[CQ-Contest] What the ARRL Board did

[Roland A. Anders]

Someone pointed out I didn't give my call.  Wasn't trying to be anonymous.
de Rol,  K3RA

"Roland A. Anders" wrote:

> 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