Training Log Archive: SpikeIn the 7 days ending Nov 8, 2014:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| « | » |
| » now | ||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||
| Su | Mo | Tu | We | Th | Fr | Sa | |||||||||
Saturday Nov 8, 2014 #
running 1:50:00 [2]
I went to the trails on the south side of Clinton for the first time this season.
I kept the effort gentle. I stopped frequently for water or to move fallen branches off the trail.
I didn't see anyone out there, but just as I finished, two cars with bow hunters arrived. I finished around 1:30 and I'd have guessed bow hunting was more of an early or later activity. But I don't have any basis for that feeling.
3
I kept the effort gentle. I stopped frequently for water or to move fallen branches off the trail.
I didn't see anyone out there, but just as I finished, two cars with bow hunters arrived. I finished around 1:30 and I'd have guessed bow hunting was more of an early or later activity. But I don't have any basis for that feeling.
3
Friday Nov 7, 2014 #
cycling 45:00 [1]
Work commute.
I had my second on-camera interview with KUJH TV about sidewalks. I have no idea what will come of the interviews, but it is always fun.
When Mary gets home we're heading out to Clinton to run around in the dark.
1
I had my second on-camera interview with KUJH TV about sidewalks. I have no idea what will come of the interviews, but it is always fun.
When Mary gets home we're heading out to Clinton to run around in the dark.
1
running 30:00 [2]
I was surprised when Mary got home and she suggested NOT going for a run. But, she ended up going. We just cut the time shorter than planned.
1
1
Thursday Nov 6, 2014 #
cycling 45:00 [1]
Work commute. I thought about going for a jog, but ended up patching an inner tube instead.
1
1
Wednesday Nov 5, 2014 #
cycling 45:00 [1]
Work commute. Mid 30s in the morning.
running 35:00 [2]
Another easy headlamp jog on West Campus.
Spent some time thinking about and chatting about this election result:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2014/nov/04/lawrence-...
1
Spent some time thinking about and chatting about this election result:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2014/nov/04/lawrence-...
1
Tuesday Nov 4, 2014 #
cycling 45:00 [1]
Work commute. Very nice weather - almost no wind and temp in the 40s.
running 30:00 [2]
Jogging around West Campus with the headlamp. Fun.
I met some deer.
1
I met some deer.
1
Monday Nov 3, 2014 #
Note
A few years ago I was on a committee for OUSA annual awards. I'd thought the committee was coming up with a system for annual awards. It was really more about coming up with who would win the awards. Anyways, as I was waiting for a committee agenda, I did a little background research. I talked to a couple of people involved in awards programs and read about a couple of other systems. Basically, I looked at some other awards programs and asked the people involved:
How does you process work?
Would you do anything different?
After that first year I haven't been involved in the OUSA awards process and I don't really know what the annual process is.
I was poking around in my files looking for something else and found a few of the notes I wrote up at the time. Here are those notes:
-----------------------------------------
The basic idea is to develop a reasonably simple process to identify eligible nominees, judge the nominees and award recognition. The process should include controls to make sure the pool of nominees is strong and the judging is fair and is perceived as fair.
Automatic nominees could be based on some simple qualifications. You might automatically nominate anyone who’d won a US Champs in the various branches of the sport. It would be pretty straightforward to tie the automatic nominees to some criteria from the OUSA strategic plan (e.g. WOC relay finishes in the top 25 among men and to 18 among women).
Public nominees could be by email. Public nominees would be solicited through OUSA and various orienteering web sites like Attackpoint.
Judges wouldn’t nominate people.
The nomination process would have a hard cut off date with reminders posted to various web pages as that cut off nears.
The general criteria are already defined.
Each judge would “vote” by ranking the top 3 (or more) in each award category and then ranking them. In other words, a judge would identify their top pick, their second pick and their third pick. Votes would be scored using some simple method (e.g. 3 points for each first place vote, 2 for second, 1 for third).
The judges would have terms (maybe 2 years) and the panel would be designed to have some turn-over every year. The committee should aim to have no more than one judge from any given club.
The judges would be ineligible to judge a category for which they are nominated. At the start of the process, judges would inform the committee chair that they didn’t have any conflicts (or would identify any conflicts) that would either bias their decisions or would have the appearance of biasing their decisions and that they will notify the committee chair if such conflicts come up during the judging process.
The panel could also include a “public vote.” For example, the OUSA web page could host an online poll where people could vote. The public vote would be treated as if it were one of the judges (i.e. rank the nominees and give them points using the same system). There are pros/cons to including a public vote. A pro could be that it provides another form of input and could increase the visibility and interest in an award.
Have a process for breaking ties. Some simple rules would break most ties, e.g. breaking a tie by the most first placed votes. More tie breaking rules could be put in place, or if the simple rule doesn’t break a tie, the committee could award a shared first place.
Have a process for determining honorable mentions. That process might be two steps. First, does a person meet some established minimum bar (which could be based on the voting, e.g., at least one first place vote or a total of at least X points). Second, the judges would have a vote to essentially establish “yes, this person’s performance warrants an honorable mention.”
The results of the judging would be a recommendation to make the awards and would go through some sort of checks and balances. For example, the recommendation could go to a OUSA board member who would then make a recommendation for approval to the full board or a committee. The checks and balance would offer an opportunity for some follow-up or additional explanation. The idea isn’t to second guess the judging but to allow for questions that could improve the process for the next year.
After each year’s awards are given, the committee would report to the OUSA board on how the process went (e.g. number of nominees, sources of nominees, questions that came up, etc) and make any recommended changes for the coming year. Each year the committee would consider whether or not to continue with the awards program for the coming year and whether to add or remove awards from the coming year’s program.
How does you process work?
Would you do anything different?
After that first year I haven't been involved in the OUSA awards process and I don't really know what the annual process is.
I was poking around in my files looking for something else and found a few of the notes I wrote up at the time. Here are those notes:
-----------------------------------------
The basic idea is to develop a reasonably simple process to identify eligible nominees, judge the nominees and award recognition. The process should include controls to make sure the pool of nominees is strong and the judging is fair and is perceived as fair.
Automatic nominees could be based on some simple qualifications. You might automatically nominate anyone who’d won a US Champs in the various branches of the sport. It would be pretty straightforward to tie the automatic nominees to some criteria from the OUSA strategic plan (e.g. WOC relay finishes in the top 25 among men and to 18 among women).
Public nominees could be by email. Public nominees would be solicited through OUSA and various orienteering web sites like Attackpoint.
Judges wouldn’t nominate people.
The nomination process would have a hard cut off date with reminders posted to various web pages as that cut off nears.
The general criteria are already defined.
Each judge would “vote” by ranking the top 3 (or more) in each award category and then ranking them. In other words, a judge would identify their top pick, their second pick and their third pick. Votes would be scored using some simple method (e.g. 3 points for each first place vote, 2 for second, 1 for third).
The judges would have terms (maybe 2 years) and the panel would be designed to have some turn-over every year. The committee should aim to have no more than one judge from any given club.
The judges would be ineligible to judge a category for which they are nominated. At the start of the process, judges would inform the committee chair that they didn’t have any conflicts (or would identify any conflicts) that would either bias their decisions or would have the appearance of biasing their decisions and that they will notify the committee chair if such conflicts come up during the judging process.
The panel could also include a “public vote.” For example, the OUSA web page could host an online poll where people could vote. The public vote would be treated as if it were one of the judges (i.e. rank the nominees and give them points using the same system). There are pros/cons to including a public vote. A pro could be that it provides another form of input and could increase the visibility and interest in an award.
Have a process for breaking ties. Some simple rules would break most ties, e.g. breaking a tie by the most first placed votes. More tie breaking rules could be put in place, or if the simple rule doesn’t break a tie, the committee could award a shared first place.
Have a process for determining honorable mentions. That process might be two steps. First, does a person meet some established minimum bar (which could be based on the voting, e.g., at least one first place vote or a total of at least X points). Second, the judges would have a vote to essentially establish “yes, this person’s performance warrants an honorable mention.”
The results of the judging would be a recommendation to make the awards and would go through some sort of checks and balances. For example, the recommendation could go to a OUSA board member who would then make a recommendation for approval to the full board or a committee. The checks and balance would offer an opportunity for some follow-up or additional explanation. The idea isn’t to second guess the judging but to allow for questions that could improve the process for the next year.
After each year’s awards are given, the committee would report to the OUSA board on how the process went (e.g. number of nominees, sources of nominees, questions that came up, etc) and make any recommended changes for the coming year. Each year the committee would consider whether or not to continue with the awards program for the coming year and whether to add or remove awards from the coming year’s program.
Sunday Nov 2, 2014 #
running 1:30:00 [2] +198m
Trail run at SMP after kottbullar lunch at Ikea.
The MTBers have added a couple of Km of new trails.
I took it easy and felt ok. I got a little dehydrated by the end.
3
The MTBers have added a couple of Km of new trails.
I took it easy and felt ok. I got a little dehydrated by the end.
3