As a part of a current thread on the old NANFA-L email list, there was a question as to how the Forum got started, and how it so quickly became "The Official Forum of NANFA" in what seemed to be somewhat of a coup by a few tech-savvy newcomers to the organization. Chris Scharpf (AC editor extraordinaire) posted this explanation:

Yes, a Forum idea had been [...] discussed. Todd Crail, who was our Webmaster at the time, said that the NANFA web site -- which at the time was housed on a university server with a restrictive firewall -- could not handle forum software. Since Todd had just begun grad school, he had no time to find a new server nor do the technical back-end work the forum would require. I was one of the "BOD bigshots" at the time and, yes, I was a Luddite when it came to the forum. But I didn't understand the technology involved, and like other "BOD bigshots," we left it up to Todd to decide whether or not it was feasible.

Somewhere, somehow in the communications channel, the decision got construed as "NO, we don't want one, we don't need one ..."

So Andrew and colleagues went about making their own. As soon as I saw its quality and potential, I immediately began inquiries about making it the
official NANFA forum. The Forum team said yes -- with one stipulation: That they control it with little or no BOD [Board of Directors] oversight. Long story short, the "BOD bigshots" agreed and the Forum has taken off. Thanks to the Forum, NANFA has more members than ever before.

This last bit -- "they control it with little or no BOD oversight" -- concerns me some. Like it or not, the Forum is now the primary public face of NANFA. Although American Currents (the "old" face of the organization) is still extremely relevant and important, the Forum certainly has much greater reach and visibility, especially to non-members. The huge volume of content here means that forum.nanfa.org will come often come up above www.nanfa.org in Google results, especially if someone is searching for specific information about a particular species. As such, it seems to me that if the Forum is going to serve as one of the primary mouthpieces of NANFA, it needs to reflect the "official" NANFA agenda and mission, which is set by the Board of Directors (BoD). I can't imagine American Currents or www.nanfa.org being published with "little or no BoD oversight", so I have a hard time seeing why it should be so with the Forum.

I'm not suggesting that any changes are necessarily in order in terms of how the Forum is run, but it does need to be acknowledged that the Forum is now by far the most visible extension of NANFA, and the most likely way new folks will find us. I think it is important that the goals, direction, and general "atmosphere" of the Forum match those of the central NANFA organization and its BoD. It does concern me when I see comments by a few long-time members of NANFA and the mailing list (especially Moontanman) who feel like they aren't welcome on the Forum. While I've generally been very appreciative of how the Forum is run, I have personally received a few messages from Forum moderators (including a threat to ban me) which I found to be very inappropriate and certainly not something that the NANFA BoD would condone.

Aside from control/oversight issues, it also is worth noting that there is somewhat limited participation by BoD members on the Forum. Of the current BoD, I only see Andrew Gunthorpe (drewish), Uland Thomas (teleost), and Dustin Smith (dsmith73) regularly participating on the Forum. Fritz Rohde (fritz) is here in occasional bursts, but we don't see much if any activity from Tom Watson, Jeremy Tiemann, or Leo Long (lscalong). This leads me to believe there may be a growing disconnect between the "online NANFA" (the Forum) and the "offline NANFA" (the BoD and other members who don't participate in the Forum). One thought on that note would be to require that NANFA BoD members use their real names when accessing the Forum, rather than cryptic handles. I can't even figure who bleufer and OneFish are. Process of elimination would indicate that they're probably Jeremy and Tom, but I'm not sure who is who. Drew and Uland should also certainly be listed when you search for "Board of Directors" on http://forum.nanfa.o...php?act=Members . How about adding Forum handles and links to profiles on http://nanfa.org/bod.shtml ?

My overall point is that I feel like we should be seeing more convergence between the Forum and the rest of the NANFA organization. The Forum has certainly grown membership, but there are also many non-members using the Forum (far more non-members than members, in fact). To those non-members who don't get American Currents and don't attend the convention, the Forum essentially is NANFA, since that's the only way they interact with us. I certainly don't want to see control wrestled away from Drew and the other Forum founders, but maybe we need more profound (and visible) alignment between the "old guard" and the "new guard" of NANFA. Thoughts from anyone else? Something to discuss at the convention in Texas?

I would say don't be so literal about the phrase little or no BOD oversight; this simply means that the BOD isn't micromanaging the Forum, and that's a delegated task to the current moderators. Knowing how these things go, if the BOD got crazy and started to micromanage the Forum then people would really complain.

The issue of participation or not has always been present electronically; the e-list didn't really get going until about 1999 and there were always fewer participants than on this Forum, including BOD members. Some BOD members such as Jeremy can't as easily participate because of work obligations, in Jeremy's case he's on the road much of the week sampling around the state of Illinois (his job) and he doesn't have easy net access.

Jase, you're fairly new to this, and luckily for you you've missed the cyclical flame wars on the e-list. This site is free of any serious flaming, which management bothers some people. But many more people would drop the list if we had completely freewheeling discus... I mean, flame wars.

NANFA has always been overseen by a small handful of volunteers. Much more than oversight is always an instant issue, as demonstrated by schisms over the years (with so few natives enthusiasts, these schisms have always been bizarre events and are best left unmentioned in polite company).

"they control it with little or no BOD oversight"

Perhaps that was a hasty choice of words on my part. Maybe I should have said "without BOD micromanagement."

Certainly there is BOD oversight of the Forum; as with any NANFA project, it must help advance NANA's mission and adhere to NANFA's Code of Ethics. Which the Forum moderators do, with strict (some might say too strict!) adherence and unwavering commitment.

Should the Forum go astray, I'm sure the BOD would seek corrective measures and, if necessary, withdraw funding and/or have NANFA's name removed. But I doubt it will ever come to that.

As for some BODers not being active Forum participants -- well, that's their prerogative. The Forum isn't for everyone.

Although the Forum may be NANFA's most public entity, it is not necessarily NANFA's most popular product among its members. Most of NANFA's 500 or so members do not participate in the Forum. Nor do they attend conventions. Nor do they subscribe to the e-mail list. My guess is that they spend their $20 to get American Currents, and, I would hope, to help support NANFA's Conservation and Education Grant programs. If the publication and the grant programs went away, leaving nothing but the Forum, then NANFA wouldn't do much good, and wouldn't be worth being a member of, in my opinion.

Chris Scharpf
(who always signs his name)

I also independantly described the forum in these same words: "the Forum is now the primary public face of NANFA"

This is no small change.

I would like to see the Forum do more to point people to other parts of NANFA
and all aspects of NANFA's mission.

I would like to see the Forum do more to point people to other parts of NANFA
and all aspects of NANFA's mission.

Yeah, I'd agree with that as a direction to move in.

I also independantly described the forum in these same words: "the Forum is now the primary public face of NANFA"

This is no small change.

I would like to see the Forum do more to point people to other parts of NANFA
and all aspects of NANFA's mission.

While not glaring or large, the first two things at the top left are links to the NANFA homepage and NANFA gallery. From the homepage you can find every bit of information; grants, email list, mission, etc.

I would like to add that Drew was elected a member of the BoD, and did it not describe the things he has done in support of NANFA to make his case for candidacy?

Just a quick word or two about direction and content. This forum is no different than any other in many aspects. The content and direction are set solely by those who participate, plain and simple. Staff/moderators etc. can only try their best to guide existing points to a logical conclusion when possible. If all moderators and staff constantly preached to forum membership we'd be....."preachy".

I would also like to add that I hope the forum direction is not off course from NANFA objectives. If you believe it is, please be specific so we can try and think of a way to right the direction.

If you take the time to visit other forums, it is easy to see that this one runs like a well oiled machine. There will always be a few who dislike how it is ran, and we expect that. You cannot please everyone. I would bet that 98% of the forum members feel welcome here, and appreciate the way it is moderated. If that were not the case, we would not be showing the activity levels that we are showing, and we would not be drawing all of these new members. Status quo seems perfect right now. I would love to see all NANFA members proud of the wealth of information we have created. There is nothing else like it on the web. It is well run. Period.

I'd also like to add that calls for a forum/bulletin board, primarily out of needing to clean up the list from a flame up in off topic chatter and 100 emails a day, go back to at least March of 2004. Well before Drew 'popped up' out of the blue and staged a 'coup' like people are insinuating. Reasons it did not happen then are documented; Todd was hosting the website and it was simply not feasible, nor really wanted at the time by many people that are frequent users now.

I'm not so sure I see what the "old guard" "new guard" divide is about other than a way to generalize. Some people just don't like it or can't use the forum. Honestly there are times I shouldn't be on the forum at work but I make a daily vist or two because there is communication and information useful to me. Checking my email to do that is really just the same thing and practically cheating the system (instead of visiting the forum website) when I want to do the same fishy (pun intended) thing. I've been a member since 2002, does that make me old or new? Does it matter any more that I'm 27. Chris is very right when he says not every part of NANFA is for every NANFA member. I attended my first, and so far only, convention in 2002, the first year I was a member. I had a great time, met some great people, made some friends, caught some awesome fish, and learned a few things. I also realized it's not totally for me for reasons I'd like to keep personal but also because I try to squeeze in one or two professional meetings a year. Those meetings take up almost two weeks of time, money, and the NANFA convention tends to fall right during the field season for us professional/academic biologists. No offense ment, but attending the NANFA convention does not advance my career any compared to an American Fisheries Society or Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society meeting. I have many years left in life to attend NANFA conventions. I love my AC, I've got several ideas to contribute, but again I have 3 manuscripts in various stages that are slightly more important, I love meeting up with people, and I love my native fish.

As for other BoD members like Jeremy T. I'm guessing he posts and speaks up when necessary, i.e. the job opening onto the list. He also posted that on a mussel list, which he is also a paying member. He responds to direct emails promptly when necessary, but I can certainly see how he doesn't have the time to be an active forum participant regardless of the fact we don't know if he wants to be one.

Hello from Florida. I,m a NANFA member that would suscribe with or without American Currents, although I do enjoy it. I don't post because there is still so much for me to learn before I can contribute useful information . I have a 29 gal with wild sailfin mollies and a 90gal with a warmouth,bluegill,and a yet to be determined.will post pics soon.Thank you this is the best forum out there!

I personaly don't have anything against either the old email list or the Forum. They really are two different things. And from time to time things can and have gotten out of hand, and are taken care of as fast as possiable. This has happened on both the list and Forum.

I do believe the Forum has givein NANFA more exposeure than the e-mail list has or will ever give. But I believe that our publication American Currents ( 1st. and fore most and our grant programs 2nd.) Are what is most important to this Organazation.

There are members who will never use to the Forum because they like the list better (eventhough they may be few). And there are members who will only use the Forum because they don't like the way the E-mail list worked.

As far as particapation, I did not say much on the email list unless I thought it was nessary. And the same will go and has gone on the Forum from me. As far as overseeing the Forum I think those that are overseing it now are doing a great job. And if there were any objections or concerns the current BOD and I am sure future BOD's will and would, take action to fix the problem.

Also when using the Forum or the list I have always signed with my name so there should be no confussion as to who I am.

Leo S. Long
Troy, MI

I have a number of things to say but will wait until of the light of day to make them.

Fritz, the Burst

ps: Jase - don't take offense

I also independantly described the forum in these same words: "the Forum is now the primary public face of NANFA"

This is no small change.

I would like to see the Forum do more to point people to other parts of NANFA
and all aspects of NANFA's mission.

Let me say that the forum runs pretty well - few transgressions. Thanks to Drew and the moderators.
Good can get even better.

I was thinking more about forum participation by all. Take the opportunity to point out other aspects of NANFA.

Minor points:
- Search and read existing NANFA articles before asking on the forum.
- Forum Guidelines *Please keep posts informational. Don't post for the sake of posting. Complements are always welcome but please refrain from single word or emoticon posts.
- Maybe it is from my exposure to Cichlid people, but there is more to aquariums than big gamefish.

I think the issue of a "coup" has been adequately addressed. Let me just say about board member participation - it has always been thus. There have always been 1 or 2 board members who were not active on the public lists. This does not mean they were not active, just that they operated behind the scenes.

As far as people being privately warned/kicked off the forum - well, what can you do? I can tell you that the mods (myself being the recipient of NUMEROUS warnings!) are as diplomatic as they can be, and still people freak out. As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end, amen, Amen!

If you want to know what's going on with the BOD, subscribe to the BOD email list. It's open to all dues-paying members.

Uland and his minions are taking great pains to preserve the public face of NANFA. I don't have a problem with that. If you want to be in a wild west show, there are other forums for the purpose...

Minor points:
- Search and read existing NANFA articles before asking on the forum.
- Forum Guidelines *Please keep posts informational. Don't post for the sake of posting. Complements are always welcome but please refrain from single word or emoticon posts.
- Maybe it is from my exposure to Cichlid people, but there is more to aquariums than big gamefish.

Phil,

I couldn't agree more, especially point #1. I think with any open forum those will always be the hardest things to keep at a minimum, even with occassional reminders, sticky's, and banners. You could search the list for information on a topic; it's just waaaaaaay easier to hit "send" or "post". There is entire world outside than gamefish, but gamefish happen to be what most people are exposed to and often the first thing people keep (whether than can or not is another topic). Big gamefish are the charismatic megafauna of the fish world. Chances are a gamefish is what will draw someone to the site and/or forum and then they see the other world. It is the one thing that you mention that we really have little to no control over.

One thing to remember about board oversight. The ability of a board of directors to run an organization efficiently and effectively is evident when the board delegates responsibilities.

Many BOD utililize committees, and when done greatly increases the BOD to be successful. These committees run the show as far given permission by the BOD. The committee chair reports to the BOD and when major decisions are to be made (spending money, making a major change in direction, etc...) then the committee chair will ask the BOD to give direction or ask for a vote.

With little experience with NANFA (1 year now, oh yea I have to send in my membership dues) to rely on, I think that the forum is well run and recieves good BOD participation.

I do like the Idea of NANFA members, regional reps, BOD, etc... identifying themselves. This can be done through signatures as many have done. I also like that those incharge of the forum have identification of BOD, regional rep, regional contact, moderator, NANFA member, forum member, etc... this has brought an added quality for NANFA recognition and ensuring that the NANFA mission and goals are kept in focus with credibility of coming from NANFA members.

Remember the strength of a BOD is in diversity of experience. A successful BOD will have those with marketing, accounting, biological, organizational, leadership, etc... experience. And where the board is lacking in experience the BOD will organize a committee and have the most experienced person in that focus be the committee chair. example a forum committee chair, legislative issues committee chair, or conference committee chair, etc...

You all have been doing a very fine job. The forum and American Currents are and will be a major asset to NANFA and expressing the mission and goals of NANFA.

Hi Phillip. Don't count yourself out. From the outside, it can look like NANFA is a top-down organization. But it's not. NANFA is an entity with a bunch of good people doing their best to keep things running. People come to NANFA of their own volition. If the BOD tried to direct their activity, it would likely provoke resentment and cause a lot of people to give up their membership.

NANFA is an all volunteer organization. And you don't need to hold office to volunteer. As a member, you can exercise leadership from your position in the club.

It's fair of you to ask for more NANFA content in the Forum, but you can also contribute to that content. If for example, you like an article in American Currents, you could post a short summary, and let the non-member subscribers know about it. Likewise, if a link on the Website helped you get to an appropriate state agency, then you could tell others about that link.

I also independantly described the forum in these same words: "the Forum is now the primary public face of NANFA"

This is no small change.

I would like to see the Forum do more to point people to other parts of NANFA
and all aspects of NANFA's mission.

If you take the time to visit other forums, it is easy to see that this one runs like a well oiled machine. There will always be a few who dislike how it is ran, and we expect that. You cannot please everyone. I would bet that 98% of the forum members feel welcome here, and appreciate the way it is moderated. If that were not the case, we would not be showing the activity levels that we are showing, and we would not be drawing all of these new members. Status quo seems perfect right now. I would love to see all NANFA members proud of the wealth of information we have created. There is nothing else like it on the web. It is well run. Period.

Matt, I agree that this forum is much better run than most any other I have seen, and I appreciate the Forum staff's efforts in making it so. I was one of those who argued against the Forum back in 2006, because I was familiar with how many/most wind up going. You get people focusing more on their avatars, animated signature images, smilies, and clever comebacks than actual quality *content*. I would say that the average level of conversation is lower here than it used to be on the email list (many more newbies), but the greater volume, subdivision into subforums, and fact that the same thread can run for months more than makes up for it.

My initial post here wasn't raising any issue with how the forum is currently run, rather that Chris's message on the email list was the first time I'd heard that the Forum was treated as such an independently-run entity. I have a fair amount of experience with non-profits and their boards, so this kind of stuff interests me. Yes, the current Forum staff does a good job, but it is important that there are checks in place to ensure that is always the case. Although the NANFA BoD entrusts the forum staff with day-to-day management and direction of the Forum (e.g. not "micromanaging), I would hope that the BoD would be considered the final arbitrators of any serious disputes. Given that the Forum is now the primary way we communicate with each other, banning a member is certainly not something that could be taken lightly.

Status quo seems perfect right now. [...] There is nothing else like it on the web. It is well run. Period.

Again, I agree, but it also needs to be responsive to its users and evolve accordingly. The Forum staff have done an admirable job of creating a fantastic space for us to converse in, but there's always room for improvement -- there shouldn't be any "period" in the process. One thing I'd like to see is a bit more transparency on the part of Forum staff and moderators as to how decisions are made and what the appropriate process for "appeal" is. There have been a few times when I didn't know who I should be contacting about a particular issue, or what the appropriate way to bring a topic up for discussion among the moderators. I wonder if it would be appropriate to create a subforum where only moderators could post topics for discussion among themselves, but the rest of us could listen in (as on the BoD mailing list?)

Anyway, to reiterate my original point: I do agree that this is a fantastic resource, far better than the email list in most respects. I just want to be sure people acknowledge that the Forum far exceeds the role that the email list played, and is now one of the most important facets of the organization. The email list was a relatively small community of people who already belonged to NANFA and mostly knew each other. The Forum, on the other hand, is now the primary means that most people will find NANFA for the first time, and is also the first place most members will go to seek specific information. Yes, the www.nanfa.org website is still there and has great articles, but the momentum is with the Forum. We need to be certain that the impression of NANFA people get when they first find the Forum is what we want it to be -- and that certainly means close cooperation between the Forum staff and the NANFA BoD.

You know Jase, I don't know that anyone would argue with your points. While the forum is not directly under the thumb of the BoD, the BoD is most certainly keeping tabs on its use, content and direction. As you stated previously, three of the Forum staff members are BoD members and work very hard to control the direction of the forum. I think you may have missed the point with the statement Chris made about the forum not being controlled by the BoD. When the forum was first created, it was done so outside of the auspices of NANFA. After we began to test things and get a decent following, we decided to make the forum available to be the NANFA forum in so desired. The originators did not want to give up control of the moderation of the forum, which to me is perfectly understandable. All of the original members were, however, devoted NANFA members and it was and is our goal to further the mission in any way we can. YOu have all been right when you say that the forum is the new face of NANFA. It most certainly is the best recruitment and education tool we have ever known. We want to be sure that every person that comes here is made to feel welcome and finds the information they are seeking. It is always a difficult task to oversee contributors that range from highly educated fisheries professionals and academics to young teenagers that are just getting started and having their interest piqued. We have tried to do the best we can to keep topics on target and reduce redundancy but still make the environment feel as welcoming as possible. I can assure you this is no easy task. I also want everyone to know that no major decision that is made on the forum is ever made by a single individual. These decisions are always discussed between the team of moderators in order to make the most fair decision possible. I don't think opening these discussions up to the general public would accomplish anything. We always discuss our issues with the person we have issue with before taking any actions.

All this being said, there have been some valid points raised here about the direction and usefulness of the forum. We are always open to suggestions and new ideas. We want to make the forum perform as well as it possibly can.

On another note, if anyone ever has an issue with the way things are being handled on the forum, either personally or in regards to the topics or postings, and you don't feel as though you have received the answer you are looking for through the forum, please contact one of the BoD members or post to the BoD mailing list and your concerns will be considered. I do have to say that I have agreed with every move made on the forum and could not be prouder of what we have created and fostered into the resource it is now.

Jase, you're fairly new to this, and luckily for you you've missed the cyclical flame wars on the e-list. This site is free of any serious flaming, which management bothers some people. But many more people would drop the list if we had completely freewheeling discus... I mean, flame wars.

Actually, I've been around for almost 3 years, and did see some mild flaming on the email list. I certainly do not want more freewheeling discussion on the Forum. If anything, I'd argue for tighter control on posts which add no value to the discussion, hijack the original topic, repeat recent posts, etc. I would, however, like to see more transparency in the process: more visible documentation on what guidelines the moderators are using, and more explanation of moderator actions. I don't mean to imply that moderators are currently being arbitrary and doing things without reason, but keeping the moderation process out in the open as much as possible will help maintain the trust of the community. Simply having this discussion about the interaction between the BoD and the Forum staff contributes greatly to that goal.

I think the most important thing we can do to improve the long-term value of the Forum is develop more summary content and work to reduce repetition of the most commonly-raised questions and topics. I'd also argue for more subforums to group related content (e.g. "Live Foods", "Aquascaping", "Filtration & Plumbing", "Diseases and Parasites", etc.), but I know this is something the forum staff are reluctant to do. General Discussion" and "Captive Care" are such huge catch-alls (used interchangeably to some extent) that it can be difficult to find previously-posted info on any given topic. That's especially true given that the Search function is a bit hit-or-miss. Tip: Try using http://www.google.co...forum.nanfa.org instead.

When long threads on a particular topic wind down, it would be great for interested users to create summary articles that the forum staff could then make "sticky" at the top of the forum. Hopefully, that might reduce having the same questions asked over and over. I first raised this topic a while ago here: http://forum.nanfa.o...h...ost&p=39633 Removing the restriction on editing posts may also help in this. The goal would certainly be to develop single, authoritative threads on given topics, rather than having the information scattered and repeated throughout dozens of topics. Someone suggested a Wikipedia-like functionality a while back (http://forum.nanfa.o...?showtopic=4167). That kind of tool which allows collaborative editing of a single "article" to produce the best possible answer might be exactly what we need to develop quality summary content on some of the most common questions (first native tank, species compatibility, breeding setup for certain species, etc.). I wish I could volunteer to look into that more (I'm a professional web developer), but my time is too limited this summer to take on any major new commitments.

Edited by jase, 24 June 2008 - 11:48 AM.