A long post about the SECC...was: Re: [SECC]

[Bill Coleman]

On Sep 2, 2004, at 8:20 PM, Lee Hiers wrote:

> I remember discussing it with W4AN and W4WA before we ever started
> the club.  None of us were interested in any of the political BS that
> comes with most clubs.  None of us wanted regular meetings at all.
> The whole thing was designed to take place right here on the
> reflector.  The reflector was considered to be a continuous virtual
> meeting.
>
> You've got a question or need some help, ask here on the reflector.
> Contest coming up and we need some ra-ra...do it here on the
> reflector.  You're gonna be in Huntsville for a couple days and want
> to get together and go out for a beer with some other SECCers - talk
> it up on the reflector.

I don't disagree with any of this. But interacting only on the 
reflector has made many members feel disconnected and distant. 
Face-to-face activities would make us feel more connected.

> The sole reason for starting a club was to have a regional
> organization for which we could report scores in club competition.

And the SECC does make a significant showing in these contests. If we 
had a bit more cohesiveness, we could probably do even better.

> This area of the country has never had anything like PVRC, FRC, MRRC,
> etc. - and never will - because there just aren't that many serious
> contesters located in a dense area that would support that.

SECC has been going for just over 7 years. I wouldn't say we 'never 
will' when we've been doing it for a while now.

> Anyway, when Rick moved to GA, he realized that the SEDXC wasn't
> going to cut it as a contest club (I think his experience may have
> been a bit more intense than mine) so, he started the Dixie DXers - a
> contest club.  I have never seen anyone put as much energy in trying
> to get a contest club going as Rick did.  He came from the FRC, and
> was super gung-ho about it.  It lasted for a few years, but
> ultimately failed, I believe partially because Rick was really the
> only one pushing that club, but mostly because there just isn't a
> high enough density of contesters in the area to support a
> "traditional" club.

The purpose of the SECC is to promote contesting. We're not just 
supposed to report scores, we're supposed to actively recruit and 
create new contesters. That's how we get sufficient density to support 
a 'traditional' club.

> Now that the ARRL no longer has a 2-meetings per year requirement,
> there is no need for the SECC to have ANY in-person official meetings
> AT ALL.

There's no ARRL requirement, but there may be a human requirement.

> The final item you mentioned: score submission is the only thing that
> should really be addressed.  If one hasn't submitted two scores per
> year in contests with club competition, they should be removed from
> the roster...but I'd personally like to see that changed.  If I only
> operated one contest a year or every other year, I'd still like to
> have a place to submit my score.  But as it stands, two entries per
> year are required.

There's two things here, Lee. First, submitting two scores is loosely 
interpreted. Being on an NAQP or Sprint team counts.

Second, I don't know how to keep track of who submits what. For ARRL 
contests, I can download the results, perhaps. But what about other 
contests? And trying to map these results back to the roster isn't 
easy, either.

> If you want a social, active club, this isn't it because it wasn't
> designed to be.  I suppose you could try to change it into one, but
> suspect you'd have the same trouble NQ4I had with the Dixie DXers.
> I, for one, would hate to see that happen, but things change.
>
> But the SECC isn't broke and doesn't need fixing.

Lee, I don't think the SECC is "broke", but I do think many of us could 
get more out of it. And we could fulfill our purpose of promoting and 
recruiting contesters.
>
Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL        Mail: aa4lr at arrl.net
Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
             -- Wilbur Wright, 1901