From: Emilis Prelgauskas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:47:28 +1100, Graeme Cant wrote:
>N ot only is that its contractual role, that is the
>role it
>was actually formed to provide back in the forties of the last
>century and
>which its whole structure is designed around.
I suspect that in looking through the minutes of formation (1949), you
will find that GFA was formed to be the single voice representing all the
state gliding associations in their interface with the Dept of ever
changing names.
GFA as an ndependent entity didn''t exist before 1981 (hence the 3 reps
from each state), and since then has repositioned itself by salami tactic
toward being a service provider or regulator (even though it is only a
delegate of the real regulator).
(hence the Board composition of Exec + heads of depts + 1 rep from each
region).
Graeme's recollection of history and mine thus differ significantly.
Actually it's not my recollection since I wasn't there either but I'm not
sure we differ Emilis. Since the 'Dept of ever changing names' (although it
stayed the same for a long time) only had the function of regulating, the
organisation formed to interface with it also had to do with regulation.
We're both saying the same thing.
I don't think it needed to reposition itself since a delegate has the same
role as that which it's a delegate of. I think it's probably semantics
rather than salami to talk about it repositioning itself. It was formed to
be the interface and finished up as the delegate. I suspect it would be
impossible to pin down where it slid from one to the other and just as
difficult to define how its role might have changed in the process.
I don't think it detracts from my point that - as you rightly say about
clubs - there are horses for courses. The GFA was formed to deal with the
regulatory aspects of gliding (how's that for a formula we can agree on?)
and it's not all that suited to being a salesman. I know a number of good
people are working hard on its marketing and development but it's not an
easy thing for a technical organisation to do.
My other point is that while regulation is a natural monopoly, marketing and
development is open slather. Anybody who doesn't like how it's being done
is welcome to have a go and it will be a long time before the marketplace
becomes overcrowded.
Cheers,
Graeme
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
