[CQ-Contest] What the ARRL Board did

[Roland A. Anders]

My sentiments, exactly, Gary!  For the record, my biases are similar to yours,
Gary--I am also a LM of ARRL since the 60's,  active on HF and VHF;  CW, SSB,
RTTY and PSK31; and have a special interest in contesting, DX, licensing
instruction, and radio history.  Professionally, I am the Chief Scientist for
Space Systems at the Northrop Grumman Corporation.  I am open to changes in the
QST coverage, but I also applaud the board for slowing down the rush to a vote
on this matter.  We the membership barely had time to email our comments before
the vote, and we were forced to respond based on preliminary information and
rumor. Here is what I sent to my ARRL representatives after reading Director
Walt Stinson's open letter:

Subject:     Action on Contests and Section News in QST
Date:        Tue, 22 Jan 2002 00:34:47 -0500
From:      "Roland A. Anders" <anders at erols.com>
To:          hq at arrl.org, w3tom at arrl.org, wt3p at arrl.org, n4mm at arrl.org,
wb8imy at arrl.org, n3efn at arrl.org,
              n3llr at arrl.org
I just read Director Walt Stinson's letter on the outcome of the board
meeting re the QST publication of contest results and section news.   While
I was happy to see some indication of reconsideration, I was very unhappy
that Walt's letter clearly indicated that his mind is made up, and that the
delay is merely to buy time to pacify those who asked for reconsideration.
Let me quote: "However, due to the nature of the changes, the way the
information got out ahead of the explanation, and the concerns expressed by
some members, the board decided to wait until July to act on the
recommendation. Perhaps by then, people will have a chance to cool down,
get the information they need, and maybe even feel comfortable that this is
actually a good thing. In the meantime, in a gesture of leadership and
commitment, the board voted to relocate its meeting minutes from QST to the
Web."

Clearly, Walt was unhappy in the "way the information got out" ahead of the
VOTE.  If he could have just gotten the vote BEFORE the information got
out,  then there would have been no need for an explanation!  In addition,
the message appears to be that the board doesn't have any action between now
and July, but rather the membership needs to "cool down", "get the
information we need", and "feel comfortable" with this decision that is, in
his mind,  already made.  Walt knows what is good for the membership.
Independent of the issue, this is not the way a duly elected body should act
in behalf of the membership.  If I could vote for RM Director, I would give
a lot of thought before I voted for Mr Stinson.

What a strange comment that the board has removed "IT'S meeting minutes"
from QST.  These are not the board's minutes, they are the membership's
minutes.  I want to know what the board is doing.  I don't want to have to
seek the minutes on the web.  I want to be able to read them on an airplane,
at breakfast, on the john, or wherever I might have QST!  Do you think we
can get this point across to a director whose mind appears closed on the
issue?  I hope so, but it doesn't look likely.

Walt says: "Our editors are asking to publish 'special interest' information
on the Web site so that QST can be a better general interest magazine and be
published more economically."  What constitutes a "special interest"?  What
is in the "general interest"?  Ham radio has so many facets that any one of
them could be considered a "special interest".  Why the regular column on
DX?   What percentage of the membership has DXCC?  Don't you know that the
majority think that DXing is a waste of time and a big cause of QRM?  Why
don't they just subscribe to the web DX bulletins and not clutter QST with
the "out of  the mainstream" stuff. And all these articles on DXpeditions.
How many can afford to go?  Then there's this column, "QRP Power", why
devote valuable QST space to that?  Way fewer than 50% of the membership is
active on QRP.  Don't know the percentages, but I'd guess less than 5% are
actually on the air QRP--they can learn about that on the websites and
reflectors.  Public service and section news?  Looks good to the FCC, but
why clutter the magazine with activities that such a small percentage are
actually involved in.  Now you've got this column "Microwavelengths".
Hardly anybody is on microwaves.  Look at the turnout in the UHF
contest--pathetic!  That stuff belongs on the web!  There the "Old Radio"
column--how does this attract more subscribers?  The readers of this column
are most likely limited to a few old timers who are a life members anyway.
Wouldn't these old farts be better off with the special interest Antique
Wireless Association, anyway? And "Radio to Go" seems to appeal to a
minority.  Well, it's ok for the column to cover putting your 2 meter rig in
the dash and sticking the mag mount on the roof, but only a small percentage
of members is doing anything else in mobile or portable work--another
special interest if you ask me.  And worst of all is the "Digital
Dimensions" stuff.   An entire page devoted these estoric standards, weird
internet interfaces, acronymns like  TCP/IP,  and strange software
programs.  This is more about the internet than it is about amateur
radio--clearly that stuff belongs on the web.  And why are there so many
articles about this ancient CW mode?  Most of the membership never works CW,
and a large percentage can't even copy it.  Yet QST is cluttered with
articles on building  Morse code paddles, collecting antique keys,
constructing keyers, cw performance of  rigs in reviews, equipment and
techniques for learning code,  morse  keyboards, automatic copying hardware
and software,  and the like.  Get with it--CW is on it's way out for the
"mainstream" amateur.   Moonbounce--gads, that's for the ELITE FEW with huge
arrays and UHF kilowatts, and/or interest in running arcane processing
programs--put that stuff on the Web with the contest "special interests".
Satellites--how many readers have ever even heard one on the air.  For the
small group interested in that, isn't AMSAT good enough for 'em?"  They can
learn about that  on the web. And, while I'm at it, why do we have these
LONG construction articles--only a miniscule percentage ever build any of
them.  Don't those fringe groups have QEX after all?  You get the
point--it's ALL "special interests", and it ALL amateur radio!  I haven't
done it all yet, but I read about it all.  Maybe someday I'll even make a
moonbounce QSO like I read about in the QST articles.

Don't let Walt Stinson and his Finance Committee tell us what amateur radio
is about,  and don't "water down" QST to his idea of the "mainstream".  The
issue isn't just the short term economics of how much it costs to publish
this stuff in QST.  ARRL is a membership organization, not merely a
magazine, and it has a responsibility to publish certain information in it's
journal.  Also, the League is interested in the long term growth of amateur
radio, not in making the most profit selling this year's magazines.  After
all,  QST would be more profitable if it were solid advertising (but, of
course, one can get that advertising informaton  by searching the web, so
why publish it in QST?)



"Gary J. Ferdinand" wrote:

> Dear Walt W0CP, Gary KI4LA and Dennis W4PWF,
>
> Gary, thank you for posting the remarks, which I'm attaching for
> completeness.  Like many active operators I subscribe to several e-mail
> reflectors on the Internet.  Some of you heard my not-completely-dissenting
> opinions regarding rumored proposed changes to QST. I write to you in that
> regard now.  For those of you who don't know me, I've been a League member
> since 1960ish, am actively operating on HF and VHF, with a moderate to
> strong interest in contesting and traffic operating.  Professionally, I am
> retired from a corporate management position at IBM.  Any biases I have are
> likely rooted in these things...
>
> First, a very loud THANK YOU to the Board for tabling the discussion and
> moving it to the July BOD meeting agenda.  Given the amount and force of the
> adverse input in my opinion you had no option but to listen to that part of
> the membership who cared so much.  But that's now old news.
>
> We now have some time to do this right.
>
> Yes, there is intended CRITICISM in that statement.
>
> While we League members certainly do vote our directors and vice directors
> into those positions, and to a very large extent entrust all League matters
> to them, I, for one, expect, indeed demand, that on items that involve
> significant change to established League constructs (be they QST content,
> major changes to contest/DXCC rules, etc.) that any major proposals to be
> acted upon at the BOD meeting first be aired with the membership so that you
> Directors get our input.
>
> This prior airing can easily be in the form of an electronic posting of the
> proposal to the ARRL web site. In this case the Admin/Finance Committee
> proposal in its entirety.  W0CP's prose in the attached is an example of
> what one of the biggest problems with the League is:  The expressed attitude
> that in this case "...the way the information got out ahead of the
> explanation...[W0CP]" was part of the problem.
>
> Excuse me?  I infer from that statement that W0CP feels that, had the
> proposal not gotten out ahead of the explanation, that the BOD would have
> approved it and once the explanation was published, all would be well.  That
> is a very presumptuous, arrogant attitude, Walt.  Perhaps I'm reading more
> into your statement than you intended.  But, the way this was handled, and
> some would assert the way the restructuring was handled, in no way engenders
> buy-in from the membership.  Rather, alienation is a closer description of
> the result.
>
> I would like to see the Board review its process.  Any changes such as the
> ones being debated should have been aired in front of the membership. If the
> reasons were sound and the proposals well-articulated, I'm sure the
> membership would provide positive feedback.  How about the Board take up an
> agenda item that directly impose a decision-making process that includes the
> membership?    As it was, the information was informal, rumors were flying,
> and the speculation was rampant.   It is very understandable why there were
> numerous statements of distrust thrown at the League.  You do the League no
> service when you manage in this manner.
>
> This is not the way a Board should behave.  Deal with the membership
> honestly and openly and we will have productive, fruitful discussions.  In
> this instance you all got exactly what your process deserved. You were
> perceived as acting without our counsel, proceeding down a path to present
> to us a fait-accompli.
>
> Please clean up your act.  When can we see the actual complete proposal, in
> detail, along with supporting facts?   Then, armed with fact instead of
> speculation, perhaps the membership can be part of the solution and we can
> work with you as a team.
>
> 73,
>
> Gary Ferdinand W2CS
> LM ARRL
> Apex, NC
>
> --
> CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com


--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com