September 2003 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[ARRL-ODV:9422] Thoughts on an intro license
by Kay Craigie 11 Sep '03

11 Sep '03

As Mike has pointed out, QRP has many advantages. A lot is certainly said in its favor here at my house by my OM, Carter. However .... Is there a reason why we don't all operate QRP all the time? The advantages of QRP exist no matter what one's license class may be. What's deterring us? In the early 1980's, when Carter was a new Novice shopping for his first transceiver, he found a used QRP rig on the market at a good price. His Elmer, a crusty old goat named Joe who was an experienced QRPer, told him not to buy it. QRP, said Joe, was not for beginners. It was for people who had developed operating skills to compensate (at least somewhat) for the lack of oomph. Joe predicted that if Carter started in ham radio with a QRP rig, he would become discouraged at his inability to be heard, to make QSO's, and to have fun. Pick a 100-watt rig, Joe said, learn how to operate, have the thrill of watching the logbook filling up, and then later try QRP. Joe had an annoying habit of being right most of the time, so Carter did as Joe said. Today I asked Carter, who is now an avid QRP hound with a shelf full of QRP rigs both commercial and kit-built, if in retrospect he believes Joe's advice was right or wrong. He believes Joe steered him right, without question. He believes that if he had tried to do QRP as a total greenhorn, he would have had too much struggle and not much fun. He believes he would have been frustrated and disappointed, maybe enough so that he'd have quit the hobby. He also reminded me that QRP on SSB is usually considered to be 10 watts, not 5 watts as on CW. Even now, with over 20 years' operating experience, Carter finds that 5 or 10 watts can't always cut the mustard to provide the kind of operating fun he wants, especially as propagation declines. When he wants to work a new one and QRP isn't being heard, he'll switch on the Elecraft 100-watt amp. Before we go for an introductory license with a QRP power limit, perhaps we Board folk should walk for, say, 6 months in the newcomers' shoes. I don't know how to dial back our operating skills. Stuff cotton in our ears? Wear oven mitts when we're on the key? But we could disconnect the amps, dial the RF output back to 5 watts, and use only the sort of simple antennas at low heights that a beginner might be likely to set up. No Yagis on great big towers. No ootching the power up when we crave to bag a new one or want to work a contest. We could do that for half a year in these days of sagging sunspots and see how it feels. Frankly (no offense intended to Dr. Woolweaver!), I'd rather have dental work. Since I don't want to operate QRP 24/7/365, myself, I wonder why I'd want to make a new ham do that, any more than I'd want to make them go back to the days of CW-only. 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9421] Re: ODV 9404 IARU Morse vote
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 11 Sep '03

11 Sep '03

Individual member-societies do not have votes on the Administrative Council. The member-societies are represented through the regional representatives, who in turn are responsible to their regional executive committees and regional conferences. The fact that Rod is an ARRL officer is coincidental when it comes to being on the Administrative Council. He is there in his role as Secretary of IARU Region 2. The IARU Vice President and Secretary are voting members of the Administrative Council. (So is the President, but only in the case of a tie.) The reason the Vice President and Secretary are voting members is because, unlike the ARRL governing documents, the IARU Constitution makes it so. The Secretary is designated by the ARRL in its role as International Secretariat. The Vice President is Australian and I don't think anyone would argue that he is obliged to follow the instructions of the ARRL on how to vote. As an employee and designee of the ARRL I do feel obliged to act consistent with ARRL policy (and I believe I've done so in this case), and if given specific instructions I follow them. However, I do keep in mind that the only reason I get to vote is because the ARRL is the International Secretariat and that the power of the vote is intended to protect our interests as International Secretariat, not to make us a "super member-society." The Administrative Council often offers policy guidance to member-societies. There are IARU Resolutions supporting EMC regulations, formation of amateur call signs consistent with ITU procedures (rescinded last week in view of the changes to Aricle 19), common frequency allocations at VHF/UHF/SHF to facilitate international communication, and opposing type approval and the regular inspection of amateur stations. Recommendation ITU-R M.1544, which sets out the minimum qualifications for an amateur licensee, itself arose from an AC Resolution. How the regional representatives voted is entirely consistent with what the majority of their member-societies have been saying at regional conferences over the past three years. If the member-societies disagree with a particular Resolution, they have recourse under the procedure set out in IARU Policy #1 concerning the submission of Resolutions to regional conferences. This is available on the IARU Web site and I won't repeat it all here, except to note (because it answers one of Jay's questions) that the policy says "The Administrative Council adopts resolutions by consensus unless otherwise specifically noted in the Summary Record of its meeting...." When I write the Summary Record I will note the two abstentions. I'm late for an appointment right now but will be in the office tomorrow morning before my flight leaves for St. Louis and may be able to pick up the thread at that time, if there are further questions. 73, Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Bellows, John ( Dir, Dakota) Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 3:21 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9412] Re: ODV 9404 IARU Morse vote This is a follow up to Dave's ODV 9404 and Rick and Jim Weaver's comments. What am I missing here? In ODV 9404 Dave said "The resolution adopted in Guatemala spoke in terms of reducing the speed to 5 wpm as an interim step and dropping the international requirement. After WRC-03 the resolution either had to be deleted or amended. Deleting it would have meant that IARU policy was silent with regard to what should be done at the domestic level." ( emphasis added) Wasn't being silent as to what should be done at the domestic level the whole point of deleting the pertinent portion of A25? I was clearly under the impression the reason for deleting the international requirement was to allow each administration to chose whether or not to retain Morse testing as a requirement. As Dave stated, the AC decided that the policy should not be silent, and amended the resolution to establish an IARU policy " to support the removal of Morse code testing as a requirement for an amateur license to operate on frequencies below 30 MHz." ( emphasis added) Rather than the neutral position of letting each administration decide this affirmatively supports removal of Morse testing on a world wide basis. I fail to see how supporting the removal of Morse code testing as a requirement for access to frequencies below 30MHz is consistent with the ARRL Board's January 2001 action that Morse should be retained as a testing element in the US. Whether I think the IARU policy is appropriate or not isn't the point. An abstention under these circumstances is neither neutral nor, in my opinion, consistent with Board policy. I was under the impression IARU and WRC worked by consensus. If this was "sprung" on the participants at the AC meeting, I feel we should have requested the matter be carried over to the next meeting to permit time to consider the change. If, on the other hand, there was any indication this amendment was going to be raised the Board should have been advised and should have had a chance to consider whether to revise the ARRL position. 73, Jay, KØQB

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9420] Saturday Evening
by James Weaver 11 Sep '03

11 Sep '03

Saturday evening is fine. Jim Weaver PS: Incidentally, I have probably missed a few messages the past weekend. A lightning strike of a transformer on the light pole in front of our house "done in" the mother board on my main computer and it is still be worked on to get it back on line. The one I'm using now is my logging computer which, needless-to-say, is not state of the art as of a few years ago. I'd even forgotten this thing had Internet access in it.

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9419] Re: Report on IARU Nominations
by R. B. Vallio 11 Sep '03

11 Sep '03

Hi Chris, Are we still on for dinner? How shall I contact you? Have a good flight. 73, Bob W6RGG

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9418] Re: Other IARU AC actions
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 11 Sep '03

11 Sep '03

I'm not sure Jim intended anything other than an informal discussion, but since the phrase "special" board meeting was used let's keep Article 4 and Bylaw 26 in mind. Article 4 states in part: "Special meetings of the Board shall be called by the President upon written request of at least one-half of the membership of the Board as then constituted." Bylaw 26 states: "Special meetings of the Board of Directors may consider or act upon only those matters which are set out in the request provided for in Article 4 of the Articles of Association. The call for any such meeting shall specify the matters to be considered." This, plus the fact that one Director is not able to be present in St. Louis for family medical reasons, means that if you all want to talk about this in St. Louis it's better to treat it as informal discussion. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Haynie, Jim (President) Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 3:18 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9413] Re: Other IARU AC actions In a message dated 09/11/2003 10:21:48 AM Central Daylight Time, dsumner(a)arrl.org writes: Rod (in his role as a Region 2 representative who is on the Region 2 EC by virtue of representing the ARRL) and I (in my role as the IARU Secretary appointed by the ARRL) abstained. Everyone else voted in favor. (PB2T, VE6SH, JJ1OEY, and W4RI were present as observers and did not have a vote.) This looks really bad. Our board position has not changed. Why would we abstain? Not only does it look bad, but our silence on the 9 petitions at the FCC also looks bad. We were asked by the FCC if we were going to lead or follow this train. It appears to the amateur community that we left the station all right, out the back door! We have until September 29 to either file something or not. I suggest that after dinner on Saturday, a meeting to discuss this and come up with a course of action. The League should be in the leading position not only here in the United States, but in the international arena as well. It would seem that we have abdicated our leadership role. Should there be a "special" board meeting to cover this situation? I would like to hear from each director as to their thoughts. Jim Haynie, W5JBP President, ARRL

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9417] Re: Other IARU AC actions
by n5ok.ok＠att.net 11 Sep '03

11 Sep '03

Jim, Sorry. I din't make myself clear. What I was trying to say is that, if we take time during the planning sessions discussing this issue or continually bring it up then it will take away from the planning sessions. A seperate time together to discuss this issue might preclude that. Coy -- ARRL West Gulf Division Director Coy Day, N5OK RR 1 Box 254 Union City, OK 73090-9726 n5ok(a)arrl.org 405-483-5632 > Coy, I don't see that the planning session will reconvene after dinner, so a > good opportunity. > > Jim

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9416] IARU Code Position
by James Weaver 11 Sep '03

11 Sep '03

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9415] Re: Other IARU AC actions
by W5JBP＠aol.com 11 Sep '03

11 Sep '03

Coy, I don't see that the planning session will reconvene after dinner, so a good opportunity. Jim

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9414] Re: Other IARU AC actions
by n5ok.ok＠att.net 11 Sep '03

11 Sep '03

Jim, I sure hate to take away from our planning efforts. However, if we can agree to meet on this subject outside of the sessions, perhaps we can keep it from destroying our planning effort. So, I say yes to a meeting Saturday evening. Coy -- ARRL West Gulf Division Director Coy Day, N5OK RR 1 Box 254 Union City, OK 73090-9726 n5ok(a)arrl.org 405-483-5632

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9412] Re: ODV 9404 IARU Morse vote
by John Bellows 11 Sep '03

11 Sep '03

This is a follow up to Daves ODV 9404 and Rick and Jim Weavers comments. What am I missing here? In ODV 9404 Dave said The resolution adopted in Guatemala spoke in terms of reducing the speed to 5 wpm as an interim step and dropping the international requirement. After WRC-03 the resolution either had to be deleted or amended. Deleting it would have meant that IARU policy was silent with regard to what should be done at the domestic level. ( emphasis added) Wasnt being silent as to what should be done at the domestic level the whole point of deleting the pertinent portion of A25? I was clearly under the impression the reason for deleting the international requirement was to allow each administration to chose whether or not to retain Morse testing as a requirement. As Dave stated, the AC decided that the policy should not be silent, and amended the resolution to establish an IARU policy to support the removal of Morse code testing as a requirement for an amateur license to operate on frequencies below 30 MHz. ( emphasis added) Rather than the neutral position of letting each administration decide this affirmatively supports removal of Morse testing on a world wide basis. I fail to see how supporting the removal of Morse code testing as a requirement for access to frequencies below 30MHz is consistent with the ARRL Boards January 2001 action that Morse should be retained as a testing element in the US. Whether I think the IARU policy is appropriate or not isnt the point. An abstention under these circumstances is neither neutral nor, in my opinion, consistent with Board policy. I was under the impression IARU and WRC worked by consensus. If this was sprung on the participants at the AC meeting, I feel we should have requested the matter be carried over to the next meeting to permit time to consider the change. If, on the other hand, there was any indication this amendment was going to be raised the Board should have been advised and should have had a chance to consider whether to revise the ARRL position. 73, Jay, KØQB

1 0