[CCF] Scandinavian Activity Contest - A proposal
jukka.klemola at nokia.com
Tue Nov 22 06:19:13 EST 2005
>From: ccf-bounces at contesting.com
>[mailto:ccf-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of ext Teemu, SM0WKA
>Sent: 22 November, 2005 12:36
>To: Klemola Jukka (Nokia-TP/Salo); sm5ajv at chello.se;
>la4yw at broadpark.no; jan-eric.rehn at telia.com;
>pete at vestergaard.mail.dk; toec at contesting.com;
>ccf at contesting.com; oz-contest-request at contesting.com
>Subject: Re: [CCF] Scandinavian Activity Contest - A proposal
>To: Jukka, OH6LI
>CC: TOEC, CCF, OZ-CONTEST, NORDIC CONTEST MANAGERS
>What we mean with our proposal is that - the contest managers
>- work together. The situation now, as you know yourself is
>that just ONE contest manager pulls the whole load by himself.
>Resulting in vastly different quality of the outcome.
Liv seems to be doing a grrreat job now.
There was even a review of sent logs !
>It is NOT said that it has to be the Contest manager that sits
>in the SAC contest committee; he could as well delegate that
>task to anyone else.
Your proposal was to have two people from each country.
More people leads to increased complexity.
I know from my experience that changing SAC rules is impossible with the
Finland (in practise that was me) proposed a number of things, including
changing the weekends two years ago and it took us nowhere.
No rule change proposal was accepted.
I was warned this would be the outcome by three ex-managers, but I said
that maybe times have changed.
>We have deeply analyzed the first weekend of October, and it
>seems to be free from any CW contest.
Why do you think RTTY and SSB contests would have problems with one
You use as grounds that simultaneuos CW and SSB do not have overlap.
I really cannot follow your logic.
>I also think it is TOO early for you to reject this proposal
>before you know what your SRAL members think of this, it will
>be a nice opportunity to discuss this issue in a deeper aspect
>at the CCF Cruise.
Teemu, are you a member of SRAL?
If so, there are a few other members that differ from your opinion.
I got a few unsolicited comments against your proposal and that is good
enough grounds for me to answer what I did.
There are a few that do not share neither of our opinions.
I feel discussing this on this forum is not the best way to continue.
If you really want to contribute in SAC future, the main complaints are
about missing awards.
That is a very familiar subject from cq-contest reflector.
I think SM, OZ and LA could start by reviewing what SAC trophies and
awards have not been sent and act accordingly.
We could start with this and then build on active participation in
Currently there are actions not done.
Even SRAL's awards for 2003 are only 70% done.
Can you review the last ten contests trophies and awards?
Have you reviewed if contest managers' questions or even complaints of
the results have been analysed and acted upon for the last five years?
Activity is actions.
More information about the CCF