[NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA candidate rules proposal survey is available

Sat Feb 11 14:13:54 AKST 2012

It is important, due to the way the survey was presented.  The language in the 
explanation states that the board is for the proposals.  It does not limit their 
support to the fact that the committee is doing things.  This tends to place a 
lot more legitimacy to these proposals than actually exsist.  Without seeing the 
views of our board we are expected to accept as fact that the board approves of 
these proposals.  I would strongly doubt that is the case. 

Dan

________________________________
From: Peter Vogel <vogel.peter at gmail.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Cc: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sat, February 11, 2012 4:58:44 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA candidate rules proposal survey is 
available

I fail to see why the board's opinion on the rules proposals as written is 
relevant.  They are doing what I would expect the board of an org like outs to 
do:  asking the membership for their opinions on the proposals.  

The only thing I would have liked to see was a fourth option on the survey 
questions:  ' I would support this proposal with modifications:  ' with a text 
field for verbatim feedback on the modifications. 

Peter+

Sent from my iPhone4S

On Feb 11, 2012, at 12:57 PM, Dan Curtis <warrior523 at att.net> wrote:

That is not what is written in the introduction.  I would like to see each board 
member answer the question on this membership list, are they for it as it is 
stated or are they for the process in general?
>
>Dan
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com>
>To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Sent: Sat, February 11, 2012 2:49:29 PM
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA candidate rules proposal survey is 
>available
>
>Dan,
>   I guess you'd have to ask each individual member of the BoD.  I can tell you 
>that prior to finalizing what you see as a candidate proposal, we presented 
>where we were and what we were working on to the BoD in a telephonic meeting.  
>Although they did not have the proposals in their hand, each proposal was 
>explained and the floor was open for discussion.  Not one single person said 
>something to the contrary other than they felt we were doing a good job and we 
>were on the right track.  That says to me that we were pursuing what was asked 
>of us.  The survey will then tell us if our community feels the same.
>
>Scott
>
>
>On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Dan Curtis <warrior523 at att.net> wrote:
>
>As I asked in the previous post, does the current board feel that these 
>proposals are valid and good for the pattern community.  This is what is states 
>in the survey introduction and is this a fact?
>>
>>The survey could have also had a question asking if the membership or the 
>>community feels that any changes are needed at this point and time.
>>
>>This survey, with its introduction statement, seems to show a bit of 
>>predispostion.  
>>
>>
>>Dan
>>
>>
>>
>>
________________________________
From: Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com>
>>To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>Sent: Sat, February 11, 2012 2:29:53 PM 
>>
>>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA candidate rules proposal survey is 
>>available
>>
>>
>>Gentlemen,
>>   As you can see from the forums, everyone of us has our own opinion.  The BoD 
>>asked us to make "proposals".  These are not "the rules" nor are they set in 
>>stone.  We came up with said proposals based on input from individuals who took 
>>the time to email, phone and post their requests.  The survey is doing exactly 
>>what it was meant to do, get everyone's opinion based on what we laid out 
>>there.  If you don't like it, that's fine.  This is simply a starting point.  
>>The results of the survey will tell us whether we are on, off or close to what 
>>our community wants.  Once the survey finishes, the results will be taken back 
>>and, if needed, proposals amended.  I'd suggest that the results will indicate 
>>what percentile are in favor of vs. those that are against.  I don't think any 
>>of you would expect everyone that flies pattern to get in a room and try to 
>>formulate proposals based on every single opinion in that room.  That would be a 
>>nightmare.
>>   The Board of Directors recognize that change is a possibility but not 
>>necessarily warranted in all cases.  Again, that would be the purpose of the 
>>focus group to try to get something done and out there for the community to 
>>weigh in on.  At that point, the amended proposals are then taken to the BoD for 
>>endorsement and then to the AMA Rules Committee which, in reality, is the group 
>>that must find out if these proposals are realistic and what the community 
>>wants.  AMA owns precision aerobatics, not the NSRCA and the NSRCA does not make 
>>the rules.  The 5500g rule came from other development classes that  are around 
>>the world i.e. France and South Africa who have implemented said changes to 
>>their development classes.  MAYBE the number is off to an extent.  MAYBE we 
>>don't need that kind of increase.  I guess that's what the survey will tell us.  
>>I'd suggest telling all that you know to get out there and take the survey if 
>>you feel strongly about something.  This is how we begin the process.
>>
>>Scott
>>
>>
>>On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Vicente "Vince" Bortone <vicenterc at comcast.net> 
>>wrote:
>>
>>So is this a second survey?  I remember one few months ago and didn't have those 
>>proposals.  I am confused now.
>>>
>>>Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: Dan Curtis &lt;warrior523 at att.net&gt;
>>>To: General pattern discussion &lt;nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org&gt;
>>>Sent: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 19:17:53 -0000 (UTC)
>>>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA candidate rules proposal survey is 
>>>available
>>>I was re-reading the post about the survey and am really having a problem 
with
>>>the 4th paragraph.  It says:
>>>The NSRCA BoD encourages your support in responding to the survey as the 
>>changes
>>>are believed to be appropriate for the continued growth and sustainment of 
AMA
>>>pattern. 
>>> 
>>>Is this actually saying that our board of directors is for the changes stated 
>>in
>>>the survey.  This is really hard to believe and even harder to fathom.
>>> 
>>>Where did these "candidate rule proposals" come from?  Why the 5500 gram 
>weight
>>>rule?  Where did that one come from?  This whole thing seems strange and my
>>>goodness how many times have some of these isssues been hashed before?
>>> 
>>>Dan Curtis
>>>________________________________
>>>From: Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com>
>>>To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>Sent: Fri, February 10, 2012 12:24:44 PM
>>>Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA candidate rules proposal survey is 
available
>>>The NSRCA Board of Directors (BoD), in consideration of NSRCA bylaws 
>indicating
>>>that the NSRCA should take responsibility for making a consensus statement to
>>>the AMA Rules Committee on rules pertaining to Radio Control Aerobatics, has
>>>convened a Rules Proposal Committee.  The purpose of this committee is to
>>>prepare candidate rule proposals for endorsement by the NSRCA BoD.  The
>>>committee is chaired by Scott McHarg and its members include Jon Carter, John
>>>Gayer, Michael McEvilley, and Rick Sweeney.
>>> 
>>>The NSRCA BoD requested the rules committee to craft proposals with a focus 
on
>>>safety and contestant participation concerns.  The rules committee was 
further
>>>requested to craft proposals in consideration of the varying and oftentimes
>>>conflicting opinions of the individuals that comprise the AMA pattern 
>>community,
>>>while recognizing that change is warranted. In response to NSRCA BoD 
>direction,
>>>the rules committee has developed four (4) candidate proposals for 
endorsement
>>>by the NSRCA BoD.
>>> 
>>>In the spirit reflected by the direction of the NSRCA BoD, this survey is
>>>offered to provide the AMA pattern community the opportunity to review,
>>>consider, and provide feedback by supporting or not supporting each of the
>>>candidate proposals to the NSRCA BoD.  This survey is not a vote; it is only 
a
>>>means for the NSRCA BoD to gather information to be used in making their 
final
>>>determination of those proposals to be endorsed by the NSRCA.
>>> 
>>>The NSRCA BoD encourages your support in responding to the survey as the 
>>changes
>>>are believed to be appropriate for the continued growth and sustainment of 
AMA
>>>pattern. 
>>> 
>>>Finally, it should be understood that individual AMA members are free to 
>submit
>>>commentary on these proposals to the AMA Contest Board, and are also able to
>>>submit individual proposals on the same topics as those endorsed by the NSRCA
>>>BoD.
>>> This survey will be available until midnight March 1, 2012 and may be taken
>>>only once.  The survey is available at www.nsrca.us and you must be 
registered
>>>with the website and logged in but being a current member is NOT required. 
>>>Thank you for your understanding and participation in this rules proposal
>>>survey.
>>>--
>>>Scott A. McHarg
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>Scott A. McHarg
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Scott A. McHarg
>
>
_______________________________________________
>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/20120211/6a24c62e/attachment.html>