18th June 2009, 12:07 PM
So it will be an overhaul of the whole of Bajr, with extra fora for the federation, and separate fora within that? Which are free to evolve and maybe even develop into something else? Can you post a Venn diagramme showing the relationships!!
An inclusive arena in which groups can discuss/host/communicate? As per existing BAJR, but with separate sections. Can I suggest that the 'section' aspect needs looking into carefully? What I like about Bajr is that anyone can pitch in (some of us too often!), and eg the metal detecting forum, is an arena in which people who would not otherwise talk to each other, do so, and discuss issues openly. I would like to see this continue. I don't think we maybe need all the existing fora, as there is a lot of crossover and there could be some amalgamation? and with say another ten sections, it may become unmanageable?
Concept sounds sensible, out of interest do groups like AAI&S and ADA etc have a 'forum' at present? I think some of these groups have facebook groups, but I don't use that. In fact doesn't BAJR have a facebook group? Are these groups actually saying they want a web-forum hosted here? I can see some problems:
You talk of validation into sections, eg by AAI&S, yet how will this work? I am a professional illustrator as part of my work, yet have not chosen to join the AAI&S, but am a member of the IfA Survey and Illustration SIG (which anyone interested can join). Am I allowed in? Someone interested in illustration, eg a student, would want to be a part of discussions and I can imagine gaining a lot from such a forum, but how are they allowed in? So if there is an official AAI&S forum (members only), there would have to be a further non-AAI&S members forum for all the people interested in illustration, but not in the AAI&S? You say by invite only? But these are subscription based groups, why should they allow someone in for nothing? What is their opinion? And invitation only excludes the interested party or useful tangental view from a separate discipline.
Do you see my point?
We could have full accredited members (validated by professional group) and 'prospects', but what about for your field archaeologist group, the validation would be by membership of the ifA? Are illustrators allowed in Field Archaeology? Who says someone is a field archaeologist? Or not?
Will we lose a lot of the free-flow of opinion, ideas and knowledge that we currently get from having all fora open to all members?
I like the idea of documentation available to all, or just members, and would repeat my suggestion that certain documents could be commissioned by Sections and available for a small fee, any eventual profits going back into the organisation (eg model contracts for freelancers, model terms and conditions and other 'legal' stuff that would need paying for/checking professionally)
Calendar sounds good, again, does it need to have separate calendars by group? An active group sells itself to new members by having lots of events/meetings/seminars etc, and by potential members seeing that the group offers a lot of bang for their buck. Have a single calendar with a checklist of 'sections', like in the find a specialist map?
Costs? Again, I'd repeat my concerns from the old thread (which no-one answered). How much will this cost, just in domain rental, electricity, harddrive/computer space (especially with potentially thousands of photos), let alone time. This should not be allowed to be born by David, its not fair, and it leaves the organisation in his control, which is wrong if the organisation is to be what is intended. It should not either be, or seen to be, his 'football' that he can take away when he doesn't want to play anymore.
I know we're all skint, but we have to accept that there are costs, and know what they are. This needs a statement from David so we can see where we stand. It may be a ?1 a year sub, or a ?5 one-off membership fee, I don't know.
If BAJR would be hosting fora for professional, subscription bodies, then should they be charged for this service?
Can I ask who would share the admin time, presumably one or two moderators from each section would put a bit of time in keeping things up to date? I don't want David getting snowed under with more, unpaid work. We are all in this together, pull your weight! I am personally disappointed by the lack of discussion on the Fed idea, apart from a few people, and some very interesting points, most people seem to have chosen not to participate in the discussion about whether it is needed, what it should be, and how it should operate. This is really very sad, and I would hope that more people would realise that we're all responsible for the state we're in, and we can't expect someone else to do it for us....
I don't care about hats, I care about whether this will work!
K.I.S.S.!!
An inclusive arena in which groups can discuss/host/communicate? As per existing BAJR, but with separate sections. Can I suggest that the 'section' aspect needs looking into carefully? What I like about Bajr is that anyone can pitch in (some of us too often!), and eg the metal detecting forum, is an arena in which people who would not otherwise talk to each other, do so, and discuss issues openly. I would like to see this continue. I don't think we maybe need all the existing fora, as there is a lot of crossover and there could be some amalgamation? and with say another ten sections, it may become unmanageable?
Concept sounds sensible, out of interest do groups like AAI&S and ADA etc have a 'forum' at present? I think some of these groups have facebook groups, but I don't use that. In fact doesn't BAJR have a facebook group? Are these groups actually saying they want a web-forum hosted here? I can see some problems:
You talk of validation into sections, eg by AAI&S, yet how will this work? I am a professional illustrator as part of my work, yet have not chosen to join the AAI&S, but am a member of the IfA Survey and Illustration SIG (which anyone interested can join). Am I allowed in? Someone interested in illustration, eg a student, would want to be a part of discussions and I can imagine gaining a lot from such a forum, but how are they allowed in? So if there is an official AAI&S forum (members only), there would have to be a further non-AAI&S members forum for all the people interested in illustration, but not in the AAI&S? You say by invite only? But these are subscription based groups, why should they allow someone in for nothing? What is their opinion? And invitation only excludes the interested party or useful tangental view from a separate discipline.
Do you see my point?
We could have full accredited members (validated by professional group) and 'prospects', but what about for your field archaeologist group, the validation would be by membership of the ifA? Are illustrators allowed in Field Archaeology? Who says someone is a field archaeologist? Or not?
Will we lose a lot of the free-flow of opinion, ideas and knowledge that we currently get from having all fora open to all members?
I like the idea of documentation available to all, or just members, and would repeat my suggestion that certain documents could be commissioned by Sections and available for a small fee, any eventual profits going back into the organisation (eg model contracts for freelancers, model terms and conditions and other 'legal' stuff that would need paying for/checking professionally)
Calendar sounds good, again, does it need to have separate calendars by group? An active group sells itself to new members by having lots of events/meetings/seminars etc, and by potential members seeing that the group offers a lot of bang for their buck. Have a single calendar with a checklist of 'sections', like in the find a specialist map?
Costs? Again, I'd repeat my concerns from the old thread (which no-one answered). How much will this cost, just in domain rental, electricity, harddrive/computer space (especially with potentially thousands of photos), let alone time. This should not be allowed to be born by David, its not fair, and it leaves the organisation in his control, which is wrong if the organisation is to be what is intended. It should not either be, or seen to be, his 'football' that he can take away when he doesn't want to play anymore.
I know we're all skint, but we have to accept that there are costs, and know what they are. This needs a statement from David so we can see where we stand. It may be a ?1 a year sub, or a ?5 one-off membership fee, I don't know.
If BAJR would be hosting fora for professional, subscription bodies, then should they be charged for this service?
Can I ask who would share the admin time, presumably one or two moderators from each section would put a bit of time in keeping things up to date? I don't want David getting snowed under with more, unpaid work. We are all in this together, pull your weight! I am personally disappointed by the lack of discussion on the Fed idea, apart from a few people, and some very interesting points, most people seem to have chosen not to participate in the discussion about whether it is needed, what it should be, and how it should operate. This is really very sad, and I would hope that more people would realise that we're all responsible for the state we're in, and we can't expect someone else to do it for us....
I don't care about hats, I care about whether this will work!
K.I.S.S.!!