Mark Newton wrote:
We need an active, open and rapid turn round communication loop, that
is we need active and open communications in both directions between
the GFA officers and the membership that do not take several months
to operate.
Perhaps the exec needs to start blogging :-)
Well - using blog software to post information and then encouraging
comments amongst GFA members is actually one of hte ways that had
occurred to me as most blogging software includes excellent discussion
forum capabilities.
For what it's worth, the code which drives sites such as
http://slashdot.org is freely available.
There's actually heaps of less complicated and more widely used blog
software out there. I hust installed Wordpress on my Linux server
yesterday as I want to change my (and Alice's) site to make it more
accessible - but that's another story).
I suspect you'd need to change the organization to the point where
it's employing its officers to make implementation of something like
that successful, though. The volunteer officers are already flat-out
with GFA stuff; expecting them to participate in that kind of thing
in addition to their current duties is a bit beyond the pale.
The joy of using FOSS is that the implementation and maintenance of such
a site is relatively easy - and can be dome very securely remotely. I
would be happy to volunteer my skills to do both.
As to the impact on the volunteer officers, well, again I don't see it
is huge in terms of time. Yes, they will need to learn new skills, but
far more importantly the officers will need to change attitudes:
openness to communication and external input is an attidunial issue, not
a technical one. The one thing most high level IT management people
learn (or they don't stay high level for long) is that technical stuff
is easy but people stuff is incredibly hard.
I could readily impement blogs for the GFA officers and train them how
to use them, but without their commitment to communicating, the effort
would be a total waste of time.
"In the ol' days," when a councillor was appointed to the GFA, he/she
would have a circle of influence which would have included the club
they fly at, the members of their state organization, prominent members
from other clubs they regularly visited, and so on.
Since then, of course, the Internet has come along, and now everyone
expects to be able to talk to everyone else at no cost 365 days per
year.
I think you misunderstand how I see things working, probably because I
deliberately did not want to get into that level of detail. Far more
important that we identify the issues and then try to fix them. I made
recommendations in my earlier note because I know from experience that
it is heaps easier to get people thinking if you give them something to
criticise!
As you want to get to that level, I anticipate that things could work as
follows...
1) An issue requiring a GFA officer's attention is placed on his/her plate
(no change here)
2) They go off and research the matter and gather info and start
thinking about the problem.
(again no change)
3) As part of organising hte information prior to making recommendations
for a decision, they post the info to their part of the web site,
possibly as a blog article with attached links to the info papers.
(organising the info is not new, load info to web site and write short
article about why the issue is under consideration for action is new,
but trivial for a well set up system)
4) GFA members are free to read the info and comment on the info already
gathered. Importantly, they may well have info that the officer would
otherwise not know about or raise issues that impinge directly on the
detail of hte decision that is to be taken.
(this is new - but it actually REDUCES the GFA officer's workload as
many other eyes and brains are involved in finding out info and putting
together a solution).
5) The GFA officer scans the discussion and uses that to prepare the
recommendation for action that goes to the relevant GFA action body
(exec, council, comittee or whatever). S/he may well make one or two
occasional posts, will follow up any links to other info provided in the
forum and may engage one or two posters in person to person email
because of particular issues or expertise that are raised.
(partly new - but again a small additional workload)
6) The issue goes before the GFA action body along with the position
paper prepared by the officer and background info that is already there
on the web for the other people involved in the decision to see - so
they are prepared for the meeting - and a decision is made.
(no new work here - but there is LESS work as the committee is already
aware of the info and the direction of the web discussion and so a
decision can be made in less time).
7) After the meeting, the minutes are posted ot the web, along with the
support info. The membership is already aware of the issues and has had
a part to play in exploring the issues and formulating the final
decision. Members that want to find out why a particular decision has
been made can consult the minutes and the archives of the web discussion...
(mostly new - but much of the info is already there and the closed
feedback loop will SIGNIFICANTLY improve the implementation and impact
of the decision).
I don't think there's much of a recognition about how much additional
load that places on a GFA officer, though. The time taken to carry
out a multilateral conversation with a large group of disparate interests
is simply ENORMOUS, and I don't think anyone who hasn't attempted it
really understands what an imposition it is. Not only would an officer
need to initiate conversation on items of interest, they'd also need
to participate afterwards, and that participation would need to be
deep enough to make people like you think it was adding value.
I think that the illustration above would suggest that the imposition is
nowhere near the level that you are anticipating. As for convincing
members that they are being listened to and their views incorporated
into the decision making process, direct one to one conversation wth
every (or even most) individual members is not needed. If members see
that the decision taken is reflective of the background information and
of the range of views in the web discussion, they will be convinced. Not
every member will have their preferred direction followed all hte time -
but that is always the case in any group of more than one person: the
key issue is that they know they are being heard and that the decisions
are reflective of the membership. On some occasions, there may well be
instances where the preferred direction of the membership is simply
impossible (for regulatory reasons for example). The web discussion
would pick that up early and defuse the matter (by pointing out that it
is impossible because of such and such a CASA regulation or whatever)
and the web discussion would then move on to focus on the possible.
At time the web discussion will get passionate and may well boil over -
so be it, it happens and we are all grown ups that just have to deal
with it (there are automated ways in blog software to reject posts that
contain language to close to the bone :-).
The change in focus of modern communication is reflected in the way
that you believe the GFA officers should be answering directly to you,
instead of via your state association (which is how the system was
designed, remember?). If you think you're not getting enough feedback
about how the organization is functioning, why aren't you asking the
officers which YOUR ASSOCIATION has put forward to the national body
for more information? I can answer that for you: You're asking the
GFA instead of your state association because it's easier to go "direct"
in 2005. Back in 1990 we wouldn't have been having this conversation
because there'd never have been any expectation at all that the
national body would be communicating directly with individual members.
First of all, the GFA is the members' organisation - not the officers'.
It is a requirement of office that the GFA officers answer to the
membership. That is why the membership has the right under the articles
of association to require a special general meeting (amongst other
provisions). To suggest that the GFA officers are NOT responsible to the
membership is truly astounding!
What you are describing is the 'official' communciations channels that
were set up when Australia's tyranny of distance and communication had
to be dealt with by any national organisation. Simply because the exec
is not directly elected by the membership does not mean that they are
not repsonsible to the membership: they are.
The feedback to me personally (or other members) is not the issue. It is
the closing of the communication loop and the engagement of our
collective skills and knowledge to finding hte solutions to the problems
we face - now and in the future.
The kind of back-and-forth flow that you're expecting is possible, but
it'll take a fundamental restructuring of the GFA to make sense.
For example, perhaps the state associations have outlived their
usefulness (I don't necessarily believe they have, but if the
interaction between the GFA and its members is going to bypass the state
associations, what are the state associations for?)
Either they will find a use for themselves (that is, the state
membership will find it needs its state association for particular
purposes) or they will die. I believe that the state associations could
well be useful in a number of areas to 'particularise' and prioritise
efforts in the states. However, the state associations will need to find
a way of raising funds to make this happen.
--
Robert Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+61 (0)438 385 533
Brisbane, Australia http://www.hart.wattle.id.au
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
