[UK-CONTEST] Some thoughts re RSGB Contest Committee process
Olof Lundberg
olof at rowanhouse.com
Tue Apr 17 13:32:57 PDT 2012
Here are some ideas for the committee's consideration as it hopefully takes
time out for serious soul-searching after the NFD fiasco.
1) Sit down and think through what standards you should uphold as a
committee. One would have thought that this was common sense but you have
violated common sense and you need an ethics policy. Publish these ethical
standards - they should be short and sweet. (RSGB might well already have a
set of generic ethical standards for all its activities.)
2) While you are at it also consider the overall objective with RSGB
contests. I assume that the overarching objectives might include stimulating
activity, attracting new participants to the hobby in general and contesting
in particular, enhancing operating standards and station-building skills and
ensuring that contest rules are modernized as technology and communication
practises evolve. Publish these objectives - they should also be brief and
simple. You may wish to have the RSGB Board endorse the objectives.
3) Before making any changes to rules but minor fine-tuning announce to
the community well in advance that you are going to consider some particular
rules. Invite comments and suggestions. Comments and suggestions you receive
should be public
4) Draft the rules keeping in mind the overall objectives you have set
out and publish the draft rules again inviting comments. These comments
should again be public.
5) Inviting comments doesn't mean that you will or should satisfy all
ideas and views. There will always be different opinions. Publish the new
rules at least a half year before the contest. Don't publish them if they
are not well considered and if you are not prepared to stand tall and proud
behind them. All your dealings should be open and transparent. There shall
be no more back-room deals among a privileged inner circle.
6) This is all common sense as far as I am concerned - no management
consultants, no new jargon or terminology or new process engineering is
required.
73 Olof G0CKV
More information about the UK-Contest
mailing list