Forums 2005 Flags on the 48 2005 Planning Meeting Grandfathered Peaks

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • SilentCal
    Moderator
    Post count: 1284
    #47070 |

    I forgot to mention this at the actual meeting, but discussed it with several of the crew afterwards.

    Several groups in the event consistently do the same peak year after year. For whatever reasons, Location, hike with friends, or tradition, should we grandfather these peaks to the peak coordinator after a certain amount of years.

    I believe that if a person covers the same peak three years in a row , they should have the option to lock into it. This does not mean to shut anyone else out from the peak. There are ten slots available per peak. This just means that the grandfathered person becomes the Peak coordinator for that peak year after year until they choose not to anymore.

    Thoughts, ideas, suggestions?????

    pepsi
    Post count: 24

    I like it.

    If someone has picked the same peak three years in a row, chances are it means something more to them.

    And, IMO if they’ve been there three years in a row they should have an opportunity to continue as coordinator if they choose, and a thank you. :flag: :flag:

    MichaelJ
    Participant
    Post count: 839

    I think that someone who is that much dedicated to the event, and the event’s well-being, is responsible enough to choose to continue to take the peak, or to know if the time comes when to give it up for the greater good. So I’m okay with it.

    But …

    If we get complaints about peaks already being taken, we will need to revisit this issue.

    dirt_girl
    Post count: 303

    I am mostly in favour as well. A fine way to honor one’s committment and dedication.
    However,I would be concerned about the size of the group,
    in time, if it was always the same group just expanding with friends and family,
    this could become unintentionally a private party peak,
    Just a thought…

    dirt_girl

    Frodo
    Participant
    Post count: 331

    I think that this is somewhat of a minor issue. So far, only 2 people qualify for the “3 same peak in a row” grandfather status, but I do agree that people as dedicated as those have personal reasons for doing the same peak every year and should get first dibs at signing up. I think they have earned it…

    smitty77
    Post count: 45

    I think it’s a fine idea, especially if the peak means that much to someone. If they’ve been there for three years, they are certainly committed to the cause, IMHO. Personally, I’d like to do a different one each year so this rule would not apply to me. Max said he wants to do each one once. Only 45 more to go!

    It’s all about the :flag:

    Smitty

    Alpinista
    Post count: 45

    I second/third/whatever the idea of grandfathering. At the risk of parrot-ing others, if someone has shown that much dedication or draw to a peak to hit it each of the past three years, I’d like to give them the first dibs on continuing to act as coordinator for that peak. :flag:

    snowball42
    Post count: 19

    While I agree with all that has been said on this, and I think there are compelling reasons to grant grandfather status in certain cases, I disagree with this idea on the whole. While at this point, it may only affect a couple of peaks, I think it necessary to think about the future and the fact that it could affect a larger percentage, and I’d be concerned with the “private party” argument proferred earlier, and the spectre of seeming elitist for those who got in on the ground floor.
    If people have a compelling reason, other than “i really like this peak” or “i want to not have to take my chances with signing up”, I think you could deal with it individually, like granting the Boy Scouts certain peaks, which works great (as long as 48 Scout troops don’t catch on 😉 ). Peaks as much as possible should be open to as many people as possible. my .02

    Very much looking forward to 2005 – and not really caring which peak – as they’re all awesome (though one with a view would be OK)

    snowball

    SilentCal
    Moderator
    Post count: 1284

    Great to hear everyone’s opinions. This was an afterthought at the meeting and I’m glad that we got thoughtful opinions from both sides. While it is a very minor issue now, after several more years, this could be something that certain folks may consider a worthy topic. Perhaps we should table this issue for this year and bring it up in 2006.

    dirt_girl
    Post count: 303

    Table the issue… good idea.

    It is not something that will have an adverse effect on this years hike.

    Gives everyone a long time to think about it too.

    dirt_girl

    Pucknuts
    Participant
    Post count: 54

    I personally like the idea of doing a different peak each year, but I can see where some people have a particular reason for doing a peak each year. Liberty is the first that comes to mind.
    The only problem I see is that if this is announced, some people may look to it as a way to guarantee them a peak if they continue from last year and think they only need to do this 2 more years before the peak is permanently theirs.
    Hopefully it doesn’t prevent potential new members from joining because they see the event as a “closed” memorial going forward.

    Jaytrek57
    Participant
    Post count: 263

    It is hoped the sign-up process this year will encourage newer people to sign-up. Seeing their names I believe will be a big help.

    IMHO, I believe people will feel less “locked” out this year, b/c “peak coordinators” will take a more active roll empowering them the weeks leading up to the event.

    A peak may be “grandfathered”, but, at least for me, I am confident that other crews from year to year would welcome me if I wanted to hike that particular peak, in any given year.

    Side Note:

    After countless log-ons, I finally saw my crew on the Featured Photo!! :flag:

    Got to play the lottery tonight!

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • The forum ‘2005 Planning Meeting’ is closed to new topics and replies.