84LikesOfficial AARCMCC EP On Road Thread
07-10-2016, 04:28 PM
#76
If you sent out the amendment on the 25th, why didn't you mention that here when you replied on the 28th?
If you had, or indeed if you had sent me an email with a draft, I could have advised better wording than what you have chosen.
The whole point of the provisional qualifying order originally was that whenever an order was required it would be the exact same order printed as 'in progress' on the time sheets. The provisional qualifying order was always the current qualifying order.
What you have now defines the provisional qualifying order as your best n-2 results so far, and then says regrades are based on the provisional qualifying order after 3 heats but that you use your best 2 at that point. That's inconsistent.
It's likely to cause confusion with people who also race offroad who've become used to the provisional qualifying methodology. It was implemented in Offroad a year prior to Onroad, so they've had it longer.
Look Ed, I can't fault your intention or your effort, but I do get the impression that you rushed a large batch of rules here. It looks like you decided that a large number of things needed changing after the NSW State Championships, and that rather than taking some time and using a scalpel to make fine adjustments, you picked out bits of the BRCA rule book and inserted them wholesale. And then because we were close to the cut-off for new proposals before July 1 some things didn't get the scrutiny at your end they would have otherwise. Feel free to say otherwise if that's not the case.
The BRCA rule book is pretty good, and as a starting point that's not bad, but our rule book has a different lineage. And things won't always slot easily in. Some areas of our rule book are actually better. And in fact the provisional qualifying order system I truly believe was one of those. It was the product of 6 months consultation with Race Directors, Racers and Software Developers. We actually made sure the software was implemented before the proposal went to vote in two of the major systems used at Australian meets. You can imagine the work that went into that. Then after all that, we only proposed it for Offroad first, and made sure it worked well for a year before introducing the same proposal to Onroad. If it seems like I'm a little annoyed, maybe that explains why. It was a well thought out, long process, and a lot of work.
In the end the clubs have backed you on these changes. You've done an excellent job for the first half of the year, so I'm not surprised. The clubs trust you at this point. And when you give them a lot of changes all at once they'll fall back on that. But you can't take that for granted, and I urge more consultation outside of the AARCMCC Executive before making proposals of that magnitude again. I reiterate my prior offer to look over anything in advance and offer advice.
If you had, or indeed if you had sent me an email with a draft, I could have advised better wording than what you have chosen.
The whole point of the provisional qualifying order originally was that whenever an order was required it would be the exact same order printed as 'in progress' on the time sheets. The provisional qualifying order was always the current qualifying order.
What you have now defines the provisional qualifying order as your best n-2 results so far, and then says regrades are based on the provisional qualifying order after 3 heats but that you use your best 2 at that point. That's inconsistent.
It's likely to cause confusion with people who also race offroad who've become used to the provisional qualifying methodology. It was implemented in Offroad a year prior to Onroad, so they've had it longer.
Look Ed, I can't fault your intention or your effort, but I do get the impression that you rushed a large batch of rules here. It looks like you decided that a large number of things needed changing after the NSW State Championships, and that rather than taking some time and using a scalpel to make fine adjustments, you picked out bits of the BRCA rule book and inserted them wholesale. And then because we were close to the cut-off for new proposals before July 1 some things didn't get the scrutiny at your end they would have otherwise. Feel free to say otherwise if that's not the case.
The BRCA rule book is pretty good, and as a starting point that's not bad, but our rule book has a different lineage. And things won't always slot easily in. Some areas of our rule book are actually better. And in fact the provisional qualifying order system I truly believe was one of those. It was the product of 6 months consultation with Race Directors, Racers and Software Developers. We actually made sure the software was implemented before the proposal went to vote in two of the major systems used at Australian meets. You can imagine the work that went into that. Then after all that, we only proposed it for Offroad first, and made sure it worked well for a year before introducing the same proposal to Onroad. If it seems like I'm a little annoyed, maybe that explains why. It was a well thought out, long process, and a lot of work.
In the end the clubs have backed you on these changes. You've done an excellent job for the first half of the year, so I'm not surprised. The clubs trust you at this point. And when you give them a lot of changes all at once they'll fall back on that. But you can't take that for granted, and I urge more consultation outside of the AARCMCC Executive before making proposals of that magnitude again. I reiterate my prior offer to look over anything in advance and offer advice.
Why didn't I mention the amendment in the response? Because quite simply, we had emailed the clubs, which as you keep reminding us, are the decision makers. The clubs who vote were made aware. If you have a problem with the amendment not being passed on, then you need to contact your club.
As a committee we have to look after our section and how we best deem to run it. Do we look at what other sections are doing? Yes of course (for example, the EP ONR section is offering assistance on control motors for EP OFR, and we are paying close attention to their introduction), but by no means should that be the main driver behind decisions we make. A large number of the rules that were in place were overcomplex and detract from the event, or a the very least don't add anything. So why wouldn't we adjust our regulations to simplify and suit our catchment market better?
I would also suggest that for anyone attending a 1:10th EP ONR event, the last thing on their mind is ensuring that they get re-seeded the same way as in OFR, or even do anything the same between the two sections.
As you point out, the clubs do appear to trust us, and to be honest, I think you massively underestimate just how much experience we as a committee have. We are in touch with the racers and clubs who compete at these events on very regular basis, and not just at the front of the field, but from the full range. That fuels our level of understanding on what to alter, and what to leave alone. No decision to make proposals is done lightly, or without some form of discussion within the committee or consultation outside.
For looking at other events and series worldwide, I would suggest given the consistent numbers and positivity atmosphere surrounding them (admittedly with the caveat of bigger catchment of racers and so on), that they have done a far better job in recent times than this section. So we should be mindful of how they are run and decisions that are made... but I have also lost count of the number of times I have had to explain to people that going "full ETS" won't work for us!
Timelines for the proposals were tight, but given out of all 10 proposals put forward (with adjustment to at least 3 times the number of clauses in the rule book) to have a SINGLE amendment affecting one clause is pretty damn good. You actually have no idea the amount of time and effort that went into this... and all were under consideration a long time before the NSW titles. However other issues within the section required our attention before we presented these proposals, actually in a cut down format from our original plan (there were at least another 5 proposals we were considering to put forward in addition to those from this round).
Ed
07-10-2016, 05:03 PM
#77
More than happy to receive any feedback on the classes and thoughts that may help encourage new drivers to the sport.
It's something we are very aware of, and is also a very contentious topic...
If anyone has any thoughts and opinions, we (the committee) are happy to here them, either through here, the FB group page, or direct on the [email protected] email address... all are regularly read and discussed, believe me
It's something we are very aware of, and is also a very contentious topic...
If anyone has any thoughts and opinions, we (the committee) are happy to here them, either through here, the FB group page, or direct on the [email protected] email address... all are regularly read and discussed, believe me
As for why I didn't call or skype. I was working at Siding Spring Observatory for the week. The internet access is fine. The phone reception is terrible, it's in a National park, and with the nearby Mopra radio telescope, radio towers need to be kept to a minimum. Although it was technically possible to call if I went to the trouble of figuring out the landline extensions or setting up a skype, my waking hours at the time were not conducive to calling you. Typically I was finishing at 4 or 5 am. And I had to type replies in pieces in periods of bad weather as it was.
Besides that a rule has never previously been amended after it went out to vote. The precedent set in the past was that if a problem was found the proposal was withdrawn, time taken to redraft it carefully before another attempt was made. I didn't contact my club about an amendment because I had no reason to expect there could be one, and my club didn't contact me because they had decided to vote no anyway.
And as I said at the time, I don't think it is helpful to have a private discussion when proposals are live and being voted on. How would clubs become aware of potential issues then? You'll fairly answer that in this case you've put up an amendment to deal with one aspect of what I pointed out, but my concerns went beyond that as anyone reading here knows. All of that was valid debate and discussion, and I find it rather disturbing that someone tried to have it deleted by the admins first before replying to it. If you think my replies after the first one were slightly hostile it is because attempts at censorship leave a bad taste in my mouth.
-----
As for me having no idea how much time and effort goes into drafting rule changes, I'll leave that for others to judge.
07-10-2016, 07:06 PM
#78
What's more, whereas the previous rule was easily adaptable to club meets and other meeting types, the new rules are not. Thus more different rules, which makes the situation more complex, not simpler.
This was, of course, at the core of my objection originally. Previous proposals were accompanied by justification sections explaining how the change would improve things. These were not. And at least in this specific instance I don't feel the case was made in our discussion here.
I don't know how many clubs had the opportunity to view our discussion before voting. RCTech isn't as widely trafficked as it used to be. I am now thinking that a period when draft rule proposals are available for comment (and possibly editing) before the voting period begins would be a good idea. I believe the BRCA has something similar.
07-10-2016, 07:55 PM
#80
The specific rule change we are talking about has resulted in one rule governing all situations being replaced by three different rules. I fail to see how that simplifies things.
What's more, whereas the previous rule was easily adaptable to club meets and other meeting types, the new rules are not. Thus more different rules, which makes the situation more complex, not simpler.
What's more, whereas the previous rule was easily adaptable to club meets and other meeting types, the new rules are not. Thus more different rules, which makes the situation more complex, not simpler.
This was, of course, at the core of my objection originally. Previous proposals were accompanied by justification sections explaining how the change would improve things. These were not. And at least in this specific instance I don't feel the case was made in our discussion here.
I don't know how many clubs had the opportunity to view our discussion before voting. RCTech isn't as widely trafficked as it used to be. I am now thinking that a period when draft rule proposals are available for comment (and possibly editing) before the voting period begins would be a good idea. I believe the BRCA has something similar.
07-10-2016, 08:19 PM
#81
BRCA has a very different proposal format, as proposals are a) voted on by racers (not clubs) attending the AGM and b) very few proposals actually get voted on with out some form of amendment and discussion at the AGM. Having personally been involved with proposals put forward at the BRCA AGM, I feel I'm well experienced to comment on that.
08-15-2016, 05:54 AM
#82
Apologies for the delay in getting these published, but here are the updated rules for the rest of the year, and have been in effect since the 1st of July.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8...zRlYVVGYzJoWkk
All the updates are in red for reference.
These rules will be in place for the following events for the rest of 2016;
State Titles - SA (26-28Aug), QLD (23-25Sept), WA (14-16Oct)
Nationals - VIC (3-6Nov)
In addition, because there are so many changes, we've drawn up a short document describing the main changes, and what they mean.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8...DlFamVjZk1RYXM
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8...zRlYVVGYzJoWkk
All the updates are in red for reference.
These rules will be in place for the following events for the rest of 2016;
State Titles - SA (26-28Aug), QLD (23-25Sept), WA (14-16Oct)
Nationals - VIC (3-6Nov)
In addition, because there are so many changes, we've drawn up a short document describing the main changes, and what they mean.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8...DlFamVjZk1RYXM
Last edited by AARCMCC EP ONR; 08-18-2016 at 06:35 AM.
08-15-2016, 06:02 AM
#83
Apologies for the delay in getting these published, but here are the updated rules for the rest of the year, and have been in effect since the 1st of July.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8...mRRYVRvU09uRGs
All the updates are in red for reference.
These rules will be in place for the following events for the rest of 2016;
State Titles - SA (26-28Aug), QLD (23-25Sept), WA (14-16Oct)
Nationals - VIC (3-6Nov)
In addition, because there are so many changes, we've drawn up a short document describing the main changes, and what they mean.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8...DlFamVjZk1RYXM
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8...mRRYVRvU09uRGs
All the updates are in red for reference.
These rules will be in place for the following events for the rest of 2016;
State Titles - SA (26-28Aug), QLD (23-25Sept), WA (14-16Oct)
Nationals - VIC (3-6Nov)
In addition, because there are so many changes, we've drawn up a short document describing the main changes, and what they mean.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8...DlFamVjZk1RYXM
Phil.
08-16-2016, 03:44 AM
#84
Apologies for the delay in getting these published, but here are the updated rules for the rest of the year, and have been in effect since the 1st of July.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8...mRRYVRvU09uRGs
All the updates are in red for reference.
These rules will be in place for the following events for the rest of 2016;
State Titles - SA (26-28Aug), QLD (23-25Sept), WA (14-16Oct)
Nationals - VIC (3-6Nov)
In addition, because there are so many changes, we've drawn up a short document describing the main changes, and what they mean.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8...DlFamVjZk1RYXM
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8...mRRYVRvU09uRGs
All the updates are in red for reference.
These rules will be in place for the following events for the rest of 2016;
State Titles - SA (26-28Aug), QLD (23-25Sept), WA (14-16Oct)
Nationals - VIC (3-6Nov)
In addition, because there are so many changes, we've drawn up a short document describing the main changes, and what they mean.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8...DlFamVjZk1RYXM
08-18-2016, 06:38 AM
#88
It's been brought to our attention that there was an error in the update of sections 2.8 and 2.9 of the rule book, specifically around the number of days the events were ment to go for. They both still stated 5days, where nationals is now 4, and states 3.
This has been corrected, and the link is below (the original link in the post above has also been amended.) The old link has also been deleted, so it won't work anymore.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8...zRlYVVGYzJoWkk
Apologies for the slight hiccup!
EC
This has been corrected, and the link is below (the original link in the post above has also been amended.) The old link has also been deleted, so it won't work anymore.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8...zRlYVVGYzJoWkk
Apologies for the slight hiccup!
EC
10-24-2016, 05:00 AM
#89
All, please be aware that the EP ONR Section AGM will be held post racing on Saturday (5th November) as part of the upcoming National Championship at TFTR.
The proposed agenda is at the link below. If you would like items to be considered for the agenda, please ask you club to make contact with the committee ([email protected])
In addition, a reminder that as per the AARCMCC constitution, nominations for section positions are required minimum 7 days prior to the AGM (send to [email protected]), please note we have received 3 nominations already - the existing committee have been proposed by their clubs to re-stand.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8...GhiR3pXLXVpNkU
The proposed agenda is at the link below. If you would like items to be considered for the agenda, please ask you club to make contact with the committee ([email protected])
In addition, a reminder that as per the AARCMCC constitution, nominations for section positions are required minimum 7 days prior to the AGM (send to [email protected]), please note we have received 3 nominations already - the existing committee have been proposed by their clubs to re-stand.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8...GhiR3pXLXVpNkU
10-24-2016, 04:40 PM
#90
Further information regarding the meeting below.
In addition, for clubs with no members attending the nationals, they can nominate in advance a member of another club to act on their behalf as delegate.
Clubs with members attending are advised it is preferable to nominate your delegates in advance. If no nomination is made, it is up to the chairperson at the meeting whether to accept any individual as a club representative or not.
Per 38.1 of the constitution...
38.1 An individual member club may nominate two delegates to vote on their behalf. The delegate must be an associate member as per clause 6.2
Please write to [email protected]
State delegates appointed at the meeting will be decided by those present from that state, and do not need to be club delegates.
For states with no attendance, proxy votes are not acceptable. Your state voice can still be heard though.
Options are;
- co-ordinate a response from all clubs within your state make your opinions known to the chair or section head ([email protected])
- co-ordinate with all clubs within your state to nominate a club member from that state to be delegate in advance and provide his or her phone number to the section head.
- acceptance of a phone in attendee will require a motioner and seconder at the meeting.
In addition, for clubs with no members attending the nationals, they can nominate in advance a member of another club to act on their behalf as delegate.
Clubs with members attending are advised it is preferable to nominate your delegates in advance. If no nomination is made, it is up to the chairperson at the meeting whether to accept any individual as a club representative or not.
Per 38.1 of the constitution...
38.1 An individual member club may nominate two delegates to vote on their behalf. The delegate must be an associate member as per clause 6.2
Please write to [email protected]
State delegates appointed at the meeting will be decided by those present from that state, and do not need to be club delegates.
For states with no attendance, proxy votes are not acceptable. Your state voice can still be heard though.
Options are;
- co-ordinate a response from all clubs within your state make your opinions known to the chair or section head ([email protected])
- co-ordinate with all clubs within your state to nominate a club member from that state to be delegate in advance and provide his or her phone number to the section head.
- acceptance of a phone in attendee will require a motioner and seconder at the meeting.