Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
19th April 2009, 10:58 AM
Please contact me about any issues you have... the rest of those signed up have agreed to (and even suggested it is essential ) the section being open, as there is nothing to hide.
I will password it briefly, so you can check again... I have already read over the threads, and there is nothing I can see that could not be public.
If no objections are received, then I will unpassword it on Monday Morning (UPDATE __ I will retain the password.. as people have only to sign up currently and then get a password - it shows commitment)
remember I am merely hosting the discussion, so the decision to open it has to be made by a majority of the potential members.
It is not bowing to external pressure, rather requests from those who wish it to work....
"Entrepreneurs are simply those who understand that there is little difference between obstacle and opportunity and are able to turn both to their advantage."
Niccolo Machiavelli
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2004
19th April 2009, 02:49 PM
I've just received a email from David, asking for my opinion as to opening up the BAJRFed forum, I then log on to see if there is any discussion, to find the form already emblazened with 'SOON TO BE OPEN TO ALL'. I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Peter (for once), this is out of order. Ask the 'membership' first, don't do two contradictory things at the same time, or you will be accused of being a dictator, and an inept one at that. And quite rightly.
I haven't written anything on that forum that I wouldn't have written here, but the 'members only' is to ensure that it stays on track, and to some extent serious and focussed, and to get people to at least make a two minute commitment by applying. But some may have posted there who may not want that generally known, you HAVE to respect that.
As I've said before, I don't think there are any restrictions on who can join in on the forum, even if they wouldn't be eligible to join any eventual organisation (and I feel any restrictions to forum access should be clearly stated so it is not perceived as abuse of power, for example if Pete Hinton wanted to look in, could he?).
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2004
19th April 2009, 02:58 PM
Sorry, posted previous post when hadn't seen David's post of 9.58.
I don't think you have had time yet to make a decision on our behalf. I've only just happened to check my email (a work account) and seen this, I'm not at work monday so would have known nothing about this until after it had been done. And I have posted more than many on the Fed forum.
I object to the way it is being done. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
I'll try and email you, or you can give me a ring.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
19th April 2009, 10:43 PM
And becasue of mails recieved, the password stays for now, as people have only to sign up and get a password... so it shows you are willing to discuss and debate.. even Mark Horton could sign up and get a password then be given a password to get involved.
So although there is a small step to take, it is still open, but only to those wishing to get involved.
If at the end of the consultation, it is still the majority will, and those that have posted are ALL in agrement, then it can be open, but only then. This is a process, that we all learn from.
"Entrepreneurs are simply those who understand that there is little difference between obstacle and opportunity and are able to turn both to their advantage."
Niccolo Machiavelli
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
19th April 2009, 11:07 PM
Can I say that a long conversation with bob today, helped me no end, it all comes down to people getting involved, and talking, not just leaving it to others. I have a clearer idea of a potential for the federation, which places all the power in the membership - where it becomes a positive group... NOT an negative expression of NOT IfA or NOT CBA but actually something that people will get behind as a useful adjunct to these and other groups.
Think on... you want support... then it is within your hands... JOIN the debate http://www.bajr.org/federation then email me for your password info@bajr.org
Its your chance to decide... take it
"Entrepreneurs are simply those who understand that there is little difference between obstacle and opportunity and are able to turn both to their advantage."
Niccolo Machiavelli
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
19th April 2009, 11:13 PM
I have to say I don't see that it matters whether there is a password on it or not, but I would find it unfortunate if it was felt necessary to bow to the complaints of a few people on the Britarch forum. What are they afraid of? If they want to know more the manner in which they can do so has been clearly explained. I wish I'd caught some of the earlier criticisms on the Britarch forum just to see what was said but I have pretty much lost what little remaining respect or interest I had in ever looking at it now, which is a sad state of affairs.
I do remain sceptical about what the Fed can achieve, however, and worry that it might end up being devisive, but if it did end up 'dead in the water' it might at least have made a few issues more public and brought debate into the open (without a password!)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2008
20th April 2009, 12:10 AM
I am not sceptical about this (very unusual) and will try to support the initiative as much as possible. We've been whining for much too long, let's actually try and do something for a change.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
20th April 2009, 02:19 AM
more to come... to those that think no never... sod em
to those that think... lets at least look at what may happen... welcome
it may work... it may not.. but its worth looking at it
I have regained my composure thanks to bob
"Entrepreneurs are simply those who understand that there is little difference between obstacle and opportunity and are able to turn both to their advantage."
Niccolo Machiavelli
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2004
20th April 2009, 11:36 AM
A few of my thoughts on this, and I think I generally agree with everyone, which is nice!
As I said, I'm not bothered by a password or not, I'm bothered by a lack of process about changing that decision. David has addressed that concern, and that's that sorted. David is in the position of having directly and indirectly done a great deal for the site workers over many years, and he does come in for personal attacks from some within archaeology. Well that's life to some extent, and he doesn't get everything right. I don't bother with britarch and I don't know what was said there in detail, but if it was anything like Paul Barford's rather nasty comments on his blog, I'm not surprised David got upset. Whether deleting the whole britarch threads rather than individual comments was the right move I'm not so sure, but David is the one that gets the flak at a personal level for providing a forum for people to air their opinions, does the head of the CBA get personally attacked for all the comments on their forum?
I don't see why anyone would get upset/worried/their knickers in a twist about a number of committed archaeologists getting together to discuss whether there is a need for an organisation of whatever form to fill a gap. There are indeed a number of existing bodies, and most people are not members of all, which implies they value some bodies more than others? So if a group of archaeologists want to create another group that has clearly stated it is not intended to replace or rival existing groups, just what is the problem?
All we are doing is trying to make archaeology a better place for the archaeologists, and to create a grouping that may offer collective support to its members by way of information and advice, and campaigning on issues that affect its membership. If that is what concerned individuals decide any group should in fact do, bvecause we haven't actually deceided yet, we're still discussing it, on this forum, in pubs, portakabins and site huts up and down the country.
Personally I feel this process is as important as the end result on this one, its through thinking about who does what for whom, and what could be done better, and what else is needed, that we as archaeologists get a clearer idea of our profession and how to improve it. I don't think anyone is talking about workers revolutionary councils, or seizing the means of excavation, but by talking about what is happening within archaeology we can make a difference. And what exactly is wrong with that?
So where does that leave us? well we have certain fundamental things to sort, the membership criteria and costs being I believe the most important, as from them all else follows. Who we include sets the agenda we are concerned with, and how much people will pay sets the priorities and what is achievable.
Personally I think as inclusive a group as possible as what we appear to be needing is a campaigning and support group. But then that is my personal preconceived idea, others have different ideas, lets air and discuss these and reach a meaningful concensus. I think a loose umbrella group that has a nominal sub, and uses a website to host discussions, and hold information pertinent to its members that is added to and used by the membership(sometimes by subscription for more specialist advice eg tax/model contracts which carry a production cost)
I don't think there is enough support for a specific stand-alone small business/self-employed group, despite Peter Wardle's case for it, I think a self-employed Special Interest Group within the IFA would be able to cater for their requirements, like nominating a freelancer for election to council to specifically argue for the self-employed (as the Digger's Forum do now, successfully).
We can leave David to carry the costs, or we can grow up and admit that we do need to pay some subs, however nominal, to make this less of a millstone round BAJR's neck. It will cost around ?1000 a year to run the website and server for example, an AGM would be at least ?500 more in travel and expenses (oooh gravy train snouts in troughs!). And that is the minimum for a non-postage e-organisation, then there are accounts, tax etc etc. And time, all of our time, because its up to us to do it, no-ones going to do it for us.
We already have in BAJR an 'organisation' that changes to a great extent according to its users wishes, there is space here for the resources we need, and for people to talk and raise issues and campaign on those issues. We have a lot already here, we just need to make the most of it by giving of our commitment as freely as David does.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
20th April 2009, 11:50 AM
many thanks for that bob, and lets see people actually getting invovled, rather than sidelining...
ps.. I was contacted by JISCmail today, who asked if I would be happy about the return of the threads without the offending 'comments' I said I was more than happy, as the loss of the threads did make it look like I was the most powerful woodland animal in the whole of UK Archaeology (joke) AS I had no objection, and it was reasonable they will be restoring these threads to the archive, minus the offending bits... I could have objected, but why should I? The vitriol and bile spouted about the almost black-ops cover-up would have gone into conspiricy meltdown... It was a simple case of breached ettiquette and personal attack, the debate, is valid, the name calling and insinuations is not.
As bob says...
All we are doing is trying to make archaeology a better place for the archaeologists, and to create a grouping that may offer collective support to its members by way of information and advice, and campaigning on issues that affect its membership
So lets do it... lets see if it is worth pursuing, or if it is a pipe dream with no real benefit.. but lets talk about it.
"Entrepreneurs are simply those who understand that there is little difference between obstacle and opportunity and are able to turn both to their advantage."
Niccolo Machiavelli
|
