Global Greeter Network

Moving Forward

GGN moving forward

What is going on with the Global Greeter Network?
Two websites??? Proposed annual fees???

We really need to share how we feel about where the Greeter concept stands at the moment and where the concept is growing towards. And with a new voting ahead, are you ready for major changes such as:

  • an annual fee per destination
  • more influence to city marketeers
  • more influence to the big cities
  • less understanding of small city issues
  • minority decisions that affect all destinations

What are your suggestions to move forward? We need to share where you see the Greeter concept in the future. Please let us know below what you think...

35 responses to “Moving Forward”

  1. David Young says:

    I don’t pretend to quite understand all the politics behind this but accept that we are going to have to change our name.
    When Jos came up with is StrollBuddy proposal I’m afraid I reacted rather negatively – after all I’m a 71 year old British citizen, not a 21 year old American frat boy wearing his Nike cap backwards…but then I thought I should react more positively and look around for alternatives.
    The most obvious I thought was to look for variations on Free and Guides as being 2 good descriptions for what we do. Looking at domain names which might be available I first came across, which can be bought for a reasonable price, and later, which can be registered a completely new name for $17 per year.
    I also came across, an existing domain name which is on sale for $5k.
    When I raised these with Jos he explained that he and his colleagues had indeed considered such options, but didn’t feel that Free Guides fairly reflected our core values, also that he was concerned that someone would buy up the existing domain name for $5k and then we would be faced with a competitor with a very similar name.
    Myself I don’t think Free Guides is such a bad name, although it’s I accept it’s not as nice as Greeters, which does have a more friendly connotations.Jos felt that he is not yet ready to put my suggestion to our colleagues but suggested that I could write this blog and see what ( if any ) reactions I got.
    So what we do we think about Free Guides as a new name ??
    David Young
    Rotterdam Greeters

    • Bill Anderson says:

      Hi David,
      Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the issue at hand that there is extreme confusion with having 2 similarly named “Greeter” organizations doing the same thing? Your “Free Guides” proposal has a very good ring to it but it doesn’t (in my humble opinion) solve the issue. Doesn’t the confusion we are trying to mitigate against not just transfers to your proposed name as there is already an organization named, and doing, “Free Guides”?
      Irrespective of this, I think we are not “guides”, even not free guides. We see ourselves here as a friendly face that welcomes you to our great city; a “Greeter” if you like… But saying this, I have come full circle.
      Best regards,

      • David Young says:

        Hi Bill,

        Couldn’t agree with you more that my suggestion is far from ideal, but I’m just looking for a pragmatic way out of the current impasse. As far as I’m aware there isn’t another existing organisation called Free Guides. I’ve racked my brains for an alternative so far without success – maybe you’re more creative than me ( wouldn’t be difficult ) – do you have a better idea ?
        Best wishes David

    • Jos says:

      Hi David,
      As I said in our mail exchange, I don’t like the FREE GUIDE name very much because emphasizing on FREE is not what we are looking for – though a non-tipping policy is very important. However we don’t want people to go out with us because it is for free, we like to meet visitors because it is fun, because of the cultural exchange, the personal touch. That most ‘free guides’ hold out their hand at the end of their walk (saying: “I hope you liked my tour” expecting to get money) is another issue, I wouldn’t like to be associated with them.

      And there is also the issue of a unique name (I fully agree with Bill Andersons’ post). This is something that we really NEED to have I think.
      You have suggestions with the words FREE and GUIDE in it and I managed to register myself as a Free guide at (curious to see what would happen)
      And these people are guides, nothing like the concept we have. Pre-scheduled tours and the possibility ‘to make some money’.

      Really open to the best name, just don’t agree with you on this one 🙂

      Jos Nusse

      • David Young says:

        I’ve signed up too, keep you posted !

      • sharyn katsof says:

        Good morning fellow Greeters ( Stroll Buddies),
        Sharyn hère, Montreal Greeter. I never even knew this forum existed and glad to have a place for exchange. I am aware that our Montreal group has had some challenges with our umbrella organization…. I’ll leave the politics out, but I think the language differences has posed some communication problems. I suggest that whatever we choose as our new name be easy to translate into other languages. In my mind Stroll Buddies conjurés up an image of either a new pram or baby stroller or a walker for an elderly person. In Canada, the word stroll is associated with a very slow, leisurely walk. This will appeal to older people but might not attract visitors under 50 years old. I do like the word Buddy. Maybe the word Walk would be better? “ Walkie- Talkies” ? Just having fun here. I do agree with jos comments above regarding avoiding the words “free” and “guide”. Maybe we need to start brainstorming by just tossing out words that best capture who we are and what we do.

      • Sam Welie says:

        We have a Free Tours organisation in Maastricht: organised at regular times, and free of charge in theory, but with an optional contribution at the end. So I am against free guides as being too similar.

        We have a wonderful Running Tours organisation, so ‘tours” is also not a preferred option for me.

        I too do not really like the combination of stroll and buddy. Indeed – too American. I am not really against the stroll bit on its own, though I wonder how many non-English speaking people use / understand the term. It’s the buddy bit I don’t really like.
        Can anyone come up with something using wandering / wondering?

    • Bill Anderson says:

      Hi All,

      It is with interest that I read that some only like the “Stroll” and not the “Buddy” part of the suggested name. Other, I read, like “Buddy” but are not so keen on the “Stroll” part.

      Is this a case where one can not please all the people all the time?

      I have no better suggestions in my arsenal so I’m happy to surrender to the leadership and let the leadership lead…

      We are just happy to take people for a walk showing our visitors our beautiful city which is what it is all about, isn’t it?

      Best regards,


  2. Hi all,

    So I’ve read the voting manual, some documentation about the past Greeters meetings and other stuff so it’s time to wear my swiss cap with all the neutrality and peacemaker clichés that come with it to try moving forward (after all it’s the title of this discussion).

    Let’s start from three truth we all agree about:
    1) The cores values are the key of the Greeter concept
    2) Absolutely everybody can be a Greeter in accordance to the cores values!
    3) The growth and expansion of Greeters is a positive and wished thing

    From there opinions start to diverge.
    Basically this is not a surprise as the objective and the ressources of Destination with thousands of Greets/year and dozens of Greeters are obviously not the same as for Destination with a few Greeters and Greets per year. Cultural differences in the approach are also present as the concept of meeting people, the “marketing” or the behavior towards “monetisation” is not the same around the world and also within countries (depending also on the people who carry on each Destination). Does it mean that there are unbearable incompatibilies in the Greeters concept? In my opinion no as we all move under the core values!

    The formers Greeters meeting (I wasn’t there but this can be read in the documentation) show that there is since a long time a reflexion going on about the “marketing strategy” to make Greeter grow. One approach could be called the “top-down” approach as it tends to move on large scale (pointing on advertising and external partnership). This kind of approach need a developed administation and would have global advertising objective (the “brand” GGN was cited). Numerically, this approach would surely lead to a faster growing in the number of Greet and in the visibility of the concept.On the other side (the “bottom-up” approach) would points on mutliplying the small destination allowing everybody to integer Greeters (with some IT support for example) and with less emphasizing the financial aspects (but still looking for a minimal support to run). This approach is surely aimed to support the spread of Greeters among less touristic destination with fewer resources. Again, are those conception of Greeter incompatible? The answer is still the same: no, if everybody acts following the cores values.

    This mean that the majors destination should not “steal” Greeters and outcompete the minor destinations and on the other side the small destination should not be a weight for the big ones preventing them to develop their “business”. The force of Greeters is that it is a global concept with local application. Every destination should develop its activities and particularities depending on their vision of Greeters and on their specificities.

    So what about the actual situation? We have 2 website, an almost “civil war” and we are stuck in a not-really-moving-foward situation. Can we solve this mess? I hope so or I wouldn’t be here writing this. Now the 1 millione $ question: how? (this part are just some of my reflexion, people with more knowledge of the Greeter history and a deeper understanding of the whole situation could surely have other points of view)

    First of all, we have to admit that we have two “heads” (running both a website). The positive thing is that this means two groups of people willing to work for Greeters (even if they have not the same point of view on how to do that). The actual use of the websites is not satisfactory and on the long-term not pertinent (basically having two twin sites is just confusing greeters, visitors and potential supporters), so the goal of these website has to be different. Moreover, the actual legal organisation of Greeters, its tasks, duties and strategy is opaque, which lead to situations as the present one.

    A potential solution have to be based on two main pilars: it should recognize the work and the efforts operated by all the involved people and it should define what are the elements that are shared by all the Greeters and the elements that are specific to some destination and that objectively can’t be regulated by global rules or obligation.

    In this sense a proposal could be:
    – The .info website would be the “entrance door” of the Greeter world for visitors / Greeters, it will be accessible to everybody and provide the support for new destinations (as today with the free website and support) and allow visitors to find the existing destination. All the destination will be equally represented (a presentation page for each, map, etc.). This site would remain free of all fee. External resources as the facebook page should be open to the whole community so be linked with this site.
    – The .com website would be the “business unit” of the Greeter galaxy, it will pursue the “marketing goals” that are needed/required by the majors destination, its management would be separated from the .info site but the collaboration should be guaranteed. The adhesion to this site and its activities would be done on a voluntary base depending on the willingness of the various destination to participate. The rules of the site and the rights/duties of the participating destination have to be internally defined. Eventual fees and voting rules would be decided by the participating destination. The use of external resources as the facebook page could be done to publicise Greeters and marketing purposes (in accordance with the owners of the content). It would also be the contact partner for sponsor and stakeholder.

    Such organisation would have from my point of view many advantages:
    – The Greeters ideal of gratuity and accessibility would be guaranteed;
    – The freedom for destination that “want more” (and do more) can be guaranteed;
    – The image of Greeters towards external partners (media, sponsor, tourism structures, stakeholders, …) is clear and well-organised;
    – Every destination can find a “customised” support depending on needs and goals;
    – Everyone can contribute to the most suitable “vision” of Greeter (from a self-point of view) without having to fight or argue;
    – There would be no forcing of any kind to accept rules/fees and on the other side the ones who accept them would rules the “business” freely (but still in accordance with the core values!);
    – The “business unit” could choose its member (based on transparent rules) without excluding the destination from Greeters;

    Are there potential disadvantages? Probably yes but they can be mitigated and are surely irrelevant respect to the positive points
    – Some destination could “hide” and profit of the work done by the business unit: in part true, as the visibility work done by the .com site would profit to all the greeters, this is probably marginal as destination not part of the .com site should be the small ones. Another point is that Greeters destination are not in competition one with another (the visitors won’t change their holiday destination because of that);
    – The “business unit” could bring a negative image for destination that want a completely “free and with no charge” Greeter concept: in part true but as the real soul of each destination is found on its own website (self constructed or with the free common website), the visitors will be able to decide wheter or not they like the presented concept. Moreover the core values remains and the concept of “free of charge” stands. If a destination advise to donate for back-office purpose it can be done (and that doesn’t damage other destination that want 100% free Greets);
    – Having various owners and rulers of the website could be a weakness: if the proposed (or any other) solution allow to restore the trust and a good collaboration among Greeter, this won’t be a weakness. In the long-term, the organisation of the GGN and/or other entities (foundation, association, etc…) should anyway be clarified and defined in a clear manner.

    I hope this was not too long. As already said, I don’t pretend that this is the unique solution. Many people that are involved in Greeters have much more experience than me and have probably an higher global understanding of all the situation.

    All (costructive) contributions are welcome 🙂


    Make Greeters great again!

  3. global says:

    Greetings Greeters,

    I have spent hours going through Klaus’ “Voter Manual” that will potentially set the future direction of the Greeter concept.

    Let me start with a little anecdote. We recently had 2 adorable little girls in our foster care; 2 and 4 years of age. After dinner, the girls were treated to a small slice of cake. However, the older girl was never satisfied with 1 slice and tried to persuade me to give her 5 slices with all the arguments and drama you can expect from a 4 year old. So, I always offered her a choice. The choice was “one slice or no slice”. She was in control to make a decision that was best for her and with that limited choice in mind she was smart enough to select the earlier. All very democratic as it was her making all the decisions. But in the end, it was me that 100% dictated the terms of or juvenile negotiation and achieved the outcome that I mandated.

    Now back to the “Voting Manual” …

    Klaus Bostelmann with the passive weak leadership of Katie Law is offering you the choice between what they see as a good outcome for themselves and what they see as a great outcome for themselves. Your choice entirely so very democratic, right? No!

    Thanks for the slice of cake Klaus but we are not toddlers! Destinations deserve more than this rubbish. After all, the future of the Greeter concept is at stake…

    The questions in the voting manual are so loaded, bias and pointing to an already determent outcome that I can’t find the words to describe it. After spending a considerable time in public life, I have not come across a more biased and unprofessional document than this one.

    You need to read this document yourself. It would be funny if the potential result of all this wouldn’t be so catastrophic.

    Every question has a “Yes – Abstain – No” answer format. Then all questions are followed up by secondary questions about the “Yes” answer. The paper is absolutely void of any proposals that offer alternatives to their agenda.

    I’m not even going to enter into the debate about their proposals to get you to pay for membership or make your vote count less than the big cities. You are smart enough to know that this is not the Greeter way.

    In any case, the best thing for the Greeter concept is to complete the survey and vote “NO” to all questions until such time where we can get some balanced views and not the views of professional marketers bullying small destination.

    Greeters, you deserve to have your cake and eat it too…


    • Katie Law says:

      So this is what you want a forum for ugly words? This is embrassing and does damage to any chance of trying to work out a resolution through mediation. Good going Nusse brothers what happened to making the world a better place one greet st a time?

      • global says:

        Unfortunately Katie Law, “ugly words” are the only words to describe ugly deeds. Stop being divisive, start recognising the community as a whole (not just the big end of town), and start leading this community as would be expected of your position as Chair.
        You and Klaus are responsible for dividing a great community. Start showing some leadership and repair the ridiculous situation that you created and are responsible for before you go down in history as the wrecking ball that destroyed the Greeter concept…

        PS. The comment was signed by “Rene” and not the “Nusse Brothers”. So I’m not sure why you didn’t address your rebuttal accordingly.

  4. Mingo says:

    The main reason I join Greeters is that I want to show how good is my own city, the reasons why I join GGN is that they are well organised, free, voluntary, easy to start as they even provide a free website, I appreciate with what GGN, what Jos provided for us but not any other troublers.
    I do visited Jos in Den Haag too, I knew how much afford he paid and how his ambition on Greeters. So, I can’t find any reasons that I’m going to change now, later or in the future. Jos, just keep on what you’re doing, we will support you.

  5. global says:

    Well Greeters, here it is…

    The “big city bully policy” is now in black and white.

    Here it is directly from the lips of Mr Klaus Bostelmann, the “Secretary” representing the big end of town.

    What this new policy means is that your vote will be less important than theirs. Your vote will count less because you are a small destination or a new destination!

    This is their proposal which you can find in their voting manual:

    “Voting right in statutes
    During the recent discussion the GGN board has become aware that a simple “one destination – one
    vote” rule (each member has the right to vote, no matter how long they have been member or how
    many Greets they are delivering) could cause certain problems, i.e. decisions with a significant financial
    impact on the few destinations delivering most of the Greets.
    Members have recommended to install a “balanced voting” with the statutes of the coming legal entity
    in order to represent a majority of Greets in our voting majorities; balanced voting could for instance be organized by
    ● a “weighted vote” rule: the weight of a vote depends on the number of Greets delivered (a
    parameter that might be used for defining different levels of member fee).
    ● a “two majorities rule”: a valid decision needs the majority of all voting members plus the
    majority of members delivering more than 500 Greets per year
    Another issue was if a new member should have voting right from the beginning or only as soon as they
    have documented their first Greets with the yearly statistic.”

    So there you have it. A clear directional policy of where these clowns want to take the Greeter concept.

    Is this their idea of a demographic process?

    No, all this does is solidifying their power. Power they need to serve their large city’s hunger for tourism dollars irrespective of the need to truly globalising the Greeter concept.

    Shameful behaviour Mr Klaus Bostelmann…


  6. david says:

    Hi everybody
    I think that to perpetuate the greeters concept it is necessary to set up a tour rotation system so that each city greeters is visited.

  7. Reyansh says:

    Good afternoon,
    I’m not even knowing what this is about.
    We are a small town but do greets.
    All help comes from greeter (Jos) but now i know there is another site to.
    They didn’t want to know about us because only 3 greeters but small town.
    I do not understand why there are 2.
    The other (.com site) has same name and sign.
    They told us we must chose to be with Jos or them.
    They provides nothing because we are small.
    No website – no support.
    Greeters is unity – not this.
    What to do???

    • Jos says:

      Hi Reyansh, thanks for showing your concern!
      Yes, after launching the .com website the confusing among Greeters, visitors and destination managers is enorm! A very unwise decision indeed.

      And the way they reacted to you shows what they want I think? Exclude those who don’t agree with them.
      Please don’t let them fool you with majority voting! For example there are 50+ French destinations that vote all the same, because their ‘leaders’ ask them to do so. Add some of the inner circle destinations that decided to launch the second website and you have a (very small) majority.
      Politics took over some months ago!

      Concerning your question what to do: vote wisely!
      Above all, enjoy Greeting – making the world a better place – one Greet at the time . . .

  8. Hello,

    I’ve looked at the different Wikipedia pages talking about Greeters and I’ve found some “interesting” facts about the use of this resource by the “usurpers”.

    English: the link to the GGN site was changed to point to the other site, but the link to the cores values still points here (a sign that the others are more interested in marketing and visibility, than in the cores values of Greeters?)

    German: The external links indicate a “Global Greeters Network – Comunity” (the others) and a “Global Greeters Network Foundation, den Haag” what is not fair as even if this site is based in den Haag it represents all the Greeters destination. Again the link to the core values points here. Another thing to note is this sentence found in the page: “Seit 2016 trat eine private “Global Greeter Network Foundation” als Betreiberin der GGN-Website auf. Der GGN Vorstand veröffentlichte daraufhin im April 2017 eine neue offizielle Website der Global Greeter Network community.” (Since 2016 appeared a private “Global Greeter Network Foundation” as operator of the GGN-Website. The GGN board released after that in april 2017 a new official website of the Global Greeter Network community.) I’m not a Greeter since a lot of time but from the information I have this is not the reality.

    French: All the links point here (yeah!)

    Galego: The link points to the other site as the page was translated from the english version.

    What should then be done? Correct the “errors” in the Wikipedia pages? Complete Wikipedia with “historical information” so that the real development of the Greeter community and the real contributors can be known and officialised? Create the Wikipedia pages of other languages so that the reality can be “revealed”?

    What’s you opinion?


    • global says:

      Well David, you had to ask…

      First, I like to thank you for your contribution and your astute research!

      My name is Rene and I live in Australia. Jos is my brother, I sit on the GGN Foundation Board and I provide Jos with IT services including monthly server hire and the development and maintenance of the free GGN website now used by 100+ destinations. Like all of us, I volunteer my time; not as a Greeter like most of you here but simply because I love the concept behind Greeters. I’m I bias; perceive it if you like… However, this perceived bias is well and truly out trumped by a good dose of common sense that cannot deny the absurd situation we find ourselves in.

      The truth of the matter is that the Katie Law (Chair – Chair of what?) and Klaus Bostelmann (Secretary – Secretary of what?) have made some decisions that really damaged the Greeter concept. Not only that, they seem to think it is acceptable to lie about their actions and blame Jos for the mess they put us all in.

      They claim to be democratic and accuse the Foundation of the opposite. The fact is that the Foundation runs under a set of legislative rules, is officially not-for-profit and has audited and published accounts mandated by its own constitution as well as the law. Klaus (let’s be clear about the fact that he runs the show) has an unofficial website page with some guidelines. No association, no incorporation and therefore no transparency and accountability.

      Kathy is paid by the city of Chicago to promote the city’s tourism. That is her job and good on her for doing that. Is she concerned with truly globalising the Greeter concept? Based on how she is dealing with the current situation, I doubt it. Conflict of interest; perceived at best…

      After the brilliant idea to force destinations to pay a yearly fee, I suspect Klaus will come up with his next scheme where destination have to disassociate themselves from our website in order to be “members” of this break-away group. This will ensure that you will need to pick a side; .info or .com. Some name – same logo – same ridiculous situation. Staying with Jos will mean you will lose your voting right which in turn means they are able to vote themselves back in again for another term. Make no mistake about this as Jos is already banned from the .com Facebook page that ironically, he set up himself years ago! They do not have clear rules about “membership” which makes sense because Kathy represents a non-entity. So, if they think (the large cities with generous budgets) that you are just annoying then they will kick you out. No redress, no opportunity to ask question or present your case, no appeal; you are out.

      I hope all of you make a conscious decision about the future of Greeters and work together on getting this great concept back on track and in the hands of the grass-root destinations where it belongs.

      PS. This is in no way the opinion of Jos. In essence, I’m a grumpy old man that needs to say what is on his mind and I will call a spade, a spade… Jos has a much more reconciliatory approach to this situation then I have. Hopefully, we can all come to the same site of the rope soon and start pulling in the same direction…

      Rene Nusse
      (Trying to) Making the world a better place; one Greet at the time…

    • Jos says:

      Hi David,
      Great you plunched into this Wiki page – I never did.
      There are just so many hours in every day, it is difficult to cover all the places Greeters are mentioned.

      The sad thing is – as far as I am concerned – the .com side of this conflict has no trouble what so ever twisting and bending reality in what they think is in their interest.
      Wikipedia is just another example.
      It seems like an insinuation to talk about a PRIVATE GGN FOUNDATION. This is simply impossible! You either talk about somebody as a private person or about a legal entity such as a foundation. A private foundation is just crazy!

      The GGN foundation was set up in 2011 after a vote among all destinations. Five destinations agreed to chip in $500 for initial costs, to investigate the advantages and needs of such a foundation. After setting up the foundation and a bankaccount I asked these people where to send the bills. They pulled out.
      Now one of these destination managers, volunteering to chip in $500 is even running for board member of the .com group!

      Any questions – from anybody – are welcome. Happy to share facts!

      • Hi Jos,

        I continued my small researches and I found the “GGN fact sheet” of the .com site which present the Greeters history like that:

        Milestones in GGN history
        1992 Lynn Brooks initiates “Big Apple Greeters” in New York
        1997 The Greeter concepts starts to spread around the world: Melbourne becomes
        second destination. In 2001 Adelaide follows, Buenos Aires and Chicago follow
        in 2002, 3 years later Houston and Toronto.
        2005 First meeting in New York, attended by five destinations from US and Canada
        2007 “Global Greeter Network Annual Roundtable” in Toronto, Canada. Regulations for new members approval, GGN website and logo.
        2009 More than 10 destinations
        2010 Jos Nusse (Den Haag) is elected chairman
        2012 Annual Meeting Brussels: Christian Ragil (Paris) is elected chairman.
        2013 More than 50 destinations. Annual Meeting Paris: First Release of “GGN Goals and Governance”
        2014 Annual Meeting Chicago: Joaquin Brenman (Buenos Aires) is elected chairman
        2015 More than 100 destinations
        2016 Nov 2016: Katie Law (Chicago) is elected chairman

        The questions that come up looking at these facts are the following: are all the above information correct? Are there some reports or documentation about these meeting / elections? Where is the mentionned documentation (goals and governance)?

        In my opinion, the best strategy in such situation can be summarized in one word: TRANSPARENCY.
        Generally speaking one won’t trust people or groups that have things to hide or prefer unclear situation. And as we are the original ones, I think the most pieces of information are given and shared, the more our position will be strong. All the available documentation should be at disposal of everyone. You already follow this way with the publication of the accountability and the policy plan (it seems this is not the case for the .com site).

        Greeters is and should remain an “horizontal concept” with every destination free to run its Greets in the way they consider the most suited for the local specificities (respecting the cores values) and a little bit of centralised coordination/support like you do. I think it is essential that the Greeters Network stay free of a “directive board” that would vote and promote some decisions/obligations from above. The slogan should be something like “united, not submitted” 🙂

        A last curiosity from the web (you find everything on the internet!): the site is an incredible tool with billions of old web content. Looking at the archives available for the .com site, it’s “interesting” to see that until last year, the site was the same as this one (a mirror site?), in april the site was under maintenance and at the end of that month the other site was born. The legitimity of their page can therefore really be questionned.



        • Jos says:

          Hi David,
          Thank you for getting into all this!
          For me what you found is just another example how these people work. I never looked into the details of the second website. However now you point this out and there are some things that jump to mind:
          1) Twisting the truth (or is it plain lying?)
          The history was copied from our website and next it was ‘adjusted’ in a way the .com people feel more comfortable with. For example: there was no GGN website until 2008. That year Den Haag Greeters got started and I went to Buenos Aires to join the international meeting. I built and presented the website ( ) during this meeting and people were very much surprised and very happy!
          2) Legacy
          Again something I never thought of! It really needs some impertinence to do what they did! It is a very interesting fact to keep in mind!
          3) Information
          Any sort of information you are looking for? I have some files and ready ‘to open them’ but it much and not very well organized. Happy to search for things you are interested in!
          Please do keep contributing, it is important to the Greeter concept!
          Thank you, Jos

        • Hi David,
          I appreciate your research for documents and your call for transparency.
          Some documents are linked in this document: but there are more available. There is a minutes document of nearly all GGN meetings since 2005.

  9. Dear greeters,
    I am volanteer.
    Why must I pay, to Pirates who try to take over a good and wunderfull idea.
    They are steeling the work and efforts that our Chairmain Jos Nusse in the last 8 years has done.
    He built the Greeters. No one else.

    They simply starting a second website, copy our data and photo’s from the website and claim then asking us for payment???

    This is fraude!!!!!

    How shell we call them?

    Not Greeters, call them CLOWNS.
    Then we all knows that we are talking about copycats.

  10. Bill says:

    Greetings fellow Greeters…

    It is OK to disagree with annual fees and it is OK to disagree with professional marketers taking over the Greeter concept and it even OK to disagree with the bullying tactics of the “big cities”.

    What is not OK is to just let this happen!

    If you value the Greeter concept as I do, then it is time for action. We need to vote these clowns out when next we have the opportunity. This opportunity will be at the next meeting. Vote greeters and vote well.

    Can we put some candidates forward?

    Jos, are you interested in putting forward your name as the next chair so we can recommence Greeters based on common sense and the values that underline the Greeter concept.

    • Jos says:

      hey Bill,
      Sorry for the late response – I had to think your suggestion over because it sounded rather radical.
      However, after reading the information on the voting process there seems no other possibility then to move forward on the way we are.

      So YES, I am willing to be the next chair and take the Greeter concept forward on a voluntary basis. Together with those willing to be and take part in this process. To make the world a better place, one Greet at the time . . .

      NOT for the money,not to please big cities and their marketeers! ‘Just’to create a worldwide infrastructure for people around the world that want to meet.

      AND: I ask people to participate, not to stay on the sidelines, but to take action. Join and build this infrastructure together!


  11. Juliana says:

    We represent a small Belarusian town and our group of greeters is totally based on teachers and students. The idea of this international project is voluntarism, that’s why annual fees are not an issue! Moreover, it can alienate both – greeters and tourists. Why can’t small towns also have a say and be taken into consideration along with metropolitan cities? If we have not as many tourists as any big city, it doesn’t mean that we are of no importance. Can anyone imagine making students and teachers pay for their desire to do voluntary work and show their hometown in their own way? I can’t. In some weeks we’re planning to use this project for a kind of adaptation of some foreign students studying and living in our town who would like to be shown round. Perhaps in some months after our help they would like to become greeters as well. Should we ask them to pay for our excursion? It’s out of the question.

    • Jos says:

      Hi Juliana, what a great idea to show new students around. New and young(er) Greeters are very welcome!

      I fully agree with you and I hope it is clear the proposal of financing by making destinations pay a fee is ABSOLUTELY NOT MY IDEA!

      By the way, small towns will have a say in the voting – but since we have a second website destinations got confused and lost interest.
      Because of the complexity, the number of mails, the unclearness of the second website, etc.

      Now a small group of active cities (mainly big, western and whealthy) seem to be in charge of the important decisions just by voting. Only this inner circle is willing to vote. In the way some of their leaders ‘tell them to’ 🙁

  12. Greetings from Lugano,

    Let’s get back to the original concept of Greeters: it’s a free service offered by people willing to help visitors to discover their city/region in a different way. The goal is to freely promove reciprocal knowledge and friendship, allowing foreign people to better understand the local reality.

    As soon as you go away from these roots you are no more offering a Greeter service. So any proposal to introduce fees, to promote some major destinations respect to smaller or less touristic ones, or other similar proposal are just nonsense.

    Moreover, the Greeter network is a crossroad where people can find their way to any destination, exactly as Wikipedia does with all the articles. The day Wikipedia will promote some articles and let others in the shadow it won’t be any longer Wikipedia. In the same way a Greeter Network can’t focus only on some destination.

    If someone want to create a paying version of Greeters (but as already said it’s not in the Greeter spirit so it can’t be called like that) he’s free to do it. But I don’t see a very interesting potential in following such concept (paying to be volunter should not attract a lot of people). If the cost is charged on the visitors it’s just a classical touristic guide service which has nothing in common with Greeters.

    Conclusion: the Greeter concept is the one we actually know. It doesn’t mean that it can’t evolve but eventual changes have to respect the original ideal of equality, friendship and sustainability on a voluntary base.

    Thanks and good night (or day depending where you are and when you read this 🙂 )


  13. David says:

    Hi, I do not agree if there must be a contribution, it means that we are going against the basic principles of the concept which is not-for-profit.
    in addition this concept is born to develop tourism otherwise

  14. I do not have info of what are the ideas for the future, however regarding some of the points mentioned above, Mendoza is just starting and since we do not charge visitors nor receive tips we do not have an income to pay an annual fee. I entered this project to help tourists to get the best of their visit because I love Mendoza and want foreign visitors to take home the best of it.

    Regarding the web, each city has different things to offer to different people, I think visitors think of interesting or not interesting cities, Usuahia is not a big city, but is very interesting for tourists.

    • Jos says:

      Hi Javier, I totally agree with you, an annual fee should not be mandatory!
      When a fee has to be paid local Greeter organizations will HAVE to ask for donations to ‘survive’. This will surely damage the Greeter concept at its’ roots!
      And there will always be questions about responsibility, accountability, ‘who signs the checks for what?’, etc.
      With only a select group – often ‘rich’ destinations – in charge this could well be the near future.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


Reload Image