Upcoming AGA projects, volunteers needed, info, etc etc etc

[Mef]

I actually had a long conversation with Yertle on the phone, asking him what he could do, what he hoped to do, what he expected to do, etc. etc. Perhaps you could ask him what he made of his job description -- and ask him again in a few months. If it's not clear to him, i'm sure he'll ask me

I've heard speculation that he intends to stake claim over all he can see -- can you comment on this?

[Yertle]

This seems a great opportunity for the AGA to show how transparent it can be.

I'm more of an action versus words guy.

http://www.usgo.org/board/ApprovedMinutes/

[seigenblues]

My hero!

[Bantari]

No, we need people who can get things to 100% because the nature of things is such: people get to 80% (if that!) and fade away. If it's not done & ready to go, finding another volunteer to finish the job is really nontrivial.

You raise many good points, some of them I disagree with.
But I wanted to comment on the one you raised above.

A lot of times when people start an initiative, they start it with the aim to finish it. I know, I started some myself and I have seen other started as well... most of the time the problem these people have is the apparent lack of interest of the group they are giving their time to. In case of AGA... if I start, say, a forum development for AGA, and I keep going at it week after week, without any input, without any contact, without anything from AGA itself, who just sits there waiting like a spider in its web for me to hand out the finished product AND documentation... you see, at some point I say 'screw that, I am gone!'

What I would like AGA (and other organizations) to do is this:
Commission the project... I/somebody can volunteer... but there has to be a team to work on that, even if its just testing and commenting and showing interest, I/somebody can do all the actual coding. Some input, some interest, some guidance... This way I know my project is important and valuable. And also - my input as volunteer should be treated as valuable, my words should be heard.

I don't see this happening. From what you say, AGA just sits there and says: give us a project 100% done, or its worthless... we evaluate after you're done and maybe give you some credit.

In an ideal world, we would have an active AGA forum (part of L19 or not) where projects could be explained, monitored, and input could be given and ideas exchanged. Transparently. To me, this should be the FIRST priority of the board members - bring it all into the open, and empower people rather than disillusioning them. And that's not just for AGA - I don't see why any of the associations shouldn't be doing that. To me, its common sense, and this is how I would run things if I was in charge. Call me naive... but what's right is right.

[malweth]

If I can put what Bantari wrote another way. This is how I see it:

The AGA, as the governing body, acts as the sponsor. The members of the AGA are the customer, and the volunteers are the contractors. The AGA is responsible for finding out what the customer wants and conveying that information to the volunteers. This is a two way street: updates should be fed back to the AGA and feedback back to the volunteer. The AGA leads are the facilitators of this process.

If the members don't want it, the time is wasted.
If the AGA doesn't communicate with the members, the members won't want it.
If the volunteers don't do the work, nothing will happen.
If the AGA doesn't communicate with the volunteers, the work won't get done.

[daniel_the_smith]

In an ideal world, we would have an active AGA forum (part of L19 or not) where projects could be explained, monitored, and input could be given and ideas exchanged. Transparently. To me, this should be the FIRST priority of the board members - bring it all into the open, and empower people rather than disillusioning them. And that's not just for AGA - I don't see why any of the associations shouldn't be doing that. To me, its common sense, and this is how I would run things if I was in charge. Call me naive... but what's right is right.

One of my goals, which may or may not be equally naive, is to have discussions here or where ever is appropriate *before* the relevant votes happen. Please feel free to call me out in a few months if you think I could be doing better on this score.

[Joaz Banbeck]

...
In an ideal world, we would have an active AGA forum (part of L19 or not) where projects could be explained, monitored, and input could be given and ideas exchanged. Transparently...

...
One of my goals, which may or may not be equally naive, is to have discussions here or where ever is appropriate *before* the relevant votes happen...

[admin]
I think that I can speak for all the admins when I say that we will be happy to support this; that we will give you as much forum space as you want, structured with sub-forums in whatever way you want it.
[/admin]

[Bantari]

In an ideal world, we would have an active AGA forum (part of L19 or not) where projects could be explained, monitored, and input could be given and ideas exchanged. Transparently. To me, this should be the FIRST priority of the board members - bring it all into the open, and empower people rather than disillusioning them. And that's not just for AGA - I don't see why any of the associations shouldn't be doing that. To me, its common sense, and this is how I would run things if I was in charge. Call me naive... but what's right is right.

One of my goals, which may or may not be equally naive, is to have discussions here or where ever is appropriate *before* the relevant votes happen. Please feel free to call me out in a few months if you think I could be doing better on this score.

Don't need to wait a few months.. you are doing fine.

But... are you the policy-maker in AGA? Are you the board member? If so, great that you are so active... But even then - the whole board needs to get involved, I feel. An odd member here and there is cool, but this does not really change things.

[daniel_the_smith]

But... are you the policy-maker in AGA? Are you the board member? If so, great that you are so active... But even then - the whole board needs to get involved, I feel. An odd member here and there is cool, but this does not really change things.

I'm the central region's board member elect at the moment, my term starts next month (I am not the board member previously alluded to on this thread). I think I'm going to concentrate on making things more transparent at first. From this thread, others like it, and personal conversations at congress and elsewhere I'm think I'm getting a picture of some things I would like to see happen. After I'm more acquainted with the politics we'll see if/how many toes need to be stepped on to improve things.

BTW, I don't think it's reasonable to expect every board member to be as chatty as I am. As it happens, though, the chapters mailing list is down and (apparently) has been for quite some time, so I'm not sure how exactly the board does expect to be communicating with the members.

[xed_over]

I'm not sure how exactly the board does expect to be communicating with the members.

in my short half dozen years as a member, I still haven't figured this one out either.

[Joaz Banbeck]

... I'm not sure how exactly the board does expect to be communicating with the members.

You're doing as well - or better - than any board member that I've ever seen.

[hyperpape]

If I can put what Bantari wrote another way. This is how I see it:

The AGA, as the governing body, acts as the sponsor. The members of the AGA are the customer, and the volunteers are the contractors. The AGA is responsible for finding out what the customer wants and conveying that information to the volunteers. This is a two way street: updates should be fed back to the AGA and feedback back to the volunteer. The AGA leads are the facilitators of this process.

So the volunteers get paid and (probably) don't consume the service?

[malweth]

So the volunteers get paid and (probably) don't consume the service?

If they got paid, they wouldn't be volunteers!

The metaphor breaks down a bit in that the volunteers are also one subset of the general membership... but I don't see much of a problem with that... interest drives motivation! (It just doesn't sustain motivation).

[Bantari]

I'm the central region's board member elect at the moment, my term starts next month (I am not the board member previously alluded to on this thread). I think I'm going to concentrate on making things more transparent at first. From this thread, others like it, and personal conversations at congress and elsewhere I'm think I'm getting a picture of some things I would like to see happen. After I'm more acquainted with the politics we'll see if/how many toes need to be stepped on to improve things.

Great!
AGA needs more like you, then!

BTW, I don't think it's reasonable to expect every board member to be as chatty as I am.

I sort-of disagree with you on this one.
You are very chatty, this is true, and you are right that not every board member can possibly be like that.

However - I think that for an elected official it should be one of the FIRST duties to keep in touch with the people who elected them, which probably means all of the AGA members. In a sense - those little AGA members are the elected official's employers. So such official, while not necessarily chatty, should be available - which possibly means a forum like this one. Available AND responsive, not only lurking. As it is - I am not even sure if any of the board members are even lurking to see what AGA members have to say.

Working 'through channels' is all fine and dandy, but it tends to disassociate the leadership from the grass roots. And this is never good.

So, in this context - I would expect all the board members to also be active members of some public forum (and not a mailing list, its so yesterday) on which they can be reached and where they can OPENLY express their opinions and discuss things - possibly with all the little members having some input as well.

Call me an idealist, but this is what I would call 'nice'.

[John Fairbairn]

However - I think that for an elected official it should be one of the FIRST duties to keep in touch with the people who elected them, which probably means all of the AGA members. In a sense - those little AGA members are the elected official's employers. So such official, while not necessarily chatty, should be available - which possibly means a forum like this one. Available AND responsive, not only lurking. As it is - I am not even sure if any of the board members are even lurking to see what AGA members have to say.

Working 'through channels' is all fine and dandy, but it tends to disassociate the leadership from the grass roots. And this is never good.

Well said. I completely agree. Especially for elected officials. You have to be a certain type of outgoing person to stand for election in the first place, so communication is unlikely to be a hardship for such a person. It's more likely that a new or junior official doesn't want to be thought, by communicating publicly, to be showing off, or showing up less communicative officials. The President needs to set the tone here and assure all officials that public communication is part of the job spec.