> Rocky,
> I think you missed the point and I suspect it is from NOT going to
> enough other region events to realize that the SMALL regions show that
> they, repeatedly, do not know how to design courses and they don't take
> input kindly. This may not be true in your part of the country but it
> is in my part. Certification is not exclusive but to guarrantee that
> someone at the event knows how to design a course without demanding that
> there be only one way.
I don't understand what you're saying. Let's take your scenario, and
postulate that you have an "unkindly" resident designer (who must be
somehow affiliated with the event chair for the problem to exist), and a
"kindly" but frustrated would-be designer.
What prevents the "unkindly" designer from attaining certification and
continuing to provide exactly the same courses s/he does today? Or, even
if they are "improved", providing the same course over and over?
Again in your scenario, how does the "kindly" designer attain
certification without the opportunity to gain real-world experience, which
should be part of any such program (it is with SSS)? If s/he *does* have
those opportunities presently, how does the entire program change
anything?
Now, keeping the same scenario, what happens when neither of those people
show up one Sunday? Call the event off?
"Guaranteeing" that someone at the event knows how to design a particular
type of course is totally different from authorizing that particular
person to impose their design, which seems to be what you're after.
Your proposal seems to me to be an attempt to address local political
issues with legislation. Such action is notoriously ineffectual. If you
have a problem with the event chair, which seems to be the issue since
they are responsible for course design (whether performing or assigning
it), then I suggest you address that matter more directly, perhaps by
proposing a regional sup that addresses it, if volunteering doesn't work.
There are already certain course criteria in the rulebook specifying
slalom distance, turn radius, top speed, etc. If those are being
violated, there are grounds for protesting the design/event. I see no
problem with adding further requirements if they can be articulated
clearly.
I've removed the SEB address in the CC: list, because this is exactly the
kind of debate they don't want to see clogging that address; but I too
strongly disagree with your proposal and will so notify the board if and
when this proposal is submitted for member comment.
KeS
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|