I personally have no issue with the 50% tail rule. Whatever the majority want is fine with me.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark F1diddler
To: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 1:12 PM
Subject: [Indoor_Construction] Re: A6 proposal
--- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, "olbill61" <wdgowen_at_...> wrote:
>
> BUT:
>
> Proposing more than one new event or having multiple conflicting proposals would probably greatly reduce the possibility of any proposal getting enough votes to be approved.>>
Yep, that's known as "obstructionism" and CAN be a good thing.
ANY event submitted for new AMA status should be able to claim, "This class and rule set has already proven itself by working well for X amount of time." IOW, "tried and true" is a good basis for rules and event legitimacy. If someone wants to insert their own ideas to "fix it better" that's FINE, but then expect some serious obstructionism (counter proposals.)
A functioning consensus can still be built for A6, even based on DDL rule ideas. But such change needs to be proven with (yet more) time. Not, "Submit first, ask questions later."
IMO, to close a loophole such as variable pitch is not a substantive change, but to add a tail area rule is substantive change, and should trigger "the brakes" if you're going to force it to coincide with new event status.
Don D, please consider chairing the 2010 grassroots A6 Committee. (See message #7009) Just gather up all willing stakeholders. (I'll stay out.) If such convenes, March 15 should be considered irrelevant.
Mark F1diddler
Received on Wed Feb 03 2010 - 10:22:35 CET
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:45 CET