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.
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.