Proposal for a new GB format

[Ian M]

After a suggestion in the 2017GB chat thread I would like you all to read the following, give it some thought and come with some feed-back.


Attached both as a PDF and docx format document, so you should be able to read one or the other. If you cant I will try a picture of the text...

[Guest]

Sounds like a good idea to me Ian 

[PaulTRose]

personally i dont like it for reasons ive already said...i like to be abe to plan well in advance....but id go with what ever is decided by the majority

[Guest]

Hi Ian, as a new member I actually like the current format and like to plan 6 months ahead; but with some of your suggestions the GB's could be better, Instead of proposing a GB and starting it in a month then waiting for the next one to be proposed, it could be possible to start proposals for next year now and then see how many takers you have in each GB. A minimum of 6 and you can lock it in for next year. I think(as you suggest) that if someone has stated that they will take part then they ensure that come next year they actually take part.  

[Guest]

I think this way you get the best of both worlds. You could start a "Submit your GB proposals" section and let it go till December when you lock it in. This is just my opinion as I love taking part in GB's. 

[dave]

In general I think the new idea is worth a try.


for preference I would keep the existing way of posting the builds as it is useful to have all the builds in one section.


i understand people's concerns about planning ahead, but for me that was a problem, this year I had good intentions to join several of the builds but could not due to time constraints caused by work and travel (compounded by being a slow builder). As an example back in June September looked clear in my calendar I now have five multi day trips to other parts of Europe, so modelling time will be minimal.


 So for me the ability to see a group build starting next month i have a much better idea of whether I can commit or not.


i think once committed people should make every effort to take part, but personal or work issues may prevent participation through no fault of their own. In those cases an apology should be made on withdrawal.


it also puts the onus on us to put forward group builds and join in. Otherwise it will not happen.


finally with this proposal we will possibly have multiple overlapping group builds, what are people's thoughts on entering a build into more than one group build if it qualifies? For instance the same aircraft may satisfy a US jets, Vietnam War and Carrier aircraft Group build criteria.

[Ian M]

I think this way you get the best of both worlds. You could start a "Submit your GB proposals" section and let it go till December when you lock it in. This is just my opinion as I love taking part in GB's. 

Well Bob, that's sort of what we do now.

[Ian M]

finally with this proposal we will possibly have multiple overlapping group builds, what are people's thoughts on entering a build into more than one group build if it qualifies? For instance the same aircraft may satisfy a US jets, Vietnam War and Carrier aircraft Group build criteria.

Personally I don't think that is a good idea. Either you end up with a lot of repeat posts in different builds or in you example two threads that end nowhere and one with the full build. So I would vote no to that.

[Ian M]

So how about this:


We could keep the calendar but only with Group Builds, dropping all the SIG and SSIG bits. Also reduce the number of planed GB's to a maximum of 6 each four months duration or 8 with three months duration. As before running two at a time so there is a choice of two very different subjects, say one military one civilian...?


Doing this could give us the best of both worlds, A fast calendar for those that need to plan ahead and the 'Oh lets have a group build'  kind of GB's.


The only thing we will need to be careful about would be everyone not getting crushed in the stampede to make a "oh! this would be a great GB" LOL

[PaulTRose]

a SIG or SSIG is simply a longer running GB anyway


why not make the 'lets have a GB' idea has to be cleared by a Mod/Admin as to when it starts.....that way there isnt too many on the go at once

[Ian M]

why not make the 'lets have a GB' idea has to be cleared by a Mod/Admin as to when it starts.....that way there isnt too many on the go at once

See now that was a good idea...hmm. 


Still I s'pose that there could be a good few running if there is diversity enough and if we say there is an average of five/six per subject there are enough active members to cover the first 30 or 40...

[Neil]

In general I think the new idea is worth a try.


for preference I would keep the existing way of posting the builds as it is useful to have all the builds in one section.


i understand people's concerns about planning ahead, but for me that was a problem, this year I had good intentions to join several of the builds but could not due to time constraints caused by work and travel (compounded by being a slow builder). As an example back in June September looked clear in my calendar I now have five multi day trips to other parts of Europe, so modelling time will be minimal.


 So for me the ability to see a group build starting next month i have a much better idea of whether I can commit or not.


i think once committed people should make every effort to take part, but personal or work issues may prevent participation through no fault of their own. In those cases an apology should be made on withdrawal.


it also puts the onus on us to put forward group builds and join in. Otherwise it will not happen.


....

I agree with Dave, good intentions and too long lead can lead to missing out. I had some intentions to join more this year but I changed job at the end of last year and now work for myself - big change and no real time to build. I have completed 1 model this year and that just a small Typhoon. 


I also don't like the idea of 3 month builds only, no way with work will I ever get one complete in that time I need the 4 to 6 month build time due to work commitments etc. How about 2x 6 month build for the Capt Slow's like me, and then 4x 3 month builds for the quicker folks and then 1 to 3 concurrent member proposed GB's so most you have running  concurrently is 5 - but more likely 3 or 4, that gives scope for plenty of builds throughout the year but not jamming the calendar like now. "Let's have a build..." has to be approved by an admin for content and start date before being made live.

[flyjoe180]

I made my suggestion in the chat thread, this is a good compromise Ian. Time for building is my biggest issue, so long as the 'time limit' is extended I'll be a happy camper. Similar issues to young Neil.

[Guest]

So how about this:


We could keep the calendar but only with Group Builds, dropping all the SIG and SSIG bits. Also reduce the number of planed GB's to a maximum of 6 each four months duration or 8 with three months duration. As before running two at a time so there is a choice of two very different subjects, say one military one civilian...?


Doing this could give us the best of both worlds, A fast calendar for those that need to plan ahead and the 'Oh lets have a group build'  kind of GB's.


The only thing we will need to be careful about would be everyone not getting crushed in the stampede to make a "oh! this would be a great GB" LOL

This sounds good Ian. I like that you have the option of having a fixed GB you can plan for and ones that are suggested by members on a "lets have a group build". This could be possibly the best for both people who like to plan ahead and those that like short turn around times. Sounds like you've been doing this a while!

[Ian M]

How about 2 x 6 month build for the Capt Slow's like me, and then 4 x 3 month builds for the quicker folks

Although I understand your thoughts here I can see that it will complicate and confuse some members as to how long they have. Generally we have found that If on a set calendar, it is best to have the same time periods for the same type of build. However, we could find a compromise. Four months each fits nicely in a calendar year but we could go five, with an overlapping month... I fear that many might think that too long. But hey ho. I have been wrong befor :/

"Let's have a build..." has to be approved by an admin for content and start date before being made live.

Quite right. As it is the Admin that has to set up the forum and the GB mod that has to make sure that things are as they should be...As for the content, I guess the person proposing the build has knowledge of the subject they are putting forward.


Looking at it with fresh eyes (and coffee) I can see that there would probably be more than a month from getting enough participants to gluing stuff together and once the ball starts rolling, we might have fun fitting them all in. This is a thing that would have to be cleared up with the proposer and the mod/admin. Also Any takers of a proposed GB can always comment that they can first start after a date. 


Anyone have thoughts as to a minimum number of entrants, The figure I came up with might be a bit low so we end up with hundreds of "on the fly" GB's I base this on the voting lists for the last few years as there was loads that got five votes. The ones that made it to the calendar had six or more.... so all pretty close. Something inside me says ten builders including the proposer/host. is that to high a figure?