[NSRCA-discussion] 2015 Plenary Meeting

Thu Apr 16 14:17:07 AKDT 2015

I agree Jon... I'm sure we can get this fixed.

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com> wrote:

> 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>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 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.   <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
>>
>>
>  _______________________________________________
> 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/e2ac8659/attachment.html>