[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
(meteorobs) NAMN Resignation...unabridged
Lew,
I thought privately you would rather see the unabridged version that I had
intended to send out.
George
-----
Hello!
I regret in having to make the announcement that I resign effective
immediately as being a coordinator for the North American Meteor
Network(NAMN). The reason being is due to a major conflict within the
organization as to how to lift U.S. meteor science to a level nearly as good
as most European meteor groups. In at least the past 15 years, U.S. meteor
observing standards have become so laxed that quality data has become almost
non-existent. It has been my observation that various meteor observing
groups has made a measure of their success by the number of members it has
rather than the quality of it's data. I also noticed that if anyone was
submitting inferior data, that there is a tendency to look the other way lest
they upset the individual and lose a member. This attitude has been around
for quite some while that meteor observing groups exist essentially as a
social club. Most of those who did observe, did not follow any serious
guidelines. For those that would want to do serious work found their efforts
being watered down with scads of useless data. Most of it was useless
because Quality Control measures were not in place. In 1988, the
International Meteor Organization(IMO) was formed predominantly by various
European observing groups. A set of guidelines was established to ensure
that everyone's data can be relatively compared. It was reasonable and
logical...at least a step in the right direction. Most near serious U.S.
observers has maintained the attitude that they shouldn't have to change and
has grudgingly resisted this change. The Europeans have just about made
meteor observing a Science/Art form. There is no reason for them to step
backwards to the complacent/stagnant levels in the U.S. One of my reasons
for co-founding NAMN was to by-pass various remnants of the "old guard" and
start fresh with a new generation that hasn't been exposed to old concepts.
Also let in people that were part of that old guard figuring that they would
have to follow NAMN's policy of going by the IMO standard observing method.
I was not concern about having any problems from any new observers(which I
haven't by the way). But I have made it a point to "stick to my guns" when it
comes to being challenged by the more experienced observers of the past. It
became apparent that some were determined to find a niche that would allow
them to circumvent the adopted IMO standard observing methods. I wouldn't
tolerate any deviation. The reason being that if I did, it would be a signal
that other deviations could be accepted and all control would once again be
lost. I did admittingly deviate from IMO's accepted method in the area of
Speed Determinations...that is when I developed the NAMN speed scale. I
stuck with this one deviation for two reasons..dot it's easier to explain to
first time observers rather than the degrees/sec method. Also, it's
interpretable for old radiants and useable in working with unknown and minor
shower radiants. Anyone using the degrees/sec method would not be penalized.
But the NAMN concept was 1/2 mine and this was my perogative. However, when
I was confronted with veiled challenges to my adoption of the various IMO
standards, I found it necessary to become forceful in not giving an inch
irregardless how trivial some of the changes may be. I admittingly became
dogmatic and aggressive at thwarting any of these challenges. My philosophy
has become "if they don't accept the IMO method, then than have no business
diluting the efforts of those who do". I am blunt about this and did it in
the name of elevating U.S. meteor science from an unguided pseudo-science to
that of a genuine science. I have no objections with having new observers or
those who don't observe but just like to read about the topic. My real
problems are primarily with those "self appointed experts" who routinely
observe less than 15 hours/year and half of that is with the Perseids.
Recently I've became aware that I didn't have the authoritative support
that I thought I had from the NAMN/ALPO loop. I can't expect to succeed if
any of my fellow authoritative figures will acknowledge that I'm right about
something and then in the same breath announce that they are going to do the
opposite anyway. This kind of leadership doesn't work. I needed their
support in order to succeed...if I don't have it, I'm wasting my time in the
long run. Playing politics isn't my style nor is coddling inefficiency...but
I do highly tolerate inexperience. I believe in getting my hands dirty to
accomplish the goal. Although I will be out of the NAMN/ALPO loop, I still
plan on doing my normal meteor work as always but report directly to IMO. I
still will give advice and welcome meteor related questions...particularly to
the new observer who wants to learn. For those who are on the meteor
observers mailing list I'm sorry for the troublesome nature of my
postings...but I thought it necessary. Perhaps my aggressive and abusive
manner will open up some eyes and teach something after the dust settles? But
if it doesn't, the U.S. meteor observing program will at worst be where I've
found it..dot dead and stagnant.
Respectfully,
George Zay