Bureaucracy

[ERIC.L.SCACE at adn.sprint.com]

Len WF2V recently wrote:
"From my own experience, I find that the
ARRL can get specialized services done well (contests, QST publishing,
QSL cards, etc) but when it comes to legal, moral, or controversial
issues, many times it gets "lost" (ignored) in the system."

   In my own experience, EVERY organization has this attribute.

   Organizations get lots of practice in handling the normal, day-to-day
business.  Most do good jobs on the routine stuff.  The organizations that do
consistently poor jobs on routine business tend to disappear (in a competitive
marketplace).

   But when something out of the ordinary is presented, it becomes a
"problem".  It takes time to handle.  The task gets pushed upstairs if it
seems controversial, or shoved off to the side in favor of easier work.  Most
people prefer to get the easy stuff done and off their desks.  The "hard pile"
can sit around for quite a while.

   And when matters get pushed upstairs, they have to compete for attention. 
A one-shot problem is not going to seem very important in the overall scheme
of things to a manager, unless it carries a big price tag and lots of
visibility.  Almost every effective manager has far more tasks than can be
accomplished; part of his/her job is to pick the ones most worthwhile to do
and trash the rest.  ("executive triage")

   Besides, ARRL (and most other ham radio organizations) do NOT pay big bucks
for crackerjack people with brains the size of a planet.  (This is my
outsider's perspective.)  Most people working at ARRL do so because they WANT
to WORK in ham radio -- not because it is a great lucrative career path. 
There are many very good people there who could make a far better salary
working elsewheres.  The rest of us, for whom radio is a hobby, should take a
moment from time to time to express appreciation for what these people
accomplish.

   Every place has its flaws and some employees that, in retrospect, one
wishes that had not been hired... and every place makes some spectacular and
minor screwups on a regular basis.  ARRL seems no worse than most -- and, for
what I've paid to them in dues and for their books & software, I've gotten my
money's worth many many many times over.  I wish I got as much bang for the
buck from most other places I pay money to for equipment & services.

-- Eric K3NA


>From Steve Harrison <sharriso at sysplan.com>  Wed Sep  7 17:35:47 1994
From: Steve Harrison <sharriso at sysplan.com> (Steve Harrison)
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 1994 12:35:47 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: WRTC Ideas
Message-ID: <Pine.3.87.9409071247.H8205-0100000 at eagle>

The primary inequity in such a revolving scheme would be the changing 
propagation throughout the day/evening, and how different stations might 
be favored by the precise propagation.

For example, suppose one station had a REALLY effective 5L 15 meter 
antenna, and the European Russians happened to hit that station during 
the prime 15 meter European hour. Those guys would clean up compared to 
the JA and W/K ops. Later, the JAs might get that station right during 
the prime 15 meter Asian openings, and again, the same thing would occur, 
except there are a LOT more JAs to work during any one hour than 
Europeans (although a lot fewer multipliers!).

And during the evening hours of 75/80/40 meter European openings, how to 
reconcile the ease with which the UA and W/K ops would copy the Europeans 
with the vague unease that the JA ops would have with every QSO not in 
their native tongue PLUS an unfamiliarity with propagation and an itching 
to keep turning the yagis to JA, hoping for a long-path opening?

Seems to me that this would work most effectively during high sunspot 
times when all the bands are likely to be relatively constant for hours 
at a time. And despite my criticism above, I still feel this revolving 
chair scheme is among the most fair methods available of equalizing the 
stations. It even allows the use of a couple of SMALL (GASP!!! ) 
stations, which would show the ability of the participants to operate 
with substandard equipment/antennas!

73, Steve KO0U/4



>From p_casier at ub4b.eunet.be (Peter Casier)  Wed Sep  7 18:06:25 1994
From: p_casier at ub4b.eunet.be (Peter Casier) (Peter Casier)
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 1994 19:06:25 +0200
Subject: cqww unique hit rate
Message-ID: <199409071706.AA20519 at ub4b.eunet.be>

Just got the OT3T log analysis from K3EST.
It is always interesting to see how the calls are analysed.
I made some statistics on the calls the contest committee regards as uniques
and bad (broken) calls.

Analysing our original log, I came up with 299 calls which I could not find
in our database, consisting of about 400.000 QSOs plus the buck callbook and
CT master.dta file...

CQWW listed 99 calls as being uniques:
--------------------------------------
>From these 99 calls, 72 were also in our database. (CQWW Hit rate of 72%)

CQWW listed 55 calls as bad (broken):
------------------------------------
>From these 55 calls, 47 were also in our database. (CQWW hit rate of 85%)

This learns us that 
- the cqww database is even bigger than ours (hi)
- if they say a call is unique or bad, you can bet for 72% or 85% they are
actually not OK.
Who can say that the remaining 28%-15% calls were ok or not? We make
mistakes too. And it does not mean because we find a call in our databases
it was actually that guy we worked... Only the op can be sure.

This will be an incentive for us to do even better this year.

A surprise for us was that we got 20 'Not in log' QSOs. It is amazing how
people logged us: OT2T (our '92 call), OT3A (the Belgian multimulti), OT3O -
OT3M  (other Belgian multi/singles), OK3T - HT3T - OT5T (do not exist).. And
even worse, these not-in-logs were often new mults! Aaaarghh.
This will be an incentive for our multiplier ops this year to insist in
getting our call confirmed!


All of this to say: get your log analysis from the cqww committee! You will
learn a lot, about your own operation and about the quality work delivered
by the log checkers!

GL! Peter- ON6TT.

p_casier at ub4b.eunet.be


>From David O. Hachadorian" <0006471356 at mcimail.com  Wed Sep  7 17:36:00 1994
From: David O. Hachadorian" <0006471356 at mcimail.com (David O. Hachadorian)
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 94 11:36 EST
Subject: 40-2CD Balun
Message-ID: <51940907163615/0006471356PK1EM at mcimail.com>

After the coax loop balun on my 40-2CD failed (unravelled), I replaced it
with an Aztec DXB-2. No problems running 1500W output on 40, and also on 17
meters, where the 40-2CD shows an swr of about 1.9 and radiates very well. I
have also loaded it by mistake on other bands a few times with no ill
effects.

Dave, K6LL
k6ll at mcimail.com