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

[Lee Hiers]

On 3 Sep 2004 at 20:37, Bill Coleman wrote:

> 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.

Then get together!

> > 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.

No, we don't have anything like those clubs.  The reason is 
that they are all (even the MRRC) in much more densely-
populated areas, resulting in more hams, and more 
contestors.  Yes, we have been rocking along for 7 years, 
and doing well IMO.

> 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.

Not unless you can increase the population density as well. 
 If your definition of promoting contesting (as the purpose 
of SECC) is recruitment on non-contestors, I 
disagree...while I do like to see more potential QSOs 
available, that's not SECC's purpose.

> > 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.

Certainly not in my case.

> > 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.

Well, first I don't think there should be such a rule.  I'm 
all for keeping "dead wood" on the roster that may only 
submit a score once every three years.  That way their 
points go in the aggregate, otherwise we get nothing.  

If my career plans go as I hope, I will probably become 
dead wood myself, instead of the dying wood that I am now.  
If all goes well, I hope to be working most weekends, which 
will mean I will possibly miss even more contests than I do 
now.

> 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.

Again, recruitment isn't the purpose.  But if you want to 
get more out of it, go ahead and take the initiative, don't 
try to force it upon those of us who signed on based on the 
original intent.

73 de Lee


-- 
Lee Hiers, AA4GA
Cornelia, Georgia

"Have Dobro Will Travel"