[NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA BOD Meeting, 27 September

[Keith Hoard]

Ron,

    When they said "skewed", they meant the hat the names were drawn out of
was slightly tilted to the left.

Keith Hoard
Collierville, TN
khoard at gmail.com




On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Jim Quinn <jaqfly at prodigy.net> wrote:

> Hi Ron,
>
> Firstly, thanks for reading our minutes!
>
> Secondly, at the recent BoD meeting, during our lively discussion, Jon's
> words seemed to flow easily. Reading them in the peace of a quiet evening
> it seemes that "skewed" really isn't the word that should have been used.
> As you know there have been occasions in the judging criteria where all
> hasn't been totally smooth. For some reason Nats data has not always been
> easily available, which is a mystery to me, but it isn't always totally
> clear.
>
> As Judging Chair, Jon is looking at all past Nats and Judging
> criteria including the 2012 Nats. When he has gathered enough data we will
> get together so I can send some names to AMA to be considered as Judges for
> future World Championships.
>
> Jim Quinn
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Ronald Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net>
> *To:* General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Mon, October 1, 2012 7:30:30 PM
> *Subject:* [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA BOD Meeting, 27 September
>
> I just looked at the minutes of the NSRCA Board of Directors' Meeting on
> 27 September:
> http://nsrca.us/documents/boardmeetings/Board_Meeting_Minutes_-_09-27-2012.pdf
>
> It includes:  "Jon Carter discusses FAI F3A judges to recommend for World
> Championship. Ranking is based on Nationals finals for FAI and Masters
> only. Jon recommends that we restart data as the older material is slightly
> skewed. It is decided to use new data from 2012 forward because and due to
> Scott Smith’s new software for scoring."
>
> Perhaps one of the NSRCA Board members can explain what is meant by, "the
> older material is slightly skewed."
>
> I can understand the inference of a skewing of interpretation of judging
> data, but data from one year is no better than data from another year.  The
> data includes contestants, judges and scores.  To me that means that data
> is data and 2012 data is no better than 2011 data and so on.
>
> Ron Van Putte
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121002/8988735c/attachment.html>