posted 09-27-2000 06:33 PM            

From the ashes of this controversial Reunion 2001 registration process should arise a better way for the Fourth Reunion. Let's turn our energies here toward the positive and the constructive.

This is not the place to debate the 2001 Reunion registration process. We already have that territory staked out in another thread. Please go visit that other thread if you'd like to vent.

An idea that I have expressed before (and I have heard others echo this recently) deserves, imo, further consideration. Especially considering all the ruffled feathers we have over this year's process:

Do away completely and forever with the phone-in registration. Have a preset period of time (a couple of weeks? a month?) where any interested party could submit an application form, complete with downpayment (credit card information, etc.). At the end of the period, decide who gets what edition number Reunion piece by lottery. If there are applications in excess of space available, decide who gets to go by means of the same lottery. After the lottery is held, notify applicants of their status by mail or e-mail.
Want this to be squeeky clean and above-board? Have the applications sent to a third party and sealed at the deadline. Then hold the lottery in public at the Navy Pier event in Chicago or in Atlanta. To me, a random selection process is the definition of fair. Only someone receiving or expecting preferential treatment can argue with this method (I think).

Any other ideas?

posted 09-28-2000 05:52 AM            

Maybe for future reunions, participants could list their reserved HL number and be given first preference on getting a reunion piece with that number.

Until a reunion is held where hundreds of people have to be turned away and cannot attend, I don't think we really need to encourage the Youngers to change the way they do things.

posted 09-28-2000 09:45 AM            

I can't speak for anyone else on your question, but I can say that the number of the Reunion piece never entered my mind. I was not even sure how that was determined until just now from your post.

I agree with your concept to a certain extent. "If it ain't broke , then don't fix it". But, sometimes you have to be proactive, not reactive.

Why wait until the negative has happened and there are more people than spaces and nothing can be done about it.

I think the idea proposed by Art is a great way to deal with a possible problem. It guarantees fairness to all, and if there are not more spaces than people it falls into the category of no harm, no foul.

Leaving it at the staus quo guarantees that eventually there will be a time that some will not make it and it should not be decided by actions beyond your control.

No system is infallible or perfectly fair to all involved. I'd just want everyone who wants to be there to have an equal shot of doing so.

I admit to being a radical. You could even use the "L" word to describe me. I do tend to speak my mind, but I want to make sure that everyone understands none of my comments should be taken to be a personal attack on anyone. I'm just expressing what I think. I'll abide by any rules set forth, just make them known to all.

Dennis

posted 09-28-2000 10:46 PM            

Just a thought, but I like it.

posted 09-29-2000 12:06 AM            

You would still have one of a very limited edition.