Committee

[Admin]

NOMINATIONS CLOSED
AS OF 09:33am Monday 11/08/03



Hi everybody,

I'm sure you all know by now that the motion of having a "Chair" plus five other and unspecified positions (thus allowing the committee to take shape and evolve as time progresses) has been carried by a poll of the members. Please see HERE (https://www.gagb.org.uk/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=5&t=87) if you missed that.

The time has arrived to collect nominations for that position of "Chair".

Please post your nominations here, and if you wish to, include any reasons supporting your candidate.

EDIT
In view of the point raised by Paul G0TLG below, the nominations will remain open until 09:00am 11th August in order to allow those on holiday to make their nominations. The poll itself will also have to run for three weeks.



The following is now invalid.
Nominations will be open until 09:00am on Monday 28th after which we will compile a list for a poll which will also run for one week.

Current status of the nominations :(in alphabetical order)
Correct as of Aug 7 2003, 06:17 PM

Pending Acceptance

none :(
Nominations Accepted
Pharisee
Tim and June
Nominations Declined
Jstead
Lost in Space
Team Tate
The Wombles
Please post your nominations/aceptances/refusals in this thread.

[Paul G0TLG]

Sorry to throw a spanner in the works at such an early stage, but...could I request that the poll run for longer? Monday 28th is the first day of my two week holiday B) and I'm very unlikely to be near a PC with internet access in that time.

Since this is the start of the main hol season, I'm probably not the only one in that situation...

Paul

[Admin]

Originally posted by Paul G0TLG@Jul 21 2003, 08:28 AM
Since this is the start of the main hol season, I'm probably not the only one in that situation...
Fair comment !

I have asked for feedback in this thread (https://www.gagb.org.uk/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=102).

Meanwhile we should continue to take nominations.

[Chris n Maria]

Hmmm,

I think this got lost in the rest of the discussion - so I'm bouncing it back up :D

Can I suggest a mail shot to all members to say that this is going on as few people check the boards.
Judging from the other thread the plan is to nominate and vote for a chairman first then the rest of the comittee.

To start the ball rolling I would like to nominate Tim & June who have devoted an awfull lot of their spare time to GAGB and UK cachingl. Personally I don't think we could be in better hands than people who have a proven record of working with the media and landowners. Obviously that depends on whether they want the job or not - I havn't asked them but hope they do?

But lets have some other nominations - there are plenty of good, hardworking people in GAGB, anyone else fancy the job?

Chris
Chris

[The Hornet]

I like Chris' idea of a general e-mailing of the membership to let everyone know that this important process is taking place. It was only by chance that I saw this discussion thread on the forum this evening. I guess I'd have heard about it at Winchester if I'd been able to attend. :(

One possible problem though. When suggesting nominations, the person nominated obviously has to be a member of GAGB. But how do I know if the person (people) I suggest is a member? If they contribute to the forums it's easy, but not everybody does.

I'm just posing the question. I don't have a solution so it's over to you...... :huh:

[Tim and June]

Originally posted by The Hornet@Jul 22 2003, 09:08 PM
But how do I know if the person (people) I suggest is a member? If they contribute to the forums it's easy, but not everybody does.
That's a very good point.

I can only suggest thay you either check with your nominee or nominate anyway, and the caretaking committee can check.

Well spotted that man !

[The Wombles]

I'm nominating Tim and June for joint Chairmanship.

Whilst it might get a little crowded if they both use the Chair at the same time, it seems to me that they both make major contribution to everything that they do, they always cache together as a single unit so it is appropriate that they share the Chair.

If other members feel that this is inappropriate because they feel that the nomination should be for a single person only, then would they please open a new thread for that debate to leave this one for nominations only?

Supporting information for my nomination is that T&J have driven much of the dialogue behind the scenes of GAGB and made it happen. They are amoungst the most active and highest contributors to UK caching, carry the respect of G.com to give GAGB credibility, and feel passionately about GAGB to put time into moving it forwards. They have also demonstrated their willingness to listen to others and allow democracy to take it's course. Plus of course they enabled UK caching to survive and thrive through the MoD Ant crisis.

Oh, and by the way, they were willing to accept my (un-prompted) nomination.


Dave

[Paul G0TLG]

Oh Bum! I was going to nominate T&J as well...

Paul

(Edited for spelling 22/7/03)

[Tim and June]

Gee, thanks you guys, June and I would be honoured to accept your nominations and stand for election.

Thank you for your votes of confidence.

Please though, do continue make your nominations, because there must be others who could do an equally good job.

[The Hornet]

Originally posted by The Wombles@Jul 22 2003, 10:16 PM
Whilst it might get a little crowded if they both use the Chair at the same time,
Well I'm sure June could sit on Tim's knee so they would only need one chair ;) But on second thoughts, given the state of Tim's knee maybe he should sit on June's ;) ;)

If there's any seconding required, put me down to second this excellent suggestion. Although we've disagreed about things in the past we've always managed to do so in a friendly and hopefully constructive way. Long may they continue.

Now how about some other nominations for the rest of the committee, maybe even north of the "Southern Mother Lode" of geocaching (Hampshire!) to spread the representation around the country?

[John Stead]

Add my backing to Tim and June for all the reasons already given.

[Gavotteers]

we endorse Tim & June for the Chair
Purley for there Enthusiam and Dedication to Geocaching GB

Hypothetical point:- What would happen if it came to tied vote and the chair had the casting vote and both holder of the chair post had different views

Tim And June for priminister "so long has they don't have to sing When i'm 64" :rolleyes:


If it ain't broke don't fix it

[DerekReed]

I also nominate Tim & June (T&J) for the post of Chair. B)

If they show even half the amount of dedication that I, and others, have already seen, then the job will be done with large amounts of professionalism, and diligence.

Having now met them at the HCC cache bash, I'm more than happy to say we'll be doing OK if they are heading the GAGB.

KUTGW.

BTW, thanks for the admin email. :rolleyes: I'd have missed this topic in the recent noise level if I hadn't seen it...

[The Hornet]

Oops, wrong thread. Very sorry!!!!

[Chris n Maria]

<Wrong thread - sorry I blame Hornet for leading me astray :rolleyes: >

Chris

[Tim and June]

This thread is about Chair nominations.

Please lets keep it on track.

[Moss Trooper]

Hi Peeps..

I have been doing my homework on who I think would make amn excellent chair and help take the association forward.

As I ran out of darts :rolleyes: I have narrowed my nominations down to two teams.

Jstead and Team Wombles.

I hope both of these will accept the nomination.. and when it comes to the vote.. I will get more darts.. :D

[Teasel]

Errrm, yeah, what they said - wrong thread&#33;

[Tim and June]

Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jul 23 2003, 04:13 PM
Hi Peeps..

I have narrowed my nominations down to two teams.

Jstead and Team Wombles.

I hope both of these will accept the nomination.. and when it comes to the vote.. I will get more darts.. :D
We second both of these nominations.

The Wombles have been caching since 2001. Amongst the most prolific placers and of the very highest quality. During the time they have been on the caretaking committee, they have been unstinting in their efforts, also emailing as many other associations around the World as they could find and setting up a dialogue with them. Also, their letter writing skills are beyond reproach.

Probably amongst the longest standing cachers in the UK is JStead. Always very active in the forums and in "the field". A very constructive type of person all round. He has ridden out all the storms that geocaching can throw and experience is an invaluable asset in the position of Chair.

[The Wombles]

Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jul 23 2003, 04:13 PM
Hi Peeps..

I have been doing my homework on who I think would make amn excellent chair and help take the association forward.

As I ran out of darts :rolleyes: I have narrowed my nominations down to two teams.

Jstead and Team Wombles.

I hope both of these will accept the nomination.. and when it comes to the vote.. I will get more darts.. :D

Appreciate the nomination but can&#39;t accept. Our other commitments don&#39;t allow time for these responsibilities and we&#39;re not available at the times of day that strong leadership is sometimes needed (evidenced by the previous flame wars). Would be very happy to assist in some other role but not as Chair.

[Chris n Maria]

I feel another Paxman moment coming on :unsure:
Where we are at now:

Nominee - Do they want the job?
JStead - ?
T&J - Accepted
The Wombles - Declined

Chris

[Chris n Maria]

Sumarising from the other thread we now have:

Nominee - Do they want the job?
JStead - ?
T&J - Accepted
Team Tate - ?
The Wombles - Declined

[John Stead]

:o
Woops - stay off a forum for three days and what happens, I get nominated for a job&#33;
Immensely flattered but sorry I must decline:-
1. I&#39;ve already put Tim and June forward as my nomination
2. I really have not the time at the present time - retired I may be but I have two major commitments
3. I&#39;m not really that experienced
So thank you but no - glad to help in other ways but not in the Chair.
John

[Chris n Maria]

It&#39;s looking like a one horse race:

Nominee - Do they want the job?
JStead - Declined
T&J - Accepted
Team Tate - Declined
The Wombles - Declined

[Admin]

C&#39;mon you guys, let&#39;s have some more nominations here.

[John Stead]

What&#39;s wrong with a one horse race - if the horse is the right one?

[Wood Smoke]

Originally posted by jstead@Jul 30 2003, 03:52 PM
What&#39;s wrong with a one horse race - if the horse is the right one?
What he said :-)

WoodSmoke

[seifer]

I&#39;d like to add my name to the long list of people who are backing T&J, the effort that they have put into geocaching in the uk is second to none and i believe that they will do a great job of representing us&#33;

Mike

[SimonG]

I think they&#39;ve probably had enough seconding/thirding/fourthing by now, but I eighth/ninth/tenth (delete as appropriate) Tim & June.

[MCL]

Yeah, what SimonG said.

[The Wobbly Club]

We nominate Tim & June for the position of Chair Persons. Perhaps Tim could use his woodworking skills, so plainly obvious at Quantum Leap 1 to make a larger chair to accommodate 2 people. :rolleyes:

Colin & Daphne

[paul.blitz]

Originally posted by jstead@Jul 27 2003, 11:41 PM
3. I&#39;m not really that experienced

Hey, since when has EXPERIENCE been a pre-requisite to be on a committee / chair a committee. ;)

[The Hornet]

I&#39;ve just realised that there is one glaring omission in the nominations for both chairman and committee member for GAGB. As I&#39;ve already nominated someone for committee I feel it only right and proper to give my nomination for chairman. I&#39;ve already seconded T&J for the "Chair" so if anyone objects to this post please do so politely and I&#39;ll withdraw&#33; However I&#39;ll only do so on condition that he gets nominated to the general committee.

This nominee is just the sort of level headed, eccentric, obsessed barm pot we need. He can cut through the c**p and get straight to the crux of the argument. He is a committed cacher and can always be found where there is a pint (or several) to be had. He has found over 300 caches and had planted his fair share. Not only that but he has the craziest hat you could hope to see.

The only downside is that he lives in L***n but I suppose nobdy&#39;s perfect ;) ;) ;)

I&#39;ve not asked his permission to nominate him but I hope he accepts in the spirit it was intended.

Who?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Who do you think?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Pharisee of course :D :D :D :D :D :D

[Lost in Space]

Originally posted by The Hornet@Aug 3 2003, 03:12 PM
........but I suppose nobdy&#39;s perfect ;) ;) ;)

"nobdy"?? - I guess so.............

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Lost in Space]

I will second Dad&#39;s suggestion for Pharisee, (us oldies must stick together).

However, shouldn&#39;t he proposed as "wall" person??

:P :P :P :P

[Omally]

It&#39;s hard to think of anyone more suitable for the Chair than Tim & June. However, in the interest of democracy (Admin told us to nominate more&#33;):

As Hornet is too grumpy to accept a nomination for chair ;) I would like to nominate another mature, level-headed, reasonable chap for the position of chair. He&#39;s also a very active cacher (I think the word is "Spry" when you get to his age&#33; ;)) and definitely one of the stalwarts of geocaching. Someone who would be emminently suited to such a dignified position as chair, if not then at least a place on the committee.

Of course, you can probably make a wild stab in the dark as to whom I am on about... it&#39;s Geocachings most famous "Grandad"...

Lost in Space, c&#39;mon down&#33; B)


As with Hornets nomination, I hope this is accpeted in the spirit it was intended.

[Chris n Maria]

So I make the position now:

Nominee - Do they want the job?
JStead - Declined
Lost in Space - ?
Pharisee - ?
T&J - Accepted
Team Tate - Declined
The Wombles - Declined

[Pharisee]

Originally posted by The Hornet@Aug 3 2003, 03:12 PM

I&#39;ve not asked his permission to nominate him but I hope he accepts in the spirit it was intended.


You ARE joking.... right????

Peter, that was a despicable thing to do to someone who&#39;s invited you into their home (well... back garden, anyway), shared their beer with you and called you &#39;friend&#39;.

Sorry, guys, there is just no way I&#39;m standing against Tim and June for the head honcho&#39;s job (especially as the pay is so poor :D ).

As for the committee.... To quote that well known golfer... &#39;You CANNOT be serious &#33;&#33;&#33;&#39;
I&#39;ve spent my entire adult life actively avoiding responsibility of any sort. I&#39;m much too old and &#39;ornery to change now. There are people out there that would actually LIKE to serve on the committee. Best let them have the chance, eh.

Thanks anyway..... I&#39;m really flattered

John

PS... I only joined the GAGB to see what my number was :D

[Tim and June]

Originally posted by Chris n Maria@Aug 4 2003, 08:36 AM
So I make the position now:

Nominee - Do they want the job?

. . .
Hi C&M,

Looks like you haven&#39;t noticed that the current state of play is posted at the top of this thread. ;)

But thanks for your efforts though.

[Lost in Space]

I am honoured by the nomination though there is no way that I could be considered against such respected company as T&J, so in order to save myself public humilation at receiving 0% of any vote, I respectfully decline.
Thanks for the thought, however.
B) B)

[The Hornet]

Originally posted by Pharisee@Aug 4 2003, 08:40 AM
You ARE joking.... right????

Peter, that was a despicable thing to do to someone who&#39;s invited you into their home (well... back garden, anyway), shared their beer with you and called you &#39;friend&#39;.
No I wasn&#39;t joking

Despicable - I don&#39;t think so&#33; I was thinking of the contribution you have already made to geocaching both by placing some excellent caches and by your very sensible and down to earth postings here and on GC.COM. I felt that your straightforward approach would be jut what we want in GAGB.

Anyway, if you don&#39;t want the position that&#39;s fine but PLEASE believe I proposed you for the most honourable reasons.

If you won&#39;t stand for chairman, PLEASE reconsider your refusal to stand as general committee member. You are just the sort of person we need.

Oh yes, when you are passing I&#39;ve got some cans in the fridge&#33;

Peter

[MCL]

To have a leader elected unopposed is very bad for democracy. From the outside it looks like a stitchup (whether or not it actually is, matters not) and no matter how good the leader is that gets so elected, it is likely to put other people off from joining a group that is so obviously undemocratic.

We must have at least one other person to stand against T&J just to make it look more palatable to the outside world. Someone asked elswhere about how we can encourage people to join us. Having a one-horse race right from the very start is no way to go about it. The other person however, does need to be someone who doesn&#39;t mind losing miserably :D

[Wood Smoke]

Originally posted by MCL@Aug 5 2003, 01:51 AM
We must have at least one other person to stand against T&J
I disagree&#33;&#33;&#33;

Having a chair elected unaposed shows strength in the membership not weakness.

If following the threads anyone can read for themselves the reason why T&J are unaposed.......

They are the right people for the job

Having someone stand just to make people vote is demeaning and wrong :-(

WoodSmoke

[Pharisee]

Originally posted by The Hornet@Aug 4 2003, 08:13 PM
If you won&#39;t stand for chairman, PLEASE reconsider your refusal to stand as general committee member. You are just the sort of person we need.
Sorry, Peter, I know you weren&#39;t joking.

As I&#39;ve said somewhere else, I&#39;ve always avoided being involved with committees, teams and the like. I don&#39;t work well as part of a &#39;team&#39;, I tend to be a bit &#39;volatile&#39; when people don&#39;t see things my way&#33;&#33;&#33;. I&#39;m sure that if I was actually elected as a committee member, I would be more of a hindrance than a help. The first elected committee of the GAGB will be under intense scrutiny and should be composed of the best people available, not irascible ol&#39; farts like me.

[MCL]

Originally posted by Wood Smoke+Aug 5 2003, 07:31 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Wood Smoke @ Aug 5 2003, 07:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--MCL@Aug 5 2003, 01:51 AM
We must have at least one other person to stand against T&J
I disagree&#33;&#33;&#33;

Having a chair elected unaposed shows strength in the membership not weakness.

If following the threads anyone can read for themselves the reason why T&J are unaposed.......

They are the right people for the job

Having someone stand just to make people vote is demeaning and wrong :-(

WoodSmoke [/b][/quote]
I din&#39;t mean to suggest it showed weakness in the membership, just that it was bad for democracy. Not the same thing.

It certainly would show strength in the membership. The question is whether such a show would be good for us in the long run. I personally doubt it, but I know others will not agree.


It depends how much of a deal we want to make about our organisation being "democratic". If you think it ought, then electing the first leader unopposed makes such a claim of democracy that much harder.

That is all I was trying to say.


.

[BugznElm&#39;r]

Originally posted by MCL@Aug 6 2003, 01:09 AM
Having a chair elected unaposed shows strength in the membership not weakness.

How about having an option in the vote of "none of the above"?

Voting ... American style (OK, without hanging chads&#33;) :ph34r:

[John Stead]

Pardon?

[Admin]

Originally posted by MCL@Aug 5 2003, 01:51 AM
We must have at least one other person to stand against ...
You offering ?

[BugznElm&#39;r]

Originally posted by jstead@Aug 6 2003, 10:38 AM
Pardon?
Having an option, in addition to those standing for the post, called "None of the above" ... common in US elections and shows the strength of feeling against those standing (if there is any). That way no one if forced to vote one way or not vote at all ...

Gets around the problems that MCL raised.

[Mr &amp; Mrs Hedgehog]

But to have someone stand against T&J then they must be proposed by someone who thinks they will be better than T&J and then vote for them in the election. It&#39;s no good someone proposing someone else just that T&J have some competition, then voting for T&J in the election. If no one can think of anyone better than T&J, then they will be the only candidate.

[Teasel]

Originally posted by MCL@Aug 6 2003, 01:09 AM
If you think it ought, then electing the first leader unopposed makes such a claim of democracy that much harder.
Making someone stand who&#39;s totally unsuitable for the post, just so we can have a contested election, is not particularly democratic either&#33;

Why not include just Ron (Re-Open Nominations) in the ballots? (Or "none of the above", if preferred). That way the difference between "abstained" and "voted against" is clear, and people would be voting on T&J&#39;s suitability for the post, not the contender&#39;s unsuitability.

[Wood Smoke]

Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r@Aug 6 2003, 10:57 AM
Having an option, in addition to those standing for the post, called "None of the above" ... common in US elections and shows the strength of feeling against those standing (if there is any). That way no one if forced to vote one way or not vote at all ...

Gets around the problems that MCL raised.

and from Teasel

Why not include just Ron (Re-Open Nominations) in the ballots? (Or "none of the above", if preferred). That way the difference between "abstained" and "voted against" is clear, and people would be voting on T&J&#39;s suitability for the post, not the contender&#39;s unsuitability.
This is a UK election and it aint done that way here.

We have nominations, if someone feels strongly enough that the nominated candidate is not the right one for the job they get someone to stand against them. If not they are elected unaposed.

Thats the UK way, and that&#39;s the way it should be.

Woodsmoke

[Teasel]

Originally posted by Wood Smoke@Aug 6 2003, 04:51 PM
This is a UK election and it aint done that way here.

Eh? I&#39;ve never been a member of any foreign clubs, so I can&#39;t comment on the way it&#39;s done elsewhere. But I can assure you that it&#39;s quite commonplace for Ron to stand for election to committees all over the UK&#33;

OK, so it&#39;s not the way we vote for our legislature. But then where in the UK democracy are we allowed to vote for who gets the top job anyway?

[paul.blitz]

Originally posted by Lady Jane@Aug 6 2003, 06:56 PM
For the sake of democracy/stupidity (delete as appropriate) would somebody please propose me so that I can stand against Tim & June. Personally I would rather we get on and accept the clear leaders and launch straight into electing a committee instaed of having a RON and add a delay of another 6 weeks.

Get on with it for pity&#39;s sake or is somebody trying to take over. by pi**ing em off then they will give up.
Ok, I&#39;ve never heard of Lady Jane, have no idea who she / they are, but heck, if she is stupid enough to want to stand, then I&#39;m happy to propose her. I&#39;m not too sure if she will get any votes, but that is the power of democracy&#33;

(because of the democracy we have, and the fact that there is a secret vote, then that does not necessarily mean I will vote for her....)

=============

hmm... thinking about the various constitutions I have read: there is often nothing to stop anyone proposing more than one person to a post, nor usually anything that requires that person to vote at all. In a way, that can be useful, as it allows someone to also propose a motion in order to have a &#39;positive refusal&#39;, thus giving a commitee direction.

And as for someone else&#39;s comment about "that isn&#39;t the way things are done here" has never bothered to read the rules of voting for any university&#33; At Southampton, certainly back in the 1970&#39;s, there was quite a comprehensive STV system, which allowed you to have 20 candidates for 6 posts, and you could list as many (or as few) of them on your voting sheet as you liked. The rules also meant that an abstension was a valid vote, and candidates had to get greater than a certain %age (depending on the # of seats) of all valid votes - including those abstensions - to get in. Too many abstensions could lead to a re-election&#33;

[Omally]

Originally posted by Lady Jane@Aug 6 2003, 06:56 PM
For the sake of democracy/stupidity (delete as appropriate) would somebody please propose me so that I can stand against Tim & June. Personally I would rather we get on and accept the clear leaders and launch straight into electing a committee instaed of having a RON and add a delay of another 6 weeks.

Get on with it for pity&#39;s sake or is somebody trying to take over. by pi**ing em off then they will give up.
By no means should all this be rushed. The committee (including chair) will be the group of folks that us "proles" decide, by democratic/stupid (delete as opinion dictates) vote, to represent us when consulting with Land Management Organisations (and other mucky jobs besides).
The whole debate in these fora is perfectly healthy. To debate is to encourage progress. Sometimes progress sucks, sometimes it&#39;s magically wonderful. In this case, I hope it will be the latter. To be sure of getting the right bums on the right seats, it&#39;s great that we&#39;re all arguing about this.
Remember, the GAGB is still in an embryonic state, and all good strong things take time to grow.

Not too sure about the RON thingy, though. I mean I know what it is, it&#39;s just that it does indeed seem that T n J are the right folks for the job. Anyone who disagree&#39;s email me and I&#39;ll happily nominate you. That&#39;s democracy, folks&#33; :D

[Mr &amp; Mrs Hedgehog]

Originally posted by paul.blitz@Aug 6 2003, 07:24 PM
Ok, I&#39;ve never heard of Lady Jane, have no idea who she / they are, but heck, if she is stupid enough to want to stand, then I&#39;m happy to propose her. I&#39;m not too sure if she will get any votes, but that is the power of democracy&#33;

So now we have to waste more time with an election.... great... :( I see nothing wrong with just T&J being nominated. I was once Chairman of a local branch of an International organisation. When I first stood for the Chair I was unopposed. Obviously no-one thought that was un-democratic.... I went on to 10 years of un-opposed Chairmanship before I quit wanting some fresh blood to take over. Obviously people thought I was the best man for the job... so why need to waste time with an election?

Peter

[paul.blitz]

Originally posted by Mr & Mrs Hedgehog@Aug 6 2003, 08:51 PM
So now we have to waste more time with an election.... great...
Saly, it seems that there ARE others who feel that an election would be a good thing.

Personally, I feel that, even if there is just one person standing, it is important that that person is SEEN to have the support of the organisation. I say this from experience at an organisation that has occasionally had the worry that they could end up with a single, unsuitable, candidate.

Ok, in THIS case, I believe that the person standing is a "good person", but that isn&#39;t always the case.

So, if we feel we should have an election anyway, then it makes no difference if the election is between T&J, Lady Jane and "none of the above", or whether its between T&J and "NOT T&J"&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;


Paul

[MCL]

Originally posted by Admin+Aug 6 2003, 11:53 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Admin @ Aug 6 2003, 11:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--MCL@Aug 5 2003, 01:51 AM
We must have at least one other person to stand against ...
You offering ? [/b][/quote]
Oh Admin&#33;

One doesn&#39;t offer. One gets nominated, and seconded, then one either accepts or declines the nomination.

So, no. I ain&#39;t. :)

[MCL]

Originally posted by Lady Jane@Aug 6 2003, 07:56 PM
by pi**ing em off then they will give up.
Let me get this straight.

I am not for one moment suggesting that anyone get peed off. Why would anyone standing for a post be pi**ed off just because they had competition? That is not a mature and adult attitude to have, and I&#39;m sure T&J are both mature and adult.

No the thing that worried me was not so much the fact that we might have no opposers, but that people were not willing to stand because of who they were standing against. In other words, it had nothing to do with policy, and everything to do with personality. I believe that to be a teeny bit alarming thats all.

If they had said "I couldn&#39;t possibly stand because I have no good ideas to offer" or "I am not worthy of the position" or "I&#39;m a convicted tax-fiddler with a penchant for offshore funds" or "I have a medical allergy to committees" ... then I would be more amenable to their argument.

But to admit the reason they won&#39;t stand is because of the person they would be standing against, just raised alarm bells when I read it. It is not healthy for democracy to have *that* sort of attitude.

If everyone else has other "genuine" reasons not to stand then I will support an unopposed election. But that, at the moment is not the case. Some people, by their own admission, are using personality not policy to prevent them from standing.

I apologise if anyone misunderstood my reasons for speaking up, and do feel free to disagree with my stance if you want. I am not in any way trying to delay things or gum up the works.

[Lost in Space]

Originally posted by MCL@Aug 7 2003, 01:56 AM


.........Some people, by their own admission, are using personality not policy to prevent them from standing......






Where does anybody mention that they are not standing because of personalities??

I am not standing because I know, as do most people on this forum, that T&J are the best people for the job.

:) :) :)

[Admin]

Admin has received an email from Lady Jane as folows :


Hi Admin,

I made my post in the forum to indicate the stupidity of some of the comments and my point was missed.

I am not going to stand for chair and make the mockery deeper.

Please delete my post and remove me from membership as it is a sham sign up anyway. This should have been obvious to everyone.



So, Lady Jane has not been added to the list of nominations and her post has been deleted as per request.

[Mr &amp; Mrs Hedgehog]

Originally posted by MCL@Aug 7 2003, 01:56 AM
If they had said "I couldn&#39;t possibly stand because I have no good ideas to offer" or "I am not worthy of the position" or "I&#39;m a convicted tax-fiddler with a penchant for offshore funds" or "I have a medical allergy to committees" ... then I would be more amenable to their argument.

But to admit the reason they won&#39;t stand is because of the person they would be standing against, just raised alarm bells when I read it. It is not healthy for democracy to have *that* sort of attitude.

If everyone else has other "genuine" reasons not to stand then I will support an unopposed election. But that, at the moment is not the case. Some people, by their own admission, are using personality not policy to prevent them from standing.

I apologise if anyone misunderstood my reasons for speaking up, and do feel free to disagree with my stance if you want. I am not in any way trying to delay things or gum up the works.
Sorry if I&#39;m being thick but why would personality come into it? What are you trying to suggest? Are you suggesting that people are frightened of T&J? I&#39;ve met them and found them to be most plesant couple... so why the personality thing?

[Muggle]

Originally posted by Lost in Space@Aug 7 2003, 07:31 AM
Where does anybody mention that they are not standing because of personalities??

I am not standing because I know, as do most people on this forum, that T&J are the best people for the job.

:) :) :)
Exactly. How much longer is this shilly shallying going on for?

It&#39;s pretty much agreed that Tim & June are the best for the job. no one will stand against them, not because they are frightened or intimidated, but probably because they know that T&J would win a vote by a large margin. And rightly so. GAGB is their baby, they have done some sterling work with HCC, so let&#39;s get them appointed and stop messing about.

All those in favour of electing Tim & June unopposed as chairpersons say "Aye".

[Muggle]

Aye

[John Stead]

Aye&#33; :)

[Mr &amp; Mrs Hedgehog]

aye

now lets get on with it and stop all this nit picking

[Tim and June]

We propose "BugznElm&#39;r" for the position of chair.

[Pharisee]

Originally posted by Tim and June@Aug 7 2003, 04:13 PM
We propose "BugznElm&#39;r" for the position of chair.
Seconded &#33;&#33;

[BugznElm&#39;r]

Originally posted by Pharisee+Aug 7 2003, 04:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Pharisee @ Aug 7 2003, 04:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Tim and June@Aug 7 2003, 04:13 PM
We propose "BugznElm&#39;r" for the position of chair.
Seconded &#33;&#33; [/b][/quote]
Thanks for the nomination Tim&June and the seconding Pharisee. :)

Whoever is going to chair the GAGB will certainly need a thick skin and will need to work overtime bringing everyone together. Handling all the inputs from various sides won&#39;t be easy and I&#39;m sure tough (read unpopular with some) decisions will need to be made. Whoever ends in the hot seat is going to be extra busy&#33;

And this is the reason why I/we have to decline this nomination. Our amount of free time comes and goes and this role is serious. Points raised in the past few weeks have had nothing to do with powerplay :ph34r:

If the GAGB ever grows to the point where in needs regional representation in Wales and we were nominated, we might consider.

Tim&June ... the road is clear again :)

[MCL]

On 21st July Admin ruled:

In view of the point raised by Paul G0TLG below, the nominations will remain open until 09:00am 11th August in order to allow those on holiday to make their nominations.

That should answer all those people who have posted complaining about how long and dragged out the election is. I didn&#39;t make the rule, Admin did. If you can&#39;t wait till 11th August then I&#39;m not the person you need to be talking to ;) Furthermore, Admin posted this message in red bold type, just in case anyone might miss it. :)


On 23rd July, Tim and June posted

Please though, do continue make your nominations, because there must be others who could do an equally good job.

It is plain from this that they don&#39;t *want* to stand unopposed, and neither do they consider that they are the best people for the job. This follows logically from the assertion that there must be others who could do an equally good job.

On 30th July, Admin then posted

C&#39;mon you guys, let&#39;s have some more nominations here.

...making it quite plain that Admin didn&#39;t want a one-horse race either, no matter who the horse was. (oops that sounds terrible, but you all know what I actually mean&#33;)

On 1st August I posted that I supported what SimonG had just said, about eighthing and ninthing T&J&#39;s nomination. That should make everyone aware as to who my favoured candidate for the job is. I have already planted my colours.


Now I turn to the question posed by Lost In Space, when he asked me

Where does anybody mention that they are not standing because of personalities??

..and also Mr & Mrs Hedgehog said they didn&#39;t understand where personality was coming into it. They hinted that I should explain, so here goes:

Well, on 4th August, Pharisee wrote:

Sorry, guys, there is just no way I&#39;m standing against Tim and June for the head honcho&#39;s job.

This was the first one that I spotted. Then, with the most historic irony of all, Lost in Space (the one who asked me the question...) said, on the same day (4th August)

I am honoured by the nomination though there is no way that I could be considered against such respected company as T&J

Lost in Space, you asked and answered your own question. Thankyou&#33; :D

It was this aspect of personality-over-policy that I thought a bit alarming. But hey, if no one else minds, I&#39;ll go with the flow. At least I have tried.

Now, everyone just damn well grit your teeth and WAIT for 11th. Don&#39;t be so darned impatient with your Admin&#33; You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. :D :D :D

[MCL]

Originally posted by Muggle@Aug 7 2003, 12:53 PM
How much longer is this shilly shallying going on for?

Until 0900hrs on 11th August. See top of this thread for further details.

And why would waiting for a preset deadline be "shilly shallying"?

[MCL]

Originally posted by Muggle@Aug 7 2003, 12:53 PM
GAGB is their baby.
Is it? I may be wrong on this, and someone correct me if I am, but I was under the impression that GAGB was the "baby" of about half a dozen people. To make a statement apportioning the entire birth to T&J runs the risk of possibly upsetting those others who may have had a sizeable input.

Either

- That statement is potentially upsetting to other parties, since it appears to dismiss their part in things, or
- You know something that I don&#39;t.

I&#39;m prepared to be corrected on this. To be honest I don&#39;t know how much of GAGB was and was not down to T&J, and in such a situation, would not make such an assertion.

[Muggle]

Originally posted by MCL@Aug 8 2003, 02:22 AM
To be honest I don&#39;t know how much of GAGB was and was not down to T&J, and in such a situation, would not make such an assertion.
I wasn&#39;t aware that you had made any such assertion.

[MCL]

Originally posted by Muggle+Aug 8 2003, 03:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Muggle @ Aug 8 2003, 03:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--MCL@Aug 8 2003, 02:22 AM
To be honest I don&#39;t know how much of GAGB was and was not down to T&J, and in such a situation, would not make such an assertion.
I wasn&#39;t aware that you had made any such assertion. [/b][/quote]
No, Muggle, you are quite correct, *I* hadn&#39;t made any such assertion.

I was suggesting that *you* had, by saying that GAGB was Tim and June&#39;s baby. I was making the point that, were I in your position, I would not have written a post which could be construed as having that implication.

Does that explain it better?

[Muggle]

Originally posted by MCL@Aug 8 2003, 08:02 PM
Does that explain it better?
Yes it does thank you.

According to the "About the GAGB" page on this website "Initial members of the association were Moss Trooper, Tim & June, Richard and Beth"

Is it reasonable to suppose that GBGB was Tim & June&#39;s baby? I think what I said was fair comment and as for running the risk of possibly upsetting those others, I&#39;ll apologise to Richard & Beth and Moss Trooper just in case.

[Moss Trooper]

Yer wrong.. It was mine.

[The Northumbrian]

AYE

[Muggle]

Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Aug 8 2003, 10:02 PM
Yer wrong.. It was mine.
In that case, I am happy to stand corrected. Apologies all round.

[Admin]

Nominations are now closed.

Thanks to all who nominated somebody, Now, on with the poll.