Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+ARRL\s+BOD\s+minutes\s+published\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+ARRL\s+BOD\s+minutes\s+published\s*$/: 23 ]

Total 23 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] ARRL BOD minutes published (score: 1): Author: Mark n2qt <n2qt.va@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 15:55:01 -0500; The minutes from the recent Board of Directors meeting was just released. Key points of interest are below, the pending request for comments on the currently undisclosed band plan proposals and the c; /archives//html/RTTY/2015-01/msg00212.html (7,336 bytes)
2. Re: [RTTY] ARRL BOD minutes published (score: 1): Author: "WW3S" <ww3s@zoominternet.net>; Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 16:58:09 -0500; Thanks Mark for posting.....it appears maybe theyve learned a lesson, taking it to the membership for input before a final recommendation.... _______________________________________________ RTTY mail; /archives//html/RTTY/2015-01/msg00213.html (9,146 bytes)
3. Re: [RTTY] ARRL BOD minutes published (score: 1): Author: john <w8wej@citynet.net>; Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 22:18:42 +0000; great, if it is not a condescending move,,, "OK you told us, set down and shut up" type of thing...there is a lack of trust felt on my part here,,, then again I went through incentive licensing where; /archives//html/RTTY/2015-01/msg00214.html (10,040 bytes)
4. Re: [RTTY] ARRL BOD minutes published (score: 1): Author: "Jim N7US" <jim@n7us.net>; Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 16:28:02 -0600; The complete minutes are interesting. They'd be more interesting if we had a news reporter/analyst providing interpretation, especially regarding the ethics discussions. http://www.arrl.org/files/fil; /archives//html/RTTY/2015-01/msg00215.html (10,177 bytes)
5. Re: [RTTY] ARRL BOD minutes published (score: 1): Author: "WW3S" <ww3s@zoominternet.net>; Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 17:41:12 -0500; theyd be even more interesting if they werent a year old...... _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTTY@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty; /archives//html/RTTY/2015-01/msg00216.html (8,989 bytes)
6. Re: [RTTY] ARRL BOD minutes published (score: 1): Author: " Dave AA6YQ" <aa6yq@ambersoft.com>; Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 17:54:38 -0500; Minutes for the January 2015 meeting are here: <http://www.arrl.org/files/file/About%20ARRL/Board%20Meetings/2015_January_ARRL_Board_Minutes.pdf>" 73, Dave, AA6YQ The complete minutes are interesting; /archives//html/RTTY/2015-01/msg00217.html (10,905 bytes)
7. Re: [RTTY] ARRL BOD minutes published (score: 1): Author: Peter Laws <plaws0@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 21:13:09 -0600; Leaving aside the RM-11708 fiasco, why on earth would anyone want to *increase* Technician privileges? The word "incentive" still excites some hams (fewer and fewer each year given the demographics); /archives//html/RTTY/2015-01/msg00234.html (9,368 bytes)
8. Re: [RTTY] ARRL BOD minutes published (score: 1): Author: "Scott Schultz" <schultz0530@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 21:39:09 -0600; "In fact, have the DBA flip all the 51k remaining Advanced class licensees to Amateur Extra while he or she is in there messing with it." This will NEVER happen because they don't want it to happen!; /archives//html/RTTY/2015-01/msg00235.html (9,050 bytes)
9. Re: [RTTY] ARRL BOD minutes published (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com>; Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 20:50:19 -0800; -- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: Why? The bureaucracy loves complexity. It loves many layers of licensing and different rules for the different layers. It gives them something to do and; /archives//html/RTTY/2015-01/msg00236.html (8,439 bytes)
10. Re: [RTTY] ARRL BOD minutes published (score: 1): Author: Ron Kolarik <rkolarik@neb.rr.com>; Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 23:49:18 -0600; You may want to dig a bit deeper and read the committee reports from that meeting. The HF Band Planning committee recommends giving Novices and Techs data/RTTY privileges on 80m. Technicians are the; /archives//html/RTTY/2015-01/msg00237.html (8,617 bytes)
11. Re: [RTTY] ARRL BOD minutes published (score: 1): Author: Mark n2qt <n2qt.va@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 08:56:11 -0500; Thank you for noting the availability of the 2015 committee reports at http://www.arrl.org/committee-reports These have much more information than the abbreviated comments in the BOD minutes. The Ban; /archives//html/RTTY/2015-01/msg00239.html (9,730 bytes)
12. Re: [RTTY] ARRL BOD minutes published (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:39:22 -0500; Only if that test includes 20 WPM CW proficiency requirement and the Commission cancels the licenses of all the shack on a belt and WINSTINK lids. I have no objection to allowing Technicians to use; /archives//html/RTTY/2015-01/msg00240.html (9,872 bytes)
13. Re: [RTTY] ARRL BOD minutes published (score: 1): Author: Phil Sussman <psussman@pactor.com>; Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 10:06:22 -0500; Agreed, A bunch of Technicians running amuk on the HF bands without the least care about who gets 'clobbered' by their transmissions is the last thing that we need on HF. Perhaps a mentor program is; /archives//html/RTTY/2015-01/msg00241.html (11,711 bytes)
14. Re: [RTTY] ARRL BOD minutes published (score: 1): Author: Peter Laws <plaws0@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:09:37 -0600; I'm impressed with my ability to pass Element 1B. Not so impressed with my ability to pass Element 1C, however, given that I didn't. The one thing the ARRL learned about license classes is to never t; /archives//html/RTTY/2015-01/msg00242.html (9,710 bytes)
15. Re: [RTTY] ARRL BOD minutes published (score: 1): Author: Peter Laws <plaws0@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:24:07 -0600; That's not been their history. Now, the FCC screwed up in 1991 because they simply deleted the Morse requirement for Technician. It took about a month for someone to say "Um, OK, but if I pass the co; /archives//html/RTTY/2015-01/msg00243.html (11,361 bytes)
16. Re: [RTTY] ARRL BOD minutes published (score: 1): Author: Peter Laws <plaws0@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:25:37 -0600; True because, as it is, the HF bands are full of General and Amateur Extra class licensees running amok without the least care about who gets 'clobbered' by their transmissions. -- Peter Laws | N5UWY; /archives//html/RTTY/2015-01/msg00244.html (9,705 bytes)
17. Re: [RTTY] ARRL BOD minutes published (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 10:46:12 -0500; Perhaps ARRL needs to beef up the OO program and start issuing "cards" again for bad operating. Then the Commission can go back to the old days and require at least five years as a General *with no; /archives//html/RTTY/2015-01/msg00245.html (9,876 bytes)
18. Re: [RTTY] ARRL BOD minutes published (score: 1): Author: "wo4o - RiC" <wo4o.radio@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 10:54:46 -0500; Ah, those were the good ole days! 73, de ric, wo4o Perhaps ARRL needs to beef up the OO program and start issuing "cards" again for bad operating. Then the Commission can go back to the old days and; /archives//html/RTTY/2015-01/msg00246.html (10,296 bytes)
19. Re: [RTTY] ARRL BOD minutes published (score: 1): Author: "John GW4SKA" <ska@bartg.org.uk>; Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:31:43 -0500; OO notices, Winstink .......... I hope this ARRL / FCC bashing topic moves somewhere else away from the RTTY reflector. Of course I can always just delete it like I did with the RM-11708 after a few; /archives//html/RTTY/2015-01/msg00247.html (11,280 bytes)
20. Re: [RTTY] ARRL BOD minutes published (score: 1): Author: Peter Laws <plaws0@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 12:53:12 -0600; I appreciate what you're saying but there are some 357k US Technician class licensees that would gain HF data privileges so you (and everyone else) would be affected. RM-11708 affects you, too. Nothi; /archives//html/RTTY/2015-01/msg00248.html (9,683 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]