As of this posting, this topic has had 44 replies and 1102 views - even with some regular refreshes (if these are counted), that's a lot of lurkers! Lurking is not necessarily a bad thing - all the various views posted have been relevant to the topic, clearly this issue is getting considerable thought (and some action as reflected in postings).

<P>The issue of governance would seem to be at the core for the future (whenever the future ends up happening). IMHO, without some structure, resolution of matters various (technical, financial or other) have no clear resolution path. Not suggesting for a moment that I have the answer, but to me, some of the key questions are becoming a little clearer.

A trawling we will go..... So many old threads!

Perhaps the straw that broke the Camel's back. The Tsunami cache. A turning point in GCA/GC relations? http://forum.geocaching.com.au/viewtopic.php?t=2028

Previous discussion on creating a comittee:
http://forum.geocaching.com.au/viewtopic.php?t=2066

I do remember some threads with people saying they would NEVER search for a GCA cache and at least one member posted a thread to let everyone know they were spitting the dummy and never coming back to the Forum over the negativity....

Couldn't find them though. Might have to have a look again.

Did find lots of positive comments about both gc.com and gca.

These were some good points about listing on GCA:

I know the thread you mean and it's probably best not brought up in too much detail. That individual has returned to the forums on rare occassions, so they're not gone for good.

As has been mentioned in other threads that you linked to (and others that are as yet unlinked), there is disagreement between individuals as to whether the gc vs gca split is a good thing or a bad thing. I don't know whether that is a useful argument to continue with. It's sort of like arguing politics or religion. Rarely will one side sway or be swayed, so agreement to disagree is probably the best end result.

Either way, the split has been made. There are two listing sites. Well, obviously there are more than two, but I think the main focus is on two. (Interestingly I got bumped from another listing site because I was told by my sponsor that I hadn't found enough caches to warrant their continued sponsorship ... um, there aren't any to find, but there you go).

I have read threads where some make comments that they wouldn't find GCA caches. I could never quite work out why.

Some have mentioned that having their cache logs on two different locatons was annoying, some mentioned that it's too hard to keep up to date with multiple listings sites, some mentioned maintenance issues, others simply have "no interest".

I tend to agree with the formal committee poll result. It's too darn hard for people who are playing the game as a hobby. At the moment the general consensus tends to win out as far as this site goes.

New requirements are debated and implemented. Changes are discussed and adopted. Suggestions are taken on board and time permitting, changed. If we formed a regular committee it would be too onerous on the elected members and people would still bitch that they didn't get what they wanted.

I think part of the goodness at this site, is you can bitch all you want and you won't get suspended. You can make suggestions and the implementation depends on wants and not whether it can be used to generate additional income.

As a free amd open community I like it here.

An even stranger thing was related to me recently - someone had found a GCA cache and emailed the owner to tell them so, adding that they don't log GCA caches

I can't quite get my head around that one, if you go to the trouble of emailing the owner telling them you found their cache, why not relate that info to a log - it can only be a principal thing, just proves that it takes all kind to make a world!

Ah yes. It amuses me when people go to great lengths "on principal".

Reminds me of an incident a couple of years ago when a guy paid out the mortgage on his house with a major bank. They put a $60 discharge fee on his account which he believed he had closed and they had no right to charge a fee to it. Several courts and a few hundred thousand in fees later he had to sell his house to pay costs. All over $60. He stood by his "principals" no matter the effort and cost. Hope they keep him warm at night.

Maybe we could have a new ‘sub-forum’ called ‘the senate’ (or other less geeky name) the use of this area would be exclusively for discussing and deciding stuff related to the running of GCA. Membership of the senate would be open to all but would be an ‘opt in’ area, meaning you would have to make a choice to get involved in the running/decision making body. Discussion in this area would still be viewable by all. All board members would still be free to discuss GCA issues in the general area but decisions would be taken by the senate. This is democratic. non-exclusive and simple.

maybe not geeky enough ... why not "The Steering Committee" buwahahaha

Any chance this was another "can't" rather than "won't"?

Interesting Read.

I have ignored this thread until today because of the title. Maybe it should change.

I cannot help with coding and such but I would be more than willing to contribute financially. I pay premium rates for the other site and have paid for GSAK etc. Some other cost would not hurt.

We are also members of others sites such as VIGPS who also seem to have a benevolent team running the place. Lots of competitions and prize money put up by the team. We have been the recipients of $1,000 AUD from this site. Competitions such as Coin Quest and Desert Hermit are designed to promote the coin manufacturer. As long as the participants have fun, there are winners there is no reason the competition cannot be skewed to also benefit the site.

There are many ways to get money into the coffers just needs some thoughts. The Geocoin debate could have been sponsored by GCA supporters and thus profits chanelled to site costs etc. The logo and its use can be revised. Supporters such as myself can use our time selling distributing for free with profits back to the site etc etc etc.

A steering committee is generally implemented to steer the group towards a strategic end. I'm not sure we have a strategic end. We have lots of tactical goals, but I couldn't tell you what the strategic goal really was.

At the moment, we request enhancements to the site and wherever Ideology can make time they take up the requests.

With a co-operative of coders this would probably end up in a similar situation. Things being added as requested.

I think the only reason that a SC would be needed would be if there was a fundamental change that the caching community were in two minds about.

Take an example of the GC site whereby they moved all locationless caches off to another site. That upset a lot of people. Some understood and agreed, some understood and didn't agree and some still haven't quite got the reasons why.

If the community at GCA decided to make some move like that, it would probably need general agreement before the coders would make a change that would fundamentally change the nature of the way the game is played.

Other than that, I think general requests would get debated by the community and modified or accepted as a good idea.

The implementation would then be down to the coders to find the time to do the work.

I don't think anyone would point blank refuse to do what was needed, but of course, we would all need to take into account the effort involved. There can be weeks of design and construct time for some requests whereas others could be done overnight.

There are lots of ideas that have been posted in the past that haven't as yet been implemented due to time and capability. There are other things that have gone on that would be great to implement that no-one has formally requested.

eg. A calendar function to show who may be travelling where and each could offer an escort service or just tag team caching when a visitor arrives. We do this in the forums, but a calendar would be dandy.

These sorts of things would be great for the overall community and I wouldn't see anyone kvetch about their implementation.

I think the way we've been doing things is OK for now so maybe we should continue along a similar path for a while. ie. Make your suggestions and let the coders find time to do it.

With an increase in the coding community your ideas should come to fruition a little faster.

I would imagine that Mix's senate idea was aimed more toward a geocaching community with an impact on a website, rather than as a website that impacts a geocaching community - if that makes sense?

yep



as a side note I was searching for info on the net for a non-geocaching thingy and found this...

http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/busin ... tives.html

http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/busin ... tions.html

just thought IÂ’d put it out there as well. consider it or ignore it at your leisure .

Yes it does.
The co-op principles listed at the link seem very reasonable.
So, how do I vote for the King?

We've taken on Mix's suggestion and created a new area for this type of discussion.

There's quite a few issues in this thread, so feel free to grab a quote from here and expand it in a separate thread if you wish.