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 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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Ed Funk]

Perhaps having the original requester being the only individual except the CRB who could make public posts. Also would a yea/nay type of poll without comment be a way for the CRB to "listen" to the membership?

[dickita15]

I think Peter is right with regard to the discussion portion. There is not a need. As soon as someone posted anything interesting in would be cut a pasted into forum page anyway. In that way ideas could be discussed without SCCA having to be the traffic cop.

[Bill Miller]

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

THIS!

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.

I think I must have somehow stepped through a portal into a parallel universe. Peter, I know that you and I have disagreed in the past, but I have to say, this is one of the best and most progressive ideas I've heard in a long time.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Actually, the ITAC wanted to do this about 3 years ago. I was mistaken at first when I thought open discussion was part of the idea. I re-read and I apologize.

This is actually pretty easy. Heck, if the CRB would let us, I would place each letter in a locked thread on this site! I will request it. I am going to assume also that a notification in Fast Track would also have to be made.

Although the minutes to the ITAC calls are documented and VERY detailed, since those are only recommendations, I am not sure how relevant they would be - but the CRB's decision is already posted in FT, so is that good enough?

[Peter Olivola]

A key part of this is to be able to see at a glance how the request has progressed (or not) through the process. Posting status dates as part of the proposal would put all the steps in a single location. The request receipt and how timely it's handled are the two most frequently mentioned complaints about the process.

Actually, the ITAC wanted to do this about 3 years ago. I was mistaken at first when I thought open discussion was part of the idea. I re-read and I apologize.

This is actually pretty easy. Heck, if the CRB would let us, I would place each letter in a locked thread on this site! I will request it. I am going to assume also that a notification in Fast Track would also have to be made.

Although the minutes to the ITAC calls are documented and VERY detailed, since those are only recommendations, I am not sure how relevant they would be - but the CRB's decision is already posted in FT, so is that good enough?

[zchris]

Peter, I hope you get traction with this. Everytime I even suggest this on the GT or prod site poeple start throwing rocks at me. So many egos hiding so much. When I think that the rock throwers are adults it makes me chuckle and pitty humanity.
Chris Howard

[Bill Miller]

A key part of this is to be able to see at a glance how the request has progressed (or not) through the process. Posting status dates as part of the proposal would put all the steps in a single location. The request receipt and how timely it's handled are the two most frequently mentioned complaints about the process.

Peter,

I never had a problem w/ the request receipt. Usually an email from Jeremy or John would show up w/in a couple of days. I will agree w/ you on timeliness though. It would be nice to see why some things move through slower than others though. More importantly (I think), it would be nice to see which changes are generated internally rather than externally. Based on what you've described, there should never be a change to the GCR w/o a entry in the system you propose.

BTW, w/ that new CRB online request form, capturing the initial data is easy. It's also not much more work to set that database up so that it captures and supports all the other tracking information you're talking about. In fact, it's as simple as another link of the SCCA page to what pretty much amounts to a spreadsheet.

[RSTPerformance]

Peter described what I was thinking better... I agree it should not be a discussion forum but rather someplace where requests can be tracked. Also additional members should have the ability to either support or not support the request.

This should be very easy, most software companies have on-line support systems where you can put in requests and track the progress. I think it is very basic.

Andy- I love your idea although many of us make requests outside IT such as the safety equipment. You are dedicated and could easily add posts to the locked thread as the progress "progresses" and additional members add similar requests or additional support or oposition.

Bill- those e-mails you get when you put in a request are automated... They don't actually mean anyone read them, they just confirm that the message was recieved.

Raymond