[TOEC] Fw: SAC rules, discussion proposal

[Jan-Eric Rehn - SM3CER - 7S3A]

Hej!

Jag vet inte om jag gör någonting dumt nu, genom att
publicera detta e-mail jag fick tidigare idag från
Jukka, OH6LI (SRAL:s nye Contest Manager), men jag
är ganska van nu att "få på moppo", när jag "lägger
mig i" saker som jag är intresserad av...

Det är dock precis dessa frågor man diskuterar öppet
på CCF:s reflektor och som är grunden för enkäten jag
skickade tidigt i morse.

Mailet visar också att OH6LI skickat detta redan för
en vecka sedan till de övriga tre Contest Managers i
Skandinavien (vilka utgör SAC Contest Committee).

Jag förstår inte varför SM7NDX undanhållit oss denna
information...???

73 de Janne

----------------------------------------------------
Jan-Eric Rehn - SM3CER - Contest call: 7S3A
E-mail: sm3cer@contesting.com - ICQ: 11074897
SM3CER Contest Service: http://www.sk3bg.se/contest/
SK3BG Web Site: http://www.sk3bg.se/
Also QRV in MS or MM from: SI9AM - SK3IK - SL3ZV
K6U at WRTC-96 / Referee at WRTC-2000 and WRTC-2002
----------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message -----
From: <jukka.klemola@nokia.com>
To: <jan-eric.rehn@telia.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 6:33 AM
Subject: FW: SAC rules, discussion proposal


> Mail I sent to Nordic contest managers.
>
> 73
> jukka
>
> >  -----Original Message-----
> > From: Klemola Jukka (NMP/Salo)
> > Sent: 09 October, 2002 23:30
> > To: oz5wq@contesting.com; janalme@online.no; sm7ndx@svessa.se
> > Cc: OH2BCI Raimo (E-mail)
> > Subject: SAC rules, discussion proposal
> >
> > Dear Colleagues,
> >
> > I am Jukka Klemola, OH6LI, SRAL Contest Manager for
> > international contesting.
> >
> > In the last NRAU meeting it was agreed once again, that we - Contest
> > Managers of SRAL, EDR, NRRL and SSA - can change the SAC
> > rules if we can
> > agree on the changes.
> > The NRAU meeting also decided on the official wording of the current
> > SAC rules.
> > I guess you all have received your version through your NRAU meeting
> > representative.
> > I can send you the current rules if you would like to have
> > the dicument.
> >
> >
> > An change decision means, that we are all in a favour of a particular
> > change. If anyone of us has a strong opposing opinion, we
> > will not implement
> > the change in question.
> >
> > The NRAU meeting set us a timeline of end of this year to be
> > ready with the
> > changes for the 2003 SAC Contest, which will be hosted by SRAL.
> > So in practise we have some 10 weeks to discuss the possible changes,
> > if you agree to discuss this.
> >
> > Please respond to me that you have read the mail and whether
> > you agree to
> > discuss the changes or if you would rather leave the things
> > as they are,
> > no matter what the proposal is.
> >
> >
> > 73,
> > Jukka
> >
> >
> > PS.
> > I enclose here an overview of a schedule proposal I made and a list
> > of issues we  have on the table now.
> >
> > SRAL President Jari, OH2BU, was participating the NRAU meeting and
> > introduced the SRAL part of the meeting for SAC issues.
> > Combining the SAC
> > CW and SSB portions to a one weekend mixed (CW, SSB, mixed)
> > SAC Contest
> > was discussed at NRAU meeting, and I personally was in favour
> > of that.
> >
> > However, now in a wider internal discussion between SRAL
> > members interested
> > in HF contesting  the preliminary vote shows a close to 50-50
> > result on
> > the subject, so we are not going to propose that change, but we do not
> > have a strong opinion.
> > After a brief discussion the understanding became to be that
> > in SAC we would
> > make less total QSOs if we would heve only one weekend. Less
> > QSOs is less fun.
> >
> > But we would like to hear, of course, your opinions on this
> > subject, too.
> >
> >
> > The question of the weekend issue initiated a number of other
> > proposals
> > from SRAL members.
> > Here is the first draft of items for your review & discussion:
> >
> > 1) Scandinavians work each other, one point per QSO
> > 2) Scandinavian countries count as multipliers
> > 3) Faulty QSO, what are the effects, do we introduce loosing
> > the QSO points
> > or do we go further with 'penalty points' like CQWW
> >   - this means that we would need to introduce real log checking
> >       Standpoints vary from loosing points for the receiving
> > station only
> >       but not multiplier loosing to
> >       3xQSo point loss plus transmitting station loosing the
> > QSO points,
> >       including if the QSO was a mult, losing the mult
> > 4) Supporting electronic logs openly
> > 5) Supporting email logs
> > 6) Supporting Cabrillo
> >    -there is a SW made in Sweden by CER and EZT and we have
> > agreed to get
> >     details after the SW is seen to be functional
> >    -updating / using the SW should be discussed between all
> > of us, CER & EZT
> >     likely are the best people for that
> > 7) Allowing packet/internet multiplier spotting to be used.
> >          This is probably the trickiest of the proposals
> >          We seem to have a substantial majority on changing
> > that subject.
> >
> >
> > Schedule proposal:
> >
> > Second draft of SRAL proposal will be available by 15th October.
> > SRAL "nearly final proposal" is available by 31st October.
> >
> >
> >
> > If the contest group discussions at SRAL annual meeting mid-November
> > brings any adjustments, I will inform you about them right away.
> >