Annex proposal - development

rcaerobob at cox.net rcaerobob at cox.net
Wed Jan 5 07:33:42 AKST 2005 

I have to agree.... my thoughts have been along similar lines since the last Annex effort was made.  My belief- based only on understanding organizations - is that the AMA leaders may be more easily persuaded if they can CLEARLY see that WE (the Pattern Community - NSRCA and NON-NSRCA alike) have a structured, consistent process to ferret out sequence changes, etc.

Consistent, repeatable processes are key to keeping everyone on the same page, also.

I REALLY believe a LOT could be done by us defining and organizing our processes a bit;  providing known structure builds trust and confidence in the process.

Bob Pastorello
> 
> From: "Grow Pattern" <pattern4u at comcast.net>
> Date: 2005/01/05 Wed AM 11:16:06 EST
> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> Subject: Annex proposal - development
> 
> If we could ever get away from the lost cause of trying to wrest control 
> away from the AMA, we could perhaps get to the real need to have a schedule 
> development system with an annex of maneuvers, a hand picked team of 
> schedule designers, a test process, a review process and an NSRCA members 
> poll.
> 
> I hate re-inventing the wheel when a clearly defined NSRCA process would 
> show the AMA we can do the job as the pattern society. The emphasis is on a 
> clearly defined process, not "This is what we did last time" etc. if it is 
> clearly defined then the pattern community can join in.
> 
> Annex processes include items such as adding and subtracting maneuvers, 
> rating them - K-factors. Standards, or better still just guidelines, for the 
> mix of maneuvers in a schedule. Total K-factors are a good start but we are 
> primitive at best in the way we set about this stuff. Especially when it is 
> core to the sport!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Eric.
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 10:14 AM
> Subject: RE: Annex proposal
> 
> 
> Ron,
> 
> 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 gaurantee it will be 
> accepted...putting us out another 2 years before we can try again.
> 
> -Mark
> 
> 
> -----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.
> 
> 

Bob Pastorello, El Reno, OK, USA
rcaerobob at cox.net
www.rcaerobats.net

=================================================
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.

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list