TAY Atmosphere

I see what I can find . However FONWAC operates as a community entity and funding organisation with FONWAC managing the website and had multiple boardmembers.
Don't see the problem myself, many no-profits organize themself like this.
Big decisions need to be taken by the board ( Policy, overall direction, advertisers, change in format etc.but moderation can occur as just now, two moderators on duty, other 2 or 4 getting on with their lives, rotate every month , or week, whatever.
Not every errant post being discussed by 6 moderators.!!!!!!!!
One boardmember computer expert and IT type guy/gal.

At present time, Marcus can ( not saying he will or wants to or whatever BUT he can !) decide to liquidate business and close it down without recourse other than public opinion. He could also decide to sell it to another individual or COMPANY(not saying he will or has even thought about it..... but he CAN)without recourse.
Etc., etc, scenario after scenario.

Not saying its broke( only dented) but community ownership by external funding means it lives on as community resource not a private business subject to owner's personal whims no matter how benevolent he/she is.
To remind you of RonJ's words( which I'm sorry but I find a cautionary)

Quote" But the fact is it is neither. It is a business; a solely owned business owned by one person who may choose to run it in any way he wishes. He has absolutely no obligation to be “Fair” to you or anyone else. Check the Terms of Use; nothing in there about the site, moderators or owners having any obligation to be fair. Probably nothing in the articles of incorporation or by-laws either.

I'm on a non-profit board that has been carefully set up to be independant and to have up-to-date governance rules. The Executive Director still owns most of the decisions, including ones that could well lead to the death of the non-profit. The board is filled with people who do a mix of: donating significant funds, helping find others to donate significant funds, and providing advice that relates to each of our own domains of expertise (e.g. finance, law, information technology, marketing and branding, etc.) - this seems quite prudent given the complexity of running an operation that employs tens of people and which takes in significant donated funds as well as revenue from customers. We also provide a good external sanity check on big decisions that will influence the future of the organization. Some of us also take on specific projects that also relate to our domains of expertise, though generally the point is for us to be giving advice and not doing the work nor making the decisions.

It's not clear to me how a board would help TAY.

I get that community ownership might help ensure that a capricious whim by Marcus, or perhaps a more grave personal event, might spell the death of the site. I'm not really worried about such possibilities; I guess I have a possibly naive assumption that he would pass the torch if he couldn't carry on (have you addressed TAY in your will, Marcus?  ), and that the next site owner would turn out to be as benevolent as Brent, Charles, and Marcus have been. I can't imagine that anyone would pay Marcus much to buy the site, so I'm not worried that a surplus of money is going to drive this thing down the advertising drain either. But I'm quite sure that if at some point TAY ends up in the hands of a malevolant dictator, the community will rise up and some among us will spawn a new site. The new site would start w/o the fantastic archives we have here, unless someone has been clever enough to stash a copy from time to time...

On the flipside, the community ownership notion seems to have its own perils, including diffusion of responsibility and associated lack of individual accountability. Plus it sounds more complicated. Occam's razor comes to mind.

I thought FONWAC was a fundraising operation with a simple set of fundraising pages hanging off the NWAC web site, as well as a group that puts on some public education events. And that the funds raised help support the NWAC, which is managed by the USDA/FS (while having a variety of funding sources). It seems to me to be a very different task than managing a site like TAY.

I look at TAY as if it were a car. Marcus' car and he is the driver and we all are passengers. Some in the front seat and some in the back seat and we are all having fun and enjoying the trip because it's where we all wish to go and the TAY car is taking us there and Marcus has not asked any of us for gas money because he is happy to have us along on the trip. In the back seat and the front seat there are many conversations, interjections and lots of enthusiastic points of view and even arguing and communal joking and poking and making fun and even taking umbrage at what someone said, but we are all "on the bus" or in the car and the car is very sound and runs well and works fine and the driver/owner takes care of it and does the maintenance and I am really happy with the ride and the trip and the car and it's not like we need a new vehicle with a bunch of new drivers. I like the sound and meaning of "if it ain't broken don't fix it."

fotay.org is available for $13/yr. vBulletin (what TGR uses) is ~$200/yr. Unlimited data hosting is $350/yr. $1500 would get nearly three years of community-moderated FOTAY. The internet gives users freedom of choice. cascadeclimbers, nwhikers, skisickness, TAY, Teletips, and TGR all fill different niches. If FOTAY is great, users will emerge.

TAY's set the bar high. It's an excellent community and resource.

To answer Marcus' question, TAY's course is pretty good. It seems to me that TAY has gotten less positive, mostly Random Tracks, but the core isn't altered. The backcountry community is changing, so it's reasonable to assume that TAY will change somewhat. A simple, transparent, and enforced moderation policy (even if it means sending an otherwise good post to the 'spray' forum), may be an unpleasant necessity.

Disagreement is sometimes essential to conversation and hardly something to be stifled. Framing the forum such that trolling isn't fun might not go amiss.

Little thoughts:
* I like the lift-accessed reports as conditions updates. * Among many, Mad_Dog, Zap, and Amar make excellent points.

For a while I would post on this site - and over the years I've gone away and come back to the site.  I find it an effective gathering place for backcountry skiers in the area, bringing people together both virtually and up on the slopes.  Perhaps one of the best examples of this is the very touching remembrance of Monika Johnson.

However, a more negative aspect has shown its face over the years - which for me was reason enough to move on.  Even in trail reports there is a ton of criticism of how people ski, choices made, or even what car or truck they drive (yes there is really an old thread on that!).  I think Scotsman provides the most obvious form or negativity reducing the conversation to labels and rhetoric.

I know some folks thrive on the debate - and I think the "Random Tracks" is a good place for this.  If folks want to debate  - have it be there, with less oversight.   Folks certainly have a choice whether or not they want to enter the fray.  However, I appreciate censorship in responses to trip reports.  Someone is not sharing their experience to get shredded or criticized about a choice.  I recall a thread questioning Lowell posting a photo of himself getting airborne in the backcountry.  Really?!!

I don't like the idea of going to a management-by-committee approach.  I think the site would erode and become far less populated.

But hey, I drive a car.

Bill G

However, a more negative aspect has shown its face over the years - which for me was reason enough to move on.  Even in trail reports there is a ton of criticism of how people ski, choices made, or even what car or truck they drive (yes there is really an old thread on that!).  I think Scotsman provides the most obvious form or negativity reducing the conversation to labels and rhetoric.

I know some folks thrive on the debate - and I think the "Random Tracks" is a good place for this.  If folks want to debate  - have it be there, with less oversight.   Folks certainly have a choice whether or not they want to enter the fray.  However, I appreciate censorship in responses to trip reports.  Someone is not sharing their experience to get shredded or criticized about a choice.  I recall a thread questioning Lowell posting a photo of himself getting airborne in the backcountry.  Really?!!

I don't like the idea of going to a management-by-committee approach.  I think the site would erode and become far less populated.

But hey, I drive a car.
Bill G

I agree with most of what you say, especially where "random tracks" is the place for light debate and not the trip reports.

I also believe part of the negative vibe showing up here on TAY (as one example) is brought on by allowing folks such as "WMC" to post anonymous political content which only ignites the combative flame. People, if they are going to be starting hot topics should be accountable and by allowing anonymous posters such as this provokes negative message postings without accountability. When people post as themselves they are less likely to start trouble IMO. Allowing member names that supposedly represent a group IMO is a bad idea. Everyone should be held accountable for themselves and not be allowed to hide behind a group name.