Subject:
|
Re: Stop the madness...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains.org
|
Date:
|
Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:10:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
396 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains.org, John Neal writes:
>
> Lorbaat wrote:
> > I think that each club should definitely handle speaking to TLC and other
> > organisations on their own. I do not think that this meta-group should
> > *ever*
> > speak to TLC, or give TLC the impression that they (TLC) should address the
> > meta-group instead of individual groups.
>
> What if TLC *wants* a single group to which it can more conveniently
> communicate,
> instead of dealing with 10-12+ different groups?
They can organise something, then. If they are in touch with 10 people from 10
different groups, they can easily send the same email to 10 people, for
example.
> > Trust me, you do not want your club's relationship with TLC or any other org
> > lumped in with the relationships of a meta-group.
>
> ?? What if TLC or LD wants to support LTCs doing train shows by providing
> catalogs, K8s, signs, whatever. A meta-group would be the perfect contact to
> negotiate these types of issues,
Why would having this meta-group make things any easier for TLC? If TLC
decides they want to support these groups, and these groups take the initiative
to get in touch with TLC, then TLC will send them the catalogues, K8s, etc.
How is having a meta-group in between the groups and TLC going to make this
process easier? Please explain.
> and an IOLTC would be able to monitor for TLC
> which groups *are* indeed train clubs (instead of some seedies looking to
> score
> free stuff, for example).
Why should the IOLTC take this responsibilty on themselves? In my opinion, the
groups in question should be talking to TLC directly (through LD or any other
channel) and proving to TLC that the relationship will be mutually beneficial.
> I'm sure that the LTCs that haven't even been formed yet would benefit greatly
> from such a group when they do form.
And I'm sure that these hypothetical clubs will get just as much out of a
free-info-trading forum as they will a group that places barriers to one-on-one
negotiation with TLC.
If you *really* think that your specific club will be better served by
collective bargaining, you'd better sit down and really think through what it
would mean to have your org's wants/needs lumped in with 10-12 other org's
wants/needs. Hint: Your org's wants/needs will *rarely* mesh exactly with any
given other org's.
eric
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Stop the madness...
|
| (...) What if TLC *wants* a single group to which it can more conveniently communicate, instead of dealing with 10-12+ different groups? (...) ?? What if TLC or LD wants to support LTCs doing train shows by providing catalogs, K8s, signs, whatever. (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
