I have cc's of Tom's request in my files dated 23 November 2008, and 09 October 2009 - same request.
He got swept up in the ill-fated "ITB Do-Over Pointess Effort" (DOPE) initiated with Bob Dowie last spring. As it was envisioned, since B represented our problem child collection (lots of years, lots of different technologies, lots of differences) the thought as I understood it was to use that as a testbed of sorts for an initiative to put all cars on a level playing field: To run them all through the same process.
The ITAC solicited data from members that resulted in documentation on some of the oddballs. I put together a new page on the "ITAC spreadsheet" (the committee has the last version I uploaded) with 81(!) make/model examples representing spec lines in the ITCS. We added torque values to the mix in an effort to see how they were distributed and compared to HP. We came up with distinctions between the various technologies and discussed preliminary ways to account for them consistently in the math...
Crucially, we also during this time finalized the PRACTICES that wrapped around the math. This is a point that the CRB critics UTTERLY FAILED TO COMPREHEND. There WAS a formula behind any proposed weight but there was, more importantly, a documented, transparent, prescribed, and repeatable way to run the Process itself, that could be counted on to minimize to the greatest extent the POOMA syndrome that has always been the biggest issue here.
On one call - Andy will remember this - we were asked to share the ITB list with the CRB. Bob D. explicitly asked whether the weights on that spreadsheet would be our recommendations. I jumped all over him to explain that NO - those were the preliminary values all run on a 1.25 power multiplier, and that unless/until we did due diligence and ran each make/model through the PRACTICES around the PROCESS, they were most assuredly NOT.
As we left that call, with him having that worksheet, I had a feeling we were dorked. It turned out that the freeze out - the CRB sitting on weight change recommendations made by the ITAC - started very shortly thereafter. I'm making an inference here but I am *very* confident that CRB members who were up to that point not involved (a la Drago, who GOT involved pretty quickly there) looked at that list, saw the number of cars with different weights and the magnitude of some of the differences (I'd included the then-current ITCS spec and delta between the old and "new" weights, to make it easy for them), and ABSENT ANY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE WERE REALLY DOING, crapped their panties.
I'm very confident (but again, inferring from evidence) that this position got support from some key Keane/Albin concern examples pointed out to them (a la the Audi, which was on there at 400 pounds less than its ITCS spec).
That's a long history lesson (with editorial content) to help explain why Tom's getting screwed if the argument is that his time window closed.
Perhaps most telling: Note that his 2009 submission came after (a) my resignation, and (b) the CRB edict that changes wouldn't be done. And BEFORE the CRB liaison's con call conversation with Jake that they should get back to business...
(A PS here - I mentioned to Josh in an email last night that he needs to be cognizant of the fact that, in the spirit of openness, my policy is now officially that anything anyone tells me is public. I'm not a committee member so am not privileged in any way.)
...so given retroactive application of that rule, here's the response Tom got from Jim Drago (EDIT - in mid-November 2009) after an ITAC member pointed out that, under the November mandate, it wasn't likely his request was going to gain traction:
Tom
No problem, I think you might not find the ITAC all that anxious to do much changing as they are still upset with the CRB etc. If you don't get a satifactory reply, let me know.
Jim
Welcome to really awesome evidence of the ongoing CRB problem that led to the DOPE, freeze out, and Great Exodus. Tell the ITAC one thing, and tell the members another - depending on the agenda du jour and who you're talking to. Act unilaterally rather than giving recommendations a comprehensive look and fair up or down vote. Hide changes to ad hoc committee recommendations from the membership. Discourage public conversation but use back-channel email liberally, to further internal - sometimes individual - agendas. Channel information (so power) through just a couple of individuals. Allow committee members with vested interests in the CRB decisions to not only vote, but to be the source of "expert information" to that committee.
Seriously, people. This isn't Tammany Hall.
Josh - If the ITAC doesn't legitimately run that ITB CRX through the process and make a recommendation to the CRB, the group will have failed a crucial test of your legitimacy. If the CRB doesn't like the recommendation and changes it, that's both within their purview and evidence to the members of the practices being applied by that body. Regardless...
Just. Get. It. Fixed.
K
EDIT: Found another email. After I called him on the above, Mr. Drago responded with the following (21 November 2009):
When I had communicated your request to an ITAC member, they didnt realize your car being reclassed into B in 2006, thus adjustments were allowed if ITAC decided the change was needed. We had a misunderstanding and I took a misundertanding/miscommunication with one of the ITAC members as a possible reluctance to to look at your issue. That was not that case, my goal was only to make sure you received an answer to your request and were satisfied with the response you received.
There's your permission, Josh.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt
Bookmarks