Quote Originally Posted by JeffYoung View Post
Kirk/Jake/Andy did what they thought was right. I almost resigned as well and came close to being told to do so, but Josh impressed me with his leadership and impressed on me the need for us to stay on the committee to stay the course.
IIRC, I commended them for their actions and still do.

Quote Originally Posted by JeffYoung View Post
The result? Andy/Kirk/Jake made a statement and got attention of the higher ups, and got us the ability to do things like the Ops Manual.
Quote Originally Posted by JeffYoung View Post
I *think* we can get past the other stuff with the Audi and others.
Quote Originally Posted by JeffYoung View Post
Troof. Things are a bit better now but some of this will be a huge battle....
Which it is it? The Ops Manual or things like the Audi, because either you use the Manual or you don't. Your words aren't a ringing endorsement of a CRB on-board with the classification method that they approved.

IIRC, the corrections of errors is is being done en masse because of perception issues, correct? I.e. the perception that sending this up for approval as they are done will give the impression that the rules are not stable? If you have the CRB on board with the Ops Manual, then there shouldn't be a problem forwarding the corrections as they are completed by the ITAC.

Or is it because the CRB doesn't want to be bothered with IT issues?

The real rules instability is when you revise the Ops Manual for ITC because the published multiplier is unobtanium for a huge number of cars, if not a veto-proof majority of them. Y'all have been sitting on a request to drop the weight of the ITC CRX for a couple of years now because of that.... I mean, the comprehensive weight adjustment for the class.