Muerrisch Posted 2 July , 2009 Share Posted 2 July , 2009 I have started a discussion on the WFA Forum, but attracted little attention, although I have been promised that my ideas will be looked at. A substantial number of WFA members are also Pals, so may I lob this rock into the pool? It is a full copy of my thread starter, with a couple of typos sorted. "As a fairly long-standing member [1501 if I remember correctly] and a frequent contributor to Stand To!, perhaps I can be permitted to voice my thoughts without upsetting people. The Bulletin is very interesting in itself, but I have often wondered why it exists. On the downside, it doubles [more or less] WFA production costs, and doubles the postage costs. On the credit side, it carries branch information and news, and articles on current/ recent past events. Increasingly, however, it seems to carry material that might properly be incorporated in ST! ..... issue 84, for example, has: If you know of a better charity .. Westfield Memorial Village Christmas Truce Stow Maries all of which might, in my opinion, easily have been deemed appropriate for ST! The criteria for inclusion in the Bulletin are not published in that organ. If ST! subsumed ALL the Bulletin material, making clear [perhaps a section at the back] the distinction between deeply researched, fully referenced period pieces, and branch news, details and other topical ephemera, we could both save money and perhaps have four issues per annum. I do hope that I am not treading on toes and causing offence: if a member of good standing cannot see the need for the Bulletin, perhaps the idea could be discussed. At the very least, a clear editorial policy for the Bulletin should be published [it might currently be in 'Guidelines' but that it not of immediate use to the readership]. David Langley" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted 2 July , 2009 Share Posted 2 July , 2009 Broadly in agreement - I too wondered what the parameters for inclusion in Bulletin and ST are. As you say, there were items in the last edition of Bulletin that would, IMHO, have been better included in ST and there seems to have been a "crossover" between the two in recent issues. This is not denegrating those who contribute to, edit and produce the publications, but as you say, four larger editions per year combining the two would seem to make more sense in financial terms and savings could then be made and perhaps passed on to the members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 2 July , 2009 Share Posted 2 July , 2009 David Apologies for not responding on the WFA FrontForum - it's a place I visit only periodically. I think I generally agree with. Whilst I always "read" Stand To, the Bulletin is only "flicked through". And the current edition only needed a very swift flick, before being consigned to Stockport Council's paper recycling wheelie bin. Truth be told, I am starting to wonder if I should continue with my membership - but probably will. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremym Posted 2 July , 2009 Share Posted 2 July , 2009 David Langley I, too, am a WFA member and agree with you. The inclusion of Bulletin material in a separate section within Stand To! would make a lot of sense - and, I suspect, save money. As it is, I keep them in a common file, as I canno talways remember whether a piece I want to look up was in The Bulletin or Stand To! jeremym (Jeremy Mitchell) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Nixon Posted 2 July , 2009 Share Posted 2 July , 2009 I'm a long-time lapsed WFA member but I always used to enjoy the bulletin back in the days when James Brazier edited it. I was less interested in what was happening in the various regions - but then again, I was an extremely infrequent attender at meetings - but I do recall there being some good bulletin articles and the bulletins always used to carry the veteran obituaries, whereas Stand To! did not. But as David rightly points out, those "good bulletin articles" could no doubt happily find a place in Stand To! Were I still a WFA member and it went to a vote, I'd probably be coming down on the side of a meatier Stand To! and with a larger point size. Back in the days when I first joined, the internet was also in its infancy and the WFA website was a long way off. Today, a lot of the tradional bulletin branch information would probably be more usefully displayed on the WFA site (and probably is for that matter). Paul (who still has all his old bulletins and Stand To!s in binders) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted 2 July , 2009 Share Posted 2 July , 2009 Today, a lot of the tradional bulletin branch information would probably be more usefully displayed on the WFA site The web editor quoted Chris Baker saying fairly recently that at a WFA meeting he attended, less than half of the members Chris spoke to were Internet users. While this was obviously only a small subject sample, it was inferred that a significant number of WFA members and even trustees may not be avid users of the Internet, or users at all. Gwyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 2 July , 2009 Author Share Posted 2 July , 2009 Point taken: equally, a lot of internet users cannot go/ do not go to Meetings. In my case, the local meeting clashes with bell-ringing practice. However, I do go and speak to Meetings if available, but life is all about priorities. Another thought: rather than the WFA making an assumption [if they do] about 'net-ship' among their members, perhaps it would be a good idea to ask: in print, of course! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 2 July , 2009 Share Posted 2 July , 2009 I have it mind the WFA did do a survey of members a couple of years back about internet access (although it may just have been my local branch). There appeared to be relatively low levels of access which, in spite of the so-called "silver surfers", I suspect reflects a quite elderly membership base (at nearly 60, I feel of the branch "spring chickens"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 2 July , 2009 Author Share Posted 2 July , 2009 Thank you John: perhaps another telling statistic might be the percentage of the membership who attend meetings ..... it might be surprisingly small. Not that this may have much to do with the future of the Bulletin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Baker Posted 2 July , 2009 Share Posted 2 July , 2009 I do not believe that detailed criteria defining Bulletin material have ever been devised. The difference between Bulletin and "Stand To!" is reasonably clear but has, over the years, been open to interpretation by the Editors. The Bulletin was meant to be the in-house newsletter, not a journal of historical articles. We appear to be in a phase where the Editor wishes to include material that at other times would have been restricted to "Stand To!". That's his call. The WFA is a democratic organisation, so - if any member doesn't like a policy, they can vote for change. Meeting attendance as a percentage of the total membership has always been small, other than in the very first years. The web editor quoted Chris Baker saying fairly recently that at a WFA meeting he attended, less than half of the members Chris spoke to were Internet users. While this was obviously only a small subject sample, it was inferred that a significant number of WFA members and even trustees may not be avid users of the Internet, or users at all. Gwyn It was a survey at a branch meeting, and I suspect completely typical of a WFA branch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 2 July , 2009 Share Posted 2 July , 2009 ..... it might be surprisingly small. It might. When I started attending my local branch (Lancashire & Cheshire) a year or so back, attendance was probably around 50. It got up to the 70s after that but then the branch moved meetings to Fridays. That brought some drop off, including me - although I have to say that my main reason was that I just didnt feel particularly interested in hearing the batch of speakers who were on offer at that time. Nothing wrong with the speakers as such, just weren't speaking about things that engaged me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 3 July , 2009 Share Posted 3 July , 2009 I used to be a Branch Chairman, but retired a few years ago as meetings clashed with something else. Although meeting dates have now changed, I don't go to meetings because I now don't get home in time. I'm a WFA member now more by inertia than anything: I pay by DD and never get round to doing anything with it. That's not to say I don't read Stand To!, but simply that I belong to so many other societies that I don't feel WFA membership is 'essential' to my understanding of the GW. As for the bulletin, mine goes into the Eastleigh Borough Council recycling bin fairly swiftly, I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 3 July , 2009 Author Share Posted 3 July , 2009 Thanks to all for contributions ..... at least discussion here seems brisk, but on the WFA site slow to extremely slow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
healdav Posted 3 July , 2009 Share Posted 3 July , 2009 I am also in agreement with this. I have been a WFA member for a good number of years, and the difference between ST and the Bulletin has always baffled me. As for the website, etc. remember the rows there were when it first opened and someone got pornographic spam just like the rest of us. In fact, I am told that when the website was first opened the council wanted all changes to it to be submitted to them for approval before being implemented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Baker Posted 3 July , 2009 Share Posted 3 July , 2009 As I built the original WFA website I can comment on this, to clarify. This is all pre-2002 and therefore prehistoric. No names, no pack drill: > there was a good deal of resistance to WFA use of the internet and email (which, to be fair, was in its infancy) > when I added a discussion forum there was a phase when WFA Exec Committee wanted to vet all posts added to it (reasonable if you don't grasp how these things work) > one Exec Committee member received spam/virus/something in their email - nothing whatever to do with WFA site, but added to resistance > I happily handed the site over to others, who initially did a great job in taking it forward but for some reason which I can't remember let it drop, so rather than it disappear I picked it up again for a while > WFA Exec Committee closed the forum when a discussion about In Flanders Fields Museum and events at the Menin Gate got heated and personal, leading to a legal threat from someone in Belgium (don't wish to say more and open this up again, I am sure you understand. Some GWF veterans will recall this as they took part in the discussion) > I gave up, to concentrate on LLT and GWF. And the rest is history. This will all be documented in WFA Committee papers. I am very pleased that WFA has finally got its act together over the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 3 July , 2009 Author Share Posted 3 July , 2009 Chris, thank you for the insight into the troubled past, but I am more concerned about the future; in particular, the drift of articles which some of us believe are potentially ST! material into the Bulletin. Do the two editors speak to each other? I certainly have not had a word from either on the basic question: 'what is the Bulletin for?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Baker Posted 3 July , 2009 Share Posted 3 July , 2009 You could always contact the Chairman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 3 July , 2009 Author Share Posted 3 July , 2009 Seems a drastic step to go 'over the heads' of the editors ...... I expect it would be counter-productive in the extreme. I might never be published again, a fate worse than death! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kate Wills Posted 3 July , 2009 Share Posted 3 July , 2009 My grouse concerns shorter articles labelled 'Members' Research'. Surely the majority of contributed articles are products members research, irrespective of length, or depth for that matter. Why the distinction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 3 July , 2009 Author Share Posted 3 July , 2009 I hadn't got round to being Grumpy about that ........... but how do you feel about my outline proposal? Do you await the Bulletin with bated breath? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Curragh Posted 3 July , 2009 Share Posted 3 July , 2009 As mentioned on the Front Forum - I am quite happy with the current situation - as are others. Regards Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 4 July , 2009 Author Share Posted 4 July , 2009 For my part, I am pleased that there was some discussion at all. However, it is clear that the WFA establishment are lying low on the matter, and that those of us who wanted change are not getting an understanding hearing. That being so, and as I have far better things to do, I shall ask the mods to close this thread, thus removing the bat and the ball AND the stumps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts