>I am very happy to hear about the 8 run groups returning -- some of
>those work assignments on 6 groups were loooong!
Maybe my point got lost a bit, I'll clarify...
The whole goal is to make the work groups as short as possible for the most
possible people. I think we can all agree that is a worthwhile goal, and
leads to the highest quality event.
Under our "back to the past" system of going back to 8 run groups, this WILL
NOT HAPPEN at the majority of our events!!!
Why? Well, at the majority of our regular season events last year we were
understaffed on the 8 rungroup system. There are 2 "fixes" to this :
1. Require MANY volunteers to keep it running.
2. Combine rungroups, in the afternoon.
In reality, we often did both in the past in that we'd scramble all morning
getting extra volunteers, and then in the afternoon we'd combine. I don't
think that in regular season last year we EVER combined MORNING rungroups
(we did one event in slush).
So in the morning, you end up with some folks working DOUBLE their "alloted"
time (i.e. some work for roughly 1/8th of the cars, some work for roughly
1/4).
In the afternoon, you no longer need volunteers but you have EVERYONE
working for roughly 1/4 of the cars instead of 1/8.
In the 6 rungroup format, you end up with folks working for roughly 1/6 of
the cars.
Net result : some folks get a break, many/most folks work LONGER TIMES than
they would if we had just set it up as 6 rungroups up front.
>Since I think everyone agrees that we should not have all newbies at a
>station could we modify the signup sheet to make the first column of the
>course work assignment read "station captain" and put a notation that
>you must be a 1-year veteran to take this position?
Good idea.
>And then let's discuss how to boost our attendance so that it will not
>fall below 230!
Judging from recent past, that one is relatively simple and gets to why I
think this knee-jerk reaction was made at the last meeting (given where are
first two events were held). Navid brought it up at the meeting, as a
matter of fact.
Simple : hold the events at Oakland. Look at the 2005 results, and our
attendance falls off pretty noticably at all of our other sites.
In the ideal world (as in, what our turnouts support), we'd set up with 8
rungroups at Oakland when turnout is expected good (good weather, earlier in
the year) and 6 everywhere else. I'd suggest that might be a bit tough to
implement given how much (or rather, surprisingly, how little) of our
attendance looks on the web for info before an event!
FWIW, for regular season 2006 our site breakdown is as follows :
Oakland : 6 (2 of which are already done, 3 after this weekend)
Monster Park : 4
Marina : 4
GGF : 1
Atwater : 1 (the National Tour)
Ed
|