More bad news for BCA modernisers

[Pitlamp]

There is the possibility of course that "they" just don't think this is the right arena to discuss it?

I've learned in life that jumping to conclusions too quickly is sometimes counter productive. Please understand I'm not taking any of the perceived "sides" here - this isn't my argument.
Just saying . . . .

 

[Ian P]

Another great loss for British Caving.

From what I could see Matt and Gary were an incredible team together complimenting each other?s skills. (Synergy personified)

To try and get the ?other sides point of view? I went to the CSCC website to look for clues. A bit tricky to navigate but a quick look around didn?t find anything to change my thoughts, if anything my opinions are reinforced.

A couple of bits caught my eye, copied below. (I appreciate they are out of ?context? but this is not to slant any view, the full documents are on the website)

We on the ?outside? can only base our thoughts on the information we have.

I wish Matt and Gary all the best for the future and thanks for all your efforts.




?The CSCC is once again accused of being negative and resisting change, we do not see it that way, we are working to ensure the continuation of British Caving as we know it and not to promote some hidden agenda where individuals rule the roost and access and insurance could be used to force cavers to toe the party line.
?Snip?
CSCC recommends that you vote against the removal of the group vote and its associated constitutional changes and show support for the retention of British caving as we know it,now and into the future. This recommendation was agreed unanimously at the last CSCC meeting?


?AB to make a formal complaint to BCA on CSCC?s behalf regarding the following points:
? In the past to represent a club at the BCA AGM, a letter naming the representative, on headed note paper, signed by the club secretary, was required. In this meeting many of the clubs represented, presented signatures on bits of torn up tea box and napkins. This shows very poor respect for the meeting and those have worked tirelessly behind the scenes to bring the meeting together and make BCA function for cavers.?

 

[Fishes]

Perhaps if someone is unwilling to defend their behaviour publically it's because it is indefensible.
[/quote]

Or more likely that they feel its not appropriate to have such a public discussion in a forum like this about issues that are often much more complex and nuanced than most of us realise.

 

[Jopo]

There is the possibility of course that "they" just don't think this is the right arena to discuss it?

If the BCA is to modernise and have electronic voting there has to be a web based forum for debates to take place and information passed on.
Perhaps those who don't wish to modernise realise that by moving into the digital age arguments and debates have to be well thought out and presented - not just 'it was always that way'.
I believe in 2020 is impossible to have a nationally representative body based on a AGM attended by less than 10% of the membership. There is simply too much information out there to hid in the dark anymore.

I am by no means promoting this forum as the right one but to move forward with any degree of member representation there has to be one.

Jopo

 

[2xw]

Anything too complex or nuanced to be discussed in public is too complex and nuanced to be submitted to an AGM - which is public.

I expect they'll be publishing the minutes of the meeting where they decided on them... any day now... 

 

[PeteHall]

I expect they'll be publishing the minutes of the meeting where they decided on them... any day now... 

I expect not.

I believe that the CSCC secretary and his laptop with the notes and recording of the meeting are about 500 miles apart due to the timing of the lockdown. As I understand it, the minutes will not be available before lockdown is lifted and the secretary and his notes are reunited.

I have heard this from a number of sources and have no reason to doubt it, however a brief clarification from the CSCC would be nice.

 

[Ed]

I expect they'll be publishing the minutes of the meeting where they decided on them... any day now... 

I expect not.

I believe that the CSCC secretary and his laptop with the notes and recording of the meeting are about 500 miles apart due to the timing of the lockdown. As I understand it, the minutes will not be available before lockdown is lifted and the secretary and his notes are reunited.

I have heard this from a number of sources and have no reason to doubt it, however a brief clarification from the CSCC would be nice.

If only CSCC got with the 21 century and had a copy of the minutes on a cloud server.......

 

[mikem]

Bit of a challenge with no internet, or decent signal, at the Hunters'! (BTW - have you seen Roger's collection of mobile phones nailed to a board?)

 

[Cavematt]

Many of these issues arise when large organisations (such as regional councils) cease to interact proactively with their members and the very people they are meant to represent.

A handful of individuals then stay in position for long periods of time, proclaiming to represent that organisation, and becoming more and more entrenched in their own personal views, more attached to those positions, more fearful of relinquishing that position in case someone comes into it and changes things, undoing years of hard work. They gap between what they want, and what their members want grows larger without anyone realising and next thing you know, personal agendas are being pushed under the name of that organisation or regional council.

Remember; the CSCC proposals include the direct elimination of the roles that Gary and Jane, two proactive modernisers, currently hold in the BCA. These proposals are just directly malicious and are designed to drive out two of the BCA?s newest and most enthusiastic volunteers. There is absolutely no way in the world these can be spun as being ?in the best interests of British Caving? as the CSCC would have us believe. I find it absolutely impossible to imagine the CSCC members would agree with these proposals being put forward, as they have been, with their stamp of approval.

It is understandable that neither Gary or Jane wish to hang around with such underhand efforts being made to oust them, in the name of an entire caving region.

Neither Gary or I take the issuing of such criticism lightly. Believe, me, the criticism Gary and I have made in our statements over the past few months have come after lengthy failed efforts to resolve these issues in a more respectful way outside of the public eye, and then after seeing the deliberate attempts to undermine us and the relentless barriers imposed at every stage by a small number of people proclaiming to represent a large number of people.

The issues also arise because cavers have better things to do than attend meetings and get involved with regional councils. This is totally understandable, but it means the people calling the shots are infrequently questioned or held to account. Nobody ever asks ?hang on, did I agree to that??

Eventually however all such issues come to a head. A similar situation happened in the CNCC in 2014. The former Officers at the time were great people but had been in position for a long time, proactive engagement with northern cavers was minimal, and the impatience of cavers with the access situation in the Dales at the time had gone unacknowledged. They were desperate to get out of their roles but nobody came forward. In 2014, northern cavers made a stand. This was quite messy for a little while, but the result was new people getting involved.

I have wondered whether this is a cycle, and one that repeats every 10 years or so? We shall see.

If southern cavers are dissatisfied with the CSCC, they too need to make a stand. The end result could be a progressive and revitalised Council that does more than barely make quorum at each meeting and that exists for more reasons than just maintaining the status quo. But it may also be that southern cavers are very happy with the status quo; I simply don?t know.

Finally, I should clarify that although myself, Gary and Jane have been the focus of several of the discussions due to our stepping back from our BCA roles, we are far from the only modernisers within the BCA. The BCA Council is a generally fairly progressive group who have supported most change over the past year, and credit is due to a number of them who work so hard in their own roles and have delivered real change. I?m not going to pick out names as that would most likely result in the accidental omission of some great people, but many of you are reading this and you know who you are.

 

[Pitlamp]

There is the possibility of course that "they" just don't think this is the right arena to discuss it?

If the BCA is to modernise and have electronic voting there has to be a web based forum for debates to take place and information passed on.

(bit of text left out here)

I am by no means promoting this forum as the right one but to move forward with any degree of member representation there has to be one.

Jopo

I'm also a massive fan of this UKCaving forum - but . . . .
This is something I've suggested in the past on here. Discussions of this type really should be on BCA's own independent forum. It has one of course ( https://british-caving.org.uk/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=4 ) but few cavers use it presently. Perhaps the answer is a drive to get the BCA forum used more?

I'd very much like to point out that I don't want to direct attention away from here (i.e. the UKCaving forum) because it's run by dedicated volunteers and is absolutely excellent. It's just that I've always thought BCA business would be most efficiently done on BCA's forum.

 

[Brains]

There is the possibility of course that "they" just don't think this is the right arena to discuss it?

If the BCA is to modernise and have electronic voting there has to be a web based forum for debates to take place and information passed on.

(bit of text left out here)

I am by no means promoting this forum as the right one but to move forward with any degree of member representation there has to be one.

Jopo

I'm also a massive fan of this UKCaving forum - but . . . .
This is something I've suggested in the past on here. Discussions of this type really should be on BCA's own independent forum. It has one of course ( https://british-caving.org.uk/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=4 ) but few cavers use it presently. Perhaps the answer is a drive to get the BCA forum used more?

I'd very much like to point out that I don't want to direct attention away from here (i.e. the UKCaving forum) because it's run by dedicated volunteers and is absolutely excellent. It's just that I've always thought BCA business would be most efficiently done on BCA's forum.

Techie question... Could the BCA forum be linked to appear as a "Board" on other websites - eg this one AND Darkness Below so more people of differing points of view get to see the BCA discussions, without being tied to any particular subset of cavers?

 

[Pitlamp]

That's a really good suggestion but is the Darkness Below site actually a "forum"?

 

[PeteHall]

There is the possibility of course that "they" just don't think this is the right arena to discuss it?

If the BCA is to modernise and have electronic voting there has to be a web based forum for debates to take place and information passed on.

(bit of text left out here)

I am by no means promoting this forum as the right one but to move forward with any degree of member representation there has to be one.

Jopo

I'm also a massive fan of this UKCaving forum - but . . . .
This is something I've suggested in the past on here. Discussions of this type really should be on BCA's own independent forum. It has one of course ( https://british-caving.org.uk/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=4 ) but few cavers use it presently. Perhaps the answer is a drive to get the BCA forum used more?

I'd very much like to point out that I don't want to direct attention away from here (i.e. the UKCaving forum) because it's run by dedicated volunteers and is absolutely excellent. It's just that I've always thought BCA business would be most efficiently done on BCA's forum.

In principle your suggestion makes some sense Pitlamp, however there is a major flaw.

Discussions only take place, where there are people to join them. People visit UKC as there are a lot of cavers here and a lot of chat about things that interest us, while here, we sometimes see reports of BCA matters and discuss them. If nothing is happening on the BCA front, we continue to chat about everything else caving.

If you were to banish BCA matters to another website, I can't imagine many people would bother going there to find out if anything had happened that week.

It would be rather like saying you can't discuss surveying at The Hunters, you have to go to The Queen Vic for that, even though all the cavers are at The Hunters chatting digging, caving etc.

There are those who argue that the national caving forum should be run by the BCA. This in itself is not an entirely stupid suggestion, but rather than create a rival forum, it would make much more sense to build on what is already widely used. This would obviously be a private matter for the current owners of UKC and BCA to discuss and agree on, if that is what they wished to do.

I would however point out that it would make very little difference to the discussion, other than being directly linked to the BCA website. The same people would contribute, the same arguments would happen and doubtless, the same rules would apply.

Perhaps some people don't contribute as they don't want their political rivals to profit from their contributions? I don't know what money (if any?) UKC makes for its owners, but it is at least an incentive to keep the site functional. Under BCA control, we would either need to pay someone to run it, or rely on yet more volunteers. While I'm sure such a system could work, but I'm not convinced there would be a queu of volunteers to take on this extra work, so it would doubtless fall apart over time. I'm also not sure what benefit it would bring to cavers and I'm not sure what incentive there would be for the current owners to hand over their baby to an organisation which can't seem to get its act together...

 

[cavemanmike]

That's a really good suggestion but is the Darkness Below site actually a "forum"?

Considering they moderate your post to see if it fits their agenda before they put it up leads me to believe it's not a forum in the true sense of the word 

 

[Ed]

PeteHall --- I've amended part of your post to make a far more sensible idea -----

"It would be rather like saying you can't discuss caving at The Hunters, you have to go to The Queen Vic for that, even though all the cavers are at The Hunters chatting digging, caving etc."

:spank: :

 

[Badlad]

Pitlamp (all) - I wouldn't disagree that some BCA council business would be best discussed on a BCA forum.  Perhaps a closed one allowing council members only (we don't have one of those).  However, you are just going to get the same sorts of opinions together with the issues of moderation that you would on any forum.  Believe you me the BCA council list emails can be quite aggressive at times as Matt alludes to.  From what I can see of the BCA forum it has almost no traffic except for two people.  Those low numbers of engagement will not bring out the wider range of opinion you wish.

I think what we would all like to see is more information and positive messaging from BCA both on here and in other media.  The current discord within BCA as outlined in by recent resignation letters is so deep that it is worthy of wider public discussion by the membership.  It has gone well beyond resolving it within the core of BCA leadership.  It is members money and members have a right to know what is being done in their name and other than on this forum where else is it being brought up for discussion. 

This nearly crossed with Pete.  We do receive some income from supporters of the site but that goes to hosting, IT support and keeping data safe.  Any excess goes towards supporting conservation, student expeditions, comp prizes etc.  It is a lot of work and effort but we all do it, moderators and all, as a service to caving - a sport we love.  I would have no objection in principal to handing the site over to the BCA to run, but I would want to see some evidence that they were in a position to do a good job first.

 

[Pegasus]

There is the possibility of course that "they" just don't think this is the right arena to discuss it?

If the BCA is to modernise and have electronic voting there has to be a web based forum for debates to take place and information passed on.

(bit of text left out here)

I am by no means promoting this forum as the right one but to move forward with any degree of member representation there has to be one.

Jopo

I'm also a massive fan of this UKCaving forum - but . . . .
This is something I've suggested in the past on here. Discussions of this type really should be on BCA's own independent forum. It has one of course ( https://british-caving.org.uk/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=4 ) but few cavers use it presently. Perhaps the answer is a drive to get the BCA forum used more?

I'd very much like to point out that I don't want to direct attention away from here (i.e. the UKCaving forum) because it's run by dedicated volunteers and is absolutely excellent. It's just that I've always thought BCA business would be most efficiently done on BCA's forum.

In principle your suggestion makes some sense Pitlamp, however there is a major flaw.

Discussions only take place, where there are people to join them. People visit UKC as there are a lot of cavers here and a lot of chat about things that interest us, while here, we sometimes see reports of BCA matters and discuss them. If nothing is happening on the BCA front, we continue to chat about everything else caving.

If you were to banish BCA matters to another website, I can't imagine many people would bother going there to find out if anything had happened that week.

It would be rather like saying you can't discuss surveying at The Hunters, you have to go to The Queen Vic for that, even though all the cavers are at The Hunters chatting digging, caving etc.

There are those who argue that the national caving forum should be run by the BCA. This in itself is not an entirely stupid suggestion, but rather than create a rival forum, it would make much more sense to build on what is already widely used. This would obviously be a private matter for the current owners of UKC and BCA to discuss and agree on, if that is what they wished to do.

I would however point out that it would make very little difference to the discussion, other than being directly linked to the BCA website. The same people would contribute, the same arguments would happen and doubtless, the same rules would apply.

Perhaps some people don't contribute as they don't want their political rivals to profit from their contributions? I don't know what money (if any?) UKC makes for its owners, but it is at least an incentive to keep the site functional. Under BCA control, we would either need to pay someone to run it, or rely on yet more volunteers. While I'm sure such a system could work, but I'm not convinced there would be a queu of volunteers to take on this extra work, so it would doubtless fall apart over time. I'm also not sure what benefit it would bring to cavers and I'm not sure what incentive there would be for the current owners to hand over their baby to an organisation which can't seem to get its act together...

You talk a lot of sense, Pete.

We do not make any personal profit from running UKC - if I wanted to make money the very last thing I would do is buy a caving forum.

Can't speak for Tim but I absolutely would not hand over UKC to BCA at the moment.  I couldn't bear to see all the time, trouble and effort we (and the Mods/Q  ) have put into the forum to make it fab resource for cavers go the way of Try Caving or the current BCA Forum...would be awful.  Bad enough seeing what's happening on Council.  BCA needs strong leadership for a start....

 

[Roger W]

UKCaving is working very well at the moment.

It ain't broke and it definitely don't need "fixing"!

A big thank you to all of you who keep it going so well.

 

[Pitlamp]

UKCaving is working very well at the moment.

It ain't broke and it definitely don't need "fixing"!

A big thank you to all of you who keep it going so well.

I completely agree with Roger's sentiments here. Could I also clarify (perhaps to set Pegasus' & Badlad's minds at rest) I wasn't suggesting handing over this forum to BCA! There is much to be said for having an independent forum anyway. I use this forum a lot and I'm a big fan. I'm also eternally grateful to the two I've named above for their massive commitment to keep it running and safe. 

 

[Pegasus]

UKCaving is working very well at the moment.

It ain't broke and it definitely don't need "fixing"!

A big thank you to all of you who keep it going so well.

:kiss2: