[CCF] Scandinavian Activity Contest - A proposal

Teemu, SM0WKA teemu at sm0wka.com
Tue Nov 22 07:04:01 EST 2005

> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: jukka.klemola at nokia.com [mailto:jukka.klemola at nokia.com]
> Or herself.
> Liv seems to be doing a grrreat job now.
> There was even a review of sent logs !

That is now but how about next year, do we have to see SM3CER log-checking
someone else's logs again 2 weeks before the next SAC, this has happened
many times now! 

> Your proposal was to have two people from each country.
> More people leads to increased complexity.

This is a very weird argument, lets say that for one person it takes 48
hours to manually input paper logs, if this is shared on 8, its much faster,
but OK you seem to think that 1 person is better, FB!

The thought is that everyone within this committee has a responsibility, ex
one person maintains the website, on person prints the awards, one person
does final log checking with software etc. Now all this is done by 1 person
resulting in a huge chore, and it takes time. We would like to see results
and awards sent out at maximum 6 months after the contest, with the current
system that is dreaming.

> I know from my experience that changing SAC rules is impossible with the
> current setup.


> 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.
BY WHOM? I don’t remember any such question in the contesting community.

> Why do you think RTTY and SSB contests would have problems with one
> another?
> You use as grounds that simultaneuos CW and SSB do not have overlap.
> I really cannot follow your logic.

The argument is not SSB vs. RTTY or CW vs. SSB. The argument is CQ WORLD
WIDE RTTY. In SM and abroad I know several people that don’t work SAC (they
used to work SAC) because they want to participate in CQ RTTY, what is the
point for us stubborn Scandinavians to try to compete with the CQ RTTY
competitors, that’s total madness. Folks leave SAC every year to go work
RTTY more seriously. 

> >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.

Yes, I am a member of both SSA and SRAL, you can put me on the list of
persons that wants to continue this discussion without closing all doors and
hide in the closet. We have not yet seen any arguments against our proposals
from any OH, not even you. I would like to know, why is this not good? 

> I feel discussing this on this forum is not the best way to continue.

OK so you feel democracy is not the best way to continue, how do you suggest
we do it then? Should the contest managers themselves decide and then we
competitors just oblige any outcome? Jukka, these reflectors are made for
this type of matters, hiding an important discussion like this don’t lead
nowhere else than down the drain.

> 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.

Sure with an 8 person SAC committee this would be solved very quickly,
instead of the bad system we have today, when one single person has to do
all chores by himself.

> I think SM, OZ and LA could start by reviewing what SAC trophies and
> awards have not been sent and act accordingly.

This is underway at least in SM by myself and SM6CTQ our HF manager.

> Activity is actions.
> 73,
> Jukka OH6LI

Actions lead to activity

73 Teemu SM0W - SM0WKA

More information about the CCF mailing list