discussions among our members regarding Access Issues will be handled in-house

[ratagonia]

Bogley has discussed the forum issue and agreed that discussions among our
members regarding Access Issues will be handled in-house. We see no advantage of moving discussions from the large and popular high traffic tent of Bogley to a
small isolated tent elsewhere that receives little traffic. The Canyon Access
forum is already in place and active. All are welcome to participate...

Canyon Access Issues
http://www.bogley.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?92

I would be very surprised if the ACA didn't also handle discussions in-house, I
just don't see Rich ever cutting the apron strings. So any forum created will be
for yahoo and populated by yahoo.

Wow, quick discussion, I must have missed it.

News to me that Shane has authority over who where when etc. I post and/or discuss anything with other people who may happen to be members of Bogley.

Thank you Shane, for making my life simpler. I will be sure to not discuss anything with Dan, except "in-house".

Tom

[accadacca]

I don't know where this was posted. I haven't seen it anywhere? However I can see what may have triggered it. There has been some talk in a few threads that I have read here on Bogley about possibly building a competing community. I am not sure if that is the case and what the plans are. Obviously this is something that concerns Bogley management and would be very unethical.

There has been a lot of blood, sweat and tears put into this website over a 7 year period. It is a thankless job for the most part. Myself and others that manage the site are very engaged in constantly improving the community. We work full time jobs and work on Bogley during our lunch breaks, but most of the time spent is late at night when our kids are in bed. In fact, I have been working through some server issues for most of the week.

I hope my suspicions are not correct and the talk is about a basic org website. This would make sense and let the social communities continue to serve their purpose. After all, members of various social communities across the web will continue to visit their favorites, no question about that. The majority of Bogley's members live in the heart of canyoneering country. So it is a natural fit for discussions and support of the orgs strategy to continue right here.

At the end of the day Bogley is here to facilitate discussion about new strategies and tactics that will keep the sport of canyoneering healthy for years to come. Access is particularly important to me as I have two young boys that I would like to take into the beautiful canyons that I read about and see on Bogley.

[CarpeyBiggs]

it was posted on the yahoo group.

who said anything about building a competing community? we are interested in having a forum that is simply available for EVERYONE to discuss the issues surrounding the creation of an access organization. it is not a "competition." that's the entire thing we are trying to get away from. shane already co-opted the yahoo group that had something like 55 members, and said that all discussions would take place here on bogley. the place then went silent, and mike ended up deleting the group.

but, a large portion of canyoneers refuse to participate at bogley. some refuse to post at the ACA. some refuse to post on the yahoo group. all we are attempting to do is create a forum that solely deals with the creation of a new association that is directed by democratic participation of the community. it will not be a place to house TRs. it will not be a place for beta questions. it will not be a social organization. it will not be anything other than a forum to discuss things related to the creation of "american canyoneers," it's mission statement, it's bylaws, and it's board of directors. once a clear path has been charted by the members of the organization, i highly doubt the forum will even need to exist anymore.

there is no competition.

[accadacca]

Thanks for the clarification. Good to hear. Will registration be required or will it be open to everyone? If you have to register then it's no different then any of the existing communities. They are all open to EVERYONE as well. Lets face it, people have their personal preferences and politics will be a factor anywhere.

I've said it before, but the only way to get a consensus from the entire canyoneering community is to be active on all the online communities. People won't be forced to hang out where they are not comfortable and creating a neutral community is impossible.

[CarpeyBiggs]

no offense scott, but i don't think you quite understand why people won't post on bogley, or the amount of canyoneers who live outside of utah (bogley is largely a utah canyoneering forum, there are hundreds of canyoneers who never post here, and probably never will). but that's not entirely the point. the reason a new forum is being put together is to facilitate discussions solely related to forming an association. if that continues to happen on bogley, great. but with a significant percentage of people not willing to join here, it makes no sense for there to not be another avenue.

certainly, conversations should still happen here. no one is suggesting they shouldn't. we are just trying to create a big tent, that works for everyone. this is not the place, sorry.

[accadacca]

Creating a big tent for the org is fine and I understand what would be discussed. Bogley has the largest online canyoneering community tent so naturally conversations will continue here.

IMO, thinking everyone will post under a new "neutral" tent is not realistic.

[ratagonia]

Creating a big tent for the org is fine and I understand what would be discussed. Bogley currently has the largest online canyoneering community tent.

IMO, thinking everyone will post under a new "neutral" tent is not realistic.

If you say so...

or not.

I realize you have a LOT invested in Bogley, and I thank you for that. There IS a lot of loyalty to the Bog by quite a few canyoneers. But you need look no further than Shane's snide terretorialism for why many canyoneers cannot bring themselves to join Bogley, free though it is:

Bogley has discussed the forum issue and agreed that discussions among our
members regarding Access Issues will be handled in-house. We see no advantage of moving discussions from the large and popular high traffic tent of Bogley to a small isolated tent elsewhere that receives little traffic.

As Dan said, the American Canyoneers forum is not envisioned as a competitor for Bogley or the Canyons Group, but as a place for all members of the community to discuss, at the least, business issues of American Canyoneers; secondarily perhaps access issues; and unlikely to have much traffic - other things canyoneering.

I don't think staking a claim on all current denizens of Bogley as if they are serfs on your estate is likely to be in your long-term best interest.

'nuff said, I think.

Tom

[CarpeyBiggs]

IMO, thinking everyone will post under a new "neutral" tent is not realistic.

everyone? nope, not looking for that. we are just hoping to create a place where everyone who is interested in discussing the formation and governance of a new association can post. if that were to happen on bogley, you have already alienated a huge portion of canyoneers.

i don't think you understand what bogley's demographic's truly are. there are a lot of people here, no doubt. but it is nowhere near representative of the canyoneering community at large. almost no one from arizona, nevada, death valley/california, pacific north west, or colorado post here. by in large, this place is dominated by utah based weekend warriors, with a couple exceptions. that's not a knock on bogley, it's just stating a fact. there is a huge portion of the canyoneering community that is not represented here. and many of those people refuse to join here. i think (hope?) you understand why that is. and thus, why having discussions relative to the formation of a new canyoneering association happen only on bogley makes zero sense.

so yes. bogley is free and open to all. thanks for that. but it isn't the answer for american canyoneers.

[accadacca]

I NEVER stated that the org should only be discussed here. Hell, we created a separate section so members could discuss these issues. That's it. Why not accommodate our members.

All I am saying is that you won't be able to corral all canyoneers into one stable. The conversations will continue to happen all across the web and it is in your best interest to include all existing communities. Otherwise in your own words...you will be "alienating" canyoneers.

[restrac2000]

It seems like there is actually a lot of agreement on this issue. Forming a new site for the development of the organization makes a ton of sense. It would be new, neutral ground for people to contribute to the emerging organization. That doesn't inherently stifle conversations on either of the other forums. People will always engage ideas in multiple ways. However, there is a noticeable deficit of certain voices on Bogley, even compared to some of the 55 who signed up for the temporary YahooGroup.

I think a lot of the confusion came from Shane's comment, not Bogley's actions. I have appreciated the sub-section for the ongoing conversation. It has been helpful.

Phillip

[Iceaxe]

discussions among our members regarding Access Issues will be handled in-house

When the comment is pulled over to Bogley from an outside source it is instantly out of context.... The Yahoo post is in a thread where yahoo is discussing building a forum to address their inadequacies with the belief that it will somehow suddenly be a neutral site that everyone will flock to.... I was just pointing out the error in such thinking....

But let me make this really simple for those of you that ride the short bus....

Everyone, including Tom and Crappy, is more then welcome to post anywhere they wish on any issue they desire.

But In the same spirit of freedom.... Bogley will continue to keep our membership informed of all access issues and provide a place on the Bogley forum where the issues can be discussed and addressed....



If anyone needs me to simplify things further just let me know and I'll get some colorful graphs, bold pie charts and a powerpoint presentation.

[ratagonia]

When the comment is pulled over to Bogley from an outside source it is instantly out of context.... The Yahoo post is in a thread where yahoo is discussing building a forum to address their inadequacies with the belief that it will somehow suddenly be a neutral site that everyone will flock to.... I was just pointing out the error in such thinking....

But let me make this really simple for those of you that ride the short bus....

Everyone, including Tom and Carpey, is more then welcome to post anywhere they wish on any issue they desire.

But In the same spirit of freedom.... Bogley will continue to keep our membership informed of all access issues and provide a place on the Bogley forum where the issues can be discussed and addressed....



If anyone needs me to simplify things further just let me know and I'll get some colorful graphs, bold pie charts and a powerpoint presentation.

Here is your original post on Yahoo Canyons Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canyons/message/62550

Re: New organization

>>i do expect a new forum will have to be created. the ACA forums will not do
for obvious reasons. many people refuse to post on bogley, again for obvious
reasons. and this yahoo group is outdated and difficult to use.

Bogley has discussed the forum issue and agreed that discussions among our
members regarding Access Issues will be handled in-house. We see no advantage of
moving discussions from the large and popular high traffic tent of Bogley to a
small isolated tent elsewhere that receives little traffic. The Canyon Access
forum is already in place and active. All are welcome to participate...

Canyon Access Issues
http://www.bogley.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?92

I would be very surprised if the ACA didn't also handle discussions in-house, I
just don't see Rich ever cutting the apron strings. So any forum created will be
for yahoo and populated by yahoo.

Easy to misread. Here's is Dan's post you are riffing on:

Re: New organization

i think you are misreading it. i believe creating an "access fund" type
association, with it's own website for disseminating information and fostering
discussion is what is being proposed.

i do expect a new forum will have to be created. the ACA forums will not do for
obvious reasons. many people refuse to post on bogley, again for obvious
reasons. and this yahoo group is outdated and difficult to use. seems likely
that some sort of email or daily digest type offering for those who don't want
to participate in forums altogether needs to be developed too.

a social club is not what most are looking for, from what i gather. however, i
would like to see the group work on service projects if/when they can be
beneficial. (like removal of graffiti in north wash, for instance).

- dan

My reading is that a forum needed to be created to discuss organization issues, because the yahoo group, even a new one, is a clumsy tool, and the Bogley Forum is not visited by a large segment of the Canyoneering community. You, Shane, seem to read it as a challenge to Bogley for dominance in the everyday-canyoneering-forum market -- not intended that way, and unlikely to do so. I think the community sorts itself already, and a new general forum is not needed (except, side-issue, for the Canyons Forum to join the 21st century).

Readers can make their own evaluation of your post, and then your re-interpretation of your post. I realize you are very proud of your work over here, Shane, as you should be; and you also demonstrate why many have no desire to post over here in the Bog.

Bogley will continue to keep our membership informed of all access issues and provide a place on the Bogley forum where the issues can be discussed and addressed....

Thank you for your support, Ice. It IS appreciated, even when it may be hard to see.

Tom

[CarpeyBiggs]

those of you that ride the short bus.... everyone, including Tom and Crappy,

thanks for keeping it classy shane. heaven forbid we move past this petty bullshit and actually try and move forward with something that might be beneficial to the community in general.

[redstone fever]

From Dan

i do expect a new forum will have to be created.

.....

some sort of email or daily digest type offering for those who don't want
to participate in forums altogether needs to be developed too.

Another forum AND another daily digest needs to be developed for this ONE group that does not post in forums

best of luck to you if you think this will recruit 100% of the yahoo group. In reality you will still have some of the yahoo group that will not post to the next forum "for obvious reasons" too.

Just because I do not post here does not mean I do not enjoy browsing here often. Now to stay current on access issues I will need to subscribe to 2 more lists from the sound of it

[Felicia]

I think that once the IBOD is in place, a site should be set-up. I envision a board where information is posted via the IBOD with no ability to respond. The information can be mined and taken back to the respective sites for discussion and debate. If the IBOD is diverse, each of the boards can be represented. Even though some will not post in certain places for one reason or another, most can read when and where their interests take them.

Instead of trying to plant trees, maybe we should sow seeds and see how things grow.

[CarpeyBiggs]

From Dan

Another forum AND another daily digest needs to be developed for this ONE group that does not post in forums

best of luck to you if you think this will recruit 100% of the yahoo group. In reality you will still have some of the yahoo group that will not post to the next forum "for obvious reasons" too.

Just because I do not post here does not mean I do not enjoy browsing here often. Now to stay current on access issues I will need to subscribe to 2 more lists from the sound of it

i'm not sure what is so difficult to understand about why the new forum will be created. it will be used to DISCUSS THE MISSION STATEMENT AND GOVERNANCE OF THE ASSOCIATION. if you want to be a part of discussing where the association "american canyoneers" is going, that will be the place. that is all.

if you want to be a part of it and discuss the formation and direction of the association in particular, we are suggesting it happen in one location. we are just trying to accommodate as many people from as many different groups as possible. whether that be those who are active on the ACA, the canyons, or here at bogley.

if you want to talk about access issues, trip reports, social gatherings, or anything else, post wherever you like, there will be nowhere available for those types of conversations on the american canyoneers site. we are just suggesting that in the infancy of this association, if people want to discuss it's future and influence where it is headed, then please post your feelings on that site, when it is announced. this will be a place to discuss the future iBOD, the bylaws, and governance of the association. that's it.

maybe the community won't participate. maybe nobody really cares enough to step up. so be it. i'll set up the site, encourage everyone to be a part of it. if it gains momentum, hopefully it will become a positive force for the community. if it withers and dies, and becomes nothing more than talk on a few forums, at least we know the community isn't interested.

not sure what is so hard to understand about this. and why it has provoked the dichotomy of a response from shane. on one hand he says he'll support an access type association, but on the other he seems to be implying that bogley is all the community needs and the new association website isn't important.

shane, if you really want to support it, stop talking out both sides of your mouth, and step up and say "let's make it happen." rally your friends and lets try and get some critical mass together and see if we can make this work. or if you think it is pointless, just say so.

none of this is an attack on bogley.

best of luck to you if you think this will recruit 100% of the yahoo group. In reality you will still have some of the yahoo group that will not post to the next forum "for obvious reasons" too.

i'm not hoping to recruit 100 percent of anyone. i'm hoping to give everyone a chance who wants to participate in the formation of a new association the chance to participate in it, regardless of what forum they like to follow. i'm not naive enough to think that it will be 100 percent of anyone, anywhere. i'm hoping it is 100 percent of those who want to be a part of this.

i'll say it again. the only forum and daily digest messages from the new american canyoneers forum will be directly related to the creation and governance of the new association.

capiche?

[tanya]

I certainly have no interest in reading another site. I think many feel like this. It's hard enough to find time to read one! Even if I tried I know I would loose interest quickly.


I keep coming here for one reason - its about all kinds of things and there are all kinds of people. There is more to life than canyoneering.

[hank moon]

As I understand it, there is a fledgling org, tentatively called "American Canyoneers" - just starting to crack the egg, really. And that new org needs its own place to discuss and develop itself. That place will be the American Canyoneers forum.

The purpose of that forum will not be to supplant, replace, or otherwise draw attention away from existing forums. I am looking forward to seeing it go live, and to where the new org goes.

[Iceaxe]

shane, if you really want to support it, stop talking out both sides of your mouth, and step up and say "let's make it happen." rally your friends and lets try and get some critical mass together and see if we can make this work. or if you think it is pointless, just say so.

Please don't try and paint me as the bad guy because I disagree with your opinion of moving the discussions to a smokey back room.

I have been very consistent with my opinions from the very start:

Moving the discussions to a small cliquish environment on a start-up forum with little traffic is a bad idea.

Holding the discussions in the middle of the largest population and broadest spectrum of American canyoneers on an existing forum or forums is a good idea.

Yes, I'm well aware that no matter which option prevails some are going to be unhappy.... Yes, I understand that you, CarpeyBiggs, are one of those that is going to be unhappy if we don't pull down the big top, put the lions back in their cage, pack up the elephants and move into the cliquish back room.

And if you haven't noticed I'm doing exactly as you suggest... I am rallying my friends to the idea of holding any discussions in as large and transparent of venue as possible.

[nat]

Please don't try and paint me as the bad guy because I disagree with your opinion of moving the discussions to a smokey back room.

I have been very consistent with my opinions from the very start:

Moving the discussions to a small cliquish environment on a start-up forum with little traffic is a bad idea.

Holding the discussions in the middle of the largest population and broadest spectrum of American canyoneers on an existing forum or forums is a good idea.

Yes, I'm well aware that no matter which option prevails some are going to be unhappy.... Yes, I understand that you, CarpeyBiggs, are one of those that is going to be unhappy if we don't pull down the big top, put the lions back in their cage, pack up the elephants and move into the cliquish back room.

And if you haven't noticed I'm doing exactly as you suggest... I am rallying my friends to the idea of holding any discussions in as large and transparent of venue as possible.

Shane, why do you refer to the suggested forum as a "smoky back room" or a "cliquish environment"? Maybe I missed something in Dan's post, but I didn't see that this would be a site only permitted to enter by those knowing the secret handshake . My understanding is that anyone interested in "American Canyoneers" would be welcome to participate. Am I wrong?

Nat