[Autox] Rule 4.9
Mark Sirota
mark at sirota.org
Tue Dec 29 18:20:25 MST 2009
----- "Paul and Meredith Brown" <l8apexrs at q.com> wrote:
> Letters to the SEB are useful if they contain actual solutions, not
> just complaining. Nor is sheer volume of any particular use other
> than to show that there is some level of interest in the issue ...
>
> In this case, it doesn't seem that simply reducing the required
> numbers is a real solution. When the participation numbers
> continue to go down, then you'll be back in this situation later on
> asking for a further reduction in the requirement.
What he said.
> Rocky does present a solution, but it's very much imperfect; I've
> already responded as to why I don't think it's really a great
> approach. It might be the best one that can be implemented, and may
> be a crutch for a bad situation, but I still think that improving
> participation in the low-turnout classes is still the right approach.
> And yes, some sort of "soft landing" for an ailing class may help to
> reduce the losses and help encourage people to make a commitment to a
> class that may be on the edge now.
Let me follow up on that by reiterating that in addition to offering
a possible solution, you also need to clearly state what problem you're
trying to solve, and why it's a problem for the health of the sport as
a whole, not just a problem for you.
I think it's a reasonable argument that the current implementation of
4.9 does present a real problem which Paul alludes to here -- it
discourages participation in classes which need participation (assuming
you agree with the concept of "need participation" -- Rocky's position
is that it's fine for some classes to have low participation). Start
with that (or something similar) as a problem statement, and then work
your way to a solution for your stated problem.
Mark (former SEB member with Paul, on a break from the sport since 2004)
More information about the Autox
mailing list