Location, location, location.

IKEA?...lots of parking, huge restaurant with really affordable meals

Bassman wrote: How about IKEA and Meatball Madness:)...Boyz have their meeting and the ladies go shopping...lol How about other location types like bowling lanes, etc...I am taking pages from a few other club's that I have seen on their forums...thought's:)

Sound familiar

Dr.Fiero wrote: What are we hiding?  ;) I love Timmies.  I can see the seating arrangement being an 'issue' though. But this does bring up (again)...  are we a dinner club or a car club? I'm starting to like the idea of finding a location like the above (fyi - that area is DEAD later at night except for the casino down the street!).  But we do it from like april to aug/sep.  Then have one meet again in jan. In-between, it's on-line impromptu gatherings.

We're a car club, but the basic issue doesn't really change no matter what club you are: Organization. Unless you're a gun club, chances are we're not going to be able to silence a whole area to suit our needs, hence why a banquet room makes sense. And I don't care if we're a car club or not, without structure and organization the club will fall apart.

I suggest to do some research on what other clubs are doing as I have noted...and realize that there is organization by meeting at a location, but the formal meeting and private room is not required as they organize social/events that are their meetings and make them fun and changed up other than the same format...good discussion on Saturday

As Pat mentioned, seems our current location is the majority vote, so it is as it is...

Patrick wrote: Romeo wrote: Unless you're a gun club, chances are we're not going to be able to silence a whole area to suit our needs... Heh heh, that's good. However Tristan, I don't agree with the formality that you seem to be insisting that we continue. You may need to read between the lines in a lot of the posts in this nine(!) page thread, but it's the formality of the meetings which appears to be turning people off, turning people away. Sure, we can still have formal type meetings, but just not every month. That ship has sailed IMO. We can discuss this further at our upcoming formal meeting.

If we arn't going to take the time to make sure it's not anarchy, I'm not entirely sure what the point of the meeting would be...

• Socialization is nice, but I wouldn't waste my time driving out there for a chat here and there, especially if I were contending with ambient noise the whole time. The major reason I enjoy our social time before and after the meet is because it's something different from the raffles, 50/50, meal and organized speaking that I also appreciate.
• The driving is nice, but we already have that covered with, you know, the drives...
• And checking out people's projects is nice, but for a foundation with which to base driving way out for? No way I'd be making the commute.

If people don't want quite the lengthy discussions of what we have now, or if people want a bit more of a social, laid-back experience, both can be accomplished in our current venue, with our current style of meet. And as Damien said, shortening the meet would allow people to kick-tires for longer, without staying up 'til midnight, if that's their cup of tea. But total elimination of the structured half of the meeting is an awful idea. Hell, think of our last meeting: The in-person discussion we had there simply cannot be replicated on the forums here. And waiting months and months for "an official" meeting would've destroyed the entire purpose of it. On top of both those points, if someone wants to make one of the rare "official" meets that you've proposed, it effectively locks them in to those dates, as opposed to now where they can afford to perhaps take a month off and then sound off in the next meeting.

How about an incredibly simple method of solving this, and eliminating the possible corruption of the poll: For the next two meetings, we will allow people who actually attend the meetings to present alternatives, and vote on them. Vote would be final, and definite; If we vote to go to say, A&W, then the next meeting would be held at A&W - no exceptions. That should appease people, non?

Tristan, please keep in mind that I actually don't have a problem with the "formal" meetings personally. I'm sort of being a devil's advocate here, trying to see things from the perspective of those who don't like the current setup, those who by and large no longer come out to the meetings.

Why do I bother trying to see things from the perspective of others? I suppose because in this situation, I see parallels with the problems the video club I've belonged to for last 20 years has experienced. Dwindling attendance at club meetings usually indicates a problem. Dwindling attendance left unchecked will eventually kill a club.

Shortening the formal part of the meeting by having that part taken care of while we're eating (as suggested earlier) will only work if the person chairing the meeting doesn't themself eat a meal, or perhaps wolfs down their meal beforehand. As someone who has chaired a few meetings myself, I'll make it absolutely clear that I'll never chair a meeting again if I'm expected to make that sacrifice. Perhaps that was the goal of the suggestion , but nevertheless, screwing up the evening for whomever is chairing the meeting seems to me to be rather shortsighted.

I'll also admit that I'm somewhat of a hardass when it comes to expecting club members to be attentive and quiet during the formal part of a meeting (when they themselves are not speaking to the group). For anyone who hasn't addressed a roomful of people, it's quite a nuisance to have private "chit-chat" going on while a group discussion is taking place. It's very distracting to the person directing the discussion, and it's annoying as heck to club members who wish to participate in the group discussion.

So either we have a formal part of the meeting (hopefully as short as is required) to handle business/questions/answers, or we forgo the formal part entirely and just have the meeting completely "social".

I'm suggesting we try it both ways to try and satisfy everyone (because yes, I do understand that some people hate sitting still and being quiet during a group discussion). However, that entails mixing it up a bit, alternating types of meetings, trying something different than we've been currently doing.

I'd like to see people we haven't heard from also express themselves here, or better yet, attend the meeting this Saturday and pipe up then.

 

Listening to this go on and on, back and forth, and
everyone making 'guesses' (aka assumptions) of what they think people like or don't like, want or don't want - to me...is a bit of a turn off.   I sort of feel like I don't want to be in the middle of this...but heh! Don't get me wrong, I like attending the gatherings from time to time and kicking tires and going on drives, asking for help and sharing experiences - but the rest of all this babble (no offense) I can do without. It just seems all to serious for me now.

I suggest the club seniors should make some decisions on
their own (since not many members seem to be responding)
and then announce it to everyone and be done with it.

Cheers

kharmata wrote: I suggest the club seniors should make some decisions on their own (since not many members seem to be responding) and then announce it to everyone and be done with it.

Well first of all, many of the club "seniors" don't appear to have much involvement with the club any longer. So I don't see that idea working out all that smoothly.

Secondly, how can you suggest that these decisions should just be made and announced by these "seniors" when in the same breath you've also stated the following...

kharmata wrote: ...everyone making assumptions of what they think people like or don't like, want or don't want - to me...is a bit of a turn off.

None of us want to be making "assumptions" about anything which is why we've been begging for feedback.

Kevin, you can't have it both ways. You can't be suggesting that a select few simply go ahead and make club decisons on their own, while at the same time being critical that "assumptions" are being made by these same select few.

 

kharmata wrote: I am just making open comments.

Great, that's what we're after. 

kharmata wrote: I think you are reading to much between the lines.

Often a short exchange is necessary to clarify certain points. Please feel free to show me the error of my ways.

kharmata wrote: In the end decisions have to be made and I don't think you can expect everyone to agree on absolutely everything.

On that we have complete agreement.

 

Stirred it. Boiled it over. Dumped it out. Burnt it.

I have nothing left.