Annex proposal - development

Lance Van Nostrand patterndude at comcast.net
Wed Jan 5 17:58:09 AKST 2005 

I agree, Eric.  A process, cleanly executed, can be improved if it is not 
right objectively.  There's really two parts to this.  Authoring a draft and 
turning the draft(s) into a final agreement.  I suggest any number of people 
could submit draft sets where each set is 4 sequences that cover all 
classes.  Drafts would be published somewhere (KF or web) and open for 
comment to the author.  Author would consider input and make final proposal 
or withdraw.  We all vote on the final proposals.  If the top vote getters 
are too close then have a runoff.  Sounds complicated but Domino.doc handles 
this automatically for us at work.  This is not too different from any 
standards body process.
We have only until September to submit a final change request.  Shouldn't we 
shoot for final voting at the Nats?  If so, then I don't think we can wait 
until March to start working on this.  If anyone wants to comment on the 
process outlined above, please do.  I can refine it before presenting it to 
the board.

--Lance

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Grow Pattern" <pattern4u at comcast.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 10:16 AM
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.
> 

=================================================
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