I've merged the "BMC AGM 2019" thread with the earlier "Changing the BMC" thread
ODG is Old Dungeon Ghyll
The "independent member reps" on the members' assembly as recommended in ORG could fulfil this. It was essentially left for the NC/MA/ODG to work this out. They don't necessarily have to be independent in the true sense of the word for SE, but it would be sensible to directly elect them from the members. How those roles are cut and named is totally up for debate. We (ORG) intentionally didn't call them VPs so they weren't confused with the existing structure, nor implied succession, but I know there are different schools of thought on how best to implement that, and it definitely needs discussion.This is why I was keen to push the NC reconstitution work at a faster pace than some wanted (particularly these roles), as there are some of these gaps left as a result which has required some pragmatism to resolve in the short term. I know Mark is now very capably chairing this and moving things along.The idea and principle I think we're all in broad agreement. As Andy said, it was raised as an issue at such a late stage. It was within ODG almost unanimously felt to be unimplementable in the form proposed in the time frame, and it actually became quite a distraction at a really busy time, where we'd already come to the pragmatic compromise of the NC internally sorting for a year, in advance. It would then give time to build the awareness of these roles.I do think if support is needed, then people simply need to be asked. The level of workload taken on, in some respects, is a personal choice, and I know from my own experience of BMC volunteering folk are more than happy to help build a really supportive team and get their hands dirty.
Apologies to non BMC geeks for the acronymitis...
Quote from: Offwidth on April 20, 2019, 10:15:25 pmApologies to non BMC geeks for the acronymitis...Offwidth I'd be surprised if anybody, except you four BMC geeks, is giving this thread any more than a cursory skim read, before dismissing as corporate governance TBoringDR and moving onto something more interesting - like the other random bullshit generator thread currently on the go! You may as well be in a meeting room together or have a conference call. Award for the thread with the most in-group jargon on UKB?(no offence intended btw, keep up the good work.. I think?)
That’s just JR repeatedly reading his own posts.
this succession point you and Andy seem to be ignoring was said to be a big concern
I've written an article for UKC covering many of the AGM issues already discussed here and a few more besides:www.ukclimbing.com/articles/features/the_bmc_agm_2019_-_an_alternative_perspective-11914
Breifly back 1. There were 2 VPs until April, the need was after that.2. Nothing to add3. My concern is what works and what the members mostly want, not what you and I or other policy wonks think. Any organisation of the BMC size and type seems to need multiple volunteer figureheads and no organisation seems to stuggle to fill them. 4. I still think you are completely wrong here and seem to have got the 'cutting of cloth' bit backwards. The staff workload is just the tip of the BMC work iceberg. There are hundreds of people putting in very significant volunteer time out of choice (I did similar to you for over 5 years on Froggatt) and I think over a thousand doing some work; new people ask how they can help all the time; there is simply no volunteer deficit in the BMC. Finances in contrast are tight and won't allow more staff (unless there is new money). 5. Fair enough that you can't answer this but I really think someone should. I thought VPs were in the final version as they were in the first version and no VP change was highlighted in the list of changes . I only found out it wasn't in the final version around Xmas 2018.