<div>Since the majority of the contest board are active pattern pilots, perhaps we can petition the AMA EC (thru Steve Kaluf) to discuss these concerns so that we can then put in a proposal to have the sequences removed. I'm in full agreement with what is being discussed with regard to the time frames - it is not conducive to allowing the SIGs that modify/add rules/sequences to do it within a time frame that benefits our members.
<br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 7/26/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Mark Atwood</b> <<a href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com">atwoodm@paragon-inc.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Hey Ed,<br><br>Not trying to argue a moot point, but you commented that "even if it does<br>take 2 years, it really doesn't have to"... That's the part I think you're
<br>missing.<br><br>Even IF we could create, test,survey and decide on a new sequence in a<br>DAY...the AMA REQUIRES it 2 years in advance of it being flown.<br><br>So the solution we are offering is to remove the sequences as part of the
<br>"Rules"...that would allow us to use a process as you describe to<br>efficiently alter a sequence. So basically...I agree with you 100%...we<br>need a good process. But the best process is still stymied if we have to
<br>push it through an AMA rule change cycle.<br><br>As it stands now, a rule change submitted in October of this year...wouldn't<br>have a chance of being included in the rules until January of 2011. I find<br>that to be absurd...but that's the guideline that the AMA has in place.
<br></blockquote></div>