More bad news for BCA modernisers
- Thread starter Badlad
- Start date
blackshiver
Member
mountainpenguin said:
If it were a business the Chairman would have prevented the board from getting into this position and if he didn?t - his head would be first on the block when the stakeholders got involved.
NewStuff
New member
So, you're trying to deflect the issue and push it this way with "step up"? Pathetic. You need to get out of bed far earlier than that. Some of your esteemed peers in the CSCC managed far better tricks than that... surely you can do better, maybe ask them for some advice on the matter, get some tutoring on the subject.
But to answer the question, all that needs to happen is certain members of the CSCC simply stop the active sabotage. That's it, just stop. It involves zero effort, no putting yourselves out, no time taken from exploring/caving/reseraching, no anything - other than a lack of actions designed to slow or stop the process that members voted for.
But to answer the question, all that needs to happen is certain members of the CSCC simply stop the active sabotage. That's it, just stop. It involves zero effort, no putting yourselves out, no time taken from exploring/caving/reseraching, no anything - other than a lack of actions designed to slow or stop the process that members voted for.
blackshiver
Member
mikem said:
Just like Chairs of Governors in the School system then.
Volunteer or not, the point remains the same.
SamT
Moderator
mikem said:
Point of order - UKcaving has never been run by UKclimbing.
It was set up at the same time and as a sort of clone of UKbouldering.com as the guy who set it up was into both sports.
The 'nasty protagonists' at the time were absolutely nothing to do with the owners, the admin, the moderators etc. They were purely just members of the forum, just like you all are now.
They were nasty, you're right, and they caused much trouble on here, and thank goodness, many of them seemed to have moved away, perhaps to set up forums of their own.
It always seems to go completely over people heads and it bugs the life out of me, that there is no political direction of this site, there is absolutely no censorship, absolutely no sides take by the owners.
Anyone can come on here and say what they like, within reason and within the guidelines of the forum acceptably use policies (e.g. no racism etc).
That's what I just don't get.
Someone early said its like a newspaper, then said its not like a newspaper, then someone said but it is..
ITS NOT.
A newspaper has an owner and an editor. They have political slants. Paid journalists, submit articles to the editor who says yay or nay, depending upon whether it chimes with the owners/editors political slant.
UKcaving is not like that whatsoever, Tim and Jane have no say on what members of the forum want to 'publish' on here.
Only if it clearly outside the guidelines of the forum, do we, as mods, have to step in and get everyone to step away from their handbags, possibly edit or remove posts etc.
Its needless and tiresome at best.
Anyone can become a member, but there are some that have been banned. This was prior to Tim and Janes ownership, and they were not banned because of their political leanings at all, the were banned because after years and years of warnings and moderation, they could still not help themselves and be needlessly personal in their insults, consistently breaking the forums usage guildelines.
Ed W
Member
mikem said;
Unfortunately this was not my experience of the small number of CSCC meetings that I attended or the experience of my other half who was CSCC secretary for a number of years, though they are very quick to use the minor details of process to criticise others such as the BCA. With regards to the rules, it is somewhat difficult to actually break them as they are so short an vague (http://cscc.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=about:constitution).
However, I would suggest as a point of principal that proposals made in the name of the CSCC need to have received the support of the member clubs. Questions that I think need to be asked by the CSCC membership are;
1. The Feb meeting apparently instructed an officer to draft a set of proposals for the BCA AGM. That this was to be discussed was not on the agenda for the meeting so club reps would not have had the chance to establish their club's position with respect to the issues covered by these proposals. So how could club reps vote to empower an individual to write these proposals in the name of CSCC.
2. The proposals were drawn up by that individual and submitted to BCA without any sight of the wording from at least some of the CSCC Officers, or I understand at least the majority of member clubs. Therefore how can this proposal truly be made in the name of CSCC and claimed to be the view of Southern Cavers.
I understand that sometimes things have to be done in a hurry, and it is just not possible to go through every hoop. However in this case the solution was I believe easy, the proposals could have been submitted in the name of the officer who drafted them, just as Cookie did. Of course I would suggest that in doing so these proposals would have carried less weight than if they are claimed to be the will of an entire caving region.
I am very keen not to accuse anyone of malice, just to highlight that I think the CSCC is in dire need of change in order to better represent the views of southern cavers. Of course this needs southern cavers to stand up and get involved. I would also note that it is important that CSCC or any BCA member (group or individual) should be able to disagree with national policy - that is democracy. However, it is also important that issues raised in the name of an organisation reflect the views of those it represents, and at present I am far from convinced that this is the case.
Unfortunately this was not my experience of the small number of CSCC meetings that I attended or the experience of my other half who was CSCC secretary for a number of years, though they are very quick to use the minor details of process to criticise others such as the BCA. With regards to the rules, it is somewhat difficult to actually break them as they are so short an vague (http://cscc.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=about:constitution).
However, I would suggest as a point of principal that proposals made in the name of the CSCC need to have received the support of the member clubs. Questions that I think need to be asked by the CSCC membership are;
1. The Feb meeting apparently instructed an officer to draft a set of proposals for the BCA AGM. That this was to be discussed was not on the agenda for the meeting so club reps would not have had the chance to establish their club's position with respect to the issues covered by these proposals. So how could club reps vote to empower an individual to write these proposals in the name of CSCC.
2. The proposals were drawn up by that individual and submitted to BCA without any sight of the wording from at least some of the CSCC Officers, or I understand at least the majority of member clubs. Therefore how can this proposal truly be made in the name of CSCC and claimed to be the view of Southern Cavers.
I understand that sometimes things have to be done in a hurry, and it is just not possible to go through every hoop. However in this case the solution was I believe easy, the proposals could have been submitted in the name of the officer who drafted them, just as Cookie did. Of course I would suggest that in doing so these proposals would have carried less weight than if they are claimed to be the will of an entire caving region.
I am very keen not to accuse anyone of malice, just to highlight that I think the CSCC is in dire need of change in order to better represent the views of southern cavers. Of course this needs southern cavers to stand up and get involved. I would also note that it is important that CSCC or any BCA member (group or individual) should be able to disagree with national policy - that is democracy. However, it is also important that issues raised in the name of an organisation reflect the views of those it represents, and at present I am far from convinced that this is the case.
maxb727 said:
I understand that BCA council considered this submission at the 11th January meeting alongside further comments from David Cooke himself. They must have found considerable holes in his argument because they voted to remove him from his long term role as IT Working Group chair/convener. The instruction by council to follow the mandate of the BCA AGM stood which, according to the letters of resignation, has still not been fully implemented. You simply cannot be a part of BCA and consistently defy the instruction of the main democratic council in favour of doing things your own way.
Maybe I?ll regret this post, as I?m putting my head above the parapet but I?m the interest of fairness I?m going to write this.
I?m all for change, positive, moving forwards, developments and progression. However there are a number of things that don?t sit well with me at the moment.
This feels like he/she who shouts loudest and has the most friends wins. It?s a popularity contest and I can completely see why anyone with opposing opinions wouldn?t want to post on here which is partly because the owners are on the opposite side and therefore not impartial. Despite no moderation happening to the opposing opinions it?s clear to see that ownership of the forum is used as a reason as to why they have done so much for caving. Others may have done a lot for caving without necessarily doing something so public and don?t shout about it quite as often.
Another thing which I feel points this way is in the minutes from Jan 2020 - I?ve included a pic of the page (I hope) to aid people reading. Why does ME need to stand up for GD? Why can each have their own voice and express their opinions independently? As Secretary, what role does ME play in the IT side of BCA? Is there this need to stand up for GD so publicly?
I can read the minutes and see DC has been unappointed but the voting was 10 for, 3 against and 7 abstained. It was only a 50% vote for this. This was the least percentage of any of the votes taken that day and shows a clear divide in council.
Anyway I hope I don?t regret posting this, I?m for change, but I?m for fairness as well which is why I?m taking a risk and posting something which might be on other people minds as well.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I?m all for change, positive, moving forwards, developments and progression. However there are a number of things that don?t sit well with me at the moment.
This feels like he/she who shouts loudest and has the most friends wins. It?s a popularity contest and I can completely see why anyone with opposing opinions wouldn?t want to post on here which is partly because the owners are on the opposite side and therefore not impartial. Despite no moderation happening to the opposing opinions it?s clear to see that ownership of the forum is used as a reason as to why they have done so much for caving. Others may have done a lot for caving without necessarily doing something so public and don?t shout about it quite as often.
Another thing which I feel points this way is in the minutes from Jan 2020 - I?ve included a pic of the page (I hope) to aid people reading. Why does ME need to stand up for GD? Why can each have their own voice and express their opinions independently? As Secretary, what role does ME play in the IT side of BCA? Is there this need to stand up for GD so publicly?
I can read the minutes and see DC has been unappointed but the voting was 10 for, 3 against and 7 abstained. It was only a 50% vote for this. This was the least percentage of any of the votes taken that day and shows a clear divide in council.
Anyway I hope I don?t regret posting this, I?m for change, but I?m for fairness as well which is why I?m taking a risk and posting something which might be on other people minds as well.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
PeteHall
Moderator
For ease of reading, I have attached the pages quoted above (extracted from the original PDF document).
The full document is available on the BCA website:
https://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=about:documents:council_meetings:bca_council_meeting_11th_january_2020_draft_minutes.pdf
The full document is available on the BCA website:
https://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=about:documents:council_meetings:bca_council_meeting_11th_january_2020_draft_minutes.pdf
langcliffe
Well-known member
PeteHall said:
Interesting! So does the BCA still offer web services in light of events? The links on the BCA web page now go nowhere. It seems a somewhat superfluous service to me. Commercial web hosting packages are very inexpensive these days, and the suppliers can obviously offer a far more professional service.
PeteHall
Moderator
From my experience, people generally abstain when they feel a personal/moral objection to supporting something, but do not wish to disrupt process/ progress.
In this case, I would speculate that many people on council have known Cookie for many years and consider him their friend. Cookie has put a huge amount of his free time into supporting caving in the best way he knows how (whether or not you agree with his views, I believe they are sincerely held). Voting him out in this way is not something I would want to do to a friend, however it seems clear that there was a complete impasse and Cookie and Gary could not both continue in their appointed roles, therefore one of them had to go, or the situation would not be resolved.
I can see why several abstained.
In this case, I would speculate that many people on council have known Cookie for many years and consider him their friend. Cookie has put a huge amount of his free time into supporting caving in the best way he knows how (whether or not you agree with his views, I believe they are sincerely held). Voting him out in this way is not something I would want to do to a friend, however it seems clear that there was a complete impasse and Cookie and Gary could not both continue in their appointed roles, therefore one of them had to go, or the situation would not be resolved.
I can see why several abstained.
