Continue the discussion?
Comments about this discussion:
There is an enormous number of very active discussions right now but our
time in the IUF committee is limited. Instead of rushing into decisions
where we haven't found a good solution yet, I would like to continue the
discussion. This would have several advantages:
- I gives us the opportunity to ask other hockey players about their
opinion. Right now, we are only 7 active people.
- New ideas could be tested in reality (during practice or fun
tournaments) before we change any important rules.
- After successful testing, we can put new rules into the 2018 rulebook.
I can ask Scott if we can still use this discussion forum after the IUF
rulebook committee has been closed officially. If not, an alternative
could be the forum here: http://www.unicyclist.com
What do you think?
From all our discussions and sub discussions we should bring maximum to proposal with the risk not to pass. The not passed proposals maybe probably the basis of discussions to carry on and test.
6.5m, wheel size, Penalty goal as mostly agreed should quit finalised.
Free shot, most of amended parts agreed should be finalized.
Referees hand signs, I not sure. Maybe a proposal should be tried.
"Penalties" (for a new start Steven has worked out plus penalties for more games, delaying and ...) and "Protest" are big issues to big for the time left. This needs definitive worked out and discussed during the next year, clear words and structure for everybody and all beginners. "Protest" maybe will become an issue of the main committee and can give some guidance.
I agree about continuing the discussion. I also think l we should work out a way to implement the new rules before 2018 rulebook committee if possible. But at least discussing them is a great start
> we should bring maximum to proposal with the risk not to pass.
I do not agree. We are only 7 active people here. If we have a clear
majority for a new rule, that's fine. However, if the decision is close,
then there are probably good reasons both for and against the new rule.
I don't think we should enforce any new rules to the rest of the
unicycle hockey community if even we don't agree. In these cases I
prefer to test the proposed rule in real life first, and talk to other
players about it.
I agree.. It would be good to continue the discussions that aren't finished, so we can come to a conclusion on them all.
I am also interested in continuing the discussions but I can't say, how active I will be. Thinking about the rules and then putting my thoughts into a good text needs a lot of time.
I will be reasonably active. As long as people post their thoughts as they come to them about potential rules and inconsistencies in the wording I think it will slowly move along towards the next proposals.
January 15 – last date to submit a proposal for voting
January 25 – All Proposals and voting concluded
Most of what has already agreed should go to proposal now. Fine tuning can be done in the reviewing status. And than vote.
Afterwards we should wait and see what happens with our proposals in the IUF board, summarise our open/ unsolved issues and lets continuing the discussions smoothly. On which platform, Rolf may inform us.
Thank You for your great work you have done so far!
Well done all. Is this the largest discussion improvements that have been made in a while? I don't remember seeing many alterations in the last rulebook
Thanks for all the hard work. This committee has been the most productive by far!
We can continue to use this platform to discuss hockey, but I have setup a new subcommittee for this. This is for two reasons: one, this subcommittee has tons of discussions and proposals in it, so it's a bit messy and it would be nice to have a clean start. Two, this way we can any future proposals separate from the ones here that have been made before the deadline.
The new subcommittee will be Hockey 2.0.
If you are interested in being a part of this new subcommittee, please respond to the discussion here. It is still to be determined exactly how this new subcommittee will be able to work, and what they should be able to do, but to start with, I would like to know who is interested.
I have not been following the discussions in this committee directly, but I can guess that the discussions/topics could have the following statuses:
- Discussions in which there are varied opinions, disagreements, or no clear consensus.
- Discussions in which consensus could be reached, but more time/thought/opinions are required.
- Discussions in which a consensus has been reached (perhaps except for one or two people who disagree), but in which a proposal has not yet been created
- Discussions where proposals have been created, but maybe a revision in required.
- Discussions/proposals which are ready for voting or are in voting
- Discussions/proposals with completed voting.
Status 1 and status 2 are things which should be addressed in the new 2.0 subcommittee. I request that no further discussion on any status 1 or status 2 items be done in this subcommittee. You all can refer back to these discussions from the new subcommittee as needed. They will not be deleted.
If there are any status 3 discussions, I would be willing to accept a late proposal if the said proposal can move very quickly to a vote. This is reasonable if a general consensus has already been reached. (Otherwise this would be a status 1 or 2 discussion.)
For status 4 proposals, please make them ready for voting as soon as possible.
If there are any status 5 proposals that are not in voting, please let me know and I will set them to a vote.
Thus, for any discussions in which one can still comment (i.e. the proposals not in voting or finished), please add a new comment to them describing their status for me, using my format above.
Sorry for a few typos that I made above. I hope my meaning is clear.
Thanks for creating the subcommittee "hockey 2.0"! It looks like the
perfect solution for us. Yes, I want to be included.
I think that the following proposals are ready for voting (status 5):
Proposal 18: Multiple touches of ball during free shot rule change
Proposal 73: Preface
Proposal 75: Guidelines for penalties
The only proposal that still needs some fine-tuning (status 4) is:
Proposal 80: More Event Organizer Rules
I would be interested in being included in the new subcommittee
Please include me in the new subcommittee as well, even I cannot promise to spend plenty of time for the discussions.
Please include me in the discussions.
Additionally would it be possible for a new committee member to join. There is another Australian who usually takes part in discussions and may be interested in the rule committee going forward.
I would be interested
I am as well interested, please include me in the new subcommittee.
Steven, can you please ask the additional Australian member to complete the original rulebook sign-up survey?
He filled it in
When will Hockey 2.0 Open?
Maybe the beginning of March would be a good time to start.
Right now, the passed proposals are included into the next IUF rulebook.
This requires careful proof-reading because several of our proposals
refer to the same section. Next, I will translate the hockey rules into
German. When all this is finished, we can continue our discussions based
on the new rulebook.
I agree that we should finish the updates to the current rulebook before proceeding with Hockey 2.0.
The beginning of March sounds like a good time to start.
(Steven, I received Amir's survey. Thanks.)
Sorry for the long delay. As you've probably already seen, the final IUF
rulebook proposal has passed earlier this month. Now we can start to
discuss (informally) new ideas for the hockey rules. Since many of us
will be at the European ECU2017 meeting in the Netherlands, I suggest
that we use the opportunity to meet there in person. What do you think?
I will be there and am happy to meet up
I unfortunately can't make it, but would like an overview of the new ideas in the meet if that's okay?
Is there perhaps an easier way to organise a meetup such as facebook or emails? Trying to organise a meetup on the iuf rulebook software may be unnecessary.
Can anyone set up a chat for this before the end of EC? Someone who knows each person in the committee in person and has their contact details. I currently only know what Rolf looks like..