Jake,

Wasn't aware that Kirk (I assume that's who you meant by K) was on the ITAC. Had a great time w/ those guys at Summit Point, and the subject never came up. In fact, I don't think we 'talked shop' at all.

Notice that I didn't say anything when the July FT came out, and the request (actually Andy, only the 3rd or 4th one) to move the Rabbit GTI was shot down. I didn't really say anything about it in this thread either. All I did was mention that I wrote a letter about publishing the performance parameters for the given classes. I didn't direct it to anyone at all. Wasn't looking for a response from anyone. Andy figures he can make some smart-ass comment about it (pretty much a textbook case of trolling).

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the work that people are doing to make things better in IT. What I have a problem with, is the selective, subjective, and inconsistent way things are applied. I don't want to see fairness and equity traded away to get change. It's one of the reasons I've been such a strong proponent of an open, defined process. It minimizes the perception of inequity or favoritism, and it helps maintain consistency when committee members change. I get really nervous when people say that it's bad if people know how things are done. And the stronger that people argue against an open process, the more it appears that they're trying to hide something.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited June 22, 2005).]