Dustin Quiel-Athanasiadis reacted to this post about 2 days agoPost is under moderationStream item published successfully. Item will now be visible on your stream.
Liliana Orozco reacted to this post about 1 week agoTo All KCC members
On June 2018, I completed my 2 years serving in the KCC board of directors. I thank you for the opportunity of serving in that capacity. During that year I was able to have a proactive role in the planning, and... To All KCC members
On June 2018, I completed my 2 years serving in the KCC board of directors. I thank you for the opportunity of serving in that capacity. During that year I was able to have a proactive role in the planning, and decision-making of all the activities and events of this great club. I was able coordinate the a photo exhibit in Pinecrest Community Center with the assistance of the board, some of our photos were sold and chosen for awards at Deering Estate, I volunteered covering many of Pinecrest exhibits, festivals and events, the reason why we are able to enjoy their facilities for meetings and photo challenges at no cost. I encouraged each one of you to be a volunteer and help in any kind of way to the continuing operation of this venue. I was able to meet and served with two KCC presidents and top notch and nicest individuals in the board, including Walter, whose best interest is to promote and educate those new in photography, and looking for challenging ways for growth on those more experienced photographers. Members of the board are committed individuals and meet regularly to bring you the best to their members, it takes commitment, time, effort and the love to actually materialized plans and the vision.
I congratulate everyone that I had the pleasure to work with and wish the new president and current board members a world of success for this coming year, and I urge others to join you in this venture.
MorePost is under moderationStream item published successfully. Item will now be visible on your stream.
For as long as I can remember, the Kendall Camera Club, in order to make the two groups balanced and fair, has had a rule for the automatic promotion of those members in Group B that met certain criteria, the last version was for those who made 35 bonus points (15 for 1st place in monthly competition, 10 for second, and 5 for third) during the year. When that rule was made, it was understood that the number of bonus points could be tweaked as necessary by the board (it was just changed to 70 this summer, the first change in years). This year, the number of members in Group B was down significantly, and an "amnesty" program (my term) was used to try to rebalance the groups.
A year or two ago, Thom Stevens proposed a few of his ideas on improving the Clicktique (as it was called then). Some of them may be worth reconsidering now. I will break them down and discuss each of the ones I thought could be helpful individually over the next few months, along with some of my own ideas and other good ideas I've heard from other members, in an effort to promote discussion within the club and maybe solve problems at the same time.
The first up is Thom's idea for self-balancing groups. Every year we could rank all monthly-competition participants based on some criteria involving their average score. Then we could automatically put the top ones in Group A and the rest in Group B, promoting or demoting a few members as necessary (currently, one can go from Group A to Group B only with approval of the board. The recent "amnesty" was a first and last time ever event, as far as I know). The implementatiion of such a plan would be really easy, since every year the club makes a speadsheet with all of everybody's entries for the year for end-of-year competition purposes. Averaging a column of numbers in a spreadsheet is no big deal. Sorting the results is just one more simple step.
Since the technical costs of this plan are minimal, the real question involves the social costs vs. benefits. We would also need to decide technical details like where exactly to draw the Group boundary and how to consider other factors, but these details should have little impact on the cost-benefit equation and the decision process.
Benefits: keeps the number of members in both groups in balance so there is always enough people in each group to make the competition worthwile but not overwhelming, especially in Group B. It uses a scheme that the members can see as fair and not arbitrary. By being automatic, it is more responsive to changes in membership than the traditional methods have been.
Costs: in theory, a member could bounce from Group A to Group B and back on an annual basis if they fall close to the dividing line. If this is too traumatic and too common, we could institute rules to minimize individual costs (restrict frequency of individual moves).
That's all there is to it, as far as I can see. Are there other costs (or benefits) that I overlooked? Do the benefits outweigh those costs in your mind?
In future discussions, we can look at some of those technical details, if you think this idea is worthwhile. For example, Thom had a lifetime-average scheme weighted so that one's most recent work counts more; I can explain that and show how it is a lot simpler to implement (and understand) than it sounds. Stay tuned.Post is under moderationStream item published successfully. Item will now be visible on your stream.
Log in to see what's going on.