FasTrack is not a venue for discussion, or for the decision-making organs to explain all of their thinking.

If we hope that publication will illuminate the process or thinking behind a decision, or even less likely convince those who disagree with the outcome, we're going to be very disappointed.

K [/b]
Precisely.

However, that situation has changed somewhat in the past few years. As far as the Improved Touring Category is concerned, two things have occurred.

First, several members of the ITAC have spent considerable time discussing concepts and situations on forums such as this with the membership at large. Not very long ago, to have such direct access was unheard of for the general unwashed masses. Now, it's a mouseclick away.

Second, certain requests for input regarding proposed rules changes have included prefaces that give insight to the thinking and intent behiind the proposal, in an attempt to spur on critical thinking and to create responses that go beyond the "I support" or "I don't support" standards. Reading the mechanics behind a persons support or objection to an item is often more telling than the mere direction, and helps rulemakers get a clearer understanding of the motives and the big picture.

Lastly, using the same responses such as "Inconsistant with class philosophy" keeps the responses polite..., although I agree that it is frustrating to get any short response to your well thought out 3 page proposal! On the other hand, it would also suck to get "What kind of crack are you smoking??" ! (You'd be surprised at some of the letters that are sooo "me" oriented.