velogirl wrote:
In my life experience, I think slamming a race promoter on a public forum isn't appropriate. I tend to think it's more effective to personally speak with that person.
And I think the fact that this still bothers you, six months after the fact, says something about your character and your ability to be un-biased as a potential Officer of the NCNCA.
I disagree, mostly. Yes, for many things like this, a private email is best. But if you are one person complaining to a promoter, especially to a promoter who appears so out of touch with reality about entry fees, you will be probably be received as just one complainer. I think Jess was right to complain about this in public and regardless of what was said here, the riders voted with their wallets. The unfortunate part is that maybe because the promoter wasn't "enlightened" early enough, the promoter may not return, which may mean we've lost a race that could have been popular in the future.
And the fact that something like this still bothers Jess, and some other people too, does say something about Jess-that he doesn't just roll over, offer nice platitudes, and forget about things that are not "right". My hunch is that Jess would like to be proactive about things that aren't right, rather than just accepting them (which is not to say that any particular person within this discussion would accept them).
I think Jess's point about considering people based on their behavior and performance and writings over a period of a year or longer is more relevant than going by what they write here during an election.
I think Casey did many good things for us, but I am glad we have more than 4 people running for office, and my biggest hope is that the people who don't win an office will remain on the board as a VP. I think it is important that any available (non-elected) VP positions be offered first to the candidates who didn't win, instead of to people who received no votes, i.e. were not candidates. It would not be right that people who received no support from the NCNCA's members were then allowed to vote on NCNCA policies at board meetings.
You mean like when a club that includes 400 members (more than 10% of all NCNCA members) gets only 1 vote in the election?
When an election to represent more than 3000 members is determined by 30-50 voters?
Warren, an election, governed by democratic process, is not a poll. In the current NCNCA Constitution, elected/appointed delegates from each club should be voting for the candidates that the club members select -- not their own opinion.
I know that the election received some initial discussion on your club email group and I would hope that your club members voiced their opinions to your club delegate (as requested by the delegate) -- and that he votes with those opinions influencing his decision.
Many clubs have held election discussions and made election decisions at their club meetings. Others have voted among their club BODs. With the current NCNCA election process, it's really up to each member club to manage their vote in the way they deem appropriate.
velogirl wrote:
In the statistical world, a sample size that small is not relevant.
You mean like when a club that includes 400 members (more than 10% of all NCNCA members) gets only 1 vote in the election?
When an election to represent more than 3000 members is determined by 30-50 voters?
These are examples of non-representative samples of a population.
So... let's be fair.
Others here have relied on "results" from voluntary polls.
During the course of getting my degree in Marketing we studied market research. A poll that receives (only) completely voluntary replies is rarely representative of an entire population simply because the only people who care enough to respond will be those who tend to fall to one or the other extremes. And, if it is relatively difficult for the population to even know about, and reply to a poll the results will be further skewed.
Actually not really. No people will be electing officers, the sixty seven or so member clubs will be doing so. Of those, 31 have already voted. My club will be discussing our vote at our upcoming team meeting(s), and others will likely do the same and vote before the December deadline.
Tim, voting closes November 2nd @ 8:00pm -- that's next Monday.
ZebraMan wrote:
Lorri decided to disregard the highest-attended poll ever held in this region because only 54 people responded? How many will be electing the officers of the NCNCA? It appears 25, more or less.
Actually not really. No people will be electing officers, the sixty seven or so member clubs will be doing so. Of those, 31 have already voted. My club will be discussing our vote at our upcoming team meeting(s), and others will likely do the same and vote before the December deadline.
But back to the issue you've raised about racing fees, prize lists, etc. From what I understand, the racing schedule and approving race flyers (which specify costs and prize lists) is the President's job. But since you've brought it up, as a candidate for 1st VP what's your take on how the NCNCA should address promoters who seem to be out of the norm on these issues?
I have to agree with Lorri to a degree. I also feel that a lot of people just don't voice their opinion as much as some of us do.
In helping with traffic studies it was often said that a sampling is sufficient, so this gives credence to Jess's point. If it were fewer than I would agree 100% with Lorri, but I think the number is adequate for a sampling.
I did not got to the race, still think it was over priced, so I let my wallet do the talking.
about prizes: Toss up a wine prime and I'll jump a break in a corner. The Seven Deadly Zinns was great.
My olfactory isn't that great, so I can't verify Jess's body odor.
Jess, I am responding, not because I feel that I need to defend my comments (I don't), but because I think forum readers deserve a response.
In the statistical world, a sample size that small is not relevant.
I could post a poll on the forum about any topic I please. For example, I could post a poll asking if clear water bottles are superior to white water bottles. If 54 forum readers respond to this poll, out of 1,000s of racers in the district, does that mean that one choice is superior to the other (in the big picture)?
In my life experience, I think slamming a race promoter on a public forum isn't appropriate. I tend to think it's more effective to personally speak with that person.
And I think the fact that this still bothers you, six months after the fact, says something about your character and your ability to be un-biased as a potential Officer of the NCNCA.
Lorri
ps -- if you want an example of relevant sample size, I give you the recent Masters Women's BAR/BAT survey. because I know that the forum is only utilized by a very few (vocal) folks in the district, I ran the poll using a different polling tool, and in addition to announcing it here and on the NCNCA e-list, I sent personal invitations to all of the club presidents and to all of the women who had raced MPGP (since I had their email addresses). 81 masters women responded to that poll -- nearly 20% of the district. That's a relevant sample size.
velogirl wrote:
In my life experience, I think slamming a race promoter on a public forum isn't appropriate. I tend to think it's more effective to personally speak with that person.
And I think the fact that this still bothers you, six months after the fact, says something about your character and your ability to be un-biased as a potential Officer of the NCNCA.
I disagree, mostly. Yes, for many things like this, a private email is best. But if you are one person complaining to a promoter, especially to a promoter who appears so out of touch with reality about entry fees, you will be probably be received as just one complainer. I think Jess was right to complain about this in public and regardless of what was said here, the riders voted with their wallets. The unfortunate part is that maybe because the promoter wasn't "enlightened" early enough, the promoter may not return, which may mean we've lost a race that could have been popular in the future.
And the fact that something like this still bothers Jess, and some other people too, does say something about Jess-that he doesn't just roll over, offer nice platitudes, and forget about things that are not "right". My hunch is that Jess would like to be proactive about things that aren't right, rather than just accepting them (which is not to say that any particular person within this discussion would accept them).
I think Jess's point about considering people based on their behavior and performance and writings over a period of a year or longer is more relevant than going by what they write here during an election.
I think Casey did many good things for us, but I am glad we have more than 4 people running for office, and my biggest hope is that the people who don't win an office will remain on the board as a VP. I think it is important that any available (non-elected) VP positions be offered first to the candidates who didn't win, instead of to people who received no votes, i.e. were not candidates. It would not be right that people who received no support from the NCNCA's members were then allowed to vote on NCNCA policies at board meetings.
WarrenG wrote:
You mean like when a club that includes 400 members (more than 10% of all NCNCA members) gets only 1 vote in the election?
When an election to represent more than 3000 members is determined by 30-50 voters?
Warren, an election, governed by democratic process, is not a poll. In the current NCNCA Constitution, elected/appointed delegates from each club should be voting for the candidates that the club members select -- not their own opinion.
I know that the election received some initial discussion on your club email group and I would hope that your club members voiced their opinions to your club delegate (as requested by the delegate) -- and that he votes with those opinions influencing his decision.
Many clubs have held election discussions and made election decisions at their club meetings. Others have voted among their club BODs. With the current NCNCA election process, it's really up to each member club to manage their vote in the way they deem appropriate.
Lorri
Lorri Lee Lown
http://www.velogirls.com
velogirl wrote:
In the statistical world, a sample size that small is not relevant.
You mean like when a club that includes 400 members (more than 10% of all NCNCA members) gets only 1 vote in the election?
When an election to represent more than 3000 members is determined by 30-50 voters?
These are examples of non-representative samples of a population.
So... let's be fair.
Others here have relied on "results" from voluntary polls.
During the course of getting my degree in Marketing we studied market research. A poll that receives (only) completely voluntary replies is rarely representative of an entire population simply because the only people who care enough to respond will be those who tend to fall to one or the other extremes. And, if it is relatively difficult for the population to even know about, and reply to a poll the results will be further skewed.
TimBurg wrote:
Actually not really. No people will be electing officers, the sixty seven or so member clubs will be doing so. Of those, 31 have already voted. My club will be discussing our vote at our upcoming team meeting(s), and others will likely do the same and vote before the December deadline.
Tim, voting closes November 2nd @ 8:00pm -- that's next Monday.
Lorri Lee Lown
http://www.velogirls.com
ZebraMan wrote:
Lorri decided to disregard the highest-attended poll ever held in this region because only 54 people responded? How many will be electing the officers of the NCNCA? It appears 25, more or less.
Actually not really. No people will be electing officers, the sixty seven or so member clubs will be doing so. Of those, 31 have already voted. My club will be discussing our vote at our upcoming team meeting(s), and others will likely do the same and vote before the December deadline.
But back to the issue you've raised about racing fees, prize lists, etc. From what I understand, the racing schedule and approving race flyers (which specify costs and prize lists) is the President's job. But since you've brought it up, as a candidate for 1st VP what's your take on how the NCNCA should address promoters who seem to be out of the norm on these issues?
Tim
A day that I'm on the bike is a good day.
I have to agree with Lorri to a degree. I also feel that a lot of people just don't voice their opinion as much as some of us do.
In helping with traffic studies it was often said that a sampling is sufficient, so this gives credence to Jess's point. If it were fewer than I would agree 100% with Lorri, but I think the number is adequate for a sampling.
I did not got to the race, still think it was over priced, so I let my wallet do the talking.
about prizes: Toss up a wine prime and I'll jump a break in a corner. The Seven Deadly Zinns was great.
My olfactory isn't that great, so I can't verify Jess's body odor.
Cheers,
Ron
Jess, I am responding, not because I feel that I need to defend my comments (I don't), but because I think forum readers deserve a response.
In the statistical world, a sample size that small is not relevant.
I could post a poll on the forum about any topic I please. For example, I could post a poll asking if clear water bottles are superior to white water bottles. If 54 forum readers respond to this poll, out of 1,000s of racers in the district, does that mean that one choice is superior to the other (in the big picture)?
In my life experience, I think slamming a race promoter on a public forum isn't appropriate. I tend to think it's more effective to personally speak with that person.
And I think the fact that this still bothers you, six months after the fact, says something about your character and your ability to be un-biased as a potential Officer of the NCNCA.
Lorri
ps -- if you want an example of relevant sample size, I give you the recent Masters Women's BAR/BAT survey. because I know that the forum is only utilized by a very few (vocal) folks in the district, I ran the poll using a different polling tool, and in addition to announcing it here and on the NCNCA e-list, I sent personal invitations to all of the club presidents and to all of the women who had raced MPGP (since I had their email addresses). 81 masters women responded to that poll -- nearly 20% of the district. That's a relevant sample size.
Lorri Lee Lown
http://www.velogirls.com
In any election, you know you've got the other guys quaking in their Sidis when the smear commercials start!