90% of members are online...

[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 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?

[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?