<div>I think there seems to be 3 main areas of focus for the survey...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>1. Removing the sequences from the rule book and associated maneuver descriptions</div>
<div>2. Changing the class advancement rule or removing it all together</div>
<div>3. Changing all the schedules or changing just a few of them</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There are probably other ones that should be included but I can't think of them at this time... I'm sure I'll get reminded soon enough though. LOL</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Sequence design is a totally separate issue and should not be a part of the survey, I think... <br><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 9:19 AM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:verne@twmi.rr.com">verne@twmi.rr.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Derek,<br>I think the explanations are a great idea as long as the document doesn't start looking like the IRS TAX Code. In that vein, we've tried to change an awful lot of stuff in past surveys. It might be more productive to focus in on a smaller number of issues so everyone can understand and digest it all. In the past, it seems as though we kept hammering the same old issues over and over. As an example, Masters using the discarded FAI schedule. I can't think of a single survey over the last 10 years where that wasn't brought up and everytime, it was defeated by a huge margin. But we just keep throwing it back in. Every year, the issue is brought up on the List and gets kicked around for a few days and then ends up in survey with the same results.<br>
<br>Verne<br><br><br>---- Derek Koopowitz <<a href="mailto:derekkoopowitz@gmail.com">derekkoopowitz@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> I have a couple of questions and requests with regard to the survey... (this<br>> will look like a survey)<br>
><br>> 1. In the past we've tended to put together a number of questions without<br>> much explanation as to why the questions are being asked/surveyed. Don't<br>> you all think it would benefit everyone if we put together a one or two<br>
> paragraph description of what the pros/cons are of each question and the<br>> reasons behind the potential change? My thought is that we could make this<br>> information available on the website and the K-Factor so that everyone will<br>
> have a better understanding of the survey question. We do this for<br>> elections on propositions in local/state political events... why not here?<br>> 2. If the answer to #1 is a yes, then my request to everyone is that you<br>
> send me your survey questions with proper reasoning including pros/cons of<br>> the proposed change and I can start formulating the survey.<br>> 3. If the answer to #1 is a no, then do nothing... :-)<br>><br>
> -Derek<br></blockquote></div><br>