Annex rules proposals

[Bill Glaze]

Eric: Please believe me when I say this isn't an attack on you, or
anybody, for that matter.  As far as being "stirred up",  let me say as
one who has been down this same road a couple of years ago, it is
difficult not to get perturbed when I see similar dilatory tactics being
exercised.
As has been pointed out, a personal submittal *should* carry as much
weight as one submitted by a SIG.  I don't believe it for one minute,
but that's just my opinion.
To get to one of the things I find disturbing, I didn't, and still
don't, understand, just why, (considering AMA  *must* know Ron's status
with NSRCA,) they didn't give him the courtesy of a telephone call to
inform him of the subject "irregularities" in his proposal.  Above and
beyond that, I also find it difficult to believe that they couldn't
define the "gist" of what was trying to be accomplished here.  I have no
recourse but to believe that they in fact did know what was trying to be
accomplished, and didn't want any part of it. ("Ignore it and maybe
it'll go away.")
Again, the proposal submitted by Ron was, in substance, similar to the
one we submitted with IMAC.  And, further, it (our proposal) might still
be sitting on a desk in Muncie, except for a fortunate situation that
came to light, to wit: it had been sitting and not acted on for some two
months.
There must be SOME way to elicit timely cooperation.

Bill Glaze

"Henderson,Eric" wrote:

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henderson,Eric
> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 12:11 PM
> To: 'discussion at nsrca.org'
> Subject: Annex rules proposals
>
> Before you all "go off!" on could ask you all to take a moment to read
> the following I spoke with the AMA on this subject.Please bear in mind
> that this was submitted as a private proposal and not an NSRCA
> proposal. The NSRCA survey asked the questions to help Ron with this
> proposal but the AMA needs a lot more in the actual proposal to
> persuade it to .change.
>
> The primary reason for the rejection of Ron's proposal was that the
> proposal was incomplete. In particular it did not appear
> to address the following:-
>
> - Schedule design process (we need a system like the exercise that
> Troy did for example)
>
> - Selection of schedule - (K-factor Ballot for example)
>
> - Approval process - ( A big issue - who should have this power?)
>
> - Cycle of change that would be applied (Needs to be very clear)
>
> - Which classes would be targeted ( 401-403 stability versus Masters
> need for refreshing of interest)
>
> - Role of AMA Contest board  - (This is a big deal for all of us to
> consider)
>
> - Annex document printing and management. (Who does this, who
> maintains it, and on what cycle and at what cost?)
>
> The proposal also needs to have compelling logic to persuade and
> achieve change. For IMAC they had the need to mirror IAC scale model
> emulation.
>
> My advice is that we should not focus on how hard it may or may not
> have been to get the AMA to change.  To put it in perspective we have
> done very well with our proposals in the last few years. We lost one
> in preliminary review and one maneuver.
>
> We really should focus on what we are trying to fix.To make a change
> of this nature you need to have a reason that would repair a problem,
> cause a positive change  in attendance at contests etc. Just the fact
> that we want to do this is not enough - never has been enough!
>
> Steve Kaluf took it to the AMA board because he was not comfortable
> with it for the above reasons.
>
> I would suggest that it was not a good approach to get the discussion
> list all stirred up with this item. It does not work well when you
> put ANY person or organization in a corner. A better approach would be
> to rewrite the proposal with all of the above issues addressed. Put it
> out for an NSRCA (NSRCA members who are AMA members) full vote. Then
> we can go to the AMA with something that we have voted on, worked on
> as a group, and justified with a much better  democratically and
> supported proposal.
>
> The AMA invitation BTW basically is to resubmit with all of the above
> questions addressed.
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20021209/5ec20579/attachment.html