Hi all
A quick reply to some of the ideas posted in this thread over the past few days...
Thanks to Alan for posting the timetable. I agree with others that we need to get on with the job
now.
Gareth Tawton wrote:perhaps it would be worthwhile contacting Paul Littlejohn as he is the new National RAFT Chairmen. It is Pauls responsibilty to see that the desires of the majority of handlers is implimented
Paul it is becoming clear that some of the State/Territory RAFT's are far from functional. Do you have any thoughts on how to address this shortcoming to prevent it from impacting on the rule review?
Kerry Webster wrote:2. Are triallers being represented on an individual state basis at RAFT meetings, or does it come down to a consensus of opinion at voting time ?
I'm also unclear on how this works. Can someone please clarify how the representation will work in deciding on proposed changes?
Joe Law wrote:Jason has made the offer a few times previously to organise a closed section of this website which would enable such a committee (perhaps with representatives from each state) to work together on such a project.
I'm still happy to do this - just let me know who you want to have access I can make it happen.
Gareth Tawton wrote:Perhaps those people who are interested in making a submission, could make one to all states on behalf of the Web site users group so to speak. Maybe, Jason could co ordinate something like this.
I'd be happy to attempt this, but only if I was absolutely sure that the results would get taken seriously in the review phase. At present I doubt that would be possible as there would not be anyone to speak on behalf of the website group at the National RAFT.
Instead I would suggest that we use the bulletin board as a forum to discuss specific ideas on how the rules should be amended and the types of issues and process required for the judges guide. That way we can test if ideas are truly national and gauge support or opposition to them. We have a reasonable proportion of the trialling community represented here now and such discussion can only be a positive.
I did my own review of the rules on the weekend and came up with three types of suggested amendments:
sustantive changes to the content of the rules; a heap of
presentation issues (largely involving reorganisation of existing rules) and a few
editorial changes. I think the focus should be on the substantive changes. I'd be happy to post my suggestions to stimulate discussion once I've finished typing them up and have drafted a rationale.
Gareth Tawton wrote:Does anyone have a list and contact details of the various state reps?
I posted a link to the ANKC RAFT membership page a while ago (
http://www.ankc.aust.com/committees.html) but Paul Littlejohn made a comment in a later post that it was out of date. Can anyone clarify this?
And finally...
It would really help with the rule review if we had an
electronic copy of the existing rules. Does anyone have one?
Cheers, Jason.