[NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA BOD Meeting, 27 September

[Derek Koopowitz]

The question should be... who has it?

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Ronald Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net> wrote:

> Well, then we need to give credit where it is due.  Who was responsible
> for the 2011 data?
>
> Ron
>
> On Oct 2, 2012, at 6:50 PM, Derek Koopowitz wrote:
>
> Data may be data but 2012 can be way better than 2011 if we don't have all
> of the 2011 that we need.
>
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Ronald Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Jim - Data is data.  Analysis of data can be skewed, but not the data.
>>  As I said in the e-mail, "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
>>
>> On Oct 2, 2012, at 5:26 PM, Jim Quinn 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20121003/63cfe4da/attachment.html>