calling complete for new takeoff

[Atwood, Mark]

I'm too new to the process to know how that would be handled, but I for
one would certainly support anything that reinstated scored landings.  

 

Regarding the actual "Vote"...the FINAL voting forms do not contain
ANY...I mean ANY of the rational that is submitted for the rule...JUST
the text of the rule change. 

 

For new members of the contest board (Vern and I) it took a fair bit of
work calling different proposer's to understand the motivations of some.
(most are straight forward, but there were a few that seemed out of left
field.)

 

I would imagine in future votes, being part of the entire process will
help, but there will always be the chance of a new board member getting
into the game late and having to make decisions.

 

It was interesting to me that ALL of the IMAC rule change proposals came
from the sig...there were NO independent proposals to confuse things,
and I believe their changed passed with a clean slate.

 

-M

 

________________________________

From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]
On Behalf Of Grow Pattern
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 10:18 AM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: calling complete for new takeoff

 

Mark, 

         Your note really caught my attention.

 

I  have submitted many of the rules changes on behalf of the NSRCA. In
the section called Proposal logic, there is a reference to the NSRCA
survey result or the Precision Aerobatics SIG. I went and read some old
ones before I typed this and it is not very obvious until you get to
that section, where the proposal comes from. I think that this is
because the proposal is designed fro individual submission.

 

I know that we sent the NSRCA survey results in as well as the
proposals. We also put them in the K-Factor and on the web-site. But
this may well not be enough.

 

We can do better.

 

If fact Lamar already plans to have the results of the next NSRCA survey
broken down by AMA district so that AMA Contest Board members can see
how their districts voted on the proposals.

 

Based upon what you explained I now see that we should include the
results per proposal, very early in the text of the proposals to allow
board members to clearly see the source of the change request. I really
appreciate your candor because it helps us do a better job in the
future.

 

Regards,

 

Eric.

 

P.S.  I am reliably informed that Vern was not the only one who
misunderstood the English of the landing and take-off change and
unintentionally voted the wrong way. Maybe we can get the board to
re-vote on the subject due to the announced confusion? Or we could put
in a Urgent proposal to have them vote again?

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050517/21d2c6c5/attachment-0001.html