Additionally, W6RGG, N1ND, W3IZ and W9JJ are in the committee meetings.
With that said, I always found the structure to not fit well. PSC
handles ARES in addition to contesting and DX rules.
However, ARES and such has proposals evaluated by a separate working
group who reports to PSC, while DXing and contesting are handled by
DXAC and CAC and are tasked with things or may bring it up on their
own.
73
Ria, N2RJ
On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 at 12:06, 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 Sorry my list was outdated.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
|