Page 1 of 1
AGM resolutions and RSD
Posted: 25 Apr 2009, 16:42
Since: 1) Andy resigned, 2) RSD Technical committee may or may not exist, 3) the World Championships are rapidly approaching, and 4) Jan Dejmo (acting chair of RSD) has offered to help, I have done the following:
Sent to Jan Dejmo for approval/review/interpretation:
1) The 2008 AGM resolution regarding owners keeping their measurement certificates
2) The GBR request for interpretation re: tabling
3) A proposal for rule changes re: when corrector weights may be moved
4) A proposal to allow on-board battery monitors
5) The emergency rule change concerning 2.4 GHz receivers from 2007
Since the 10 mm mast proposal did not pass, it was not included in the package. If ESP wants to re-submit it for the 2009 AGM, we can vote on it again.
Re: AGM resolutions and RSD
Posted: 25 Apr 2009, 22:05
Bruce Andersen wrote:1) The 2008 RSD resolution
What RSD resolution would that be, please?
Re: AGM resolutions and RSD
Posted: 25 Apr 2009, 23:49
Bruce Andersen wrote:2) The GBR request for interpretation re: tabling
What is this request, please? Has it been posted to the IOMICA Web site or discussed anywhere in this forum?
Re: AGM resolutions and RSD
Posted: 25 Apr 2009, 23:51
Bruce Andersen wrote:included in the package
I might have missed something, but why does the package not include the Spektrum receiver business?
Posted: 26 Apr 2009, 00:36
sorry, typed RSD but should have been AGM - too many abbreviations I'm afraid!
I also found the emergency rule change for Spektrum receivers in the files and realized that it had also never been acted upon, so I sent that one along to Jan today.
Posted: 26 Apr 2009, 00:41
Thanks! And the GBR interpretation request on tabling?
Posted: 26 Apr 2009, 07:37
also sent - as noted in my first post.
Posted: 26 Apr 2009, 12:14
My question was, What is this GBR request? Where on the IOMICA Web site has it been posted? Where in the forum has it been discussed?
Posted: 26 Apr 2009, 18:27
Bruce wrote:1) The 2008 AGM resolution regarding owners keeping their measurement certificates
Bruce, did you send the original version? I thought that we all agree that the proposal was incomplete.
Aren't we doing now what Andy wanted to do from the beginning?
Posted: 26 Apr 2009, 18:56
Lester - The GBR request is for an interpretation of leech tabling legality, materials, and color. It was sent to Tech and posted on the FTP site. It was discussed in Tech and sent to RSD
Alphonso - Not sure who you mean by "we all" nor what you mean by "incomplete". The resolution sent to RSD is the one passed by the class vote at the 2008 AGM.
Andy wanted to send all this to Robert Grubisa, the legitimacy of whose position as RSD Technical is questioned. The majority of the EXEC disagreed, preferring sending them to Jan Dejmo as head of RSD. Our regulations state:
9.2.6. The Technical Sub-Committee shall submit a proposed interpretation to the ISAF RSD for final approval.
Pretty clear. Jan has agreed to send the requests to ISAF Technical. Hopefully this will be a compromise that meets everyone's satisfaction and we can get back on track.
Posted: 26 Apr 2009, 19:07
Bruce Andersen wrote:The GBR request is for an interpretation of leech tabling legality, materials, and color. It was sent to Tech and posted on the FTP site
The FTP site is not accessible to anyone outside of Exec. The IOMICA Web site tells us that everyone will be kept informed about requests for interpretations as they come in. Could you arrange to publicly post this request for interpretation, please?
Posted: 26 Apr 2009, 19:08
I'd be happy to.
Posted: 26 Apr 2009, 19:56
Andy wanted to send all this to Robert Grubisa
Not true. I wanted IOMICA to submit the resolutions to the joint IOMICA/RSD Technical committee.
Posted: 26 Apr 2009, 21:09
Let's be clear, the IOMICA/RSD Technical Committee consists of the IOMICA VC Technical, the RSD Technical Chairman and another person basically selected by Robert Grubisa. Two to one vote.
Further, Robert had already unilaterally expressed a series of opinions about how he wanted the rule changes and interpretations to be handled.
Effectively, therefore turning this whole matter over to the IOMICA/RSD Committee was to turn them over to Robert Grubisa. And in extensive discussions on this issue among the IOM Executive no one once suggested that this would not be the case.
I for one would have been glad to hear how things would have been otherwise. [/code]
Posted: 26 Apr 2009, 21:39
[...]in extensive discussions on this issue among the IOM Executive no one once suggested that this would not be the case.
Yes someone did... Me. By asking you to request Robert convene the Committee.
Posted: 26 Apr 2009, 22:38
I find myself quite unable to keep up with all the discussion on the forum these days. Our rules and regulations require ofcourse that any request for interpretation be published immediately on our website. In my defence I have not received repeated reminder emails (which I do read!) from anyone on the exec (I would think in addition to myself VCTech, Secretary and Chairman should take an interest in how technical things are published on our website).
anyhow, the request for interpretation is now(a month late) posted on our website, just below the AGM-post on the frontpage. The direct link to the request is:
http://www.iomclass.org/tech/2009-03-24 ... blings.pdf
Posted: 27 Apr 2009, 01:12
Andy: I do not understand now nor in the past. What I wrote here was:
"Effectively, therefore turning this whole matter over to the IOMICA/RSD Committee was to turn them over to Robert Grubisa. And in extensive discussions on the issue among the IOM Executive no one suggested that this would not be the case."
By your asking that I agree to have Robert Grubisa convene a joint RSD/IOMICA committee--a committee that consisted of himself, his unelected designee and me-- how could that mean anything other than handing things over to Robert Grubisa? It seems clear that this would be the case also because Robert had already written to us all and told us his positions on behalf of RSD.
Andy, respectfully, your one line statement to start a joint committee that IOMICA couldn't control didn't appear to me to be a reasoned explanation of anything.
Maybe I'm dense in some way, but I just don't see your point.
Posted: 27 Apr 2009, 01:19
Anders: To the extent any delay on the issue of getting requests for technical interpretations on the board was my fault I apologize.
I can only say in my defense that I have been dealing with some serious health issues in the past month (it's why I choose not to seek re-election) and in the confusion of all of the charges and counter charges flying around here plus trying to deal with the mess with RSD I (and the rest of the Exec) apparently forgot that requests for interpretation as a matter of policy should be promptly posted here for all to see.
Thanks to you and Bruce Andersen that situation has been corrected and I see that the "usual suspects" have already begun to comment. Again, I apologize.
Posted: 27 Apr 2009, 01:45
I just don't see your point
My point is that submitting AGM resolutions for CR changes to the joint IOMICA/RSD tech committee is the process laid out in the IOMICA/RSD agreement.