Comments on: AEGEE should come back to regional structure of the network

By: Judi Online Togel

Judi Online Togel — Thu, 16 Oct 2014 23:44:23 +0000

Hi colleagues, pleasant article and fastidious arguments commented at this place, I am really enjoying by these. My web blog Judi Online Togel

By: Olimpia

Olimpia — Mon, 01 Apr 2013 15:11:44 +0000

I wouldn’t call more than 30 TSU every year, more than 15 NWMs each year, + European projects + exchanges and other events that I have no data on, a cooperation of ‘just a few events per year’.
You cannot artificially create the will to cooperate simply because you have a structure and it’s been proven in the past it’s not the best solution, and it’s proven today that it works without. It’s the illusion of a solution, when the problems should be addressed in different ways. I never said things are perfect as they are now but this proposal would not make it better.

By: Re-introducing the Word ‘Forum’ – Ivan Bielik on AEGEEDebate

Re-introducing the Word ‘Forum’ – Ivan Bielik on AEGEEDebate — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:42:40 +0000

[...] if the IPWG offers an equal opportunity for both sides to express their arguments (as in the recent regional distribution debate, for [...]

By: armin

armin — Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:15:18 +0000

As the cooperation between RheinNeckar antennae was mentioned as pro for the proposal it really rang an alarm bell – because this cooperation did not need any regions. As already mentioned by several people geographical neighbourhood and communication was the key together with the will to do sth. together. This only works bottom-up, not top-down since the antenna members have to be willing to do cooperation.

Concerning the problem as a whole: Introducing a regional level is like putting a step between the local and European level – say, in order to make it easier for our members to reach for European level via a middle step. But doesn’t the urge of putting a step “in between” (whether justified or not) barely mean, that the European level is too far away to reach for some locals?
From this point of view I would not strive for a regional level because it makes the European level even more distinct from the local one (Imagine the many middle steps of an ordinary country and the difficulty in meeting a high politician – in contrast to the few middle steps in AEGEE and the simplicity in shaking the hand of a CD member). Contrary, I would strive for the European level to be more accessible – f.eks. by creating less restricted rules for some European events (or making up a new category for example just for small locals..).

Another thing: knowledge transfer. It is said to be easier by introducing regions. Can somebody explain why? Quite simply, I cannot figure out how this could be the case…

By: Tjeerd

Tjeerd — Sat, 23 Mar 2013 08:47:00 +0000

“To be fair, why do you assume that locals work alone at the moment? ”
Because there are of course some signs of cooperation, but as a European Organisation it’s ridiculous that that cooperation is so limited to only a few events per local per year. Yes, you can be satisfied with that, but there’s much more potential we can reach.
This proposal is aimed at reaching that potential and showing that sort of initiative I can only encourage. Simply burning this proposal down and continue the way we were certainly won’t have an impact.

By: Niels de Wit

Niels de Wit — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:20:09 +0000

1. Hence the /jk (end the ‘just kidding’).
2. I understand this, but I am suggesting a Network Commissioner prefers to pick her/his own locals at the start. Does the new Commissioner need to be from the region (s)he will work in?
3. That is great and I agree. I can not answer if it is too challenging, time will tell.

By: Olimpia

Olimpia — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 19:16:46 +0000

I am actually still waiting for an answer to my question: what are your (CD’s) proposed regions?

By: Olimpia

Olimpia — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 19:07:07 +0000

That was my point – twin antennae and mentorship worked for the locals where it came naturally – not so much when it was the initiative of the Netcommie. (so artificially such as regions).

A fixed distribution will most like only make locals cooperate within the region – that was my point.

I really don’t think it’s reasonable to make such a structural change because you believe some Network Commissioners don’t do their job properly and forget to do things. Even CD members are not perfect

By: Pavel Zbornik

Pavel Zbornik — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 18:41:30 +0000

You are mention Twin antenna and Mentorship? Does it work?

Unfortunately not, how many of Twin locals we have, it is around 10-15 (or it was during the time when I was in NetCom), how many of them really work? Half.

And how you can say that fixed of division of NetCom’s will kill cooperation between other locals?

Also have every-half a year new distribution can be for people which don’t follow so carefully bit hard to know who is with whom, not forget to mention when NetCom forget to announce it .

By: Pavel Zbornik

Pavel Zbornik — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 18:27:04 +0000

1. The Map is not part of our proposal, it was placed by Ivan as moderator.
2. Again, we don’t propose have NetCom for 3 years.
3. Yes, we are here to learn from our mistakes, this is beneficial to our personal grow. Does it make AEGEE stronger? It is too challenging to say that we want to have continuity in work of NetComs?