It's funny, I was just reading a great article on Web standards that
made me realize how impossible it is to run an organization in a
manner that pleases even a relatively small part of the community that
forms around it. Rules are inherently arbitrary or they are not
understandable. By that I mean, to take up all the possible
definitions of even the simplest thing you must describe it to an
absurd degree, and you have to know the future.
Here's the article. I'm certain that this isn't a trivial thing, and
it's not specific to any issue. It's why Muslim fundamentalists
embrace terrorism, why I can't buy a cell phone without buying new
chargers, why it's taking me two hours to build a transmission mount
for Peyote., Well, maybe not that.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/03/17.html
On Jun 2, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Scott Cypher wrote:
> It comes from the inconsistency in the approach laid out,
> inconsistency in application of the rules. 1 strong national
> classes (#11) combined #22 into 1 class; 1 class (#16) kept by
> itself because it can't be combined with anything else, and some
> even question if its consistent with SCCA stated philosophy.
>
> SCCA has a pre-established method to keeping classes; overall
> participation in that class; once it fails to meet the thresholds
> set, it is considered for combination and consolidation.
>
> If SCCA hadn't demonstrated that certain classes get to stay
> national, despite not making the cutoff (GT3), or if SCCA was making
> way for a tuner class, a drifter class, or something that is clearly
> popular, would clearly create draw, and/or demonstrated "business
> saavy" to generate income, I would be hard pressed to argue theirm
> move
>
> Such does not appear to be the case. They are doing this why? I
> Quote: "In addition, opportunities for new classes such as those
> using biofuels and hydro- gen energy sources must be made possible
> for the future." I can't even begin to comment on that one.
>
> Most of the prod racers I've noticed have tended to say, if SCCA
> wanted 21 classes, why not just make the run-off cut-off 21 instead
> of 23/24 and be done with it? HP either ponies up with
> participation or gets trampled, that simple.
>
> I always knew my car with a 30 year long log book would end up in
> vintage. The writing has always been on the wall that HP will go
> away at some point. I just didn't need the kick in the nuts.
>
> Anyone got a '72 GCR I can have? or burn a copy for me on a DVD?
>
>
> Thanks
>
> -Scott Cypher
> spitfireracer@xsmail.com
> SCCA #57 HP Spitfire 1500 #362573
> Reading, PA
> http://gallery.mac.com/srcypher
>
>
>
> On Jun 2, 2008, at 12:59 PM, Bill Babcock wrote:
>
>
> So the question is, how is this the SCCA's fault? If the SCCA didn't
> pay attention to this and other racing phenomena, car concentrations,
> costs, and trends then I wouldn't consider them family. I'd consider
> them too dumb to live.
_______________________________________________
http://www.team.net/donate.html
Fot mailing list
Fot@autox.team.net
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/fot
|