<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P>Eric</P>
<P>What is the time line on the revised submission and who will handle the details?</P>
<P>Will we be allowed time by AMA to accomplish this?</P>
<P>I thought that all of the approved rules change survey items were to be submitted by NSRCA not as individual personal change request's why was this not done?</P>
<P>Buddy Brammer</P>
<P>AMA-3889 NSRCA-1810 </P>
<P><BR><BR> </P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>From: "Henderson,Eric" <ERIC.HENDERSON@GARTNER.COM>
<DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: discussion@nsrca.org
<DIV></DIV>>To: "Henderson,Eric" <ERIC.HENDERSON@GARTNER.COM>, "'discussion@nsrca.org'" <DISCUSSION@NSRCA.ORG>
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: RE: Annex rules proposals
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 12:18:22 -0500
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>-----Original Message-----
<DIV></DIV>>From: Henderson,Eric
<DIV></DIV>>Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 12:11 PM
<DIV></DIV>>To: 'discussion@nsrca.org'
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Annex rules proposals
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Before you all "go off!" on could ask you all to take a moment to read the
<DIV></DIV>>following
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>I spoke with the AMA on this subject.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Please bear in mind that this was submitted as a private proposal and not an
<DIV></DIV>>NSRCA proposal. The NSRCA survey asked the questions to help Ron with this
<DIV></DIV>>proposal but the AMA needs a lot more in the actual proposal to persuade it
<DIV></DIV>>to .change.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>The primary reason for the rejection of Ron's proposal was that the proposal
<DIV></DIV>>was incomplete. In particular it did not appear to address the following:-
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>- Schedule design process (we need a system like the exercise that Troy did
<DIV></DIV>>for example)
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>- Selection of schedule - (K-factor Ballot for example)
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>- Approval process - ( A big issue - who should have this power?)
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>- Cycle of change that would be applied (Needs to be very clear)
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>- Which classes would be targeted ( 401-403 stability versus Masters need
<DIV></DIV>>for refreshing of interest)
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>- Role of AMA Contest board - (This is a big deal for all of us to
<DIV></DIV>>consider)
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>- Annex document printing and management. (Who does this, who maintains it,
<DIV></DIV>>and on what cycle and at what cost?)
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>The proposal also needs to have compelling logic to persuade and achieve
<DIV></DIV>>change. For IMAC they had the need to mirror IAC scale model emulation.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>My advice is that we should not focus on how hard it may or may not have
<DIV></DIV>>been to get the AMA to change. To put it in perspective we have done very
<DIV></DIV>>well with our proposals in the last few years. We lost one in preliminary
<DIV></DIV>>review and one maneuver.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>We really should focus on what we are trying to fix.To make a change of this
<DIV></DIV>>nature you need to have a reason that would repair a problem, cause a
<DIV></DIV>>positive change in attendance at contests etc. Just the fact that we want
<DIV></DIV>>to do this is not enough - never has been enough!
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Steve Kaluf took it to the AMA board because he was not comfortable with it
<DIV></DIV>>for the above reasons.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>I would suggest that it was not a good approach to get the discussion list
<DIV></DIV>>all stirred up with this item. It does not work well when you put ANY person
<DIV></DIV>>or organization in a corner. A better approach would be to rewrite the
<DIV></DIV>>proposal with all of the above issues addressed. Put it out for an NSRCA
<DIV></DIV>>(NSRCA members who are AMA members) full vote. Then we can go to the AMA
<DIV></DIV>>with something that we have voted on, worked on as a group, and justified
<DIV></DIV>>with a much better democratically and supported proposal.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>The AMA invitation BTW basically is to resubmit with all of the above
<DIV></DIV>>questions addressed.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Regards,
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Eric.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>The new <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMHEN/2018">MSN 8:</a> smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* </html>