[CQ-Contest] Non-assisted & Assisted
Pete Smith N4ZR
n4zr at contesting.com
Fri Jan 25 16:51:15 EST 2013
I know how League governance is arranged. What I don't understand is
why some things like this couldn't be delegated to a Board Committee.
Oh wait, I said that in my last e-mail.
My ARRL Director is totally unresponsive as far as I can tell - and I'm
far from the only Roanoke ARRL member who says so.
Lest this be construed as ARRL-bashing from the outside, I've been a
member and supporter continuously since 1954 or '55, and will continue
to be. I do think that gives me some right to ask *why* things are done
in a certain way and get an answer other than "because that's the way it
is."
73, Pete N4ZR
Check out the Reverse Beacon Network at
http://reversebeacon.net,
blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com.
For spots, please go to your favorite
ARC V6 or VE7CC DX cluster node.
On 1/25/2013 4:13 PM, Rick Lindquist, WW1ME wrote:
>
> No, but you now have asked Sean regarding board action on the proposed
> rules change, and he's a person who should know.
>
> I was simply explaining how League governance typically works, since
> you had asked "Why it requires a decision at that level." In my
> experience the board has voted by e-mail or teleconference on a few
> occasions, but this is the exception, and that wasn't the question you
> raised anyway. Your ARRL director or perhaps Pres Craigie or EVP Dave
> Sumner can address this governance issue far better than I could.
>
> But, I don't have a dog in this hunt.
>
> 73, Rick, WW1ME
>
> *From:*Pete Smith N4ZR [mailto:n4zr at contesting.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, January 25, 2013 3:54 PM
> *To:* Rick Lindquist, WW1ME
> *Cc:* CQ Contest; Kutzko, Sean, KX9X
> *Subject:* Re: [CQ-Contest] Non-assisted & Assisted
>
> Rick, I'm well aware of that, which is why I contacted Directors who
> contest, to try to get the issue before the Board. My question really
> goes to why the question has to wait for a semi-annual Board meeting,
> when a Board committee could vote on such minor matters by e-mail "as
> needed." You seem to be well patched in - do you know what they
> decided, if anything?
>
> On second thought, I'm copying Sean - he should know.
>
> 73, Pete N4ZR
> Check out the Reverse Beacon Network at
> http://reversebeacon.net,
> blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com.
> For spots, please go to your favorite
> ARC V6 or VE7CC DX cluster node.
>
> On 1/25/2013 12:00 PM, Rick Lindquist, WW1ME wrote:
>
> Pete, the CAC is what it says - "advisory." It's also comprised of
>
> volunteers. The CAC reports its findings and recommendations to the Board of
>
> Directors, and the board decides (or not). This puts the decision-making in
>
> the hands of individuals who have been elected by the ARRL membership.
>
>
>
> 73, Rick, WW1ME
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
>
> Pete Smith N4ZR
>
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 9:32 AM
>
> To:cq-contest at contesting.com <mailto:cq-contest at contesting.com>
>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Non-assisted & Assisted
>
>
>
> What Rich says is correct. I would just add that the ARRL 10 and 160
>
> contests are severely anachronistic in this respect. Nobody is suggesting
>
> that assistance be allowed for "pure" single-ops, but surely there should be
>
> a SOA category in these contests. That there is not dates back to the
>
> earliest days of DX clusters. To my knowledge, nobody has advanced a reason
>
> for keeping the status quo.
>
>
>
> I have been in correspondence with the CAC and various directors about this,
>
> and one told me that action might be taken in the January ARRL Board
>
> meeting, which has just taken place. Why it requires a decision at that
>
> level is beyond me, but that's what we have. Now waiting for detailed
>
> minutes to learn what, if anything, was done.
>
>
>
> 73, Pete N4ZR
>
> Check out the Reverse Beacon Network at
>
> http://reversebeacon.net,
>
> blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com.
>
> For spots, please go to your favorite
>
> ARC V6 or VE7CC DX cluster node.
>
>
>
> On 1/25/2013 8:51 AM, Richard DiDonna NN3W wrote:
>
> Usually if it says nothing, the assumption is that you must classify
>
> yourself as multi-single as the single operator rules have language about
>
> the -operator- doing all of the activity.
>
>
>
> ARRL 160 and ARRL 10 do not have separate assisted categories -
>
> necessitating that assisted ops enter as multi single entries.
>
>
>
> 73 Rich NN3W
>
>
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone
>
>
>
> ----- Reply message -----
>
> From:Ktfrog007 at aol.com <mailto:Ktfrog007 at aol.com>
>
> Date: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 7:30 am
>
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Non-assisted & Assisted
>
> To:<cq-contest at contesting.com> <mailto:cq-contest at contesting.com>
>
>
>
> If a contest's rules say nothing about Assisted operation, does that
>
> mean it's allowed without restriction?
>
>
>
> Note that Single-Op has no uniform definition. For example, in the
>
> ARRL RTTY Roundup, Single-Ops cannot be Assisted, while in the CQ WPX
>
> RTTY everyone can operate Assisted.
>
>
>
> 73,
>
> Kermit (Ken) AB1J
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> CQ-Contest mailing list
>
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> CQ-Contest mailing list
>
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> CQ-Contest mailing list
>
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>
>
>
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list