Marine LED bulbs and fittings for boats. Best Prices & Free Worldwide Shipping.
Page 3 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#119045 - 10/05/07 01:02 PM Re: Something for the F16 technical committee - NO [Re: Mark P]
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 06/16/01
Posts: 9582
Loc: North-West Europe
Im sorry, but I agree with Holger and Mark here. One of the worst promotional things to do as a class is to give the appearence that you have something to hide. Having a private forum for the "honest" stuff is one of the best ways to feed such perceptions.

It also goes directly against the "be inclusive" principle that was at the basis of the F16 class from its creation. On what other grounds would we have put up with members like you and Stewart, Mark ? Or even myself !

But seriously, I fear some are underestimating how different the F16 class is from your run of the mill sailing classes. I know some feel that this forum is a promotional liability, but then I know that without it we would never had a F16 class to begin with.

Yes, I agree with these same people that "openness and inclusiveness" can become liabilities when out of control but I also believe that "tight control" can be a serious liability in its own right. If F16 sailors wanted tight control then they would be sailing in Hobie classes. And they would be right in doing so as Hobie does that best, although the number of Hobie classes is very quickly decreasing for some reason.

Wouter
_________________________
Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands

Top
#119046 - 10/05/07 02:11 PM Re: Something for the F16 technical committee - NO [Re: Wouter]
Mark P Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/08/06
Posts: 953
Loc: Mumbles Y.C Wales U.K
I'm also sorry Wouter, but like the tail wagging the dog this public forum can never dictate to the F16 Governing Council. Yes it is a very good tool for the F16 Class when used correctly but don't kid yourself too much I wouldn't have thought that many people have bought an F16 on the back of it. If you think having a Forum specifically for people with a proper connection to the F16 Class is a 'tight control' I would beg to differ. This suggested Forum, being recogniesd by the various association members and GC would to my mind do the exact opposite. So if you're concerned that some hobie 14 sailor from a place which I never knew existed felt left out then so be it. They should buy a proper Cat
_________________________
MP*MULTIHULLS
www.mp-multihulls.co.uk

Top
#119047 - 10/06/07 03:17 PM Re: Something for the F16 technical committee - NO [Re: Marcus F16]
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 06/16/01
Posts: 9582
Loc: North-West Europe
Quote:


If you had gone to the AGM at the Global challenge ...
...
Now it may be that the F16 website needs some updating, but this forum is not the place for this type of discussion.






AGM or no AGM, if the policy isn't publicized in writing with a follow-up web based discussion (private or open) then it is not a generally agreed F16 policy. The F16 class was not founded that way. I also believe that discussions can not be ended by refering to the AGM. Most class members can not be present there in person and as such an AGM merely acts as a tool to not have a broad discussion inside the class. As the topics (agenda) were not not publized before the AGM there was no way to prepare oneself for them or send in contributions.

The AGM is one of those archaic institutions that the F16 class during the start-up phase kept out of the class. There is a reason why no AGM or alike setup is mentioned in the F16 class rules and why this forum and the webpage are (were?). I find an AGM were everybody needs to be physically present an outdated concept in this internet age and I think one may succesfully hold the argument that it may be democratically quesionable. Otherwise one can easily maintain the argument that the holding of an AGM is not in line with the F16 class rules,

I refer to rule 2.2.1 :


The Formula 16 Class Authority will be formed by the Formula 16 General Council and appointed local representatives and related officials. Any official communication will be handled via the official Formula 16 webpage and e-mail address which at this time are ... ...



Therefor the AGM can not be considered "any official communication" because it has no generally accessible webpage based linkage like video conferencing. The F16 forum is of course part of the F16 web presence (c.q. webpage) and is at this time the only place to hold official discussions as defined by the F16 class rules.

Additionally, discussions are much improved if people have the time to research the situation and formulate a reply calmly, not to mention cool off. None of this is garanteed at a physical AGM. More then onces it will degrade into an emotional scream fest, were soft spoken contributors will not be heard at all. A web based textual environment is much superior.

I'm aware of the arguments in favour of having an AGM but sadly these are among the points on which I disagree with the current GC. I thought that I was the only one but found out differently.

I'm also saddened to report that I found a few F16 officials to be lacking in their understanding of the F16 class rules. (Two examples are given in this post). But this is no small wonder as the people involved in crafting and refining the class rules over the first 5 years were not involved in any way. Only very recently did Phill Brander become part of the GC and only as its secretary, not as an advisor/consultant on the class rules. As the creator of the F16 class rules I have had the pleasure to argue the intepretation of the F16 class rules with an official who neither sails or owns an F16, is not seriously interested in F16's and who is far more heavily involved in a rival catamaran class. I have nothing but respect for this person, but I do question whether he is the right person for the job.



With respect to the latter part of your statement.

If the website is not updated and this forum is no longer the place for discussions then were do F16 class members find the official F16 communique's and hold their discussions ?

Are we abandoning two operational institutions without providing alternatives ? What is the point in that ? Assuming for the moment that it is indeed considered wise to abandon these two F16 pilars at all.

How does this new (no ?) "communication policy", satisfy the F16 class rules ?


I specifically refer to rule 2.7.1 :


Any Formula 16 class member may propose amendments, additions or changes to the rule. They will be supported in their efforts by the Formula 16 authority with respect to communication and be given the means to propose the amendments, changes or additions to the class as a whole.


I'm failing to see this required active support by the GC.


Now with respect to "openness" of the F16 class, the 3rd pilar the F16 class was founded on. I'm sure the GC is working hard on getting the minutes of the Zandvoort AGM finished and publized. Praise there. I hope to see the minutes on the other meetings held on the future of the class as well.


With respect to Mark's comments :

Quote:


I'm also sorry Wouter, but like the tail wagging the dog this public forum can never dictate to the F16 Governing Council.






I actually beg to differ here. It is rather that the F16 sailors are the F16 class and the GC is empowered to execute the wishes of the class. It is not so that the GC is the dog that commands its slavish tail to wag when it wants to and how it wants to. We are not here for the greater glory of the GC. The GC is here for the greater glory of the F16 class and that means us, the sailors !


Wouter


Edited by Wouter (10/06/07 04:29 PM)

Top
#119048 - 10/06/07 03:37 PM Re: Something for the F16 technical committee - NO [Re: Marcus F16]
pdwarren Offline
addict

Registered: 07/06/05
Posts: 465
Loc: Oxford, UK
Quote:


Now it may be that the F16 website needs some updating...




It does - I've received some stuff from John in the last few days, and I'll get it up in the next few.

Paul

Top
#119049 - 10/06/07 03:52 PM Re: Something for the F16 technical committee - NO [Re: Wouter]
Mark P Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/08/06
Posts: 953
Loc: Mumbles Y.C Wales U.K
You really don't get it do you Wouter!!! I was trying to refrain from mentioning your not so subtle absence from the AGM, but had you the inclination to ask for an agenda in advance then I'm positive that you would have been furnished with one well prior of the Meeting. The meeting itself IMO was very proactive and even you must surely admit holding an AGM prior to the 2007 Global Challenge would have been a bit impractical if not impossible whilst you were Chairperson. As for the rest of your comments I personally don't really think having an AGM or perhaps a specific Forum for Class members will make any negative differences what so ever to the Class, now or in the future.
_________________________
MP*MULTIHULLS
www.mp-multihulls.co.uk

Top
#119050 - 10/06/07 04:23 PM Re: Something for the F16 technical committee - NO [Re: Mark P]
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 06/16/01
Posts: 9582
Loc: North-West Europe
Before we start any distracting rumours, let me inform everybody on what went down with respect to my person and the AGM.

On the day the AGM was going to be held I contacted the Chairman and ran through the expected procedings. This talk was short and I was assured that nothing major would come to pass. He agreed that I wouldn't miss anything by not attending. The next day I approached Martien and had a long talk covering the topics and what everybody said.

The reason I didn't attend the AGM personally has to do with the fact that we are not all born with perfect bodies. There are times when I need to involuntarily excuse myself. I have done this more often during the week. After the dinner at the Indian restaurant, on the day with the trip to Amsterdam, etc.

But I admit that this is the most easily found stick to hit me with.

Wouter


Edited by Wouter (10/06/07 04:27 PM)
_________________________
Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands

Top
#119051 - 10/06/07 04:33 PM Re: Something for the F16 technical committee - NO [Re: Wouter]
Mark P Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/08/06
Posts: 953
Loc: Mumbles Y.C Wales U.K
Nice move Wouter re-editing your post after my reply!! Openness and Integrity in it's truest form?
_________________________
MP*MULTIHULLS
www.mp-multihulls.co.uk

Top
#119052 - 10/06/07 04:44 PM Re: Something for the F16 technical committee - NO [Re: Mark P]
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 06/16/01
Posts: 9582
Loc: North-West Europe

Actually I had only read your posting after I had finished my earlier posting.

Do you have anymore scandalous angles you may want to try to take attention away from the real issues ?

Wouter


Edited by Wouter (10/06/07 04:45 PM)
_________________________
Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands

Top
#119053 - 10/06/07 08:18 PM Re: Something for the F16 technical committee - NO [Re: Wouter]
Mark P Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/08/06
Posts: 953
Loc: Mumbles Y.C Wales U.K
My only angle is that you changed your 10:17 post quite dramatically after my response at 10:52. This re-edit was posted at 11:29. The only scandal is that my response is now based on information which you subsequently changed.


Edited by MarkP (10/06/07 08:20 PM)
_________________________
MP*MULTIHULLS
www.mp-multihulls.co.uk

Top
#119054 - 10/06/07 08:40 PM Re: Something for the F16 technical committee - NO [Re: Mark P]
self_inflicted Online   content
journeyman

Registered: 07/14/06
Posts: 79
Loc: australia
I'm enjoying this banter between you two BUT If you pair want to see who has the biggest manhood YOU should really be doing it privatly than on a public forum where everybody can and will read it
SO both agree to disagree and move ON
Because it's stuff like this ,that people move people away from the class not towards it
Regards Richard

Top
Page 3 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >


Moderator:  phill, Rolf_Nilsen, scooby_simon