Enough already ~ i’ve heard so much of all this and that and the other come on where’s the British Buldog spirit bonding us together?
And please don’t tell me it sailed out on the tide with the Footydom Ballot
Come on get your act together this is a chance for you to vote and sail New Footy.
Easy for the Johnney come latelys I suppose.
It is heart wrenching to see something I have put 8 years work into sail away with bad judgment…but thats the nature of the beast I guess.
I will step back and won’t question anything like a good little boy…
Brtett I understand exactly what you say, and it is heart wrenching. I’ve never had the wrench in relation to a yacht rule, but in a fairly inventive life I have experienced it many times. I’m sorry but I think that once your idea becomes ‘public property’ (I do not use this in any way in a legalistic sense) you loose any right to say what the ‘intention’ or ‘purpose’ of the object was - except possibly by way of assistance in sorting out problems of exact wording. The rule now belongs to the people who put their time, effort and money into building and sailing Footys. If their perception of what is good or what they want is not yours, that is sad - but tough.
I personaaly think that the current perception of Footys as a class for rather anarchic free-thinkers without cut-throat competition being central to its nature is valid and satisfactory. I am not convinced that this will go on for ever - increasing sophistication, homing in on the ‘right’ answers etc. will reduce the emphasis on experimentation and make people concentrate on ‘on the lake’ competition with all the demands on rules that this implies.
I cannot claim to have created the informal Footy culture that currently exists in the UK. At the very most I can claim to have put in place the conditions in which it could come about. The people who have really made it happen are my fellow members of the UK Footy Class Association - plus a large number of very good Officers of the Day (Race Directors to some) who have latched on to what the punters wanted and made our days out fun for everyone.
I gather that the position in the USA is rather similar.
:zbeer::zbeer::zbeer:
Brett, I can totally understand your anguish at the seeming follies of Footydom as of late. I can’t even imagine how it must feel at your end.
The only thing I suppose I can offer is to say lets take this opportunity to gather up the pieces, see which way the wind is blowing and put it all back together. If is leads to a re-wording of the amended rules and another vote, so be it; if it leads to throwing the mess to the breeze, catching what comes back down, and revamping the whole bloody thing, it’ll be an uphill battle, but lets do it. The Footy class has come too far – thanks in a large part to the efforts of people like yourself, Angus, and others who pour time and energy into figuring out the nuances of the Footy and its workings – to be allowed to slip away now, thanks to some mistakes made in voting.
Perhaps, smiles this is a sign that we need to instill some stiffer guidelines in how we vote on major issues… my generation may strike me down for this, and the words are slightly bitter on the tongue, but do we need to set up an electoral college sort of thing for major rulings? Perhaps a body like the rule committee, but larger, that does nothing but deliberate and vote on rule changes and the like when they come up. Perhaps not. Either way, while we certainly have, as you noted, voted on “wording” there is intent behind those words. Mayhap the first place to start is to try to wordsmith the changes into accord with each other – if they don’t agree, then we should have no trouble declaring them contradictory and therefore void until brought into synch with each other.
Please, don’t take this the wrong way, I am certain that many have already taken steps in this direction. This affair reeks of the sort that could blow the class apart if not dealt with. And perhaps this is simply youthful optimism. (Although, as a naturally realistic person, I would like to think not.:rolleyes:)
Alright, rant complete for the time being.
Merry Christmas all.
Happy Holidays Barrett - I disagree that there needs to be some deliberative body to decide on rule changes divorced from the rabble of Footy owners that feel strongly enough about the class to actually vote on the issues that were presented in the ballot.
Also, lets not forget that the proposals in the ballot were “proposed” by someone, they didn’t just pop out of the air. So, although some of the old guard bemoan the changes voted on by the membership, competing visions of the Footy have won the day in some cases. Also, regardless of some of the comments on this forum not all of the ballot issues are contradictory to others. While I admit that I was somewhat confused by the rudder and sail rig proposals (and they probably need to be clarified) I don’t think that the status quo was in any way endorsed, so throwing the results away is not an option.
Ian, I also don’t believe that the ballot proposals were designed to hoodwink anyone, but I do think that the format could have emphasized that a vote for one proposal voided the others covering the same issue. Perhaps an affirmative response to only the person’s choice rather than having to vote no on the alternatives would have been easier to understand.
Niel, good points!
I think you may have misunderstood some of what I was trying to say however. I am not sure I agree with a “voting committee” being the right thing for the footy class either. That was more of a conceptual talking point than an actual proposal. smiles
As for the real meat here – the rule changes themselves. The ballot items were certainly proposed by someone, and as such must be dealt with. In my belief most of them have quite a bit of merit, and are honestly trying to shape the class in good ways. However, somehow it seems there have been some inconsistencies in making sure that everything agrees with everything else. These are the kind of things that tear classes, rules, laws, and countries apart. It was to this end that the main thrust of my previous statements was directed.
My comment about making the rules “void” was not suggesting that we throw out parts of the ballot that didn’t fit/didn’t like, rather that we hold up on implementing them until such a time as they can be worded in a way that makes them fit harmoniously in the rest of the Footy rule. I understand how this may have been misconstrued, I re-iterate, my intent is not to void or nullify any of the new resolutions; it was simply a suggestion that we temporarily wait to enact them until such a time as they can be re-worded so as to spare us months of definitions debates in the future. I would venture to say that the time put in now, would be better spent then time spent months from now trying to figure out the legality of a boat built to a dubiously phrased rule. I would be more than happy to assist in this endeavour, if that is what’s needed to get this thing back onto stable footing.
There are certainly many parts of the ballot that have no issue – and in the spirit of not fixing what ain’t broke, they haven’t been mentioned.