[CCF] Skimmer/Cluster in SAC?

[Tomi Ylinen]

Well, I would say these discussion at some points go quite close to spam. But mails can easily be deleted, you do not have to read them all.

On the other hand these reflectors are easy way to get the flow of thoughts running. Considering SAC we OH's have done it many times in CCF-r. A lot of discussions, not so much actions. Anyway I think it is important, not only the results but the process itself. 

Normal phenomenon is that some people have lower threshold of release (like me and Mats close to zero) and are more active in discussion. So this is not totally democratic platform in practice. And most of the contesters are at least following the reflectors. This is the case for OH and SM, I don't really know about LA or OZ. Probably they are excluded from this. How could we get them in?

Some opinions irritate, some make you laugh. All in all: it's feeding the brain. In the end of the day something good might come out. Hopefully.

So let the discussion flow. There will be other 11 months mostly free of SAC issues on reflectors.

Tomi OH6EI (totally recovered from SAC defeat)



Ilkka Korpela kirjoitti 21.09.2010 kello 19:57:
> Hi Folks
> 
> I did more thinking: Why doesn't sactest.net provide
> a platform, where everyone can send the telemetry from
> their station?
> 
> - frequency of the TX
> - frequency of the RX with the operator on-line
> - frequency range of the SDRs in use
> - frequencies of the RX-stations around the world that one listens to
>    (using some decoder)
> 
> Then we'd just let the computerized stations to work the contest.
> 
> Seriously, we are not far from this scenario.
> 
> Less seriously, who'd care?
> 
> I guess I would.
> 
> I don't like these "discussions", and especially when they are  
> "semi-officially"
> started by SM6LRR, who is not an official member of the SAC contest
> Committee,
> that consists of representatives of SRAL, SSA, EDR, and NRRL (and
>  the small
> ones). I'm again asking, who are the members (I asked this a while
>  back)?
> 
> I'm more in favor of an approach, in which the Committee asks the  
> participants,
> e.g. when the results are sent to the participants by e-email, to
>  register
> and give opinions at a website. That's fair.
> 
> SAC deserves more elegant treatment.
> 
> ilkka
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCF mailing list
> CCF at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/ccf