• 27500+ Members! Dear Guest, click this link to join the community on the official RaceDepartment Discord server

FSR New Statutes discussion

Mark Aalberts

500RPM
Mar 6, 2010
661
297
You are right only current ISR club members under current statutes can vote for the change of statutes.

2ndly I think any club with income funds/donations should have a position that controls this in other words a treasurer ?? Whats the reason for removing this position? I think you should put it back in but make it a non voting member (if voting was the reason). Its prefered to have a thrustworthy person in charge of that position that has been part of FSR for a few years at least and in my opinion it should be on paper even when someone takes double position for this it should be on paper and controlled to avoid issues.

All other then that i hope current members and licences owners will vote in favor as the league needs a change and this is one of them.
 

Dmitry Zaharov

1000RPM
Jul 21, 2011
1,599
399
Non-confidence and rejection vote rules could easily spring political battles inside FSR club which let's say are not welcomed in current FSR state. Other than that, this proposal is pretty much what was discussed in previous topics.
 

Ron Squire

2000RPM
May 20, 2012
2,401
951
25
why have a Public Relations officer, is it to keep a close eye on the Multimedia Director, Press Director and Broadcast Director, i think this role is unnecessary, because this adds extra pain to become or apply to become either one of those roles i just forementioned.
 

Sam Jones

50RPM
Aug 6, 2012
70
84
29
This looks good and makes perfect sense to me. The job descriptions is a good idea, similar to currently with an additional layer between the President and "workers" taking all the workload that in past years the President did along with others in unofficial roles. In my opinion this should be voted through.

One note - I assume that there should be a subsection similar to the Press and Multimedia Directors that the "Broadcast Director has voice, but no voting rights in the FSR Club." Just so no Broadcast Director votes when in actuality they don't have a right to ;)

The rest reads well. Although it will definitely aid stability for FSR as a whole, I wonder how many Presidents will want to do a full 2 year stint :p
 

Ron Squire

2000RPM
May 20, 2012
2,401
951
25
This looks good and makes perfect sense to me. The job descriptions is a good idea, similar to currently with an additional layer between the President and "workers" taking all the workload that in past years the President did along with others in unofficial roles. In my opinion this should be voted through.

One note - I assume that there should be a subsection similar to the Press and Multimedia Directors that the "Broadcast Director has voice, but no voting rights in the FSR Club." Just so no Broadcast Director votes when in actuality they don't have a right to ;)

The rest reads well. Although it will definitely aid stability for FSR as a whole, I wonder how many Presidents will want to do a full 2 year stint :p
like i said though, what happens if i want to apply for Multimedia Director and they assume i haven't got enough experience or got too many people in or just dont want me there
 

David Dominguez

2000RPM
Apr 29, 2010
2,676
1,729
Since I've read that it's not serious to discuss the new statutes here in public with people who has nothing to do with the club (NetRex representative) and that discussing the new statutes in public it's an artificial way to make the proposal gain traction (FTS representative), I will move this discussion again to the private forum, because it is important to find some commond ground within all the club owners.

If you still want to share your view, ideas, etc, feel free, though. But the official discusion will be private.
 

Georg Winter

500RPM
Jan 21, 2014
502
146
Sad to hear. I hope you get your statutes through including that point, that discussion like this will be public for everybody in FSR in future... ;)
 
Mar 5, 2010
443
240
Since I've read that it's not serious to discuss the new statutes here in public with people who has nothing to do with the club (NetRex representative) and that discussing the new statutes in public it's an artificial way to make the proposal gain traction (FTS representative), I will move this discussion again to the private forum, because it is important to find some commond ground within all the club owners.
Clap clap clap. Great start by the elected President, purposely taking people completely out of context to manipulate public opinion.

Since I am misquoted... Dominguez opened a private discussion in the ISR Club forum which was then ended with a link to this public thread. What David quoted is not my opinion but what I believe HIS motives were to do that. Right before what he quoted, I had written that I was all for transparency, making statutes public (which they always should have been) and having a public discussion to get input and ideas. I do think that, simultaneously, there are a few topics that should be discussed internally by Club members.

Now, to avoid the President elect from quoting just a phrase he finds convenient, I guess it will be fully public discussion for everyone from now on.
 

EnyNX

75RPM
Dec 23, 2010
88
130
Since I've read that it's not serious to discuss the new statutes here in public with people who has nothing to do with the club (NetRex representative) and that discussing the new statutes in public it's an artificial way to make the proposal gain traction (FTS representative), I will move this discussion again to the private forum, because it is important to find some commond ground within all the club owners.

If you still want to share your view, ideas, etc, feel free, though. But the official discusion will be private.
First of all, congratulations for using private conversations in public at your use. For sure we got a very polite president.

To be honest I shouldn't even be wasting my time replying to such a low post, anyway, already two days ago (November 22 on skype) you were explained (at your direct question) that the sentence "it isn't serious to discuss them in public" was meant to say there was nothing wrong with it.
After two days you come here and write totally the opposite. If you didn't ask and got a reply, I might even understand (as my english is not really perfect), but after asking and having a reply this is just playing a childish and dirty game.

Have fun, I'm not keen to reach such a low and unloyal level of debate.
So true, surely style is not for sale.

I will only quote MY part (unlike you, it seems like even most basic rules about private conversation is an optional for someone) from the skype conversation at your direct and precise question:

"you got it totally wrong
or my english was wrong
I meant it's nothing bad to talk about it in public
that's what I meant with "isn't serious"
[sabato 22 novembre 2014 15:40] Ernesto De Angelis

With this I'm done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David Dominguez