I am surprised to hear that a plan to to cover those
who are not able to read the web site now exists.
The last I heard, the plan to circulate Section News
via postcards had been abandoned.
Jay, can you fill us in on the new plan?
73. Jim, W6CF
walstrom(a)mchsi.com wrote:
> As I said at the June VRC meeting, my main concern with
> the proposal to move Section News from QST to the web
> site was that I did not want to see anyone left behind.
> It had been my opinion prior to the meeting that there
> was a plan in place to cover those who were not able to
> get to the web site or still wanted to receive Section
> News by mail to continue to do so. The word at the VRC
> meeting was that there was no such plan, but in a
> subsequent conversation with Jay Bellows I was told there
> indeed was such a plan. How economic the plan is I do
> not know. If I interpret Jim's numbers correctly, a
> range of 3476 to 7148 members could be interested in this
> alternate source for Section News. If we can cover this
> range, I don't see anyone being left behind. I do not
> see a fatal flaw existing here.
>
> Section News has been a popular feature in QST because
> for a long, long time, it was the only way of getting
> news from the sections to the members in those sections.
> Despite the built in publication delay, the limited
> space, and spartan format, it was the best we had. That
> is no longer the case with the inception of the internet.
> The selling points I have given to the Midwest Division
> members for moving Section News to the web is,
> potentially, at least, you can get Section News faster,
> get more of it, and with pictures and other format
> enhancements than you can with what is printed in QST
> currently. Those who chose the alternate source will
> also get Section News faster as well.
>
> At the June meeting I shared a draft motion I had
> prepared for the January 2002 Board Meeting that was
> designed grant the web site equal official status with
> QST. When I e-mailed the draft text to the VRC Dave
> Sumner correctly pointed out that this is really a change
> to the by-laws. Beyond the comments made in St. Louis I
> only had comments from Dave and Bill on the draft. My
> intent was to grant equal status to the web site with
> that which QST currently is granted and not diminish the
> status of QST. If there is a way to enhance the language
> to show that QST does not appear to lose any prestige as
> the official journal by granting equal status to the web
> site, I am all ears.
>
> One thing I would still like to see is a way of adding
> the web version of Section News to the CD ROM compendium
> with QST, NCJ, and QEX. If space is an issue on the CD
> ROM, perhaps we should consider dropping NCJ and/or QEX
> or adding a second CD.
>
> I am puzzled how the proposal to move Section News from
> QST to the web can be interpretted as a lack of support
> for the field organization. Frankly, I thought the well
> intentioned changes to the rules and regs that VRC
> proposed and the board passed in January contributed to
> the resignation. If we do not plan to fix those for fear
> of losing face with the rest of the Board, we need to be
> prepared to take heat from the field.
>
> Technology has changed. We have an improved way to get
> news out to the members via the internet.
>
> Times have changed, too. Unfortunately, for some of our
> membership, they will never realize that. I have
> some of those in the Midwest Division. Do we have
> to wait for all of them?
>
> 73,
>
> Wade W0EJ/VE3
> > Ladies and Gentlemen:
> >
> > Other than brief comments in late May by Jay Bellows, George Race, and
> > myself, (ODV:7222, 7225, and 7227) nothing has been written recently on
> > ODV regarding the proposed shift of Section News from QST to the web.
> > With this posting I hope to stimulate more discussion on the subject
> > prior to the July Board meeting. In this note I will discuss the
> > Section News issue only, even though there is linkage between the
> > Section News proposal and the proposal to move contest line scores to
> > the web.
> >
> > First I'll present some observations. These are primarily personal
> > observations, with some influence from discussions I've had with a
> > number of individuals, including SMs. Some of those I've talked with
> > are from outside the Pacific Division. I've ended this email with
> > conclusions and recommendations.
> >
> > Observations
> >
> > 1) The proposal to remove Section News from QST has one fatal flaw, in
> > my opinion. That is, no economical mechanism has been found thus far to
> > provide Section News to those having no web access. The number of
> > persons who would lose access to Section News is substantial: According
> > to the READEX survey conducted in late 2000, 89% +/-3.6% (95% confidence
> > level) of ARRL members have Internet access, which has been taken by
> > some to be equivalent to web access. Therefore, according to the READEX
> > survey some 11,360 to 23,360 ARRL members do not have access to the web
> > and would therefore have no access to Section News if the proposal is
> > implemented. (There is reason to believe that the numbers should be
> > higher, but that's a different subject which I'll not cover here.) I
> > cannot, in good conscience, vote for a proposal that will take from so
> > many members a feature that has had a successful run of over 75 years.
> > I will certainly listen to reason, but the information supplied to the
> > Board thus far is not convincing.
> >
> > 2) Readership of Section News, according to the 2000 READEX survey, is
> > around 27% (also with a margin of error), certainly not high, but not
> > the lowest of the survey. It may be that the web will *increase*
> > readership of Section News. Such an argument was given last January by
> > Dave Sumner in ODV:6620. He wrote, in part, "Thinking positively, by
> > using the electronic medium more effectively, we should be able to
> > increase the number of members who read their Section News 'often' or
> > more frequently to something more than 27%, even if we start out only
> > being able to reach 89% of them." Perhaps Dave's optimism is
> > justified. If it is, it can be proven by providing the service on both
> > the web and in QST, then following up in time with analysis. Even so,
> > an increase in overall readership will give no solace to those many
> > thousands of members who will find themselves out in the proverbial left
> > field. I don't believe it's proper to obtain that increase over the
> > bodies of some 11,000 to 23,000 members who are taken out of the loop
> > entirely.
> >
> > 3) Even if it were not for the fatal flaw mentioned above, I do not
> > believe that the matter has been studied adequately. The amendment to
> > Minute 41 of the January Board meeting stated, in its final paragraph,
> > "WHEREAS, deferring the decision to relocate Section News and Contest
> > Result line scores will afford an opportunity to evaluate variations and
> > alternatives to the proposal." I've been waiting for "variations and
> > alternatives" to be presented to the Board, but none have been
> > forthcoming, thus far. There has been no significant coverage on the
> > subject since the January Board meeting. Of course, variations and
> > alternatives may be in preparation even as I write. If so, I urge the
> > writers to get their material out soon. I submit that last minute
> > coverage of variations and alternatives will not satisfy the requirement
> > of Minute 41, for it will present the Board with information, but with
> > insufficient time to understand, discuss, and evaluate that information
> > prior to our July meeting.
> >
> > 4) The purpose of the recommendation to move Section News from QST,
> > according to the 2002 Proposed Plan, page 25, is to maintain "a balanced
> > magazine that favors the sections that readers like most (technical and
> > nontechnical feature articles, simple projects and articles, Product
> > Review and certain columns) while adjusting the frequency and page count
> > of special-interest columns according to readership." Section News is
> > under the gun, in part, because only 27% of our members read it "Almost
> > Always/Often." How should popularity be balanced against other needs
> > and desires of the membership and of the organization? That's a
> > difficult question, of course, with no clear cut answer. For one point
> > of view, consider the comments made last January by Rod Stafford in
> > ODV:6626: "If you look at the cover of QST it states, 'Official Journal
> > of ARRL The National Association for AMATEUR RADIO.' A lot about our
> > organization can be learned by reading that publication. Not just
> > articles about operating, or building components, or a DXpedition or
> > even Ads. You learn about what our organization is doing on behalf of
> > amateur radio, what we're interested in, and what our members are
> > interested in and doing, etc. by reading through our flagship
> > publication. Every time you take a part of our organization OUT of QST,
> > I think you diminish it as THE monthly journal of our organization. As
> > the JOURNAL of our organization I think we ought to cover as much of
> > what our organization does and what our organization is about in our
> > main publication." I agree with Rod. As we move membership content to
> > the web, QST moves away from being a membership journal, and instead
> > moves in the direction of being just another CQ Magazine. Further, our
> > approach to this Section News issue has been interpreted by some as a
> > lack of support by ARRL staff and the Board for its own field
> > organization. I know of one Section Manager who resigned, in part as a
> > protest to what he saw as such a lack of support. One other SM, one of
> > our very best, has become so disillusioned that he does not plan to run
> > for office again.
> >
> > 5) Do only 27% (or, 43,200 members) read Section News almost always or
> > often because 73% of members don't particularly care? Perhaps so, but
> > perhaps it could be due, at least in part, to the fact that Section News
> > is the most unattractive column in QST, and surely the most difficult to
> > find and read: The first page is always a complete page, but the
> > remaining five are generally broken into 8 or more one or two column
> > fragments. They meander through advertising at the rear of the
> > magazine. The reader isn't even helped with "Continued on page xx"
> > hints. Section News is printed in six point type, the size type
> > generally reserved for the fine print in automobile sales contracts and
> > in disclaimers for health care nostrums. Six point type may work for
> > mice, but they really aren't suitable for humans. On the other hand,
> > consider how some of our brethren handle their local news. The RSGB
> > (Britain) publishes RadCom each month. Issues average about 100 pages,
> > three of which contain nicely composed local news. The column is
> > contained on successive pages, includes photographs, and mouse type is
> > not used. The DARC's (Germany) CQ-DL also runs about 100 pages per
> > month, but finds space in each issue for about four pages of local news,
> > also nicely laid out, with photos. RAC (Canada) has had problems in
> > recent years even turning out a magazine. They've had to drop back to
> > bi-monthly, and generally run only 80 or so pages in each issue. Yet
> > they consider their Section News (same name as ours, a holdover from
> > when they were part of ARRL) so important that they find room for four
> > pages in each issue. Now, I certainly don't suggest that QST must carry
> > a local news column just because RSGB or DARC or RAC carries one. I
> > also concede that the size and structure of our organizations differ.
> > Still, could it be that we've overlooked something? Should we slow down
> > and ask ourselves whether or not we are missing something in our
> > headlong rush to move QST content to the web?
> >
> > Conclusions and recommendations
> >
> > I conclude from the observations above, that we are not ready to remove
> > Section News from QST. I believe we should delay implementation
> > indefinitely, until additional studies are completed. For starters, I
> > suggest
> >
> > 1. We should continue to investigate other approaches to publishing
> > Section News and managing the page count of QST. These should include
> > additional approaches similar to those discussed in ODV:6620, but should
> > also include the possibility of restructuring Section News to make it
> > more attractive and useful to members.
> >
> > 2. Whatever technique we eventually use for publishing Section News (or
> > some similar column), it should provide economical, convenient access to
> > our *entire* membership.
> >
> > 3. While the studies are being conducted, Section News should continue
> > to be published both on the web and in QST.
> >
> > 73. Jim, W6CF
