[SPAM] Re: Annex proposal - development

Bill Glaze billglaze at triad.rr.com
Wed Jan 5 16:10:27 AKST 2005 

gentlemen:
I believe you are really on to something here; a complete organization 
that can, by action proof, handle it's own affairs will require much 
less "supervision" than if it is perceived as being inconsistent.  I 
don't feel that the organization has been ill-served by it's leadership; 
quite the opposite, in fact.  I believe we've been very fortunate to 
have those folks whose names have been at the top of the letterhead.
But, I believe it's time to take a look at what's been mentioned here in 
a new context; one of proving our ability to handle all things 
"in-house"  Good thinking.

Bill Glaze

rcaerobob at cox.net wrote:

>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.
>
>
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050106/74f27424/attachment.html

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list