the "many eyes" theory of peer review could lead to a possible loss of control
so it won't happen. as i've stated on many occasions, when you develop a
judging system based on the fact the car does not have to conform to the
original "build sheet" you end up with a watered down build your own specs
which allows several cars from the past to be gold cars. that is not to say
these were not superb cars, however, the factory just never made them like
that. i am not aware of any other marque judging where the car does not have
to conform to it's number.
cheers,
jerry wall
John P. New wrote:
>
> To the Concours Committee and the List,
>
> In his most recent email to the list, Rich Chrysler said "Isn't it nice
> to see that we can all effectively help each other to make the cars
> better and maintain the marque?"
>
> His comment reminded me of an issue about which I have been thinking for
> a while. In fact, I have discussed the matter with a couple of the
> members of the Concours Committee as well.
>
> At the risk of starting an all-out flame war, I suggest that if the
> Concours Committee truly wanted to promote the preservation and
> continuation of the Healey marque, it should make the Concours
> Guidelines freely available in electronic format for all to read,
> comment on and use. The electronic distribution could be on a CD or,
> even better, available on a web site (I would even volunteer to transfer
> the content to electronic format and host such a site).
>
> I have heard many arguments from those who oppose such a move, but none
> have convinced me that the distribution of the Guidelines should remain
> locked in a paper format. Without going into detail, I think I could
> persuasively counter any argument of copyright, unauthorized
> distribution, content control and financial considerations for the
> Committee.
>
> Whatever your thoughts are regarding the Concours process, the Concours
> Guidelines are an invaluable source of information for those who want to
> restore and maintain their Healey, concours or not. However, it is
> incomplete. I have many times referred to my copy of the Guidelines only
> to find the information is not there. If the Guidelines were available
> to everyone, the "many eyes" theory of peer review could make this an
> even more invaluable document. Look at the power of this email list and
> then imagine what the Guidelines could be if the power of the list could
> be used to improve the Guidelines!
>
> I would welcome any comments people have on this subject, on or
> off-list.
>
> John P. New
> London, Ontario, Canada
> '67 BJ8
>
> Your messages not reaching the list?
|