Thanks Thanks:  21
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Committee Candidates (2017/2018) - Q&A

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    222

    Default Committee Candidates (2017/2018) - Q&A

    I invite members to post questions and for the candidates to answer.

    As there are ten potential answers/opinions to each question posted, please start a new"thread" in this election forum for each question to make it easier for everyone to follow the "conversation."

    The candidates are (in alphabetical order):

    GCHarribo (Harri Boorman)
    Griff Grof (Arthur Griffiths)
    Grahamthegray (Graham Haddock)
    Abiherts (Abigail Hamilton-Thompson)

    Leonards193 (Kim Leonard)
    Geocaching Womble (Dominic Murray ) - manifesto & photo & avatar received
    UKCACHEMAG (Adam Redshaw)
    Antreid (Ant Reid)
    Geopaul the vlogger/Dr. Evil. (Paul Standen)
    Border Caz (Caz Turver)



    The CVs/Manifestos are posted here.


    All candidates are requested to send their manifesto, photo, and avatar to me at ladybugs at geocachealaska dot org for posting in the manifesto thread and on the ballot.
    Last edited by LadybugKids; 14th November 2017 at 06:07 AM.
    In Alaska, the best athletes eat raw meat, sleep in the snow, and run naked.
    Ladybug Kids' gc.com profile
    Visit the GeocacheAlaska! website.

  2. #2

    Default

    I've had a quick read of the manifestos posted so far.

    My only real question is to Geocaching Womble, who states "I will look to revitalise the Seeker magazine and make it a publication to be proud of."

    Now, as the person who created the current design template for Seeker magazine (and who designed Seekers 30, 31 and 32), I'm a bit annoyed by this statement, as it implies that it isn't currently 'a publication to be proud of'.

    Perhaps Mr Womble did not mean his statement in this way, so I'd like him to expand on what he means by this statement, and what his proposals are for revitalising it.

    Ultimately, Seeker is what the editor (and committee) makes it. It is difficult to get good content for each issue, and even harder to get enough decent photos to accompany that content. To help, I personally contributed articles to issues 30, 31 and 32, accompanied by photos taken whilst I was out caching. What Seeker really needs is an editor who will chase people up for content which has been promised, and who will also actively seek out new content. Unfortunately, things happening in my life mean that I can't currently commit the time this would need, otherwise I would have stood for election to the committee myself.

    The audience for Seeker is quite simple - the GAGB members. Obviously it is also available a few weeks later to anyone wishing to read it, but it is not a commercial publication, and should not seek to be. UK Cache Mag fulfils that role, and Seeker should complement it, not be in competition to it.

    Personally, having been involved with it since issue 30, I think Seeker has struck the right balance of what has been needed over the past few years. I think it is already a publication to be proud of, and I am wondering why Mr Womble does not believe that to be the case.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    North East England
    Posts
    369

    Default

    No I didn't mean it in that way. What I meant was to improve upon the work of Seeker as a flagship publication for the GAGB and add to the existing work of Seeker by adding regular caching equipment reviews. I never meant to put Seeker in competition with UK Cache Mag as that is a publication that does great work.

    I also meant to increase the amount of content and offer a new perspective and put the best opportunity available and actually enforce content sharing for the publication I would be a strong editor who would ensure that any contributions to the Magazine are made in a timely fashion.
    I currently have the time to Commit to Seeker and I understand the problems. I do believe Seeker is a publication to be proud of and it was unintentional to say otherwise.

    I meant to say to make Seeker a publication to continue to be proud of and it was a missed word during the manifesto

    Sorry for any confusion
    Last edited by geocaching womble; 15th November 2017 at 10:52 AM.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    South East Wales
    Posts
    277

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by geocaching womble View Post
    <snip>I also have a great deal of cache placement experience as an OC UK reviewer, so I would look to helping update the GAGB caching guidelines and helping run the GLAD base but I agree with Ant Reid it should be shared amongst the committee so it could be more evenly balanced. Having spent quite a long time in the cache reviewers consultation group I feel I would be ideally placed to update and work within the guidelines and modify them accordingly.
    I was a Groundspeak reviewer for nearly 9 years, retiring earlier this year. I created and updated the UK Geocaching Policies Wiki which included the Land Owner Database. The reason it was set up was simply because the GAGB GLAD was neglected for many years. The only time the GLAD really worked (and that included working with me and the UK Wiki) was 2016 when Alan Brook took it over (can't praise the work he did enough). The year before that I actually gave up trying to communicate with the GLAD manager as there was simply no response. I just kept the UK Wiki up to date. I personally do not think the GLAD will work with multiple people trying to do all the various jobs it requires. If there is someone with the time to devote it shouldn't take up that much time. I admit Alan and I had the luxury of retirement to help us. If you are going to have multiple people dealing with it may I suggest splitting the roles so that, for example, one person deals with new agreements and another deals with checking old ones and renewals. Communicating with landowners is often fraught with difficulty so perhaps each should become the owner of specific agreements (regionally based?) rather than have multiple people handle communication with the same landowner.

    I was also interested in the "cache reviewers consultation group". I am aware I've been out of reviewing for 11 months now but I don't recall such a group during my time as a reviewer. May I ask which Groundspeak reviewers were involved in this group?

    Finally you mention working to update the guidelines. Again, during my time as a reviewer the only guidelines we used when reviewing caches are those listed on the geocaching.com website and in the UK Geocaching Policies Wiki. We did not use the GAGB guidelines. Will you be engaging the Groundspeak UK reviewers in any review?

    Edited to add.... I notice I'm still shown as a Reviewer. I can't seem to find where in my profile settings to remove this. As said in my post I have retired as a reviewer now.

    Chris

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Staffordshire
    Posts
    793

    Default

    I personally do not think the GLAD will work with multiple people trying to do all the various jobs it requires.
    Thanks Chris. It'd be interesting to discuss this a bit more. I've been a quite atrocious GLAD Manager this year and have thought through why and how to improve it. The biggest problem that I see is that GLAD has two quite different roles. I do think the various roles can be split up, and would be interested in benefiting from your experience in this.

    One aspect is a nice, calm job of managing a database, getting details right, sorting out maps and taking new ideas and building new agreements. I'm rubbish at that, frankly, and there are loads of people who could do it better. I'd say that's the core GLAD Manager role.

    The other main role is a Landowner contact person - some who can handle a mad panic - respond urgently - be a crisis manager when we get several phone calls in a 60-minute period from a irate farmer or worried neighbour regarding people who (claim to be) geocachers destroying their land, trespassing, or otherwise being bothersome. That requires someone who can calm these strangers down, find the place, work out what the heck is going on, and so on. I can certainly do that! It ends up with an offer to set up a new land owner (non) agreement or advising the reviewers to mark an area as having a history of dispute - sometimes archiving a cache to try to prevent strife - and I don't think it needs to be the same person as the database administrator.

    I think those need to be separate people. Beyond that split, there's a chance that we could have more that one person seek new agreements. That means the core of the GLAD Manager role can be kept to just one person.

    How's that sort of thinking sound to you?
    ~~~
    Ant, of Sharant

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    North East England
    Posts
    369

    Default

    Yes I would be working to engage the Groundspeak reviewers
    There is such a group it just has a slightly different name and isn't available to all members just reviewers and approvers
    I'm aware that not all reviewers were added to it
    I have accessed it and used it, I would work with reviewers from all listing sites to update the current caching guidelines and would like to be given the opportunity as a liaison person for this in order to help British geocaching into a usher in new era of better communication between reviewers and land agreements being correctly processed. Appropriately used and managed

    Thanks
    Geocaching Womble

  7. #7

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    South East Wales
    Posts
    277

    Default

    For me the most important thing when writing an email or letter to a landowner is to be clear and concise in what you say and to ensure it's written properly with correct grammar and spelling. OK, I'm old fashioned and was taught to write properly but if I received an email or letter badly written I'd not be inclined to treat it seriously. I think whoever does the GLAD role does need to know how to communicate well. Once a landowner is engaged with the process I think it important they remain engaged with just one person who knows the history of the agreement being worked on. Other people could be handling other agreements - I did suggest it could be on a regional basis. They would need to work together - sub committee?

    Drawing maps, writing GLAD descriptions are indeed skills people need to have. I was fortunate in having the skills to use the Wiki software and create and manage maps in Google Earth and Google Maps. It is time consuming though. When we brought in the Highways England agreement there were no digital maps so a colleague and I hand drew the areas for all the main A roads in England on Google Earth. It took several weeks.

    One of the biggest issues I had with the GLAD was the 'random' agreements that appeared. A cacher wants to place a cache, contacts the landowner and gets permission. That's fine. If they then decide to get an agreement of some type it ends up in the GLAD with no maps, no idea exactly where the area is. Didn't help us when reviewing at all. Cachers wanting to set up an agreement should know that the UK Wiki/GLAD exists and there is a process to follow. For example, there are 8 separate National Trust agreements when some years ago Dave Edwards negotiated just a single one for the whole NT. The reason the others have appeared is people have contacted a local office who in turn haven't been aware of geocaching and between them a new, separate agreement is created. Someone on the GLAD team needs to be "in on the act" for new agreements at an early stage to offer help and guidance. You need to get this information out to the community so they know how it works.

    Irate landowners. That process worked well when I was the contact point on the UK reviewing team. I would hear either from Geocaching HQ or someone from the GAGB committee/GLAD and could respond accordingly. It didn't matter who contacted me, I'd know it was from the GAGB and that was enough. I don't know how that process has worked in the last 10 months since I retired but I would hope it still works as well. I would always respond as quickly as I could.

    Chris

  8. #8

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    South East Wales
    Posts
    277

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by geocaching womble View Post
    Yes I would be working to engage the Groundspeak reviewers
    There is such a group it just has a slightly different name and isn't available to all members just reviewers and approvers
    I'm aware that not all reviewers were added to it
    I have accessed it and used it, I would work with reviewers from all listing sites to update the current caching guidelines and would like to be given the opportunity as a liaison person for this in order to help British geocaching into a usher in new era of better communication between reviewers and land agreements being correctly processed. Appropriately used and managed

    Thanks
    Geocaching Womble
    Ah... that forum group. I thought you meant some group of people within the GAGB or elsewhere and that confused me. That forum group was indeed useful.

    Chris

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    North East England
    Posts
    369

    Default

    No worries

Posting Permissions

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