Ringing Forums

I hadn't heard of the "Network for Ringing Training" before, — John de Overa

How quickly things fade into history!
When I became chairman of the CC Education Committee in 2000 I inherited the plan to insitute an 'Instructors Guild', which had quite a bit of support but a lot of vehement opposition. Aftyer a while I concluded that we couldn't make it fly but was determined to replace it with something to be launcehd at Ringing RoadShow. NRT was very successful, exchanging ideas and holding conferences. It ran for eight yhears but the support infrastructure was on a shoestring and by the time I had got that sorted out it had lost momentum, I was no longer chairman and my successor never got it going again.
At the time we set it up I predicted that whereas we had failed to create the Instructors Guild top-down if we could sustain the interest with NRT then an instructors Guild would emerge bottom-up. ITTS (which preceded ART) appeared ten years after that prediction.
Sometime I should find the time to write it up.

what’s in it for “Brian from Bodmin”. — Andrew G Smith

Good question (and a nice change from the man on the Clapham omnibus). He might not care many ringers there are in 20 years time (he'll be dead by then) or about bells going out of use (if they do he'll stop ringing). And he might not care about ringers having the opportunity to reach their potential (he never felt the need to).
Sorry to be cynical but I fear there might be quite a lot of BfBs around.

I still find it hard to decide whether money is what is needed as actually so much of what we do relies on people choosing to invest their time and money can’t always change this. — Lucy Chandhial

Money alone certainly can't solve all the problems but it can enable more things to be done better and faster. Without money nothing gets done unless someone can be persuaded to give up the time to do it, with no control over when that is, how long it takes or how well it is done.
Obviously some things like teaching require expertise, which is in limited supply. But people with that expertise have to earn a living. If payment is available it can compete for earning time. With no payment it has to come out of leisure time.

Has any consideration been given to what a direct membership "package" would look like? — John de Overa

Not sure what's been done recently but this was my initial attempt when it came up ten years ago. https://jaharrison.me.uk/New/Articles/MemberOrgn.pdf

Some things do seem a bit silly, but different people have different silliness thresholds, so as soon as you build in a fixed threshold either you exclude things which can be seen as OK or you include things that can be seen as not OK. The simplest solution is not to build in thresholds unless you have to and to trust (most) people to be sensible.
If you think something is worthwhile take not. If you think it is silly ignore it. The proportion of such cases is so tiny it has no material effect on the cost of supporting them.

Taking subs to £1 a member could be paid for just by managing to centralise insurance, given how much collectively associations spend on insurance at the moment — Simon Linford

That surprises me. I would expect the cost of insurance to be per ringer,no doubt with some reduction for quantity, but last time the subject came up the figures the CC were talking about were slightly higher than ODG was paying at the time.
I don't disagree with looking at it - a national scheme has a lot of attractions, including saving duplicated admin - but I would be surprised if it saved loads of money.

Does this mark the end of direct membership being seen as the way of increasing the funding of ringing — Simon Linford

II never saw direct membership as a means to increase funding. It has its one merits. However if/when we move to direct membership that will have to be factored into any discussion of finding, notably the balance between corporate funding (from societies) and individual funding.

I wonder how someone who is 'individualistic and competitive' would react to being asked about it. People do not fit into neat stereotypes anyway so it might be better to try to find out what individuals feel they need and try to highlight aspects of ringing that match. That might go beyond personality types into other things. For example someone with a mathematical bent might find theoretical aspects such as composition, port or extension intersting and stimulating.

You can tell them that even Knuth references change ringing :lol: — John de Overa

And that a bellringing program was run on the Manchester Mk1 computer some time in the early 1950s. You can find the story online. Search for terms like 'shaggy dog story' 'Brian Price'. I might even have mentioned it when I wrote up Brian's life. If I did you can find it on: https://history.cccbr.org.uk

Just spotted a typo - missing word. In case it wasn't obvious I meant making a donation to the fund.

As a matter of interest, at last weeks AGM of ODG, when donations were being voted on, the Bell Fund trustees spoke against making a to the fund because it was not needed. By way of background I should say that no money that goes into the ODBF is ever spent because it is a capital fund, and only earnings generated by the capital go into the grant fund, which can be spent, but which currently has more than the foreseeable needs.

I'm sure there are many clubs who pay for some things and rely on volunteers for others, but that wasn't my point. I was questioning the suggestion that paying people to do things stopped an organisation fromm being 'bottom up', and I can't see why it should. The same people are making the decisions whether they are telling the contractor how often to cut the grass or twisting arms to find volunteers to do it more often.

I don't think a village cricket team would become less grass roots because it paid someone to cut the grass, or paint the pavilion.

Breaking those barriers down so the CCCBR is seen more as a "provider of useful stuff" by rank and file ringers rather than "something only our reps care about" seems like a good approach to me. — John de Overa

Agreed

membermojo's docs and it doesn't seem to support anything that looks like it could be used for multi-level membership, although some other similar systems do. — John de Overa

I just spent some time looking round the Tendenci site. There's a lot of it but it does tick a lot of useful boxes. It does support structured organisations (which they call Chapters) enabling them to manage a lot of things away from the centre. It is open source so you aren't locked in to a proprietary service provider. It can be hosted on any server: your own a third party of your choice (or theirs if you prefer) so you aren't locked into a single service provider. And (given that we are talking about ringers) there is a free version available. I didn't explore everything, but as far as I could see it would provide all that a large, multi-district ringing society, or a group of ringing societies would need.

Interest9ing. ODG u8sed to have 'Probationers' and 'Change ringers', the latter being able to ring a 120, but abandoned the distinction after the First World War. Looks like Yorkshire is doing the same a century later.

That’s a suggestion for a different model from the original question posed — Lucy Chandhial

Yes it is. But that doesn't mean it's not worth asking. The idea that different ringing tribes should share their membership management isn't exactly a trivial admin tweak to the status quo.

to understand the significance we need to know what an Assiciate Member was. Was it a non ringer? Was it a ringer who had not yet passed some competence test (eg ringing a 120)? Or what?

I looked quite hard a year or two ago to find systems that were designed to handle structured organisations that operate as a federation of many parts, and I could only find one that might be affordable for ringers (ie excluding those aimed at corporate use) and that was LoveAdmin, as mentioned in my op. If there are others now it would be interesting to compare them.

Thanks for the explanation. This is one of the ropes that were supplied when our bells were restored in 2004 - not sure the source. Despite very limited use the sally failed and I cut off the top to reuse on a good one that didn't have a Marlow top.