CFDG Open Letter to ST Members

[Bobby Prentice]

There has been considerable discussion concerning the Chase Forecast Discussion Group (CFDG) over the years and particularly as of late on the stormtrack.org (ST) forum. Please allow us to describe the history of CFDG, its mission, and its long-standing relationship to the ST forum. While our intent with this message is fully meant to be positive, we also understand that everyone will interpret this in many ways. Regardless, we hope to extend an olive branch to the members of the ST forum, many of which are our current and potentially future friends and colleagues in the hobby of storm chasing.

There has been much confusion, consternation, and outright scorn towards an “elitist group†that siphons off veteran ST members. CFDG was founded many years before the launch of the ST forum and certainly not as an "elitist" out lash against the ST forum. There has been criticism about “all veterans not being there for ST.†Please note that the CFDG owner, moderators, most of the charter members, and many other CFDGers are also "cross-over" contributing members to the ST forum.

The Chase Forecast Discussion Group (CFDG) is a private discussion group that focuses on the "storm chase forecast" problem. Robert (Bobby) Prentice founded it in early 1996 with a charter membership of seven former NSSL IOT&E II project members and one more colleague. The original concept was to provide an e-mail forum at NSSL to share storm chase forecasts and to discuss severe storms forecast techniques and theories, bridging the gap between researchers, operational meteorologists, and hard-core chasers.

Some changes have occurred over the years. Growth of the list was slowly controlled as to keep the burden on the moderators to a minimum. Membership has increased since 1996 to about 120 members. In February 2002, the charter members decided to form The CFDG "Membership Committee" to decide the addition and removal of members. In 2006, the list was migrated from an email list server to a bulletin board forum.

The ST forum was started by Tim Vasquez, a long-standing CFDG member. CFDG and ST share many similarities. But there are differences: CFDG maintains stricter membership policies and is heavily moderated. Members are required to actively participate and maintain a high signal-to-noise ratio. There is no discussion of commercial activity. Flaming against members and non-members is not allowed. There is zero tolerance for ad-hominem attacks. There is no discussion of topics outside the scope of weather or chasing. Finally, the underlying theme is that the membership remains collegial.

The primary intent of keeping our CFDG membership list confidential is not to hide from ST forum members, but to protect CFDG members’ First Amendment rights. We wish to maintain an intimate setting to reduce inhibitions and allow members to speak their mind. But we can guarantee that the CFDG is not a “secret†society whose intent is to bash non-members; that kind of discussion is strictly prohibited and can be grounds for removal. We’ve always respected our members’ personal decision to maintain their confidentiality, and unfortunately, our promise to them was recently broken.

Please also note that public statements made by chasers who are also CFDG members (e.g., personal web sites, blogs, and public lists), do not express the opinion of the CFDG as a whole. In fact, in many cases, specific personal blog entries of CFDG members wouldn't even be tolerated on the CFDG.

How can you join? The CFDG holds two election processes each year (winter and summer). If you are interested in becoming a member, please seek out a current CFDG member that can vouch for you and provide you information about the CFDG. That member can then submit a nomination for you if you both feel you meet the qualifications. After input from the general membership, the CFDG Committee then chooses and invites the top-ranked candidates, up to the number of new membership slots made available for that election, to join the CFDG. Those not chosen are encouraged to be nominated again at the next election.

We hope this message clears up any long-standing confusion or misunderstanding, and that this is a step toward a positive direction.

Thank you,
CFDG Membership Committee:
Robert (Bobby) Prentice, founder and moderator
Greg Stumpf, moderator
Brian Curran, committee member
Roger Edwards, committee member
Dave Gold, committee member
Jim LaDue, committee member
Gene Rhoden, committee member
Rich Thompson, committee member

 

[Robert Rohloff]

Bobby, Thanks but CFDG should be allowed to run in what ever way its wants. People need to stop whinning about it. If friends and associates want their own site it is their choice to do so. I enjoy everyones input on Stormtrack. To everyone who makes it work thanks......But let those who chose to work together do so with out getting into a war of words.

 

[Martin North]

Thanks Bobby. I am pleasantly suprised to see that you guys are at least making an attempt to reach out with an 'olive branch' and maybe lessen the concerns of some of our members.

I'll be interested to see how it is received by everyone overall though.

 

[Bob Hartig]

Thanks for that. I'm not one who has troubled himself over this matter, but I know how easily stricter membership criteria can be perceived as elitism. Sometimes it is in fact just that, but often a group is simply taking commonsense measures to protect the integrity of its mission and focus. That's what I hear you saying, and I appreciate both your forthrightness and your conciliatory spirit.

I would not fit into your group, not because I lack the passion, but because I lack the knowledge and experience that would allow me to contribute meaningfully to the level of discussion that I'm sure transpires. Wish I could be a fly on the wall and just listen, but I'm quite content to learn and grow through the insights shared here on Stormtrack. I don't feel in the least slighted. I'm simply thankful for those in CFDG who also participate in the ST forum. I see that crossover relationship, and the free sharing of knowledge, as generous and positive.

 

[Bobby Prentice]

Thanks for that. I'm not one who has troubled himself over this matter, but I know how easily stricter membership criteria can be perceived as elitism.<snip>

I would not fit into your group, not because I lack the passion, but because I lack the knowledge and experience that would allow me to contribute meaningfully to the level of discussion that I'm sure transpires.<snip>

Bob:

I know you didn't specifically mention this, but please note that there is no requirement for CFDGers to possess a meteorology degree. Many CFDGers are "hard-core" (i.e., active chasers who have routinely chased at least a dozen plus times per year for at least five years) Great Plains storms chasers with no advanced meteorological training. We strive to maintain diversity in our membership since our forum attempts to bridge the gap between researchers, operational meteorologist and hard core chasers. The common theme is we are (virtually) all storm chasers.

The original concept was to provide an e-mail forum at NSSL to share storm chase forecasts and to discuss severe storms forecast techniques and theories, bridging the gap between researchers, operational meteorologists, and hard-core chasers.

 

[Bob Schafer]

Wow, no flaming yet? That's a pleasant surprise, in my eyes, anyway. IMO, it's similar to if I and a handful of other chaser friends exchanged a few emails about an upcoming event. Along the lines of "Hey, dude, what do you think about Friday?" Then, suppose over the years the exchanges expanded to include 15 or so chasers, then 40, then 120...

At what point would we be "obligated" to make these emails public record? Of course, the answer is NEVER. It's our mail. I assume that that is essentially the crux of the history and tradition of CFDG, and that's cool!

It would be an interesting read to learn what sort of (more specific) membership criteria you use....... just throwing that out there.

 

[Jeff Miller]

I am very pleased by reading the material that Bobby presented. I first want to express my thanks for the people of CDFG for posting more about their group, their reasons for existing, membership process, and basic ideologies. I am grateful that the leadership team of CDFG has made a move to hold out an "olive branch" to explain to curious people exactly what the intentions, goals and motives of the CDFG team have been. I feel this handshake will go along way to engaging mutual respect, and for that, my applause goes to Bobby Prentice for taking the step of bridging the gap in a peacekeeping thread.

My hope is that ST and CDFG can work together in accomplishing the same goals - respecting each other's common wishes (i.e. CDFG's wish for the member list to remain anonymous for First Amendment protection). I think the main wish here is for veteran status chasers and newer chasers to engage in an atmosphere of mutual respect and friendliness without a "status lake" to have to jump. I think this is a positive step in the right direction. I hope that this is the beginning of a new road in this dramaseries.