[UK-CONTEST] HF CW Field Day / G0CKV

Thu Apr 19 15:40:51 PDT 2012

I am sure your offer will be found very welcome Stewart and I hope it 
will be taken up in the near future. There is no point in directing it 
to me, however. I am just a worker and not a spokesperson for the CC, as 
I explained in the second line of my preamble. Nevertheless, I think it 
is great start and I hope others will feel moved to volunteer too, or 
furnish explanations here why they are unwilling to do so.

73. John G8IYS.

On 19/04/12 21:46, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>