FRA reps meeting (on the 13th Oct 207)

[leorcc]

Until recently I was under the impression that the FRA had a democratic process, were your reps and boardmembers give information openly and freely to the members so they know what is going on and what is discussed.
You know, like any decent democratic organisation would do.

Now aside from some things that happened in the past, where the truth is always somewhere in the middle, I was still convinced of the usefullnes of the FRA, and still promoted the idea of the FRA. Now imagine my surprise when Dave Lang posted this agenda for the next reps meeting, and to find topics of discussion that have never even been discussed at events or AGM, and even worse, not being disclosed to members. Even worse, Dave got some serious flack about posting said agenda, as if members are not supposed to know about this.

Anyone who has read this agenda will agree these topics should NOT be decided upon without proper consult with the FRA members. No matter wether you are in favor or against the proposed rule changes, everyone should be heard in this, and not just be discussed by a handfull of people.

I for one am thankful to Dave for posting the agenda, so we at least could see it in advance, and could have a in my opinion healthy discussion on the consequences of said proposals.

But when i woke up yesterday morning and did my rounds of the various robot related fora, I came accross this line at robotforum.co.uk:

quote:

Sorry, but this board is currently disabled due to legal action being threatened by certain individuals.

This is just wrong. Not just in a legal sense, but in a moral sense. This should NEVER happen to a person who has the best intentions with the sport and the FRA members. If this is the way a person is treated as a FRA rep who did what the FRA should have done itself, then I say the FRA is no longer forfilling its aims as protrayed on the very first page of the FRA website.

quote:

-Promotion and education of all things to do with robots, of all weights, shapes and sizes -To provide consistency with regard to open event safety, arenas and robot build rules.
-To centralise communications, in effect be a library of contacts and to promote the sport.
-To encourage the set up of regional meeting clubs, that are either part of the FRA or affiliated to the FRA.
-To endeavour to work with other countries associations for the betterment of our sport.
-To represent roboteer interests in negotiations with other bodies.
-To generally make the roboteers lot a better one.

[leorcc]

If someone is wondering why i waited so long to post this, that is

a: because it is never a good idea to start posting when your emotions flare up, so I usually put in a cooldown period.

b: I wanted to check with a moderator my posting is not in violation of the forum rules.

[maddox]

Bravo, Bravo. Bravo.

now to find a new name for it all.

im annoyed that that forum has been disabled, it is a good forum. i hope it is not related to anything here, i dont know about anyone else but i havent been enjoying it here lately.

I was surprised to find the other forum was disabled and the reason was possible legal action,
I would ask that all people concerned with this, to spend time cooling down, and considering the good of the whole roboting community.
Please try not to consider any dissention or disagreement as a personal attack, there are problems, lets work through them together with the good of the whole robot community in the for front of all our minds.

[leorcc]

I totally agree with that Craig.

It has been brought to my attention that I havent got the full picture. This may be true (99% sure I dont have the full picture), but still that has something to do with the secrecy that is my grievence in the first place.

I advocate openess in organisations like the FRA to all its members, where I do understand that not everything should be discussed on a public forum.

But still things that are of interest of all members, like proposed rulechanges, or issues pending, must be communicated to all its members in a timely fashion. Wether you use this forum, or a closed of section of this forum only accessable by paying FRA members, or use the reps to convey the messages, or email, or regular mail, its all the same to me. But members have a right to know these things in advance so we have a chance to voice our opinions and come up with our own possible solutions in time.

[simon_windisch]

I dont know whats going on here, but its almost always better to talk. Lets not have a bust up, I was just starting to enjoy myself.

Simon

Havent a clue whats happening but Ill say all the (REMOVED WORD) is a good reason why Ive cut back my participation in the sport. Openness is clearly an evil the FRA (the FRA being such a generic term these days) wishes to disassociate itself with.

Good luck with surviving the sport.

(Message edited by big_nipper on October 14, 2007)

[aliboy]

I second what Ewan has said.

€œThis is just wrong. Not just in a legal sense, but in a moral sense. This should NEVER happen to a person who has the best intentions with the sport and the FRA members. If this is the way a person is treated as a FRA rep who did what the FRA should have done itself, then I say the FRA is no longer forfilling its aims as protrayed on the very first page of the FRA website.€

The Dave Lang website was created because of a misconception that this forum is censored, which it is not.

The people in the main that use this site use it correctly, after all it is one of the biggest websites for roboteering in the world. 200,000 visits in July, alone.

This website has all sorts of people visit, and use it, including minors etc and should be used with this in mind.

The Dave Lang website was an area where so called free speech was practised without regard for the people they were writing about or whether the content was true and accurate.

A public website is like a news paper, if you print libellous or defamatory content the publisher will have lawyers on his back.

Although Dave has done nothing wrong himself, he is finding out that he is personally responsible for the content that others write.

There is UK case law for this situation.

I believe that Dave may have taken the view that it was easier to close the site than to censor the written content, ie do the exact opposite of why the site was set up for in the first place.

As folk have now migrated to a facebook site, this is now the free speech area.
From what I hear today the content of the facebook forum is not accurate in some posts.

With regard to the FRA paperwork that was posted on the Dave Lang site he was told to remove it for the following reasons.

AGM minutes had not been agreed by the FRA governing body.

The 17th FRA agenda had named individuals contained in its text and therefore the FRA itself could have been liable under the data protection act.

Dave being a new member of the FRA governing body did not understand this and posted them.

Dave did not take up the offer of advice as to the way the FRA works as he became a new governing body member.

After three apologies to the governing body, and two resignations and that is before he ever got to his first FRA meeting, it is a real disappointment as he is a real roboteer.