SCCA National Convention

[924Guy]

Cross-posting from the other thread:

I got a nice reply to my BOD letter from Jerry Wannarka, Chairman of the BOD.

In short summary, he assured me they (BOD and CRB, in a joint meeting) discussed the "IT situation" last week at the Convention. We can expect a post from Mr. Dowie, CRB Chairman, on the SCCA Forums sometime this week addressing the situation.

Stay tuned...

[R2 Racing]

We can expect a post from Mr. Dowie, CRB Chairman, on the SCCA Forums sometime this week addressing the situation.

Stay tuned...

Bob told me he was thinking about doing that. They (the CR are well aware of the talk going on about this on the internet, and quite frankly kind of wish it wasn't. But, they recignize that this is 2010 and this is going to happen, no matter how much they wish it wouldn't. Just don't expect this means there's then going to be an open discussion and debate on the SCCA forum! There will not! They all also knew that by the time they got home from the convention, they were probably going to be swamped with emails/letters about this. I just said "Uhh, yeah, just a few...."

[lateapex911]

Bob told me he was thinking about doing that. They (the CR are well aware of the talk going on about this on the internet, and quite frankly kind of wish it wasn't. But, they recignize that this is 2010 and this is going to happen, no matter how much they wish it wouldn't. Just don't expect this means there's then going to be an open discussion and debate on the SCCA forum! There will not! They all also knew that by the time they got home from the convention, they were probably going to be swamped with emails/letters about this. I just said "Uhh, yeah, just a few...."

See, that's where the train falls off the tracks.

Private back channel communications and emails etc allow people to push their positions, and those can be 'customized" to make the receiving party more partial to acceptance. But public statements are read by all, and can be forwarded to any. They have to stand up. So, I am pleased that they will make a public statement.

(Although the SCCA forum isn't as 'public' as it could be, LOL. I see the logic, and it's workable)

But, without actual debate, those statements can't be vetted.

This is a situation where there are opposing viewpoints.

Debate and discussion are part of the transparency that is being called for in, I bet, every letter they get on the subject.

[gran racing]

If they are going to post it and run, why choose that media to post the information? Doesn't make sense to me. An article in Sportscar (ooooh, that might let other people in categories know IT racers are annoyed), an e-mail using that group thing they developed, fastrack... Just find it interesting but at least it's a step towards actually communicating. Oh the irony. They complain about people discussing it on chat forums and that's where they'll post their response.

[jhooten]

Kevin beat me to the mic and I'm glad he did because he did a much better job with the subject than I ever could have.

Thanks and Congrats to Kevin.

[IPRESS]

Guys, step back and take a look at the big picture. The club has many issues to deal with, IT and this "process debate" is just one of many. I know you guys have tons of time and emotional ties wired into this issue. I am pretty sure that the CRB folks understand that too. But still this issue is just one of many so as crazy important as it is to the resident message board crowd, it may take a while to get things sorted out. As far as open discussion on message boards, that can be good and bad. People say things on boards that they would never say in person. Or their message comes across with a negative or positive connotation when it is not meant that way. So I can see why a committee working on an issue would not publish every comment / view on things discussed.
I would like to find out from Kevin or Jerry what sort of response they got in discussion with the CRB members they talked with. Was it IT positive / negative? Meaning has this message board group discussion (and sometimes personal attacks) soured the CRB on the IT issues or the group pushing the process agenda...or is their a willingness to see the issue with merit and overlook all the personal "lynch mob" crap that has been going on since back in the summer? A read on that is almost as important as the issue itself. Another bit of feedback from the CRB which is important here is: Do they (the CRB members) feel that the message board crowd is the "actual" voice of the (IT) people? That is a pretty important aspect of this whole thing too. Lots of folks refuse to get sucked in to this type of discussion but are still very interested in IT. Those people pay their dues and entry fees and count the same as us prolific typers. I hope that Kevin and Jerry got a good feeling from their discussions...at least as far as the CRB being positive towards IT.

[lateapex911]

.......Meaning has this message board group discussion (and sometimes personal attacks) soured the CRB on the IT issues or the group pushing the process agenda...or is their a willingness to see the issue with merit and overlook all the personal "lynch mob" crap that has been going on since back in the summer? A read on that is almost as important as the issue itself.

Mac, good points and I respect them. But I differ from you here. The issue is the issue is the issue. I've had conversations with people, gotten emails and had people slander me on the boards...but that's irrelevant. Just because somebody thinks I'm a dick it doesn't change the issue. I MUST look at the issue, and decide it's marits, regardless of what people are calling me. (You might not remember the E36 slander that we took, Andy especially..I WISH I had 1/10th of the "madza money" that I was reported to get...)

Another bit of feedback from the CRB which is important here is: Do they (the CRB members) feel that the message board crowd is the "actual" voice of the (IT) people?

From my discussions with them, there is a disdain for the boards, and the opinions that emanate. (Rucks comments support this) The CRB has told me numerous times that the boards do NOT, in their eyes reflect the popular positions. And that's a fine position to take, but, when I ask for the evidence, all I get is,...at best..."Well, this one guy I know thinks that things are .XYZ.". Mac, you know I travel ALL over the country. people talk to me. I can provide lots of data points, and they line up with the forum position very well on this issue.

That is a pretty important aspect of this whole thing too. Lots of folks refuse to get sucked in to this type of discussion but are still very interested in IT. Those people pay their dues and entry fees and count the same as us prolific typers. I hope that Kevin and Jerry got a good feeling from their discussions...at least as far as the CRB being positive towards IT.

Mac, how are we supposed to count a 'vote' from a 'non prolific' type?
People who don't write in can not write in for a multitude of reasons.
-They don't have time
-They think it's a lost cause
-They think the PTB will do what they want anyway
-Their 'world" is fine right now.
-Their personal position is actually advantageous, and they worry that that could be lost in an action that the masses support.
- They aren't that involved and don't really care.
-They don't understand the issue, and are intimidated by the prospect of trying .

Many of those positions reflect differing views if we were to assign values to them, so taking the stand that the 'silent majority' is fine with it, or they'd be making their opinions known lacks logic.

Further, the input they have gotten is massively one voice.

I don't doubt that the CRB is positive to IT. What I have issues with is the recent change in the support of the core principals that the members hold as cornerstones.

Four members leaving, one a PHD in policy, and two others who have been on for 5 years, indicates something is definitely 'up'.

Philosophies and principals count.

[Bill Miller]

If they are going to post it and run, why choose that media to post the information? Doesn't make sense to me. An article in Sportscar (ooooh, that might let other people in categories know IT racers are annoyed), an e-mail using that group thing they developed, fastrack... Just find it interesting but at least it's a step towards actually communicating. Oh the irony. They complain about people discussing it on chat forums and that's where they'll post their response.

Believe me Dave, that irony was not lost on me!

I also find it funny that they have such disdain for these message boards, but seem to forget that these message boards played a pretty large part in getting the ITR thing put together.

Jeff (Lawton),

While I love that quote, and it gave me a chuckle as well, I think a more poignant one is:

"Seven years of college down the drain"

[lateapex911]

Believe me Dave, that irony was not lost on me!

I also find it funny that they have such disdain for these message boards, but seem to forget that these message boards played a pretty large part in getting the ITR thing put together.

Jeff (Lawton),

While I love that quote, and it gave me a chuckle as well, I think a more poignant one is:

"Seven years of college down the drain"

heck if it weren't for IT.com, and our host, IT would NOT be where it is today. No doubt in my mind.