[AISdiscuss] Member comments Handbook Revision

[PlankMail@aol.com]

Dear AISDiscuss:
     Walter Moores contacted me via email about a month (or a little more)
ago concerning some of the rules and regulations in the Judges Handbook.   I
told him I would make his views known to the Board, and when we began this
email
discussion, I sent him my opening AISDiscuss email. This is his 1st response
to that.   I thought it valid to include his comments to join the comments
from
members of AISDiscuss. Unfortunately he said in another email that he can't
get in (or hasn't been able to find the way there) to read your comments in
the
ASIDiscuss archives.
     By the way -- so far, not counting Walter, there have been 11 comments
posted on this subject.   The subject was presented the middle of last week.
     Jeanne


In a message dated 4/14/06 2:56:28 PM, wamoores@bellsouth.net writes:

> I would like for my "displeasure" of the AIS JT Manual be thought of as
> constructive criticism in
> a few areas.  Most of the document is fine as it is and needs few
> refinements. 
>
> My interests in the JT manual concern the first topic you have mentioned:
> "Kinds of Judges"
> and the requirement that "seasoned" Master Judges who are hybridizers or
> otherwise engaged
> in an ongoing capacity for AIS be exempted from the rule of garden training
> once every three
> years during bloom season.
>
> On iris-talk in 2003, there is a discussion of "Garden Judges"  which I have
> tried to "capture"
> and email to no avail.  I may try again on the office computers where I
> work.  If I cannot get it to
> work there, I'll print it and mail it to you.
>
> As  the term "Garden Judge" is not explained in the JT manual (1985 or 1998)
> and is
> mentioned only a few times in a confusing fashion,  AIS judges with less
> than fifteen years of
> service are called "Garden Judges." I would like to state that all judges
> are "Garden Judges"
> and I don't think the term should be used at all.  The Bulletin uses the
> term "Garden Judges,"
> but in actuality, there is no such judge for they are not defined in the JT
> Manual.
>
> I think the internet group came up with the term "Accredited Judge" to
> replace the confusing
> term "Garden Judge."  Actually, I think I read the term "Accredited Judges"
> in the Board
> minutes sometime during the eighties, but somehow or another nobody picked
> up on it in JT
> manual revisions.  If those minutes could be found, it would go a long way
> in supporting the
> cause of dropping the term "Garden Judge(s).  The controversial subject of
> '"Garden Judge(s)
> has run hot and cold since the 1985 JT manual was published.
>
> In Hot Springs, AR, in 2003, I talked with Roy Epperson about the above.  I
> think I sent him the
> information from iris talk, but so much time has elapsed that I really
> cannot remember for sure.
>
> I see you have proposed the term "Active Accredited".  This causes me to
> wonder about
> "Retired Accredited, since we have a category called "Retired Master."  It
> seems as if the word
> "Accredited" is all we need. But, I could be happy with "Active Accredited
> as long as the word
> "garden" is gone.
>
> I have been concerned over the Judges Classification terms since the 1985
> issue and have
> expressed my thoughts on it since it was published, but nobody thought it
> was important.  I
> am glad you do.
>
> When the 1998 issue of the JT Manual was published, I went to that section
> first to read and
> found the same confusing terminology for the judges.  I couldn't believe
> that it had not been
> changed.  It literally makes no sense and the format is also confusing.
>
> I am so happy you are tackling this revision word for word in online
> conferences.
Return-Path: <wamoores@bellsouth.net>
Received: from  rly-yc02.mail.aol.com (rly-yc02.mail.aol.com
  [172.18.205.145]) by air-yc02.mail.aol.com (v108_r3.6) with ESMTP id
  MAILINYC21-1bb44401a8221a; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 17:56:28 -0400
Received: from  imf16aec.mail.bellsouth.net (imf16aec.mail.bellsouth.net
  [205.152.59.64]) by rly-yc02.mail.aol.com (vx) with ESMTP id
  MAILRELAYINYC23-1bb44401a8221a; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 17:56:18 -0400
Received: from ibm58aec.bellsouth.net ([209.215.57.15]) by
  imf16aec.mail.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id
  <20060414215617.KUZU6413.imf16aec.mail.bellsouth.net@ibm58aec.bellsouth.net>
  for <PlankMail@aol.com>; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 17:56:17 -0400
Received: from cogent ([209.215.57.15]) by ibm58aec.bellsouth.net with
  ESMTP id <20060414215616.XVFB19801.ibm58aec.bellsouth.net@cogent>;
  Fri, 14 Apr 2006 17:56:16 -0400
From: wamoores@bellsouth.net
To: PlankMail@aol.com
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:58:46 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re AIS JT Handbook
CC: waltah1@hotmail.com, wamoores@bellsouth.net
Message-ID: <443FD4C6.14412.240A151@localhost>
Priority: normal
In-reply-to: <3b2.334608.31709481@aol.com>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.02)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-description: Mail message body
X-AOL-IP: 205.152.59.64

Dear Mrs. Plank,

I would like for my "displeasure" of the AIS JT Manual be thought of as constructive criticism in 
a few areas.  Most of the document is fine as it is and needs few refinements.  

My interests in the JT manual concern the first topic you have mentioned: "Kinds of Judges" 
and the requirement that "seasoned" Master Judges who are hybridizers or otherwise engaged 
in an ongoing capacity for AIS be exempted from the rule of garden training once every three 
years during bloom season.

On iris-talk in 2003, there is a discussion of "Garden Judges"  which I have tried to "capture" 
and email to no avail.  I may try again on the office computers where I work.  If I cannot get it to 
work there, I'll print it and mail it to you.

As  the term "Garden Judge" is not explained in the JT manual (1985 or 1998) and is 
mentioned only a few times in a confusing fashion,  AIS judges with less than fifteen years of 
service are called "Garden Judges." I would like to state that all judges are "Garden Judges" 
and I don't think the term should be used at all.  The Bulletin uses the term "Garden Judges," 
but in actuality, there is no such judge for they are not defined in the JT Manual.

I think the internet group came up with the term "Accredited Judge" to replace the confusing 
term "Garden Judge."  Actually, I think I read the term "Accredited Judges" in the Board 
minutes sometime during the eighties, but somehow or another nobody picked up on it in JT 
manual revisions.  If those minutes could be found, it would go a long way in supporting the 
cause of dropping the term "Garden Judge(s).  The controversial subject of '"Garden Judge(s) 
has run hot and cold since the 1985 JT manual was published.

In Hot Springs, AR, in 2003, I talked with Roy Epperson about the above.  I think I sent him the 
information from iris talk, but so much time has elapsed that I really cannot remember for sure.

I see you have proposed the term "Active Accredited".  This causes me to wonder about 
"Retired Accredited, since we have a category called "Retired Master."  It seems as if the word 
"Accredited" is all we need. But, I could be happy with "Active Accredited as long as the word 
"garden" is gone.

I have been concerned over the Judges Classification terms since the 1985 issue and have 
expressed my thoughts on it since it was published, but nobody thought it was important.  I 
am glad you do.

When the 1998 issue of the JT Manual was published, I went to that section first to read and 
found the same confusing terminology for the judges.  I couldn't believe that it had not been 
changed.  It literally makes no sense and the format is also confusing.

I am so happy you are tackling this revision word for word in online conferences.

I would be pleased to receive any email you think might be of interest to me.

Walter Moores

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary
aissecjill@earthlink.net.