[UK-CONTEST] HF CW Field Day / G0CKV

Thu Apr 19 13:46:25 PDT 2012

John

Well, I for one am prepared to help with the design
and operation of an open consultation process for the
operation of the CC and/or the rules for one or more
contests.

Stewart/G3YSX

On 19/04/2012 19:12, John Simkins g8iys wrote:
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>