IT National? Anyone else have this experience at a driver's meeting this year?

[Knestis]

... I did note that you didn't answer the question about how much value the ITAC would give to a GT1 driver supplying input. I'm guessing that either overtly or covertly, his opinion would not carry anywhere the same weight as the winner of the ARRC making a comment. ...

I have to confess that I didn't understand how it related to the topic, so figured I must have missed something! But what Jake said.

This is an interesting issue you bring up. It's generally perceived that current entrants get to steer their category rules around the way they want to, through the rules request process. I THINK that we just naturally tend to only worry about our own little patch but nobody is prevented from making proposals in any category...

K

 

[Knestis]

This comment really offends me. I have every one of these listed items that you seem to deem unfair excluding the hoosier rains. What does any of this have to do with making someone eligible to race a regional? ...

Yeah, Aaron - I tried to ignore that post when it went up, figuring it MUST be tongue in cheek, but if it were serious I sure agree.

The interesting thing about humor (presuming for a minute that it was meant to be funny) is that there is typically some nugget of truth embedded in the lie or exaggeration. In this case, the subtext is a comment that people that take particular steps to be competitive - implicitly spending the $$ to do so - shouldn't be allowed to play in the "little races." It's goes hand-in-hand with the term "elites," used here a few posts ago. It's racing class warfare.

My Hoosier wets, DL1, and radio are part of a scheme to keep the everyman under my thumb.



K

 

[JeffYoung]

Kirk Knestis - keeping buggy drivers down since 1984.

And to think he wanted to throw me in the 'sippi without a DL1.

 

[jjjanos]

You are right about that. Why would they care if the car is IT compatible? They have already decided that they won't be racing IT because it is regional only. Not everyone builds thier favorite car to race, lots build the one most likely to win the class they are in.

Your position: No IT national championship is keeping NASA drivers from building IT cars and racing with SCCA.

Fact: NASA's championship is two years old (source: NASA website). ANYONE racing in NASA prior to 2006, is now eliminated from your pool of IT drivers since it's already been revealed that the absence of a national championship doesn't matter to them. They picked NASA for other reasons.

Hmmm, wonder what that might be...

Factish (couldn't find what mods they did to their cars, but a first gen RX7 in the same class as an Integra ITR and a Nissan 350Z tells me that the RX7 isn't IT) : NASA let's IT cars run both in PT and Honda Challenge. They also allow fantastic swaps of engines, transmissions, etc. that make cars running in PT and Honda Challenge a cross between GT and Production. No tubes, but things that never came off the production line. It's these highly modified cars that people are running. Cars that aren't IT by a long stretch, a closer to our modified classes than IT cars. So, we can cross off everyone who went to NASA looking for a national championship and who is essentially racing a prod and uber-prod car.

Keerist in a Winabago. These guys are essentially building unibody GT2/3 cars and we've already got a category for those heavily modified cars.

So just how big do you honestly think your potential pool is?

It isn't the lack of a national IT championship that puts these people off. It's IT in and of itself and SCCA.

Thank you very much, but I'm not in the market for a pig or a poke and certainly not a pig in a poke.

 

[tnord]

why does anyone respond to this guy?

 

[shwah]

jjj

I made the statement earlier that one of the effects of IT being a national class would be bringing more driver's to the SCCA (as part of a larger statement). Matt questioned the statement. I clarified that it wasn't an assumption, but an actual fact that some racers won't build/race IT because it is not a national championship class.

That statement does not represent my 'position', nor by itself does it represent the only reason to give this idea fair consideration.

Of course you have proven over the last few pages that you are not willing to give fair consideration, as you pull individual statements and try to misrepresent them as someone elses entire platform, or worse take what ifs and try to present them as what someone else is trying to, or will try to, make happen.

Your not even arguing a point anymore, it's like we are suddenly on Honda-Tech dealing with a 'professional' internet contrarian. I'm done with this one. If anyone chooses to read my actual posts I think they will get the points I am making (which have not been all one-sided considerations of the topicc - like that the one downside that I do see to the IT national idea is potentially smaller regional fields - although we just can't know that, since the effect of a popular national class might be just the opposite).

(Travis - I responded because he was changing what I said on a new page, and I had to clarify it. I'm pretty much done with this game now though)

 

[dickita15]

In an effort to understand where this whole topic came from I took the opportunity while working tech for a national to spend some time with a few PTB types. There was a club racing task force formed with people from a number of groups (no advisory board members to my knowledge). This group has already reported to the BOD with a large menu of possible revamps that would be possible for club racing. It I got it right this was three different masterplans with many possible variations within that could be modified by line item as the BOD felt appropriate.
I believe there was discussion ranging from status quo to very major changes. As part of this I believe one possibility is to have a GCR classes national or all GCR except the catch-all classes (ITE, SPO, FS, ect) recognized as national classes.
I repeat that IT being a national class is one possible component to a much larger plan that the BOD might propose. I really think that it is impossible to know if the plan will be good or bad for the club until we see it. The BOD has not even talked about what the proposal should be. They have a meeting next weekend and I am not even sure if they are capable in coming to an agreement what to propose in one meeting.
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']I think I will wait and see[/FONT]

 

[dickita15]

Mac,
There is something I don’t understand that maybe you could help me with.
My home track, NHMS has 3 double regionals, 2 single regionals and one national a year. If someone chooses to race in a regional class they only give up one opportunity to race a year. Still I have had friends chose a national class car because they have the option of racing at a national if they chose to.
My understanding of the South West Div is there are a lot more nationals than regionals and although there are sometimes restricted regional with some nationals that the regional class drivers feel they don’t get treated fairly at these events. Again my understanding is that because of this the IT and other regional only classes are as a percentage not as popular in the SW. Given this I would assume that IT drivers there would want national status so they could get the same treatment as the other classes.
What am I missing in understanding why you are against the possibility of National status for IT? Is it solely because of your disappointment with the evolution of SM?

 

[jhooten]

I'm not sure where that came from. We average 7 national and 15 regional races a year in SOWDIV.

BTW, The race chair for the Lone Star R/N/RR race Memorial weekend is most emphatic that he will make the schedule work to give the regional racers that same amount of track time as the nationals. Not all the SOWDIV regions treat regional racers as low life scum.

 

[dickita15]

Thanks for the insight Jerry. I guess my impressions may be a few years old. It was not that long ago that SW div was a one track division but that has certainly changed in the last few years. Has the number of IT and other regional only cars increased down there? At our last regional we had 53 It cars out of just over 150 cars.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Dick is hitting on something important to all of our positions/decisions.

Events are run so differently in every area that what we 'don't know' about how people make their decision is key. I am in Dick's Region so I have the same experiences as him. WAY more Regionals than Nats - and they are 100% Regional weekends - no splits.

 

[JeffYoung]

Same here -- more regionals than nationals in the SEDiv.

 

[lateapex911]

I. I really think that it is impossible to know if the plan will be good or bad for the club until we see it.
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']I think I will wait and see[/font]

Exactly....and this is why I'm a little pissed that BoD guys are out there asking questions in a vacuum. Absent other, VERY important considerations, they are getting answers that very well may be wrong!

 

[jjjanos]

jjj

I made the statement earlier that one of the effects of IT being a national class would be bringing more driver's to the SCCA (as part of a larger statement). Matt questioned the statement. I clarified that it wasn't an assumption, but an actual fact that some racers won't build/race IT because it is not a national championship class.


That statement does not represent my 'position', nor by itself does it represent the only reason to give this idea fair consideration.

Of course you have proven over the last few pages that you are not willing to give fair consideration, as you pull individual statements and try to misrepresent them as someone elses entire platform, or worse take what ifs and try to present them as what someone else is trying to, or will try to, make happen.

Your not even arguing a point anymore, it's like we are suddenly on Honda-Tech dealing with a 'professional' internet contrarian. I'm done with this one. If anyone chooses to read my actual posts I think they will get the points I am making (which have not been all one-sided considerations of the topicc - like that the one downside that I do see to the IT national idea is potentially smaller regional fields - although we just can't know that, since the effect of a popular national class might be just the opposite).

(Travis - I responded because he was changing what I said on a new page, and I had to clarify it. I'm pretty much done with this game now though)

Are we discussing/debating the merits of moving IT to National or not? If we are, then we need to flesh out all the reasons for doing it - will it do what is promised? Will it have unintended consequences? and all the reasons for not doing it - what's the other options? How do we fix the problem otherwise?

Yes, I'm being the devil's advocate because somebody needs to be it. The devil's advocate tests the quality of the proposal and reveals its weaknesses and potential failures. It convinces people that God's advocates have thought through the potential outcomes. We know that at least one member has thought about the possibility that an influx of new drivers could alter the IT philosophy. I'd like to make damn certain that SOMEBODY making these decisions or talking directly to the BoD has done so.

Touring/Prod/SS and GT became a mess because they didn't do that or didn't do it well. "We have a problem. This fixes it. Let's do it." Now, we can either throw a quick fix at the problem and to hell with the long-term consequences, we'll deal with them later or we can look at those long-term consequences and change the fix NOW to prevent those problems from happening. We've all seen what the first approach has done to other Categories, so how about we try to keep that from happening to IT too?

And its the unintended or long-term changes that do the harm. Example: Do stricter bankruptcy codes reduce bankruptcy rates? I.e. Increase the cost and pain of bankruptcy and fewer people will file for it, right? Wrong. States that have tighter codes have higher rates then states that let consumers off the hook. Reason? Stricter bankruptcy codes cause banks to weaken lending standards on consumer loans and credit cards, more people likely to file for bankruptcy get credit, more people file for bankruptcy. Stricter codes don't solve the public polilcy problem - high bankruptcy rates - they simply make it easier for banks to get more of their money back.

My day job is analysing the impact of policy changes - does this do what it says it will? how much will it cost? what else will it do? is their a cheaper way to get the same outcome? That's exactly what I'm doing here and I care a great deal more about the potential impacts to SCCA and IT then I do about whether changing the tax treatment of R&D credits will induce more R&D spending or simply give a corporation a tax credit for something it already does.

People will switch from NASA to SCCA if IT goes National. SOMEBODY is always at the margin. The question is how many? Is that number worth what the policy proposal does to the status quo?

People will drop out of SCCA if their classes lose National status - it's the flip side of the above and it can't be both ways. The question is how many? Is that number more or less than the number who will come? If we get 150 drivers from NASA and lose 150 of our current members, did we gain anything? If we lose 130 of our current members, were the changes worth the net gain in 20?

The same sort of back and forth applies to putting our "best" and most "marketable" category into the big show. More marketable to whom? If we don't do any marketing, does it matter whether we are more marketable? Is there something we aren't doing that would be even better (for example, something that is a step up from IT and a step-down from Prod) and if so, why aren't we doing that instead or also?

It's these questions we have to debate, discuss and do some research about because the track record of the bodies making these decisions is pretty clear that they either haven't done this in the past or, if they did, they didn't do a good enough job. The proof is in the pudding - the National Racing program is a mess.

If you read the thread, you'll see the motivation started out as letting IT drivers win an OGM and now it's part of how do we fix the problems with the National Racing Program. Wow, that's a big change in what we hope to do and we've gone from personal glory to saving SCCA. If we're trying to save SCCA, what else should we consider? What else should we do? What shouldn't we do? What might be a better way of doing it? Maybe we need to review the purpose ProRacing serves for the Club and its members and how do we go about doing that?

We've learned other things from this back-and-forth too. The opposition to moving IT to National isn't absolute - a significant proportion of those opposed might change their minds if it was part of something else. Well, what is that something else? What are its weaknesses? What else is it going to do?

I'm also annoyed. Both at myself for not paying closer attention to Fasttrack so I was aware that this consolidation/reform panel had been formed and at the BoD for not shouting it to the high heaven that they were doing this. We've been frozen out of the planning process because nobody solicited our input until just before the recommendations were made.

 

[lateapex911]

My day job is analysing the impact of policy changes -


People will drop out of SCCA if their classes lose National status - The question is how many? Is that number more or less than the number who will come?

That's a simplistic view. Lacking any larger picture view, it's dangerous to even discuss such things, but....

Assume that IT is added, and a "Top 24" rule is placed on the Runoffs. (Acck, I can't believe I'm even using this as an assumption, but it proves a point)
Guess what, certain classes don't go to Kansas next year, as ITA, ITS, will certainly displace the weaker classes. What happens to the subscribers of those classes?

1-Will they retire from racing as they were only in it for the Runoffs?
2-Will they retire from racing as they are getting too old (or insert other life effect issue here)for it anyway?
3-Will the subscribers drop out and leave SCCA to race with another organization?
4-Will they continue to race, but in Regionals?
5-Will they sell their car to a new incoming driver (like my friend who bought an e Prod car) and get a car that's in a more likely to make the Runoffs class?

Answer: All of the above, and we can't entirely predict the proportions.

Sub comments, by item:
1-Perhaps not as much of a loss as we might think, as some of them are the guys who show up to the absolute minimum of races and often run the minimum number of laps needed to get to the Runoffs. Are they really what we are about?
2-Losing a subscriber a year or two early sucks, but big picture, if it's a trade for a longer term subscriber, it's positive. I know, thats cold, but we're looking at numbers here, right?
3- That sucks, but the mechanics of doing so are daunting. likely, their car won't fit in an equivalent organization. So why switch? Why not remain and switch the car? Logically, this choice won't be common, unless there are revenge motives.
4- No loss, just a shift.
5- Ditto, but possibly a new conquest.

If we get 150 drivers from NASA and lose 150 of our current members, did we gain anything? If we lose 130 of our current members, were the changes worth the net gain in 20?

It's not a pure X in and Y out analysis. And even if it were, where we lost 130, but gained 150 NASA (or whatever)guys, you have to consider the possibility that those guys might bring others down the road.

If you read the thread, you'll see the motivation started out as letting IT drivers win an OGM and now it's part of how do we fix the problems with the National Racing Program. Wow, that's a big change in what we hope to do and we've gone from personal glory to saving SCCA.

no, the thread started based on a question asked by one guy in a vacuum, completely lacking other important considerations.

It's like if you were asked, do you want to go to the movies tonight, or watch a DVD at a friends house? Well, that depends,..WHICH movie? Is the ticket $20? Is the theatre crap? Poor sound, over priced and in a bad part of town? And your friend has a new killer HD DVD with a 50" plasma setup with 7.1 surround sound?

If the movie is at a new theatre, and they have introductory pricing, and your friend has two milk crates, an old VCR and a 20" TV with the red gun out, then duh, the answers different.

It's good to be discussing issues and conditions, but we can't answer the wrong question, one that lacks 99% of the information.

(An aside- I JUST got off the phone from ordering parts for my car, from a NY state "circle track" store. I explained what i was doing, as it wasn't what they were used to, and at the end of the conversation, they guy says, "Hey, if you need anything else, call me, I'm the token roadracer here".
Conversation ensued, he's a Honda driver from NASA. He raced a Honda in H4, which is very similar to IT. As he is from NY state, I asked him "Why NASA? Not a lot of NASA racing in the NE?"
He said, because he could go and run for a National championship, and IT wasn't eligible.
"Why not a Honda in the Prod class? I asked.
"Too many old cars, and way too much work to do on the car, it's so confusing, and the rules seem to change all the time."
"What if IT went to the Runoffs?"I asked, to which he said,
"That'd be perfect!".
Just one guys view, of course.)

 

[pballance]

It's these questions we have to debate, discuss and do some research about because the track record of the bodies making these decisions is pretty clear that they either haven't done this in the past or, if they did, they didn't do a good enough job. The proof is in the pudding - the National Racing program is a mess.

If you read the thread, you'll see the motivation started out as letting IT drivers win an OGM and now it's part of how do we fix the problems with the National Racing Program. Wow, that's a big change in what we hope to do and we've gone from personal glory to saving SCCA. If we're trying to save SCCA, what else should we consider? What else should we do? What shouldn't we do? What might be a better way of doing it? Maybe we need to review the purpose ProRacing serves for the Club and its members and how do we go about doing that?

We've learned other things from this back-and-forth too. The opposition to moving IT to National isn't absolute - a significant proportion of those opposed might change their minds if it was part of something else. Well, what is that something else? What are its weaknesses? What else is it going to do?

I'm also annoyed. Both at myself for not paying closer attention to Fasttrack so I was aware that this consolidation/reform panel had been formed and at the BoD for not shouting it to the high heaven that they were doing this. We've been frozen out of the planning process because nobody solicited our input until just before the recommendations were made.

IMHO, Just the kind of thinking that we need here!

There is a lot of passion in this thread, that is good. I hope this does not offend anyone but would like to offer up a couple of other points that seem to have gotton lost in the discussion.

Look at Club Racing from a systems point. Any tweak “here” produces a change “there” and we need to look at the entire picture not just a stove pipe IT viewpoint. I voted no in the poll but put a caveat that I might change my position if going “National” was part of a larger re-organization but in the absence of that information leave IT alone.

I agree, I have neglected providing input when I should have. But I also am trying to be a “good” club member. SCCA local regions are the foundation of the racing program. They are all run by a local BoD and should reflect the interests of their members. Ask yourselves the following questions: (rhetorically)

Do you attend your local regions meetings?
Do you support other areas of the club? Ie, solo, rallycross, rally, Street Survival, cornerwork?
Do you hold a position in the local region?
Are you aware of the recent fiasco regarding temporary membership fees being paid to Topeka?
Are you aware of the problems in the SOLO program? (some feel there are none btw)

I fear that SCCA has lost the grassroots input needed to run effective programs at the national level but WE are the club and WE have allowed that to occur. I was a member back in the 70’s and then took a 25 year leave of absence. My how the club has changed. In many ways, for the better but I felt my input was valued then. I am not as certain now. I don’t want to be critical of any ITAC member, volunteer, advisor, BoD or paid administrator but WE are the club, they should represent our interest and we need to identify the disconnect, if any, in how the club is controlled.

IF there is going to be a change in IT then WE, the collective WE in IT, are in a position to shape and mold how that change will affect us. Our input needs to be in the form of conversations with the advisors and the national BoD and not just a good, healthy, discussion on an internet forum. Isn't that how the ITAC has shaped our current ruleset, asking for and recieving input from the membership without losing sight of the intent of the class?

Thanks for the many opinions and the time that each of you have taken to voice them. I may not agree with all of them but that is ok.
Thanks for the space...... Paul

 

[spnkzss]

I put some thought into this this weekend and tried to get in the mind set of "How cool would it be to have IT at a National?" There are quite a few reasons I think it would be cool. Then something popped into my head that I just kinda want to throw out there.

We all know that IT ruleset is consistent (relatively speaking for those people who worry it's not). We all agree that the level of competition is stepped up a bit at a National level. We can also hopefully agree that there is a lot more money spent on the National level, not just on car but prep and everything else that goes along with it. There are a few IT cars that fall into that too, but far less than say Prod, or even SM.

Most of IT racing are weekend warriors. We race 2-10 times a year without much practice in between = less experienced drivers (again relative). We aren't top notch drivers running within a tenth of a second EVERY lap. We are Novice. We can get away with a car being 50lbs heavier then the other because we are providing a place to race, but not always competitive.

Would this mentality survive if IT went National? Once you get to the National level (raising the stakes) don't/won't people expect the racing to be as equal as possible? Won't they complain about the 25lb that they feel should be givin'? The same 25lbs that the ITAC has said (and always will say, hopefully) that there will not be any competition adjustments made. Especially on weight adjustments < 100lbs?

Weight is just one example. I'm sure there are others and I can see how Prod could got as far out of wack as they are. This level of fairness that I envision may just be preconceived from what I see happen in National (which may be why it's broke), but I don't see the same "level" playing field from IT.

I think IT would have a hard time staying the same with the same ruleset if it were made National. I know the ITAC can say honestly that they would do everything in their power to prevent such a thing, but they aren't the top of the ladder.

Is this the same thing that basically everyone else is complaining about and I'm just now dumb enough to catch on to?

 

[jjjanos]

That's a simplistic view. Lacking any larger picture view, it's dangerous to even discuss such things, but....

Assume that IT is added, and a "Top 24" rule is placed on the Runoffs. (Acck, I can't believe I'm even using this as an assumption, but it proves a point)
Guess what, certain classes don't go to Kansas next year, as ITA, ITS, will certainly displace the weaker classes. What happens to the subscribers of those classes?

1-Will they retire from racing as they were only in it for the Runoffs?
2-Will they retire from racing as they are getting too old (or insert other life effect issue here)for it anyway?
3-Will the subscribers drop out and leave SCCA to race with another organization?
4-Will they continue to race, but in Regionals?
5-Will they sell their car to a new incoming driver (like my friend who bought an e Prod car) and get a car that's in a more likely to make the Runoffs class?

Answer: All of the above, and we can't entirely predict the proportions.

Sub comments, by item:
1-Perhaps not as much of a loss as we might think, as some of them are the guys who show up to the absolute minimum of races and often run the minimum number of laps needed to get to the Runoffs. Are they really what we are about?
2-Losing a subscriber a year or two early sucks, but big picture, if it's a trade for a longer term subscriber, it's positive. I know, thats cold, but we're looking at numbers here, right?
3- That sucks, but the mechanics of doing so are daunting. likely, their car won't fit in an equivalent organization. So why switch? Why not remain and switch the car? Logically, this choice won't be common, unless there are revenge motives.
4- No loss, just a shift.
5- Ditto, but possibly a new conquest.

It's not a pure X in and Y out analysis. And even if it were, where we lost 130, but gained 150 NASA (or whatever)guys, you have to consider the possibility that those guys might bring others down the road.

Devil's Advocate:

1. If we cannot make a reasonable guess at either the short-term or long-term impact up/down on what the numbers will be, then we're just throwing stuff at the problem and hope some of it sticks. That's not a very compelling foundation for basing a change to this class. I freely admit that we cannot guarantee the outcome. We can, however, ask drivers the what ifs to gauge a reaction. I freely admit that those answers will be biased to steer the debate, but that's the only guide we have and its the job of the policy maker/analyst to gauge the validty of the data.

2. Short-term pain is entirely justifiable for long-term growth. Sometimes you've got to trim the forsythia to the ground to get decent blooms two-years later. Problem is, we heard this story in past restructings and the addition of Categories now troubled.

About your friend racing HC... did he go to the NASA Championships? Does he have any plan to attend? Did he race HC before NASA had a championship? I know of people who have given up on HC to play with us, despite our absence of a championship. Time match. Where's the harm in doing some research into the possible effectiveness of the treatment?

What if the majority of people pick a sanctioning body because that's where they started, their friends race there and because I want to do X to my car and these guys let me? NASA integrates PDX-like events with their racing. We don't. Maybe we should. Maybe we cannot. Perhaps we should find a way.

More DA: The question was asked in isolation and if it was part of a bigger plan, the other details should have been given. If it was, we cannot judge the worth of this part of the plan without knowing the rest of the plan. Maybe some interim reports from the group looking into this would be of value.

 

[fiat124girl]

Most of IT racing are weekend warriors. We race 2-10 times a year without much practice in between = less experienced drivers (again relative). We aren't top notch drivers running within a tenth of a second EVERY lap. We are Novice. We can get away with a car being 50lbs heavier then the other because we are providing a place to race, but not always competitive.

What makes you say this? Most of the National drivers I know and deal with on a regular basis are just like most of the IT drivers I deal with regular basis. We all want a place to race our cars that has a rule set that we can live with.

There is no difference between the vast majority of IT racers and National racers.

I think that we need to get past that notion.

As Travis has stated previously, this is a hobby, it is supposed to be a fun way to spend our extra money and time. Eliminating the distinction between regional and national should not change that. The rules should remain the same and be policed in the same manner.

As a side note, in MiDiv this year we have 10 national races and 24 regional races scheduled. There is only one national only weekend, the rest have restricted regionals along with them.

 

[Knestis]

I tend to agree with Jennifer there, Spanky, that not all of your assumptions stand completely on their own. Strictly in terms of skill level, I have little doubt that the cream of the National and Regional crops are equally talented. Further, I tend to think that the distribution of talent is probably similar - the good, the bad, and the ugly are pretty much distributed similarly in both populations.

That said, you did a good job of encapsulating a challenge - one that the ITAC faces already, but that would indeed probably gain more attention in the National arena.

I (personally) have little doubt that the motivation to pressure the IT classification/specification process would increase. Whether that translates into additional load in the form of requests should be influenced by whether folks think those requests bear fruit. The point at which it appears that the process gets people what they want (de facto competition adjustments - bleah!), more will want their share. If CURRENT IT racers see others getting breaks, they'll chime in with requests of their own.

It would be the responsibility of the ITAC to resist those pressures. It would be the responsibility - it IS currently the responsibility - of the membership to make sure they communicate that they agree with this fundamental approach. The boards in turn have to understand how the dynamic that got Prod in its current pickle works, and how the existing IT approaches stand against those forces...

...but make no mistake (and this is one of the more important points, i think): We will face that challenge regardless, if the popularity and competitiveness of IT continue to grow - for whatever reason - so we'd best all be on the same page.

K