Jason, thank you for you vote of confidence – on both sites.
As I told you when I asked you to be part of the SM advisory group, the rules are reviewed every year. Some years it has been done more privately than others. I choose to do things openly and with as much racer input as possible.
When this landed in my lap at the beginning of June, nothing, in any of the classes, had been begun. Some classes, like SM, where you are part of the advisory group, didn’t even have an advisory group. Those have been formed. All of the class rules have been reviewed by people who race in that class. The opinions from the advisory groups have been sent to the Class Review Board, the chiefs of tech for the racing regions. I have most of the opinions from them. All of the rules have been reviewed by the chief of tech in the racing regions. All of the rules will be reviewed by the REs. I am currently finalizing all of the class rules review material for the REs. It will be sent to them through their agenda process by the end of the week, well before their deadline.
Last year the decision to use the same tire for SM regional racing as for national racing was made by the REs at the mid year meeting without any input from racers, advisory boards, or the Class Review Board. This year there is an advisory group from the SM community and they, including you, gave input based on your own opinion as well as opinions from others. I’m sure all of you gave an opinion that you thought was the best for the class, not just your personal opinion. You have the unique position of being part of that other group and bring perspective from those who cross over into SCCA racing as well. I’m sorry that your opinion wasn’t in the majority opinion from the SM advisory group. But it is very rare that a committee will be in complete agreement.
Last year two of the members of the IT7 advisory committee took it upon themselves to request a spec tire for the class where there had been none before. They made an opinion poll. Some of the racers were missed with the poll. Some of the racers were contacted with the poll. Some of the racers responded to the poll. I have been unable to find any evidence that this proposal was given to the Class Review Board before it was presented to the REs by those members of the committee and the previous DA. I’m not saying that they did anything wrong. It seems that they may have bypassed a step. It is evident from the comments here and the phone calls and emails that I have had and that the advisory committee has had, that there was a population of IT7 racers that wanted to have the tire issue looked at again. The advisory committee, with input from this site and directly from the racers has done exactly that. The CRB has given their opinion. And the material will be presented to the REs for their meeting next week.
I didn’t have to come here or to the SM site and ask for opinion. But I did. From the volume of opinion that has been presented, and is still being presented weeks later, it seems evident to me that the rules needed to be reviewed, openly. If they are changed so be it. If they are not changed so be it. I have caused them to be looked at by the advisory groups with input from racers. I have presented the opinions to the Class Review Board. I have gathered opinions from the CRB. I will present the material to the REs. All this is so that you can go racing with a set of rules that will be stable for the next season.
I didn’t have to do this. I didn’t have to take the assignment. What ever actions I have done have been more transparent than any would have been with almost anyone else. The collective you now knows what is going on, what the process it, and how to affect change or keep status quo. You have every opportunity to have the next executive steward to appoint you as DA of tech for 2007 and complete the task better than I have this year.
Toni
PS you're welcome
As I told you when I asked you to be part of the SM advisory group, the rules are reviewed every year. Some years it has been done more privately than others. I choose to do things openly and with as much racer input as possible.
When this landed in my lap at the beginning of June, nothing, in any of the classes, had been begun. Some classes, like SM, where you are part of the advisory group, didn’t even have an advisory group. Those have been formed. All of the class rules have been reviewed by people who race in that class. The opinions from the advisory groups have been sent to the Class Review Board, the chiefs of tech for the racing regions. I have most of the opinions from them. All of the rules have been reviewed by the chief of tech in the racing regions. All of the rules will be reviewed by the REs. I am currently finalizing all of the class rules review material for the REs. It will be sent to them through their agenda process by the end of the week, well before their deadline.
Last year the decision to use the same tire for SM regional racing as for national racing was made by the REs at the mid year meeting without any input from racers, advisory boards, or the Class Review Board. This year there is an advisory group from the SM community and they, including you, gave input based on your own opinion as well as opinions from others. I’m sure all of you gave an opinion that you thought was the best for the class, not just your personal opinion. You have the unique position of being part of that other group and bring perspective from those who cross over into SCCA racing as well. I’m sorry that your opinion wasn’t in the majority opinion from the SM advisory group. But it is very rare that a committee will be in complete agreement.
Last year two of the members of the IT7 advisory committee took it upon themselves to request a spec tire for the class where there had been none before. They made an opinion poll. Some of the racers were missed with the poll. Some of the racers were contacted with the poll. Some of the racers responded to the poll. I have been unable to find any evidence that this proposal was given to the Class Review Board before it was presented to the REs by those members of the committee and the previous DA. I’m not saying that they did anything wrong. It seems that they may have bypassed a step. It is evident from the comments here and the phone calls and emails that I have had and that the advisory committee has had, that there was a population of IT7 racers that wanted to have the tire issue looked at again. The advisory committee, with input from this site and directly from the racers has done exactly that. The CRB has given their opinion. And the material will be presented to the REs for their meeting next week.
I didn’t have to come here or to the SM site and ask for opinion. But I did. From the volume of opinion that has been presented, and is still being presented weeks later, it seems evident to me that the rules needed to be reviewed, openly. If they are changed so be it. If they are not changed so be it. I have caused them to be looked at by the advisory groups with input from racers. I have presented the opinions to the Class Review Board. I have gathered opinions from the CRB. I will present the material to the REs. All this is so that you can go racing with a set of rules that will be stable for the next season.
I didn’t have to do this. I didn’t have to take the assignment. What ever actions I have done have been more transparent than any would have been with almost anyone else. The collective you now knows what is going on, what the process it, and how to affect change or keep status quo. You have every opportunity to have the next executive steward to appoint you as DA of tech for 2007 and complete the task better than I have this year.
Toni
PS you're welcome
