I vaguely remember this event. It might have been a
beta-test of the first Boondoggle by the Bay. I had
nothing, absolutely nothing to do with anything like
this.
Three runs plus fun runs gives you more flexibility.
You'd be surprised by the number of folks who don't
want more runs than three. That gives more time to
those who want more fun runs.
This in my opinion is a great option, but there are
many others. I just don't really care what they are. I
like this one. :)
-Katie
--- "John J. Stimson-III" <john@harlie.idsfa.net>
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 10:30:58AM -0700, Chris
> Warner wrote:
> > I would pass on the fun runs if we could use the
> extra sunlight to allow 4
> > runs each.
> >
> > chris
>
> We could switch to 4 runs instead of fun runs only
> if we could
> *predictably and reliably* finish on time. Some
> events have problems
> that create big delays, and some don't. Fun runs
> are an optional time
> block that can be done if there is time, or not done
> if there isn't
> time. When you decide to give everyone more runs,
> you have to commit to
> that at the beginning of the day before you know the
> turnout or what
> delays you will have.
>
> I don't know if you were around for the event a
> couple years ago where
> we started out with 4 runs each, then got way behind
> schedule. The
> afternoon groups were cut to 3 runs each *and* had
> to run and work in
> the dark after standing around all day waiting for
> the "morning"
> groups to finish. I think the event ran until
> around 8pm. Those
> people were very, very, unhappy, and the event
> chairs felt really bad
> about it. That event was the trigger for switching
> to 3 runs and
> requiring SCCA membership to run.
>
> --
>
> john@idsfa.net
> John Stimson
> http://www.idsfa.net/~john/
> HMC Physics '94
|