17th February 2005, 04:49 PM
Alfie
1.No you can't (and obviously wouldn't if you could). So the sooner there is a body or organization with whom units and/or individuals are required to be registered, the better. Put another way, a licensing system.... Whether this is a new improved IFA, the CBA, the BBC, the CIA, Baldric with a laptop or whoever, is irrelevant in principle, but there needs to be someone, independent and with teeth and/or a big stick (and carrots).
However. the important phrase in the letter is "or proven equivalent". Thus the MIFA status is only used as a reference for standards, there is no requirement for membership. Presumably only the director is specified as he/she is deemed to be responsible for the site and thus for ensuring that personnel are appropriate.
2. Not all diggers can be MIFA's or equal! Frankly I'd like to see the mythical Professional Body insist that a proportion of diggers are sub-PIFA level, i.e. paid trainees, thus creating a entry level career path. But as 1. above, the idea is surley to require that an appropriate level of expertise is provided in any given situation.
3. IFA can only represent its members. Thus there is a vicious circle, almost a Catch 22.
We've discussed the curatorial role many times. Good to hear that you are doing your job but it seems from this forum that many aren't, or more accurately probably can't due to under-resourcing. But the IFA person is basically correct is stating that it's the curators who have to monitor and enforce in the first instance as they are part of the planning process setting the conditions. I don't think they intended any criticism of you (curators).
However, I now understand the IFA tactics. By ensuring that digers wages are kept low, they ensure that diggers cannot afford to moan in pubs and therefore have to submit photographic and documentary evidence of rogue units to the IFA.
You see, they are on the case after all, it's just more subtle than we thought!
1.No you can't (and obviously wouldn't if you could). So the sooner there is a body or organization with whom units and/or individuals are required to be registered, the better. Put another way, a licensing system.... Whether this is a new improved IFA, the CBA, the BBC, the CIA, Baldric with a laptop or whoever, is irrelevant in principle, but there needs to be someone, independent and with teeth and/or a big stick (and carrots).
However. the important phrase in the letter is "or proven equivalent". Thus the MIFA status is only used as a reference for standards, there is no requirement for membership. Presumably only the director is specified as he/she is deemed to be responsible for the site and thus for ensuring that personnel are appropriate.
2. Not all diggers can be MIFA's or equal! Frankly I'd like to see the mythical Professional Body insist that a proportion of diggers are sub-PIFA level, i.e. paid trainees, thus creating a entry level career path. But as 1. above, the idea is surley to require that an appropriate level of expertise is provided in any given situation.
3. IFA can only represent its members. Thus there is a vicious circle, almost a Catch 22.
We've discussed the curatorial role many times. Good to hear that you are doing your job but it seems from this forum that many aren't, or more accurately probably can't due to under-resourcing. But the IFA person is basically correct is stating that it's the curators who have to monitor and enforce in the first instance as they are part of the planning process setting the conditions. I don't think they intended any criticism of you (curators).
However, I now understand the IFA tactics. By ensuring that digers wages are kept low, they ensure that diggers cannot afford to moan in pubs and therefore have to submit photographic and documentary evidence of rogue units to the IFA.
You see, they are on the case after all, it's just more subtle than we thought!