What happened to the HGAA?
Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:41 pmAn important part of building a new organization will be looking at where the HGAA has gone wrong. I'm just going to toss out a few thoughts here...
First, I think some members of the HGAA were trying to reach unrealistic goals in too short a time frame. Insurance can't happen economically until you've got a large pilot base to draw from. So the HGAA either had to team up with USHPA or it had to wait to grow its numbers. But for some reason, they seemed to think that they were going to get insurance right away without USHPA. That led them to the conclusion that anything else (like building a solid foundation) was a distraction from that short term goal. That was the excuse used to justify "Martial Law" and kicking good productive members off the team. So now it's been yet another month and they still don't have either insurance or much growth (if any) in membership. They sacrificed good people to go nowhere fast.
Second, I think the folks leading the SGAA uprising failed to recognize why it was that people were unhappy with USHPA in the first place. I think very little dissatisfaction (with USHPA) was based on economics. Instead, I think most people just wanted an organization that respected them and was dedicated to treating hang gliding fairly even when paragliding might become more profitable. Pilots were tired of USHPA simply dictating how things would be done without including the members. This is where the HGAA leadership failed completely. They became even more dictatorial and disrespectful than USHPA had ever been. Kicking people off of the forums (and off the Transition Team) was ridiculous. Imagine if the USHPA Board began voting any unpopular Directors "off the island". That would be seen as completely disrespecting the will of the people who had elected those Directors. Even USHPA hasn't gone that far. I think that was a huge mistake by the HGAA, but it may have worked out for the best since it finally stirred some of us to create the US Hawks.
Finally, I think they made some simple blunders. Moving posts, for example, was a huge mistake because it made it impossible to follow what actually happened in any debate topic or voting topic. Even to this day, people reading an HGAA topic have no idea what's been pulled out and moved to some other location. Once that happens, people lose faith in the organization itself. I also think the choice of Range voting was another simple blunder. When push comes to shove, Range voting deteriorates to plurality voting. But unlike plurality voting, it also becomes a game of "chicken" because people are officially discouraged from voting with all 100's and 0's (you'll see Jack said this many times), but that's what's in their best interests. So they're forced to choose between being "nice" and being effective. That's how Scott ended up being permanently banned from the HGAA. In order to avoid the "all 0's and all 100's" accusations, two members voted "nicely" with (1,100) votes, while Jack himself (along with KK, JB, and Dan) each voted most effectively (100,0). Those two "1's" caused Scott to be permanently banned even though the ban was only favored by 5 members and opposed by 6 members. There's a clear case where the minority ruled because of Range voting!!
With those thoughts in mind, I think we should:
1) Take our time and grow a solid foundation of happy members first.
2) Be respectful of our members and avoid "banning" people who might disagree with leadership or the majority.
3) Build on solid practices: Posts should not be moved. Voting systems should build consensus and not cause division.
Given the recent fiasco of the HGAA, I suspect it will take some time to gather support behind the US Hawks. Lots of people were so turned off by the drama that they've just accepted USHPA as the only game in town. So it will take some patience and perseverance to build this new organization. But hopefully, we'll attract the people who have that patience and perseverance and that will make us a better organization.
Finally, there's a lot to be said for "self-selection" when you have multiple organizations. I believe both USHPA and the HGAA attract certain kinds of people who make those organizations what they are - top heavy and autocratic. I'd like the US Hawks to attract people who want to work together with openness, honesty, tolerance, and respect. If we can do that, then we'll be the better organization whether we have 10 members or 10,000.
First, I think some members of the HGAA were trying to reach unrealistic goals in too short a time frame. Insurance can't happen economically until you've got a large pilot base to draw from. So the HGAA either had to team up with USHPA or it had to wait to grow its numbers. But for some reason, they seemed to think that they were going to get insurance right away without USHPA. That led them to the conclusion that anything else (like building a solid foundation) was a distraction from that short term goal. That was the excuse used to justify "Martial Law" and kicking good productive members off the team. So now it's been yet another month and they still don't have either insurance or much growth (if any) in membership. They sacrificed good people to go nowhere fast.
Second, I think the folks leading the SGAA uprising failed to recognize why it was that people were unhappy with USHPA in the first place. I think very little dissatisfaction (with USHPA) was based on economics. Instead, I think most people just wanted an organization that respected them and was dedicated to treating hang gliding fairly even when paragliding might become more profitable. Pilots were tired of USHPA simply dictating how things would be done without including the members. This is where the HGAA leadership failed completely. They became even more dictatorial and disrespectful than USHPA had ever been. Kicking people off of the forums (and off the Transition Team) was ridiculous. Imagine if the USHPA Board began voting any unpopular Directors "off the island". That would be seen as completely disrespecting the will of the people who had elected those Directors. Even USHPA hasn't gone that far. I think that was a huge mistake by the HGAA, but it may have worked out for the best since it finally stirred some of us to create the US Hawks.
Finally, I think they made some simple blunders. Moving posts, for example, was a huge mistake because it made it impossible to follow what actually happened in any debate topic or voting topic. Even to this day, people reading an HGAA topic have no idea what's been pulled out and moved to some other location. Once that happens, people lose faith in the organization itself. I also think the choice of Range voting was another simple blunder. When push comes to shove, Range voting deteriorates to plurality voting. But unlike plurality voting, it also becomes a game of "chicken" because people are officially discouraged from voting with all 100's and 0's (you'll see Jack said this many times), but that's what's in their best interests. So they're forced to choose between being "nice" and being effective. That's how Scott ended up being permanently banned from the HGAA. In order to avoid the "all 0's and all 100's" accusations, two members voted "nicely" with (1,100) votes, while Jack himself (along with KK, JB, and Dan) each voted most effectively (100,0). Those two "1's" caused Scott to be permanently banned even though the ban was only favored by 5 members and opposed by 6 members. There's a clear case where the minority ruled because of Range voting!!
With those thoughts in mind, I think we should:
1) Take our time and grow a solid foundation of happy members first.
2) Be respectful of our members and avoid "banning" people who might disagree with leadership or the majority.
3) Build on solid practices: Posts should not be moved. Voting systems should build consensus and not cause division.
Given the recent fiasco of the HGAA, I suspect it will take some time to gather support behind the US Hawks. Lots of people were so turned off by the drama that they've just accepted USHPA as the only game in town. So it will take some patience and perseverance to build this new organization. But hopefully, we'll attract the people who have that patience and perseverance and that will make us a better organization.
Finally, there's a lot to be said for "self-selection" when you have multiple organizations. I believe both USHPA and the HGAA attract certain kinds of people who make those organizations what they are - top heavy and autocratic. I'd like the US Hawks to attract people who want to work together with openness, honesty, tolerance, and respect. If we can do that, then we'll be the better organization whether we have 10 members or 10,000.
