[roc-chat] Re: Separate LPR area at ROCtober
- From: Mike Riss <rockt_dude@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
I'm not sure that waiting for 30 minutes is necessarily bad. It's surely not
optimum, but if
there are 45+ pads, and if almost every pad is occupied, that's something less
than 1 minute
processing time per pad.
And, is it really an issue, or just unrealistic expectations? Given that we
have difficulty
filling range duty slots, is it realistic to expect volunteers to meet the
*ideal* performance level?
And, do these discussions create a self-fulfilling prophecy by discouraging
people from not
volunteering because they don't want to be lambasted for less than ideal
performance either on
the 'Chat, or as sometimes happens in person?
Not looking to discourage discussion, but I wonder: if the same (as in "in
addition to", not
"instead of") amount of time and effort was spent *doing* something as is spent
discussing it,
would there still be an issue?
For instance, if someone feels that lack of information/training is an issue,
why not approach
the board, request the info, and produce materials to rectify the situation?
Or, if the info doesn't exist, offer to develop it? Would it really
take that much more time and effort to do that than was spent commenting on the
lack of it?
Looks like some info previously existed, but didn't get ported to the current
website:
http://web.archive.bibalex.org/web/20060222064909/www.rocstock.org/rules.lcos.html
Looks like there was also info for RSO and PM. Between this and Rick D's post,
shouldn't take
much time or effort to resolve this particular issue.
But I guess, just like filling range duty slots, people will wait until someone
-- as in,
someone *else* -- does something about it :-(
Mike
--
ROC-Chat mailing list
roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
//www.freelists.org/list/roc-chat
Other related posts:
