July 2003 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[ARRL-ODV:9014] Re: Notice of Second Meeting
by Joel Harrison 05 Jul '03

05 Jul '03

Dave, Are we actually having a "Group" breakfast as indicated below?? Just curious. Joel -----Original Message----- From: david.sumner(a)ties.itu.int [mailto:david.sumner@ties.itu.int] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 2:50 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:8945] Notice of Second Meeting No. 2191-N July 2, 2003 NOTICE OF SECOND MEETING ALL DIRECTORS: In compliance with the requirements of the Articles of Association and the relevant provisions of the Bylaws, the 2003 Second Meeting of the Board of Directors of The American Radio Relay League, Incorporated, is hereby called for 8:30 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Friday, July 18, 2003, at the Windsor/Hartford Airport Marriott, 28 Day Hill Rd., Windsor, Connecticut. Arrangements have been made for a group dinner on the Thursday evening preceding: attitude adjustment at 5:30 P.M. and dinner at 6:00 P.M. Other group meals are Friday and Saturday breakfast and lunch, and Friday dinner. We expect the meeting will conclude by dinnertime on Saturday. Honorary vice presidents, directors emeritus, past presidents, and past directors are invited to attend in observer status at personal expense. Vice directors are authorized to attend with expenses charged to the Board Meeting account. Cash advances are available upon request for those traveling at League expense. Transportation from and to Bradley International Airport will be provided by Marriott. There is a Marriott courtesy phone located in the baggage claim area. An accommodation form is enclosed; please return the form or respond by email as soon as possible to Lisa Kustosik, KA1UFZ, at HQ. Accompanying spouses are invited to attend breakfast and dinner with the Board family. The tentative agenda for the meeting is attached to this letter. The only planned proposal for amendment of the Articles of Association or Bylaws was sent to officers and directors on June 3. It is requested that insofar as possible, motions to be submitted at the meeting be prepared in advance in writing so that a copy can be handed to the Secretary at the time of presentation. It is important that the motion as handed to the Secretary be the same as that submitted for Board consideration. While we will have word-processing and duplicating capability at the meeting site, this should not replace advance preparation. If you wish to have a proposed motion circulated in advance, either send it to me as soon as possible or post it on the Boards electronic remailer. Please also note Standing Order 30: Each Director offering a motion requiring the expenditure of funds for implementation shall include with the motion his [or her] estimate of the costs involved and the suggested method of funding those costs. Sincerely, David Sumner, K1ZZ Secretary

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9013] Re: Polls
by John Bellows 05 Jul '03

05 Jul '03

Tuck ably states one side of a debate that has been going on as long as there have political systems with elected representatives. That debates is: Are representatives elected to vote the desires of the majority of their constituents? OR Are representatives elected to inform themselves of the issues, and then exercise their best judgment when voting on matters that come before the representative body? My problem with counting heads is that without a formal ballot sent to every member in the Division I never know if I have an accurate count of the members or just the most vocal members. Clearly it is crucial to listen to members opinions as part of coming to your (my) best judgment. My belief is that I was elected to exercise my best judgment. Perhaps I might feel differently if the Dakota Division had a history of spirited elections and frequent turnover. I hope not, but...... In any event, I am suspicious of self-selected surveys. If we were to use the ARRL Web survey how would we determine how many of the voters were from each Division? One more thing, how would we limit the survey participants were ARRL members? If anyone, member or non-member can vote how would such a survey be helpful in determining the desires of the ARRL members of any particular Division? No matter how you come down on the question it is a perfect issue to discuss on the Fourth of July. 73, Jay, K0QB

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9012] Re: Polls ... let's try again
by Tuck Miller NZ6T 05 Jul '03

05 Jul '03

Ignore what a poll would tell us??? Excuse me if I am a bit confused, but are we not elected by the members to represent their views, regardless of what our personal thoughts might be? I see our jobs similar to that as an elected representative to any of our legislative bodies. You take the position of what ever the majority of your constituents want. That is why they elect you, to represent their views, not our own personal beliefs. Maybe I am too naive. Isn't that the way it is supposed to be? To be quite honest, I really do not know how many members feel one way or the other. Seems to be a mixed bag of emotions. I have heard many comments on both side of the fence, however, if I were to make a conclusion on what I have heard, it would be to delete, not retain the code. A poll might give us a bit more insight. It could be very simply stated as Jim H stated in an earlier post. 73, Tuck NZ6T Kay Craigie wrote: >(I hit the wrong key before and sent this with a few words dropped out. >Sorry!) > >I have heard lawyers say they don't ask a witness in court a question unless >they already know what the answer is. The same might be said about opinion >polling, whether the sample is statisically valid or self-selected. If you >aren't sure that the answer is going to agree with what you believe is the >right thing to do, maybe it's better not to ask the question. > >Asking members for their input on our web page is one thing if most >Directors have not made up their minds about the code requirement and want >to factor popular opinion into their thought process, but it's something >else again if most Directors already have a firm position, however they may >have arrived at it. > >Why go through the motions of asking for input if there's no intention of >paying any mind to it? It won't make the members feel good that they were >asked, if we create an expectation and then don't fulfill it. That will only >make a sticky wicket stickier. If the majority of members says, "Keep the >code," but the Board votes to drop it (or the other way around), then we've >not only done something controversial, we've done something controversial >*and* ignored the will of the membership, to boot. > >Does it feel right to say to the membership, in effect, "Tell us if you >believe there should be a code requirement. P.S., We don't care, we just >want you to *think* we do." > >Here's an idea to play with : What if the 5 wpm code requirement were >dropped for General but retained for Extra? >73 - Kay N3KN > > > > > > -- ************************************************ ARRL The national association for Amateur Radio Remember, Helping Others....Always Worthwhile!! Southwestern Division Vice Director Are you a member yet? If not, please join! Check out the Convention web site at: http://www.hamcon.org/ Personal Web Page: http://www.qsl.net/nz6t

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9011] Re: Polls ... let's try again
by Jim Weaver 05 Jul '03

05 Jul '03

As usual, Kay has tossed us a real thought tickler in her latest message of Morse. A 5 wpm requirement for Extra might fly. It would not satisfy everyone, of course. I'd like to revisit the basic sense of Kay's note, though. This is the issue about asking for members' opinions when we won't pay attention to them. I, for one, would have no idea of ignoring their opinions. Nor would I have any idea of being totally bound by an unscientifically-designed opinion poll. After all, we could word any poll to get nearly whatever answer we may want. On the other hand, a poll such as: _________________________________________________ BACKGROUND: The World Radio Conference of 2003 has removed the need for Morse code requirements in issuing Amateur Radio licenses. Each country is open to determine if applicants for licenses should need to demonstrate the ability to use Morse code. QUESTION: In view of this new development at the world level, which of the following statements most accurately reflects your attitude toward the FCC requiring Morse code proficiency for a US Amateur Radio license? 1. ___ Continue to require Morse code requirements. a. Provided you believe FCC should continue to require Morse code proficiency, should it be required: ___ for the Extra Class license, only, ___ for the General and Extra Class licenses. ___ other (describe): 2. ___ Abolish Morse code requirements. 3. What is the priority you would set for any effort to maintain Morse code: ___ High (more important than frequency protection) ___ Moderate (nearly as important as frequency protection) ___ Low (do only if time from other projects permits) __________________________________________________ I believe there is merit to pursuing this form of exploration (apologies to those who have different opinions), what do you think of the general direction of the above rough draft? 73, Jim W. Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director, Great Lakes Division k8je(a)arrl.org - Tel. 513-459-0142 ARRL -- The reason Amateur Radio is! GREAT LAKES DIVISION CONVENTION, September 6, 2003: See http://greatlakes.arrl.org

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9010] Re: Polls
by W5JBP＠aol.com 04 Jul '03

04 Jul '03

In a message dated 07/04/2003 4:23:59 PM Central Daylight Time, wt3p(a)comcast.net writes: > Does it feel right to say to the membership, in effect, "Tell us if you > believe there should be a code requirement. P.S., We don't care, we just want > you to *think* we do." > Because of the exorbitant salary that you pay me, I already know the results of such a survey. 82% of our members will say: "keep the code." I only put the question out for thinking fodder along with some of the other issues before us. As I said, "Put on the kevlar" and I would also suggest Nomex as well. We will be "challenged" as members of the board. Jim Haynie, W5JBP

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9009] TR : WRC 03 Concludes: Agreements Define Future of Radiocommunications
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 04 Jul '03

04 Jul '03

Here is the official ITU news release on the WRC. The issues were a bit broader than just ours. 73, Dave K1ZZ -------- Message d'origine-------- De: ITU Press Office [mailto:itunews@itu.int] Date: ven. 7/4/2003 5:43 À: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Cc: Objet: WRC 03 Concludes: Agreements Define Future of Radiocommunications ORIGINAL: English World Radiocommunication Conference Concludes: Agreements Define Future of Radiocommunications Geneva, 4 July 2003 - The World Radiocommunication Conference 2003 (WRC-03) concluded, after four-weeks of negotiations, with a blueprint for the global radiocommunication sector that reflects its current and future needs. A number of landmark decisions were taken by the conference to deal with the increasing pressure placed the radio frequency spectrum, which is a limited natural resource. The demand for spectrum is the result of the exponential growth of information and communication technologies. For full text see: http://www.itu.int/newsroom/press_releases/2003/19.html

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9007] Re: Morse Code Requirement
by david.sumner＠ties.itu.int 04 Jul '03

04 Jul '03

The Web surveys are for entertainment. I agree with Mike Raisbeck. The requirement is going to disappear. If you like Morse, as many of us do, you know that we don't have to force people to learn it. We simply have to explain what you're missing in Amateur Radio if you're not proficient in Morse. Thanks to the pace of FCC rulemaking,despite the fact that the international regulations change tomorrow we still have time to make this part of our strategic planning. 73, Dave K1ZZ Quoting W5JBP(a)aol.com: > Well, a poll on our web site would do one thing for sure. Defuse the > statements that the members were not asked. > > Now, I would like for all of you to go to our web site and look at past > polls. There are a number that ask about CW. One in particular ask how much > of your > time is spent on CW. Another which is not CW related ask: "Could you pass the > > same class of exam today." > > While every one of the pundits will say the polls are not "scientific" so be > > it, but a simple "Should the ARRL petition to keep the CW requirements, Yes, > > or No would be pretty simple. > > I know that in just looking at the above, the structure of the question would > > and could be highly criticized. To rephrase: Should the United States require > > CW at 5WPM for amateur licenses?" OK, I give up. . . . . . > > I am going to get a 5th for the 4th. > > Happy 4th. > > Jim Haynie, W5JBP >

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9006] Re: Morse requirement
by david.sumner＠ties.itu.int 04 Jul '03

04 Jul '03

Jim, I don't know the source of the "abstain" reference but of course we did not have a vote at the WRC. We were observers. Besides, there weren't votes; decisions were made by consensus. Dave Quoting W5JBP(a)aol.com: > Yes, Dave, tomorrow we would not. I do have a question however, when did you > > "abstain" on a vote regarding 25.5? I was not aware of such a vote at the > WRC. > > > The question is to each of you on the board, what do you want to do? You know > > as well as I, come Monday there will be a number of petitions submitted to > the FCC for elimination of element 1. > > This is another opportunity to be as popular as we were during the > implementation of incentive licensing. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. > Those who > will be petitioning the FCC know that we will be having a board meeting in a > few > weeks, and will have to deal with the issue one way or the other. > > Time to put on the kevlar. > > Jim Haynie, W5JBP >

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9005] Polls ... let's try again
by Kay Craigie 04 Jul '03

04 Jul '03

(I hit the wrong key before and sent this with a few words dropped out. Sorry!) I have heard lawyers say they don't ask a witness in court a question unless they already know what the answer is. The same might be said about opinion polling, whether the sample is statisically valid or self-selected. If you aren't sure that the answer is going to agree with what you believe is the right thing to do, maybe it's better not to ask the question. Asking members for their input on our web page is one thing if most Directors have not made up their minds about the code requirement and want to factor popular opinion into their thought process, but it's something else again if most Directors already have a firm position, however they may have arrived at it. Why go through the motions of asking for input if there's no intention of paying any mind to it? It won't make the members feel good that they were asked, if we create an expectation and then don't fulfill it. That will only make a sticky wicket stickier. If the majority of members says, "Keep the code," but the Board votes to drop it (or the other way around), then we've not only done something controversial, we've done something controversial *and* ignored the will of the membership, to boot. Does it feel right to say to the membership, in effect, "Tell us if you believe there should be a code requirement. P.S., We don't care, we just want you to *think* we do." Here's an idea to play with : What if the 5 wpm code requirement were dropped for General but retained for Extra? 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9004] Polls
by Kay Craigie 04 Jul '03

04 Jul '03

I have heard lawyers say they don't ask a witness in court a question unless they already know what the answer is. The same might be said about opinion polling, whether the sample is statisically valid or self-selected. If you aren't sure that the answer is going to what you believe is the right thing to do, maybe it's better not to ask the question. Asking members for their input on our web page is one thing if most Directors have not made up their minds about the code requirement and want to factor popular opinion into their thought process, but it's something else again if most Directors already have a firm position, however they may have arrived at it. Why go through the motions of asking for input if there's no intention of paying any mind to it? It won't make the members feel good that they were asked, if we create an expectation and then don't fulfill it. That will only make a sticky wicket stickier. If the majority of members says, "Keep the code," but the Board votes to drop it (or the other way around), then we've not only done something controversial, we've done something controversial *and* ignored the will of the membership, to boot. Does it feel right to say to the membership, in effect, "Tell us if you believe there should be a code requirement. P.S., We don't care, we just want you to *think* we do." Here's an idea to play with : What if the 5 wpm code requirement were dropped for General but retained for Extra? 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0