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