[Regia-NA] Authenticity Regulations

[Steve Etheridge]

Dear all in email land.

The subject of Authenticity regs has come up recently - so I thought I would 
weigh in (having something of an interest in the topic....)  In fact I would 
have responded earlier, bu my boss has got me doing remedial packing for 
having demonstrated a flicker of initiative. /,-(

Please note - although the e-group is a wonderful forum for those who are on 
it, most of the membership are not - so I have been resisting the temptation 
to rattle on about Authenticicty regs here.  However, hopefully Kim will be 
able to cut this around so that a version can appear in Chronicle which will 
reach all the members.  Wether they read it or not is up to them.

On the Authenticity Regulations.

1) On consulatation.  We are a society of volunteers.  People do this hobby 
because they enjoy it, and they want to feel that they have a say in what 
goes on.  However, committees are poor things for making a decision.  Thus, 
in formulating a new set of regulations, ideas must be put forward for 
examination.  After consulation, I must make the decision as to what the 
actual policy should be.  Previous experience seems to indicate that 
_someone_ will feel left out, but I will do my best to talk to as many 
people as possible.

2) On Mis-consultation.  The problem with this is that people will take 
ideas put out to consultation and say "have you seen what 'they' are about 
to do/ban/allow?  Well, the message is that there is no "they" - it's just 
me.  If you don't like what you see, then let me know - it may never happen. 
  However, it might, and you may have to learn to live with it.  It is not 
possible to please everyone at once, and we all (myself included) must live 
by the same rules.  What I will try to do is make the regulations as 
transparent as possible.  You may not like the reason for a rule - but at 
least you will know why it is in place.  Just to repeat, though, an idea is 
not a rule.

3) What the regulations are about.  It is not the job of the regulations to 
cover "What is and is not authentic".  The reason for this is quite simple - 
it is impossible.  Part of the regs will deal with "what authenticity is", 
and hopefully a framework for evidence and reconstruction will be set up so 
that we can keep advancing our standards.  Other parts of the regs will deal 
with the administration of authenticity - which probably sounds quite dull.  
It is - until it goes wrong, when everyone gets confused, angry and upset.  
It is in fact a vital part of communicating with the membership, and 
recieving communication back. There will of course, be "simple" rules in 
there, such as the blazingly obvious ("no half kit" and the like), and I 
suspect that there may be "kit stereotypes" so that beginners have a simple 
place to start.  However, the regulations are a framework upon which 
authenticity can be grown.  The "real" work is in the handbook

4) The handbook.  We had one of these, years ago.  It's still pretty good, 
but in the eleven years since it was last published we've learnt a lot more 
and found out a lot more.  I can remember what we looked like then, and we 
look a hell of a lot better now.  The handbook (when you see it) will not be 
a vast tome, covering nearly everything under the sun between single covers, 
but a series of books, covering individual topics.  Not only does this mean 
that we can go to press on the finished bits without having to wait for 
everything to be complete, but we can revise individual sections when we 
find out new material.  Thus the hanbook becomes an orgainic thing, able to 
change and grow.  When we stop getting better, we die.  Thus the handbook is 
an adjunct to the regulations - I suspect that the urgency production of 
sections of the handbook will depend on how often the regs say "refer to the 
handbook for further information on this".  I am collecting a team of people 
to help me with this, and other matters - and to whom thanks will be due for 
this huge task.

5) The bottom line.  At the end of the day, all the rules and regulations 
are there to help.  It is down to the Officer at the show (me, a deputy, my 
successor) to say, on that day, what is right or wrong.  The regulations are 
there to help us to improve - we should not be improving just to obey as set 
of regulations.  It's up to all of us to get it right - as near as we can, 
based on the facts.  Sometimes opinions will vary.  Sometimes, a choice will 
have to be made.  It's the job of the AO to make that choice.

As Kim used to say: Onwards and upwards - and perhaps a little bit outwards 
as well ;-)

Steve

Message context.

>From: "Kate Dudman" <brock.gwyddel@virgin.net>

>You wrote:
Please note that things such as this will eventually be collected into the 
Authenticity regs.

>Any chance of the wider membership being involved and consulted before 
>anything is fixed and compulsory?
>
>Involving the membership in the process of putting the latest training regs 
>appeared to have benefits and worked well with no apparant fundamental ill 
>will. This is different some perceptions of the LHE regs which were issued 
>as they stood and were not open to change or feedback.
>At the end of the day it is wise and a very much a courtesy to involve the 
>membership as it is their society and they are the ones that will have to 
>live with these regs. Let alone anyone that may be put on the spot to 
>enforce something that turns out to be unwelcome or unworkable.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Kate
>
>

In a message dated 6/13/2003 10:32:32 PM GMT Daylight Time,
brock.gwyddel@virgin.net writes:


>This is different some perceptions of the LHE regs which were issued
>as they stood and were not open to change or feedback.
>

That's funny.... I was the one wot did it - and I'm sure I remember 
initiating nearly a year of debate, issuing draft regs, and changing some as 
a result of feedback......  Not to mention the fact that they were written 
down in response to popular demand to have something which did for the LHE 
what the MAA regs do for the military - namely let everyone know what is 
expected of them before they spend hard-earned cash on expensive and/or 
embarrassing mistakes.

Aly

As the one who helped Aly formulate the LHE regs I agree with what she says 
here.  When they were first written it was as a draft to bring before the 
Witan  so that they could be debated properly.  But - like many things,
someone decided (in their mind) that they had been written as a fait 
accompli and immediately started a hot debate on the e-group.  Many hours of 
careful thought went into them before they were in a form that could be 
presented to the Witan, and several people with an interest in the LHE were 
also consulted.  The result was three things.  A one page article to let 
prospective LHE people know what would be expected of them,  secondly the 
full LHE regulations, and thirdly the Regia LHE e-group was set up 
especially to debate these issues!.

As Aly said, they were written (I am wrong there, they were re-written as 
there were a set of regulations still in force) for those members who wanted 
to know what they needed and what was expected of an LHE member of the
Society.

As we said in the regulations, the LHE is the "Up-close face of Regia" . The 
part the public view in detail and we wanted to make sure that what we 
demonstrate, and what we look like is the best possible, and the most
authentic that we could produce.

There was actually only a small part of the regulations that caused any 
controversy!



Ian Uzzell




Debate and consultation are both healthy and helpful when an officer is 
trying to formulate a set of regulations. However,  there comes a time when 
the talking must cease and the words be written.
     At the end of the day the officer in charge has the ultimate 
responsibility and final say on all rules new and old. These officers are 
elected by the membership to do a job, it is only logical that from time to 
time a rule/way of thinking will come around that people will not agree 
with. Remember policy is made with the interest of regia as a whole foremost 
in the officers mind. It is not done to alienate a group of people (small or 
large), it is done to improve the society.
    It is for this reason the Regia is the best at what it does. Where we 
lead others follow,  it is not by accident that we have the best LHE around. 
Neither is it an accident that our kit standards are far higher than any 
other SSS.
    Should the authenticity officer decide to ban kit or introduce/encourage 
a new way of wearing an item of kit, then so long as his evidence is sound 
we can debate it till the cows come home, it will make no difference it will 
become policy. And if it helps improve Regia then that is no bad thing. Or 
the LHE co-ordinator bring out a rule some disagree with well that is life. 
Take parliament, we don't all agree with government policy but we have to 
accept it, and trust that those in power, will in general, have our best 
interests at heart.

Cheers Pat

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail messages direct to your mobile phone http://www.msn.co.uk/msnmobile