Annex proposal

[Atwood, Mark]

Well...Veto rights are a different thing.  I'm thinking it could be set up to allow "File in use" type policy.  This is where we "assume" passage, or non-veto, unless they say otherwise.  

It's a step in the right direction.  

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
[mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 10:27 AM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: Annex proposal



On Jan 5, 2005, at 9:14 AM, Atwood, Mark wrote:

> I would argue that with all the deadlines imposed by the AMA's rule 
> cycle, that their 2 year cycle is effectively a 4 year one.  It's 
> almost to the point that rules need to be submitted for the next cycle 
> before this one's even begun.
>
> While I agree that changes more than once every two years is not 
> really needed...the annex would give us a lot more time and freedom to 
> make changes more rapidly.  Also..it gives us much more certain 
> control.  As it sits now...if a sequence is submitted...there is no 
> guarantee it will be accepted...putting us out another 2 years before 
> we can try again.

Since the current system gives AMA control over sequences and an annex 
proposal, which gives AMA control over sequences, would do the same 
thing, I fail to see the difference.

Ron Van Putte


> -----Original Message-----
> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 10:02 AM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: Annex proposal
>
>
>
> On Jan 5, 2005, at 8:37 AM, randy10926 at comcast.net wrote:
>
>> maybe it's time to dust it off and re-submit it.  Maybe more contest
>> board members will attend and vote.  It sounds like a good idea to try
>> and rework this before all the scedules are submitted.
>
> My original plan for the annex proposal was for NSRCA to have control
> over an annex containing the maneuver descriptions and maneuver
> schedules, so that we could change maneuver schedules when we wanted to
> and not be limited by AMAs three-year rule change cycle.  AMA refused
> to even accept that proposal and, consequently, did not allow the
> contest board to vote on it.  The second proposal gave AMA veto power
> over the maneuvers and maneuver schedules.  It failed because a contest
> board member, who would have voted YES, forgot to vote in time.
>
> Then AMA announced they were going to a two-year rules cycle, obviating
> one of the reasons for the annex proposal.  Since it's unlikely that
> we'd want to change maneuver schedules every year, AMA's rule change
> cycle change gave us a lot of what we wanted with the annex system
> except control over them.  Since AMA is unlikely to relinquish control
> over the maneuver schedules, submission of a new annex proposal
> wouldn't give us much we don't already have.
>
> Ron Van Putte
>
>> -------------- Original message --------------
>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 5, 2005, at 6:45 AM, Joe Lachowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> It might have passed if it was written and ironed out before the
>>>> proposal was submitted. It probably would have had a much better
>>>> chance. The competition board would have at least had something to
>>>> work with in making their decision.
>>>
>>> That's not true. The only way AMA would have accepted an annex
>>> proposal was if AMA had veto power over the maneuver schedules. The
>>> original proposal did not have that. The second proposal did give
>> AMA
>>> veto power, but didn't pass because one contest board member didn't
>>> vote.
>>>
>>> Ron Van Putte
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> From: "Del Rykert"
>>>>> Reply-To: discussion at nsrca.org
>>>>> To:
>>>>> Subject: Re: Annex proposal
>>>>> Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 06:07:35 -0500
>>>>>
>>>>> It was tried to implement but shot down Terry.
>>>>>
>>>>> del
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Terry Brox
>>>>> To: discussion at nsrca.org
>>>>> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 9:44 PM
>>>>> Subject: Annex proposal
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the real or perceived problem with the Annex system. I am
>>>>> not an IMAC flier, but it looks like it works well for them.
>>>>> I don't want to start a war here, but I am not sure why one would
>>>>> have a problem with a system that could help alleviate the
>> problems
>>>>> associated with our current system. Lets hear both sides.
>>>>> Respectfully Terry Brox
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> =================================================
>>>> To access the email archives for this list, go to
>>>> http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
>>>> To be removed from this list, go to
>>>> http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
>>>> and follow the instructions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> =================================================
>>> To access the email archives for this list, go to
>>> http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
>>> To be removed from this list, go to
>> http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
>>> and follow the instructions.
>>>
>
> ================To access the email archives for this list, go to
> http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
> To be removed from this list, go to 
> http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
> and follow the instructions.
>
> ================================================To access the email 
> archives for this list, go to
> http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
> To be removed from this list, go to 
> http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
> and follow the instructions.
>

================To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.

To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.