Marc Ramsey wrote:
Graeme Cant wrote:

I seem to have scored a most unexpected bullseye.

No, all you've managed to do is demonstrate that you can't separate
advocacy from insult. If you want to engage in reasoned discourse on
technical and procedural alternatives to the existing flight recorder
system, fine.

I do, Marc. So let's hear your response to my original post. To my
mind it contained no insult or disparagement. I said that "technical
people" (if you take "geek" amiss, I don't, I'm one myself) tend to
think of technical solutions, not procedural. I advocated procedural
solutions as possibly being cost-effective and no less secure where it
mattered, gave some useful examples and made some tentative suggestions.
How about joining a discussion?

I also said that the GFAC/IGC seems to be actively antagonistic to
procedural solutions. That wasn't just a wild guess. I based this
assertion on four years (to my knowledge) of Ian Strachan's, Tim's,
yours and several other's posts. I can quote if you like. I can also
quote Robert Danewid who has direct, personal experience of the IGC's
institutional resistance to different ideas. I would call it evidence -
it's not intended as personal attack. I'm sorry you see it as that. I
understand why it's a problem because it is, after all, the voting
behaviour of GFAC and IGC members that we're discussing.

But, don't expect much of a response if you imply that
we're a bunch of "tin eared" blithering idiots who are incapable of
accepting your argument in all of its righteous glory. I have a 6 year
old to provide me with that sort of input 8^)

Well, Marc, mine are nearly 40 now but I always found it very useful to
listen to what 6 year olds were really trying to tell me. I said you
don't seem to hear the irritation from many members of the gliding
fraternity at the heavy-handed - "we can't trust any of you" - attitude
of the GFAC. If you hear that message, you need to show it. I've
seldom seen a group in a public service role so sensitive to criticism
as the GFAC cabal.

When neither you nor Tim even mentioned my roughly outlined proposal
it's hard to say I'm upset because you won't accept it and its
"righteous glory" (good phrase, Marc!). I have no idea what you think
about it. It would be nice to know that you even heard it.

Does the IGC have a panel similar to the GFAC whose role is to develop
cheap, secure PROCEDURAL solutions to any security problems in assessing
badge flights and scoring comps with non-approved FRs? Why does the
technical group - the GFAC - chosen only for their technical expertise -
see it as their role to comment on possible procedural alternatives?
Would it be a good idea if they sent a message to the IGC that the
existing approved FR system is both overly expensive and restrictive on
the expansion of the sport and that the IGC should also investigate
procedures to allow the use of cheaper, non-approved FRs? Or that their
discussions would be much more fruitful if some human factors people
were appointed to the GFAC in lieu of some of the electronic experts.
Positive support from the GFAC would be very helpful.

Best wishes,
Graeme Cant