I'm certainly active in contests! Either as W7VO, AA7CR (now WW7E), and
sometimes as W7RM. Ria, N2RJ, was on the P&S committee last year, but has moved
over to the Admin and Finance committee this year.
Matt, K0BBC the new P&S committee chair, is active through the remote network
from his condo in Minnesota.
Let me clarify: Right now the full Board does have to approve all contest
changes, as that was "how we've always done it, so there's precedence" when I
asked the question last year. That's why the recent minor ARRL RTTY Roundup
changes went to the full Board for approval. That will change in July with a
new Board motion that will allow P&S to make contest changes on their own based
on CAC recommendations. The full Board will only be involved when the DXCC
program is involved.
73;
Mike
W7VO (WW7E in the upcoming WPX test)
ARRL Director, Northwestern Division
> On March 16, 2020 at 8:44 AM Jeff Clarke <ku8e@ku8e.com> wrote:
>
>
> Sorry my list was outdated. On the ARRL web page it lists K0BBC, N4MB,
> K5UZ, W7VO, N0DAS and WB4UDQ. I've worked a couple of these guys in
> contests.
>
> Jeff
>
> On 3/16/2020 11:36 AM, Jeff Clarke wrote:
> > The current ARRL PSC consists of K0DAS, W3TOM, K4ZDH, W4OZK and
> > K6JAT. As far as I know none are active contesters so my question is
> > why they would know what's best as far as contests are involved? The
> > organization that CQ has in place is much better than the ARRL.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > On 3/15/2020 10:46 PM, rjairam@gmail.com wrote:
> >> "I am not sure how ARRL goes about rule changes since it seems like
> >> only the BoD can make a change and the CAC only works on things they
> >> are asked to handle."
> >>
> >> In practice it worked this way but this was revamped this past
> >> January. Now the full Board does not have to approve every contest
> >> rule change. The PSC advises the radiosport department and the
> >> radiosport department will administratively make the rule change. The
> >> only changes that the full Board has to approve with regard to DXing
> >> and contesting is the DXCC program.
> >>
> >> The PSC is made up of five directors, a vice-director, the 2nd VP, and
> >> three staff members who are involved in radiosport at HQ. They hold
> >> monthly teleconferences and bring final resolutions to the committee
> >> meeting at W1AW twice per year. With the new process it would seem
> >> that this could be turned around quicker for items that did not need a
> >> full Board vote.
> >>
> >> Regarding the CAC - CAC can deliberate on its own. There is nothing
> >> stopping them AFAIK. They can bring rules changes to PSC. However,
> >> more frequently they are tasked by the PSC to work on certain issues.
> >> But I do not know of any prohibition on them deliberating on their own
> >> and suggesting agenda items to bring to the PSC.
> >>
> >> Bringing it to your own director may in fact be less effective. Not
> >> every director knows about contesting and only five are members of
> >> PSC.
> >>
> >> "There would be advantages to having some alignment in the definition
> >> of terms and in rules. For example, ARRL calls it unlimited and CQ
> >> calls it assisted. No wonder people are confused!"
> >>
> >> In some circumstances it would be. However, we should be cautious to
> >> not have every contest be a copy of every other one, and if this
> >> process has to work, it has to be fully collaborative with consensus
> >> from WWROF/CQ and ARRL. For example, CQWW has now classified single
> >> channel CW decoders as assistance. ARRL has not. I'm not sure of the
> >> consensus of this decision on the CQ contest committee but if ARRL
> >> evaluated it, I am not sure that we would come up with the same
> >> result, since most people have the idea of an "unlimited" or
> >> "assisted" category as using the DX cluster and not testing morse code
> >> receiving skills.
> >>
> >> CQ also has a slightly different entity list for its contests. ARRL
> >> would not defer this to another organization. One reason for this as
> >> explained to me was that sometimes foreign Governments or
> >> organizations seeking independence will look at the DXCC list to
> >> bolster their claims of independence.
> >>
> >> On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 22:13, <k5zd@charter.net> wrote:
> >>> The event in question that started this thread happened in an ARRL
> >>> contest. That puts the onus on them to sort it out.
> >>>
> >>> Contest rules can only be changed once per year in advance of each
> >>> contest. There is a balance between keeping things consistent while
> >>> also adapting to the changing times.
> >>>
> >>> The ARRL and CQ contests have very different processes and people
> >>> involved in the rule change decision making. I am not sure how ARRL
> >>> goes about rule changes since it seems like only the BoD can make a
> >>> change and the CAC only works on things they are asked to handle.
> >>> The CQ WW committee is a relatively small group of very active
> >>> contesters who make suggestions to the CQWW Director (now K1AR). It
> >>> can turn pretty fast.
> >>>
> >>> There would be advantages to having some alignment in the definition
> >>> of terms and in rules. For example, ARRL calls it unlimited and CQ
> >>> calls it assisted. No wonder people are confused!
> >>>
> >>> It also doesn't help that ARRL divides their rules across many
> >>> documents that don't always align. The CQ WW rules are all in one
> >>> place on one page (with translation into multiple languages).
> >>>
> >>> Things change when there is a need to change. It can take time. In
> >>> the case of ARRL, it also takes finding out who can actually make a
> >>> decision on contest rules. It is NOT the CAC. Thus the suggestion
> >>> to contact the Board member for your Division.
> >>>
> >>> Randy K5ZD
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: CQ-Contest
> >>> <cq-contest-bounces+k5zd=charter.net@contesting.com> On Behalf Of
> >>> Stan Zawrotny
> >>> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2020 1:32 PM
> >>> To: rjairam@gmail.com
> >>> Cc: Edward Sawyer <EdwardS@sbelectronics.com>; CQ Contest
> >>> <cq-contest@contesting.com>; Sterling Mann <kawfey@gmail.com>;
> >>> donovanf@starpower.net
> >>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Merging Social Media and Contesting
> >>>
> >>> Ria,
> >>>
> >>> I am a member of the ARRL Contesting group and am waiting for this
> >>> incident to be discussed there.
> >>>
> >>> My question was "Are the sponsors listening?" It would seem to be to
> >>> their benefit to be monitoring this forum since it is the most
> >>> active of the contesting forums.
> >>>
> >>> I'll repeat what I said in the quoted email:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> *… taking this up with your ARRL regional representation is
> >>> short-sided.
> >>> They don't manage all contests. I think this forum is the right
> >>> place for the discussion, but only if all the sponsors are listening.*
> >>>
> >>> I simply questioned whether they are listening. I didn't accuse them
> >>> of not. But, so far, there hasn't been any inkling that they are
> >>> aware of the incident. In an ideal world, they would all be holding
> >>> this same discussion in their own private forum. There have been
> >>> several suggestions that they need to get their heads together and
> >>> come up with a consistent, coherent, modern day model of contesting
> >>> rules.
> >>>
> >>> Stan, K4SBZ
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 9:41 AM rjairam@gmail.com
> >>> <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Stan
> >>>>
> >>>> ARRL has its own contesting reflector on groups.io and several of us
> >>>> monitor it. Contacting your director or CAC representative will get
> >>>> the discussion going. The CAC monitors the group discussion.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://groups.arrl.org/g/ARRL-Contesting
> >>>>
> >>>> WWROF is involved in CQ contests and they’ll probably be a good
> >>>> resource for them:
> >>>> https://wwrof.org/contact/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 73
> >>>> Ria
> >>>> N2RJ
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 8:55 AM Stan Zawrotny <k4sbz.stan@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I agree with Peter that the sponsors of the major contests now need
> >>>>> to get together and hammer out some new rules/categories. Not just
> >>>>> for this current situation, but with a better eye on leveling the
> >>>>> playing field(s).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This should include the overlays used by some contests for
> >>>>> sub-categories.
> >>>>> For instance, the overlay for tri-banders and wires. I have only wire
> >>>>> antennas and I just cannot manage to rotate any of them like a
> >>>>> tri-bander.
> >>>>> Those trees are just too heavy to move.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> BTW, taking this up with your ARRL regional representation is
> >>>>> short-sided.
> >>>>> They don't manage all contests. I think this forum is the right place
> >>>>> for the discussion, but only if all the sponsors are listening.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Are they?
> >>>>> ___________________
> >>>>> Stan Zawrotny, K4SBZ
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Real radio bounces off the sky.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 12:56 PM <contesting@w2irt.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Ed has it 100% right here. I'm good with innovation, but don't you
> >>>>>> dare pretend to compete with folks who are keeping within both the
> >>>>>> letter and spirit of the rules. I would strongly support the
> >>>>>> addition of an unlimited/anything-goes class for such innovators
> >>>>>> and let them compete against each other. But to allow these new
> >>>>>> technologies to compete with traditional contest stations is a
> >>>>>> travesty in my book.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Personally, I would like to see the contest committees from both CQ
> >>>>>> and ARRL sit down, along with perhaps the WWROF, and hammer out a
> >>>>>> new regulatory framework for the major DX contests, taking modern
> >>>>>> technologies into account. Redefine the categories and what level
> >>>>>> of assistance is
> >>>>> permitted
> >>>>>> in each; everything from a boy and his radio to full social media
> >>>>>> interaction.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The bottom line is that I want to compete on a level playing field.
> >>>>>> I
> >>>>> won't
> >>>>>> be top-10 world in my lifetime, but I might be in the top-10 US and
> >>>>>> I'm regularly top-5 in my division, section, or call area in the
> >>>>>> assisted category, either SOAB-A/HP or M/S HP. My only assistance
> >>>>>> is the
> >>>>> traditional
> >>>>>> telnet cluster and perhaps one day my own on-site skimmer. No
> >>>>>> remoting
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>> any kind, etc. I'll happily compete with folks using similar
> >>>>> technologies
> >>>>>> but if you lump me in with high-end remote stations using social
> >>>>>> media
> >>>>> then
> >>>>>> my interest will wane.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ---------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> GO FRC!
> >>>>>> Peter, W2IRT
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> www.facebook.com/W2IRT
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces+contesting=
> >>>>> w2irt.net@contesting.com>
> >>>>>> On
> >>>>>> Behalf Of Edward Sawyer
> >>>>>> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 6:37 AM
> >>>>>> To: Sterling Mann <kawfey@gmail.com>; donovanf@starpower.net
> >>>>>> Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Merging Social Media and Contesting
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sterling. If you read through your own email, you have validated
> >>>>> basically
> >>>>>> all of Frank's violation list and then said well its all still okay.
> >>>>> Its
> >>>>>> not okay.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And Ray does have responsibility for what is happening on his chat
> >>>>>> bar
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>> his live stream. He can shit it off because it can't be controlled
> >>>>> within
> >>>>>> the rules. But that would defeat the point of the social media
> >>>>> interaction
> >>>>>> wouldn't it. And that the point. Contesting is not social media
> >>>>> gaming.
> >>>>>> If some people want to promote in as "demo stations" like Ray is
> >>>>>> doing, wonderful. But its either a checklog or its a new category.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ed N1UR
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >>>>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> >>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >>>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> >>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >>>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> >>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|