The Future of IOMICA Technical Matters

[RoyL]

As my time in the IOMICA VC Technical job draws to a close, I thought I would pass on a few things I have learned over the last few years.

I have come to realize there are basically only three kinds of technical questions that we face and each should be handled in a different manner.

The first type are those questions that have a clear answer already contained in our rules. Examples: "Can I use a carbon fiber mast?" "Is a foam cored deck legal?" "How many functions can I radio control?" Questions like these usually arise when people have difficulty navigating our rules or can't remember where the applicable rule is written. They are capable of being answered quickly and simply and are virtually always handled without controversy.

The second type of question is one where the rules are unclear or don't specifically cover a situation, but where everyone agrees what the rule should mean and how it applies. A good example of this kind of issue is the "two box receiver" problem. No one wanted to ban a receiver that was housed in two boxes, but some people thought that as written our rules were unclear. Another example, is the current question of whether or not it is legal to move corrector weights between heats of a regatta. Again, no one thought this was the intent or purpose of our rules, some however, thought that the rules were worded incorrectly.

Unfortunately, in these "second" cases, we spend a lot of time arguing about whether the rules are properly worded or not. What gets lost is that we are all in agreement as to what the rule means. In these cases, I believe it is the proper role of VC Technical to step in and stop the controversy. Whether by a timely class vote or a technical interpretation or an emergency rule change (or a combination of all) these types of problems can be cleared up and everyone satisfied. Basically, the meaning and intent of the rule is clear to everyone, the only dispute is over the language.

The third IOMICA technical situation is the most difficult. In these cases a new development or circumstance has arisen that is not clearly covered by our class rules and there is no widespread consensus of how the issue should be resolved or what the rules means. Examples: "Is texalium a class legal hull material?" "Was the sail attachment method from Black Magic Sails illegal?" "Can a jib be pivoted from the bottom of the hull?"

It is suggested by some that with the proper expertise and a close enough reading of the class rules these kinds of questions can be interpreted and answered. What I have learned (with some time and more than a little bit of pain) is that in reality in these situations the rules do not contain any clear answer. They are truly ambiguous. In the end, any answer given is simply an opinion for which there can usually be an equally compelling counter opinion.

It is these third types of questions that tear our class apart. Any decision on these questions imposed by the executive leaves a large number of people unsatisfied and unhappy. I believe that the only way to deal with these kind of questions is to admit to all that the rules are unclear and not capable of yielding a straightforward interpretation and then offer the issue up to the class for a full and democratic vote as soon as possible. Anything less simply lets controversy simmer and boil. Enough of these "interpretations" and bad feelings kill the class for all.

Hopefully, these experiences are helpful to those who follow. Oh, and one final thought--in all cases, the rules should be viewed as a tool to help the class and its members. They should never be used as a stick to beat people down.