[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

[Del]

I sure concur Anthony.. and if my failing memory serves me many rule proposals in the past have done the exact opposite of increasing and spurring participation. Wonder why they majority  never want to put the horse back in the barn? 
  I would love to re-enter the fray but with rules that are counter productive it makes me realize that will not happen. 

    Del 
    x nsrca 473
        kb2joi - still
             general pilot - still 
    
    ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Anthony Romano 
  To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
  Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 12:49 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals


  Both make excellent points. Over 15 years in the NSRCA I can't think of a single rule that increased participation.
   
  Approximately one hundred responses out of how many NSRCA members? Sample seems to have quite an effect. After the discussion at last months D1 NSRCA membership meeting I was stunned by the results.
   
  Anthony Romano
  NSRCA 1601
   


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: khoard at gmail.com
  Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 11:36:47 -0600
  To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals


  "You have to pass it to find out what's in it. "


  I don't think any of these proposals will swing the participation needle in any perceptible way, but that's just me. 

  Sent from my iPhone

  On Mar 9, 2012, at 11:32, Stuart Chale <schale1 at verizon.net> wrote:


    It really looks like 2 proposals were supported by the group that voted, and 2 proposals were pretty much 50/50  I would defer to a statistician to determine if the slight margin has any statistical significance.  I know it doesn't on one and doubt it does on the other.   Does the NSRCA really want to support (and therefore likely have passed) 2 proposals that if 1 person voted the other way on one and 4 people voted the other way on the other would have resulted in a majority voting against?

    I strongly urge the powers that be take a closer look at these two proposals before "pushing" them through on half the voters that didn't want them.  The results are too close to say that "we" are in favor of them.

    Stuart Chale

    On 3/8/2012 3:50 PM, Scott McHarg wrote: 
      Hello, 
         As promised, here are the raw results of the survey.  107 unique individuals took the survey.  Individuals that felt it necessary to vote multiple times had their responses deleted and only their original answers accepted.  Based, in part, to Dean Pappas' post on RCU and through the comments listed there, through email, phone conversation, discussion on this list and in person, the Safety Proposal was adjusted to the "What" instead of the "How".  The new Safety Proposal will be posted shortly on the NSRCA website.  The NSRCA BoD met last night to vote on these candidate proposals.  The original Safety proposal was taken off the table (the one that you saw in the survey) and the new proposal was then voted on.  Based on survey results, District VP interaction with his constituents and posts on RCU as well as this NSRCA discussion list, the BoD unanimously passed the new Safety Proposal, the Class Advancement as well as the Telemetry proposal for submittal to the AMA Rules Committee.  The Weight proposal also passed with a vote of 9 to 1.  


         We would like to thank those of you who took the survey and appreciate not only the time that it took for you to fill out the survey, but your dedication to this hobby.  The Rules Proposals will now be sent to the AMA for further review and discussion.  Attached are the survey results both in raw (all members) and NSRCA members only form.  I have also attached all four of the proposals again (with the new Safety Proposal) for your consumption.



      Thank you again,
      Scott


      -- 
      Scott A. McHarg


       

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

       

      No virus found in this message.
      Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4858 - Release Date: 03/08/12

    _______________________________________________
    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/20120309/936c97b7/attachment.html>