From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Tue Feb 26 23:37:01 2002 Received: from snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@snowdrop [137.205.192.31]) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1QNaxC05273 for <suaaz@mail.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 23:36:59 GMT Received: from agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@agave [137.205.192.52]) by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1QNZvN05719; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 23:35:57 GMT Received: from agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (daemon@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id g1QNX30K022841 for <britdisc-outgoing@agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 23:33:03 GMT Received: (from daemon@localhost) by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0/Submit) id g1QNX2jS022840 for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 23:33:02 GMT Received: from daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@daffodil [137.205.192.30]) by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id g1QNX20K022835 for <britdisc-real@majordomo.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 23:33:02 GMT Received: from mail.atm.ox.ac.uk (mail.atm.ox.ac.uk [163.1.242.1]) by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1QNWwE15157 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 23:33:02 GMT Received: from moriarty.atm.ox.ac.uk (moriarty.atm.ox.ac.uk [163.1.242.5]) by mail.atm.ox.ac.uk (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id g1QNWvk02103 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 23:32:57 GMT Received: from localhost (booth@localhost) by moriarty.atm.ox.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.8.2) with ESMTP id g1QNWv408131 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 23:32:57 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: moriarty.atm.ox.ac.uk: booth owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 23:32:57 +0000 (GMT) From: Ben Booth <booth@atm.ox.ac.uk> To: <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: Participation in the UKU In-Reply-To: <20020226214953.19650.qmail@web14004.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0202262245060.4959-100000@moriarty.atm.ox.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Ultimators, I've been thinking about the UKU and were it will take the ultimate community (always dangerous). When the discusion occured last september about moving from the BUF to the UKU we talked about pros and cons. I think there are many benifits of the UKU (better interaction between players and uk body and admin support, etc). I also think that Ben and the rest of the Exec are doing a great job. But.... My concern is that UKU ONLY targets those players who play in the open tours. Great - keen, involved, lots of enthusiasm and serious about the sport and developing it. But it is not in the interests of players who wont compete in the open events to register (finacially anyway) to join. I have a fairly full ultimate year planned. I'm playing in the coed tour this year. I've been intrumental in setting up a local student frisbee league, involving over 140 ultimate players. I'm going to Portugal for the hat and will probably play in a couple of the friendly tournaments (glastonbury, chipping norton etc). I can and probably will register even though i don't need to to be able to play the frisbee that I want to play. But my point is that there is a huge number of players, commitment and enthusiasm out here that isn't targetted and are likely not be registered and hence not involved with UKU. The old BUF had links with EVERY team in the country. OK so nobody turned up to the AGMs, but the governing body represented UK ultimate. While I have no problems with the ultiamte community as a whole at the moment, and I feel the executive broadly reflects the ultimate community - I think that the future of the UKU will see a increasing enthasis on the Open, or more 'serious' portion of the calander. Just because the future UKU will only be selected by the section of the ultimate community which plays in the Open events. OK so what?!? Open players have the interest of ultimate as their priority as well, don't they? I don't think this is currently an issue, but I think that it will in the longer term. People who are involved in ultimate in other non-uku events will not have the democratic strength to be able to influence future directions in UK ultimate. That will mean that Mixed sides, Womens teams, social teams, less serious teams, school teams will not naturally be members of UKU unless they also play open or actively deciede to make an active role in uku. I think these people also have alot to give to ultimate. So whats the point of this email? I want to ask: Is it correct that only registered UKU players will be able to vote for future UKU positions? (If not sorry for worrying you all). If this is the case I think that is something that needed to be raised. I didn't realise when I voted last year that, due to required registration rules, it would lead to such a split between registered and non registered membership. Would there be a way to bring in the rest of the ultimate community? Hope this gets you thinking, Ben Mootones