What should the haulers' group do?

What should the haulers' group do? The poll choices are:


I encourage all members of the haulers' group to vote in this poll. Feel free to submit comments in favor or against the options. These two options are not the only possibilities, but no others have been supported in our discussions up to this point. If anyone has a proposal, feel free to put it forward.

Posting "I voted" is also welcome because it allows me to confirm which members are active and will save me time in the future when I plan to go through our membership list to see who is still interested in being members of the group. I will only remove members from the list who formally request it or are unable to serve for any reason, including death.

Thanks for your participation,

Archie

Just voted for minimum structure.

I voted...I don't really want to see this club disbanded. Heck I just joined up .

I voted for the minimized structure as well.

I voted.

Thanks, Archive, for your work to keep this alive.

I voted for the minimized structure.

Paul

my 2 cents donated

poll

I voted - looks like consensus for continuing the group. Hopefully you get more voting activity.

Thanks Archie for putting effort into this worthy cause.

Steve Kadisak

Voted. Would really hate to see this die!

I voted, it said I already voted,

My vote is in Archie..

I voted.
Marshall

poll

I voted, the group is too valuable to lose

Minimize? How could it be more minimal that it already is?

There were some notable successes achieved by the group in its first year. Thereafter...no so much.

Virtuality . . .

Reggie,

We are minimizing the structure, not the activities of the group.

A lot of folks have posted (or communicated privately) that "the group is too valuable to lose". Operating without officers shifts the focus of the group to the membership and recognizes that perhaps having officers in a virtual group does not make sense. (It was my idea to have officers, so I can say that, in hindsight, it was a dumb idea.) In a sense, all members of our virtual group are virtual officers. This means we do not need to have elections and everyone can adjust their level of participation to what fits the rest of their lives.

If any member thinks that this group can accomplish good things, remember that we each need to contribute, a little or a lot, depending on what we can do and how strongly we believe in the group's mission. Our operation will be driven by posts in this sub-forum and more public posts in the Antique Machinery & History forum where we should not be ashamed to mention the group's name or its functions. Lets talk it up . . .

Thanks,

Archie

Archie Cheda said:

Reggie,

We are minimizing the structure, not the activities of the group.

A lot of folks have posted (or communicated privately) that "the group is too valuable to lose". Operating without officers shifts the focus of the group to the membership and recognizes that perhaps having officers in a virtual group does not make sense. (It was my idea to have officers, so I can say that, in hindsight, it was a dumb idea.) In a sense, all members of our virtual group are virtual officers. This means we do not need to have elections and everyone can adjust their level of participation to what fits the rest of their lives.

If any member thinks that this group can accomplish good things, remember that we each need to contribute, a little or a lot, depending on what we can do and how strongly we believe in the group's mission. Our operation will be driven by posts in this sub-forum and more public posts in the Antique Machinery & History forum where we should not be ashamed to mention the group's name or its functions. Lets talk it up . . .

Thanks,

Archie

Click to expand...

I thought the original intent of having officers, leadership, was to organize and drive the group forward. To try and accomplish more like save machine for which there was no immediate adoptee. Build a war chest of funds to defray the cost of saving or hauling a very historic or noteworthy machine. Perhaps even find a few machinery or "other" dealers who would allow a machine to be dropped off or temporarily stored as part of a multiple leg haul. Maybe I'm remembering things incorrectly, but it seems like these thing all fell by the wayside.

How many "saves" or " hauls" have members made in the last three years? A turret lathe from Long Island to the midwest that I recall. Dave K. hauled a boiler from N.J. To Pa. Any others? If not, are we acomplishing anything by keeping the database and subforum?

I voted.

-Kevin K.

I voted.

Chazsani

Reggie,

Your memory of our intentions four years ago is at least a good as mine. The fact is that, however good our intentions, the group has been less active lately. There are certainly a number of external factors beyond our control. When I started the recent discussion of "The future of the haulers' group", I did not have much hope. A number of potential officers that have communicated with me over the past four years disclosed that the were already officers of real groups of people who met in person in their locality and that they did not have time to do any more. As the discussion of the future of the group went on, I wondered if we needed officers. It is clear that if we need officers to proceed, then we should disband. Should we ever enter a new era when finances and other considerations require bylaws and officers, we can dig out the bylaws and elect officers. In the present, we can try a minimal structure for our virtual group.

Many more hauls/saves have happened than have been documented. Fuel costs have greatly shortened the length of hauls and the weights involved. This means that the stories involved are not so interesting and hence not much public mention. The mere fact that my name is mentioned in many of our hauling-related posts, has resulted in individuals contacting me directly for advice. I usually answered these folks directly, but I now think that these discussion should be in our sub-forum so that all can benefit from them. Once I was not an officer, I tended to defer to those who were. Now "we are all officers", so I think we should all do what it takes to make a forum-based virtual group work.

The database and sub-forum are relatively easy to continue. If our group can make progress with these tools only, then the time expended to keep them up is well worth it. I do think that there is a case to be made that the existence of our group does help keep the cause of saving old iron in peoples' minds. Our poll clearly shows that the large majority of voting members want to try a sub-forum centered group rather than to disband. If we accomplish nothing in the next year, I will be more disposed to "pulling the plug".

Thanks for your continuing critical thinking regarding these subjects -- they are exactly what I think we should be doing.

Archie

Voted.

I'd at least like to see the list continue, even tho life circumstances often prevent me from visiting the forum itself.

My humble opinion is that hopefully it can continue to function as a clearinghouse so members at least have some resource available to help in their decision-making process- especially in those instances where they might be able to make a save on their own, and that tiny bit of help (even a friendly face along the way) might sway them to 'take the plunge'.