ITAC News.

[Andy Bettencourt]

OH I don't know maybe I was thinking that lately the CRB has opened back up consideration of things involving IT. Seems like some cars were classed or reclassed. Just from outside looking in it seems Josh and his crew have been able to overcome the "stop the presses" stalemate of late fall. I don't know if that is good or bad.

Using the Process was never a question for cars new to IT. The stalemate hinged on currently classed cars that were way outside their Process weight and the refusal of the CRB to apply the same measuring stick to both as well as the introduction of the concept of 'on-track performance' and 'like achitechture' to the classification equation.

I haven't seen any evidence that they have backed off that. Maybe the current ITAC believes in the concepts.

[IPRESS]

Using the Process was never a question for cars new to IT. The stalemate hinged on currently classed cars that were way outside their Process weight and the refusal of the CRB to apply the same measuring stick to both as well as the introduction of the concept of 'on-track performance' and 'like achitechture' to the classification equation.

I haven't seen any evidence that they have backed off that. Maybe the current ITAC believes in the concepts.

I wasn't talking about the process although it was the flashpoint. My view from afar was that the CRB & the old ITAC had come to a point that working together was not an option. Seems Josh's committee has the luxury of getting a fresh start. No reflection on past committtee members or their stance. As I stated before, I had quite the unhappy moment with the CRB myself one time. I was probably on the wrong side, but that doesn't mean you guys were, most on here think you were right, I think it was a little inbetween.

[Knestis]

I wasn't talking about the process although it was the flashpoint. My view from afar was that the CRB & the old ITAC had come to a point that working together was not an option. Seems Josh's committee has the luxury of getting a fresh start. No reflection on past committtee members or their stance. As I stated before, I had quite the unhappy moment with the CRB myself one time. I was probably on the wrong side, but that doesn't mean you guys were, most on here think you were right, I think it was a little inbetween.

I appreciate you acknowledging that the "old ITAC" had a lot of support for what it was trying to do. Ultimately, I see what went down as a conflict between what we heard the majority of members asking for and what the CRB was willing to do. I dare say that those of us who left the committee came down on what we saw as the members' side. The CRB does its job at the behest of the Board - that handful of people we all elect. That allows them to chase pesky ad hoc committee members back into the shadows but it doe NOT make them member-proof.

Josh is a GREAT consensus builder and he's pragmatic about things - probably the right qualities to unstick the situation - but we're asking for trouble, I think, if we mistake a lack of apparent conflict between the ITAC and CRB as IT being 100% AOK.

K