The common unit of measurement is the mile or kilometer.
A “count” is not a unit of measurement.
A “revolution” is not a unit of measurement.
I cringe when differences are reported to me in counts. Unless I know the individual conversion of counts to meters, the term is at best an approximation. I understand what 6 meters in 8 km means, better than I understand what 58 counts out of 78654 means.
Use of Neville’s “simplification” is already being done by many people, including me on occasion. I do it all the time, but not always. It is a useful field expedient.
It is in the reporting that I find it awkward. I believe that the best form of reporting converts all the counts and revolutions to meters or miles at the earliest opportunity, and that all calculations thereafter are done in real units of measurement.
The present method of course measurement is not mandated. It is simply a way for a measurer to get the job done, and to report what he does in a manner that is understandable to another person. If a person is unable to explain what he has done the chances are that he does not really understand it very well himself. If a measurer elects to do it differently, and can make it clear to me what he did, I have no problem with his submission. Most measurers elect to follow the instructions rather than to try to create their own method.
I am sure that the subject will be talked about at the annual meeting. How much time will be devoted to it? That depends on Mike Wickiser. There will certainly be other things to talk about. As for a “vote” that would be a first, as that is not the way RRTC has historically done things. We have never figured out who should get a vote. Should an inactive and silent certifier have the same vote as an active participant? Should the quorum consist of the people at the meeting? In past times we have argued things by public correspondence until a form of consensus is reached, and at that time the Chairman decides what, if anything is to be done. This may still be the way RRTC matters are handled.
Also, a change involves more than just taking a vote. We have documentation that will need to be changed. We have an online measurement book. USATF is selling some version of a measurement book. People all over the US have got copies of the measurement book. Getting a change implemented is not a trivial exercise. It takes hard work by people, and they who will be stuck with doing that work should have the major say as to whether and how the work is to be done.
Personally I think the proposed change is not needed because it is already being done and is perfectly allowable. The entire rationale behind it seems to be a desire to save one simple calculation. No increase in accuracy is claimed or results from the proposed change.