Special Stage Forums banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Recent writings by a few honorable members of the PRB who took the time to write here on SS on line brings up once again the seemingly Gordian knowt of a problem that they say they never get comments, and their dogmatic and unbending adhereance to the principle that only individual email to them counts as input.
When somebody says that they have recieved 2 emails on the 20 year rule, as if that is all the interest there is on that subject, it is verging on being worthy of a modern politician staement, or like Nelson at Copenhagen when he was commanded to cease fire by signal flags and he raised his telescop to his eye with the eyepatch, and said "I see no signal to cease firing..."

please Christain, JB, and George, you read here, this is the _de facto_ palce where relevant discussion from memebers and active participants, please stop acting like and staing that without the thing coming in thru your SCCA mailing address it doesn't count for anything.


and Christian if you quote bajs-laws again I will do like Nanook of the North did in that song about the Huskies.

You guys must show you are reponsive to membership and if part of that is by writing here, then that should be the case.

Ifn I were dictator, personally would require PRB members to comment here when things were addressed to them or I'd boot them for non-performance of their duties which they voluteered to do.
Quite the reverse from the current EXPRESSED POLICY whereby new PRB members are instructed to never write or comment here.

This is your chance to begin to build some credibility for the PRboard, there have been many suggestions as to how you can be responsive to membership within the structure of the silly SCCA Bajs-laws.



John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

Black Rocket Rally Tires
http://www.blackrockettires.com/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
415 Posts
John

We have gone through this way to many times....

You know that this will never be the place for SCCA's club information, because this is not the SCCA's Website. Please stop asking them to use our site for their official information.

I don't want to be responsible for their clubs' information on our site. They have a lovely magazine, 800 numbers, email addresses, websites, etc for for their club member information exchange.

Again! SpecialStage.com doesn't want the responsibility of hosting information for them, not the other way around.

Jeff Burmeister
SpecialStage.com
 

·
Administrator Emeritus
Joined
·
1,253 Posts
On the other hand, it would make sense for the "leaders" to try to find out what the "people" want by searching out the places that the "people" actually use to discuss the problems with the "leaders".

And the "people" should put forth every effort to make their desires known to the "leaders". That means you can't assume the "leaders" are seeking you out wherever you may be.

We are not, nor will we ever be, an official site for any club. If they choose to communicate here, great. If they want this to be the official notice board for the club, no thanks. We are here for the "people" of North American Rally.
 

·
don't cut
Joined
·
4,073 Posts
John, I have been told that only 28% of the membership is electronically connected to the world. I have no idea if that is anywhere close to the truth. However, there are over 1100 rally licenses and 1906 active members here. I think I just made my own argument, that we have to communicate with the unconnected, mote. However I need to find what percentage of the 70,000 total SCCA members check off ProRally on the form when they renew. I seem to recall it is up to 15%. So 15% of 70,000 is 10,500. If only 28% of those have web connection and all of those were signed up here, then there would be 2940 people signed up here. So it again appears that while communication here is good, there are many other avenues of communication that need to continue in use.
Richard

Added: Someone asked about the 28% figure having internet access. I called Topeka and Wendy says it is around 60%. That is close enough for government purposes. That means of the 10,500 SCCA members who are interested in rallying, 60% times 10,500 or 6300 should be signed up here. We still need to use ALL means of communication possible.
Richard
 

·
Big Jump 800
Joined
·
716 Posts
Thanks Jim, as JV has made clear, many of us read this forum. Some more than others... others never.

We also know that the writers on these forums do not represent a majority of competitors, although they do represent a very vocal share of the community.

J.B. Niday
www.nidayrallysport.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
678 Posts
Just wanted to comment that one does not need to register here to be able to read the forum. That means that there could be whole lot of people who read this forum but never post, and consequently never registered. I have heard it said before that actually the majority of people don't usually participate in public forums like this, but instead just lurk. So, it might be theoretically possible that close to 6000 people read this forum (though probably not).

Forum admins, any clues from the logs as to the number of people who read the specialstage forum?

Thanks!

Shenan
 

·
I am not here anymore
Joined
·
2,798 Posts
If the internet access numbers are correct (28% or 60%), then how does the PRB justify posting new rule "concepts" (that's the rulebook name for them) to the web with a member comment deadline so short that online access is the only way that a member can get the rule change concepts and review them and get their comments back to the PRB in time?

Because of my travel schedule, I wasn't able to follow this year's rule change concept, but last year's (or was it 2001?), there was only a week or so for comments and the concepts were posted to the SCCA web site late. For a group that doesn't post a lot of stuff on the web in a timely fashion because not enough members have internet access, that seemed like an unusual move.

alan
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
>John
>
>We have gone through this way to many times....
>
>You know that this will never be the place for SCCA's club
>information, because this is not the SCCA's Website. Please
>stop asking them to use our site for their official
>information.

Jeff, I will presume that you have a lot on your plate and your perhaps not reading as carefully as you might, but I have not advocated that this become the OFFICIAL or even OAFISH-AL site for SCCA.

What I am suggesting however is that IF this is where discussion is KNOWN TO BE HAPPENING, and then we are told "we recieve no input or 1 or two emails on things" then I would say that they are being either disingenous to the extreme or just obstinate in the extreme.

I liken the situation as this:

Imagine a big crowd of people discussing things to a great deal including real suggestion as well as justified emotional responses to let's just say for example the 20 year rule.....
In our example we see the 1500 or 3000 or 6000whatever over there in that corner of a big public square.
But over there----------------------------------------------------------------------------------->>>>>>>>> we see 6 or 7 or 8 guys gathered in a circle talking to eachother about who knows what, but occasionally they say "Hey you guys, if you want us to consider anyrhing you say as worthy of our consideration, then you must address us in a exact manner, sorry its the LAW!!!!!!!"
This is essentially the situation as it exsists today.

So Jeff, I am not advocting that SS on Line become the "Organ of the Party" but that the claiming to have not recieved, that is not to be aware of, membership views on given subjects, is purposeful avoidance, or willful ignoring of what SS on line has become.
Got it?
>
>I don't want to be responsible for their clubs' information
>on our site. They have a lovely magazine, 800 numbers, email
>addresses, websites, etc for for their club member
>information exchange.

No that's only one way, not exchange and after the fact ususally, here is discussion: sometimes in advance of rules getting published with their usually poorly thought thru, poorly worded and usually cavalier regard for the effect.
>
>Again! SpecialStage.com doesn't want the responsibility of
>hosting information for them, not the other way around.
Fine fine, don't put words in my fingertips or misstae what I am suggesting, see Jim's post.
>
>Jeff Burmeister
>SpecialStage.com





John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

Black Rocket Rally Tires
http://www.blackrockettires.com/
 
G

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
>If the internet access numbers are correct (28% or 60%),
>then how does the PRB justify posting new rule "concepts"
>(that's the rulebook name for them) to the web with a member
>comment deadline so short that online access is the only way
>that a member can get the rule change concepts and review
>them and get their comments back to the PRB in time?


The justification is that makes people feel warm
and fuzzy about the PRB, because they believe the
PRB actually cares what they think.

With the manufacturer's council and the current rules
implementation system it makes little difference if rule
proposals are submitted to the members for comment
a year in advance or 10 minutes in advance.

Those with the gold rule... to a point. However, they
are wise enough to realize that if the membership revolts
those with the gold will have to find another place to
play.... and it won't be handed to them on a silver platter
like ProRally has been.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
907 Posts
Just as JB said. Most of us read ss.com and some of us post.
But having said that, the SCCA has certain procedures in place for us to follow. To speak on my behalf, I belive that some of the procedures need to be changed in order for the PRB to be able to comunicate more effectively to the rally comunity. I am working on couple of things to make the PRB a little more visible and hopefully open up more communication channels with the membership.

-george
 

·
www.christianedstrom.com
Joined
·
2,144 Posts
>If the internet access numbers are correct (28% or 60%),
>then how does the PRB justify posting new rule "concepts"
>(that's the rulebook name for them) to the web with a member
>comment deadline so short that online access is the only way
>that a member can get the rule change concepts and review
>them and get their comments back to the PRB in time?

Alan, in all fairness, I think you're mistaken. To wit:

In 2003, the rule concepts were released in the May issue of Fastrack, with rule comments needing to be in by May 26, 2003.

The May Fastrack was on the SCCA.com website on March 28, 2003, and the May issue of SportsCar reached all subscribers by May 1, 2003 (and, in fact, reached most subscribers by the second week of April.)

That gave a minimum of 26 days or a maximum of 58 days to reply to the rule concepts. The first member comment was received on 3/28/03, and the last comment was received on 5/21/03

I can't speak to the timeline in prior years, as 2003 was my first year on the PRB.

Thanks,
- Christian

Bjorn Christian Edstrom
www.christianedstrom.com
 

·
I am not here anymore
Joined
·
2,798 Posts
>Alan, in all fairness, I think you're mistaken. To wit:

Hey, man. You are on the PRB, so you have no concept of fair :p That's how it works there, right?

I said that I didn't follow this year's rule change concept. I was referring to last year's. That is the one that introduced a separate license for drivers and codrivers, adding references to all relevant sections for Group N to the SCCA book, plus the new seat, first aid kit and spill kit requirements. Unfortunately, my PDF copy is corrupted and I can't read the first page, so I can't quote the document number.

Notice that the document would be made available was sent via a post card just before the 4th of July and the close for comments was the 10th, I think. There was some delay in making the document available, but the deadline was not moved back. I don't know if any grace period was allowed, but I recall a comment in the PRB meeting minutes that indicated that the deadline was closed as scheduled.

If you really care, I can look up all of this and be more specific. I even have the postcard around here somewhere.

alan
 

·
www.christianedstrom.com
Joined
·
2,144 Posts
>Hey, man. You are on the PRB, so you have no concept of
>fair :p That's how it works there, right?

Clearly. My eyes are burning from the smoke in all the back room deals. :+

> I was referring to last year's.

My mistake, and I've no more information about that than you do. Strangely, it was omitted from my otherwise complete copy of "The Compleat Annals of the Most Holy Secrets of the PRB and Rosicrucians" that I received (along with the sacred branding) upon my induction.

Oh, wait, that didn't happen.

- Christian

Bjorn Christian Edstrom
www.christianedstrom.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
366 Posts
So what is being said here? That any questions comments etc. have to be in writing and handed in through proper channels?

In other words I can not call a PRB member on the phone and discuss my concerns and have those concerns validated in the next PRB meeting?

If the answer to that is NO, of course you can phone in concerns to a PRB member-then why cannot a PRB member take our discussions from this forum of communitcation and apply that as the same as a phone call to a PRB member.

No this is not a SCCA official form of communication-so what. The discussions are none the less related to rally and in the USA that limits us to a lot of SCCA events. Knowing that a lot of SCCA members frequent this forum and comment on items concerning the rally community should be enough validation to address concerns made on this forum in a PRB meeting-regardless of how the communication was conveyed.

Should we just copy threads and present them to PRB members through official channels? Or give PRB members links to discussions/threads that those of us that are SCCA members find important?

As always IMHO:+
 

·
www.christianedstrom.com
Joined
·
2,144 Posts
Sean wrote:

>Knowing that a lot of SCCA members frequent this forum and
>comment on items concerning the rally community should be
>enough validation to address concerns made on this forum in
>a PRB meeting-regardless of how the communication was
>conveyed.

Sure, but the level of attention paid to internet discussion boards is far less than the level of attention paid to a letter addressed to the PRB with specific requests.

In the hierarchy of getting the PRB's attention, I think it goes something like this:

1. Idle chatter.
2. Internet message board.
3. Phone call or personal conversation with PRB member.
4. Letter to the PRB.

Given that some PRB members don't read SS.com, and that options 3 and 4 contain a certain component of personal urgency, I think this priority is the correct one.

In effect, if you post here, chances are good that JB, George, and I will read it. But there is no guarantee that we'll bring it up on a conference call, discuss it, put it in the minutes, or anything else. Basically, it depends on what else we're doing.

If you send a letter to the PRB, it's officially entered as correspondence from a competitor, forwarded to all 7 PRB members, responded to, and recorded in the minutes.

All I'm saying is, if you want your issues heard by the full board, don't count on my copying and pasting your responses in a SS.com thread and presenting them as a fait accompli to the board.

You are welcome to disagree with this prioritization, but I'm calling it like I see it.

- Christian

Bjorn Christian Edstrom
www.christianedstrom.com
 

·
Big Jump 800
Joined
·
716 Posts
All I'd add to Christian's comment is, sure call me or e-mail me anytime you wish... I answer all calls and e-mail messages that include questions (most I receive are statements that require no reply). Just understand that if we TALK about stuff, we're exchanging ideas, but once you have a formal proposal to make to the PRB, you MUST go through the formal channels so it gets handled in a consistent manner with everything else.

BTW, all my phone numbers are unlisted...

J.B. Niday
www.nidayrallysport.com
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
>

>
>"The Compleat Annals of the Most Holy Secrets of the
>PRB and Rosicrucians" that I received (along with the sacred
>branding) upon my induction.
>
Branding you recieved upon your induction!!!!!
I though you guys got it on your left bum-cheek?.
>
>- Christian
>
>Bjorn Christian Edstrom
>www.christianedstrom.com





John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

Black Rocket Rally Tires
http://www.blackrockettires.com/
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top