Response to K4VUD's post:
Charly, thanks for your take on the editorial situation at QST. Certainly
your credentials add some amount of credibility to your critique.
The ARRL appears to "promote from within" which has its good points and its
bad points. I am certain Mark Wilson and Steve Ford were hams before they
became publishers and editors. The "Boys' Life" writing style has its
place as you point out, but I agree, in QST it borders sometimes on drivel
(I should talk, huh? - my new NCJ column is big in both "Boy's Life" *and*
drivel).
I wanted you to know, tho, that as an avid reader of QST, like you, for
some decades (I joined in 1974 I believe, but as a kid I read back issues
over and over from about 1955-1974), the overly technical stuff in QST is
responsible for much of my practical understanding of circuitry and design.
I still read those articles just to challenge my own tech-impairment.
Jim White, I think it was, bemoaned the fact that hams are more and more
missing from the upper echelon at ARRL. Yet the clear solution to improve
the marketing and business success of the ARRL and QST hinges to some
degree in getting people in there who might be better at these things than
some hams who have dedicated their lives to their hobby.
This is not an easy balance to maintain, and I think the ARRL should be
commended for balancing it as well as it has for all these years. I think
the hams at ARRL who have learned how to run a large national non-profit
are to be commended as well.
And to Steve, K7LXC, who said "no one at League HQ reads this stuff" -
remember that Mark Wilson himself obviously read and then replied to
several emails on this reflector in the past month.
The solution is not easy nor obvious, but one thing is for sure: Dedicated
hams are working very hard at it.
Sorry to everyone for consuming bandwidth for a non-contesting topic.
Mark, N5OT
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|