RoyL wrote:As I am sure you recall, one of the things promised in Vancouver prior to the formation of IOMICA was that the RSD would shortly no longer have any control over the IOM Class. Now, over two years later, RSD is still in control.
Hi Roy
I have no such recollection. The IOM class is managed and administered by IOMICA. Where an International sailing class, radio or full size, is managed by its Class Association, it is recognised and has approval to do so by ISAF in the case of full size, or by RSD in the case of radio. In both cases, ISAF or RSD reserve to themselves two key functions: the interpretation of any class rule; and the approval of any class rule change.
Today, it seems that a small group of people, acting largely on their own initiative still govern the class. That is, the IOMICA Executive and the Technical Committee seem to be formulating most of the class rules and interpretations on their own initiative and then push them out to the class.
I have no idea how the class could be governed without a small group of people, called the Executive, and another small group of people, called the Technical Sub-Committee (get it right, please) doing the work that is laid down for them according to the constitution and regulations.
What is particularly amazing is that these actions are still subject to reversal and modification by the RSD.
What is so amazing here? These are pretty "standard" quality control procedures as adopted in any organisation -- someone does the work, someone else checks it. In point of fact, RSD has been nothing but helpful and supportive in the technical work of IOMICA. There have been no "reversals" and no "modifications" of the kind you allude to. There have been some pretty detailed technical discussions about what the rules do and do not actually mean, and about what makes sense in terms of dispensation or changing them. All good, important things that ensure rule consistency, coherence, and conformance.
Worse, is the fact that all of this is done under a claim of "free discussion"
What is it we are having now?
However, those of us who have ever expressed disagreement with an IOMICA Executive policy (either here or elsewhere) know that speaking out usually results in the receipt of a personal note from the IOMICA Executive, suggesting that voicing a different point of view is against the interest of the IOM Class ...
What you may have received, as you receiving now, is a note which suggests that the way in which you are expressing yourself is not helping the class. You may also have had a note which suggests that the ignorance you are displaying of constitutional and regulatory aspects of class operation are similarly not helping the class. You are as always more than welcome to express your opinions, and you will not have received a note from me seeking to suppress a different point of view.
... and implying that further disagreement is not welcome
You may have received a number of notes suggesting that a different approach to the issue might better serve your interests and what you see as the interests of the class. Disagreement has never been a problem. It is simply a fact of life, particularly when dealing with rule issues in the IOM class. As I have said earlier, what I find distasteful and disturbing is the way in which disagreement becomes "blame" and witch-hunt, finger-pointing, inuendo, smear, and accusatory. You tell me you have every "right" to ask questions, and so you do. But we know that there are different ways of asking questions and offering opinions, and a number of these ways have no place in reasoned debate.
Fact is, there is more than enough time ...
Please review the constitution and regulations on the procedures. You will find that there are time constraints.
... to put to the class the seperate issue of what is the opinion of the class on the following simple questions:1. Was the technical committee correct in banning texalium?
Sure, this is a question that could be put to all class Owners, via the World Council. It wouldn't make a lot of sense, mainly because it wasn't the TSC which "banned Texalium". And, it isn't a matter of opinion as to whether Texalium is a kind of coated glass not permitted by the rules. No amount of wishing for a truly beautiful deck makes coated glass legal. If you want the class to permit coated glass, work the relevant procedures.
2. ... is the partial grandfathering currently in effect acceptable?
Yes, this is also a question that could be asked, and it is being asked as part of the package of class rule changes. I think you are suggesting that this question be separated out from the package, and be asked by itself. As I've explained, the package was put together as a bunch of stuff that we thought would not be controversial.