lateapex911 ... "Actually, yes, I think perception of fair treatment is important, & I bet more people out there are happier w/the method the ITAC uses than the Prod guys."
Don't flatter yourself. Things were supposed to change w/the introduction of the Ad Hoc groups. All it did was give the CB/CRB another place to bury items they do not want to deal with. I've had a request buried somewhere in that circus tent for almost a year now. Hell, it wasn't even a personal item, but a general one that made the racers' life easier & took you guys out of the micro-management business (which is probably why it remains buried).
And I am still looking at a response that Andy gave to me on a car weight. The logic of that response was lost in the absolute absurdity of his thought process.
From what I have seen of late, it appears that your idea of "fair treatment" is everyone getting the same amount of ineptitude.
As far as being "... happier w/the method ...", I will give you that one only because the IT Ad Hoc group has not been drawn into the "equivalency wars" that the GT, Production & Touring Ad Hoc groups have had to deal w/for years. You stick a car in a class, & if nobody races it for 3/4/5 years, you all go DUH & reclassify it. Ya gotta admit, there ain't a lot of thought process going on here. And that was my point when I quoted 9.1.3.B. The National IT guys are not going to be willing to do business as usual in that sense (9.1.3.
. At that point in time, the Ad Hoc group will be brought into having to deal w/who gets what (ala GT, Production, etc.). Put another way, nobody gets a free pass in this move.
[/b]
Bookmarks