New kid on the block - 'The Great War Group'

[JimSmithson]

On 19/09/2020 at 09:38, Michelle Young said:

I hope that the magazine is proof read better than a publication by one of the GWG committee which is sadly riddled with errors. I wish you well, I won't subscribe as it will end up like most other journals I've subscribed to over the years, taking up space and unread. 

 

Michelle 

I am sure it will be Michelle, as we have our own in-house editors and do not have to rely on a publisher to make sure errors don't get into print or in fact are created in the printing process. 

 

Jim

[Heid the Ba]

Thanks Jim.

[Bernard_Lewis]

14 hours ago, JimSmithson said:

I am sure it will be Michelle, as we have our own in-house editors and do not have to rely on a publisher to make sure errors don't get into print or in fact are created in the printing process. 

 

Jim

I am currently sweating conkers here to try and remove any (of my) errors, before it goes anywhere near the publisher! 😂😂 110,000 words 😳

 

Bernard

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Bernard_Lewis said:

I am currently sweating conkers here to try and remove any (of my) errors, before it goes anywhere near the publisher! 😂😂 110,000 words 😳

 

      Not so much 110,000 words-perhaps more the fear of 110,000 spelling mistakes?  And the greater fear that Michelle may even now be powering up that Moderator's top-of-the-range  taser............   At least GWG know they will have to be on their toes with proof-reading,which is no bad thing. I wish them well.

[Dragon]

On 16/09/2020 at 14:31, Muerrisch said:

 

Good luck to the GWG, because in my opinion both the WFA and the GWF [yes, this GWF] are showing their age, and some sections of this forum are in my opinion moribund, with many knowledgeable members rarely posting, even in areas of their expertise. Worse still, other valuable members have voted with their fingers and ceased to even lurk.

 

Unless organisations "reinvent" or "refresh", they are overtaken. This will become increasing obvious here when the last ripples of Centenaries and the Unknown Warrior dampen down.

 

I shall not join the GWG, but will continue to lurk here, more out of habit than enthusiasm.

 

I feel similarly, David. Further, there is barely any interest whatsoever shown on here in the area which enthralls me, even in nice pictures, so I suspect that will be the same elsewhere.  (Twitter excepted where people do respond positively.) (Before anyone even thinks of the notion, I am not able to write peer-reviewed military articles myself because I don't have the professional military background, a history degree or even the depth of knowledge most amateurs on the GWF have.)

 

I haven't got £60 p/a spare to pay for a subscription to see what something turns out like. That is a simple unpalatable fact of being medically retired less than half way through my potential working life. 

 

I wish the GWG success and that its enthusiastic participants whom I know from Twitter enjoy the challenges. 

 

Gwyn

[Bernard_Lewis]

Keep going Gwyn!

 

Bernard

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

On 14/09/2020 at 13:14, AOK4 said:

"I was surprised to see Chris Baker there though.

 

Why ?

Tom

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

On 16/09/2020 at 14:31, Muerrisch said:

Good luck to the GWG, because in my opinion both the WFA and the GWF [yes, this GWF] are showing their age, and some sections of this forum are in my opinion moribund, with many knowledgeable members rarely posting, even in areas of their expertise. Worse still, other valuable members have voted with their fingers and ceased to even lurk.

 

Merriam - Webster > "Definition of forum - a public meeting place for open discussion."

Discuss.

Tom

[Hedley Malloch]

15 hours ago, Tom Tulloch-Marshall said:

 

Merriam - Webster > "Definition of forum - a public meeting place for open discussion."

Discuss.

Tom

 

What's your point here, Tom?

 

The WFA has many faults, but it is under some semblance of democratic control, unlike the GWF and the newcomer. To its credit it spends large amounts of money on trying to get the message out through mags, e-letters, funding research, webinars, and many of its branches have been quick to adopt Zoom and Teams as a way of keeping in touch. It is fortunate that it has the services of people like David Tattersfield, Ralph Lomas, Jonathan Vernon, and the late and much lamented Jon Cooksey. It is true that it has gone through a lot of cash doing all this, but at least you can see where it has gone. It is not like, for example, the Gallipoli Association which is sitting on a cash mountain with no idea apparent of what to do with it.

[Gareth Davies]

It does indeed have many faults (facts related to governance seem to be a particular problem). And let's not forget the BdW fiasco (not my expression, that's the word used by the new temporary chairman).  But I must challenge your statement on democratic control. What evidence do you have @Hedley Malloch that the GWG isn't under democratic control?

[Hedley Malloch]

37 minutes ago, Gareth Davies said:

It does indeed have many faults (facts related to governance seem to be a particular problem). And let's not forget the BdW fiasco (not my expression, that's the word used by the new temporary chairman).  But I must challenge your statement on democratic control. What evidence do you have @Hedley Malloch that the GWG isn't under democratic control?

 

Evidence? Key questions: Can the subscribers vote the Co-founders, the Additional Trustees, the Others, the Salient Points and Over the Top Teams, out of office if they - the subscribers - don't like what they are doing? What say do the subscribers have in setting policy? If the Co-founders etc etc don't get their power from the subscribers, then where are they getting it from? To whom are the Co-founders, etc, etc accountable?

 

The use of the word 'subscriber' is significant. It suggests that the principal bond which ties the Co-founders etc etc to the beneficiaries is money. In other words, GWG is a firm in a market place and not a 'community'.

Edited 6 October , 2020 by Hedley Malloch

[Gareth Davies]

That you have posed questions rather than providing answers clearly demonstrates that you don't have any evidence. And it is interesting that, having made a comparison with the WFA, you then ask some questions which if asked of the WFA you would get a very loud NO as your answer. 

[Terry_Reeves]

Could I ask what "democracy" has to do with another  forum about WW1?  It's not a political party for heavens sake!

 

TR

[Gareth Davies]

Indeed Terry.

[Hedley Malloch]

2 hours ago, Gareth Davies said:

That you have posed questions rather than providing answers clearly demonstrates that you don't have any evidence. And it is interesting that, having made a comparison with the WFA, you then ask some questions which if asked of the WFA you would get a very loud NO as your answer. 

I can't find the answers to these questions in Companies House, and has someone else has remarked they are not registered with the Charities Commission. I am asking you because you are listed as a member of the GWC team, albeit as an 'Other'. I assumed you might know. Do you?

I disagree with your description of the WFA. It has a constitution, the capacity exists for members (and they are members and not 'subscribers') to change officers and set policy. It publishes accounts and minutes of meetings, all basic requirements of a democratic organisation.

[Hedley Malloch]

2 hours ago, Terry_Reeves said:

Could I ask what "democracy" has to do with another  forum about WW1?  It's not a political party for heavens sake!

 

TR

Because democracy is a value which transcends party politics. Voluntary organisations which depend upon member engagement and upon members for resources run better when they are organised along democratic lines.

[Muerrisch]

Hedley, the only way that this WFA member 1502 can be a member is to be a subscriber. I do get a vote, but I pay for the privilege. Beyond that is semantics.

 

To be fair to both sides thus polarised I would suggest that the accountability that the "Co-Founders etc" have is financial rather than democratic.

 

This differs from the GWF only in that the latter does not require subscriptions but is appreciative of donations.

 

The GWG needs to satisfy its subscribers [as does the WFA], the GWF does not need to. Which is just as well, as some of us are currently dissatisfied, and many have voted with their feet.

 

I do believe that this discussion is healthy: the GWF should not close its eyes to other organisations covering much of the same ground. I feel free to criticise the WFA and the GWF and compare them, but I do not have a dog in the GWG fight except to say that if the WFA and the GWF were fulfilling people's needs the GWG would not exist.

[Gareth Davies]

43 minutes ago, Hedley Malloch said:

I can't find the answers to these questions in Companies House, and has someone else has remarked they are not registered with the Charities Commission. I am asking you because you are listed as a member of the GWC team, albeit as an 'Other'. I assumed you might know. Do you?

I disagree with your description of the WFA. It has a constitution, the capacity exists for members (and they are members and not 'subscribers') to change officers and set policy. It publishes accounts and minutes of meetings, all basic requirements of a democratic organisation.

 

You are still avoiding a key issue. A few posts ago you said " The WFA has many faults, but it is under some semblance of democratic control, unlike the GWF and the newcomer" yet you have absolutely no evidence to substantiate your assertion.

 

As for the WFA, yes, it does have a constitution although the info regarding the constitution on the Charity Commission website is 17 years out of date. But please do tell me how members set policy?  I have had a good look at the WFA website and can't find anything that answers this.

[Hedley Malloch]

Members can propose resolutions to be voted on at the AGM. That members of the WFA don't use this facility and neither do they stand for election is another problem. The potential exists.

 

Now tell me, could I, as a 'subscriber' to the GWC, get rid of the Co-founders? A simple yes or no will do.

[Gareth Davies]

5 minutes ago, Hedley Malloch said:

Members can propose resolutions to be voted on at the AGM. That members of the WFA don't use this facility and neither do they stand for election is another problem. The potential exists.

 

Now tell me, could I, as a 'subscriber' to the GWC, get rid of the Co-founders? A simple yes or no will do.

 

Yet again you are ignoring the fact that you have made an assertion that you are unable to provide any evidence to substantiate. As for your WFA comments, what policy can a resolution set? What potential actually exists?

[keithmroberts]

49 minutes ago, Muerrisch said:

the GWF should not close its eyes to other organisations covering much of the same ground.

Not sure what you are getting at here David. The GWF as a forum is what the members make it. The Mods only try to keep it civil and legal. The nature of the GWF changes over time, because some of the subjects that have been controversial have been largely resolved by the efforts of researchers, and sometimes GWF members, and taken as far as is possible. Discussions on twitter and facebook can move quickly, but mostly vanish into obscurity pretty quickly, while a forum structure, with all its limitations allows subjects to be developed or explored.The GWF will never set out to replace historical periodicals or magazines, and policy is pretty clearly defined by the rules as, keep it legal,civil and pretty much on topic.

It was surely inevitable that the burst of extra activity over the centenary years would drop off, but I feel that there will be a place for the GWF for years to come. Even this thread surely substantiates that view, in that debates like this can happen here, whether they reach conclusions or not.

[Terry_Reeves]

21 minutes ago, Hedley Malloch said:

Members can propose resolutions to be voted on at the AGM. That members of the WFA don't use this facility and neither do they stand for election is another problem. The potential exists.

 

Now tell me, could I, as a 'subscriber' to the GWC, get rid of the Co-founders? A simple yes or no will do.

Hedley,  you join knowing the rules - that's the way it is.

 

TR

 

[Muerrisch]

11 minutes ago, keithmroberts said:

Not sure what you are getting at here David. The GWF as a forum is what the members make it. The Mods only try to keep it civil and legal. The nature of the GWF changes over time, because some of the subjects that have been controversial have been largely resolved by the efforts of researchers, and sometimes GWF members, and taken as far as is possible. Discussions on twitter and facebook can move quickly, but mostly vanish into obscurity pretty quickly, while a forum structure, with all its limitations allows subjects to be developed or explored.The GWF will never set out to replace historical periodicals or magazines, and policy is pretty clearly defined by the rules as, keep it legal,civil and pretty much on topic.

It was surely inevitable that the burst of extra activity over the centenary years would drop off, but I feel that there will be a place for the GWF for years to come. Even this thread surely substantiates that view, in that debates like this can happen here, whether they reach conclusions or not.

 

The same ground being The Great War. I was referring obliquely, subtly, to the locking of a GWF thread which dared to discuss the WFA. Apparently not allowed here.

[kenf48]

29 minutes ago, Muerrisch said:

 

The same ground being The Great War. I was referring obliquely, subtly, to the locking of a GWF thread which dared to discuss the WFA. Apparently not allowed here.

 One could also argue what has this discussion to do with the ‘Culture Pages’ of the Great War.  

 

Unlike the WFA thread which criticised the policy of an outside organisation without the right of reply the owners an trustees of the GWG seem quite happy to have an argument on this forum.  We do not ‘close our eyes’ to other organisations but if you want to disagree with their policies/governance then raise it with them. 

[Muerrisch]

8 minutes ago, kenf48 said:

 One could also argue what has this discussion to do with the ‘Culture Pages’ of the Great War.  

 

Unlike the WFA thread which criticised the policy of an outside organisation without the right of reply the owners an trustees of the GWG seem quite happy to have an argument on this forum.  We do not ‘close our eyes’ to other organisations but if you want to disagree with their policies/governance then raise it with them. 

 

I am not interested in the GWG ...............