[NSRCA-discussion] 2015 Plenary Meeting

Thu Apr 16 13:18:17 AKDT 2015

The primary author is the sub-committee - based on discussions that we had
via email.  Michael Ramel wrote the proposal and all the sub-committee
agreed with the wording.  I do agree that it could get lost in translation
and perhaps we can fix it prior to voting.

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com> wrote:

> I have to agree with Ron and Mark on this one.  The rationale for the
> proposal says that it would be the current, and upcoming list.  However,
> the way the rule change itself is actually worded allows for interpretation
> to be other than what the rationale provides.  The wording and the
> rationale are not consistent.
>
> I'd recommend voting against this proposal, unless it is clarified to be
> in line with the rationale as stated.
>
> I note that the F3A subcommittee wrote this proposal, not any particular
> country.  Would be nice to know who was the primary author.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Atwood, Mark via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> To: Ronald Van Putte <vanputter at gmail.com>; General pattern discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Thu, Apr 16, 2015 2:30 pm
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 Plenary Meeting
>
>  I tend to be in agreement with Ron on this one.  I understand the
> motivation to remove the word “Current”, as it creates some logistical
> problems with timing.  But they need to replace it with something less open
> ended, such as “Current, or immediately prior list…” so that the organizers
> can’t go back 15 years in time to a prior approved list to select a judge
> they happen to like who may or may not be active and current with the rules
> and sequences.   The changes as proposed give them way too much room to
> invite just about anyone that has ever been on any list.
>
>
>       *MARK * *ATWOOD*
>   *President*
>  o.  (440) 229-2502
>  c.  (216) 316-2489
>  e.   <larry.yoder at paragon-inc.com>atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
>
>  *Paragon Consulting, Inc.*
>  5900 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 205, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
>  www.paragon-inc.com
>
>  <http://www.paragon-inc.com/>
>  *Powering The Digital Experience*
>
>  On Apr 16, 2015, at 2:17 PM, Ronald Van Putte via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
>   The items below have been extracted from the agenda of the 2015 CIAM
> Plenary Meeting  to be held in the Mövenpick Hotel - Lausanne
> (Switzerland)
>  on * Friday 24 April and Saturday 25 April 2015.*
>
>   It is proposed that the words in *Bold Oblique* be removed from the
> appropriate section.
>
>   The result of the first deletion is that the organizing committee would
> not have to use names from the current list of international judges and may
> pick judges whose names are not on the list.
>
>   The second deletion is in line with the first deletion
>
>   The third deletion would remove the requirement for recent judging
> experience.
>
>
>   14.8 Section 4C Volume F3 - RC Aerobatics
>  aa) 5.9.10 c) Judging F3 Aero Subcommittee
>  Amend the paragraph as follows:
>  For World or Continental Championships the organiser must appoint one or
> more
>  panels of five judges each. The judges must be of different
> nationalities *and must be*
>  *selected from a current list of international Judges* . Those selected
> must reflect the
>  approximate geographical distribution of teams having participated in the
> previous
>  World Championships (if applicable) and the final list must be approved
> by the CIAM
>  Bureau. At least one third, but not more than two thirds of the judges
> must not
>  have judged at the previous World Championship. Judge assignment to the
>  panels will be by random draw.
>  Reason: Avoid doubling of the rule, see 5.9.10 d). The rule is meant to
> refer only to
>  one, the latest previous World Championship. Adaption to F3A
>  ab) 5.9.10 d) Judging F3 Aero Subcommittee
>  Amend the paragraph as follows:
>  The invited judges for World or Continental Championships must be
> selected from *a*
>  *current* the applicable list of FAI international judges and must have
> had a
>  reasonable amount of F3P or F3A judging experience *within the previous
> twelve*
>  *months* and must submit a resume of his judging experience to the
> organiser when
>  accepting the invitation to judge at a World or Continental Championship.
> The
>  organiser must in turn submit the resumes to the CIAM Bureau for
> approval.
>  Reason: Since the available number of international judges may be limited
> in a
>  „current“ list, ie. a list becoming effective in the year of the
> championship actually
>  held should also serve as a resource of appointable judges. Judging
> criteria in F3P
>  are equal to F3A with both of them referring to the ANNEX 5B
>
>  I am not in favor of the deletions and wonder what NSRCA’s and AMA’s
> plans are.
>
>  Ron Van Putte
>
>  _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>   _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing
> listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20150416/714d6698/attachment.html>