[NSRCA-discussion] Proposals Survey
John Gayer
jgghome at comcast.net
Sat Feb 18 06:47:07 AKST 2012
Del,
There is no way to create a survey that would please everyone. It was
put together quickly in order to get it out there in front of you. Could
it have been done better? Yes, probably. However, it is always possible
to contact any member of the committee or the board directly if you have
constructive comments or reasoned arguments on either the proposals or
the approach taken to present the proposals.
The problem I have, and responded to, is with the attitude that because
I don't agree with a position, that I must be a liar and a cheat who is
prepared to do anything to promote an agenda. These kind of unfounded
personal attacks have no place in the hobby. Dan was not the first, nor
probably the last, to use this approach. It will not work.
John
On 2/18/2012 7:58 AM, Del wrote:
> *Not that Dan needs defending ~~ in the past the rules survey's that
> were presented to the members at large have not in every case been
> followed with the majority of votes. None of those people are
> currently in office but once that occurs it does taint the office for
> some in the community for life. Is that fair or reasonable.. Of course
> not but it is real and it does happen for some. The survey's could
> always be better presented with options that aren't even up for choice
> in many surveys. Which forces people into answering against their true
> honest feelings some times in order to contribute something in hopes
> of solution and resolution to the survey. Better to have a survey
> than not have one at all. But in all fairness to the masses some
> leeway with their allowing write ins or at least more choices to get
> the best grasp of what is truly acceptable to the majority. It not be
> easy to create a fair and balanced survey with some hot potatoes (
> weight being one e.g.. ) Use the rational that something would be
> safer if more weight was allowed shows a bias that something is unsafe
> because of being forced to meet a limit. If others are doing it safely
> either they have deeper pockets or a bigger imagination. I have never
> found as a group a more safer bunch of fliers I don't feel nervous
> around that precision pattern pilots. Their have been few and rare
> exceptions but they were one timers at local events. *
> **
> * Del*
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* John Gayer <mailto:jgghome at comcast.net>
> *To:* General pattern discussion
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 18, 2012 1:21 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposals Survey
>
> Dan,
>
> It's really not clear to me what your problem is. At least the
> appearance is that you do not trust the BOD to provide you with
> honest leadership. There are three members out of five on the
> rules committee that are current members of the BOD. This is a
> hard-working committee that has shown itself capable of
> compromise and turned these proposals around very quickly. It is
> one thing for you to disagree vehemently with the committee and
> another to accuse the members of lying, hidden agendas and
> falsifying surveys. Apparently "volunteer" is also a dirty word
> but the NSRCA would not function without them. If this is all true
> than I'm wasting my time with this post as I must be part of the
> problem. Scott has been an honest and open leader of the
> committee. He has the full support of the committee and the board.
> Having a survey to obtain input from the membership and the
> pattern community as a whole was Scott's idea. The raw survey data
> is not modifiable by Scott. He can access it for results and that
> is all. To suggest that he or anyone else on the committee would
> falsify results is very insulting.
>
> The rules committee is operating at the direction of the board.
> The board members were presented with the four topics that have
> evolved as rule change proposals. The board was presented with the
> original outline in January that led to the formation of a
> committee and has also been presented with the current versions of
> the proposals prior to the survey. I'm sure many of the board
> members have also seen the vitriol poured on the committee by a
> few online. All I have received from the board at this point are
> words of encouragement.
>
> This does not mean that all the proposals as presented by the
> committee will get a rubber stamp of approval from the board. The
> committee expects further modification or possible dismissal of
> proposals based on the survey and opinions/amendments/votes of
> board members. No matter whether the proposals are passed as is,
> modified or dropped, there will be some unhappy folks on the
> board, the committee and the pattern community as there are
> supporters and detractors for all the proposals.
>
> I have always thought that all those great pattern folks I have
> met around the country and the world are capable of civil
> discourse, amiable disagreement and serious compromise when it
> comes to matters like these. What I have seen online about these
> four proposals and the imputed ethics of the committee members
> has shaken my faith. It has not, however, shaken my desire to see
> this task through to the end.
>
> John Gayer
> NSRCA Treasurer
> Rules Committee member
>
> On 2/17/2012 8:52 PM, Dan Curtis wrote:
>> Okay, that is it! I asked because I want to know, I have served
>> on the board for several years prior and we were asked to prove
>> darn near everything we did, including surveys. So if you want
>> to attack with a C'mon Man so be it. From the views you
>> expressed on RCU we know how you stand on the main issue of
>> weight, from the minutes of the meetings for this year we know
>> that you were able to select "volonteers" to complete your
>> committee, we know that the preamble was written in a way to
>> present the board as being for the proposed changes, so we know
>> that some seem to have an agenda. You asked for it so you got
>> it. So it would appear that we have no real verifiable way of
>> supporting survey results one way or the other.
>> I seldom post on this forum, since it usually just banter between
>> old friends and foes and full of insider jokes but these so
>> called proposals are things that should be discussed on this
>> forum. They should have been discussed prior to being placed in
>> any type of survey. They affect our sport and I believe your
>> survey will show that they would effect it adversely. We have
>> been through all of this before, over and over on weight. It
>> seems like a resurecting ghost that we can't keep underground.
>> The fact that you seem so defensive of your baby also adds to my
>> doubt about this whole fiasco. Now, lay off the attacks and
>> either answer the questions or ingnore them, your choice Mr.
>> Chairman.
>> Dan
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com>
>> *To:* General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> *Sent:* Fri, February 17, 2012 9:34:22 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposals Survey
>>
>> Dan,
>> It was actually 16 times you voted including your original.
>> I've taken care of the extras for you. As far as factual,
>> really? Do you honestly think that way? They will be factual
>> because we are here to serve you. If the majority says they
>> don't like something, what would be the purpose of doing it? If
>> we wanted to push our own agendas, why even have a survey? C'mon Man!
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Dan Curtis <warrior523 at att.net
>> <mailto:warrior523 at att.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Well, lets hope that is true, I only voted about 15 times so
>> not a problem.
>> One other question, how will we know the results are factual?
>> Dan
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com
>> <mailto:scmcharg at gmail.com>>
>> *To:* General pattern discussion
>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
>> *Sent:* Fri, February 17, 2012 9:25:53 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposals Survey
>>
>> Hi Dan,
>> It just makes more work for me (which I'm sure Keith H.
>> would enjoy greatly as he seems to have his panties in a
>> wad). We have several filters in place so I'll just filter
>> out the duplicate entries. We will know who is trying to
>> "pad the results". There were several folks that were having
>> trouble accessing the system so we had to remove the one time
>> per user. Either way, only the initial entry will be taken
>> and if a bunch go in just to screw it up for everyone, we'll
>> just shut it down. You're right, it makes it a bit useless
>> when people do that.
>>
>> Have a good weekend,
>> Scott
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Dan Curtis
>> <warrior523 at att.net <mailto:warrior523 at att.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Guys,
>> When the survey was put up on the website I filled it out
>> and submitted my answers. Then I could not get back in
>> to the survey. Which I assume was to stop a person from
>> voting more than once. Well, I was on the website
>> earlier tonight and for the heck of it I hit the survey
>> link and low and behold I was back in and was able to
>> fill the survey out again. If I hit submit, I get the
>> results sumitted message. It appears that a person can
>> vote as many times as they see fit now. I had another
>> person or two try the same thing with the same results.
>> Is this feature okay or is it making the survey results a
>> bit useless?
>> It may still be only countng the first time you voted or
>> submitted but that is not the way it appears. Anybody
>> got an answer???
>> Dan
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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*
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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*
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120218/d0201eb2/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list