£10 registration fee per event for organisers

[Billy Weir]

Reflecting on Danial's spot on comments, I plan to write to Richard to officially register my views with the committee.

[mattc]

I think people overstate the issues with our marvellous Royal Mail - we had 3 separate deliveries this morning, 2 of which contained bike bits!

I might respectfully suggest that that depends where you live.

We often go a week without deliveries if the postie is running late, and we rarely get one more than every 2 days.  yes we chose to live here, but people do live in places other than towns.

No need for excess respect old chap! I obviously wasn't clear; our lot are still clearing the christmas backlog. One package was at least a week late, and we are still waiting for stuff from the Jan sales.

[Ian H]

Yes.

Edit: I have at various times been in communication with committee member using a variety of communictaions channels. But I find it strange that questions must be raised formally via the AUK Secretary. Should I include an SAE? That last was a joke by the way!

Strange as it may seem, if you've a question of a committee, then it's best to ask that committee. It's no good asking committee members, because they are not the committee.

So, put your questions to the committee via Richard Phipps, the committee secretary, if you want an official answer.

It's also worthwhile reading the minutes of past meetings.

[frankly frankie]

Online entry with rider registration for members and non-members will ease the pain considerably.

I believe this is very imminent.
(That is, as an extension of the existing system)

[BlackSheep]

So, if you want to know "What's the resultant surplus £1500+ going to fund ? ? ? ? ?
", then take a look at the accounts. Or, ask a committee member.

As there at least eight members of the committee that regularly peruse and post on these pages, I thought it a fair question to ask on this forum. - the forum or medium where questions are asked should not be relevant, if a committee member can give an answer then they should do so. And not adopt a RTFM attitude.

It now worries me greatly, that by strong implication the surplus £1500 has already accounted for.

It's not rocket sience (not that that's particularly complex), but I would at the very least expect a forward plan from the committee, and then have some insight into what future plans the committee have for AUK.

So respectfully the question to any committee member on this forum still remains. "What's the resultant surplus £1500+ going to fund ? ? ? ? ?

[AndyH]

Maybe it should be mandatory that paypal is offered as an entry option

I deleted my paypal account.  So I won't be accepting online entries until I can choose a payment provider I approve of.

Quite right. I should have said maybe an online payment option should be mandatory.

........

-   174 Paypal entries. (72.5%)
-   66 snail-mail entries.  (27.5%)
-   Total: 240 entries

........

And the 27.5% are why cheques & SAEs should not be abandoned.

[DanialW]

Reflecting on Danial's spot on comments, I plan to write to Richard to officially register my views with the committee.

Billy, Richard normally distributes the committee agenda and papers a week before the meeting. You might want to get your questions to him by then, as he might want to circulate them in advance.

[Fidgetbuzz]

I confess that if I stand back and look at a policy decision put in place by our committee, which has the modest impact of a £3 increase in the cost of putting on an event , I can not get my mind round why this is generating so much discussion.

We have elected the committee to run AUK in the way that they think is best for the future. We can not expect them to explain in detail every single decision that they make -- if in principle anyone finds themselves at variance with these decisions - then they always have the option of standing for a committee position themselves - or voting against the nomination for any single reelection post.

An examination of last years accounts shows a LOSS on Events of £5,300 -- covered from a surplus of £13,000 on Membership income and expenditure.

If the committee feels that events should move closer to being self financing then a £1500 increase in "brevet" card income is only a partial solution to the loss.
And as a matter of interest ( which I happen to pick up as I am currently very interested in the insurance position for LEL) - what are we doing running 500 calendar events a year -- 10 calendar events each and every week - does that make sense -- or does it impose an unreasonable load on the guys and girls who do all the central admin - just to keep the show on the road.

A much more relevant debate could be had about the far more important question

" What level of Reserves is appropriate for AUK to have, and what are they being held for- i.e. are we there already - or do we need more  - or even less?

Look at the bigger picture - if you want a worthwhile discussion.

And on this forum - no individual ( even if they are on the committee) can give a committee answer to any question - they are here as individuals - entitled to their opinions - and they do not speak for the committee here.

[Philip Whiteman]

I confess that if I stand back and look at a policy decision put in place by our committee, which has the modest impact of a £3 increase in the cost of putting on an event , I can not get my mind round why this is generating so much discussion.

Very good observation

[DanialW]

Great post, Roger, and some really interesting questions too.

[border-rider]

And on this forum - no individual ( even if they are on the committee) can give a committee answer to any question - they are here as individuals - entitled to their opinions - and they do not speak for the committee here.

Indeed.  I think that point's been made; the question asked was about an individual who knows the answer giving information on a committee decision already made and minuted.

[Fidgetbuzz]

I do not believe that an open forum is the right place for a member,even when she/he is a committee member,to get involved in discussion about, or the reasons for, any committee decision.

I would not expect to find anybody, in full public view, having to try to briefly summarise what might have been a long debate - with differing views expressed. It is also totally inappropriate - are we  going to expect every single committee decision (with which at least YACF member does not agree) to be exposed to a full rethrashed debate on YACF.

If you really feel the need to have a Committee decision explained in detail to you then  the way to obtain that is to write to the Chairman - ( or Secretary) asking for a full explanation - and even then I would not be surprised if on a "minor" point - you were provided with an answer that was "simple".

 A quiet conversation  with one of our powers that be is much more likely to provide some understanding of the thinking behind any decision ( rather than an open forum thrash around)

Why all the concern - events made a loss of £5300

[MSeries]

While this is a free an self regulating forum the ability to  debate any topic we choose remains sacred. Remember this is not an AUK forum, If committee members feel they shouldn't respond, they don't have to.

[border-rider]

I do not believe that an open forum is the right place for a member,even when she/he is a committee member,to get involved in discussion about, or the reasons for, any committee decision.

Indeed.  But that's not what I suggested.

If someone on here asks a question and someone else knows the answer (even if that's just "well the minutes say <blah>"  then it's usual, and polite,  for the answer to be provided.  I'm not sure anyone should expect an individual committee member (who may not have agreed with the decision) to explain it any further than the publicly-available information, to defend it or debate it.  That happens lots anyway - FF is very good at giving the background to stuff whilst making it clear he's not officially involved, for example.

I'm just slightly surprised at the very blunt statement that AUK committee members who have publicly-available info to hand, that has been minuted, will not ever pass it on to a member who asks on this forum.

Why all the concern - events made a loss of £5300

if that's the answer to the question, then thank you.  

[border-rider]

If committee members feel they shouldn't respond, they don't have to.

Absolutely.  But I'd hope that if they wished to, and could do so as an individual they were allowed to, and I'd hope they'd occasionally wish to.

Nowhere is it suggested, I think, that they'd have to

[MSeries]

If committee members feel they shouldn't respond, they don't have to.

Absolutely.  But I'd hope that if they wished to, and could do so as an individual they were allowed to, and I'd hope they'd occasionally wish to.

Nowhere is it suggested, I think, that they'd have to

I don't think anyone on here was demanding answers from the AUk committee. It's all just hot air which is what on line forums are for isn' t it ? Surely we all know that a letter to Arrivee is the proper way of asking our questions in public. AUK committee members are like everyone else on here, just punters on just another cycling forum.

I'm not surprised about the debate, it's what people on here love doing.

[DanialW]

If information is publicly available and minuted, why does it need a committee member to type it out on here?

[border-rider]

It doesn't. But if someone (anyone)  has the info to hand then they could post it (or a link to it)

That's pretty-much how things like The Knowledge and Ctrl-Alt-Del, and the PBP board, work.  If people ask things others answer if they can and if they wish to.

[MSeries]

This is the Audax and Cyclosportive board. We all know that the AUK Website is the place to find AUK information. We are jsut being lazy if we expect to be spoon fed. STFW. The truth is out there. But don't stifle our debate, come on online forums feed om this sort of thing. I'll be dissappointed if there are no letters in Arrivee about this. I'd write one myself if I cared.

[border-rider]

This is the Audax and Cyclosportive board. We all know that the AUK Website is the place to find AUK information. 

Then it would be terribly easy for a link to the exact place to find the answer to a question to be posted.  Along with a helpful comment like "The committee decided <> and here's where you can find the detail".  Just like we all know that much of what gets posted in answers to technical questions is just the result of informed googling...

[MSeries]

This is the Audax and Cyclosportive board. We all know that the AUK Website is the place to find AUK information.  

Then it would be terribly easy for a link to the exact place to find the answer to a question to be posted.  Along with a helpful comment like "The committee decided <> and here's where you can find the detail".  Just like we all know that much of what gets posted in answers to technical questions is just the result of informed googling...

I know. But as I said before, they don't have to if they don't want to, just like I don't offer technical help any more. We have no right to expect it on here, this is not the AUK Forum.

If we don't like what the committee are doing, we vote them out.

[border-rider]

I know. But as I said before, they don't have to if they don't want to, just like I don't offer technical help any more. We have no right to expect it on here, this is not the AUK Forum.

And as I've said before, no-one is saying that they should have to if they don't want to. 

What's been said is that committee members will never reply to a question on this forum. Full stop.  Even if the answer is in the public domain and they can simply and helpfully direct us to it.

[frankly frankie]

It doesn't. But if someone (anyone)  has the info to hand then they could post it (or a link to it)
That's pretty-much how things like The Knowledge and Ctrl-Alt-Del, and the PBP board, work.  If people ask things others answer if they can and if they wish to.

But at least 50% of the responses consist of mis-information.  That's statistically inevitable.  Readers of this topic have to be aware that the same is probably true here.  I'm as capable as the next person of talking through my hat, especially at this time of night 

[mattc]

I know. But as I said before, they don't have to if they don't want to, just like I don't offer technical help any more. We have no right to expect it on here, this is not the AUK Forum.

And as I've said before, no-one is saying that they should have to if they don't want to. 

What's been said is that committee members will never reply to a question on this forum. Full stop.  Even if the answer is in the public domain and they can simply and helpfully direct us to it.

I think what MV has said is spot-on. However, I think there's a subtlety he hasn't mentioned:

So let's say committee members only post if they want to; in which case, we should think about when are they likely to want to. They're human beings - I would suggest that they are less likely to want to answer if they are under attack.

If you want to know something, ask politely - just as you might ask what is the thread measurement of a 9speed carbon LH ergo pinch bolt.

[Billy Weir]

To save people the effort, there is nothing in the draft minutes of the November meeting to explain the "long and wide-ranging discussion" held in relation to this matter.  Which is, in part, where my original questions came from.

I'm presuming all will be made clear in the next edition of Arrivee.