RYA - Marks out of 10?

[rhinorhino]

Lots of plus marks for agreeing to come at all.
Lots of minus marks for the quality of the answers. Long pre-prepared restatements of RYA policy which we have all heard before, no real debate at all.
I felt that the responses did little or nothing to lessen the view (held by many around here) that the RYA are remote, aloof and self-satisfied.
One interesting revelation about wanting offically signed logs for YM candidates, slipped out however.
What do others think.
Oh, and a big thanks to Kim.

 

[aod]

Pre prepared political rhetoric and avoidance spring to mind.................marks out of ten err............! 1/10 for turning up on expenses.

Sealed it for me ! I have been a member of the RYA for 20 years but there won't be a 21st.

Mark out of ten for Kim Hollamby..........................10/10 for having the courage to make it happen and for managing a difficult situation.

 

[bedouin]

I was pleasantly surprised. 10/10 to Kim for the organisation.

Given the nature of the medium it can never be spontaneous and I think Rod Carr's answers were about as forthright as you could expect - perhaps I'll give him 5/10 for daring to turn up, even if protected by a moderator.

What disappointed me was the number of times his replies were along the line of "We've been looking into that and decided to do nothing".

I'm not a member of the RYA - and the forum has not made me question that decision

 

[FlyingSpud]

But what did you expect? A succinct question that would have the chief executive of the RYA typing ‘My God, you’re right and we have been idiots?”.

It gave the RYA a chance to explain why it has decided on its current position. Those who were unhappy with that were never going to be won over; those who were happy were not going to be turned off.

The only constructive matters will be

(1) At least the RYA can try and show it is not out of touch and is listening
(2) Maybe, just maybe, you might make them rethink a little, but not now, later

 

[rhinorhino]

So you would rule out reasoned debate leading to a change of mind then?

 

[Observer]

You could hardly describe this bunfight as "reasoned debate" and it's unfair to draw firm conclusions either way. I thought Rod Carr did a fair job of putting over the RYA's stance on a number of issues although, as you say, there were clearly some pre-prepared statements.

BTW, the implication of your comment is that a "change of mind" (presumably to correspond with your own) is the ultimate criterion of a "reasoned debate". Looks like magisterial arrogance.

 

[BrendanS]

Nothing wrong with pre-prepared answers for this sort of event, unless Rod is an extremely fast typer or has a typist who can take dictation, and even then the flurry of fact checking would have slowed the whole thing down to a crawl.

Pre-prepared answers to pre-submitted questions OK, but then more detailed Q&A from the forum on each question, otherwise no one is going to feel that they have had an in depth answer.


Kim is going to have to bite the bullet on this issue, and balance the wishes of many to field a range of questions, and the desire to have in depth questions. A minefield, that even those with a wealth of experience, with a multitude of researchers, and professional mediators, such as 'Any Questions' on Radio 4, still never manage.

No criticism of Kim here, he did a fantastic job, not just in coming up with and following through with this idea, but learning on the job.

 

[kimhollamby]

The two hour timeslot was limiting and I can appreciate that many would have:

a) liked the session to run in 'their' hours
b) to have been longer to allow for threads to develop

a) will always be difficult because of the usage patterns of these forums, which peak several times each day and also on different days of the week

b) was simply because the options were to schedule it as close as we could to the Christmas Scuttlebutt threads, or wait longer for diaries to marry up in such a way that more hours were possible. On balance getting a fast response was, I think, top priority and I am grateful to Rod Carr and his team (including his IT manager who laid on four PCs on fast connections) for agreeing to a date less than 48 hours after we got back from the London Show. We certainly tied up a significant chunk of RYA resources for this exercise.

Another point on b) - whilst it is right that threads might be allowed to develop (and you'll see that we gave some preference to that in the second hour over answering even more questions) it would be important for users to understand that, as moderator, I would want them to genuinely develop, not just dissolve into a circular debate.

What was obvious from yesterday's experiment is that we had new and irregular posters joining in, so perhaps one benefit of giving the session some shape (and perhaps the comfort of knowing that it was controlled) is that we see a broader range of comment. Before anyone frets, no, none of the existing forums are going to be converted to moderated!

As for the pre-prepared answers, I think you have rightly hit the nail on the head that if some research had not been done beforehand the process would have been very slow. Not for any sinister reason but simply because the questions spanned activities that cross several RYA departments and it was important to ensure that they had sufficient input.

Thanks for all of the comments here.

kim_hollamby@ipcmedia.com

 

[rhinorhino]

"the implication of your comment is that a "change of mind" (presumably to correspond with your own) is the ultimate criterion of a "reasoned debate". Looks like magisterial arrogance."

Not really, you presume, without evidence that I believe that anyone who disagrees with me is unreasonable, in fact I believe there are many (if not most important) issues about which there is more than one position which can be held by reasonable people.
The possibilty of change of opinion (by anyone, myself included) is surely the crieria of serious debate, anything else is a mere diatribe.
I am by inclination and training a liberal.
I am of course right about this

 

[Iota]

I could not participate yesterday, I was as usual travelling! I read the results yesterday.

10/10 to Kim for organising it and giving it structure without which so much would not have been covered in so short a time.

10/10 to the RYA to agreeing to particpate in a new form of 'interview'

3/10 for the quality of response of the RYA

It has however made me think what would I like the RYA to be? Could I write it down say on 2 pages of A4? At the moment no but... anybody care to have a go as well? My starting point will be why I did not renew with the RYA a number of years ago and why I joined the CA. What I like about the CA today.

I believe the RYA is important but at the moment it is a long way from encouraging me back as a member.

Perhaps this exercise could be repeated quarterly?


Iota


Courtesy is an iota but makes the world go round

 

[bedouin]

If that is what you were hoping for then I think you were being just a trifle optimistic! It is not reasonable to expect RYA to change its policy "On the hoof" as a result of a couple of hours chat with a non-representative selection of non-members. And I do them the justice of believing that they know how most of us feel about them.

As a controlled environment in which they could respond to some of the criticisms floating round the board it worked well. I agree that some of their comments sounded quite superficial, but again the medium is partly responsible.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the RYA genuinely did promote an open discussion on these topics that had a significant impact on their policy! One of my criticisms of the RYA is that the decision processes do seem to be shrouded in mystery and give the impression of being taken by committees sited a million miles away from the water

 

[rhinorhino]

You may well be right about my over optimism. But as they say an optimist thinks we live in the best of all worlds, a pessimist knows we do ...
Of course shortage of time must have played a part, but a long prepared answer followed by silence is not really a debate.
I didn't expect the RYA to say " ... what fools we have been not to see that ... we will change it at once ..." but some indication that they were listen and not just trotting out the party line would have been nice.

 

[AndrewB]

Less than 2 sides of A4.

I would like the RYA to be an organisation that is dedicated solely to promoting, supporting and defending the interests of yachtsmen and related water users.

One has only to read their mission statement to realise they actually have a much wider agenda. They are concerned to develop partnership with organisations like BMIF - perhaps with the ultimate ambition of becoming a spanning watersports agency. The RYA also showing signs of being dominated by their own commercial activities: for example in the emphasis put on the need to promote participation (and thus maintain the demand for training).

The result is conflict of interest which to my mind is at the heart of the problem with the RYA.

I compare the RYA unfavourably with the Rambler's Association, the only other comparable organisation for leisure interests having environmental impact with which I am familiar. Not perfect either, but at least it is unambiguously on the side of the consumer of the sport. And more effective as a campaigning organisation.

 

[NigeCh]

The British Montaineering Council is different too

Quote: <I compare the RYA unfavourably with the Rambler's Association, the only other comparable organisation for leisure interests having environmental impact with which I am familiar. Not perfect either, but at least it is unambiguously on the side of the consumer of the sport. And more effective as a campaigning organisation.>

The BMC is an independent national organization part paid out of government funds and part paid by membership. Every mountaineering club affiliated to the BMC pays dues to the BMC for its paid up members. All those paid up members become members of the BMC and get a free quartery magazine that is pertinent to the whole world of mountaineering ie that magazine provides information.

IMO, the RYA could learn a great deal about organization/member relationships by looking at both the BMC and the MCofS.

 

[Twister_Ken]

MCofS????

Master of Ceremonies for Swingers?

 

[FlyingSpud]

No, but presumably the RYA position has been worked out by committees and what have you over a period of time. Their Chief executive cannot just tear up those decisions as a result of a few lines on a web site, even if he may think the poster has a good point. Again the best we can hope for is that we might spark a debate within the RYA but we will not see any resultant change for months, if at all

 

[FlyingSpud]

Actually Kim, I have re read all of the replies and have come to the conclusion that while the whole idea was good, the weakness was not the replies, but the questions.

Most of them seemed rather weak, compared to some of the questions that were in the threads that lead to the forum in the first place. I think that was because we were trying to put in all encompassing questions which enabled Rod Carr to pick on specific points and throw figures at it rather than answering the general points raised (for what it’s worth I though the heading to Steve Cronin’s question, it was something like ‘Is the RYA a regulator or a representative’ was the best question asked, but then even Steve went off track a bit in the body of his question)

I am not sure how it could be improved upon though. I suppose the following are options
(a) a bit like Prime Minister’s questions in the old days, Rod Car had to reply to a question and then, whoever raised the question had the chance to put in one supplementary that he should answer, but this would mean that there would have to be two sessions as we cannot all be around while the forum is open

(b) the ‘Labour party conference’ approach, you look at the questions posted with you before the forum opens and then put out a ‘composite’ question for discussion and approval before the forum takes place

No doubt others can come up with better ideas.

 

[kimhollamby]

Beat my back with a birch branch time again...I really intended to do some editing work on the questions before they were tackled but thought I had discovered a flaw in our moderating system, namely that I had to make them live first and then edit them which I thought would be confusing to users. Later I discovered I could have edited them offline anyway although in fairness there was a shortage of time problem for me as well.

Next time around I'll go for a longer lead time, encourage brevity and then ensure it anyway with a virtual red pen. Of course then I'll probably get accused of censorship but heh, it wouldn't be fun otherwise.

For what it's worth I did change a few headings but thanks for bringing this up - I agree there is scope for major improvement next time around.

kim_hollamby@ipcmedia.com

 

[Jacket]

I agree. Would it have been an idea to have the questions people had submitted visable beforehand, so that we could have discussed them a bit in advance, and decide between us what we really want to ask, which questions we view as most critical etc?

 

[FlyingSpud]

I must admit, that was the way I thought it was going to happen – after all, my guess is that Kim got a load of questions on much the same subjects so some would have to have been binned; just to avoid repetition

I take it that you think a series of ‘composite’ questions would have been best? How would you deal with the follow up question though? Could we all just charge in?


<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by FlyingSpud on 15/01/2003 17:38 (server time).</FONT></P>