Thanks John.
I certainly don't want to unfairly criticize or act paranoid. I'm just
interested in how a solidly unpopular rule proposal can pass by a
(landslide) 22-6 vote. At minimum it seems that the worldwide fraternity
of F1D flyers was not consulted. And, how many of those 28 countries
actually have F1D flyers?
Changing rules from the top down without openly consulting the affected
flyers is good way to destroy credibility in any rule-making body.
Don A. DeLoach
Freelance Commercial Writer
Editor, National Free Flight Society Digest
Colorado Springs, Colo.
719-964-7117 voice
ddeloach_at_comcast.net
On 4/24/2014 5:42 PM, John Barker wrote:
> Don,
>
> I think you are overstating things. I believe the CIAM adhere to the
> laid down procedures but that National bodies, from the top to ‘grass
> roots’ level do not take sufficient interest in what is going on and
> therefore fail to make proper representation at the right time. It is
> an interesting fact about rule making that if a proposed change is put
> before the leading flyers of the class concerned then almost all of them
> will vote against change. Often because they believe they will lose the
> advantage of knowledge gained from experience. In practice a rule
> change usually causes a few fliers to change to a different class but
> the majority see the rule change as a challenge which they soon meet and
> remain as leaders in the discipline.
>
> John
>
> *From:*Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Don DeLoach
> *Sent:* 24 April 2014 00:51
> *To:* Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Indoor_Construction] Re:
>
> Semantics.
>
> There's obviously a sizable majority of F1D flyers who are unhappy with
> this rule change, which seems to have been introduced at the eleventh
> hour, intentionally, with little debate.
>
> This episode has certainly dealt a serious blow to the credibility of
> CIAM and its processes.
>
> Am I overstating?
>
> DD
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Apr 22, 2014, at 6:14 PM, András Reé <ree_at_eik.bme.hu
> <mailto:ree_at_eik.bme.hu>> wrote:
>
> LeoP has described the CIAM voting procedure and usual practice
> correctly.
>
> In case of a vote on a proposal, only the number of votes are
> registered, the countries not, that concerns for the TMs as well. At
> the FFTM, after discussion, finally there was a 7:3 majority vote
> for the proposal. (During the discussion there was a test vote on a
> supposed proposal variant not adding the 0.2 g weight to the model,
> it has got 9:1 support, but as there was no such proposal on the
> table, the final voting happened on the original one.)
>
> Having majority vote on the proposal, it was recommended at the
> Plenary. I noted 22 votes for the proposal, 8 against (someone else
> noted 6), so 30 or 28 countries voted. As 40 countries were
> represented, 10 or 12 not voted, which is possible and recommended
> if the country is not interested or involved in the particular class.
>
> Andras
>
> 2014-04-23 0:29 GMT+02:00 <leop_at_lyradev.com <mailto:leop_at_lyradev.com>>:
>
>
>
> Aurel and others,
>
> I emailed Ian Kaynes, the chair of the Free Flight Technical
> committee, to ask about the vote detail for the Free Flight
> Technical committee (7 to 3 in favor) as the FFT Committee vote
> was to make a favorable recommendation for the F1D rule change
> to the CIAM Plenary. Ian Kaynes emailed back that he did not
> record the countries voting for or against as this was time
> consuming and only the vote numbers were needed. I replied
> asking that if he had any recollection of the three countries
> voting against the rule change or how the countries voted in the
> Plenary meeting, could he please email back with such
> recollections. I have not yet received a reply to that question
> so I suspect he does not have such recollections.
>
> Andras Ree was at the Free Flight Technical meeting. Perhaps he
> can fill us in on the vote detail for the Free Flight Technical
> Committee meeting and the Plenary meeting that followed.
>
> Please note that of the ten countries represented at the FFTM,
> six countries had entrants in the recent 2014 Indoor World
> Championships at Slanic. At least three of those countries must
> have voted in favor of the F1D rules changes. Also note that
> the technical representatives to the FFT Committee have no
> obligation, as explicitly stated in the FAI Sporting
> Regulations, to vote as instructed by their National
> Aeromodeling Committee. These experts are allowed to vote as
> their expertise directs them. The recommendations of the FFT
> Committee have great weight with the CIAM Plenary. Ian Kaynes
> has informed me that if the vote in the FFTM is unanimous, the
> Plenary usually follows the FFT Committee's votes without a
> formal vote of the Plenary.
>
> LeoP, Bloomington, Indiana, USA
>
>
Received on Fri Apr 25 2014 - 05:02:04 CEST
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:48 CET