisation as a whole.

    Telling people that they have to join to make a difference is correct but also incorrect. WHY should they join something that imposes rules, by proxy, for Groundspeak. They never asked the GAGB to exist. There are things that should be done by Groundspeak and their Reviewers, that are at the moment, being passed to the GAGB because it gives them plausible deniability.

    Time has moved on for the hobby, Groundspeak and the GAGB; the number of people engaging in the hobby has increased exponentially further decreasing the mandate that the committee have.

    I am obviously speaking for myself. I was wrestling with these thoughts when I decided that I needed to leave the committee, to take time out and see if others could find any answers to the questions or to see if I could find any myself from a different perspective.
    To date, if I am very honest, I haven't.
    I will say again and very clearly, this is not an attack on the committee personally, and I hope that they will realise that. I consider them to be personal friends and I can only hope that they consider me the same after this post, but will understand if they do not.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    563

    Default

    I believe that we need a group representing UK (or should I say GB?)
    cachers.

    At the moment GAGB has very low membership as a % of cachers, but the more cachers that join GAGB, the more potential is created for it to make a difference.
    GAGB Member since 2009
    UK Mega West Mids Committee - Treasurer 2011 - 2013
    GAGB Committee - Treasurer 2016 -

  3. #3
    nobbynobbs Guest

    Default

    It is a sad day when there is more reasoned and engaging debate regarding the validity of an argument on the groundspeak forums than on the site that it pertains to.

  4. #4
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobbynobbs View Post
    It is a sad day when there is more reasoned and engaging debate regarding the validity of an argument on the groundspeak forums than on the site that it pertains to.
    To be fair, I suggest that has more to do with your decision to post on both forums. That's bound to dilute the debate because most people will reply on only one.

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobbynobbs View Post
    It is a sad day when there is more reasoned and engaging debate regarding the validity of an argument on the groundspeak forums than on the site that it pertains to.



    There's several possible explanations for that including:

    1. There are more varied views on the Groundspeak forums than there are over here

    2. The membership here are more interested in doing it than talking about it

    3. The membership here have already decided their position and see no need for a debate







    Life is too important to take seriously !

Posting Permissions

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