ITAC News

Not for nothin' Travis but you tend to be like a couple other squeaky wheels on this board. Happy to chime out with an 'I told you so' but never willing to help when there is help needed....before it's too late.

I would have loved the names of those CRB members who were either getting bad info from liaisons (more likely no info at all) or just didn't care to really listen, so I could have called them personally and really walked them through the years of work the ITAC did instead of going in cold to a group of people who were obviously uniformed and disinterested in the current direction of IT.

But nope. It was better to be all cloak and dagger so it fell apart. Good stuff.
 
There is no use bitching about the ITB stuff anymore. The ITAC is working on a class that has so many issues that it will take ( and has taken) a mega ton of time. It's a project that nobody here would want to undertake. It looks like the CRB is letting the ITAC revamp and it will really require work from a lot of angles. It's the last frontier to a better IT IMHO.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Not for nothin' Travis but you tend to be like a couple other squeaky wheels on this board. Happy to chime out with an 'I told you so' but never willing to help when there is help needed....before it's too late.

I would have loved the names of those CRB members who were either getting bad info from liaisons (more likely no info at all) or just didn't care to really listen, so I could have called them personally and really walked them through the years of work the ITAC did instead of going in cold to a group of people who were obviously uniformed and disinterested in the current direction of IT.

But nope. It was better to be all cloak and dagger so it fell apart. Good stuff.
Click to expand...

you mean like i was no help when i wasn't even on the ITAC and i was out there backing up the process to the CRB?

you mean like i was no help when i submitted my resume 18mos ago right in the middle of the shit storm with the CRB because i obviously had a better relationship with some of them than you guys did but i still believed in the process on the whole and could keep it moving forward?

i keep my word. if i'm told something in confidence by coworkers, friends, other SCCA members, or whoever....it stays with me. call it cloak and dagger, call it whatever you want. no amount of public manuevering by you or anyone else will get me to give up my integrity, it's worth far more than this silly SCCA nonsense. the people that know me, trust me. i tried to help you guys without breaking that trust, you just didn't want to be helped, or didn't believe what i said had any credibility, and that's just fine by me.

your comments are pretty bold andy, especially considering some past conversations we've had that i have not forgotten about.

PS - that's a nice little spin you put on it at the end, like it was me who caused the whole ITAC/CRB fallout because i wouldn't give up the names. that's rich.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't matter said:
this temper tantrum is all about perception and hardly at all about reality.
Click to expand...

Perception IS Reality.

Until a particular person can figure that out they have 0% accountability for the actions they make. Take some time and REFLECT on your personal actions, understand the perceptions, and then take accountability for your personal results... the reality is that the perception of others are the results you should hold yourself accountable for, not what you perceive the actual results are.

Stephen
 
tnord said:
i keep my word. if i'm told something in confidence by coworkers, friends, other SCCA members, or whoever....it stays with me.
Click to expand...

nobody is questioning your integrity here. What I am saying is that if you had info that could have help us clear up some serious misconceptions, it would have been great to know who to target with proper information. Additionally, why would any of that stuff be in confidence? You believed in the Process, they didn't get it, hook us up so we can fix it?

Either way, it doesn't matter. You are on the inside now and can use your local relationships on a national level.
 
The part of Travis' post that I agree with is that we (myself included) became ideologues about the Process, and unwilling to bend or change or accept any criticism of it outside of our group. What we perceived as CRB "meddling" could, I think somewhat fairly, be seen on their side as just asking questions, or offering suggestions/advice (and ultimately telling us what they would and wouldn't accept).

I can only speak for me and my perceptions, but I was very guilty of this. If it came out of my mouth, or Kirk/Andy/Jake/Josh's, I believed it like Gospel. But if it came from a CRB guy or someone who I didn't think had bought into the Process completely, I saw it as having some sort of bad motive.

That's not to say there wasn't fault on the CRB side and there certainly was. Most importantly, it is sad to me that an environment was create that caused Kirk, Andy and Jake to resign or feel like they had to resign. I think that was unnecessary.

I came very close to resigning, or being asked to resign (and in hindsight the CRB was probably right about that, posting what others were saying on committee is not a good idea). But I am very glad I did not as this 1.3 issue aside things are working very well right now.

I'm beating a dead horse, but I do just wish that Kirk, Andy and Jake could see things from inside just once more because the atmosphere has changed dramatically and the direction is very positive.
 
Travis,

You've stated in the past that you may be direct and people may not like it, but you have the best interests of IT when working on the ITAC. The problem is that whatever message you try to communicate gets lost due to the presentation.

Remember, the ITAC represents the IT community......... of which we are all part of on this form. Your attitude does not represent this community well. You're thin skinned and insecure despite your beating your chest and claiming otherwise. Being a dick under the guise of being direct is a bunch of BS. Grow up and stop the tantrums.

And yes, I will be writing my letter to the CRB voicing my displeasure with your attitude.......
 
Travis does excellent work on the committee. Probably does more work "out of committee" than anyone. I'd ask you guys to remember that when posting here or writing to the CRB.
 
i'm the one throwing tantrums? this thread just keeps getting better.

i guess i really shouldn't expect anything else from this group.
 
tnord said:
i guess i really shouldn't expect anything else from this group.
Click to expand...

Thank you for another fine example of your maturity..........


Jeff, as i said in my previous post. What ever good work Travis does for the ITAC gets lost due to his attitude. He needs to tone it down.
 
What ever good work Travis does for the ITAC gets lost due to his attitude.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I don't doubt you contribute to the ITAC Travis but that message is certainly often lost to people who read you posts which is too bad. I know, it's us not you. :rolleyes:
 
I really wish you guys would take this conversation offline.

If I were on the fence about :

- SCCA or NASA
- Race or keep doing DE's
- IT or something else
- Ect.

I might look at this process and conclude that the SCCA CRB / ITAC is just like congress.

I haven't been around IT for long , but I've been SCCA club racing since 1987. I think I'm pretty safe saying that there are better ways to grow club racing.
 
DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING.

Who reading this thread would want to build an IT car?

TStiles said:
I really wish you guys would take this conversation offline.

If I were on the fence about :

- SCCA or NASA
- Race or keep doing DE's
- IT or something else
- Ect.

I might look at this process and conclude that the SCCA CRB / ITAC is just like congress.

I haven't been around IT for long , but I've been SCCA club racing since 1987. I think I'm pretty safe saying that there are better ways to grow club racing.
Click to expand...
 
tnord said:
that's fine, but i tried to tell you guys exactly what was going on with the CRB, and for whatever reason you guys were unable to work it out.

i remember being attacked by "all of you" for not disclosing the names of the CRB members (that's right, plural) who had that view, and as steve points out, you guys accused me of being part of the problem when i was trying to help you out. ...
Click to expand...

That's because the back-channel discussion and not disclosing names WAS THE PROBLEM.

It was circumventing and subverting the official lines of communication that should have gone from the ITAC, through our liaison, to the ENTIRE CRB. Instead, the liaison was running our work through his own filter before passing it to just a few members of the CRB, who made all of their decisions - or decided to NOT make decisions - based on their misconceptions, up to and including the fundamentals of how the Process that they were critical of even worked...!

To be clear about my issue: This is not a 1.3 multiplier problem. It is not a MR2 problem. It isn't even an IT problem. The multi-valve default in B is just the most recent manifestation of the real issue.

But you know what? Y'all got it under control. If Jeff says it's going in a good direction, I trust him. Just recognize that you will get painted with the brush the CRB gives the members.

Done.

K
 
tnord said:
it's unbelieveable that you're trying to put even a single ounce of responsibility on me for the fall out.
Click to expand...

Look at it this way, you had info that could have made life much better for the then ITAC, and you kept it to yourself. Good for you that you kept your word to keep that info to yourself. Shame on whomever thought it was a good idea to keep the names silent. If someone didn't 'get it', it would have been awesome to know who it was so we could have reached out and worked harder.

In the end, I place half the blame on me for not knowing the CRB was clueless and the other half on the people who were supposed to be out connection to the group. Some of those people who helped shape the orignial direction of the Process.

And I also trust Jeff in telling us that the ITAC is in a great spot.
 
Last edited:
I really think this is one of those situations where a bunch of good folks just got in a pickle. For years while you were on the committee and before, I'm told the ITAC was viewed as one of the best committees out there. I honestly think that contributed to the problem because it gave you/us a lot of autonomy and also the CRB (I'm guessing) just sort of had us on autopilot.

I am positive Bob was keeping the CRb aware of what we were doing, but it just may not have been possible to explain in detail to them how revolutionary the Process is for IT.

So Andy got asked to explain it, and I think some of the details were a shock to the CRB. Not because Andy could have explained it better, or because Bob could have, but just because no one anticipated how much of a change the Process would be, the actual implications of it, etc.

People got crosswise as a result. I will tell you that your resignation, and Andy's and Jake's shook things up and made us all look at how we had been communicating and try to do better.

That was a bad, hard time, and honestly Jake got the worst of it after you guys left. Felt the worst for him really.

But -- and it sucks it had to be "fixed" this way -- your sacrifice forced us to communicate with each other better. I have thanked you and continue to thank you for that.

Knestis said:
That's because the back-channel discussion and not disclosing names WAS THE PROBLEM.

It was circumventing and subverting the official lines of communication that should have gone from the ITAC, through our liaison, to the ENTIRE CRB. Instead, the liaison was running our work through his own filter before passing it to just a few members of the CRB, who made all of their decisions - or decided to NOT make decisions - based on their misconceptions, up to and including the fundamentals of how the Process that they were critical of even worked...!

To be clear about my issue: This is not a 1.3 multiplier problem. It is not a MR2 problem. It isn't even an IT problem. The multi-valve default in B is just the most recent manifestation of the real issue.

But you know what? Y'all got it under control. If Jeff says it's going in a good direction, I trust him. Just recognize that you will get painted with the brush the CRB gives the members.

Done.

K
Click to expand...
 
Knestis said:
That's because the back-channel discussion and not disclosing names WAS THE PROBLEM.

It was circumventing and subverting the official lines of communication that should have gone from the ITAC, through our liaison, to the ENTIRE CRB.
Click to expand...

please....tell me more about how i'm the one playing politics.

you're seriously suggesting putting a gag-order on CRB to regular member communication without the presence of the stonecutters/ITAC?
 
tnord said:
you're seriously suggesting putting a gag-order on CRB to regular member communication without the presence of the stonecutters/ITAC?
Click to expand...

I believe that the point is that if a member of the CRB is having issues with an AC, that member should go to the AC as opposed to some nitwit.
 
JeffYoung said:
So Andy got asked to explain it, and I think some of the details were a shock to the CRB. Not because Andy could have explained it better, or because Bob could have, but just because no one anticipated how much of a change the Process would be, the actual implications of it, etc.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of what Jeff says but I will comment on the above quote.

The Process had been in place for YEARS prior to me getting on that call. There were CRB members that had ZERO idea that there was an actual classing methodology. Could I have explained it better? You bet! But in order to do that, I would have needed to know my audience better....and that is where some of the blame I take resides. I SHOULD have known that over half of the CRB was coming in cold and could have been better prepared to lay a foundation instead of detailing clarifications and then backtracking as I 'read' the audience.

I believe 100% that if the CRB was as up to speed as they should have been, the call would have been just as anticipated, a quick refresher, then details on how we had written the ins-and outs of the entire Process down, how to manuever through the minutia and then spit out repeatable and defendable results, including what could be done if an overdog were to appear.

It was desinged to show the CRB that the Process was shennanigan-proof in an effort to take a real shot at rebuilding ITB using the same foundation.

As Jeff pointed out, it was a pickle. We had worked hard and for some reason (to this day I am not sure why) Bob Dowie really started focusing classification discussions and approvals based on things like 'similar architechture'. Stuff we had never considered before given the limitations of the IT ruleset. The rest is history.

I am very proud of the work I did on that committee and with the people I did it with. I had just run my course and Josh picked up the ball where it was getting knocked out of my hands.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top