Annex rules proposals

[Ron Van Putte]

The bottom line in all the comments about 'lack of detail' is that the 
AMA is unwilling to grant NSRCA the privilege of writing and publishing 
maneuver descriptions and maneuver schedules (that IMAC already has) 
without an approval process by the AMA R/C Aerobatics contest board 
(IMAC doesn't).  We can submit a revised proposal with excrutiating 
detail, but it will not pass unless the contest board has approval 
authority.  I am not willing to do that.

Ron Van Putte


s.vannostrand at kodak.com wrote:
> 
> The energy on this topic is super valuable.  Both James and Emory's 
> letters are well written and persuasive.  But I'm afraid we have done a 
> super job of stating our intent without backing it up with the detail 
> that the AMA asked for.  Eric H posted the reasons for Ron's proposal 
> rejection.  The AMA clearly doesn't want a proposal of ideas, like put 
> the sequences in an annex.  They want the idea backed up with a 
> procedure, like timelines for how new sequences are adopted, how 
> published, who runs the process, etc.  
> 
> I had sent my comments on this including my proposal for a controlled 
> process to Ron during his review cycle.  He had said at the time he 
> would include these process details in the proposal, but they didn't 
> make it in.  I understand the AMA's position.  I participate in some of 
> my company's regulatory and operating procedures committees and I 
> understand how these bodies work.  They don't want to be held 
> responsible for a process that falls apart and they don't want to be 
> left with the job of implementing someone else's idea.  
> 
> If we want control over this we need to rework our proposal.  Ron and 
> Eric (still NSRCA officers for the next 21 days) have talked with AMA 
> officials and should be able to specifically define the AMA's "review 
> comments".  We must make proposal updates and resubmit.  Maybe even run 
> a draft by Dave Brown before we officially submit to make sure we hit on 
> all buttons.  Since Ron and Eric have most of the feedback, then maybe 
> one of them could distribute the original proposal and a list of 
> specific changes that are needed.  We could divide up the re-work or 
> have one editor make a new proposal.  This is how it works in the real 
> world.
> 
> --Lance


=====================================
# To be removed from this list, send a message to 
# discussion-request at nsrca.org
# and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
#