Training Log Archive: randyIn the 7 days ending Feb 14, 2016: |
| « | » |
| » now | ||||||||||
| Mo | Tu | We | Th | Fr | Sa | Su | |||||||
Thursday Feb 11, 2016 #
Note
After further review, I should have gone with my original gut and not posted my ED data. It is what it is, and if the performance and ROI are acceptable, so be it.
My original constructive motivation for the exercise was to bid the present duties (excluding conferences, which IMHO have a zero ROI), and in addition perform necessary improvements to the web site, including, but not limited to, modernization, mobile friendliness and SEO, at a total price, including expenses, of 40K/year. I think that is a fair wage, cause that is what I would do it for, and I am confident I have the skills (or can learn them, in the case of mobile friendliness, to do it). But, I've decided against this, so I have no motivation one way or the other any longer. Don't ask me to post it; all the data I used is out there, if you care.
I agree with Clem (I think), that there is no causation between the ED and the starts/A meet recession over the past 6 years. I just don't think it is tricky. I do think there should be, tho, ie, the position should be responsible for growth (or at least proactively address the recession), and that starts/A meets is a valid performance metric. If not, what is the point that expense, which, at the historic revenue and expense rates, will leave the federation without unrestricted cash in about 5 years (by my math, which does not look at the 2016 budget, just past 6 years financials)? None of it goes to making races more fun. If it is not a valid metric, what was the point of putting starts/A meet growth quotas in the strategic plan of several years ago? They were valid metrics until they were missed, then all of the sudden they weren't valid metrics anymore. What is a valid metric?
As for the global warming stuff, I don't regret posting that, but what is the point? It is like arguing over religion. All I want to say to the global warming crowd is that their agenda doesn't give a damn about poor people here and now, and that does piss me off. Sorry. Its just about priorities, and I think the legitimate science and economics that has not been proven fraudulent supports my position. I am not a "denier", tho I've been called worse names (I'm not a "stingy curmudgeon" either; IMHO OUSA is not donatable to cause I think the money is wasted; I'm entitled to that opinion, and entitled do decide for myself which 501(c)(3)s warrant my meager donations; besides, I donated plenty of time and personal expense, and all I got for it was to be told I wasn't in the club clique, so therefore I was on the hook for my own $600 OCAD license). But, this is not a science or economics forum (I encourage the global warming crowd to join such), so we will agree to disagree.
So that's that. I wish y'all the best, and I'm sorry I've been such a pain in the @$$. I still think I'm right, tho.
My original constructive motivation for the exercise was to bid the present duties (excluding conferences, which IMHO have a zero ROI), and in addition perform necessary improvements to the web site, including, but not limited to, modernization, mobile friendliness and SEO, at a total price, including expenses, of 40K/year. I think that is a fair wage, cause that is what I would do it for, and I am confident I have the skills (or can learn them, in the case of mobile friendliness, to do it). But, I've decided against this, so I have no motivation one way or the other any longer. Don't ask me to post it; all the data I used is out there, if you care.
I agree with Clem (I think), that there is no causation between the ED and the starts/A meet recession over the past 6 years. I just don't think it is tricky. I do think there should be, tho, ie, the position should be responsible for growth (or at least proactively address the recession), and that starts/A meets is a valid performance metric. If not, what is the point that expense, which, at the historic revenue and expense rates, will leave the federation without unrestricted cash in about 5 years (by my math, which does not look at the 2016 budget, just past 6 years financials)? None of it goes to making races more fun. If it is not a valid metric, what was the point of putting starts/A meet growth quotas in the strategic plan of several years ago? They were valid metrics until they were missed, then all of the sudden they weren't valid metrics anymore. What is a valid metric?
As for the global warming stuff, I don't regret posting that, but what is the point? It is like arguing over religion. All I want to say to the global warming crowd is that their agenda doesn't give a damn about poor people here and now, and that does piss me off. Sorry. Its just about priorities, and I think the legitimate science and economics that has not been proven fraudulent supports my position. I am not a "denier", tho I've been called worse names (I'm not a "stingy curmudgeon" either; IMHO OUSA is not donatable to cause I think the money is wasted; I'm entitled to that opinion, and entitled do decide for myself which 501(c)(3)s warrant my meager donations; besides, I donated plenty of time and personal expense, and all I got for it was to be told I wasn't in the club clique, so therefore I was on the hook for my own $600 OCAD license). But, this is not a science or economics forum (I encourage the global warming crowd to join such), so we will agree to disagree.
So that's that. I wish y'all the best, and I'm sorry I've been such a pain in the @$$. I still think I'm right, tho.