John,
We understand your urge to raise the "I told you so" flag. You may even be
correct in this case. However, as others have suggested, you are a little
trigger happy on this one. Gauging the 6 run format based on the data
gathered at boondoggle would not be fair since there were other factors that
contaminated the data. That is if you care about being fair.
--Navid
>
> John,
> I was addressing you for several reasons.
> 1.I think you're considerable more than a reasonable person.
> 2.I was replying to your second posting because it was convenient.
> 3. As Mr. McKenna came up with his proposal in the middle of the
> '05 Slush series when
> he hadn't attended very many, if any, of our early-season '05 events, I
> felt his motivations, while pure, were also not entirely thought out.
> Witness the boondoggle, et cetera.
> 4. One of the things left out in previous discussions was the
> amount of time our workers would have to be on course. Especially on a hot
> summer day. Yesterday that time was 2 hours.
> 5. No matter how you split it, the 6-group method requires at
> least
> one group to immediately go from driving to working. Every time. As the
> goal is to keep the work time to a minimum, the 6-group method doesn't
> work
> for everybody, as well-intentioned as it is.
> 6. What the 6-group system fails to consider is the number of
> parking spaces required while waiting. In the 8-group system the wait time
> is reduced to its lowest possible time.
> 7, By the way, it was an extremely close vote that put the
> 6-system into play. I think we need to reconsider before we are faced with
> competing organizations who have little time for what will become the
> "SCCA
> way."
> 8. We made an unfortunate error putting both the new registration
> system and the 6-run group system into operation at our largest event of
> then year.
> 9. Let's admit we made a mistake, fix it, and then get on with the
> program.. The 8-group system really does work.
>
> --John Kelly
|