And speaking of volunteering . . . the highly vaunted position of Plaque
Guru (for 2006) is still open.
73,
Jay, K4OGG
At 09:07 AM 4/20/2005, Tommy wrote:
>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
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>SECC mailing list
>SECC at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/secc
|