[UK-CONTEST] Websites and all that

[Don Field]

I see that Ray, once again, chooses wilfully to misrepresent what I have
said.



We are listening and, indeed, when I said on here previously that I would
like input direct when you have specific concerns, it was simply that it is
easy to be overloaded by chat on the various reflectors and fail to pick up
the end-points of specific discussions. I was also concerned that we also
heard from the silent majority, not just the vocal “frequent posters”.



But in the post Ray is referring to, where I said “don’t hold your breath” I
was very specifically referring to a revamp of the website structure which,
I had pointed out, was a significant piece of work which, if paid for, would
cost a lot of money and which, done on a volunteer basis, was unlikely to
happen anytime soon.



And no, I don’t assume every criticism is “sniping” – volunteers welcome
constructive feedback, the pointing out of clear errors, etc. But some of
what I see on the various amateur radio reflectors goes way beyond that –
Internet postings come cheap but the silent majority can easily start to
assume there is no smoke without fire and that there must be some truth in
some of the quite erroneous things that are said.



I won’t revert to Ray’s myriad postings about VHF contest rules. I take a
lead from the VHF members of my Committee on that one and we have stuck with
what we have, for better or worse. We posted a clear summary on here earlier
this year of our discussions and conclusions for the RSGB contest programme.




What I take as good news is that you all feel strongly enough about RSGB
contests to make these points. After all, RSGB has no monopoly of UK
contesting. UKSMG, BARTG and PW all run contests and ISWL used to. If there
are perceived gaps in the programme, particularly at VHF, I would be quite
comfortable with others stepping into the breach. But as a Committee we are
already heavily loaded. My own priorities when I took on direct running of
the Committee were to sort out the logistics – contest turnaround, rapid
publication of results, certificates, etc. I believe we have gone a long way
towards this, as well as some great improvements in the submission and
adjudication of logs due to web and software developments. We do have a
programme of further development in place but it cannot happen overnight
(even multi-billion pound government software programmes get delayed or have
overruns!).



I will step down as Chairman of the CC at the end of this year and, in
accordance with RSGB regulations, the post will be advertised in RadCom. We
can all hope that a suitable successor steps forward. Personally, I loathe
Committee work in general, but there was a job to be done. I wish my
successor well.



Don G3XTT (currently suffering an agonising toothache!)


2009/6/28 Ray James <gm4cxm at yahoo.co.uk>

>
>
>
> --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Don Field <don.field at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Running RSGB contests costs about 10p per member per year.
> It only happens because of voluntary effort (and frankly, with some
> > of the sniping which I see on here, I wonder that anyone volunteers when
> > they could be contesting or spending time with their families).
> > So, to go back to the beginning. If you find obvious broken
> > links, let someone know. On other matters, don’t hold your breath.
>
> I understood this thread to be about the websites and their links.
> I can usually find what I'm looking for without too much of a problem so it
> was of little concern.
> Don now includes non-website thread discussions into the equation regarding
> comments on volunteer efforts so I'm sure I will not be incorrect in
> assuming this includes myself and others whose main interest lies in matters
> of VHF+ contesting and who have discussed and/or made suggestions here.
> Therefore, his "On other matters, don’t hold your breath" statement says it
> all. We're not listening and we're not interested in any suggestions.
>
> I value all the volunteer work that members of the society do, and have
> done some myself in the past, but that doesn't mean putting them all on a
> pedestal of praise and giving a blanket seal of approval for each and every
> one and every decision they make on members behalf as some who gladly follow
> a blind faith principal do. If I feel they're doing a good job I'll say so
> or like the majority, say nothing and just accept that a task is in good
> experienced hands. If however the opposite occurs and certainly in some (not
> all) aspects of the Contest Committee that decisions are found wanting then
> as RSGB members, we're entitled to raise concerns.
>
> Call it sniping if you so desire Don but if you and your committee were
> generating rules and sections in VHF+ contests that put the needs of the UK
> first rather than the majority of locations pissing against a south east
> wind, was inclusive to the need of attracting greater foundation and
> intermediate presence, was helping to inspire greater whole UK activity on
> VHF+ and finally acknowledging that those that use current technology are
> not cheating but that you go after individuals that do rather than handcuff
> us all, then I for one would have nothing to complain about.
> We can't afford blind faith. We can't afford friendship, DX group
> membership, Contest or Expedition group membership or any type of old pals
> act to get in the way of understanding we have a VHF+ problem and it's not
> going to go away until those in a position to make change take positive
> steps to do so. When, not if we start losing UHF and microwave bands because
> of lack of our secondary use, you and your committee as well as the VHF and
> Microwave managers will share much of the blame for not being more
> pro-active in averting such loss when you had the chance.
>
> 73 Ray GM4CXM
>
>
>
>