Hi Marshall,
You may not know me, but I've been very active in VHF Contesting for 31
years. I hear you about the VUAC -- this could have been implemented a
whole lot better. Like you and others, I agree that the assistance
language in the CQ VHF contest rules is very clear and makes sense.
However, there are a couple of statements in your email that I have trouble
with,
"The Directors and Vice-Directors are the key. That is where we need to
start....after we figure out EXACTLY what we want."
Who is WE? The problem is that you need a consensus on who WE are.
You're not going to build any type of consensus when you make statements
like ." Many of the guys on the VUAC were not really active VHF operators,
never mind active VHF contest operators.....they did not have any idea of
what is really happening in the VHF world. Some were there to protect a
specific constituency in the NE. Some were just there."
Right there, you are alienating a lot of people by insinuating things that
are purely opinion and not fact.. You are 100% right on the mechanics of
how the VUAC operates (pretty much zero power to effect any change.).
The VHF Contesting community is a very difficult constituency. There are
difficult issues in dealing with geography and population. One of the V/U
contest tenants is to increase activity on rarely used bands. So, there's
always going to be tension among those who compete. It is very difficult
to get an even playing field, which many desire, (HF Contesters have the
same compliant).
So, I'm in to lobby Directors and Vice Directors to come up with some new
way to effect change. I think WE want a different, effective way to
effect change in the ARRL VHF Contests. Once we have that,
then we would have some possibility at rules change. The way it's working
right now is a lot of people make noise, but zero happens.
73, Gerry, W1VE
Nelson, NH
(One of the proud W2SZ MGEF team since 1982)
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Marshall-K5QE <k5qe@k5qe.com> wrote:
> Jay-W9RM has posted....
>
> ASSISTANCE: I am a supporter of the CQ WW VHF rules and would like to
> see them implemented in all ARRL VHF contests.
>
> LEGISLATIVE: I am in favor of a ARRL committee (appointed or elected)
> dedicated to VHF operations and contests WITH THE POWER to amend and
> enforce rules changes independently of the ARRL CAC.
>
> Jay W9RM
>
>
> I especially like these two posts. The ASSISTANCE post has been made by
> me and others. It is a sound idea and should be pursued.
>
> The LEGISLATIVE post is also a very good idea. The VUAC _could_ have
> worked, but in practice it did not. Many of the guys on the VUAC were not
> really active VHF operators, never mind active VHF contest
> operators.....they did not have any idea of what is really happening in the
> VHF world. Some were there to protect a specific constituency in the NE.
> Some were just there....
>
> To be sure, there were some VUAC members that tried very hard to improve
> the VHF+ contesting rules. However, they were hammered by those that want
> no changes. Pure Protectionism, as Les said. The VUAC was subordinate to
> the PSC(Programs and Services Committee) not to the CAC(Contest Advisory
> Committee). The VUAC could not DO ANYTHING.....except make recommendations
> to the PSC. Sometimes the PSC just ignored those recommendations.
> GENIUS!!! Set up a Committee of supposedly top VHF ops and then ignore
> their recommendations. OF course, when a really, really BAD recommendation
> was made, it sailed right through.
>
> The current VUAC members were appointed, so it would be easy to find fault
> with appointments. However, I believe elections would result in an even
> worse committee. IF we elected our VUAC members, we would surely get some
> good ones.....and some hopeless Bubbas from the local FM club who were more
> popular than the serious VHF ops in their Division. I believe that
> appointment is still the best way, but, we need to try to get "real" VHFers
> appointed.
>
> Whatever we do with the VUAC or some successor committee, it MUST NOT
> OPERATE IN SECRET as the current committee has. In the early days, Jim
> Aguirre-W7DHC in the Pacific Northwest was pretty open about what was going
> on and often asked the opinion of the VHF ops in his area. I praised him
> for that. Recently, Steve-N2CEI has also been very forthright about the
> issues the VUAC was considering and also sought out the opinions of those
> in the SE US.
>
> The Directors and Vice-Directors are the key. That is where we need to
> start....after we figure out EXACTLY what we want.
>
> Comments??
>
> 73 Marshall K5QE
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting>
>
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|