Development committee minutes

[SeanC]

Some interesting comments from the development committee minutes (see BOF website). Lots of things to argue over here.

One thing that must be popular and uncontroversial is funding for a university orienteering development manager from Sport England Though we'll need to be realistic with our expectations given that the person will be part time and limited geographically.

[IanD]

The first thing that jumps out at me from these minutes is that Development Committee think that the new Ranking list should be based on Level 1 (National) Events only. Level 2 (Regional) Events should not, they say, count.

I wonder what the Ranking List Review Group think of this? The big problem I see is that there are so few National events, and some good orienteers don't travel far, so wouldn't get more than one or two ranking events per year.

[greywolf]

Well the members of DC are entitled to their opinions...but the tone of the minutes suggest that they will simply disregard the on-going consultation and not bother waiting for the RWG final report and recommendations, certainly they don't seem to have spent much time or effort on understanding the interim report.

Yes Ian, that's the crux of the "what events to include" issue - do we want the rankings list to cover 15% or 50% of the Bof Membership?

[geomorph]

The first thing that jumps out at me from these minutes is that Development Committee think that the new Ranking list should be based on Level 1 (National) Events only. Level 2 (Regional) Events should not, they say, count.

I wonder what the Ranking List Review Group think of this? The big problem I see is that there are so few National events, and some good orienteers don't travel far, so wouldn't get more than one or two ranking events per year.

The software development required to have ranking lists by event level is pretty trivial provided it is simply all events for that that level (that have been submitted for ranking).

Selecting a sub-set of events within a level ("are you worthy") by some peer committee is where the dispute lies, and I wonder if the DC has just done an ostrich in order to avoid the inevitable disputes that would arise as to why event 'x' at level 3 is in but event 'y' at level 2 is out etc etc.


Back to the positives about the University DO. I hope that it is possible to concentrate that person's efforts into those U's where we do not already have strong established presence - braodening the base - or is this too wide a geographic area to be covered?

[greywolf]

the inevitable disputes that would arise as to why event 'x' at level 3 is in but event 'y' at level 2 is out etc etc.

Not aware that anyone has ever suggested that particular permutation...
And the "why this event and not that event" question will arise whatever subset of events are chosen, e.g. for an L1-only ranking list - "why does it include these TD4 events (some of the upcoming area champs) and a closed event (CSC) and not some serious and important events like WOC selection races...."

[geomorph]

the inevitable disputes that would arise as to why event 'x' at level 3 is in but event 'y' at level 2 is out etc etc.

Not aware that anyone has ever suggested that particular permutation...
And the "why this event and not that event" question will arise whatever subset of events are chosen, e.g. for an L1-only ranking list - "why does it include these TD4 events (some of the upcoming area champs) and a closed event (CSC) and not some serious and important events like WOC selection races...."

oh well.....a sort of when is a level 1 not a level 1 dispute....
your point is well taken and emphasises the problems with being too selective.

I would rather the list included all events regardless of level and that we could filter by level and by terrain quality etc. The 'official' list is then obtainable for those who want the narrow definition and those of us who 'just like to know if they are really getting worse' have something that transcends regional and club leagues (which selfishly I want because I do not get enough events in a single league as I tend to travel to the nearest events - except on holiday - and those can be in 5 different regions, 18 clubs).

The Development Committee have stated that Ranking does not promote development. Which says that their opinion should be recognised in a value-added context only (how much investment is ranking worth). BUT if ranking is to go ahead, ie it is a service that a significant number of members want, DC should not influence the content, except to point out that costs must be proportional to the value added.

Limiting content to level 1 is a restricted value add and may factor into the demise of ranking.

[SeanC]

I guess the development committee must consider the best way of recruiting new orienteers, so if they feel the proposed ranking list conflicts with this aim it's fair enough to comment.

The minutes don't make this explicit but I assume their concern is that the proposed scheme will encourage clubs to put on more traditional district type events because established orienteers want their ranking points, and this might squeeze out time for club development initiatives to bring in new orienteers. This argument seems reasonable if rankings were extended to what used to be district events but I can't see the harm in extending rankings to all level 2 events, unless they feel that this would encourage clubs to put on far too many level 2 events?

[Gross]

How many clubs decide to host a competition because it's a ranking event??? None I'd guess!

[SeanC]

If this new list becomes popular at a local level, maybe this will happen?

I'm guessing of course.

[Scott]

How many clubs decide to host a competition because it's a ranking event???

I suspect the number of clubs doing this is closely related to the number of orienteers who will decide whether to go to an event based on whether it's a ranking event, ie. far too many.

[SJC]

the proposed scheme will encourage clubs to put on more traditional district type events because established orienteers want their ranking points

So there we have it. Clubs must not put on the type of events that their members want, only those that are approved by Development Committee.

[SeanC]

They didn't say that. I did, and that's selectively quoted.

[EddieH]

As someone who looks at ranking lists once every few years, I don't personally care one way or the other.

But Scott wrote:

"I suspect the number of clubs doing this is closely related to the number of orienteers who will decide whether to go to an event based on whether it's a ranking event, ie. far too many."

On what basis are you telling the "far too many" that they are wrong - it seems a pretty arrogant view that says we want to do something else and all those that dont agree are wrong.

Along with many others (and much to my initial suprise) I love urban orienteering and sprint-O (urban, park or forest). However we are flying in the face of the evidence of attendance figures if we say that this is the new overwhelmingly popular format. No if we want it we have to keep plugging away, putting on events and persuading people to do them.

Frankly Scott's comment is a bit like the Americans fighting for democracy round the World then telling the Palestinians that they all voted the wrong way

[distracted]

... certainly they don't seem to have spent much time or effort on understanding the interim report.

Ermm... that's a pretty strong statement to make. Along similar lines, it could be argued that the workgroup have not spent much time or effort understanding their own terms of reference:

The Workgroup is responsible for:
a. Reviewing the purpose of the Ranking System and how the System integrates with other incentive schemes that are, or may become, available

The Workgroup is not responsible for:
a. Establishing the details of an operational ranking algorithm

The following tasks should be performed and output delivered:
• Evidenced based review of the current Ranking System, its use and member satisfaction with the System

Development Committee (amongst others) were asked for their opinions on the paper, the group's remit is encouraging participation within the sport and hence things will be reviewed against that remit. There's a possibility that, had the first and third points above been adequately addressed in the document, which would have given a more balanced review of the rankings system, then the feedback might have been different. From the comments, it seems to be the case that this is not what the workgroup want to hear. To me that says we don't have the necessary balance of opinion within this workgroup and that their output is highly subjective.

The fundamental questions of "why does the ranking list exist, what is its purpose (motivation/competition/other?), what proportion of orienteers use/take note of the system, why do they use it, how do they use it?" should have been those first addressed. Instead, we have a group of people who have an inherent interest in such a system and have instead answered the question "the rankings system is fine, how can we make it fit in with the new system?"

I can't see how this can be justified when you don't know how many people currently make use of the system. Is it 1%, 10%, 25%, 50% of the orienteering population? Would it have been overly difficult to set up an unbiased survey on the British Orienteering website to find out rough numbers in each camp, to gather the views of all? You're certainly not going to get a balanced view by inviting comments on a paper on which a significant proportion of the orienteering population couldn't give two hoots...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for other aspects of these minutes, do people agree with the concepts (and underlying reasoning) of the proposed Navigation and Racing Challenges? Opinions are welcomed, yes there will be implementation issues to clarify but let's try to avoid getting bogged down in those for now and focus on the ideas.

[Scott]

On what basis are you telling the "far too many" that they are wrong

On the basis that too many people assume there's a correlation between ranking status and quality of event (and interpret "quality" however you will) which currently doesn't exist.