INFO response: HELP

Swanson, Glenn, KB1GW
Tue, 28 Nov 95 11:07:00 EST

I'm forwarding this for Mike Tracy, KC1SX,  here at HQ -- per his request: 

 - - - - - - - - - -

(Taking a deep breath)

Lyndon, et. al.  Here is the complete and utter story:

1. In the October issue of QST, we printed an abbreviated version of the 
rules with (slightly flawed) instructions on obtaining the complete rules 
and entry forms from the email Info-Server.

2. In the November issue, we printed an article sidebar "The Top Ten 
Sweepstakes Questions--and their Answers" that had better information on 
obtaining the files.

3. The BARC archives are updated by me.  We do not have an automated system 
to do this, so that means that I have to FTP a 4 meg file to oakland 
whenever I do an update (about once every other month).

4. I have not been contacted regarding the organization of the archives - 
that is why they are still in the form that they are - because I have not 
received any suggestions to the effect that there was a problem.  I had in 
the past received a few complaints that folks did not know which directories 
to find files in, so I created the index.txt file (in the 
/pub3/hamradio/arrl/infoserver directory) that lists which files are in 
which directories (including the qst-binaries files) with descriptions.  I 
have not received any further questions since.

As I state at the end of the Info-Server help file and most of the other 
files from the Info-Server, if you have any questions, complaints or 
comments about this service, please direct them to me.

Best Regards, Michael Tracy, KC1SX, ARRL Technical Information Services
American Radio Relay League, Inc.     Tel: 1-860-594-0200
225 Main Street                       Fax: 1-860-594-0259
Newington, CT 06111                   Email: (internet)

> ----------
>From: Lyndon Nerenberg VE7TCP <>
>To: David Brian Ritchie
>Cc: dx; cq-contest
>Subject: Re: INFO response: HELP
>Date: Thursday, November 23, 1995 10:12PM
>Okay, I'm confused here.
>> According to who sent the enclosed, This is apparently
> >what they (the ARRL) want you to do to play in ARRL contests in the 
>> -- great if you are a big guns contester (I did have the rules that were
>> printed in QST which are quire different from the REAL rules, I read them
>> they clearly say:
>Are not the rules published in QST the real thing? I cannot see
>how anything else could be the case.
>[ lots of quoted text deleted ]
>> PPS:  I actually did what they said to do in QST which is"Sweepstakes
>> rules are available via Internet (send your request to
>>"  It took several days, much communication back and
>> forth, etc. before about 5 guys at the ARRL all sent me the information
>The ARRL folks are still, for the most part, Internet challenged.
>> The point is,
>> the system doesn't work, I don't want to see any announcement of the
>> contest printed in QST if it contains incorrect information, and if they
>> are going to print an announcement that  takes a full page and a quarter,
>> you would expect that they could put accurate rules in at least about 4
>> column inches of that announcement
>Again I'm curious. Are the rules printed in QST incorrect?
>Do the "internet" rules supersede what was printed in QST?
>This seems highly unlikely.
>> and if they
>> are going to print an announcement that  takes a full page and a quarter,
>> you would expect that they could put accurate rules in at least about 4
>> column inches of that announcement.  It is not a lot to ask, despite your
>>r ude response.
>Let he who is without sin ...
>Anyway, there are a couple of issues here. The first is to
>determine what constitutes the OFFICIAL rules. This is entirely
>up to the contest's organizing body. If it turns out the ARRL
>miscommunicated what constitutes the OFFICIAL rules then we
>have a problem. If, on the other hand, you misinterpreted their
>description of what constituted the OFFICIAL rules, well, ...
>To my mind, the rules
>published in the the organization's official publication take
>precedence over anything else you might read. If QST
>announcements (and the paperwork they send in the mail) don't
>state what is to considered the OFFICIAL rules, then the ARRL
>needs to clean up their act a bit.
>The second issue is the almost complete lack of awareness of
>the Internet exhibited by the ARRL (and CQ, and Wayne Green,
>and ...). I mirror the ARRL file archives. The archives are
>(apparently) only there because BARC volunteers maintain them.
>The material is not organized in any readily useful manner.
>Much of it is woefully out of date. I have contacted the ARRL
>on many occasions to discuss reorganizing and updating the
>archives. The response has been stunning silence. I get the
>feeling that NIH (not invented here) is their
>response to the Internet ...
> --lyndon

Administrative requests: