[CQ-Contest] Link to proposed changes to ARRL DX

[Bob Naumann]

Rich,

While we can have respect for the effort the CAC makes, they literally have
no ability to do anything other than to advise the BoD (and appointed
committees).

Their internal discussions are completely meaningless, and quite frankly
should not be made public. 

The "journalist" that published these discussions has a tendency to publish
preliminary discussions and comments that have nothing to do with what the
ultimate outcome may be in order to stir up controversy and get people
reading his publication to find out what it's all about.

Again, I suggest we all re-read and heed what Dick Green, the CAC chairman
said.

So, until they discuss all the possibilities, and determine what will be in
their recommendation - it is premature, just like the CAC chairman said, to
comment on or be concerned with any of this.

Personally, I think they should leave the ARRL DX alone. Some of us are old
enough to remember the last time they screwed around with it and they
quickly put it back because it was a disaster.

The ARRL DX contest is just different. Different is not bad.

73,

Bob W5OV



-----Original Message-----
From: Richard DiDonna NN3W [mailto:richnn3w at verizon.net] 
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 3:35 PM
To: Bob Naumann; 'cq-contest'
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Link to proposed changes to ARRL DX

I think there is more to it than you give credit for. The CAC undertook the 
proposal because the ARRL because the ARRL Program Services Committee told 
them to do so.

73 Rich NN3W

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Naumann" <W5OV at W5OV.COM>
To: "'cq-contest'" <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Link to proposed changes to ARRL DX


> As we've seen in the past, and once again here, you can't always believe
> what you read or have heard about.
>
> Even in the article, quoting CAC Chairman, Dick Green, WC1M, it says:
>
> (Quote)
> "Sounds like the rumor mill is way ahead of the actual facts!" Green told
> radio-sport.net this past weekend.
>
> "At the moment we happen to be looking at ARRL DX rules, and our members
> have had discussions with various contesters about them. That's probably 
> the
> source of the rumors," Green said, as he downplayed the idea of imminent
> rules changes.
>
> "If you were to ask me, "Will there be rule changes in ARRL DX rules
> sometime in the future?", I would honestly have to answer, "I don't know 
> and
> I couldn't even predict the odds," Green told radio-sport.net.
> (End Quote)
>
> So, this is nothing more than a report of a discussion - there is no rule
> change planned, recommended, or pending.
>
> And, lest we forget, the CAC has *no power* to make any changes. They are 
> an
> advisory body to the ARRL BoD only. The Board would have to rule on any
> proposed changes - should they decide to.
>
> So, for the time being all of the angst about this discussion is truly a
> waste of energy and bandwidth.
>
> 73,
>
> Bob W5OV
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim Monahan
> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 7:18 AM
> To: cq-contest
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Link to proposed changes to ARRL DX
>
>
http://www.radio-sport.net/arrldx_rules.htm<http://www.radio-sport.net/arrld
> x_rules.htm>
>
> Jim, K1PX
>
> K1PX at msn.com
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest