[NSRCA-discussion] 2015 Plenary Meeting

Thu Apr 16 13:57:18 AKDT 2015

There have been some issues in the somewhat distant past with what appeared to be manipulation of the rules on selection of judges by AMA and FAI.  The wording as currently written would appear to open the door for FAI or AMA to arbitrarily decide what "applicable" means. Not good for fair and above board selection of judges. Perception is key.

This may simply be a problem of English not being the first language of many delegates, and subtle phrasing may escape them. I ran into this in my profession when dealing with a NATO organization.

Hopefully, Derek can get this corrected.

Jon

On Thursday, April 16, 2015 Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:

  They want to remove the term “Current” and replace it with “Applicable”….so I guess what we need to see defined is the word “Applicable” as it relates to this context.   It’s my understanding that it simply means someone who has met the FAI’s criteria to be a judge, but not necessarily on the current roster.   That’s a problem, since being current with the rules is really a necessary criteria, and is only enforced via the “current” guideline. 

MARK  ATWOOD 

President 

o.  (440) 229-2502 

c.  (216) 316-2489 

e.   atwoodm at paragon-inc.com 

Paragon Consulting, Inc. 

5900 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 205, Cleveland Ohio, 44124 

www.paragon-inc.com 

Powering The Digital Experience 

On Apr 16, 2015, at 5:17 PM, Derek Koopowitz via NSRCA-discussion < nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote: 

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.   atwoodm at paragon-inc.com 

Paragon Consulting, Inc. 

5900 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 205, Cleveland Ohio, 44124 

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 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/20150416/3f5c3978/attachment.html>