Non member view and thoughts about the Gauge O guild

[jamie92208]

From memory about 800 votes were cast with mostbof the contested positions being between 60% and 50% for the incumbents, this was a much higher turnout than normal.

 

Jamie

[chris p bacon]

Is it possible the 'new' voters were the ones who voted for the new candidates?  Although I doubt it's possible to confirm that. 

[Ohmisterporter]

Just wondering what members get from a quarterly magazine that they cannot get from forums like this? 

[t-b-g]

14 minutes ago, GlenPudzeoch said:

Unlikley to change from the outside, can only chjange from within.

 

Does anyone know how many members voted? And how many voted for the status quo and how many voted for change? 

 

Remembering the new members who joined the Labour party  to vote for Jeremy Corbyn, or the new members who joined building societies in the 1990s with the express intention of changing them into plc banks - oops sorry to get the free £4000 or so conversion payment - well that worked out well didn't it?

 

The details of the votes were put on this thread. Page 25.

[sir douglas]

as for new voters, i'm one of them. ive never been able to get to the AGM so never voted. but this time i was able to do it online, i would guess there were many people the same as me, as shown by the higher participation numbers

[009 micro modeller]

3 hours ago, sir douglas said:

ive never been able to get to the AGM so never voted.

 

I’m surprised they don’t have postal or proxy votes for those who can’t attend in-person though - lots of similar societies do.

[westerner]

They do.

[martin_wynne]

On 03/09/2020 at 21:17, Isambarduk said:

Additionally, running and looks may be greatly improved at crossings by adopting 0-MF (0-Medium Fine) or 0-SF (0-Super Fine)

 

 

Hi David,

 

The terms 0-MF and 0-SF were originally created as Modified-Fine and Special-Fine. I see that the Guild has renamed them.

 

"Medium Fine" sounds as if it belongs mid-way between the old 0-Coarse and 0-Fine standards.

 

"Special Fine" (also called "Slaters-Fine") was intended to convey the fact that it is suitable only for Slater's wheels.

 

Brian Lewis when at C&L also created 0-XF ("eXtreme-Fine") which is largely forgotten for the good reason that it didn't work.

 

Not that it matters what anything is called provided folks know what they are doing. But why change the names?

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[LBRJ]

6 hours ago, Ohmisterporter said:

Just wondering what members get from a quarterly magazine that they cannot get from forums like this? 

I don't think  that  too many people join any society just for the magazine, though such a publication certainly is of use.

 

 The best simple answer is that "Its more specific" - virtually everything within those pages should be of at least some interest to the reader.

 

It supports the aims of the Society, which presumably, you as a member also support.

 

The really arcane stuff would never be on a forum like this one.

 

 

 

[Guest Isambarduk]

2 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

The terms 0-MF and 0-SF were originally created as Modified-Fine and Special-Fine. I see that the Guild has renamed them.

Ah, I didn't know that, Martin; I continue to learn something new every day!  Yes, I used the terms as they appear in the G0G Standards.   David

[GlenPudzeoch]

19 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

From memory about 800 votes were cast with mostbof the contested positions being between 60% and 50% for the incumbents, this was a much higher turnout than normal.

 

Jamie

 

So to get change enrol 400 Spartans.

[jamie92208]

14 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

I’m surprised they don’t have postal or proxy votes for those who can’t attend in-person though - lots of similar societies do.

They have had proxy votes for some years and this year allowed online voting via the members section of the website. That probably accounted for the high turnout compared to previous years. Several hundred votes were online. I can't remember how many proxies there were.

 

Jamie

[jcm@gwr]

2 minutes ago, jamie92208 said:

They have had proxy votes for some years and this year allowed online voting via the members section of the website. That probably accounted for the high turnout compared to previous years. Several hundred votes were online. I can't remember how many proxies there were.

 

Jamie

 

Trouble was, that some (most) of the proxies were undirected, and the chairman could (and quite

often did) use them to maintain the status quo, this year the chairman was very fair and split the 

proxies equally on each candidate.

[caradoc]

Not being an O gauge modeller or member of the Guild I have followed this interesting topic but refrained from comment..... but now I have to ask, what is the point of an undirected proxy vote ? Are there really people who want to vote, but can't decide who to vote for ?

 

[t-b-g]

11 minutes ago, caradoc said:

Not being an O gauge modeller or member of the Guild I have followed this interesting topic but refrained from comment..... but now I have to ask, what is the point of an undirected proxy vote ? Are there really people who want to vote, but can't decide who to vote for ?

 

 

It happens in the business world too. People want to exercise their right to vote but sometimes don't feel that they know enough about the situation to allow them to decide which way to vote so they pass the vote and their choice to the Chairman, who they feel should be doing "the right thing" in the interests of the Business/Society.

[009 micro modeller]

1 hour ago, jamie92208 said:

They have had proxy votes for some years and this year allowed online voting via the members section of the website. That probably accounted for the high turnout compared to previous years. Several hundred votes were online. I can't remember how many proxies there were.

 

Jamie

 

OK. @sir douglas‘ post implied you could only vote if you physically attended.

[whart57]

14 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

It happens in the business world too. People want to exercise their right to vote but sometimes don't feel that they know enough about the situation to allow them to decide which way to vote so they pass the vote and their choice to the Chairman, who they feel should be doing "the right thing" in the interests of the Business/Society.

 

This is wrong on various levels in my opinion. If you are ignorant of the situation then the correct action is to abstain. If you are not entirely sure but feel you should cast a vote on the side of the angels then ask to have a trusted proxy vote on your behalf. That proxy could be the Chairman in an individual capacity of course but to have the Chairman collect proxy votes simply through the job surely exacerbates the sort of discontent I have been reading about on this thread.

[sir douglas]

i didnt say you couldnt but i wasnt that involved with the workings of the guild before and i would want to be there in person to hear everything being discussed before making my vote. its probably just me thinking that way as the only AGM's ive been to are of the wakefield club, i'm used to being there in person

[t-b-g]

32 minutes ago, whart57 said:

 

This is wrong on various levels in my opinion. If you are ignorant of the situation then the correct action is to abstain. If you are not entirely sure but feel you should cast a vote on the side of the angels then ask to have a trusted proxy vote on your behalf. That proxy could be the Chairman in an individual capacity of course but to have the Chairman collect proxy votes simply through the job surely exacerbates the sort of discontent I have been reading about on this thread.

 

I agree. I abstained because I wasn't happy with things the board have done and I wasn't keen on elements of the Reform Group agenda, so I chose to not influence the result and I didn't vote. I didn't feel that either side deserved my vote.

 

Now it is over, I give the management my backing until such time as they do something to change that situation. Early indications are promising.

 

  

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I abstained because I wasn't happy with things the board have done and I wasn't keen on elements of the Reform Group agenda, so I chose to not influence the result and I didn't vote. I didn't feel that either side deserved my vote.

 

 

[Happy Hippo]

4 hours ago, whart57 said:

 

This is wrong on various levels in my opinion. If you are ignorant of the situation then the correct action is to abstain. If you are not entirely sure but feel you should cast a vote on the side of the angels then ask to have a trusted proxy vote on your behalf. That proxy could be the Chairman in an individual capacity of course but to have the Chairman collect proxy votes simply through the job surely exacerbates the sort of discontent I have been reading about on this thread.

To be fair to the G0G management committee, and as Jeff has already pointed out, all the proxies were spilt equally between the two candidates for the various vacancies.

Edited September 8, 2020 by Happy Hippo

[SvenL]

4 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I agree. I abstained because I wasn't happy with things the board have done and I wasn't keen on elements of the Reform Group agenda, so I chose to not influence the result and I didn't vote. I didn't feel that either side deserved my vote.

 

Now it is over, I give the management my backing until such time as they do something to change that situation. Early indications are promising.

 

  

What agenda of the Reform group was it that you didn't like? 

[t-b-g]

57 minutes ago, SvenL said:

What agenda of the Reform group was it that you didn't like? 

 

The finescale only element and the notion that the Guild being made up of white blokes of a certain age is a weakness that needs to be addressed.

 

O Gauge has a long history and the fact that people keep the historic side of the gauge alive is something, in my view, to be applauded and not discarded.

 

There should be room in the Guild for all forms of O gauge, from the tinplate collector to the person who utilises the most modern RTR equipment. As soon as anybody wants to exclude a particular group, especially when phrases like "Some of us have moved on from playing with our trains on the floor" are used to denigrate what they do. I have no personal interest in the coarse scale side of the hobby but I do enjoy seeing the models on display at the Guild shows. I feel it is important to be reminded where we all came from and how far we have come in our modelling.

 

Discarding history has been in the news a lot lately. I don't support it there or in the Guild.  

 

The demographic problem is frankly ridiculous.

 

We were told that it was a weakness that most members are white blokes of a certain age.

 

My "dipstick" for these is to reverse the terminology and see if they still work as ideas. If anybody said there were too many young, black, female members, they would by, rightly, torn apart and even possibly prosecuted. In my mind, I do not judge people on age, sex or colour. I ask "Are they good people?".

 

Yet the Reform Group have assessed the membership, including me, of being a weakness because we are too old, too white and too male.

 

So why should I vote for people who see me as a "weakness" because of my age, sex and skin colour? 

 

 

 

 

[Happy Hippo]

7 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

The finescale only element and the notion that the Guild being made up of white blokes of a certain age is a weakness that needs to be addressed.

 

O Gauge has a long history and the fact that people keep the historic side of the gauge alive is something, in my view, to be applauded and not discarded.

 

There should be room in the Guild for all forms of O gauge, from the tinplate collector to the person who utilises the most modern RTR equipment. As soon as anybody wants to exclude a particular group, especially when phrases like "Some of us have moved on from playing with our trains on the floor" are used to denigrate what they do. I have no personal interest in the coarse scale side of the hobby but I do enjoy seeing the models on display at the Guild shows. I feel it is important to be reminded where we all came from and how far we have come in our modelling.

 

Discarding history has been in the news a lot lately. I don't support it there or in the Guild.  

 

The demographic problem is frankly ridiculous.

 

We were told that it was a weakness that most members are white blokes of a certain age.

 

My "dipstick" for these is to reverse the terminology and see if they still work as ideas. If anybody said there were too many young, black, female members, they would by, rightly, torn apart and even possibly prosecuted. In my mind, I do not judge people on age, sex or colour. I ask "Are they good people?".

 

Yet the Reform Group have assessed the membership, including me, of being a weakness because we are too old, too white and too male.

 

So why should I vote for people who see me as a "weakness" because of my age, sex and skin colour? 

 

 

 

 

I would have thought that such an issue would have been a very good discussion point at either of the two Zoom meetings that the Reform Group  candidates held prior to the AGM.  They were all there waiting to take your questions.

 

Did you log in to air what was a pretty serious grievance?

[chris p bacon]

13 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

We were told that it was a weakness that most members are white blokes of a certain age.

 

As a membership officer in another society,  I see the weakness as being a narrow age group.  It does mean that unless the Guild attract members that spread the age demographic it will literally die in a few short years.