[UK-CONTEST] HF CW Field Day / G0CKV

Thu Apr 19 11:12:34 PDT 2012

Following on from Don's remarks:

This also not an official response, but...

It is strange how much history shows that the the blindingly obvious 
solution is so often elusive. What follows might satisfy all in 
consequence of the preceding arguments regarding skill, accountability, 
independence, democracy etc etc of the CC.

I propose that the existing CC (excluding recently notified and 
anticipated resignations from that body), become the Tactical arm and 
that ALL contributors, say over the last 12 months (given proven RSGB 
membership), to this reflector become the Strategic arm - responsible 
for developing all RSGB contest policy, overall and individual contest 
rules, directing the Tactical arm and responding to all queries (other 
than the "how do I....) from customers.

Opt-outs, with reasons for doing so, from the Strategic arm would need 
to be published on this reflector.

That would leave the Tactical arm to get on with the business of the 
mechanics of executing adjudication against existing policy ie rules and 
software/human judgement processes which exist today - and where their 
proven skills and inclinations lie. In the fullness of time, the 
Tactical arm would follow the directives issued by the Strategic arm, 
when such directives have been developed.

The Strategic arm will need to convince the customers of their bon-fides 
before incorporation and set up their own communications structure, of 
course.

The Strategic arm will also be responsible for recruitment and vetting 
of persons applying for membership of the Tactical arm.

The Strategic arm will at all times be accountable to customers for CC 
decisions. All decisions/recommendations by the Tactical arm will be 
endorsed or referred back for reconsideration to the Tactical arm by the 
Strategic arm. A turnround time of 48 hours might be appropriate.

The Strategic arm will at all times be accountable to customers for 
furnishing explanations, developing a working process for dealing with 
appeals.  The Strategic arm shall be subject to election one year after 
incorporation and thereafter annually on the anniversary of that 
incorporation.

The Strategic arm will be responsible for developing a policy and 
process for selection/election to the tactical arm and produce a cost 
model to support this process.

Only a backbone proposal, of course and I was only able to spend 10 
minutes today developing it. Does anyone spot any weaknesses?

Vy73, John G8IYS.

On 19/04/12 09:28, Don Field wrote:
> Semantics Stewart. There used to be a divide between "correspondiong
> members" and "full members" of the committee. The latter attended meetings,
> the former did the backroom work. But as 99% is done by email now, it makes
> sense for everyone to be on the Committee reflector, as most of the
> correspondence is about things like "can you advise on how I put these
> results on the webpage" or other practical matters like that. Relatively
> little is about policy.
>
> As it happens, we already publish provisional results for the IOTA contest,
> with two weeks or so for appeals and have done for the past few years. But
> for some events (like the 80m CC events) it would be nonesense, as the idea
> is to turn the results around before the next month's event. Horses for
> courses.
>
> (The above is not an "official" committee reply - just my observation on
> what actually happens at the moment)
>
> Don G3XTT
>
> On 19 April 2012 08:17, Stewart Bryant<stewart at g3ysx.org.uk>  wrote:
>
>> Don
>>
>> However the committee do not NEED to be the adjudicators, they
>> only NEED to be the oversight body for the adjudicators.
>>
>> Ideally, the adjudicators should be picked from a larger
>> pool of volunteers. The participants should be excluded
>> from adjudicating a contest, and the logs and adjudication
>> report should be put in the public domain for two weeks
>> for scrutiny before the result is finalized.
>>
>> I am sure the pool of adjudication volunteers is much larger
>> than the pool of committee volunteers.
>>
>> I know that work in the past required wading through heaps
>> of paper, but we do not live in the past.
>>
>> Stewart/G3YSX
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 18/04/2012 17:16, Don Field wrote:
>>
>>> The Committee IS the adjudicators Stewart. In years gone by that's all
>>> they
>>> did (pretty much) - wading through heaps of paper logs was enough in
>>> itself. It's only since computers have made adjudication quicker (and more
>>> accurate, despite some recent postings on here) that there has been time
>>> for philosophical discussions of contesting policy - I guess it must have
>>> happened in the past but probably 50 years ago and then put to bed.
>>>
>>> Don G3XTT
>>>
>>> On 18 April 2012 15:52, Stewart Bryant<stewart at g3ysx.org.uk>   wrote:
>>>
>>>   More of the committee work should be done in the public domain
>>>> and not behind closed doors.
>>>>
>>>> There is no reason for a large ctte if the contest design happened
>>>> by consultation, and there is no reason why the adjudication pool
>>>> should come exclusively from the contest ctte.
>>>>
>>>> Stewart/G3YSX
>>>>
>>>> On 18/04/2012 10:45, Chris G3SJJ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Adrian, obviously there would need to be a vacancy created by someone
>>>>>
>>>> leaving the Contest Committee. The are currently 17 members covering VHF
>>>> and HF
>>>>
>>>>> events. I guess if one of them resigned, the position would be
>>>>>
>>>> advertised in RadCom, and/or on this Reflector.
>>>>
>>>>> In some ways you may be correct about "by invitation," in that if, say
>>>>>
>>>> for example, Q G3WRR left, they may want to look for an experienced CW FD
>>>>
>>>>> person to take over, or again if one of the VHF guys left the same could
>>>>>
>>>> apply.
>>>>
>>>>> Could I also suggest that sarcastic comments wouldn't particularly be
>>>>>
>>>> helpful in getting positively noticed to work in the team!
>>>>
>>>>> Chris G3SJJ  (Member of the former HFCC 1985-2000)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 17/04/2012 22:34, UK Contest wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have been waiting for news about SSB FD rules, and now take it that
>>>>>>
>>>>> this years event will use the previous rule set.
>>>>>> I can get on with planning my entry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Turning to Olof's comments, I agree with his observations and comments.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I hope that that they are noted !
>>>>>> By the way, I am still waiting to understand how people get onto the
>>>>>>
>>>>> RSGB HFCC. As far as I can make out its by invitation. Is this what Olof
>>>> means by " back room deals among a privileged inner circle" ?
>>>>
>>>>>> Who do I get th
>>>>>>
>>>>> e invite from then ?
>>>>>> 73
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adrian MW1LCR / GW9X
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>>>> UK-Contest mailing list
>>>>>> UK-Contest at contesting.com
>>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/uk-contest<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   ______________________________**_________________
>>>>> UK-Contest mailing list
>>>>> UK-Contest at contesting.com
>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/uk-contest<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>> UK-Contest mailing list
>>>> UK-Contest at contesting.com
>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/uk-contest<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest>
>>>>
>>>>   ______________________________**_________________
>>> UK-Contest mailing list
>>> UK-Contest at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/uk-contest<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest>
>>>
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>