Backup teams

[Stephen]

#46869 |

I hear the cries that we need to find a way to include others in the signups. Since we’ve got the clear majority claimed (4 unclaimed, 3 reserved, 41 claimed), I think we’ll hit our coverage goal. Forcing one signup per peak has fulfilled it’s primary goal of spreading out the registrations early.

Here is what I would suggest for the backup signup:

-Create a new form to be a backup hiker.
-Backup hikers can sign up for any peak
-Once submitted the registration will be submitted to the admin address as well as the primary contact (anonymously, of course)
-The hikers will appear on the “backup hikers” list.

Any input?

-Stephen

[Greg]

#49677

Sounds fine to me. Just be careful as to what info gets sent to the primary (probably just hiker name, right?).

I think there’s a difference between full coverage of registered peaks, and those that will actually get a flag on 9/11. I think with this “backup teams” approach there’s a better chance to acheive actual full coverage.

[MtnMike]

#49678

In addition to back-ups on specific peaks, it would be nice to have a small group of back-up hikers who are alright with not being assigned to any specific peak ahead of time — hikers who will be willing to hit any peak that gets dropped.

Just a thought. :flag:
^MtnMike^

[Stephen]

#49679

@^MtnMike^ wrote:

In addition to back-ups on specific peaks, it would be nice to have a small group of back-up hikers who are alright with not being assigned to any specific peak ahead of time — hikers who will be willing to hit any peak that gets dropped.

Just a thought. :flag:
^MtnMike^

We put out a call for on-call hikers, but only one signed up. Perhaps we should request again.

You interested? 😉

-Stephen

[MtnMike]

#49680

@Stephen wrote:

We put out a call for on-call hikers, but only one signed up. Perhaps we should request again.

You interested? 😉
-Stephen

I already signed up for the Hancocks, but if you are really desperate for on-call people I can do that instead.

[Stephen]

#49681

I thought about the idea of making a forum section with a thread for each peak.

unfortunately, it’d be a mess, as it is sorted by latest post, not by topic name…

-Stephen

[SilentCal]

#49682

How about creating a section that lists those peaks that the primary flagbearer does not mind additions to their hiking party. Make it somewhat similar to the Trips + Events section in Alpinezone and Primary signees can list their peak, the route they are taking, the difficulty level and what not. Hikers that want to assist can answer the thread and be added to the main peak list under the “other hikers” section.
Then again……Little Haystack, Mt. Hight, Guyot, Franklin, and Clay while not 4000 footers could be added after everything is filled.
Just a thought…..

[Frodo]

#49683

I like both Stephen’s and SilentCal’s suggestions, so why not combine the two?

Certain people who have already signed up might not want other hikers to join them, so to allow other hikers to join without their permission might not be fair.

What about this, once all of the peaks are officially taken, email all of the primary flagbearers and ask if it is ok for other interested hikers to join them.

Generate a new sign-up list for participating (the word backup might deter people) hikers. Then we promote to the popular regional websites, and allow all to participate for the peaks that are willing to accept company.

For each peaks organizational details, follow up with detailed discussions in the forums or email.

One thing that we can’t take for granted is that just because all of the peaks are taken on the sign-up form that everything will turn out. In 2001, 11 people signed up to climb Liberty, and only 6 showed. In 2002, all 48 peaks were taken, yet only 39 were confirmed. In 2003, 40 peaks were taken with 37 confirmed.

This year, on the 3rd anniversary, lets make the White Mountains, America, the veterans who sacrifice for our freedom, and all of the people who lost loved ones on Sept, 11, 2001 proud by covering them ALL…

[Greg]

#49684

@Frodo wrote:

I like both Stephen’s and SilentCal’s suggestions, so why not combine the two?

Certain people who have already signed up might not want other hikers to join them, so to allow other hikers to join without their permission might not be fair.

What about this, once all of the peaks are officially taken, email all of the primary flagbearers and ask if it is ok for other interested hikers to join them.

Generate a new sign-up list for participating (the word backup might deter people) hikers. Then we promote to the popular regional websites, and allow all to participate for the peaks that are willing to accept company.

For each peaks organizational details, follow up with detailed discussions in the forums or email.

One thing that we can’t take for granted is that just because all of the peaks are taken on the sign-up form that everything will turn out. In 2001, 11 people signed up to climb Liberty, and only 6 showed. In 2002, all 48 peaks were taken, yet only 39 were confirmed. In 2003, 40 peaks were taken with 37 confirmed.

This year, on the 3rd anniversary, lets make the White Mountains, America, the veterans who sacrifice for our freedom, and all of the people who lost loved ones on Sept, 11, 2001 proud by covering them ALL…

All great thoughts, Frodo. I thinks it’s a perfect approach.

BTW, kudos to you for being able to put a 2001 entry in your sig. You truly are one of the catalysts of this whole thing… :beer:

[rbhayes]

#49685

We’d be glad to have others join us on Mt Liberty! Currently we are planning on a 12 pole and 6×10 flag as we have used the past two years, but if others want to assist with the load we’d love to add another 4 feet section to the pole. Part of the fun we get in hiking is meeeting others and sharing experiences. People with well behaved dogs are very welcome as we will have Kinsale and Kerri with us.

[Stephen]

#49686

So, what’s our decision? This Sunday marks two months until the event, and we have 2 peaks open and 3 reserved.

I’m willing to program whatever is needed, but I want it nailed down before I start, so that we fulfill everyone’s expectations without a lot more patching in the code…

-Stephen
-Stephen

[MtnMagic]

#49687

Frodo wrote:I like both Stephen’s and SilentCal’s suggestions, so why not combine the two?

Yes, I completely agree!

[MichaelJ]

#49688

I agree with Terry.

Oh, wait … wrong website.

[MtnMagic]

#49689

Ha Ha!

I agree with Terry, Bruno and Post’r Boy also. Wait it is the wrong site. Thanks for the laugh Michael. You sure know how to have fun . . .and how to camp and hike!

Glad to have shared the fun with you!

[pedxing]

#49690

Silent Cals second suggestion also appeals to me:

Little Haystack, Mt. Hight, Guyot, Franklin, and Clay while not 4000 footers could be added after everything is filled.

Maybe people can sign up for these peaks and, hopefully, agree to switch to one of the 48 if it should suddenly be uncovered.

Of course, the more people that cover each peak – the more there is built in back up if one person gets sick or is otherwise unable to hike.

[Author]

Posts