Charlie writes...
>We weren't talking about whether we needed
>rookie classes, we were talking
>about whether doing away with them would help an >attendance problem.
If attendance is huge October 1st, you don't think it would be huge at the
next event? And the event after that? When the days are even shorter? How
long is this "No New Memberships Accepted" policy supposed to last? Just
Round 1? The whole series? I can't think of a better way to kill a program
other than not allowing new people to try it.
I think you are right. Probably, at the first event, my idea wouldn't make
THAT much of a difference. But over the long run, it probably would. We've
heard from countless people that without the rookie class, they wouldn't be
running.
This, of course, makes me sad, because these are extremly nice people, and I
like having them around. BUT look: they're leaving by their own choice. That
could solve the attendence problem without ANYONE having to say, "No, you
can't try it." No one is actually telling anyone to GO HOME. I just don't
like that idea at all.
You HAVE to think about the long run.
I like the fact that people are thinking of creative ideas to solve the too
much attendence problem. History has shown us, however, that the more simple
the rules are, the better the odds of us actually sticking with it.
Look back the twenty years you've been around, and pay attention to the
things that have survived, and things we totally forgot about. Everything
that requires remembering an extra rule is forgotten.
Things we've lost:
-Killer Pintos from Outer Space
-The one humungous rookie rungroup that lasted three hours.
-Our mentoring program.
I'm sure there were more, but I forgot.
The reason why we lost these things is because they all required the efforts
of one person willing to do a lot more work than anyone else. When that
individual stops, his or her "idea" stops. Then we fall back to our basics
again.
Look at things that have survived:
-SCCA classes.
-The eight run group format.
-A points series.
These are basic things that have just survived the past thirty years because
they just work. When I think of these things, I don't think of individuals,
I think of the club itself. But when I think of the first ideas listed
above, I can tie in an actual individual to each program. When that
individual stopped, so did the idea.
Something recent that we allowed, and works, is our passengers rule. We have
no Passenger Herder. It requires no extra individual effort. If you want to
ride with someone, you just can. Ideas thrown around back when this new rule
was debated were all these extras, like you can't ride with anyone before
your official runs. Only, the SC wisely noted that we can't enforce that
rule, so why have it. This is a fine example of a new change intended to
make things more fun that doesn't require any extra effort. That's why it
works.
I want to know why we need to think of all these extra and more complicated
rules to keep our events "friendly," when we could all just be more friendly
ourselves. And now we need something complicated and downright mean to keep
people out?
How about: those who like autocrossing, stay, and those who don't, leave.
So, I just ask that the SC really think about the long term, far beyond the
glossy idealist exterior of all these ideas, which are all great and
wonderful. Whatever you decide, of course I'll support it. I like Jerry's
idea a lot. It sounds fun. But what it all comes down to is: WHO'S going to
do the extra work? I just ask that you (as in the Steering Committee)
seriously think about that. Debate it ad nauseum, please.
More than that, I ask of the SC that you don't make a really extreme
decision based on one event's bad luck.
And by the way, I don't consider 37 new members bad luck. It's too much good
luck.
Katie K.
|