TOPIC: ESAP Proposal

ESAP Proposal 3 years 11 months ago #512

  • Larry Jolly
  • Offline
  • Posts: 27
  • Thank you received: 0
Very Nice Mr Deck..
Now voting membership in the LSF is only offered to those that were interested enough to have conatcted the LSF and updated their records !! Why are we even pretending to go through this... Your obvious disdain for the constitution and the vision of the LSF is astounding.. Your actions baffle me..Why are you hell bent on destroying the LSF ????
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 3 years 11 months ago #513

  • Curtis Suter
  • Offline
  • Posts: 67
  • Thank you received: 0
How was DLG added?
Look up written communication: There are more methods than putting a letter in an envelope with a stamp.

Curtis
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 3 years 11 months ago #514

  • Don Harban
  • Offline
  • Posts: 43
  • Thank you received: 0
I just got done working on a committee for my 50th high school reunion. Part of what we did was tracking down former classmates. While I (and many of the correspondents on forums like this) am perfectly comfortable with communication via the internet, I was surprised at the number of people who were either coincidentally or intentionally not connected via the internet. And of the ones who were, a surprising number who WERE connected did not communicate via eMail -- many made an intentional choice to not communicate that way as a matter of principle.

I suppose the executive leadership here can use their discretion to define written communication as they see fit. I think this should be done with a clear understanding that more than a few "active flyers" will be left out of the process through no fault of their own other than their personal choice (unrelated to their interest in the LSF) to not be a participant in the internet.

Happy Landings,

Don

BTW: There are times when I think that participating in the miraculous internet is not an entirely positive thing -- and that those who choose not to know something that I do not.:-)
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 3 years 11 months ago #515

  • Garry Ogilvie
  • Offline
  • Posts: 11
  • Thank you received: 0

LarryJolly wrote: Very Nice Mr Deck..
Now voting membership in the LSF is only offered to those that were interested enough to have conatcted the LSF and updated their records !! Why are we even pretending to go through this... Your obvious disdain for the constitution and the vision of the LSF is astounding.. Your actions baffle me..Why are you hell bent on destroying the LSF ????


I guess that I just don't understand how Jim Deck is "hell bent" on destroying the LSF.

I know that some members are "hell bent" on never changing anything within LF, even allowing new SAP's, or allowing any new technology. If you are so against allowing new technology then we should only allow the current SAP with planes and equipment that were designed in the 60's and 70. Take all of your carbon, all of your 72 MHz radios, all 2.4 radios, or anything that is not from the 60's and throw it out. So how many level 5's would we have now?

Is it because they , by the bylaws, can only communicate with LSF members at their address' of record?

If this is such an issue I would think that all interested LSF members would go to this website and make sure that their information is up to date.

Here is the member contact page: silentflight.org/index.php/about-us/member-contact-update

Please use your vote wisely. It is a privilege, not a right.
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 3 years 11 months ago #516

  • Curtis Suter
  • Offline
  • Posts: 67
  • Thank you received: 0

dHarban wrote:
BTW: There are times when I think that participating in the miraculous internet is not an entirely positive thing -- and that those who choose not to know something that I do not.:-)


You are a wise young man Mr Harban!

Curtis
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 3 years 11 months ago #517

  • Larry Jolly
  • Offline
  • Posts: 27
  • Thank you received: 0
Gentlemen,
I find the proposal being pushed by Jim Deck to be extremely polarizing and in the end destructive for the LSF...
It is Ok for you to have an alternative view, I respect that. What I take exception to is anyone telling me that it is not important for every member of the LSF to have their vote counted, and the opportunity to cast it... The fact of the matter is that the more people that vote, the less likely that this proposal will pass. It is to Jim's advantage to do what is possible to restrict the voting and to keep it as quiet as possible. I am now firmly against this measure and will go to the groups and publicize the importance of voting for those that are not currently on approved voter list that Jim is proposing. LJ
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 3 years 11 months ago #518

  • Curtis Suter
  • Offline
  • Posts: 67
  • Thank you received: 0
Larry how does ADDING another SAP to the LSF affect anything to the original SAP?

I guess my High School education is showing through. I just don't get it and need educated folks like yourself to explain it to me. So far in the last two months no one has been able to accomplish that.

Curtis
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 3 years 11 months ago #519

  • Garry Ogilvie
  • Offline
  • Posts: 11
  • Thank you received: 0
I guess that I am not able to appreciate Mr. Jolly's view on this vote.

How can the mote people that vote have a negative outcome on the vote? To me the more people that vote on the proposal will give a better indicator of what the active members of LSF would like the leadership to do. If the members want an additional SAP in place then the leadership should make that happen. If the vote is limited to the vocal few then it is not what the majority of member want.

And if every member is required to vote how do you account for the non active members?

Your argument is just not making any sense to me.
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 3 years 11 months ago #521

  • Preston Heller
  • Offline
  • Posts: 90
  • Thank you received: 0
I don't think Larry is saying that adding another SAP (the ESAP) to the LSF will affect the original SAP. Even he knows it will not do that. He is saying that, somehow or other, adding the ESAP we will destroy the LSF. And he certainly is entitled to his opinion and has every right to express it. But, no Curtis, he has not shown, other than by his pronouncements, just how this would happen. However, I'm quite sure he will be more than happy to outline in detail, exactly how that demise will come about. Or, he might not. I am perfectly happy to debate with Larry, but he has not fared too well in our head to head exchanges when he has been asked to put up or shut up.

The question of reaching the most membership possible is an important one. We have a volunteer organization with a very very small staff and we have adapted to changes in technology the best we can. The internet is one of the most powerful and effective means of reaching a large number of people. In our hobby people lose interest in soaring and do not tell the LSF, people move and do not tell the LSF, and a dozen other reasons why it is difficult, if not impossible, to get information to every single member. Does that mean we should not move forward or change? Does it mean we should stagnate and die? Of course not. Such thinking is short-sighted at best. Can we ever, in any way, hope to reach every single person eligible? No, not really. Is that even a realistic goal? It may be a worthy goal but for so many reasons it's just not possible. But the LSF board has done a wonderful job of making this discussion a true exercise in democracy. It has called for and entertained two months of (sometimes) heated debate, having given those having all points of view the opportunity to express themselves. Among those active in the soaring community many, many pilots are aware of this issue, even if they have chosen to remain silent. This is their right. And they may or may not vote. This is also their right.

I, for one, believe that the board has given us the opportunity to help the LSF grow and I sincerely hope that most of you out there will agree with the ideas they have put forward and vote in the affirmative.

Preston Heller
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 3 years 11 months ago #522

  • Larry Jolly
  • Offline
  • Posts: 27
  • Thank you received: 0
Curtis and others, I do not wish to make this personal, and I am done discussing the merits one way or the other of passing this proposal. I will only state that I find this proposal a conflict of interest, for the LSF board to even present for a vote a proposal that is so firmly against the LSF idea.
The President has tried for several years to include ALES models as an accepted form of SAP participation. Along with others we showed Jim that it was not possible to include them in to the SAP. I find this latest move by the board to be extremely arrogant and out of step with the founders vision for the organization. I fully accept that there are many of you out there with differnet views, and that is your right. Where I take extreme exception is Jim's latest comments on who will be included. If I were in his position I would not be so flippant. I would want to include as many members as humanly possible to make sure that this great change is really the direction the majority wants to go. Si.nce he doesn't see the need to get the message out. i will enlist as many interested members as possible to help him. LJ
The topic has been locked.
Time to create page: 0.303 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum