"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
Carl, you should see the NCI bashing being done by Dee and Jim on the
other ARRL thread.

73, Brian

I have never bashed the NCI. I've stated that I disagree with their goal
but that does not constitute bashing them.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

I agree with Dee. I see "commentary", not any
bashing. Freedom to discuss differing
viewpoints. That's all.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK, NCI Director

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In no particular order:

1) Representation of amateur radio (what other organization or
individual
would
do anyhting like the 121 page commentary on BPL?)

Representation of what the Board *perceives* to be the wishes of the
membership.
I don't believe that non-members get the same attention on issues as
members, but
that is reasonable, since member dues support the ARRL.

This member supports the ARRL. Also, this member did not receive a
questionare when the ARRL was conducting a poll of members and
non-members.

Perhaps they did a random survey of some percentage of the membership?

5) Elected officials (they listen even if they don't agree)

YMMV, depending on what area you live in, whether your Director is
open-minded and progressive, etc.

Apparently they think that they cannot present the needs or want of
both camps until they come to a concensus.

The "c-word" is an excuse to do nothing. On some things there may
never be consensus - should the ARRL do nothing? Leadership is
when one has the courage and wisdom to make a sound judgement
and then "do the right thing." Otherwise, they could just do a web vote
popularity contest on every issue and wouldn't need Directors ... the
staff could handle the whole thing ...

6) W1AW (been there and operated the station, too)

I have mixed views on the value of W1AW ... a good museum to "the Old
Man,"
but perhaps its services could be provided by alternative means at lower
operating cost.

Commercial gear? Why?

Perhaps you misunderstand ... first, W1AW is running commercial gear (and
has for
many years). I believe the current main transmitters are super-commercial
gear from
Harris Corp., if memory serves me correctly, suplimented by some other
commercial
gear donated by some or all of "the big 4" ham equipment mfgrs.

What I was referring to were things like CW practice, bulletins, etc. All
of that could
be provided (and much is) by the web site, and probably would reduce
operating
costs. (Though doing things by non-radio means is heresy to some ...)

Carl, you should see the NCI bashing being done by Dee and Jim on the
other ARRL thread.

I have been on business travel to the ITU in Geneva for two weeks and to New
Orleans for a week of meetings and haven't been keeping up.

Let them bash ... NCI continues to gain new members (and the pace picked up
quite dramatically with all of the publicity surrounding the Petitions
before the
FCC); the membership is, judging by the large number of e-mails I get, happy
with our policies and actions and ready to continue to support NCI through
the
end-game; and our detractors still haven't presented the FCC with a single
rational,
valid, compelling reason to keep any Morse testing ...

73,
Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

Carl, you should see the NCI bashing being done by Dee and Jim on the
other ARRL thread.

I have been on business travel to the ITU in Geneva for two weeks and to
New
Orleans for a week of meetings and haven't been keeping up.

Let them bash ... NCI continues to gain new members (and the pace picked
up
quite dramatically with all of the publicity surrounding the Petitions
before the
FCC); the membership is, judging by the large number of e-mails I get,
happy
with our policies and actions and ready to continue to support NCI through
the
end-game; and our detractors still haven't presented the FCC with a single
rational,
valid, compelling reason to keep any Morse testing ...

73,
Carl - wk3c


Carl, just a gentle reminder. I do not bash the NCI but merely disagree
with its goals.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In no particular order:

1) Representation of amateur radio (what other organization or
individual
would
do anyhting like the 121 page commentary on BPL?)

Representation of what the Board *perceives* to be the wishes of the
membership.
I don't believe that non-members get the same attention on issues as
members, but
that is reasonable, since member dues support the ARRL.

This member supports the ARRL. Also, this member did not receive a
questionare when the ARRL was conducting a poll of members and
non-members.

Perhaps they did a random survey of some percentage of the membership?

They hired READEX to do a survey. It was supposedly a scientific
sample of the membership.

That was 1996.

5) Elected officials (they listen even if they don't agree)

YMMV, depending on what area you live in, whether your Director is
open-minded and progressive, etc.

Apparently they think that they cannot present the needs or want of
both camps until they come to a concensus.

The "c-word" is an excuse to do nothing.

No, it isn't. And it's spelled "consensus", as WK3C demonstrates.

The "c-word" came into use because FCC said some years ago that they
weren't going to do any serious restructuring until the amateur radio
community came up with a consensus on what they wanted. That policy
was quite visibly abandoned in 1998 when FCC issued an NPRM without
any consensus being evident.

On some things there may
never be consensus - should the ARRL do nothing?

Depends on the issue and how close to a consensus exists. There's a
world of difference between a 90% majority and a 51% majority, for
example.

Leadership is
when one has the courage and wisdom to make a sound judgement
and then "do the right thing."

Who decides what "the right thing" really is? For example, look at
that "21st century" paper (CQ published it, btw, and it was in their
mill before I evder saw it, so don't give me a hard time about it). Is
the "Communicator" idea "the right thing"?

Otherwise, they could just do a web vote
popularity contest on every issue and wouldn't need Directors ... the
staff could handle the whole thing ...

And if that vote runs opposite to what you think is "the right thing"?

It sounds to me like you're saying the ARRL Directors should sometimes
go against what the majority of members say they want. Do you really
think that's a good idea?


6) W1AW (been there and operated the station, too)

I have mixed views on the value of W1AW ... a good museum to "the Old
Man,"
but perhaps its services could be provided by alternative means at lower
operating cost.

Commercial gear? Why?

Perhaps you misunderstand ... first, W1AW is running commercial gear (and
has for
many years). I believe the current main transmitters are super-commercial
gear from
Harris Corp., if memory serves me correctly, suplimented by some other
commercial
gear donated by some or all of "the big 4" ham equipment mfgrs.

The transmitters (actually transceivers) used for bulletins and code
practice are Harris units. They are stock items. They were chosen for
that service because they were capable of total computer control and
because they were judged to be rugged enough for W1AW service.
Remember that the W1AW modernization was done more than a few years
ago, so you have to look at what was available then, not now.

The supplemental guest stations are for general operating and
contesting, and are not used when the bulletin/code practice sessions
are being run.

Homebrew transmitters *were* considered - that had been the standard
W1AW setup since the station was first put on the air more than 65
years ago. But the cost of paying staff members to design and build
such rigs was calculated to be greater than the cost of the Harris
units.

What I was referring to were things like CW practice, bulletins, etc. All
of that could
be provided (and much is) by the web site, and probably would reduce
operating
costs. (Though doing things by non-radio means is heresy to some ...)

IOW, you want to shut down the station.

The whole point of W1AW is to do those things by *radio*. If we're
going to use the website for bulletins and code practice, why not rag
chewing, traffic handling, DX chasing, contesting......

Carl, you should see the NCI bashing being done by Dee and Jim on the
other ARRL thread.

It would be interesting to see whether Carl considers my comments
"bashing"...

Let them bash ... NCI continues to gain new members (and the pace picked up
quite dramatically with all of the publicity surrounding the Petitions
before the
FCC); the membership is, judging by the large number of e-mails I get, happy
with our policies and actions and ready to continue to support NCI through
the end-game;

And there are how many of them? ;-)

What percentage of US hams do they comprise? ;-)

Point is, the whole "consensus" thing is history. FCC is deciding by
different criteria now.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote


It sounds to me like you're saying the ARRL Directors should sometimes
go against what the majority of members say they want. Do you really
think that's a good idea?


Yes, sometimes I think it IS a good idea. That sort of activity is often
called leadership.

Other times I think it's NOT a good idea.

The mark of a good leader is determining the difference.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
Leadership is
when one has the courage and wisdom to make a sound judgement
and then "do the right thing."

Who decides what "the right thing" really is?

That's what "leadership" is *supposed* to be there for ... to make
the tough calls when the answer isn't necessarily obvious (or may
be right, but not overwhelmingly popular).

For example, look at
that "21st century" paper (CQ published it, btw, and it was in their
mill before I evder saw it, so don't give me a hard time about it). Is
the "Communicator" idea "the right thing"?

No ... we need more people who understand radio, not more appliance
operators.

Otherwise, they could just do a web vote
popularity contest on every issue and wouldn't need Directors ... the
staff could handle the whole thing ...

And if that vote runs opposite to what you think is "the right thing"?

I wasn't advocating a popularity contest ... just saying that if nobody in
"leadership" has the cajones and good judgement to make the right call,
then it might as well devolve to that ...

It sounds to me like you're saying the ARRL Directors should sometimes
go against what the majority of members say they want. Do you really
think that's a good idea?

Yes ... the leadership should, theoretically at least, have superior
knowledge,
insight, and experience and should be there to guide, not simply be a bunch
of political "yes men" to a majority who may/may not necessarily make the
best
choices in terms of what's in the best interests of ham radio long term.

What I was referring to were things like CW practice, bulletins, etc.
All
of that could
be provided (and much is) by the web site, and probably would reduce
operating
costs. (Though doing things by non-radio means is heresy to some ...)

IOW, you want to shut down the station.

No, I wasn't saying that ... I was just "thinking out loud" about what
things
might be more cost-effectively provided by other means.

The whole point of W1AW is to do those things by *radio*. If we're
going to use the website for bulletins and code practice, why not rag
chewing, traffic handling, DX chasing, contesting......

I've always said that the ampr.org domain should be come a much more
integrated, vibrant part of the internet as a whole ...

Carl - wk3c

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In no particular order:

1) Representation of amateur radio (what other organization or
individual
would
do anyhting like the 121 page commentary on BPL?)

Representation of what the Board *perceives* to be the wishes of the
membership.
I don't believe that non-members get the same attention on issues as
members, but
that is reasonable, since member dues support the ARRL.

This member supports the ARRL. Also, this member did not receive a
questionare when the ARRL was conducting a poll of members and
non-members.

Perhaps they did a random survey of some percentage of the membership?

They hired READEX to do a survey. It was supposedly a scientific
sample of the membership.

That was 1996.

5) Elected officials (they listen even if they don't agree)

YMMV, depending on what area you live in, whether your Director is
open-minded and progressive, etc.

Apparently they think that they cannot present the needs or want of
both camps until they come to a concensus.

The "c-word" is an excuse to do nothing.

No, it isn't. And it's spelled "consensus", as WK3C demonstrates.

The "c-word" came into use because FCC said some years ago that they
weren't going to do any serious restructuring until the amateur radio
community came up with a consensus on what they wanted. That policy
was quite visibly abandoned in 1998 when FCC issued an NPRM without
any consensus being evident.

But for several years the FCC was quite happy to
avoid the issue based on the "consensus" argument.
By 1998, the writing apparently was on the wall
in the FCC that there probably was no rational reason
to retain code testing. The FCC then gave pro-code
advocates the opportunity to provide reasons for
code testing and for various code speeds. The pro-code
arguments were insufficient and all were denied
by the FCC as being rational or otherwise justifiable.

On some things there may
never be consensus - should the ARRL do nothing?

Depends on the issue and how close to a consensus exists. There's a
world of difference between a 90% majority and a 51% majority, for
example.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In no particular order:

1) Representation of amateur radio (what other organization or
individual
would
do anyhting like the 121 page commentary on BPL?)

Representation of what the Board *perceives* to be the wishes of the
membership.
I don't believe that non-members get the same attention on issues as
members, but
that is reasonable, since member dues support the ARRL.

This member supports the ARRL. Also, this member did not receive a
questionare when the ARRL was conducting a poll of members and
non-members.

Perhaps they did a random survey of some percentage of the membership?

They hired READEX to do a survey. It was supposedly a scientific
sample of the membership.

That was 1996.

Jim, why do you say "supposedly?"

Do you, like me, also disagree with Mike Deignan that the ARRL survey
was "substantive?"

On 19 Dec 2003 16:05:28 -0800, N2EY wrote:

The "c-word" came into use because FCC said some years ago that they
weren't going to do any serious restructuring until the amateur radio
community came up with a consensus on what they wanted. That policy
was quite visibly abandoned in 1998 when FCC issued an NPRM without
any consensus being evident.

I wasn't there (Dayton?) when Bill Cross said "the C word" but my
understanding was that unless the ham community came with a consensus,
it (we) were liable to get things that we may not like from the FCC
if we back them into a corner.

Perhaps - I hope - that was Bill's personal opinion and not "the
official policy" of the FCC (we've differed on things before).

With the latest Bureau restructuring, he now reports through another
layer of supervision, and I understand that his immediate supervisor
is now someone who is a ham, which was not the case before.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"Brian" wrote in message
om...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message

...

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In no particular order:

1) Representation of amateur radio (what other organization or

individual

would

do anyhting like the 121 page commentary on BPL?)

Representation of what the Board *perceives* to be the wishes of the
membership.
I don't believe that non-members get the same attention on issues as
members, but
that is reasonable, since member dues support the ARRL.

This member supports the ARRL. Also, this member did not receive a
questionare when the ARRL was conducting a poll of members and
non-members.


Perhaps they did a random survey of some percentage of the membership?


5) Elected officials (they listen even if they don't agree)

YMMV, depending on what area you live in, whether your Director is
open-minded and progressive, etc.

Apparently they think that they cannot present the needs or want of
both camps until they come to a concensus.


The "c-word" is an excuse to do nothing.

No it doesn't. I've used consensus building for years. I don't do it
unless a decision *needs* to be made. I even use it in situations where
I have absolute dictatorial power, such as on my Ice Hockey team. I find
out what the guys think on a lot of the issues. Then as long as it makes
sense, and is within the rules I'll decide what they like. You'd be
surprised how well they listen to you when they *need* to when you
listen to them when you *should*.

Other BOD activities I've been involved in are run the same way -
although I don't have absolute power there! 8^)

On some things there may
never be consensus - should the ARRL do nothing? Leadership is
when one has the courage and wisdom to make a sound judgement
and then "do the right thing."

Sure, ya have to do that sometimes. Problem is that if you use that
courage and wisdom in the wrong way, you can find yourself on the
outside pretty quickly. Then you're a leader with no flock. No leader at
all.

Otherwise, they could just do a web vote

familiar with web voting?

popularity contest on every issue and wouldn't need Directors ... the
staff could handle the whole thing ...

Leaders get usually get elected or appointed or whatever because they
have some values that appeal to those who are to be governed. The most
successful leaders I know ask for and get as much input as they can when
faced with decisions. Figuring that you know the answers and what you
know is right regardless is hubris.

- Mike KB3EIA -