> Ok, I'll bite, and share what my personal opinion is of what my duties are
> as a SEB member, and the perspective necessary serve in the position, and
> what I put into SOLO rules changes and writing.
Kool. Great.
> Consider the overall implications that would happen with changing
> preparation allowances over a category wide basis like Stock or Street
> Prepared.
Aha! Why must all changes be catagory wide?
> Never ever have there been specific allowances written for an
> individual stock or street prepared car to overcome some type of handicap.
Why not?
I'm not being facitious, I'm serious. Why not?
Has it ever been tried? Been given serious consideration?
> If someone want to volunteer to rewrite the rulebook to class cars based on
> all the unknown performance potentials of all those "but its just an itsy
> bitsy change/replacement for <insert reason>"
Well, if (and that's a MIGHTY BIG "if" - absolutly by no means a given) the
Membership decided they wanted the ability to do this, then why wouldn't it be
the job of the SEB to draw up procedures for submitting an "allowence request"
and then reviewing them - and if neccessary, adjusting them?
Yes, it might be a lot of work, but is "it'd be a lot of work" really a good
enough reason for not doing it, assuming that it's what the Membership wants?
> 2) Consider the importance of rules stability. Hypothetically, a 1"
> reduction in wheel diameter for a stock C5 Corvette would by precedent have
> to be made stock category wide.
THAT, _right there_ is what I think needs to be looked at. Why should this be
so? Why not allow specific changes for specific cars?
> 3) I am not complaining but, for the most part, it is a thankless job.
I don't doubt that for a second, and for what it's worth, "Thank you" I
certainly have no complaints about any member of the SEB or the work that they
are doing.
However, I'm sure that you agree with me when I say "If the Membership decides
they want something, then the SEB must do it." Right?
And I'm not for a second claiming that the Membership has been shown to want
what I'm kinda proposing here. It sure sounds like it sometimes, but that's
hardly proof.
> I took the position to give something back to an
> activity that I have had an absolute blast doing for the past 14 years.
I think that's a pretty damn good motivator. Bravo. (No sarcasm, I mean it)
Incidently, that's what I'm trying to do here, to a certain extent. Let's tip a
few sacred cows, and see how many are still living! :)
> The SCCA is as much of a democracy as any organization.
> Rules are not changed by decree.
I have no reason to doubt this, but it can be hard to see sometimes.
Lemme give you an example. I wrote a letter about a year, year and a half ago
proposing a blanket change in SP. In retrospect, it was too broad, and not well
researched, and it shouldn't've been approved.
However, I was never contacted to discuss it, nor was it published in FastTrack
for discussion. In fact, the only way I even knew the SEB got it was when it was
mentioned in FastTrack - under the "rejected" heading.
Now you probably did me a favour, 'cause as written it was a pretty dumb idea.
But it bothered me at the time that I never got a chance to hear the arguments
against it.
Lemme ask you this, too: If (someone else's - mine sucked) "dumb idea" keeps
coming up over and over, is it still a dumb idea? At what point does "people
want it" take precidence over SEB opinion?
DG
|