/ BMC Organisational Review Discussion Site
Please see https://sites.google.com/view/bmc-rr/introduction for further discussion on the BMC's organisational review.
Why did you feel it necessary to set up a separate website as opposed to discuss it on here?
Ordinarily i wouldn't think it important, but we really need to know who crag jones is and the reason for this group.
Otherwise it stinks of fish
It follows various posts on the AC email list and a request to move them somewhere else. Whether there is more to it than this, I don’t know.
Thanks. Shows I’m not in the AC, I guess......
Perhaps it's not on UKC because a fair proportion of keen climbers - including BMC members - actively avoid UKC?
I know of several very active female climbers who really don't like this site for discussion.
(Sorry, that should have been a reply to Shark, or toad.)
> Why did you feel it necessary to set up a separate website as opposed to discuss it on here?
I thoughr it was a BMC thing!! Probably much better than continued repetitive UKC threads, as it keeps it all in one place, and invites more open discussion.
Very disappointing to see however, that the BMC 30 conrinue to display an almost complete ignorance of the role of the ASGM in modern organisations, a very skewed and out of touch vision of BMC governance and membership representation, and (and I can be quite certain on this), absolutely no idea whatsoever on corporate governance, the olympics, and the relationship between the international governing bodies, the BMC, and MS and MI.
Hi Kamala. I share MG's view - that this is an AC initiative to stop the BMC30 misusing the ACs internal email system. I take your point that many people avoid UKC, but unless Crag's new site gets publicised more widely (and it may have been, and I may have missed it) then anyone who avoids UKC, and isn't an AC member, won't know about it.
> Hi Simon,
> I thoughr it was a BMC thing!! Probably much better than continued repetitive UKC threads, as it keeps it all in one place, and invites more open discussion.
> Very disappointing to see however, that the BMC 30 conrinue to display an almost complete ignorance of the role of the ASGM in modern organisations, a very skewed and out of touch vision of BMC governance and membership representation, and (and I can be quite certain on this), absolutely no idea whatsoever on corporate governance, the olympics, and the relationship between the international governing bodies, the BMC, and MS and MI
In that case presumably you will submit a letter or article or post comments to put them straight...
Interesting, thanks. I'd just given it a cursory glance and thought it was a good idea to gather source materials in one place together with the discussion. But of course you're right, if this is the only place it's advertised, non-UKC users probably won't find it. Perhaps the BMC should send all its members a link...
Just started to catch up on the reading...good grief.
I think to enable the sharing of emails, documents, etc. Not really possible on this forum.
> Interesting, thanks. I'd just given it a cursory glance and thought it was a good idea to gather source materials in one place together with the discussion. But of course you're right, if this is the only place it's advertised, non-UKC users probably won't find it. Perhaps the BMC should send all its members a link...
> Just started to catch up on the reading...good grief.
Hi Kamala. Just back from NW area meeting. I have been requested to send a link to Crag's website to all attendees.
> Hi Simon,
> Very disappointing to see however, that the BMC 30 conrinue to display an almost complete ignorance of the role of the ASGM in modern organisations,
What's an ASGM?
Good to meet up tonight. Thought that was a thorough and courteous discussion, covered a lot of ground. As I said to Craig in the meeting, this really needs to get much wider circulation if we are to get maximum value from it. As I said to Carl after the meeting, really needs to be done via BMC / ORG. And building on what Les Ainsworth said about online voting, it needs to finish up with a couple of short summary documents, one by the "for" group and one by the "against" group, which summarise precisely and concisely, without jargon, what the differing positions are, so that the 99% of members who don't have the time to read all the docs can make an informed decision. Of course, it's always possible that the two groups reach amicable agreement and we can all go off climbing.
That site doesn't seem to be working very well for me.
When I, for example, click on the 'All comments' tab, all I see are three test comments dated 22.1.18. (See below.)
Is this browser-specific or something? Or am I doing something wrong?22/01/2018 22:49:02 Josephine Bloggs Test 1 Brilliant . . .
> What's an ASGM?
Its a very quickly typed, non proof-read form of AGM......... my bad
That's a relief; I thought I was exhibiting an almost complete ignorance of the role of the ASGM in modern organisations,
I got that as well.
Thanks for the interest in this topic and apologies for being slow in responding. The reason for setting up the website
was the lack of a substantial open 'platform' anywhere else for people to both gather information and should they wish present their own views and enter into discussion on the future of the BMC. Hopefully when it comes to voting time, people will then be better informed in making their choices.
I would far rather the BMC itself could host such a platform but as an organization it has shied away from such member engagement. Partly because it likes to maintain a tight control on the narrative, at times forgetting perhaps it is a members organisation; partly because it might turn into an ugly bar-room brawl. Lets see? The BMC also feels it has had to step back from discussions whilst the Organisational Review is taking place. That OR is taking place behind closed doors and whilst quite a few sensible recommendations are emerging there are many valid concerns about the process
- Why are only certain questions being asked, only certain options being offered?
- Where are the alternatives? Where is the member engagement beyond skewed questionnaires and questionable analysis? Their working practises might be admirable but how do we know?
- Worries that the OR review itself is perversley being used as a means to enshrine the lack of accountability it was meant to be addressing in the first place!
- Lack of respect for existing democratic processes within the BMC. A notable resistance from the centre when Area Meetings and the National Council seek to question and challenge the Executive's wishes.
I could go on forever but hopefully this will answer some of the initial questions posted here. The web-site is a better platform for such discussions and I have posted my own opinions there. It is structured so that people can post opinion pieces (whatever their views), discuss things and make succinct, concrete proposals.
You could see the existing BMC functioning well last night at the well attended NW Area Meeting where all of this was discussed and its area reps mandated to take decisions forward to the National Council. Staff and Executive members were there to hear what members had to say. As always, ways of improving the reach of such area meetings were discussed. Hopefully this website can help achieve that.
Have a look. Pass on the link. I'm hoping the BMC itself will see fit to do the same.
The site doesn't work well for me.
Let me know via email (link above) about any tech problems and I will try and sort them. I have tested the site in both Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge browsers for users with AND without accounts where it has functioned correctly.
In haven't tried posting yet, but will do so tonight; i couldn't see any reason why it wont work, as it seemed fine when reading the articles on it, but I'll leave a message on here one way or the other. I use firefox generally, but if that doesn't work,I also have chrome.
It's a bit of a car-crash to read on a mobile (well, on my iphone SE) but fine on the laptop.
It feels a bit "BMC 30" at the moment so that might put people off engaging with it but not sure what the answer to that is.
Thanks. Hopefully a wide variety of people will engage and we can get away from a 'for' and 'against' mentality. I'm hoping it will encourage people to look at the current recommendations, provide both support and criticisms where warranted of those and come forward with additional or alternative constructive solutions if needed. At the very least the ORG recommendations provide a starting point which can be built upon, using existing democratic processes. It does not have to be an all or nothing outcome either. The main issue to clear up at the moment is the dissemblance in the current recommendations around who actually formulates policy in future. Ideally when it comes to voting time people will be able to do so from an informed perspective and not just be pliant insurance customer toeing the party line as dished out by 'central office'.
One man's central office clone is another man's informed opinion. That last line is very unhelpful if you want people to use the site in a truly balanced way.
The site is not funtioning properly from my tablet.
Just posted a response on the site; works absolutely fine, except that the layout (lines not "wrapping around") appears to not work. Still readable ish and a great improvement on no debate / comment at all!!
One thing which would help is if we could clearly see the authors of each paper in the "review documents" section. Les and Phil have included their names in the header of each doc, and the BMC30 papers are also clearly marked as such. However I can't work out who other papers are from, and it would be nice to know.
Thanks for that. I'll go back through existing docs and label them + have changed 'Help' advice to remind people to label them.
Hi Ian. That contribution noe formatted and help page updated for guidance on this. Thanks.
I'll do more tablet testing. Let me know any specific tech probs via email (above or via sites Help page). Thanks.
I was using google on a pretty standard Samsung tablet. Main thread links worked but some sub links didn't.
I thought I should say thanks again for putting this up as there is a need for a safe discussion space and the BMC website has functional problems at present (eg broken search) and doesn't keep everythjng neatly in one place. Classic volunteer led work. I was going to thank you in person on Monday but you were deep in conversation and I was the taxi driver who needed to get Lynn home.
Crag, thanks for your efforts with this. A '''neutral" space is a good idea given levels of suspicion in some quarters
I'll try to post some thoughts myself.
Just posted this question, but since the answer might make life easier for other users, thought I'd post it here also. "There are 2 substantive docs from the BMC30 group to the ORG, an initial 12 page response following publication of the ORG interim report, dated 8 Dec 17, and a later 4 page response dated 29 Jan 18, following the BMC30 meeting with the ORG. Can the BMC30 please advise the current status of the earlier document? Are all the points in the 8 Dec doc still valid, have some been resolved by subsequent discussion, or what? Should we just refer to the later 29 Jan document when wanting to understand the BMC30 current position?"
Will update with the answer, but depending on response, could save folk a lot of time! Or not...
Thanks for that Paul. I have asked the BMC-30 for a response and to post it on the comments page of the website. Crag.
Hopefully so. The more 'transparent' membership engagement we can have in reorganization, the better and hopefully the website will allow members both to debate issues AND come up with agreement or alternative and additional ideas where needed. If more time is allowed for that the more likely we are to get a successful outcome.
Anyone know if Crag's away at the mo? I sent a review doc last week which has yet to appear, and nothing else added to site from mid last week...
Ok while Crag's on radio silence, the doc I have prepared (commenting on the BMC30's latest paper) is here - https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ytshmd88y9z0koh/AAAPqCpR5wHFxy0bdo2s-185a?dl=0
Comments welcomed. I'll remove this once Crag is back on air and his site resumes it's role as neutral source for debate and exchange of views.
UKClimbing and UKHillwalking are proud to announce the winners of the 2017 Marmot Photography Awards. An automatic selection of... Read more
A fire caused by an exploding rechargeable head torch battery, has led to warnings for vigilance from Glenmore Lodge, Scotland's... Read more
Scotland's original 24 hour mountain challenge, the Tranter's Round, has just received its first winter traverse by a woman,... Read more
Those evenings are getting a little longer, the mornings are brighter. This means there's more light to work with but it's still... Read more