[UK-CONTEST] Contest Committee vs UK-contest reflector

[Lee Volante]

Hi all,

What do we think having one or two committees means in practice for a
hobby organisation like the RSGBCC?   From the years when I was a
member of both of the separate committees, and then a single
committee, I'm sure it will come as no great surprise to say that
practically this meant that there were email lists for HF, VHF, and
for Common aspects of committee business. The merging of the
committees practically meant that all members received all of the
emails where previously they did not. These emails could still be
filtered, and only those members who wanted to, or needed to reply to
VHF or HF centric emails did so.  I didn't perceive any inefficiency
as a result of the single, larger committee - indeed potential cross
pollination of ideas and common good practice was one of the drivers
for the combination in the first place. Would UK contesters wish to
have a disparate experience in terms of the contest website, log
submission robot, certificates, adjudication timescales, and where
appropriate contest rules across the HF / VHF divide?  There are
certainly differences in the mindset and needs of HF and VHF
contesters and how they should be served by a contest programme, but
there are also many similarities.

So whilst I don't agree that separating the committee may help as I
don't see what significant practical benefits it would give, I agree
with Chris WOJ that there needs to be better communication. This was a
frequent topic in my Christmas / New Year emails over several years.

As Pete G4CLA said, the RSGB contest programme is very busy. Turning
the handle to run the programme and produce results appears to take up
the majority of the committee's time (at least it did during my stint)
which means that managing good PR, ensuring timely replies to queries,
maximising advertising opportunities, or even getting out and about to
meet clubs and contest groups throughout the year perhaps isn't as
good as it could be. I've said before and won't apologise for
repeating myself - the CC do a great job in managing the existing
contest programme. But this is often overshadowed by a lack of
resource to look at other aspects such as better communication,
strategy etc. that generates frustration reported on this list.

The suggestion that the programme should be cut down to help reduce
the workload didn't seem popular, but conversely new volunteers seem
thin on the ground.

When we were arguing about the new 80mCC rules in back in February, Ed
GW3SQX said on here regarding committee communication and interaction:
"We are aware that the consultation process is in need of improvement,
and will be working with the RSGB's Interim Board to find ways of
improving this in time for the Summer."

Well, we've had the Litmus Test, which is a good start, but for more
day to day matters and all of the other reasons that has made this
reflector such a disheartening read from time to time yet again this
year, I think we are still waiting for something more significant.

And so recently there has been a thread mentioning the committee forum
at the RSGB Convention. Although it's a rare chance for a face to face
meeting to discuss things of importance, we need a way to avoid this
annual 45 minute session being seen as the prime (or only?)
opportunity to do so.

Along the same lines, we never really cleared up what was going on
with the HF Championship results - EUSprint included or not?   Did we
resolve which BARTG contests we could use SCCs in?   Were all scores
from the disqualified entrant in the 80mCC's going to be removed?  The
list goes on...

73,

Lee G0MTN