ITAC or CRB Board Minutes for Fastrack?

[seckerich]

I've always recieved confirmation of any emails I sent the CRB.

I have as well Dan, but the actual email I sent was never delivered. I sent an email to the CRB and BOD supporting the process and got a confirmation. Do you see my name in the list in fastrack with the other supporting letters? CRB members confirmed they did not see it. Where is this black hole? Other emails have been lost or not forwarded as well. Not laying the blame on the CRB or BOD, just the system in place now for communication. I understand the "you suck" emails just get deleted but I think mine were far from that.

[924Guy]

Would it be appropriate now to derail this whole discussion by pointing out that there is now an automated website to submit input directly to the CRB, WITH tracking capabilities? I nearly missed that in the minutes; perhaps it's useful to point out to everyone now?
http://www.crbscca.com/

Submitted my first input yesterday using this method (sorry, not about IT - F/SR input, it's about the new car).

Seems to me it'd be cheap and easy for the ACs to create/request itac.crbscca.com, fsr.crbscca.com etc in order to vastly improve their focused input, in addition to submitting directly to the CRB.

EDIT: update, just checked on my letter; it was indeed forwarded to the F/SR committee... here's the statement from the tracking system:
Letter number #XXX is currently waiting to be reviewed by the F-SR committee. After the F-SR committee reviews your letter, the CRB will review it, and it will proceed to Fastrack.

Seems like an improvement to me - anyone disagree??

[Knestis]

To be fair, during the time I was on the ITAC, we had more than a few requests that got bogged down INSIDE that body - primarily questions re: weights on older or more obscure cars, or for make/model examples for which there were lots of variants or changes represented by a spec line (Volvos, Mustangs come to mind). The ITAC can't be expert on the details of all of the options in the book and the processes/practices in place over the past 2 years required a substantial degree of due diligence, for example to try to understand how update/backdate options influenced starting-point stock power figures.

The most important decision during this time was the "power factor" question. To do that in a repeatable, transparent way is a tough balancing act that requires time. And for this (and other information) the ITAC was counting on the kindness of members who were more expert in the cases under consideration. You can't just say, "Dammit, man - I need to know the difference between the '86 and '88, and I need to know it NOW."

Requests that didn't come with appropriate documentation should (I think) have been returned to the member submitting them. In this day and age, it's completely reasonable to ask members to do their homework (e.g., scanning FSM pages or similar information) before considering changes to specifications or rules...

But those cases represent only a small portion of the requests that didn't get decisions over that period of time, however. Looking back, I blame a couple or organizational issues that could be improved REGARDLESS of the processes applied within the Ad Hocs (which are not by the way governed by any rules or Club policy that I've been able to find) and the CRB:

** There should be one and only one "official" channel of referrals to the CRB from each Ad Hoc, and it should be done in writing with formal recommendations. Actual RECOMMENDATIONS alone should travel through this distinct channel, separate from other informal communications.

** The CRB should have to report out "aye" or "nay" on every item sent up to them. I'm personally not very comfortable with the practice of sending a recommendation back to the Ad Hoc to be "scrubbed down" or whatever but if there has to be an allowance for that, instances of its use must be documented so no request gets lost in an infinite loop or falls into a crack.

** The Club should report each request (verbatim), the resulting Ad Hoc recommendation (verbatim), AND the CRB (and Board) votes on each item. If there's an argument that room prohibits all that from being in Fastrack, it should be documented online. Every time something is summarized or restated, something gets lost in the translation, or more importantly someone can impose their own intentions on the policy.

There's been grumbling about time, money, and working on a database system to keep track of all this. I don't believe that the lack of a techology solution is a fair excuse for not doing it right since this could all be accomplished with an Excel spreadsheet.

The wobbly practices involved here have grown up in an organizational culture that is completely OK with - in fact, is greased by - organized disorganization. If I were on the ITAC, I could tell every consituent I talk to that I'm doing a different thing, if there's no official documentation. And that's a problem.

K

[tom91ita]

I've always recieved confirmation of any emails I sent the CRB.

i never have received confirmation from a CRB member after sending a note to [email protected], etc.. i have always received (in a just a few seconds) an auto-response type note that my request has been forwarded.

i have always received a response from a CRB member when i have sent a message directly to them.

when sending a note to [email protected] i have only received a response from a BOD member that i knew personally from my home region.

[IPRESS]

[quote=Bill Miller;

Mac,

I'm not sure where you're getting your information (back-channel?), I think you paint too rosy of a picture. It's been shown in the past that people have used their positions or political connections to push things through that should have never been.[/quote]

Bill,
I have no problem in telling you who I have talked to about this ongoing "Rant". The thoughts I have are generally my own that are formed by having raced IT this year in 6 different states, as well as talking with people who I think are involved.

In regard to this discussion I have talked to C. Albin, J. Drago, P. Keane, and earlier in the year B. Dowie from the CRB. I may have talked to a few other IT racers about the subject, but for the most part I see them at races and this whole deal just doesn't carry much importance when the track opens. At ARRC I saw plenty of folks from "The Process" side but since we were racing and having a few beverages no one brought the subject up to me or asked why I had my viewpoint. My viewpoint doesn't mean squat anyway it is just like the rest one racers take. The point I am doing bad job of making is; This is about racing and when we are at the track "the use of the great Process" is not so big a deal.
As far as what will take place for IT this coming year, I guess that it will be just like the past years....Great fun racing at the track........ drama and discontent on the message boards.........and the everyday IT racer getting amusement out of both.

(When something on the net is so good I have to show my wife, I call it great entertainment......the Tnord vs Bmiller posts are worth selling to a sitcom!)

Oh and to your perception of my perception: Every race I have been to the IT racers seemed rosey to a fault.

[lateapex911]

Mac makes me laugh.
(Getting wallets stolen distracts as well...)

[IPRESS]

Jake that is my job!

Really, I just refuse to make this hobby too serious. I think the large majority and I mean very large, think of club racing as a hobby.... expensive yes, but still a hobby. The mesage boards allow an avenue that can make it a "grumpy hobby" ....like some of my old golfers who no longer have a job to moan and groan about....they bitch about their hobby...golf! I do it myself, but I try to step back and give myself a good slap when I recognize the symptoms.
Enjoy what we have...when we have it.