4Springs wrote: These are my thoughts, and my impressions of what other local members have expressed.
Thank you. How many of these are from outside the Hobart area?
4Springs wrote: We have no definite plans for location of meetings, other than that the AGM is at the State Cinema in Hobart on 15th of July. It has been mentioned in the meetings so far that Campbell Town might be a good place to meet. I imagine that the people at the meetings will decide where meetings should be held based on the membership at the time, and on what exactly the branch is doing at the time. Calling the branch "Tasmanian" leaves this open. Calling the branch "Hobart" suggests meetings in Hobart.
Leaving it 'open' isn't even a half promise to do something, so can't be taken as a justification.
That means you won't be having meetings outside Hobart so it would be the Hobart branch in everything but name.
4Springs wrote: karlg wrote:How do you think that reflects on the Adelaide, the Brisbane, the Canberra, the Melbourne, the Perth or the Sydney branches? Do you think they lack credibility?
I am not claiming any knowledge about these branches - I don't know their circumstances. I'll leave it up to their members to decide what is best for their situations.
You are claiming that to be called the Hobart and not Tasmanian branch would diminish your credibility. This reflects on the current branches.
4Springs wrote: karlg wrote:What tends to happen with AEVA is that the members represent themselves as members of AEVA, so, in fact are working even higher than the state level. Do you agree that that would give more credibility?
Yes, I have noticed that branch members speaking in the media don't tend to use the name of their branch. But there are situations where it is unavoidable. If our local chairperson is quoted in the newspaper then the attribution of "state chairperson" is surely better than "city chairperson" or "AEVA member". We'd rather have a branch name that we are proud to use instead of one that we'd rather hide in certain circumstances.
This is not an argument because you have no evidence to back your assertions, and 'rather' having one name than another is not a justification for altering a policy.
Are you scared that calling yourself the Hobart branch would deplete your pride? If it is the case, then where is your evidence? Sorry, I just don't see this as a valid argument.
But the chair of the branch you are proposing wouldn't represent the state as you would not have representation in your meetings from people outside the Hobart area.
4Springs wrote: karlg wrote:....The point about branches is that they are situated where people get together, and are named after that place
....Coming back to meetings, it seems to me that they are the most important things about AEVA. Having branches doesn't make sense without people meeting face-to-face, chatting, getting to know each other, sharing in ideas and thoughts, sharing tools, going around to each others garages and helping out with projects.
....will people from Burnie be lending you their crimping tool?
So far the Tasmanian branch doesn't seem to fit this mould. We seem to be more concentrating on policy advice, tourism initiatives and large public-awareness events rather than home builds. So the person from Burnie is more likely to be asked to talk to their local council, or perhaps lend a hand at Agfest, than lend a tool. (That said, I do have a crimping tool if anyone wants to borrow it, just make sure you give it back before I need it next for the tractor!)
If we were named "Hobart" then the Burnie person is less likely to have attended a meeting to know what was required. And since there is only the one hypothetical Burnie member there are not the numbers to start a local branch. Using Skype to attend meetings has so far proved quite practical in this NBN-serviced state.
What you assert by supposition here is totally the contrary to my experience of how things really are. I am a member of the Canberra branch and that branch concerns itself exactly with policy and big public events (it also discusses hardware and projects). For example, we were the first to link the EV Festival with the AGM, and still have EV Festivals or similar every year. My experience is that meetings are fundamental to the development of trust and friendships that underpin the selfless commitments which are required to host public events - and to discuss policy issues.
Regarding naming policy, a policy does not have to be written down to be a working policy, it can be implied. The fact that every current branch is named after the city it is situated in shows there is a policy in place.
I note your link to the Wikipedia page discussing the
Appeal to Tradition argument fallacy, and thank you for it. Was it not clear in my previous message that my position was, not that something should be kept because it was traditional, but that it is up to you (who wants to make a change) to put forward justifications which invalidate the tradition? That is, for example to point out why a past justification for the tradition is not currently valid. From the above, you have not done this, so there is no justification to make a change.
4Springs wrote: If circumstances change I can't see why we couldn't rename branches (and sorry I use the word "club" - I'm used to using that in other organisations). If one whole branch was required to deal with Hobart stuff then why not name it the Hobart branch? As stated before though, I think it would be more likely that we would continue to have a state body. If there were enough people who wanted only to work locally then it would be logical to start a local branch.
The constitution seems to be nicely written in that it allows flexibility to meet the differing needs of differing people/regions/times. It lets local people decide what their local structure should be. As long as they adhere to the fairly broad purposes of the association then they can do this however they like. Surely this should extend to being able to name their own branch?
We have had a sum total of one AEVA meeting, and voted on one thing only. That was that we would "request permission to form a Tasmanian branch" of the AEVA. This motion with this wording was carried unanimously.
Again, what would the response of the branch in Hobart be if people wanted to start a branch somewhere else in Tasmania? This is a very real possibility because a large proportion of the state's Tasmania lives outside easy access to Hobart (making it very different to other states), so there should be a plan to address this. You say you could change, but would you? Will you? If there is a realistic chance that other branches will form in Tasmania, the smart thing to do is to take that into account.
I suggest to you that if you called the branch situated in Hobart "The Hobart Branch", you would quickly have a branch starting up in the north of the state. This would allow people in the north to get together and have meetings and get all the advantages of being a branch of AEVA.
Therefore, it seems that by wanting to call yourself the Tasmanian branch, you wish to deny people outside the Hobart area from attending meetings - a video call is hardly a substitute for being there. (If it is as good as you imply, why not have the meetings in the north of the state, and the people in Hobart can then have the advantage?)
I'm sorry, I don't mean to be negative towards you or your desire to have a branch, which I think is past time, and I don't think you or the people you conversed with deliberately plan this, but I think the conclusion that can be drawn from this is that you (as a group) at some level want to stop the creation of a branch in the north.
