Re: [ql-users] QL2004 P;us
- Original Message - From: Duncan Neithercut Subject: RE: [ql-users] QL2004 P;us How many of the 300 Quanta members subscribe to this group? Perhaps you know. I dont, my guess is perhaps 63 - based on 1 in 20 rule, if one person complains then approximately 20 others are also dissatisfied and assuming all subscribers will happily dump their committee with the responsibility of organising the meeting, as it is an easy choice for most. It is therefore possible that you are jumping to conclusions about the membership. I suspect rather more than 63, but as you imply indeed not a large sample of Quanta membership. However it is the only forum open for a quick interchange of information, and I suspect the more active members of Quanta are the ones who subscribe to this list. You reach more Quanta members via this list than via any AGM I have attended. Why then doesn't Quanta actively participate? On communication. Look at the Quanta advert on page 51 of the current edition of QL-Today. The website quoted in that advert has not existed for years. I pointed this out to the Quanta committee in February and every member told me I was wrong until I shoved the advert under their faces. It was then corrected for one issue only. Or again. Quanta is always complaining about a shortage of material for the magazine. When do the ever use their own magazine for telling members what they are doing? (Think of the Q60 decision!) It is usually bad policy to disrespect your membership if you are a committee member, and if you are a trader as well!! Trader? Total receipts this year £41. Total expenditure £113.92. If I say goodbye, I am the winner and the QL scene the loser. In fact most Just Words! time is spent helping people with general computer problems. Other traders will tell you something similar. Why do QL users go to traders for help instead of Quanta? Obviously Geoff knows the current committee better than the run of the mill Quanta members, we dont turn up to the AGM anyway, and he has stated publically he has no confidence in his colleagues on the commitee to organise QL2005 (why are you on the committee?). In February I had a meeting with the Quanta Committee in which it was agreed that there was a need for reform and renewal. As a result of this I agreed to become a committee member which I did as from the end of April. You may remember a couple of weeks ago I challenged the 3 Florida boys to tell me how their plans for the next 12 months were proceeding now that they were at the halfway period. I am now applying the same test to myself at my halfway period. How far has Quanta renewed and reformed itself in the last 6 months? I have made my own analysis and provisional decisions. I would like to hear the opinions of others. Logically therefore I vote as a Quanta member of good standing that Geoff should organise this meeting in the UK and have it as close to the center of England as possible and as near Birmingham or Manchester as possible. I would love to run a QL2005 - just one big last International QL show in the UK, but it will be a lot harder than QL2004. The latter was really a show for the movers and shakers rather than the punters, but QL2005 will have to be the other way round. Accommodation, financing, catering and insurance will have to be a Quanta responsibility. They have the funds to do it. They made a profit of £1,363 last year and I think there will be a similar profit this year. Quanta has been talking about a major show since about July 2003, but in 15 months has not come up with a single concrete proposal. At the last committee meeting they were talking about an early AGM in February combined with QL2005, but since then I have heard nothing, even though you need at least a clear six months to run an international show. Draw your own conclusion. I repeat, I will happily organise QL2005, but only on the conditions I have made on this list earlier. Sorry if I sound bossy, dictatorial and arrogant, but I had to be bossy, dictatorial and arrogant to get QL2004 off the ground. Best Wishes, Geoff ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.quanta.org.uk/mailing.htm
Re: [ql-users] QL2004 P;us
- Original Message - From: David Tubbs To an outsider it looks like Geoff is Minister without portfolio, and a bit of a maverick to boot ! Like I have said before on this list, in my days as a probation officer I was assessed on a training course as a constructive subversive. Another hangover I have from my probation officer days is that when people make an agreement with me I expect them to keep it. If not, I punch hard. Best of luck to him if he is trying to get things moving. Seems a bit like part of the dog asking the tail to wag the dog. Do the articles not stipulate a duty on the officers, should they not pro-actively poll the membership with a choice of possible projects ? Then extract the digits, make something happen ! Work is out for yourself. There are 6 people on the Quanta committee. Two of us monitor this list and another is an active member of a subgroup. How do the other three keep up to date with QL developments? If their contact with other QL-ers is mainly fellow committee members, then there is a danger the committee will develop, metaphorically speaking, into a mutual masturbation group. Put in a practical way. Quanta was not present at QL2004, the most important international show for 4 years. Of the six committee members only one has first hand knowledge of QL2004, one has good second hand knowledge and 4 have no knowledge or at best filtered third hand knowledge. In all honesty have they the skills to run QL2005? But then are Quanta members any better than the committee? I have become a little bit sick of people *whispering* in my ear that they are on my side. Finally the QL2005 score: 3 Quanta members are interested 297 Quanta members are not interested The verdict is clear. 'nuff said, Best Wishes, Geoff ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.quanta.org.uk/mailing.htm
RE: [ql-users] QL2004 P;us
Geoff How many of the 300 Quanta members subscribe to this group? Perhaps you know. I dont, my guess is perhaps 63 - based on 1 in 20 rule, if one person complains then approximately 20 others are also dissatisfied and assuming all subscribers will happily dump their committee with the responsibility of organising the meeting, as it is an easy choice for most. It is therefore possible that you are jumping to conclusions about the membership. It is usually bad policy to disrespect your membership if you are a committee member, and if you are a trader as well!! Obviously Geoff knows the current committee better than the run of the mill Quanta members, we dont turn up to the AGM anyway, and he has stated publically he has no confidence in his colleagues on the commitee to organise QL2005 (why are you on the committee?). Logically therefore I vote as a Quanta member of good standing that Geoff should organise this meeting in the UK and have it as close to the center of England as possible and as near Birmingham or Manchester as possible. Regards Duncan Neithercut -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of gwicks Sent: 28 October 2004 18:51 To: ql-users Subject: Re: [ql-users] QL2004 P;us - Original Message - From: David Tubbs To an outsider it looks like Geoff is Minister without portfolio, and a bit of a maverick to boot ! Like I have said before on this list, in my days as a probation officer I was assessed on a training course as a constructive subversive. Another hangover I have from my probation officer days is that when people make an agreement with me I expect them to keep it. If not, I punch hard. Best of luck to him if he is trying to get things moving. Seems a bit like part of the dog asking the tail to wag the dog. Do the articles not stipulate a duty on the officers, should they not pro-actively poll the membership with a choice of possible projects ? Then extract the digits, make something happen ! Work is out for yourself. There are 6 people on the Quanta committee. Two of us monitor this list and another is an active member of a subgroup. How do the other three keep up to date with QL developments? If their contact with other QL-ers is mainly fellow committee members, then there is a danger the committee will develop, metaphorically speaking, into a mutual masturbation group. Put in a practical way. Quanta was not present at QL2004, the most important international show for 4 years. Of the six committee members only one has first hand knowledge of QL2004, one has good second hand knowledge and 4 have no knowledge or at best filtered third hand knowledge. In all honesty have they the skills to run QL2005? But then are Quanta members any better than the committee? I have become a little bit sick of people *whispering* in my ear that they are on my side. Finally the QL2005 score: 3 Quanta members are interested 297 Quanta members are not interested The verdict is clear. 'nuff said, Best Wishes, Geoff ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.quanta.org.uk/mailing.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.quanta.org.uk/mailing.htm
