In reply to GM4ZFZ:
I’m going to post here on your thread as my points run across the different debates now ongoing in various related threads.
My points are as follows:
SOTA has clearly become a highly successful and actively followed awards program. Part of this success is manifested in the growth of activity in other countries with other Associations becoming established.
Now we find ourselves in the situation where we have threads running on the following topics:
Do we need more G summits?
Why are there so many DM summits?
Why aren’t there more G 10 pointers?
…and other related topics about the “General Rules” etc.
It seems that because the program is successful, and has highly motivated participants, some of the anomalies between Associations have led to calls for changes or for rules to be amended etc. These anomalies would seem to be at the root of much of the discussion.
Well, maybe there does need to be some rather robust housekeeping applied (which may be difficult and will not please everyone on either side of the fence). This is especially important if the program is to become more global.
However, whatever happens, I would ask that the MT do not make any knee-jerk decisions in the face of intense lobbying. They should instead reflect, at some length, on some very good points being made and then act decisively (and rigorously where necessary) and with complete transparency in how and/or why decisions and changes have or have not been made.
Whatever happens, I would assume that a fairly extensive process of consultation with the regional Association managers will also be necessary to build a consensus as to how to move forward.
We have some interesting debate going on here but I would prefer that any reaction for or against change is based on a long term view for the good of SOTA as a whole.
73 Marc GØAZS