All I'm saying is that history keeps repeating itself.
History's not the only thing, pal.
Having been involved on a board of directors for a volunteer organization, and I need to stress this, a
volunteer organization, I can say this much. Many times, decisions are made with the full knowledge that the implications will cause an uproar, that accusations will fly, that favoritism will be alledged, and that board members are trying to game the system. It is my experience, having served on such a board, that the membership's interests are usually being served to the best ability of the board members. And success is not guaranteed.
As to the masked man's question,
Does anybody actually have an argument against having a comment period for rule changes? I keep waiting for a post with an actual argument in it to respond to but nobody seems to be able to come up with one. Tell me why a heads-up to the racers and a comment period would be a bad thing. Anyone?
I think it’s a good idea. But is it practical, or possible, when the parties involved are volunteering their time? This sounds like a task that was delegated to some experts – probably the smartest thing that could have been done, at least from the point of view of a volunteer organization, and especially considering the fact that safety is the main issue. That's not a cop-out, that's an observation.
As to the timing of the news, think this one through - These committee members are also racers, and they’re bombarded with questions, day in, and day out. How often do they get a chance to talk to each other face-to-face regarding issues as important as this one?
The first meet of the year is a 2-day event, usually with a huge turnout. Would you, as a committee member, want to be holding court with every bike racer with a 200 mph target, talk tires for 2 days straight, and then try to concentrate on racing? How long would inspection take if every bike rider with the potential to go 200+ wound up pumping the inspectors for tire info? The bike side of the event would have turned into a nightmare for everybody, and the event would have suffered. Instead, this year, better than 150 entrants had the opportunity at three passes. Everybody got their attempts. And they all have about a month to make changes – including those on the committees.
Are my thoughts on this out of line? Idyllically, there would be a complete vetting of rule proposals openly, involving as many people as possible. Pragmatically, I can’t see how, with the disparate schedules we all lead, that it could be done on a timely basis.
Does this mean I’m an arrogant elitists who turns a deaf ear to the proletariat? It occurs to me that this rule change is going to have the same effect on everybody, including those who made it.
Standing down.
Chris
PS -
I've been corrected - they have until August to make changes.
