Chuck,
I disagree. Did you read the INAV article in question? That "article" is
not a list of AMA rule proposals that are to be submitted. It is a
letter from one person who thinks rules for a bunch of events need to
change. Big difference as far as I am concerned. A letter to the editor
to me isn't the same as an official rule proposal. Hence my "All models
need to be green." comment. In the AMA process the initial proposal is
either passed or not passed. If a guy wants to make A-6 props 8"
diameter instead of 6", a cross proposal in the AMA system can only be
submitted after it passes the initial vote and is limited to
establishing the same objective as the initial proposal.
So do we spend time now discussing the merits of an 8" A-6 prop, or do
we wait and see if it is even proposed in the first place? Personally I
am going to wait. If it is proposed then it can be openly discussed and
people can express their opinion to their local District Indoor Contest
Board member prior to Boards initial vote. I do not see an issue with
that approach in regards to the AMA process, the FAI process is a
different story. I can not recall anytime where the AMA process rammed a
set of unpopular indoor rules through like the way the FAI has done. I
think the AMA process is much more transparent and and allows the
modeling community to voice its opinion.
On 1/7/2016 7:01 PM, Chuck Etherington chuck.etherington_at_jeppesen.com
[Indoor_Construction] wrote:
>
> Don,
>
> No one is suggesting that a full indoor community discussion is
> required. But your strategy of waiting to see if proposals are
> actually submitted to the AMA risks further frustration. Your comment,
> “If they are officially proposed then I think it will be time to
> address each point individually” is not a formula for success. It will
> actually be PAST time to address each point individually. I think Mr.
> Finn stated it nicely in an earlier posting:
>
> “For those who haven't seen it, there is an article on INAV by Wally
> Miller proposing a set of rules changes. Given what has happened with
> recent proposals slipping in unopposed for lack of public circulation,
> it behooves us to consider the ramifications now rather than when the
> proposals get submitted for votes.”
>
Received on Thu Jan 07 2016 - 16:42:35 CET
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:48 CET