 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Please add me to the list of interested members. I have e-mailed David also. I am interested in discussions around ensuring a successful future for our club. I am repping at the moment so have limited access but will try to keep an eye on the discussion in the meantime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
So.....we are about to embark on an independent SCGB members' discussion site. If all goes well, the site will be registered and set up in the next few days. Following discussions with a fellow SCGB and Snowheads member, who's a lot more knowledgeable than me, it seems the answer is staring us in the face:
The new site should be the same format as this one, by using phpBB software. It's been a huge success, after all. My intention is that it will be independently hosted, with all hosting, server, and registration costs funded by those SCGB members who join. These will be peppercorn amounts. The site will be owned by us all, and controlled by us all. It will only be accessible by SCGB members, and we'll make this method as smooth as possible. I'm anticipating that the SCGB membership dept. will be able to confirm membership numbers against names. If not, it could be done by faxed or scanned membership cards. Less secure, but there has to be trust.
The reason for limiting this discussion to members is that SCGB information and data, from annual reports, and many other sources, will form the basis of some of our discussions.
The format for the site, discussion areas, reference areas (for we must base our discussions and ideas on factual information) and any other areas - links etc. - are open for debate. If you've any more suggestions for the site, please post away.
Let's keep it fun, friendly, and constructive ! And the idea is that any SCGB member is welcome to join, either as an observer or participant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
David you could make it free, another PHBB site I use is free (Ok you get pop up adverts) if you're intrested I can see if I can find out more details
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
DGO. The costs are minimal, to the extent that I think we can avoid the pop tarts. If people prefer that it's free, with a donation option like this site, that is fine by me. Equal shared ownership is, however, a principle I'm keen to adopt for this venture. Hopefully we can build it into a large, objective, honest and constructive site which has a very positive influence on the SCGB.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
OK. I think it would be better if it were free, after all asking people for money so that they can discus what's wrong with paying the skiclub their membership fees amongst other things doesn't seem quite right to me but I'll go with whatever the majority feel is right
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the costs are likely to be so low that DG's hardest problem is going to be working out how to cost effectively collect a handful of loose change from each member! I imagine snowHeads is already gobbling up quite a bit of bandwidth - and is likely to become increasingly resource intensive until usage hits some kind of ceiling. DG's site is likely to be a much more modest (and thus cheaper) venture...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent, David !
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Interesting, I noticed today that the "Editor" no less has edited one of my earlier comments on the SCGB website saying that my information regarding the SCGB comissioning a report into where it will go is incorect and no such report has been comissioned, now I find this interesting as the person who told me it had is an SCGB rep (not working at the time) so either the rep was incorrect or the SCGB is not telling the truth, the way the rep was talking however was quite convincing so I wonder maybe it's an in house report, maybe the rep was in cloud cuckoo land.
On another point Sir David why not send a personal email to Sally Cartwright and ask her for her personal opinion on weather the committee made the correct decision and why, possibly she could give a better or at least more sensible reason than has been given so far, if you let her know that the information will be disceminated then you could copy and paste the reply here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The evidence seems to be that SCGB doesn't consider a discussion forum to be a form of communication...
DG - if the SCGB membership department doesn't want to play then you could start a thread on the member forum and ask potential members to confirm identity by posting on it, perhaps by the use of some code phrase (okay so maybe not the last bit!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
DGO. This is an unusual situation for the Club, involving a communication medium that remains novel and challenging. As you know, I've posted open letters and questions on the SCGB site. They cover the ground you mention and more, and I've no doubt that Sally Cartwright will want to respond in her own time (though it's now a month to the day since 'MO Day'.)
Ian. Thanks for the suggestion. I'm sure we can work this out. It's in the mutual interests of the Club and the new forum that access is properly controlled, since 'internal' Club information will be discussed. I'll talk with the Club next week concerning ID checks. The site is registered. I'm informed that we should be live early next week. I think I mentioned that it'll be a phpBB format like this one, with discussion and reference areas to be worked out by us all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
SCGB or KGB?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David I only make the comment as I know she has email and uses it but I dont know how much notice she or most of the other committee members take of the forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
You know, I keep reading this thread with wistful disbelief. Any organization that has not begun to grapple with the power of disintermediation introduced by the leveling the Internet brings to the communication landscape is missing the key to their future. It is no longer possible to maintain control over communication for organizations that do not have significant leverage over their members (for instance, an employer who wields the power of sacking those who act against the employer's will). But, for organizations like the club, the Internet changes the landscape completely.
Just because an organization has been successful for decades does not preclude its demise in this new world (see "Soviet Union").
From a pure outsider's perspective, the SCGB seems to need a major overhaul in terms of both governance and attitude. I know that tradition tends to reign supreme, but in the case of the brave new Internet world, it is not possible to avoid its impact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
ssh, good points. As as outsider as well (apart from being a contributor pre-MO day), I have now changed my view on the SCGB.
I view it in a Darwinian sense, in that it will either adapt to the internet/current members' views, or it won't. The former will make it stronger and allow it to survive, and ultimately prosper, whereas the latter will cause it to shrivel in terms of members until it is finally destroyed.
I guess it would be a shame to see the latter happen, but that's up to them. I'm happy to sit back and wait for it to either be replaced by something more relevant, or for it to develop into something more relevant. Whatever, I'm hoping I'll still be around in years to come when one of these things does happen and I can join.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
masopa, or, most likely, it will continue to survive a boring, relatively useless existance when it could have been reborn again to an influential and leadership position. It will likely just become irrelevant.
How long do you think it will take this little group of people on this web site to begin to create the same kinds of value that the SCGB claims to do? An example is the Trips forum idea of a Colorado event. I bet that we could very quickly begin to do more and more of that kind of things and effectively replace the key value of the SCGB.
But, I don't know all that members get from it. But, how long until we have over 1000 "members" here? If we count all of the related folks (S.O. and family), what's the multiplier?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
DG, sorry I wasn't concentrating. Yes I am a member of the SCGB and, as has been suggested above, membership can be confirmed by my use of the SCGB forum since MO day.
I have my own business, understand accounts and have experience of member clubs and governing bodies. Yes please, I would like to be involved in the discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| ssh wrote: |
| Any organization that has not begun to grapple with the power of disintermediation introduced by the leveling the Internet brings to the communication landscape is missing the key to their future. |
Probably the best statement of this in is the Cluetrain Manifesto (for all its cheesiness). Here's a (slightly adapted) extract:
"To traditional organisations, networked conversations may appear confused, may sound confusing. But we are organizing faster than they are. We have better tools, more new ideas, no rules to slow us down. We are waking up and linking to each other. We are watching. But we are not waiting."
The whole things is here - scroll down to the 95 theses... http://www.cluetrain.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I had to look "disintermediation" up 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Cluetrain puts it rather more simply... "The Internet is enabling conversations among human beings that were simply not possible in the era of mass media."
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
David, hope you received our email - 2 more onboard.
We have no firm view at the moment, the thing we object to most of all is the fact that none of the members were asked about what has happend. The club is happy to have votes about stupid subjects (remember the 'newspapers'). Why was there no vote about this?
Looking forward to a good open lively debate. Can we find some people who support the clubs view on this? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Steven, funny you should mention that... Locke is a local gadfly, and he and I have tripped over each other at various functions along the Front Range. On this topic, he's right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, thanks Greg. Email received and acknowledged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
As a friend of the Club, though a critical one - good luck with this project.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
he's back! Arnold - as you were at the heart of the thread that, we suspect, led the SCGB to close its fora to non-members, what's your take on the whole furore?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Hello Arnold, good to see you back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
It's 9 days since I last posted to this thread, and fellow SCGB members may be wondering what's become of the proposed members-only discussion site.
Thanks to very valuable help, expertise and time from a friend on this thread a website has been registered in the name of scgbmembers.org and hosting has been financed for the coming months. Configuration has also been done on similar phpBB software to Snowheads. If you want to have a look it's there, but there's not much to see. No further development work has been carried out so far, because....
....there are potential drawbacks. Firstly, the site would only be seen by those who have passed the hurdle of an administrator checking names against SCGB membership numbers, and passwords being issued. This is cumbersome and a bit restrictive in terms of who would be there. Secondly, it creates a feeling of an external pressure group. The Club already has a members-only discussion forum and should be capable of hosting frank and fair discussion on its operations and services.
The scgbmembers site can be activated if Club issues are not successfully discussed on the SCGB site, so the idea is ready to roll as needed. But we already have two sites dealing with SCGB affairs, including Snowheads, and maybe that's enough!
Personally I think it's a shame if Club controversies damage the Club with no positive result, and therefore people have to be careful how they wash 'dirty linen'. I'll be posting a few things that might be viewed 'controversial' on the SCGB site to see what happens.
I'm sure the energy and spirit of the old SCGB open community, now the Snowheads community, can only do great things for the SCGB. We're not that different to the Club's pioneers in 1903, except for probably being less wealthy! Everything will come right if people behave in a trusting, open and honest manner.
Interesting times!
P.S. Thanks to all those who have emailed and for all the interesting messages received. If you've any comments on the above, fire away. And if you're really disappointed, there's nothing to stop you too paying for a site and starting something!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P.P.S. I'm thinking of starting a blog to evolve some ideas for the future of the Club, which is another action any member could take. Remember you can personally publish a blog site on www.blogger.com. It would be nice to see a few people come up with some personal visions for the organisation, and maybe stand for election.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I have to be honest and say I'd be much more comfortable discussing club issues somewhere other than on the SCGB members only forum. Logically this is somewhat perverse, SCGB members only forum should be exactly the place to do it. However I feel the atmosphere there is not conducive to open discussions on these matters, and I'm not at all confident that detailed discussions would be allowed to run. There is an argument that we should force the issue, and be willing to wind up the 'locals' on the members only forum - but frankly its not my style.
I see no problem with doing it here, the bonus being that there are a wide range of non-members who can make there opinions known should they feel the need. I know you were worried that we may wish to discuss documents which should be 'private' but maybe we should address that issue when it arises.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
I pop over to the SCGB forum every so often, but have no intention of posting there again. Still smarting from having my posts picked out by the management as an example of why the forum had to be closed down...
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Wed 17-03-04 10:16; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
DavidS, curious now: are your posts still viewable at SCGB? You seem most rational. What can you have possibly posted that got the officers so worried?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I put up what I thought was clearly a joke post suggesting that the Council was congratulating itself on the double whammy of having cleared out all the troublemakers and got rid of the boarders.
The satire wasn't appreciated. This was the response: "Thank you David for highlighting one of the many reasons why the chat room has been made Members Only."
My fault, at least in part, for not marking it even more clearly - no emoticons over there, though! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
DavidS, one of the markers of a successful organisation is the ability to deal with criticism in a constructive manner. Your post seems innocuous. Can you remember the title of the thread? Is it still in the SCGB archives?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
The silly thing is that DavidS is a member so it doesn't effect him anyway 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
When you consider that at the end of january it was not unusual to have a dozen or more new threads start each day ...... sad really 
Oh well
