I agree with the 'first come, first serve' issuance of W4AN, however I would
suggest a time limitation for requesting it. Such as one can only request
the call say, 30 or 45 days before the specific contest, and that there be
no long-term nor repetitive request. Meaning W4AN can not be requested for
every specific annual contest.
In order for everyone to have the opportunity to use the call, I would limit
the use of the call to any one station to twice per calendar year, unless no
one else request use of it. For instance, if I use W4AN for the CQ WW and
the NAQP in the same year, I can not use it again that year unless no one
else request it.
I disagree that rovers or anyone in the SECC should have any priority over
anyone else.
I disagree that there should be any restrictions placed on the contest use
of the call. Bill was a very serious competitor and had no restrictions
placed on him and I highly doubt he would approve of any exceptions being
placed on the use of his call in any contest. As an avid contester, I'm sure
he fully understood that records are made to be broken.
I believe the SECC tries too much to legislate what one can do in contest,
such no mode category in the GQP. If having mode categories makes the
scoring 'too difficult', then perhaps the GQP should be dropped. If we can
not manage the entire contest, as other states do, we should not sponsor one
at all. I know getting folks to volunteer to help is very difficult, but
maybe some prior planning could be done so that not one, but several of us
do the scoring, and then submit our results to one central person for
overall checking. I also think, that in today's world of instant
communications, we should impose a 90 limit on having GQP scoring completed
and posted on the web site. I also believe it is not realistic to ask one
person to manage the GQP. Not picking on Jeff, but he is a good example of
being highly interested in promoting the GQP, but like most of us, he has a
home life that must and should take priority over his hobby activities. Is
it not possible to have a GQP Director and two or even three assistance's,
so that some of the work can be shared?
I do understand the importance of rover's, especially in the GQP primarily
because of the lack of ham participation from Georgians. But one has to be
careful and not tell home stations that GQP representation is not important
for one county only. I know that is not the intent, but that really is what
is being said.
Tommy
W4BQF
-----Original Message-----
From: secc-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:secc-bounces at contesting.com] On
Behalf Of Matt Lee, K4AQ
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 8:21 AM
To: secc at contesting.com
Subject: [SECC] W4AN Club Call (was: RE: Field Day and W4AN)
Some other exceptions I would suggest would be for contests where Bill's
results placed him above his peers consistently, e.g., 400+ QSO's in the
Sprints, and for contests that he was passionately involved as
promoter/cheerleader (NAQP?), but limited to 6 contests per year (as an
example).
The best place, I believe, for Bill's callsign legacy, would be on a
club web page that gives the background for the club call.
Again, "First come, first serve," for requesters using the club call in
the same contest. This will eliminate (?) the politics and make the
trustee's job a "no brainer." ;)
--
Matt Lee, K4AQ
Atlanta, GA USA
<K4AQ at arrl.net>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: secc-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:secc-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of K4SB
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 April, 2005 23:03
> To: secc at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [SECC] Field Day and W4AN
>
>
> > >Every member should have an equal opportunity to request
> > >and use the
> > >club call. Adding a weight factor (to a request) adds a
> > >lot of "what if"
> > >into the selection process. Heck, we may end up spending
> > >more manhours
> > >debating, I mean "discussing" an issue than the operating
> > >time of the
> > >contester(s). That's a lousy ROI (return on investment).
> > >There is no reason why "first come, first serve" will not
> > >work. All it
> > >takes is some planning and doing (aka action, instead of talk).
>
> > >Matt Lee, K4AQ
>
> Matt has done a very good job of describing the club rules "draft".
> The only exception ( and this will be up to a vote ) is that the
> Rovers in GQP get first priority. And there's a little subsection on
> that. If a rover has used the call in the previous year,
> he will be second in line to that of a "new" rover.
>
> 73
> Ed
_______________________________________________
SECC mailing list
SECC at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/secc
|