[NSRCA-discussion] 2M Monolog - Ordered
Jim Quinn
jaqfly at prodigy.net
Thu Dec 13 07:52:05 AKST 2012
Hi Larry,
Welcome back!
I'm glad you're flying again.
I'm sure, with a little bit of learnng, you'll enjoy the electric setup!
Jim Quinn
________________________________
From: Larry Diamond <ldiamond at diamondrc.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thu, December 13, 2012 11:10:20 AM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] 2M Monolog - Ordered
OK, it's official... New Plane, New to Electric, I'm ready to get back into
Pattern...
For those who are currently flying Intermediate in D4 - Don't worry about me,
I'm in the bottom half of the class...
To those that will judge in D4 - Bring your hard hats
For those that remember, I may bring back the Weedon Manuever in his honor....
Larry Diamond
NSRCA 3083
From: "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest board - Was Executive Board voting
I completely agree this is a good dialog. And thank you for the kind words.
Regarding the USA Team, everyone will be hearing a LOT from me soon. We're
trying to raise a TON of money ($60,000) to cover this next WC's in South Africa
and it's going to take big effort.
Back to the topic at hand....
There may be a disconnect or misunderstanding regarding the AMA's safety stance
than what I think we've communicated. They're not pushing the safety guidelines
to the Sigs, unless it's something specific TO the SIG. Electric motor safety
for Pattern is no different that electric motor safety throughout the AMA. When
we asked the AMA if they were considering any sort of "Arming" requirements for
general aircraft , or aircraft over a certain size/power rating, we were told
no. When I spoke to Greg Hahn specifically about it (this was quite a while
back) he stated that while the AMA wanted to endorse good procedures, creating
rules of that nature around such a rapidly evolving technology had all sorts of
negative implications. Everything from hampering the evolution of the
technology (no clue how ESC and other possible safeguards might evolve) as well
as liability issues TO MEMBERS when the safety rules aren't followed or
enforced. Sometimes general guidelines are our friend.
As for rules without consequences... you'll find virtually unanimous support
from the CB on that subject. If there's no defined result, it's merely a
guideline, or a suggestion. Not a rule. Yes, some exist like that, but they
predate the existing board. This is a fairly new litmus test for the board and
admittedly I'm strongly in favor of it (I actually think Verne is a champion of
it as well, we both joined the CB around the same time). It's something we're
actively trying to change. It would be great if the NSRCA came out with a
guideline and procedure manual. Something that spoke to all of the issues that
we care about, but don't plan to mandate. When ever we see a "RULE"... the
first thought that goes through my head is "How will we handle the protest at
the nats...". Let's be honest. ALL of our rules are only guidelines at the
local level. It's the Nats where we have to deal with enforcement and protests.
One concern we all have (CB that is) regarding communication is only hearing
from the vocal minority. There are many that simply want to follow the rules,
not necessarily alter them in any way. (Set safety issues aside for the time
being). I'm talking about rules like weight, advancement, noise, etc.
Contrary to popular belief, most are NOT on this list, and even those that are,
most don't post. Yet their opinion as stated earlier, counts equally. When I
solicit feedback at a contest, and the vast majority simply voice that they
don't need, or desire a change, that weighs heavily against the outspoken few
who rally on all the forums.
How to do a better job of communicating back and forth I don't know. My email
is pretty well out there. I'm not sure everyone is open for that though.
-M
Mark Atwood
Paragon Consulting, Inc. | President
5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
Phone: 440.684.3101 x102 | Fax: 440.684.3102
mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com> |
www.paragon-inc.com<http://www.paragon-inc.com/>
On Dec 13, 2012, at 9:38 AM, Scott McHarg wrote:
Mark and John,
First of all, I personally want to thank you for stepping up to the fire
blaster and communicating with us. Believe me, I know what it feels like.
Mark, after all of the communication and survey (flawed as it was in some eyes),
it was clear that no one wanted the arming plug but agreed with the idea behind
the proposal. That's why the proposed one was changed to mirror the FAI rule.
That one didn't even make the preliminary vote and the one we requested be
trashed was accepted. Your arguments also are the same as others and the reason
why we changed it. I also understand your point about be specific and generic
at the same time but I do not believe that everything has to have a penalty. If
it ain't right, just make it so and be done with it. If a competitor doesn't
disarm the plane, ask him to do so. You don't have to spank the person with a
penalty every single time.
Like John Gayer said concerning Telemetry, there is no penalty in the current
rules which y'all approved so why now does there have to be one in order to get
it passed. Likewise, if this was the whole problem to this proposal or any of
them, why didn't y'all just let us know so we could fix it? John Fuqua says
that AMA doesn't want to blanket the entire AMA community with a rule for
electrics concerning safety and wants the SIGs to do it yet ya'll who are OUR
rule makers for our SIG say it's not your responsibility. This is certainly an
issue.
This type of communication that we are having right here is extremely healthy
and, in my opinion, the exact conversations that should have been happening
during the process instead of after. Again, I appreciate you and John taking
the time to hash this out. For me, my frustrations are subsided knowing we can
talk about this. Thank you for that.
On a tangent, I would like everyone to pay close attention to the Kfactor this
year. Mark Atwood is writing a monthly column for the Kfactor. Mark is the
Team Manager for our Team USA F3A World Team. I think you'll like what he's
doing as each month, he is giving a bio of each competitor. Things will
progress from there. I am truly looking forward to this column. Sorry to stray
but I think it's important to realize how much he does for our hobby as well as
put his feet to the coals. :)
Scott
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Atwood, Mark
<atwoodm at paragon-inc.com<mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>> wrote:
I want to be clear that I'm speaking for my view, not neccessarily the entire CB
(though I know of at least a few that share my view). No one objects to the
idea of better safety. What's objectionable to many, is making a rule that will
either be unenforced, unevenly enforced, or punitively enforced. The idea of
being able to see a visible disconnection from the batteries (and no, an arming
plug does not provide that) at all times would clearly fall into that camp. The
first person at the nats that sets his canopy on his plane to prevent it from
blowing away and IS disqualified...or ISN'T disqualified...creates a problem.
If we don't prevent them from flying, then there's no point in having the rule.
If we do prevent them from flying, we've really broken the intent. And I
completely understand that there should be some common sense in all of this.
But our group isn't so good about common sense when we start picking apart the
letter of the rule in a protest. Just ask any former Nats CD.
The idea of great safety procedures and habits should more likely be outlined as
guidelines, strong recommendations, peer pressure to comply, etc. That, or we
need a more cleanly crafted rule that doesn't get someone disqualified for
covering their airplane with a white (opague) cloth to keep it cool in the
summer, thereby preventing me from seeing if there are connected batteries to
the motor.
Mark Atwood
Paragon Consulting, Inc. | President
5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
Phone: 440.684.3101 x102<tel:440.684.3101%20x102> | Fax:
440.684.3102<tel:440.684.3102>
mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com><mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>>
|
www.paragon-inc.com<http://www.paragon-inc.com/><http://www.paragon-inc.com/>
On Dec 13, 2012, at 12:28 AM, John Gayer wrote:
Mark,
on telemetry you mean a simple statement like this in our proposal:
Any form of automatic flight control loop that utilizes aircraft flight
parameter feedback whether onboard the model or through the transmitter is
prohibited. Telemetry or feedback mechanisms intended for use as safety
functions may not be used to create an unfair advantage over other competitors.
Not sure how you can find loopholes in that second statement.
There were no enforcement penalties listed in the original equipment rule
either. We were proposing only to clarify what telemetry could be allowed from a
safety POV. As it stands without revision, everyone who walks to the line with
equipment that downloads and monitors/alarms on airborne battery voltage is in
violation of the rule. Fortunately, there doesn't appear to a penalty for that
in the current rule.
The impression I am getting from both you and John is that the CB tries to find
reasons to reject proposals on technicalities rather than embrace the intent of
a proposal and find ways using their experience with the rules and
communications with the proposers to make the proposals work. Of course if the
intent is rejected as it appears it was with the weight proposal, then a
rejection is clear and easily understood.
I'm a bit confused by what you are saying about the safety rules. Most radios
these days support failsafe. The rule proposed does not apply if there is no
failsafe available. Size of plane is irrelevant if the radio supports the
function. I have also seen many smaller aircraft with arming plugs as well. I
would have to say that in this case, size does not matter.
About the formal statement writing, we have two CB members who care enough to
respond here. Leaning forward like that is often taken as volunteering.
John
If anyone wants to reference the proposals submitted, they can be found at:
http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/ruleproposals/rcaerobatics.aspx
On 12/12/2012 9:20 PM, Atwood, Mark wrote:
I'll add a touch more specific to a few of these.
Telemetry... Consensus was overwhelming that we need a SIMPLE rule, NOT a
technical one. DON'T CHEAT. Ok, sounds too ambiguous, but it's really not. We
all felt strongly (and came up with a several ways to cheat the details of the
proposed rule) that we need a rule based on intent, not on technical specifics
otherwise we'll be chasing our tail as the technology advances. Something that
simply says telemetry may not be used to aid the pilot in piloting the aircraft.
To John's point, any proposal that doesn't outline the penalty for breaking the
rule is almost immediately abandoned. Enforcement has to be both clear, and
reasonable from a logistical perspective.
Lastly, regarding the safety rules... we're not in a position to assume that
only 2 meter full blown pattern ships are the only planes competing unless we
plan to make that a rule too. So any rules have to apply to anything that fits
in the 2 meter box and weighs less than 5Kgs. The one proposal stated
specifically that there had to be a visible break in the connection from the
battery. That requires Canopies to be left off the aircraft (or Clear Canopies)
at all times. Not practical. Those were just some of the easy reasons to
vote no...there were other considerations as well that weighed against it.
I like the idea of a formal "opinion" statement from the majority. Not sure
who's burdened with writing it though.
Mark Atwood
Paragon Consulting, Inc. | President
5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
Phone: 440.684.3101 x102<tel:440.684.3101%20x102> | Fax:
440.684.3102<tel:440.684.3102>
mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com><mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>><mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>><mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>>
|
www.paragon-inc.com<http://www.paragon-inc.com/><http://www.paragon-inc.com/><http://www.paragon-inc.com/><http://www.paragon-inc.com/>
On Dec 12, 2012, at 7:29 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
Maybe I can offer some insight.
If a proposal says do something then there needs to be a penalty or clear result
that the CD can enforce. For example both safety proposal had no penalty/result
if not complied with. Also was concern that although there may be a visible
plug that does not ensure that the system is really disconnected. There was
concern about adding responsibility on the CD who may not be electric smart.
There is always concern that opened ended rules create confusion. If you will
remember the last cycle a lot of work went into defining specific downgrades
where to fore no penalty was assigned.
I did, in fact, contact the AMA Tech Director twice on the safety issues. AMA
has taken the position that they do not want to make a blanket rule for all
electric activity preferring to leave that to the SIGs to implement for their
specific circumstances.
On the telemetry issue there was a consensus that we do not have the technical
means to validate that TM is being used correctly. TM has great potential for
misuse. How does one enforce only battery monitoring for instance. I know
that the vast majority of folks do not cheat on the rules but I know for a fact
that it has happened. TM will come up again. Newer radios have it so it will
be a fact of life. Have no idea where we are headed.
Weight is always contentious but we had just implemented a weight change the
last cycle. I thinks the consensus was that some experience with the current
rule was warranted.
Advancement is also a contentious issue. But I guess the majority felt that
this proposal was no better than what exists.
We did have an initial vote and 3 failed. Then we had a cross proposals phase
and then a final vote. I would be happy to provide all vote results to NSRCA
along with why they failed (assuming I get that insight) and would have done so
this time if requested. My bad for not being more pro-active but having done
this for a long time with never a request I guess I did not see this coming.
AMA does post the results but admittedly they are not always timely.
John Fuqua
One last thought. Board members rarely get feedback on proposals. A lot of the
time we just have to do what our experiences tell is the right thing to do for
our sport.
From:
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>><mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>><mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>>
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>]
] On Behalf Of Scott McHarg
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:00 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest board - Was Executive Board voting
Mark and all CB members,
I really doubt that anyone is upset because the proposals got turned down.
The problem is in the lack of communication between the author (whether it be an
individual or committee). There was no report published as to what the issues
were, there was no communication between the author(s) and the CB, there was
simply nothing. I watched online daily to see what the results of the interim
vote was so that we could take corrective action as necessary. Those were never
published and to be honest, I'm not even sure there was an interim vote. I
spoke to a couple of CB members and I will not call out their names in public as
I do not want to point fingers. I was told that I would be hearing from the CB
as the process went on so that proposals that warranted improvement could be
massaged into a rule that made sense. So, I patiently waited along with the
rest of the folks. The next thing I know, all proposals are turned down with no
explanation and final votes have been cas
t.
I received a brief explanation of the thought process of one CB member right
before the final vote was to be taken (and I mean right before). It was his
opinion that he was expressing and I respect that but what was said was pretty
amazing to me. This person's words went something like "This is the start of a
great rule but not close to being one yet. It is not our job to help write the
rules, simply to vote on them and uphold the pattern community". I do not think
for one second this is how the entire CB feels and refreshed knowing this is not
the case. This simply tells me to submit what you have and we'll make the
decision. If it's good or if it's a good start, the CB has no obligation to
help get it there, that's the author's responsibility. Please understand, the
proposals didn't pass and that's OK. Maybe next time, we can all work together
to come up with proposals if they are warranted.
I am slightly distraught about the Advancement Proposal. This would have made
it so much easier for everyone to fly in the class that they were competitive in
and/or felt comfortable in. This did not change the pattern community and did
not warrant any extra work or duties, especially for the CD. There would not be
any more trophy hunting going on with it then there is now as most local events
are attended by the same individuals and we all know who is flying in what class
for the most part. OK, so it got turned down but why? What is the logic?
Honestly, that's what I want to understand more than anything. I definitely get
the weight proposal. I even get the "safety" proposal to some extent. This
one, the Advancement Proposal, I do not understand. If there were arguments or
heated discussions within the CB for those that supported it and those that
didn't, why wouldn't the author(s) be included in the communication to help
explain the intent of the proposal so th
at it c
ould be made clear?
As far as the safety proposal is concerned, I really do get why that shouldn't
be a pattern rule but, did the proposal get passed to the AMA Safety Committee?
If it did, great! Why didn't we know? I agree with some of y'all also that
sometimes it "seems" that safety procedures don't need a rule because most of us
are very careful and incorporate some safety device. In racing motorcycles, you
have to safety wire the majority of your bolts and nuts at all times.
Especially the oil drain plug. Imagine a drain plug backing out and hitting
turn 6 at 120 mph and a fellow competitor going through that. Trust me as I've
seen oil and coolant on the track and what happens, it's ugly. I do not agree,
however, that because most people are safety conscious and have something in
place, that a rule doesn't need to be made. Imagine that case in the example
above. The premise that most do it so it's OK is not the correct mindset. We
wrote and rewrote that proposal to give the majo
rity wh
at they wanted. People didn't want an arming plug to be required. Cool, we
said. Let's make it so that the requirement is just that the plane is
disarmed. Most loved the new proposal because it directly reflected the FAI
rule and it did not require any added equipment or weight or drilling holes in
the side of your plane. Not only did that proposal go down in flames but the
original proposal submitted by someone other than the NSRCA Rules Committee
requiring an arming plug passed the initial vote from the CB. How did this
happen after all the uproar?
It seems to me that it is easy to place blame on the NSRCA but ask to take the
AMA to task is a big no-no. We pay dues to the NSRCA and therefore we have a
voice! I agree 100%. But, we are also members of the AMA and should have a
voice there as well. We do not (or so it seems). This is what, if anything I
would like to accomplish as a volunteer of the NSRCA; to increase visibility of
our community and have wide open communication with our members and equally
important, with the AMA who really has the ultimate say-so in every facet of
this hobby. I want to know how to "fix it" for next time and have the true open
door policy where communication flows both ways. One group or the other should
not be required to make the first call. We should want to work together for the
betterment of our hobby.
Thank you for reading,
Scott
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Atwood, Mark
<atwoodm at paragon-inc.com<mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com><mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com<mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>><mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com<mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>><mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com<mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>>>
wrote:
OK, As a CB member I want to throw a few quick things out there. First and
foremost, Just like the NSRCA Board, we're a group of volunteers that love
modeling and Precision Aerobatics, and we do the best we can with fulfilling our
charter. If there are issues, mistakes, bad choices, GOOD choices, they are all
the result of a dedicated group TRYING to do their best. There is no hidden
agenda or malicious intent...ever.
That said I think one of the clear disconnects is our Charter. We are selected
to the contest board based on our years of experience in the hobby, the sport, a
demonstration of our understanding of the AMA and its rules, and an active
participation and understanding in the niche within which we are representing.
We have some obligation to preserve Pattern, as Pattern. I.e. if the ENTIRE
NSRCA membership voted unanimously to change the rules such that whom ever could
fly 10 laps the fastest wins... We would have an obligation to vote NO,
regardless of that unanimous support. I.e go fly Pylon. Occasionally we are
presented with rules that we collectively feel are not in the best interest of
maintaining Pattern competition and this then comes into play. This is
especially true when rules are put forth that strongly alter the lower classes
(Often championed by someone with heavy interest and enthusiasm, but minimal
years of experience to know how these things manifest).
We also have an obligation to the logistics of the sport. Rules that place an
unreasonable burden on running an event bare a much higher level of scrutiny
prior to being passed.
We have an obligation to the AMA to keep some consistency with their general
rules, and with similar rules in other disciplines. Safety issues fall squarely
into this camp. The AMA has long stated that they do not support legislating
out stupidity, or creating burdensome rules that punish the masses simply to
protect against carelessness (Unless of course the result of such error is
catastrophic).
Also regarding safety, if the safety issue is somewhat generic to the hobby,
then those regulations are pushed up to the AMA safety board for review unless
they are very specific to the individual discipline.
Bottom line... Just because the majority of the NSRCA wants it, doesn't mean we
should be approving it.
Lastly, the statement "The majority of the NSRCA" does NOT necessarily mean the
survey results. That is a VERY small subset of our group. It's typically a
subset of the vocal, or the opinionated, or both. I can't speak for the entire
CB, but I WILL speak for Verne (Sorry Verne) and me, in that we both query as
many of our district members that we see or can solicit. MANY times an issue
that has been fired up on the list or via the survey gets a very different
'vote' when it's discussed in the actual setting of a contest, and when all the
inputs are weighed (I.e. everyone standing there discusses it).
All that said, there's no reason why we couldn't collectively write an assenting
or dissenting opinion much in the way a court does, to at least convey the logic
that was used to make our vote.
Anyhow, the entire CB is online and our names are published. One need but
ask... and many do. But we're sometimes remiss to post too much on the
discussion boards about a proposal. Rather most of us take a back seat to the
discussion and simply listen.
-Mark
Mark Atwood
Paragon Consulting, Inc. | President
5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
Phone: 440.684.3101 x102<tel:440.684.3101%20x102><tel:440.684.3101%20x102> |
Fax: 440.684.3102<tel:440.684.3102><tel:440.684.3102<tel:440.684.3102>>
mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com><mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>><mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>><mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>><mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com><mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>><mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>>>
|
www.paragon-inc.com<http://www.paragon-inc.com/><http://www.paragon-inc.com/><http://www.paragon-inc.com/<http://www.paragon-inc.com/>><http://www.paragon-inc.com/><http://www.paragon-inc.com/><http://www.paragon-inc.com/>
On Dec 12, 2012, at 12:19 PM, J N Hiller wrote:
I'm not too old to remember what it was like before the NSRCA. If you traveled
very far you could find yourself competing in an unfamiliar event.
The NSRCA has matured since those early days and contributed greatly to
standardized judging, rule proposal screening and national unity. YES the NSRCA
has value well beyond the K-Factor.
Yes it would be nice to get the rest of the story from the AMA contest board as
to why safety related rules were voted down. Maybe I missed it but at this point
I can only guess. I could probably ask directly and get a reply but I trust they
had a valid reason.
I also trust our BOD to lead the NSRCA on my behalf without having to explain,
discuss or endlessly argue details in an open forum. Open discussed can be
extremely time consuming with limited productivity. There is no making everyone
happy especially if their' participation is hit and miss continuously requiring
covering old ground.
Those of us that wish to be involved in the details can get actively involved.
Enough. On to the shop!
Jim Hiller
NSRCA 376
.
-----Original Message-----
From:
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>><mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>><mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>><mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>><mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>>>
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>><mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>>]On
n Behalf Of Jon Lowe
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 7:33 AM
To:
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>><mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>><mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>><mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>><mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Executive Board voting
John,
I have never intentionally attacked anyone, either on this forum or on the
discussions over on RCU. I've asked questions, seeking answers. I tend to be
direct in my emails and they may appear to be harsh, probably comes from my
background dealing with the military. I have not accused anyone of having an
agenda, nor do I think anyone on the board does. If you or anyone else thinks
that is what I've implied or am implying, I'm sorry.
I think after seeing what you said here, seeing the complete NSRCA survey
results, and several private emails and phone calls, that there is a general
apathy in NSRCA which seems to have its roots in people questioning the
relevancy of the organization. If NSRCA is not relevant and doesn't provide
added value to the membership, we can turn the sequences back over to the AMA
and disband. I'd like to see NSRCA viewed as returning far more in value to the
membership than the few dollars they invest each year. A question we all need
to constantly ask ourselves is "If someone asks me why I should join the NSRCA,
what do I tell them?"
The K-Factor is a recurring theme in the survey and people I have talked to in
terms of value to the members. I would like to congratulate Scott McHarg and
the rest of the K-Factor crew on the December issue of the K-Factor. I everyone
reading this hasn't looked at it, it has a lot of how-to in it. Good job!
I didn't mean to imply that the AMA competition board should not have been much
more transparent during the rules proposal process. They should have been, and
that communication is one thing I'd work on to improve if elected. I am an
advocate of follow-up, follow-up, follow-up. And if we are going to ask others
to be transparent to us, then we need to walk the talk.
Again, sorry if I offended anyone. I was asking questions that I didn't see
anyone else asking, and I wanted to know the answers. I hope the membership
will see this continuing discussion as constructive, and offer their thoughts.
Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: John Gayer
<jgghome at comcast.net<mailto:jgghome at comcast.net><mailto:jgghome at comcast.net<mailto:jgghome at comcast.net>><mailto:jgghome at comcast.net<mailto:jgghome at comcast.net>><mailto:jgghome at comcast.net<mailto:jgghome at comcast.net>><mailto:jgghome at comcast.net<mailto:jgghome at comcast.net><mailto:jgghome at comcast.net<mailto:jgghome at comcast.net>><mailto:jgghome at comcast.net<mailto:jgghome at comcast.net>>>>
To: General pattern discussion
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>><mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>><mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>><mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>><mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>>>
Sent: Tue, Dec 11, 2012 11:16 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Executive Board voting
[quote]ORIGINAL: jonlowe
Transparency. I think the spilled milk has been discussed enough, from the AMA
rules change proposal process by the board, to the bylaws, to the aborted
officer election.
[/quote]
I certainly agree that there were processes that could have been improved
relative to the bylaw changes and officer election. However to call them aborted
and imply in various other posts that the board has a hidden agenda is over the
top. Clearly the board could have and should have done a better job on the
elections and, for that matter, the treasurer's audit but there was no intent to
hoodwink or put one over on the membership. We are nothing but a bunch of
volunteers with a love of pattern. When the call went out two years ago, noone
else stood up and said "I want to run for office". Various coercions were
applied to get Ed Alt to run for President and Scott McHarg to run for
Secretary.I will admit to calling Derek and asking if they had found a Treasurer
in mid-December. When he said yes, I thanked him and was about to hang up when
he said "you". Later that year Ed Alt resigned due to the press of work and Jim
Quinn who was then VP reluctantly assumed the reins of presid
ent. Go
od choice or not, there was noone else champing at the bit to take the job and
the board gratefully accepted Jim as president. I didn't see anyone jumping up
and down to get on the board at that time or, for that matter, now. Kind of
wonder where all the current contrarians were then. Jon, I guess you were still
recovering from your retirement so that excuses you but there are plenty of
others making derogatory comments about the actions of the current board. Where
are you when we need help? Apparently looking the other way. Right now John
Bruml has been trying to get out of being the Advertising Manager almost as long
as I’ve been on the board. Where are those clamoring to help out? Apparently
using their energies to bash those who did throw their hat in.
LOWE>>Oh, and about the Contest Board. Their process is well documented by the
AMA and follows a strict time table. We all had the opportunity to provide
inputs and cross proposals after the initial vote. We also had the opportunity
to talk to the CB members, and I did talk to a couple of them. The CB members
are mostly active members of the pattern community, are well known, and are
charted by the AMA, not the NSRCA, to look at rules proposals to benefit all AMA
participants, not just NSRCA members. Problems with the NSRCA proposals were
hashed out here, and the submitters had the opportunity to fix issues during the
cross proposal process. How much follow-up contact did the NSRCA board initiate
with the CB during the process? Were any cross proposals submitted?<<LOWE
Jon, this seems to have provided the impetus for your presidential campaign. I
can only say that the NSRCA Rules committee operated openly, if with a late
start, and solicited input from the membership on RCU and this list(and outside
the membership as well), ran a survey, modified proposals to meet objections and
finally submitted proposals to the contest board. More open you cannot get. I
find it fascinating that to you, the NSRCA board must be open and direct with
its membership(as it should) but when dealing with the contest board we are
expected to dig, pry and canvas the board members in an effort to find out how
our proposals are doing and what objections might have been raised. Why is the
same openness not required in both cases in your mind?? While it is clear in the
published process that cross-proposals could be submitted within a window, we
had no way of knowing which or what part of our proposals were causing
difficulty. There was no contact initiated by the cont
est boa
rd. Adding insult to injury, there was no “report out” published, listing the
pro and con votes by district and any discussed objections. As I have said
before, I have no more idea what it takes to get a proposal passed through the
CB then I did a year ago before the NSRCA rules committee formed. How do you
explain the dichotomy between your views of the contest board and the NSRCA
board?
Relative to the Nats, it is clear to everyone on the board that the Nats are in
the control of the AMA which has been true ever since NPAC went away. We, the
board, present a candidate to the AMA, who has always been accepted. After that
we lose any control. Although since I’ve been on the board, there have been
various problems at the Nats which many blame on the NSRCA not the AMA. Arch has
been good about keeping us in the loop but he makes it clear who he reports to.
He and previous EDs and the AMA staff have been great about providing logistic
support for the banquet, ice cream social, etc. However there is no question
about the ED having two bosses, AMA is it. The NSRCA is responsible for using
the funds collected by the AMA on our behalf to purchase the necessary scoring
equipment and paying the volunteer staff what we can. This is never enough to
even cover their expenses at the Nats much less travel.
John Gayer
NSRCA Treasurer
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
--
Scott A. McHarg
Sr. Systems Engineer - Infrastructure
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
--
Scott A. McHarg
Sr. Systems Engineer - Infrastructure
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20121213/aa4d51bb/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list