Author Topic: The AUK Regulations  (Read 4539 times)

Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #50 on: December 15, 2018, 05:27:28 pm »
OK, here is the final draft for comment before it is submitted into the formal review process. Different file but same place - see regs.paudax.com for details.

Its [sic] formatted as a single resolution with four parts to be voted on seperately [sic], Part 1 being the main body of the regulations plus three points worthy of individual consideration.

As usual, all feedback welcome!
As a newbie among the great and good who've commented, here are my minutia.
P6. “Ordre” not “Order”
P7. 1.2 “General Meeting” Capitalise G and M for consistency across the Regs.
P9. 8.5 DIY Permanent    Comment: Oxymoron. Example of history seeming to be more important than clarity for the coming decade.
8.8 Route Type   Comment: Only 51% metalled/paved surface would feel very ‘off-road’ (imo). How about an 80% threshold? What is the origin of the 50% quoted?
P10. 9.3 Use of words ‘may not’ are a weak way of conveying prohibition. ?”must not”? Penalty is neither brevet validated nor awarded and also 11.5.9 applies. Cf 11.5.2
11.5.9 Amend relevant text to “an event official’s instruction”
Appx 1  Line 2  Delete “.”
2.2  Why not similar text on planning/registering route in Arrows/Trails section?
4.3 No comma after i.e.
Appx 2   Opening text - slight rewording recommended (and then reflected in Para 1)
From “An extended event is a DIY Permanent which combines with a Calendar and Permanent Brevets recognised for Audax UK awards so that the overall ride may be recognised as a higher category event for Audax UK Award purposes.”
To “An extended event is a DIY Permanent combined with a Calendar or Permanent Brevet (itself recognised for Audax UK awards) so that the overall ride may be recognised as a longer Brevet Distance Category event for Audax UK Award purposes.”
Appx3  Line 2  “. . .completing a series . . .”    “different”? not necessarily: could be all 200 BRs for example. Delete “different”
5. Order Ordre??
Page 21 of 22 – Table at end
Add “Advisory” to BR(AUK) BRM(ACP) row and RM(LRM) row in column 5. I assume that there is no intent to impose mandatory routes on BRM or LRMs ridden in UK. Edit: I see you addressed @grams point on this earlier.
@grams "The event type summary table seems to define all BRMs as mandatory route."
OP: "Well, as far as ACP is concerned they are :). The summary table referenced is there for general guidance only and does not form part of the AUK regulations."

Hope this is useful.

Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #51 on: December 15, 2018, 05:57:24 pm »
I’ve been meaning to post something very much like what willyboy just posted. I think this is doomed unless there’s a good faith effort to remove all *changes* to the regulations that have crept in.

frankly frankie

  • I kid you not
    • Fuchsiaphile
Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #52 on: December 16, 2018, 10:00:32 am »
That's the scary thing though - this isn't doomed at all.  The great majority of AGM votes are cast online, by people who will not have participated in any debate on the proposal.  In these circumstances most proposals get approved, simply because most people prefer to say 'yes' rather than 'no'.
"This is a complex subject, with a need for more than one highlighter pen."

Manotea

  • Where there is doubt...
Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #53 on: December 16, 2018, 11:33:38 am »
@Somnolent

I’d summarise all of our discussions on this subject by saying that we are remarkably close but differ on the key and central issue as to the need for a central and authoritative document detailing Audax UK regulations.

My impression is that all you see is the complexity of all the different event forms that AUK is involved in and would see them all documented out separately with all the appropriate rider notes. Nominally that would be quite straightforward, deceptively so.

The problem I perceive with that approach is that without first drawing up a consolidated regulatory document that you will very quickly generate a large number of different event regulation documents, all subtly different which will be impossible to maintain consistently over time. Anybody who has tried to work their way through the Audax Australia regs will understand what I mean.

So yes, there is a need to document individual event forms with appropriate guidance for Orgs and Riders but there needs to be – and the task will be greatly facilitated by – such a central document.

The other point of misunderstanding relates to there being currently two main classes of event/award (BR and BP).

What it comes down to is that right now, for AUK awards purposes, an event is either recognised as BR – the primary standard on which the majority of audax events and awards are based – or not, in which case they are BP. If there was a desire or need to introduce other classes of mutually exclusive Audax UK awards then such additional categories might be defined and we would need to address that but no so desire or need has been demonstrated. Whilst LWaB has pointed out many times that such is the way things are done in France, that, for example, ACP offers several mutually exclusive awards schemes, but for better or worse, Audax UK events and awards schemes have evolved in a different direction.

Manotea

  • Where there is doubt...
Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #54 on: December 16, 2018, 11:34:46 am »
@Frankly/Wilky

The sin was not in omitting the fateful ‘up to’ but not explicitly stating that the maximum speed would be specified by the organiser ‘up to’ that limit.

I’ve revised those clauses accordingly, so they are equivalent to current regs.

Manotea

  • Where there is doubt...
Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #55 on: December 16, 2018, 11:35:36 am »
@Wilky/Grams

You’d be amazed to know how conscious I am of this being “one man’s effort”, and yet it isn’t. Yes, one man is driving this project but the reality is that whilst committees may be set up to address such matters, these things generally come down to one possibly two individuals. Much the same applies to other projects including previous revisions of the Audax UK regulations, as others have confirmed to me.

Newer members will not appreciate that the last time the Audax UK regulations were revised, the proposed revision was not published to members until 2-3 three weeks before the AGM, that there was no opportunity to review them and it was very much a case of ‘take it or leave it’ at the AGM. I remember one prominent AUK commenting on this ‘quite vocally’, pointing out various changes that had been introduced without consultation.

So as it stands this proposal has already had VASTLY more review and feedback than probably any similar previous official Audax ÚK document, and overall it seems to be standing up well to critical scrutiny. That doesn’t mean it’s perfect or finalised though, that’s what the review process is for. “Ready to go” means submission for formal review prior to submission to the AGM.

As noted on page 1 paragraph 4, aside from specific points I’ve split out to for approval separately, its intended that the revision should not introduce any functional changes, and the process of organising and entering events, validating brevets, etc. would continue as now. I stand by that, and will look at adding a reversion clause to ensure that is the case,

NB: the table at the end is not part of the proposed AUK regulations. It quoted BRMs as having mandatory routes because as far as ACP is concerned, that is the case, I’ve updated the table to include advisory though because that has been AUK practice.

I’ll look to draft out the regulations applying to validation by external organisations – including BRM/LRM - as documented in current AUK regulations – as they would apply in conjunction with this proposal this week.

Manotea

  • Where there is doubt...
Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #56 on: December 16, 2018, 11:44:39 am »
@Ajax Bay

Thanks for your feedback. I’ve adopted most of it. You'll note I've reordered the appendices so the important sections come first, i.e., sections on events follow on directly from the main body of the regulations. Seemed only right.

Route type, yes, an on-road is route of 51% would feel very off road to me but the definition in the regs of off-road is 50%. The Weasal word may allows that by default routes (may) be left unclassififed, which is where we are now.
'May not' seems weak but such is the current wording and is fairly consistent with other similar clauses; its a struggle to find a better way of putting it in every day english.
officials' - might be more than one?
DIY Permananent - not following your comment?

Note I'm tagging changes with ## and noting insertions and deletions where appropriate.

Fidgetbuzz

  • L sp MOON. 1st R sp MARS . At X SO sp STARS
Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #57 on: December 16, 2018, 11:52:50 am »
I do not have the time or inclination to read and understand the current position or what it is that Manotea is trying to change
.
But my idiots approach is ...

If something needs changing surely the right approach is to have a dialogue with the Board .. explaining to them why these  ideas are an improvement on the present position. If the Board are unconvinced by this approach .. then is the time to start trying to drum up support for changes.

Again without wasting my time on the detail .. my impression is that these ideas are trying to constrain the Boards ability to take the responsibility vested in them as Directors to run the company in the way that they judge to be appropriate to the circumstances then prevailing. If I am right here .. then I do not think that  these ideas are ever going to be appropriate for a Company. It is false logic to try to say .. well it is  not really a company .. it is actually a members club.

If I have the wrong end of the stick here .. i apologise
I was an accountant until I discovered Audax !!

Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #58 on: December 16, 2018, 10:38:20 pm »
@Somnolent

I’d summarise all of our discussions on this subject by saying that we are remarkably close but differ on the key and central issue as to the need for a central and authoritative document detailing Audax UK regulations.

My impression is that all you see is the complexity of all the different event forms that AUK is involved in and would see them all documented out separately with all the appropriate rider notes. Nominally that would be quite straightforward, deceptively so.

The problem I perceive with that approach is that without first drawing up a consolidated regulatory document that you will very quickly generate a large number of different event regulation documents, all subtly different which will be impossible to maintain consistently over time. Anybody who has tried to work their way through the Audax Australia regs will understand what I mean.

So yes, there is a need to document individual event forms with appropriate guidance for Orgs and Riders but there needs to be – and the task will be greatly facilitated by – such a central document.

The other point of misunderstanding relates to there being currently two main classes of event/award (BR and BP).

What it comes down to is that right now, for AUK awards purposes, an event is either recognised as BR – the primary standard on which the majority of audax events and awards are based – or not, in which case they are BP. If there was a desire or need to introduce other classes of mutually exclusive Audax UK awards then such additional categories might be defined and we would need to address that but no so desire or need has been demonstrated. Whilst LWaB has pointed out many times that such is the way things are done in France, that, for example, ACP offers several mutually exclusive awards schemes, but for better or worse, Audax UK events and awards schemes have evolved in a different direction.

Yes we are close in our approach but I really don't understand why you refuse to acknowledge the validity (or even existence) of any form of central document but your own.

IMO your 'central document' is inconsistent because it includes the detail regulation for two types of events to the exclusion of others, apparently (in your latest post) on the feeble justification of the relevance to award types.

I'd also dispute specifically
Quote
your different event regulation documents, all subtly different which will be impossible to maintain consistently over time.
  They would actually be very easy to maintain because each document, apart from the central one, would refer only to a single type of event, and any changes would affect only that one type and not (inadvertently) other kinds of events, something which is a danger under the present structure.

frankly frankie

  • I kid you not
    • Fuchsiaphile
Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #59 on: December 17, 2018, 09:57:07 am »
Newer members will not appreciate that the last time the Audax UK regulations were revised, the proposed revision was not published to members until 2-3 three weeks before the AGM, that there was no opportunity to review them and it was very much a case of ‘take it or leave it’ at the AGM. I remember one prominent AUK commenting on this ‘quite vocally’, pointing out various changes that had been introduced without consultation.

In fact one of the most contentious changes of all - the move from mandatory to advisory routes - was introduced in precisely this way, buried in an overall revision that was 'not intended to change anything' other than presentation, about 18 years ago.  There was no debate on the advisory routes change at all, either at the AGM or among organisers.
"This is a complex subject, with a need for more than one highlighter pen."