Open Management for the Committee

[geocaching womble]

Hi Everyone,

I would like to put this forward to the other candidates and ask what their policy on an open style of management.

For those of you who know me from OC UK, you will know if there is something confirmed in relation to the benefit of the OC UK membership I will try to make the information as freely available as soon as I have it in my possession. I intend to do this if I am elected to GAGB Office as well.

What do all the other candidates think about overall transparency for the GAGB membership after the election and for the whole duration of the committee's term in office?

Thanks
Dominic

[daddyanddude]

I have to agree; from comments in the forums and facebook chatter in general, I feel that it needs to be the mission for any of us that get elected to the committee, to work with the chairperson and have a fresh start over the sharing/publication of management information. The GAGB has done some marvelous work in the past and we should never forget that. I see the future progressing this good work, but enhancing on the work done and becoming an association for all, and ensuring that information is shared accordingly.

The Committee cannot do everything alone. We therefore need to be prepared to listen to the members and take on board not only their comments but their advice and ideas. There are members withing the geocaching community that have a wealth of experience in many areas and they need to feel that they can become involved regardless of their standing within the GAGB.

GAGB members need to feel that it is an association for them - and feel included - we can do this by sharing, listening and being visible within the geocaching community.

[The Wombles]

It's useful to have a constant reminder of the need for transparency on the committee. The last committee did decide to post the minutes of their last meeting in full (without the previous abridged version) but ongoing reminders of the need to promote GAGB transparency are good.

[sandvika]

I made transparency central to my campaign to be elected Chairman and it features top of my list in my election statement to be elected to our committee now.

A member-readable committee discussions forum was one of our first improvements during 2008/09 and it got off to an acceptable start - a page of threads for that year - but then only a further page of threads for the next 3 years. So why has it barely been used? The reasons for creating the member-readable committee discussions forum would be the same now as they were then, and surely have been for the duration too.

A private committee forum and private reviewers (Groundspeak only as far as I was aware) plus committee forum existed in 2008/09 and still do, if the lack of dialogue in the member-readable committee forum is anything to go by. These should be reserved for confidential items only, but would appear to have been used for most regular committee business too.

It is possible that even email was used, potentially disenfranchising members of the committee from the process if they were not CC'd. Thus, I suggest email should not be used between committee members, except when forwarding external information / enquiries.

I think it should be abundantly clear to all that using forums this way if only for lack of discipline and no motive whatsoever is all that it takes to provide ammunition for our detractors, who can then make accusations of 'secrecy' because our committee is working in private. It's an own goal for GAGB.

However, the way our debate is taking place now, in public view, is excellent and the first step along the right path, so again, I acknowledge our outgoing committee, who agreed to hold it here.

Though our committee should be as transparent as possible, I think it is also the responsibility of our members to question what is being discussed, if there's nothing to see. I'd like you all to provide these checks and balances: you are entitled to expect the highest standards from our committee.

[keehotee]

Though our committee should be as transparent as possible, I think it is also the responsibility of our members to question what is being discussed, if there's nothing to see.

Members questioning the committee is nothing new. It would be nice to see those questions being answered honestly on occasion though

[geocaching womble]

A private committee forum and private reviewers (Groundspeak only as far as I was aware)

It also appiles to OC UK aprrovers as well

Thanks
Dominic

[Team Microdot]

This post fits well with my own view on this particular subject

I made transparency central to my campaign to be elected Chairman and it features top of my list in my election statement to be elected to our committee now.

A member-readable committee discussions forum was one of our first improvements during 2008/09 and it got off to an acceptable start - a page of threads for that year - but then only a further page of threads for the next 3 years. So why has it barely been used? The reasons for creating the member-readable committee discussions forum would be the same now as they were then, and surely have been for the duration too.

A private committee forum and private reviewers (Groundspeak only as far as I was aware) plus committee forum existed in 2008/09 and still do, if the lack of dialogue in the member-readable committee forum is anything to go by. These should be reserved for confidential items only, but would appear to have been used for most regular committee business too.

It is possible that even email was used, potentially disenfranchising members of the committee from the process if they were not CC'd. Thus, I suggest email should not be used between committee members, except when forwarding external information / enquiries.

I think it should be abundantly clear to all that using forums this way if only for lack of discipline and no motive whatsoever is all that it takes to provide ammunition for our detractors, who can then make accusations of 'secrecy' because our committee is working in private. It's an own goal for GAGB.

However, the way our debate is taking place now, in public view, is excellent and the first step along the right path, so again, I acknowledge our outgoing committee, who agreed to hold it here.

Though our committee should be as transparent as possible, I think it is also the responsibility of our members to question what is being discussed, if there's nothing to see. I'd like you all to provide these checks and balances: you are entitled to expect the highest standards from our committee.

[countrymatters]

I have no problem with transparency. But I do have problems with those who say GAGB isn't. Maybe I've not been on Committee long enough to know the history. I do know that with other organisations I've been involved in, publishing Committee minutes was something that was asked for, but never utilised, and never, over many years, produced any questions from the membership.

As for length of term, one year is insufficient, and works against continuity. You get to 10 months, and the temptation is to start slowing down, pending the election. Three years is better, with one-third retiring each year. I'm sat hear, for example, wondering how far I should go with the next issue of Seeker. Normally I'd have the framework all done by now, and maybe at least one article or picture portfolio in place.

[keehotee]

I have no problem with transparency. But I do have problems with those who say GAGB isn't. Maybe I've not been on Committee long enough to know the history. I do know that with other organisations I've been involved in, publishing Committee minutes was something that was asked for, but never utilised, and never, over many years, produced any questions from the membership.

As for length of term, one year is insufficient, and works against continuity. You get to 10 months, and the temptation is to start slowing down, pending the election. Three years is better, with one-third retiring each year. I'm sat hear, for example, wondering how far I should go with the next issue of Seeker. Normally I'd have the framework all done by now, and maybe at least one article or picture portfolio in place.

So your only incentive to produce the magazine is a committee place? Oh dear

So your only incentive to produce the magazine is a committee place? Oh dear

Just what I read as well.

A few more visits to the forum and less private dealings by some is needed.

[countrymatters]

What a warped interpretation.

[mollyjak]

I agree with transparency of the GAGB and the decision of full minutes to be posted was implemented through the last year when I agreed to it as a Committee member.

This is just one continuing discussion which will be needed to be addressed after the Committee has been elected as to what GAGB members wish to know.

[sandvika]

I agree with transparency of the GAGB and the decision of full minutes to be posted was implemented through the last year when I agreed to it as a Committee member.

This is just one continuing discussion which will be needed to be addressed after the Committee has been elected as to what GAGB members wish to know.

Different members will want to know different things at different times and all have a perfect entitlement to dip in, dip out of the discussion as and when they wish.

However, the onus is on our committee to make this straightforward through transparency. Our members should not need to ask and it is less work for our committee if our members are able to find what they are looking for, for themselves.

[mollyjak]

Different members will want to know different things at different times and all have a perfect entitlement to dip in, dip out of the discussion as and when they wish.

However, the onus is on our committee to make this straightforward through transparency. Our members should not need to ask and it is less work for our committee if our members are able to find what they are looking for, for themselves.

Of course they will ask as and when they wish - I didn't expect them all to ask at exactly the same time.

Plus the members do not need to ask for minutes they will be posted as is already being done.

Although to be honest with all this talk of transparency I just wonder what it is that everyone seems to think was being hidden and needs to be made so transparent???

[Zomblou]

In my experience people request/demand transparency, which I take to mean the publishing of all committee business, but when it's made available they don't read it. I think minutes etc would reach a wider readership if they were attached to Seeker if that's feasible.

[sandvika]

Although to be honest with all this talk of transparency I just wonder what it is that everyone seems to think was being hidden and needs to be made so transparent???

If GAGB had no detractors, I might wonder too. However, the whole point is to be transparent so that our detractors can see for themselves that nothing is being hidden. Some clearly think there is a hidden agenda, or some collusion with a listing site, or whatever, and this is damaging. If they can see that we have a perfectly normal committee doing perfectly normal things that you would expect a committee to be doing, their criticism can be shown to be unfounded.

It won't be an overnight fix, but at least we will be on the right path.

I can think of something that was even hidden from a new committee before the issue was pushed.

It was a couple of years ago.

[Team Microdot]

I can think of something that was even hidden from a new committee before the issue was pushed.

It was a couple of years ago.

Cool story :

Worse I allowed myself to be involved in the email chain which also did not involve people who were at that time on the committee.

Hence my belief that the Committee needs to be much more open.

[Team Microdot]

Hence my belief that the Committee needs to be much more open.

So you were trying to prove a point by only posting a weird half story?

I can't decide if what I'm feeling is simply confusion, dismay or both :

So you were trying to prove a point by only posting a weird half story?

I can't decide if what I'm feeling is simply confusion, dismay or both :

No, I was posting half a story because it is no longer relevant, except to say at this time in 2010 a email conversation took place were not all the then committee were party to and for some time the committee that took over from them were not party to.

To give a bit more information this was around the GAGB's relationship with a listing site. A situation which made me very uncomfortable.

The point is there was a lack of open management of the GAGB which is what this thread is about

The question is what you will do top prevent this happening in the future, I was just saying why it was important.

[Team Microdot]

No, I was posting half a story because it is no longer relevant, except to say at this time in 2010 a email conversation took place were not all the then committee were party to and for some time the committee that took over from them were not party to.

To give a bit more information this was around the GAGB's relationship with a listing site. A situation which made me very uncomfortable.

The point is there was a lack of open management of the GAGB which is what this thread is about

The question is what you will do top prevent this happening in the future, I was just saying why it was important.

Well, that's something of an imposition given that I don't have a mandate to do anything and, as you've already pointed out elsewhere acting without a mandate is a bad thing

But what I will do is ask you to stop beating around the bush with half stories, put your money where your mouth is - be transparent and - if you think it's that important get it out in the open rather than mysteriously dangling half a story for reasons I cannot fathom or if as you said earlier you actually think it's no longer relevant then shelve it.

I trust that answers your question?

If your intention were to derail this entire process and convince anybody who might be thinking of voting that they are wasting their time, I'd say you were doing a pretty good job so far :wacko:

Openness is still relevant.

The question is about the future I was providing an example of why I think openness is part of the process.

Please don't think I am trying to derail the process.

I want a GAGB that works that means getting a committee that's going to do the right thing.

I will continue to ask questions until someone earns my vote/s.

As for mandate, if you get elected your halfway there.

[Team Microdot]

I will continue to ask questions until someone earns my vote/s.

So presumably nobody has so far?

Why not be transparent then and tell us exactly what we'd have to do to win your vote/s?

Give answers that are complete.

I appreciate you will be working as part of a committee and that what you do has to be tempered by the wishes of the team not the one.

What I want is for individuals to give me an idea of where they are coming from, why they want the role and what they thinks they can do to drive the GAGB forward.

What they want for the GAGB and why that is important to them.

I also want to know if they will stand up and say no if they think it is in the best interests of the GAGB and its members.

So having a pop at me may not loose you a vote.

[Team Microdot]

What I want is for individuals to give me an idea of where they are coming from, why they want the role and what they thinks they can do to drive the GAGB forward.

How would you have answered these questions prior to becoming a committee member yourself?

What did you think you could do to drive the GAGB forward?

Did things pan out as you expected? If not, why not and what specific things led to you stepping down from the position?

Are you the one standing for election or me?

[Team Microdot]

Are you the one standing for election or me?

LOL - I thought you might answer in that way, hoped you wouldn't, but such is life

I had hoped you would see an opportunity to share, especially for the benefit of us newbies, your insight(s) so that we might have the best chance of learning from the issues of the past and thus becoming more useful to the organisation and to enjoy success both as individuals and as members of the team, moving forward.

But I guess not. C'est la vie

On the basis of what I've managed to learn so far I would have to refer you back to the original CV / manifesto that I was asked to submit - which is on this page https://www.gagb.org.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=4805

This is probably the best I can offer in the absence of a rich and detailed understanding of the inner workings of the organisation.

What I would add to that though, in the hope that it might help contribute to the complete answers you are seeking and in gaining a more rounded appreciation of who I am as a person, is that I recognised a long time ago that I am a systems person rather than a people person.

That means that sometimes I have to work that bit harder to make sure I listen well to what people are saying.

On the plus side though it does mean that I find it comparatively easy to filter out unhelpful background chatter and focus my full attention on fixing / improving systems, which generally yields better long term results than concentrating on any negative feelings people have about the systems they have trouble with.

Hope that helps

Team Microdot, that is a rush answer as I am off to see some Seals then to Hull for the da Vincis

I would be happy to answer the questions, though at present not the last one as it would however I worded it come across as an attack on a person and that is not what it is about.

Actually you answer is a good one. The team needs a mix of people and systems persons.

I am also wary of answering those questions as yet until all have answered. I don't want them to give answers I like. I want real opinions.

I am happy to vote for someone I don't agree with so long as they are pushing for a GAGB that is relevant. Geocaching has changed from a slightly subversive game of 10 years ago to a main stream one. The organisation eeds to move with this.

[walker clan]

Geocaching has changed from a slightly subversive game of 10 years ago to a main stream one. The organisation eeds to move with this.

And there be the answer to all the questions .....

[northking]

I've answered this question elsewhere. The committee won't be effective if members feel that they are not being properly represented or communicated with.

[amberel]

One useful thing Mongoose could do would be to change his tag line . The present one is counter-productive.

Rgds, Andy

And there be the answer to all the questions .....

No, that is just the recognition that the GAGB needs to change. Of itself it is not any answer .

Reet, leave it to the candidates.....