Tournament Committee Report

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by fencerbill

I did get the 2006 numbers from the web site. Results listing from 12 individual and all 5 team events (no WST).

You are, of course, correct. I still have this nagging feeling it's been bigger, but I'm having trouble accessing results from previous years. Methinks I've been up too long and maybe should go to bed..........

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by teacup

Once the tournament committee's report has been presented it would be nice if the fencing community was given a chance to submit feedback on their proposals before being voted on and implemented.

Have you tried providing feedback when the proposals were published for exactly that purpose? Over a hundred other people did to the first request.

Anything that comes out of the Tournament Task Force (note, this is a distinct group from the similarly-named Tournament Committee, which exists for a very different purpose) will end up as a report and possibly suggestions to the Board. The Board will have their usual multiple-meeting system, which allows for quite a bit of time for both public and private comments. I suspect that in this case, because the changes are potentially quite significant, that there will be a significantly larger than normal amount of notice given and explicit solicitations for feedback.

While the USFA certainly can operate in a less-than-transparent fashion at times (</understatement>), I sincerely believe that this will not be one of those occasions.

-B

[teacup]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Have you tried providing feedback when the proposals were published for exactly that purpose? Over a hundred other people did to the first request.

Anything that comes out of the Tournament Task Force (note, this is a distinct group from the similarly-named Tournament Committee, which exists for a very different purpose) will end up as a report and possibly suggestions to the Board. The Board will have their usual multiple-meeting system, which allows for quite a bit of time for both public and private comments. I suspect that in this case, because the changes are potentially quite significant, that there will be a significantly larger than normal amount of notice given and explicit solicitations for feedback.

While the USFA certainly can operate in a less-than-transparent fashion at times (</understatement>), I sincerely believe that this will not be one of those occasions.

-B

If you are asking if I personally submitted ideas when the tournament task force asked for suggestions, the answer is yes but I am not sure if the published proposals you are referring to are in addition or the same as their initial request for input. If they are in addition then I have not seen a published list of proposals and would be interested to read them in order to submit comments.
I do understand that there are two groups, tournament task force vs tournament committee and was curious as to who was on the tournament task force since the members of this committee are not published on the website.
As do you, I hope and believe that the USFA will operate in an open fashion in regard to this matter.

[eac]

Brad: Care to speculate on which proposals from the task force might make it all the way to reality?

[DieterS]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Have you tried providing feedback when the proposals were published for exactly that purpose? Over a hundred other people did to the first request.

Anything that comes out of the Tournament Task Force (note, this is a distinct group from the similarly-named Tournament Committee, which exists for a very different purpose) will end up as a report and possibly suggestions to the Board. The Board will have their usual multiple-meeting system, which allows for quite a bit of time for both public and private comments. I suspect that in this case, because the changes are potentially quite significant, that there will be a significantly larger than normal amount of notice given and explicit solicitations for feedback.

While the USFA certainly can operate in a less-than-transparent fashion at times (</understatement>), I sincerely believe that this will not be one of those occasions.

-B

Understatement indeed! Do you know whether the USFA feedback process changed in the last couple of years? As you know, my experience with the USFA tournament proposal process was very frustrating and a complete waste of my time!

Dieter

[KD5MDK]

Do you anticipate the TTF producing a report in time for a Board Meeting at Summer Nationals, or do you expect it be delayed until later?

[oiuyt]

I'll try to answer all of the several preceeding posts here.

The first post in this thread lists the members of the Task Force. I believe Sue Clinton has withdrawn from the group due to lack of time.

I would be shocked if the Task Force does not report at the July meeting. At this point I don't know what stage of report that will be, a status update, intermediate proposals, suggestions for one or more options of where to go next, discussion of some preliminary steps, etc.

Eac- I wouldn't want to speculate as I don't think the options have been narrowed significantly. Some of the options have been shelved, if not discarded (the centrally-located USFA-owned facility for hosting NACs comes to mind in this category).

This was never intended to be a quick get-in-and-out process with immediate impact on the national calendar. It will be a deliberately paced project to try to minimize disruption and maximize opportunity for feedback and correction before everything goes live. Certainly no one wants a system to go into place with problems or issues, so having many eyes looking at proposals before implementation is almost a requirement. Once things are getting to the stage where they're written up formally enough that they can be reasonably shared they will certainly be distributed.

-B

[dekko]

Originally Posted by fencerbill

It can be done better. Ask fencers who have been in tournaments where people from the New England Division have worked the computers. Which is why they have been hired to work tournaments as far away as New Jersey.

Wow, this seems to be quite arrogant. I have been to other big events in other parts of the country and while I have not had the opportunity to make it to the Boston Potato Festival, they do not have the market cornered on running tournaments efficiently. While I do not doubt their ability, speed or efficiency, back away from the idea that only the NE division has people capable of running events well from logistical stand point. There are people all over this country who have this ability. It would seem many opinions could be conculted instead of just those who live north of Cambridge and south og the CT/NH border.

[eac]

He wasn't saying that NE has a monopoly on good BC people. He was saying that they were a proof of concept that there can be better BC people than what's at NACs. Stop being paranoid.