Minutes of the first meeting on 26 October 2005

By Peter Tipton:

On the way home, as a result of the conversation I had with Mary in the coffee break, it occurred to me that Richard's new website could also have a page/pages in the public access side advertising talks available from people like Mary to groups within the area we hope to serve.

Mary, if you could email us a list of Sharon's and your talks (which you are prepared to provide publically) then Richard could include them in the private launch.

The notes I made were:

1. We need a name: something like Surrey/Hampshire/Berkshire Borders Heathlands Local History and Archaeology Forum would contain most of the keywords for a search engine but is rather a mouthful and doesn't spell out a useful acronym. We also need a very short memorable website address.

2. We need to be clear about our objectives. I wrote down that we want initially to provide on a new website run by Richard:

a second phase might then include

Richard stated that the Yateley Society actively tries to manage the delicate balance on its website between providing enough information and withholding enough information so that information seekers have to contact us to obtain what they want. We can then question them, and we seek to barter our information with anything they can provide to us. So far we have had remarkable success. We obtain this delicate balance by having public and private areas to our website. We actually also have a third, ultra private area in which Richard loads up current research (being undertaken for exhibitions, talks etc) so that we can hone it up before publishing it to members or the general public. We suggest public and private areas for this new website.

AREA TO BE SERVED We also agreed that we should try to provide a 'service' for local history and archaeological groups within the local heathland area since we all have common subjects eg big houses, a poor underclass, the military, borderware, prehistory and so on. These topics are not being researched by the 'county' organisations in Winchester, Kingston/Woking and Reading.

MEMBERSHIP Lastly we agreed that if this research forum provides a service which fulfils a local need then it will grow and survive. Phil was somewhat sceptical and suggested a membership fee. The rest of us thought that 'ownership' (sorry) would derive from whether the forum hits the right chord and fulfils a need. All local history and archaeological groups should be encouraged to join in. The would be listed on the affiliation page with links to their own websites.

I have probably missed something vital. I thought we had a very useful exchange and something will emerge as a result. Thanks Phil for arranging it.

Peter J Tipton Chairman, Planning Subcommittee, The Yateley Society Registered Charity: 282397 Registered with the Civic Trust

On 27 Oct, Phil Stevens replied :

Thanks Peter. You make an excellent Minuting Secretary. I opened up to send out a report and there it was already done. If it is all right with you, I will circulate it to all those who attended, expressed interest, or who were accidentally left out of the loop. My point about subs was not so much to do with 'ownership' and there certainly is no need for subs, if there are no expences. It was to do with identity and commitment. Affiliation to me implies 'hangers-on'. Your point about fulfilling a need is correct, but there is a difference between users of a website and those who will support, provide, organise and enthuse/drive. If affiliation is to do this, then there has to be some identification and commitment from affiliates - not the status of hangers-on. The model of 'knights of the round table' is a loser, after all they failed to find the Grail. Publications could be another helpfulelement. Also a list of local speakers and their topics should include the local historians - the last SHLHC had a good talk from Peter Blakiston on 'Normandy and Christmas Pie'. Can I send out a reduced version of your conclusions to last night's attendees and possible future customers?

A later addition by Peter Tipton (27.10.2005) following the above email from Phil Stevens:

Phil, yes feel free to send it round to the others. As you will gather I was quite 'enthused' about the get-together, which is why I say down and wrote up my notes.

I do agree about including a wider list of talks even at the 'draft' stage of the website. Last night, in asking Mary for a list of her talks, I was only really thinking of giving Richard something to put on the talks page. This morning, having read your email about 'identity and commitment' we should include in the draft Ken Clark's talks. I am conscious that he did not say much and left before coffee.

I think the local talks list could become a key feature of the public side of the website. YatSoc has standing orders that talks must have some local content however small. It is difficult for Trudy to keep finding speakers. I hope our planned website will become THE trading station for local groups and speakers. Essentially it is more efficient than looking at the SHLHC's newsletter to see who you had or you ringing me to see if we had any talks (eg The Haven). So talks falls under both the 'enabling' and the 'information exchange' objectives.

I agree that we have to have a group of enthusiasts steering the forum but it is inevitable we shall end up with hangers-on. I don't see that as a big problem since the enthusiasts are at the very least providing a service to the hangers-on. If we are fulfilling a need then as times change and some of the enthusiasts drop out then we shall hope that some of the hangers-on become enthusiasts leading the forum. This is the very essence of voluntary organisations.

You remind me of what I missed out last night: we did 'resolve' that we had formed a 'steering committee'. Pls add that to your email.