Web Strut

[mikehallam]

Pls opt me for an 'IN' if & when a suitably controlled Bulletin LAAwing/strut can be constructed.

Many if not all the forums I read appear to have a dominant rebellious brigade always looking for ulterior motives in the executive.

I can imagine that it would need some rules of engagement to ensure it really does speak for all or a substantial majority of its members, not just the vociferous cabal, when e.g. proposals on 'our' behalf are taken forward to the LAA Committee.

Mike

[steveneale]

Re NC, I'm not sure what talking it over at NC would achieve.
EC will need to give any proposal the go ahead. NC probably won't mind one way or the other frankly.

Stuart MacConnacher advises me it will be easier to set up if it is not
called a Strut as under LAA rules they should be geographic. As Stuart
did a lot of work on the rules he knows the issues. So instead of being
a strut we would be an affiliation. LAA already has affiliates like
Vintage Piper and the Pietenpol club. Like struts they sit on NC and get
LAA top up insurance for events.

One suggestion might be "BB WING". We at Bristol have renamed ourselves a wing anyway.

I'm happy to make the pitch to EC if we can get a short slot but we
will need to have thought it out properly AND we will have to show we
have a mandate from here. So far only 17 have voted, some of those
against. IMHO I think we need to see a lot more interest to proceed.

This is my recollection of the arguments to date, please augment:

Benefits
========

1. A lot of members live too far from a Strut to attend but want to
become involved more in LAA activities. The UKGA BB site has proven a BBW
could offer a feeling of belonging that to date the PFA/LAA BB hasn't
provided.

There is a large pool of aircraft on line making fly ins more likely to
happen and be well attended than those held by smaller Struts.

Conspiracies
===========

Some feel the BB is "controlled" by LAA. The BBW not LAA would run the BB
on a day to day basis. It would elect it's administrators and
moderators. This would kill the conspiracy theories. EC would permit the BBW to
display the LAA logo and be the official online LAA forum. In return it
would be responsible to EC for the way it is run and it's content.

Some extra thoughts:

Membership
==========

If EC were willing to allow the BB to be hosted on LAA webspace this
would make it easy to find by prospective members. It would also mean
there need be no BBW subscription. If they were unwilling to do so then a Strut might offer space to keep membership free or subsidise in some other way.

Wing membership would not be automatic. BB contributors would need to
opt in so wing correspondence could be aimed at them and posters who are
not interested won't be bothered by it.

BB Development
==============

The PFA BB was underdeveloped because it was just one task for HQ in a
long list. For example usergroups were unused and are unused here at the moment but they look useful both to show interest in a subject and to control access to forums. It woud appear forums can be public, private or hidden.

Here are some ideas around "usergroups":

LAA members could be allocated by default to a "LAA Member" usergroup name.

A BB usergroup called "BB wing member" could be set up.

Each geographic strut could be allocated it's own forum and usergroup
name. Each forum would be moderated by the strut itself. Who joins or whether it was open or private would be up to the strut and it's moderator.

Even EC could have their own forum to exploit the decision making
speed of the BB, reduce time at meetings and trips to Turweston. My guess is these usergroup members would elect for their forums to be private or even hidden. NC could get briefed and chew the fat in the days before making meetings snappier.

Non members could be welcomed back to the BB as a "BB guest" usergroup.
then everyone knows who is posting what. Read and write access to forums
can therefore be controlled based on who you are.

A "BB guest" could elect to join a usergroup called
"prospective member" this might allow then access to some extra forums.

We could have aircraft interest usergroups, eg: "Rag and stick" " Tin
bashers", "plastic fantastics", "flexwings", "Lycosaurs" or "oil burners"

So you could have a "wing member" who was interested in "rag and stick"
and "oil burners" who is a "NC rep" or a "BB guest" that was a
"prospective member" and part of "Bristol Strut".

This could evolve over time of course but I'm sure we have the skills and time to run it amongst us.

I hope this shows a little of how the BB could be exploited for what it is good at, fast communication between members.

Hope some other members vote above or i'm blowing smoke.

Steve

[Dave Hall]

Lots to think about there, Steve. Affiliated might mean a minimum membership (of 50 do I recall?), while Strut (or call it what you want) is 10 LAA members.

[mikehallam]

FWIW A membership as small as ten could allow the usual 'crowd' to have too much clout.
For the benefit of EC/LAA and particularly the non BB web reading membership at large, safety from the silly & easily aroused brigade lies in adequate membership numbers for such a web strut/wing.
50 sounds better than 10.

Mike.

[Mike Mold]

I'd like to see substantially more than the 21 replies to this poll (11% of the 190+ registered members) to make any decision more representative.

[Phil Burgess]

Perhapse we need to raise the profile of the vote? I doubt that all registered users look at all the threads - just particular ones they are interested in. If it's possible to redirect someones browser to the vote on initially clicking the BB icon on the home page, this would at least ensure that everyone who uses the BB would be aware of this vote... I'm not a technogeek but I'm sure you get the idea...

[macconnacher]

I do not believe that making the BB a strut serves a useful function and as I also have pointed out that being non-geographic it does not meet the rules for a strut. This could be changed by an AGM.

It is also not appropriate for the BB to be an affiliated body as this is meant for organisations like the Europa Club, VAC etc who are organisations in their own right whose close links with LAA the EC believe is of mutual benefit in affiliation and if large enough are given access to the NC. This was done originally so that we could represent these organisations at CAA and claim that PFA represented X members when we would take the membership of PFA and add the total membership of the affiliated organisations to our total (even where this was in some cases double counting).

An affiliated organisation would exist even if LAA folded up. A Strut and this BB would cease to exist once the LAA folded; the former since their objective is to support the LAA and the latter since LAA pay for the web space and there is no point in having a discussion group to discuss a defunct organisation.

The BB is made up of only LAA members (with the exception of the odd Viagra seller!) so it is a body within LAA. Its purpose is as an information exchange and it does that job well and most questions are answered to the satisfaction of the questioner. If you have the idea that being a part of the NC gives you some clout then think again. The NC is an advisory body (only) to the EC though we are reviewing the role at the request of the Chairman. We will discuss the BB involvement since I will raise it as a member of the task force.

Membership of the NC is automatic for struts but they have to be approved by the EC before they can exist. The rules of the LAA on the NC state that the EC can appoint any group or individual to the NC on whatever terms they wish so they could create a set of conditions to allow access from the BB without trying to bend the rules and saying that you are a strut to give yourself membership when even this is subject to EC approval.

This is an electronic forum with no officers and no one with any responsibility, except the moderator who is appointed by the EC. The reason I believe that some of you want access is that some debates on the workings of LAA and its corporate entity PFA (Ulair) Ltd do not get answered to some peoples satisfaction on the BB and you believe that by being part of the NC these questions could get asked and a definitive answer given. In part that can happen though you often get a reply that is not what you want. The EC will make up its mind and resources often overrule “wouldn’t it be great if LAA did this” requests from struts.

If we had the minutes and reports to the NC published on the LAA website as it was some time ago then seeing the results of discussions in the NC would fulfilled. This needs “a member’s only section” of the website to be reinstated which is planned. Thus the BB needs only a mechanism for inputting to the NC for debate. I believe the mechanism is in place to do this with some simple regulations in the Strut Handbook

• Where a debate on the BB does not arrive at a conclusion to the satisfaction of a group of members, which relates to the organisation of the LAA, a poll is taken on a question to be placed on the Agenda of the NC.
• If sufficient support is forthcoming say 25 members then the secretary for the NC places it on the agenda of the next NC meeting.

• The NC secretary is responsible for ensuring that all BB questions that reach the criteria are acted upon and the answer in the eventual minutes is placed on the BB.

I believe that this would solve the problem that some members who by virtue of preference or location cannot join a strut but want to be able to ask questions of the executive in the same way as struts have done for many years. Remember you can as an individual write to the CEO or the Chairman in any case on any issue.

Remember there are already many members of the BB who are on the NC and I would guess that this group has a bigger representation than any strut.

[steveneale]

So that's a NO then. If your opinion does in fact reflect members views then we can expect others to join you by voting as you have done. Just out of interest, do you ever read other peoples postings?

[Chris B]

Hi Stuart,

Thanks for taking the time to outline the reasons why you object to the formation of a virtual strut.

Most of your concerns are about the procedural difficulties that exist because the rules were made before this requirement was identified - so I don't think that we should get hung up about that. In reality, this year’s AGM would probably be about the right timeframe to complete the planning for the BB Wing/Strut and the rule changes required. There may need to be rule changes anyway, depending on the outcome of Dicky Bird’s project to review the NC/EC effectiveness.

In my view, the BB is 99% useful, and just the occasional posting in Hanger Chat seems to cause negative PR which resounds far and wide and does nothing for the credibility of the LAA. Occassionally, the problem is exacerbated when those in NC and EC positions (and who should know better) lower themselves and join in.

You are correct in pointing out that the BB is an electronic forum with no officers and no one with any responsibility, and therein lies the problem – it’s rudderless.

I'm not sure why you are proposing an alternative to the established strut concept. It is more likely to be divisive and encourage the continued airing of dirty washing in public. Would you apply the same rules at a physical strut meeting? I don’t think so.

The concept of a virtual strut is the most elegant way I can think of to provide leadership and two way communications on par with the physical struts. Why do you want to disadvantage/penalise those that can’t attend physical struts? We are all equal and pay the same membership fee.

Looking forward rather than backwards, we need to build on this potentially huge resource and bring members into the organisation rather than leave them outside looking in. After all, it is our policy to cast the membership open to anyone, so let's deal with it on that basis and enhance what we have so that it reflects the organisation that we aspire to be, not what we were.

I fully support Steve Neale in trying to move this one forward for the benefit of the members and am prepared to help out in any working group to work out a way forward that promotes inclusivity and shows the LAA in a better light.

Chris B

[Brian Hope]

I think using the current rules to negate the potential benefits of a virtual Strut is unrealistic. Rules are for guidence, and if curcumstances change whereby an improvement of beneficial situation can be developed, you change the rules, not decide abandon the idea.
The simple fact is that the Strut system is the most used and most effective way for members to influence policy or just have their views heard, but Strut membership is nowhere near where we would like it to be. Anything that improves that situation needs to be seriously looked at, and I believe that the virtual Strut idea falls squarely into that category.

[Kelvin Denize]

Rules are for guidence, and if curcumstances change whereby an improvement of beneficial situation can be developed, you change the rules, not decide abandon the idea..

Brain, I dearly wish you were the head of the CAA.

[tony bishop]

There's nothing to prevent a strut using a private bulletin board (e.g. yahoo) to allow lots of virtual activity. My local Cambridge strut has started doing this. It takes a while for people for people to get used to it, but can be really useful.

[Dave Hall]

Interesting to see that Struts are defined as local groups - does that mean that the Youth & Education Strut doesn't exist?

[mikehallam]

I have only just rediscovered this discussion as the introduction of the new 'sticky' in hangar chat seemed to have put a stopper on all future correspondence. I say that because e.g. the Prrune site allows additional remarks without removing the headline from a top slot.

So does this accidental burial of the subject [i.e. sticky firmly refusing comment] also reduce the number of potential consenting adult supporters of a virtual 'strut' from voting/logging on ?

Are we being gagged by obfuscation ? Can the 'sticky' be less glued shut ?

As I'm generally in favour of freedom of speech and democracy I can't understand why after all this correspondence we are failing to appoint a leader to promote the idea. Just folk giving opinions - like me !!

Could it be that the medium still falls short of the requirements of democracy by not allowing potential members sight of each other. Mails alone don't describe one in the round.