90% of members are online...

[RSTPerformance]

The latest Fasttrack mentions that 90% of members are online... If this is the case why can't members make online requests in a forum type setting to the CRB? That way other members can give member input on all requests and the original requested can feel much better knowing (seeing) that the request they made was not lost. When the CRB responds with a desicion it co uld be posted right in that forum type setting. I would imagine this would also almost eliminate the CRB secretary position that must be currently tracking requests.

Raymond "we can complain all we want but we need to offer suggestions for improvement also" Blethen

[Greg Amy]

Stop. Take some time to re-read this forum, the SCCA forum, and the RoadRaceautox forum.

Can you imagine the circus that forum would be turned into if it was used to suggest, review, and approve rules changes????

Entertaining, but uh, bad idea.

[Peter Olivola]

To the contrary. A forum which publishes every request, whether submitted by a member or proposed by the Ad Hoc, CRB, BoD, Executive Stewards, etc., in the exact form it is submitted, not summarized, not abridged, is precisely what's needed.

Further, it should contain the submission date, receipt date and a complete status history as it is dealt with by the process.

The effects would be seen almost immediately and would be wide ranging and beneficial to not just the membership but all boards and committees. It would make not only the boards and committees responsible to the membership, it would make the membership responsible to the membership. Self-serving requests would be seen for what they are. The speed with which a request moves through the process would be a clear indication of where the requester stands in the "old school tie" system. Peer review would quickly curtail the patently frivolous and blatantly self-serving requests - no one wants to be embarrassed by their own stupidity - which would have the effect of reducing the work load on the boards and committees.

And it would put an end to the black helicopter response that is a direct result of the culture of opacity that controls SCCA decision processes. Instead of wildly speculative and frequently misinformed commentary on this and other category forums, there would be an opportunity to discuss real substance, much as Kirk tried to do (and look where it got him - see culture of opacity.)

Stop. Take some time to re-read this forum, the SCCA forum, and the RoadRaceautox forum.

Can you imagine the circus that forum would be turned into if it was used to suggest, review, and approve rules changes????

Entertaining, but uh, bad idea.

[dickita15]

Ok Peter, I can see the appeal of your position, but are there times when information that is part of a request should be kept confidential? Would members be unable to provide data to the CRB that they would rather not be shared with their competitors?

[Andy Bettencourt]

In THEORY, it would be awesome. I don't thing anyone would argue that. Developing it in a manageable way, with the outputs you expect, would be the hard part. No?

[lateapex911]

In an ideal world, it would rock.

Dicks point is very valid, but I think that aspect can be managed.

We've worked out a method of accepting data on the ITAC, reviewing it, and voting confidence in it. We're happy to release the confidence vote record, but the data remains private, unless released by the author.

It's not what everyone would want, but, it's a great step forward. By seeing a large committee vote, hopefully the membership will have more faith that the system isn't being gamed, and that a few people aren't making backroom deals.

[Peter Olivola]

The hard part is changing the culture. There is no technological reason this can't be implemented. It's just a question of will.

In THEORY, it would be awesome. I don't thing anyone would argue that. Developing it in a manageable way, with the outputs you expect, would be the hard part. No?

[Peter Olivola]

The SCCA has tried the other way. It's broken. Full disclosure is needed to sweep clean. Is it possible there will need to be adjustments? Probably, but half measures won't get the job done as described. It's time for the pendulum to actually swing for a change.

Ok Peter, I can see the appeal of your position, but are there times when information that is part of a request should be kept confidential? Would members be unable to provide data to the CRB that they would rather not be shared with their competitors?

[Bill Miller]

To the contrary. A forum which publishes every request, whether submitted by a member or proposed by the Ad Hoc, CRB, BoD, Executive Stewards, etc., in the exact form it is submitted, not summarized, not abridged, is precisely what's needed.

Further, it should contain the submission date, receipt date and a complete status history as it is dealt with by the process.

The effects would be seen almost immediately and would be wide ranging and beneficial to not just the membership but all boards and committees. It would make not only the boards and committees responsible to the membership, it would make the membership responsible to the membership. Self-serving requests would be seen for what they are. The speed with which a request moves through the process would be a clear indication of where the requester stands in the "old school tie" system. Peer review would quickly curtail the patently frivolous and blatantly self-serving requests - no one wants to be embarrassed by their own stupidity - which would have the effect of reducing the work load on the boards and committees.

And it would put an end to the black helicopter response that is a direct result of the culture of opacity that controls SCCA decision processes. Instead of wildly speculative and frequently misinformed commentary on this and other category forums, there would be an opportunity to discuss real substance, much as Kirk tried to do (and look where it got him - see culture of opacity.)

Ok, where the hell am I?

[Xian]

Seems if you set up a site like this, you'd want to limit posting access to a certain degree. i.e. viewing access to SCCA members only, posting access to the IT forum by Regional or higher licensed racers only, posting access to National Classes by nationally licensed drivers only, etc. Something like this would likely help keep the posts and feedback more closely aligned with the drivers being impacted.

Still... the place would turn into a shit-storm pretty quickly. You'd have mods going through and deleting posts just to keep the peace, users screaming censorship and black helicopters, blah, blah blah. Still it'd be fun during the silly season.

[Peter Olivola]

I'm not proposing having the request posting site be a discussion site. That's already being handled by this and other category forums. I'm proposing that SCCA officially post each and every request regardless of source and provide process tracking updates. That becomes the reference point for factual information about the request. Continue the discussion here, Prod forums, Apexspeed, etc.

Seems if you set up a site like this, you'd want to limit posting access to a certain degree. i.e. viewing access to SCCA members only, posting access to the IT forum by Regional or higher licensed racers only, posting access to National Classes by nationally licensed drivers only, etc. Something like this would likely help keep the posts and feedback more closely aligned with the drivers being impacted.

Still... the place would turn into a shit-storm pretty quickly. You'd have mods going through and deleting posts just to keep the peace, users screaming censorship and black helicopters, blah, blah blah. Still it'd be fun during the silly season.

[Rabbit07]

Stop. Take some time to re-read this forum, the SCCA forum, and the RoadRaceautox forum.

Can you imagine the circus that forum would be turned into if it was used to suggest, review, and approve rules changes????

Entertaining, but uh, bad idea.