Thread Tools
Jun 08, 2019, 04:41 PM
If it floats....sail it!
FoamCrusher's Avatar
Thread OP
Discussion

US1M Rule Change Balloting Results


The results of the US1M rule change balloting are attached for class members who monitor RCG but are not subscribed to the Yahoo! US1M forum.

Basically, NONE of the ballot motions received the required 50% + 1 to add, change or amend any of the existing rules so they remain as is. See https://www.theamya.org/boats/us1m/ for a posting of the rules and a link to download them.

I am disappointed that only about 30% of the class members voted, but considering the low turnouts in even presidential elections where the results have much greater impact than with the rules for our toy boats, I guess I'm not too surprised. I'm told that the average vote in past AMYA rule change balloting has been about 25%, so it was better than that average.

Steve Vaczovsky
US1M Class Secretary
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Jun 08, 2019, 10:19 PM
FROM THE MIND OF A MADMAN
gpzy's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoamCrusher
The results of the US1M rule change balloting are attached for class members who monitor RCG but are not subscribed to the Yahoo! US1M forum.

Basically, NONE of the ballot motions received the required 50% + 1 to add, change or amend any of the existing rules so they remain as is. See https://www.theamya.org/boats/us1m/ for a posting of the rules and a link to download them.

I am disappointed that only about 30% of the class members voted, but considering the low turnouts in even presidential elections where the results have much greater impact than with the rules for our toy boats, I guess I'm not too surprised. I'm told that the average vote in past AMYA rule change balloting has been about 25%, so it was better than that average.
Steve Vaczovsky
US1M Class Secretary
So what happens now ?
Jun 09, 2019, 05:07 AM
Registered User

Thoughts on the Vote (sorry, long winded)


Greetings all!

Please read this with an appropriate filter, as I am Todd Brown, author of motions 2, 6 and 9. I am also the designer, builder, owner and skipper of US One meter 1331, which is likely the most technologically advanced (but not the fastest) US One Meter built to date.

Though I have only been involved with the class since 2001, I am willing to bet that this is the most interesting voting cycle we have ever seen in the US One Meter class. Opinions were strong in many areas, but now the class has spoken loud and clear; voting "NO" on all 10 presented motions.

First and foremost, there were at least 68 class members who voted. Based on the current turn out at Regional and National level regattas I think this is a pretty good voting response that represents the class well and would like to thank all that participated.

Having reviewed the ballot data shared by the Class Secretary, there are some interesting insights to glean and take into consideration for the future of the class. (Scroll to the bottom for my biggest takeaways)

Triangular Sails: Surprisingly, the voting motion that came closest to passing was Motion 3 with a 44% "Yes" vote. This motion was written by John Whalen in an attempt to limit the arms race in "Square Head" sails. From the advent on the class, up until the spring of 2017 the class had defended a fair and continuous luff curve that kept square top mains illegal. Through an interpretation in spring 2017 Model Yachting Magazine, square top mains were made legal and the National Championship was immediately won by a skipper with a square top main sail. In this vote, it shows that there are a significant number of class members that are interested in having this addressed even more so than any of the technology in dispute. I do wonder if had this motion been worded slightly differently if it could have garnered 5 swing votes.


Deleting Prohibitions: Motion 10, also written by John Whalen shows an interesting trend. Almost 30% of those people who voted would like to significantly decrease the prohibitions to allow for some broader development in the class. I personally expected this motion to get well less than 10% of the vote. Many people have asserted that there are only small pockets of people working on technology or wanting to conduct development that might have the potential to make some older boats obsolete. This shows that there is a significant portion of the class (though not a majority) that desires to continue to more broadly develop. I hope that the class can help to continue fostering this subset of the population, as they are part of our class.

Telemetry and FPV: Not surprisingly, Steve's Motion 5 did quite well. With 6 swing votes, it could have passed. It is clear why 28 people supported this motion, but it is less clear why the 37 others voted "no." Some of these 37 are actively working in these areas (I know of 5 at the moment). Some of these 37 are not working in these areas but believe that the class should support it (I know of ~5). I know of 1 who I believe just doesn't want the rule to change. As for the remaining 26, I am not sure, but they have spoken that they have no interest in adopting these limitations as presented. Could there be more than 6 people working in these areas or at least wanting to explore these areas? It looks like that is quite possible.

Class Definition: This one is interesting. Many people I have talked to like the concept of defining what the class is, or isn't. I really think getting this aligned is important to provide a framework for the future of the class and keeping us all moving in a common direction. Motion 1 and Motion 2 provided two significantly competing views. We all know that neither passed, not even close. What is more alarming is if we add the "yes" votes for both of these motions together it is still short of 50%! There must be some definition that 50%+1 of the class can agree on or; is this the root of some of the tension in the class? Of the people that voted you cant get more than 32% of the class to agree on what it is supposed to be? I hope we can find a way to use this vote, and the different communication platforms available to us today to find a common definition that can gain 51% by the next voting cycle as I believe it will be key to unlocking the class's future.

Automation: unlike the motions on class definition, the paired motions on automation (Motion 8 and Motion 9) did gain more than 50% of the vote in total, just neither gained it on its own. I believe this suggests that the class believes automation should be addressed by some means in the rule but is not aligned on how.

My Biggest takeaways:
Vocal Minorities: it is clear to me that with none of the competing motions passing, that the drama of the past year has been caused by two factions of vocal minorities. I am guilty of being part of one of them and I would like to apologize to the class membership for my part in that. Both "camps" have their supporters and equally loud adversaries, yet the majority sits quietly between us. If we wish to see the class evolve in away that is in the best interest of the membership we both need to do a better job of coming to the table to collaborate on better motions rather than conspiring only with our closest supporters.

Class Definition: We must find a way to come to a common understanding about the definition of the class. If we can find that "true north" the rest will fill in much more readily. Class governance will be easier and the Class Secretary will be properly empowered to guide us in a common direction. It we fail to align this crucial detail with at least 50% of the class, we will continue to have misalignments by what is meant in the remaining details of the class rule.

Thank you: Once again, thank you to all who took the time to vote. Much like in any democracy it is an important part of your duty as a member of a group.

Thank you also to Doug Hemingway for helping to run and tally the results of the vote and anyone else from the AMYA office that helped in these proceedings.
Last edited by ourwalden; Jun 09, 2019 at 05:12 AM.
Jun 09, 2019, 07:18 AM
Registered User
SailingJunkie's Avatar
Todd, impressed with your note. Thanks for taking the high road and seeing the voting process for what it should be and not what it actually is. I wish we all looked at it this way and the democratic process it should be. That’s all I’m going to say about that.

SJ
Jun 09, 2019, 09:54 AM
Registered User
john m taylor's Avatar
Gents and Ladies,
Over the last few weeks I have been following the class rules progress with great interest from the UK. Not wanting to comment until now. May I ask if the class rules will be rewritten and published now the balloting is finished. Additionally, will there be more races published in next years calendar?

Regards
JT
Jun 09, 2019, 11:56 AM
If it floats....sail it!
FoamCrusher's Avatar
Thread OP
JT:
The vote did not change the rules so they remain as they were prior to the motions being submitted in March so there is no reason to “rewrite”them.

Follow the link in the first post to see and download a copy.


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Us1m rule changes-what say you ? gpzy Sailboats 20 May 22, 2019 03:02 AM
Careful! Opinion Regarding US1M Rule Change - Unintended Consequences FoamCrusher Sailboats 17 Apr 30, 2019 12:05 AM
Discussion Results of F5 rule proposals from 2019 meeting sneu High Performance 6 Apr 15, 2019 02:43 AM
Discussion USA F5J Rules 2019 Rules Change Proposals jimsoars Electric Competition Soaring-F5J/ALES/e-Soaring 222 Feb 18, 2019 11:09 PM
Discussion Early Voters From Amarillo Are Saying Their Votes Were Changed On the Ballot Read Mo kenpoprofessor Life, The Universe, and Politics 57 Oct 26, 2016 12:36 PM