Re: AIS: Symposium/soap box #9

In a message dated 7/28/2002 6:43:19 PM Central Daylight Time, 
gerrysnyder@attbi.com writes:


> > Is there a way for irises to make the prequalifying list that comprise the
> > Symposium without first receiving the blessing of credentialed judges? 
> Should
> > there be?
> 
> A couple years ago I kicked this tarbaby. I can't believe that (although
> many who know me can, no doubt) I'm so stupid as to kick it again. But I
> am.
> 
> My answers are "No" and "No."
> 
> Judges, as a whole, see a lot more irises and are more careful in their
> evaluation than AIS members-at-large. I (believe that I) know most of
> the folks around here who know more about irises than I do--a set large
> enough that statistics may be valid--and somewhat more than half are AIS
> judges. So, judges may represent half of the top third of AIS membership
> in terms of familiarity with recent intro's.

Through history there have been those who believe and support class 
distinctions in societies. Time has proved them wrong. The Greeks and Romans 
were the first to fail with the concept. England failed with it's feudalistic 
society of the middle ages. And, failed again with it's foray into America. 
The US failed in the 1860s during the time of the much despised Northern 
invasion. The US failed again in it's efforts to suppress the women's vote. 
Too, the Nazi's failed in their effort to promote a class structured society. 
In all instances attempts to structure a classed society where rights and 
participation were limited to a favored few (as selected by birthright, 
wealth, gender, perceived knowledge, compatibility with the existing power 
structure, or physical superiority) the effort failed. The question is not if 
the AIS will fail in it's effort to promote a classed society but when. And, 
in failure will it gain an understanding that it's function is to respect and 
serve the views of it's entire membership?

Your assertions that judges are more knowledgeable than the membership as a 
whole are arguable but not disputed here. However, what we are addressing is 
a case of the cart leading the horse. One might think it more appropriate for 
judges to rank the memberships choices if they choose to do so rather than 
vice versa.

Your logic (where only the most knowledgeable, best credentialed, most 
active, best traveled, longest tenured, or other) should be allowed to choose 
the best is flawed. Carried to its ultimate conclusion your logic would have 
us select the best of the best from the judges panel. And let them make the 
decisions. Carried further to the ludicrous end, we ultimately need only the 
most qualified person to make the selection for the symposium. My choice here 
would be Keith Keppel (with me believing his hybridizing program being at 
least two generations ahead of others, though Ghio might argue according to 
some knowledgeable Californians) so I may not be so far out of lockstep with 
the judges in my opinions. Such a one person ballot would attain one 
objective. It would be easy to count.

The logic of proposal #9 taken to its ultimate conclusion produces a list of 
those irises favored by the membership at large, including judges. Provides a 
list of favored irises by region. Values the opinions of all members. Allows 
consideration of irises on both ends of the season spectrum. Allows 
consideration of irises outside the lockstep dictated by the judges handbook. 
All in all, a compilation of use and value that reflects the best of the best 
nationwide among the AIS membership.

I reserve a very high degree of respect for judges who obtain credentials in 
an effort to acquire knowledge. In fact, admire and aplaud them. Those who 
obtained their credential in an effort to clear hoops or procure a vote that 
should already rightly be theirs, or any other reason don't get much respect 
here. Regardless, I do not willingly confer upon any, more than the influence 
of one single vote exactly equal too each other vote of the membership at 
large in instances where the results purport to reflect the views of the AIS 
membership.

I do not believe I am far out of step with the AIS membership at large. Nor 
do I believe myself far out of step with those judges for whom I have 
respect. Most are nice, get along, people. Most do care, don't want to offend 
or defend, or have axes to grind. Me? I don't often fit in the congenial 
category. I do not recall ever failing to throw a punch because I would loose 
a fight. (I call this passion, my wife calls it stupid and my nose is 
somewhat wider than it once was).

We can continue to live in a denial state in the AIS and probably will. What 
we did in the past is great, look what we did, see how good this works, etc. 
We can attribute failures to ebb and flow of interest, lack of membership 
interest and participation, aging of the population, recalcitrance of the 
young, Al Queda or what ever we choose. Or we can roll our sleeves and polish 
the apple.

A good first step would be revocation of class distinctions in voting. Some 
other good actions would be recognition of areas in which we have undeniably 
failed. We participate in an endeavor that admittedly appeals to an older 
crowd. The population ages and our membership declines. A good first step in 
rectifying this situation would be inclusion, recruitment, valuing rather 
than exclusion and hoops. Younger members might be more receptive to 
participation if we valued their input as much as we value their muscle. A 
good first step might, too, be revocation of class distinction in voting.

I'm pro tar babies. As I remember the story, the tar baby did not fail in 
it's intended purpose. It was the administrator of the tar baby that failed. 
The tar baby here is iris promotion, membership satisfaction, and AIS growth.

Please don't throw us in that briar patch masser',

Bill Burleson 7a/b
Old South Iris Society
The only mistake I ever made was to do nothing because I could make only a 
little difference.- I. Tink


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Free $5 Love Reading
Risk Free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/NsdPZD/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/2gGylB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index