|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#181
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: California District Proposal
Quote:
|
|
#182
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: California District Proposal
Quote:
|
|
#183
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: California District Proposal
Quote:
|
|
#184
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: California District Proposal
Quote:
|
|
#185
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: California District Proposal
Quote:
|
|
#186
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: California District Proposal
Quote:
Edit: Never mind. This is wrong. Last edited by ASD20 : 30-06-2016 at 15:56. Reason: I'm Wrong |
|
#187
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: California District Proposal
We still have RDs in District - so they still have access to this.
|
|
#188
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: California District Proposal
Wait lists are not first come first serve.
|
|
#189
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: California District Proposal
agreed, not entirely first come first serve. The RD's will "jump the line" with teams, based on certain criteria - rookies, local teams still looking for a first play, teams that bring a lot of volunteers or specific key volunteers that are needed for the event. They have to look at the bigger picture to do what they can to ensure a successful event and season for every team.
|
|
#190
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: California District Proposal
Quote:
|
|
#191
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: California District Proposal
Quote:
|
|
#192
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: California District Proposal
Quote:
It would be a good topic to have on whether or not teams should get preferential treatment on the waitlist via volunteer (key/critical....) support. Right now, I don't think we do that in Michigan (at least not explicitly to my knowledge), but it is an item I think we should discuss due to other scheduling hassles. Additionally, on occasion, we have added an event after travel for Key volunteer training is booked, and this caused an added challenge to filling key roles. On most of these occasions, all involved knew they would be a challenge, and some of us complained, but ultimately we found ways to work through the issues. Last edited by IKE : 30-06-2016 at 17:45. Reason: added details |
|
#193
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: California District Proposal
Quote:
Obviously, that note didn't fit with your preconceived notions, so it didn't happen. If you'd like to continue that discussion, read the rest of the post before you do. BTW, Jon Stratis hit the nail on the head. If you think back to the MN discussion a couple months back, it's a case of "'outsiders' trying to force something that isn't ready in this area", on the surface (in this case at any rate)--when all the listed input is in one area, it's a natural question to ask if the other area(s) and affected folks had any input (See also: MI District initial discussions, ChampionSplit initial discussions). If you dig a little deeper, it's not--but that wasn't readily apparent. Naturally, the initial response is, "You really don't know the situation around here". That being said, once it's a lot clearer that that is NOT the case, and that there's a decent shot that maybe they do know something, then support can be given a lot more easily. Again, if you read that note, you may want to consider that public discussion doesn't always have to happen to move something along. |
|
#194
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: California District Proposal
Today I learned Orange County, California is in northern California.
/S |
|
#195
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: California District Proposal
Quote:
It sucks how everybody forgets about Baja California. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|