I am in favor of the "Council". In my view, it is composed of a very good representative cross-section of APUG - taking into consideration "control of emotional reaction."

In my view, individuality and sensitivity are both essential to "fine" photography.
The support of both is essential - but we MUST keep in mind that denying either to one member denies it to all... and the only external proof we have of either is in the manifestation of disagreement.
Such disagreement MUST be kept within reasonable bounds - and there is a much greater chance of establishing REASONABLE bounds, and maintaining individuality through the collective intelligence of a "council".

Now, in reading this thread - here in APUG, I get the idea that there are those on other sites who do not "like what we are doing." Interesting (not very) - but can someone explain to me why I should care? "They" - some of them - do not like APUG. I don't like what some of them are doing on their websites - so, the way I see it, we are even.

Let us direct our energies to supporting APUG, and let the others "stew in their own juices".

Let us direct our energies to supporting APUG, and let the others "stew in their own juices".

Agreed. And on that note, I move that we close this thread.;)

I second, if I may. If not perhaps someone with authority can second.

Agreed. And on that note, I move that we close this thread.;)

Why close this thread? Should we not be allowed to discuss the formation and purpose of the Membership Council?

Best,
Helen

Maybe it would be less of an issue if there were a list of council members for people to read (as there is a list of Moderators), but NO 'council' label under the name when posting.

Why close this thread? Should we not be allowed to discuss the formation and purpose of the Membership Council?

I am with you, Helen. I think we should have an open door here.

Sean opened the thread for discussion of the new Council, so I'm not about to close it, and I don't think the other moderators will either, as long as discussion remains relatively civil and on-topic.

To date the Council has addressed one issue, that all but 2 members outside of the mods and council are aware of. We (Mod's and Council) then spent two or three pages discussing whether or not we did the correct thing and concluded that we probably over stepped our charter. The two members were fine and maybe happy with what was done. I think some are assuming the worst and that this is partially based upon how the original post was presented. Even though this has been corrected in susequent posts. I also think that people are anticipating the worst for their own reasons. Which is not a slight, but an effort to make clear that there is no evidence that apug is going to be anything other than what it is currently. It is just as likely that the council will improve freedoms as it will make apug more strict. The council has been in the planning stages for at least a year. Sean chose now to form it because more and more there are grey issues that need to be dealt with and these issues need membership input, but cannot be broadcast. Early indications are that the council will be conservative in its approach and liberal in its guidance.

Council seems to certainly be well thought out as has apug.org etc. Apug is working and growing and improving...Thanks all.

I have personally met quite a few of the council members and in my humble opinion they are fine upstanding individuals of good repute and in most cases of high moral character ...

it will certainly be a thankless task with obligations...

so thanks again all...moving forward!

Dave in Vegas (101 degrees-an Arctic blast hits town!) :D

I'll say this thing only: the council was announced on Monday July 30; We're Sunday August 5, and so far I have seen more members complain about the idea they have of the council than whatever we have done so far.

I have not seen a SINGLE criticism addressing what has ACTUALLY been done by a member of the council. Not a single.

Yes there has been that silly thread on LF forum the fires of which I too have kindled, but in terms of APUG policy, strategy, steering, or whatever you call it, I must frankly underline that we have achieved only a tiny bit, as JDC showed.

Only intentions and perceptions have been debated, i.e. fiction.

I have not seen a SINGLE criticism addressing what has ACTUALLY been done by a member of the council. Not a single.



Isn't the whole point of the council that much of its work isn't to be seen in public? To address issues, as JDC noted, which are best not put before the wider membership base?

The other thing I'd note is that you've also seen several pages of folks congratulating Sean on the move and on the wisdom of his choices.

It really isn't all that surprising that this announcement would receive a lot of attention and comment. On the face of it, there's something a bit off-putting about the very idea of forming a predetermined group of members who's opinion will be valued above the others. But if Sean sees the need for it, then so be it. He was faced with a similar need and set of choices several years ago when he chose the moderators and he chose very well, to the remarkably smooth functioning and success of the forum. I'm sure this further move will prove equally valuable.

That said, I really hope this will fill some final need and mark the end of the stratification of the forum. All the name tag colors and titles gets a tad oppressive.

Why close this thread? Should we not be allowed to discuss the formation and purpose of the Membership Council?

Best,
Helen

Sorry Helen, I did not think of it in terms of not allowing anyone to discuss whatever. I was thinking that everything possible has been gone over time and time again in this thread. Didn't mean to offend. Of course I'm free to not read it, I guess.

...

Only intentions and perceptions have been debated, i.e. fiction.

Are you speaking as a member of the Council, or is this just your opinion?

John posted some background reasoning behind the formation of the Membership Council, and listed a number of duties. That information was discussed, and a few people made their thoughts public. What is wrong with that? It seems like a fairly civilised way to go about things. Do you think that the original post was fictitious?

Best,
Helen

I also get the impression that keeping it clean, warm and fuzzy could be perceived as important for keeping the money coming in*. That is what needs to be protected.

I know it can appear that way, but for me this site has never been about the money. It started as a free site and an effort to help preserve traditional photography. After a while it simply took up too much time and I went the 'monetizing' route rather than letting it go. I certainly made a lot more being an IBMr than an APUGr and had even more potential to climb the IBM ladder.. David is right about my new side business (I also do small websites for local business and work part time at a local gym (friends with the owner and all that)). My wife teaches piano and pre-school group music lessons as well. By doing all this we can make ends meet and I do enjoy it FAR more than sitting in a cubicle under flickering green flourescent lighting :)
The phrase "clean, warm and fuzzy" has more to do with my personality type than anything. The tone of a website usually reflects the owners personality. Family and friends will tell you I'm extremely laid back and tend to surround myself with good natured friendly people. It has to do with the kind of environment I personally enjoy being a part of. I try to make APUG a site that I myself enjoy reading through on a daily basis. Since I am a person who loathes bickering, conflict, flaming, 'pissing contests' etc, it's just natural that I tend to steer my website away from that. That being said I do understand that many like to be engaged in edgy, spirited and exciting discussions and that is fine. I try not to completely lock the site down into my own personal preferences and have made compromises when I can. However, there are some things which fall outside of compromise that if changed would ruin my own enjoyment of the site. If a site owner doesn't like his own website then you've got big problems..

Sean

The phrase "clean, warm and fuzzy" has more to do with my personality type than anything. The tone of a website usually reflects the owners personality. Family and friends will tell you I'm extremely laid back and tend to surround myself with good natured friendly people.
Long may it continue.

Sincerely best wishes,

R.

Are you speaking as a member of the Council, or is this just your opinion?

John posted some background reasoning behind the formation of the Membership Council, and listed a number of duties. That information was discussed, and a few people made their thoughts public. What is wrong with that? It seems like a fairly civilised way to go about things. Do you think that the original post was fictitious?

Best,
Helen

I speak under my own name but I do so because I fear we have not had much yet the chance to prove ourselves as Council members while the discussions have shown more resentment than criticism.

I was thinking that everything possible has been gone over time and time again in this thread.

My thinking as well. However, Gay is correct. No need to keep flogging this dead horse unless one wants to. Good luck to the Council members. I'm certain that you'll do a fine job, and APUG will be stronger for it.

Good point, Banana and Gay. I'll go get some fresh air myself and let things be.

What the yellow herbacious bloke said.

On the face of it, there's something a bit off-putting about the very idea of forming a predetermined group of members who's opinion will be valued above the others.

We debated having a rotating group of 7 or so, but it dawned on us that if we had a really good group the rotation would cause them to go away.

The thought was that this group would represent a very broad spectrum, if not the entirety of the membership. The idea is not that these folks are more valued, but represent the value of the membership. It is not an echo chamber.

I also think that if a subject is going to get flogged this is one that needs a thorough beating. It may be painful for the mods, Sean and the council, but the membership *needs* to feel that this is going to make their site better and they/you have every right to question it.

I think the council will work really well. I am willing to continue to debate it. Odds are if I'm right and I can articulate my thoughts you'll eventually agree. It is equally likely that good points will come up that we haven't thought of that will help us do a better job.

I must admit when Poco, Helen and others offer a dissenting opinion I pay attention.

Like Sean, I want APUG to be friendly and open... particularly to those new to film photography, and those new to the site.

I'm still finding my way, and there is a learning curve to it for all council members. With over 20,000 APUGgers (which means, of course, over 20,000 opinions) a few extra eyes on the threads will make the job easier for Sean and the moderators to be sure we keep APUG a reasonably friendly place. Any spirited discussion that is free of personal attacks is, in my view, friendly enough.

Frankly, with an extra 15 people... there are more avenues for members to bring concerns or advice to Sean and the moderators, and this should be viewed as a good thing.

There was some skepticism, IIRC, when Sean added David, Ole, and JDC as moderators, but I think they've done a very good job. We have big footsteps to follow, and hope we do as well as they have, and even, perhaps, make their jobs here a little easier.

The thought was that this group would represent a very broad spectrum, if not the entirety of the membership. The idea is not that these folks are more valued, but represent the value of the membership. It is not an echo chamber.


Based upon having interaction with nearly all members of the group, along with the writings of those I haven't interacted with very much, I think you have succeeded at selecting a broad spectrum of members. They all have pretty even heads too.

Callow, I do appreciate your thoughts - while I tend to agree with Poco.

The 'labels' as they appear just do not work for me - it is in a way adding recognition, intended or otherwise to certain members. But then, have not like the labels - member, subscriber, inactive/(banned either. If Sean did not want to know how people felt about this, I doubt he would have posted anything or at the least he would have posted and closed.

This group seems to be an advisory council, nothing more. Most are people who's comments I enjoy. Good luck, it may work or it may end up much like the Grey Area did. 21000+ members - great, but willing to bet that between 3-5% are actually active members (that means the rest have either come and gone or wait for the next train wreck).

Train wrecks maybe (there are other forums with more fertile ground for that), but part time researchers, lurkers and a good many transients are my guesses. I know a lot of folks read, but do not post. I'm always concerned that there are a few that keep some from posting.

Recognition can work both ways. If you know so and so and s/he is on the council then you have a go to person. I don't mind the fact that a contentious member might tone down their rhetoric if they see that a council member is in a thread.

I get pm's and im’s all the time from members.

... They all have pretty even heads too.

My head is pretty damn bald... but well rounded! :D

Mike - to me it doesn't really matter what is below my name, I plan on being the same ol' goof as always.

gene