The important word in my comment was "necessarily".
Changing of structures, terms of office and voting arrangements do not
NECESSARILY lead to better outcomes, just different ways to play
politics. Indeed, most of the restrictions that have been mentioned in
another post were the same (or worse) before the current arrangements
were put in place.
I certainly don't oppose Robert's proposals, I merely wanted to point
out that it is wrong to assume that they will automatically result in
improvements (or even the potential for improvements) at the operational
level.
Cheers
Tim
Emilis Prelgauskas wrote:
Tim Shirley
The structure matters only to the
extent that it affects the outcome for members, and its not clear to
me
that a better outcome would necessarily result.
Sean Jorgensen-Day
You may find that like many other members we simply don't really
mind what the GFA does as long as we are allowed to continue flying
and soaring in piece.
My reading is that
the absence of knowledge amongst individuals about just how much the
individual's freedom to fly
is intimately linked to
management capability in the federal structure,
is created by the barriers to new blood getting access to that
federal structure.
In other areas of my life it has been rewarding to watch
reinvigoration and successful new outcomes when in moribund
organisations a new person at the helm simply invited in goodwill
from the broad membership, which resulted in inflow too of interest,
effort, and most importantly the much needed management talent
itself, which is often latent across the broad membership.
_______________________________________________
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
