ITAC changes. Chairman resigns.

[erlrich]

All I can say is, from what I know about Andy this is a really bad sign. Kirk & Scott weren't so much the shockers, but if they frustrated Andy to the point that he tossed the towel that really says a lot - and none of it good.

I've pretty much given up on the current CRB and BoD - until we get some fresh blood in both places things aren't going to change. I would suggest that's where we focus our efforts, in getting the word out for the upcoming Board election, and trying to get some new faces in the chairs. FWIW, 3 of the 4 Board members up for re-election this year (Wannarka, Sheridan, Creighton) were among the 7 who recently voted to ignore the wishes of the membership, and their own CRB, in casting their votes for the H&N requirement; and the fourth (Noble) abstained from voting on the issue. I know that is only one issue, but that gets each of those candidates a huge check in the minus column from where I stand.

[Greg Amy]

Kirk & Scott weren't so much the shockers...

Giles, too?!?

"Boom, baby!"

Who's next...?

[Greg Amy]

And, via email, I get the answer to that last question.

Sigh...

[erlrich]

And, via email, I get the answer to that last question.

Sigh...

For some reason the images of large rodents and ships sinking keep popping into my head....

[mossaidis]

That's a huge loss for the IT community. Andy, sorry to see you go but can understand your concerns and frustation.

[Knestis]

Yup.

When loose cannons like Giles and I go away, it's arguably because we're busted rather than the system. But the impact of Andy's loss cannot be overstated.

K

[seckerich]

I had hoped you guys would keep kicking on the inside while some of us pushed from the outside. Fully understand why you gave it up and cannot say enough thanks for the time and effort involved in getting IT as far as it is now. Guess we just have to start kicking the horse in the ass again.

[lateapex911]

Giles, too?!?

"Boom, baby!"

Who's next...?

Straight answer?
Me.
I sent my resignation letter in today. Last nights con call sealed the deal. The CRB was clear in their direction, and it's not what the members have told me they want. I work for the member, not against him.

Andy was lucky not to be on the call.

For those of you counting, in the past 3(?) months we have lost: Kirk Knestis..a guy with a PHD in policy. The ITAC is ALL about policy. Seemed like a perfect match. And Scott Giles. Honda expert and IT big picture guy extraordinaire. Andy Betterncourt: Great tightrope walker, and explainer of things unexplanable. Got the "big picture". And now me: All of us left, I think it's safe to say, not because we were too big for our britches, but because we believe that the CRB isn't in tune with our bosses, the members.

[JeffYoung]

Andy, Jake, many thanks for all the hard work.....

Not sure where I stand yet, don't want to make a too swift decision.

[benspeed]

Wow - if this doesn't send a message what does?

[Ron Earp]

Jake, thanks for all the work on behalf of us ITers. Again, I am sorry to another respected member resign but it is what it is. All of you fellows did a great job and I think IT is in a much better place due to your labors.

Now, focus on racing and enjoy IT for as long as you can before the CRB takes it some place where we all don't want it to go. All this really makes me consider if I want to build that next IT car or not. Maybe the Z is the end of my IT career.

[mossaidis]

I will echo the same praises, issues and concerns raised here. To Ron's point (i.e. deaf SCCA ears and that IT <> SPU), it would be a sad day if we'll were all forced to make this decision.. go to NASA. I won't say anymore as this is a public forum.

[RacerBill]

I will echo the same praises, issues and concerns raised here. To Ron's point (i.e. deaf SCCA ears and that IT <> SPU), it would be a sad day if we'll were all forced to make this decision.. go to NASA. I won't say anymore as this is a public forum.

NASA - sorry, but that's a really scary thought. The speed differential in some of their run groups is really something else!

[JoshS]

Andy, Jake, many thanks for all the hard work.....

Not sure where I stand yet, don't want to make a too swift decision.

I'm in the same position as Jeff. I will not make any swift decisions. But I will state that I think that things aren't NEARLY as broken as they have been portrayed, and that IT is by no means on a downhill slope.

It is much better due to the contributions of those who have left recently, mostly in the aspect of the process around the math. The math itself, which is causing a lot of angst, is just a small part of the story and there's plenty of room to come together on this.

[Ron Earp]

I But I will state that I think that things aren't NEARLY as broken as they have been portrayed, and that IT is by no means on a downhill slope.

You mean to say that a CRB that doesn't want the repeatable hp basis process, and is against transparency, isn't nearly as broken as we think? Those two items were at the core of what the ITAC has been trying to accomplish since I began with the SCCA in 2005.

Personally I think things are pretty bad based on those two factors alone.

[JoshS]

... [the CRB] doesn't want the repeatable hp basis process, and is against transparency ...

See, the problem is that everyone is taking these clear, black & white statements as true, but the world is just not that black & white.

Let's let this simmer down for a few days, please. I, for one, would rather try to be part of the solution, not the problem, and all of this rhetoric isn't helping ANYONE.

[Eagle7]

But I will state that I think that things aren't NEARLY as broken as they have been portrayed, and that IT is by no means on a downhill slope.

It is much better due to the contributions of those who have left recently, mostly in the aspect of the process around the math. The math itself, which is causing a lot of angst, is just a small part of the story and there's plenty of room to come together on this.

Hmmm... That doesn't seem consistent with recent reports. The ITAC runs the process, recommends a weight, and the CRB publishes a different weight, with no documentation nor explanation. The CRB's weight, in many people's opinion, creates new inequities. So, the CRB does not accept the math, does not accept the procedures, does not support documenting their decisions, is unwilling to explain anything, and the result fails the smell test. Sounds pretty dismal to me.

[Knestis]

...It is much better due to the contributions of those who have left recently, mostly in the aspect of the process around the math. The math itself, which is causing a lot of angst, is just a small part of the story and there's plenty of room to come together on this.

I'm sorry, Josh, but the actual math is exactly *zero* of what I'm concerned about.

Now, was much of the angst among the CRB members and the few IT driver-members who voiced public objection to the "process" about the math, and about perceptions that the ITAC was "slave to the formula?" I think, YES. But that's only because they didn't - and still don't - understand the "process around the math," or what I call the Process with a capital P.

K

[Ron Earp]

and about perceptions that the ITAC was "slave to the formula?" I

Hell yeah!! As a scientist I want the ITAC to be slave to a repeatable process and throw out the rules of thumbs, witchcraft, and sorcery used by the CRB to class cars and make comp adjustments. This is IT, not prod.

Josh, how much worse could things get?

[rsportvolvo]

Frustrating situation.

Maybe voting on the upcoming BoD election and participating in NASA events will send a message to the club heirarchy.