July Fastrack

[lateapex911]

Your naive.

On the changes -
Last month: "Once again, the Board is committed to this program, without significant changes, for the next three years. "
This month: "We didn't mean that."

On leaving IT philosophy alone if it goes National -

This month: "Nothing will change in regards to the ruleset and the running of the category."
Next month: "except for this...."

But....there is absolutely NO guarantee of any of that occurring now. And you have no idea of what's been discussed in the past, only what you see....which might indicate...just maybe, that, the ITAC has been consistent and knows what makes IT IT.

And I bet this- If the ITAC were to have been consulted on that move when the task force was "strategising", the ITAC would have insisted on some controlling language to be written to protect the category.

 

[RSTPerformance]

Bill, we're doing some "housecleaning stuff" let's say, right now, and letters have been delayed a bit, sorry.

Also, did you guys see this?

Jake-

What page was the driver suit Item 2 on??? I can't seem to find it in the PDF...

Raymond

 

[jjjanos]

But....there is absolutely NO guarantee of any of that occurring now. And you have no idea of what's been discussed in the past, only what you see....which might indicate...just maybe, that, the ITAC has been consistent and knows what makes IT IT.

I agree. I have no guarantee that this won't happen. What I do have is a body of data, that when I look at it, suggests that the "powers that be" don't meddle in a "lowly" regional-only class, but are chomping at the bit to monkey-around with their "premier" national classes. I, and others, didn't come to that conclusion in a void - if we don't trust the powers that be, there are reasons.

And I bet this- If the ITAC were to have been consulted on that move when the task force was "strategising", the ITAC would have insisted on some controlling language to be written to protect the category.

Which I think would be a fine idea and is one of the reasons why I thought and still think that this reorganization plan was a complete FUBAR. Despite the notices in Fast Track, this had the smell and appearance of a secret cabal making decisions w/o input from those being affected. I think reorganization is a great idea and, frankly, I'm in favor of a foundation to eaves overhaul. I think IT being Runoffs-eligible might be a good thing, but it depends on the complete proposal.

 

[JamesB]

Opps was already answered.

Im ok with just house cleaning, less to discuss.