January 2004 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[ARRL-ODV:10047] Re: Draft Minutes, January 2004 Board Meeting
by Bernard E. Fuller 24 Jan '04

24 Jan '04

Draft Minutes, January 2004 Board MeetingDave - The draft minutes look good to me. Good job. 73, Bernie-N3EFN -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 3:45 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10045] Draft Minutes, January 2004 Board Meeting Here are the draft Minutes of the meeting. Please look them over and offer any corrections and suggestions to me by Monday morning, if possible. Because March QST has already gone to the printer with the Board Meeting article that references Board actions by minute number, we will have to keep the numbering the same unless there is a major problem with doing so. Thanks for your work and good humor during the meeting. As the Minutes show, we covered a lot of ground! 73, Dave Sumner, K1ZZ <<2004 Annual Meeting Minutes.doc>> --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com) Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 1/19/04

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10046] I would like to see the Morse requirement eliminated.
by Huntington Howard-CADV02 24 Jan '04

24 Jan '04

With the permission of Dr. Stephen Holland, KD4TTC, of Naperville, IL I am forwarding this email exchange to ODV. It is lengthy but I think it is a very good example of the potential out there from which we can recruit, that is people who will make good operators, have skills that we need in amateur radio, have an interest in HF for modes other than SSB, and who have no interest in CW. I apologize for the length but I thought it was worthwhile to share a positive well written input with you and hopefully this will get us some comments in support of a possible NRRM. Also, for all we know, some new licensees may get an interest in DX or weak signal VHF/UHF and then actually take up CW. Howie, K9KM -----Original Message----- From: Huntington Howard-CADV02 Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 10:17 AM To: 'Stephen Holland' Subject: RE: I would like to see the Morse requirement eliminated. Steve, Lots of things. Your comment is quite well written and clearly indicates what you want to do with amateur radio. You have no interest in Morse, and that is ok. You have skills that we need and may, in the future, help others to learn those skills. You are committed to be a good courteous operator. You have an interest in HF and want HF privileges that allow operation on interesting modes and on a variety of bands. Surely there are many more out there like you who will come forward if FCC adopts this proposal. That is good for amateur radio. I think the Board will be glad to hear that we have a chance for success. Howard Huntington, K9KM -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Holland [mailto:sholland@mac.com] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 9:57 AM To: Huntington Howard-CADV02 Subject: Re: I would like to see the Morse requirement eliminated. Sure! Hey, I didn't imagine my rant would bubble up so high. What did I say that struck such a chord? Steve kd4ttc, ARRL member On Thursday, January 22, 2004, at 06:05 PM, Huntington Howard-CADV02 wrote: > Stephen, > > With you permission may I forward this exchange to the entire ARRL > Board of Directors? > > Thanks, > > Howard Huntington, K9KM > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Holland [mailto:sholland@mac.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 11:27 AM > To: Huntington Howard-CADV02 > Subject: Re: I would like to see the Morse requirement eliminated. > > > Yipee! I am in the Nocode international group which has been active in > getting people like me pointed to the process. I expect that I'll get > eMail from them and I'll submit ORIGINAL content to the right places. > > I appreciate the efforts the ARRL is doing on this, including your work > as well. I imagine the Morse community is going to be miffed at ARRL. > I'll do what I can to keep those folks happy by supporting CW only > subbands, and I will try to be an impeccable operator on HF as well. > > When I saw the ARRL position it was a wow moment. ARRL carries a lot > of weight at the FCC, so this likely will go through. > > Stephen > kd4ttc, ARRL member > > > On Tuesday, January 20, 2004, at 02:22 PM, Huntington Howard-CADV02 > wrote: > >> Stephen, >> >> I think your reply really put into perspective that there are very >> qualified people ready to join amateur radio but simply have no >> interest in Morse. Of course we have known this for quite some time >> but you have made a contribution to spell it out in many ways. For >> that you have my appreciation and thanks. This has been considered at >> the recent meeting. >> >> If you take a look at the press release >> http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/01/19/1/?nc=1 >> that follows the meeting in Windsor, Connecticut that ended January >> 17, I am hopeful that it will fulfill your wishes regarding the Morse >> requirement. If the FCC adopts the ARRL proposal, you and many other >> Technician class licensees and Technician Plus licensees will be >> merged into the General Class with those privileges including HF. >> Also, a new entry class license is proposed with a much simpler >> written examination and no Morse is proposed that allows CW/Data and >> phone privileges at 80, 40, 15 and 10m as well as VHF with some power >> restrictions on useful portions of those bands. >> >> We need your support to get this proposal through the FCC. You will >> see that process begin very soon and it will take some time before we >> see any change to Part 97. >> >> I support this proposal. If enacted, it will boost amateur radio for >> years to come. I guess I should tell you too that I am, as you say, a >> Morse enthusiast. I do not believe that this proposal will reduce >> Morse activity which today is very strong. Since your have listed >> your favorite activities, some of mine include circuit design of those >> things that you cannot buy, antennas, and CW contesting at 40 plus wpm >> and at rates at times in excess of 100 QSOs per hour (take a listen to >> the North American Sprint CW around 7040 and 14040 kHz starting at 6 >> PM Saturday Jan 31). And as you said, if I had time I would like to >> try some sound card modes, antenna modeling, ionospheric propagation >> analysis and programming PICs (also) for remote control. Seems like >> although I am an electrical engineer I just do not have time to get >> into those things. >> >> Again, thanks for your comments. >> >> Howard Huntington, K9KM >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: sholland(a)mac.com [mailto:sholland@mac.com] >> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 9:05 PM >> To: Huntington Howard-CADV02; W9GIG(a)arrl.org >> Subject: Re: I would like to see the Morse requirement eliminated. >> >> >> Howard, Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Inasmuch as you are not >> counting votes, and you clearly are willing to consider issues from >> policy rather than just a vote counting perspective, let me add some >> comments I hope will sway you to consider giving input that will bring >> about an elimination of the Morse requirement. >> >> Now 46 years old, I licensed about 8 years ago while I was in Alabama. >> I had not considered licensing until I found out I didn't have to meet >> a Morse code requirement. I have enjoyed life above 50, so to speak, >> but at field day a few years ago I saw how much fun long distance HF >> could be. Not that field day exchanges were all that exciting, but >> imaging SSB contacts to far away places has it's allure. I had >> planned >> on getting code skilled, but life has it's distractions from the >> hobby. >> Now, I don't think anyone can call me a slouch. I am a physician, >> work to make people better, have moved 2 times in the last 6 years, >> and >> have just started a new business employing two staff, deal with >> insurance companies, keep up with the medical literature, and so on. I >> thought by now i'd have done the code, but no. Several years have >> gone >> by. Other things I do are program computers, take piano lessons, do >> woodworking, enjoy electronics as a hobby (interesting how LSI chips >> have given us such amazing capability in circuit design), and enjoy my >> wife and children. >> >> Where I'd like to go with amateur radio is to experiment with computer >> analysis of signals, build interface circuits, remote control, learn >> about PIC microcontroller design, satellite communications, and do >> some >> stealth antenna design that will work in my CC&R'ed neighborhood. >> >> What I do not see is how a Morse code requirement is going to help me >> advance the art of radio communications. It seems to me the content >> of >> the licensing exam ought to be part of making the licensee a better >> amateur operator. I know of no other facet of amateur radio that I >> have to learn for the test that is not important in general operation >> on amateur radio, except for the morse code requirement which is only >> of use if you want to use that mode. I think the case can be made >> that >> there ought to be a requirement for programming PIC microcontrollers, >> specing out IC's, tuning up an antenna tuner, using a SWR meter (or a >> VOM for that matter) if there is a Morse code requirement. Any of >> those skills would be of more use in modern practice. Obviously, what >> I am getting at is amateur radio is so much more than Morse code >> nowadays, even on HF. I'd rather be spending my time figuring out how >> to make a plug-in for my web browser that will let me run Pactor off >> my >> computer having written the program myself. I'd like to take the new >> PIC chips that allow USB interfacing and modify my old Icom 2 meter >> rig >> to do packet with modern USB enabled computers. >> >> So here I am. One of the non-Morse riff-raff. However, it comes down >> to a personal discovery. I really have no interest in Morse. Really. >> Nothing against the morse code enthusiasts. They are nice people. >> I've met a number at field day. It is just that for me I have no >> motivation. I enjoying seeing other people enjoy working Morse: there >> is a satisfaction and a Zen to it. But I enjoy seeing folks enjoy all >> the aspects of Amateur Radio. (See me review of Now You're Talking on >> Amazon) I'd just like to see a lot of people joining the amateur >> radio >> community. >> >> Now, if I'd like to advance the art of radio but am not in HF because >> I >> am not motivated to learn Morse, consider that there are probably lots >> of fine folks with even more computer and electronics skills that me >> that are also not part of our hobby. I suspect there are a lot of >> people with skills that amateur radio could use who just don't have an >> interest in Morse. I suspect around you at Motorola there are >> talented >> folks who would bring new perspective to Amateur radio that have no >> interest in Morse. I've enjoyed working above 110 baud ever since we >> upgraded the modem in high school to run at 330. Man, were we flying >> then with 3 times the throughput! Frankly, packet at 2400 is a little >> tedious. But if I was only using Morse on HF I'd go nuts. Maybe the >> new blood we need is the new blood that doesn't want to use Morse. >> People who have a world view different from current users precisely >> because they are different and DO NOT have time for Morse. I think >> this is the important part. By requiring Morse we are selecting >> people >> that are of the attitude that Morse is important enough to put in the >> effort to learn it. This means that folks with the mindset that Morse >> is not important are not going to join us, and these folks likely have >> other insights and interests that will contribute to Amateur Radio, >> different from the folks already in amateur radio. >> >> This I expect: drop the Morse code requirement and you will get >> people >> with a different attitude into amateur radio and HF. But anyone with >> technical savvy will still respect the folks that work another >> continent on 100 mW on HF with Morse, be they either FFT writing >> software guru's or fist pounders that love a straight key, and we will >> all be able to coexist in a hobby richer for its greater diversity. >> >> Steve Holland, M.D. >> kd4ttc >> kd4ttc(a)arrl.net >> >> On Thursday, January 8, 2004, at 05:39 PM, Huntington Howard-CADV02 >> wrote: >> >>> Stephen, >>> >>> The requirement for Morse proficiency testing will be considered at >>> the annual meeting of the Board in January and we certainly >>> appreciate >>> your comments. You should have copied Central Division Director Dick >>> Isely, W9GIG and I have copied him with this reply. >>> >>> Speaking from my own personal point of view, we will give this issue >>> serious consideration as it is a serious issue to many of our members >>> and has significant implications for the future. As Vice Director, I >>> will support the policy of the Board. I can give my own input to >>> Director Isely and your input along with that of many others are part >>> of what I do consider. I do not, however, form my opinion by counting >>> the emails for and against retention of Morse testing. I was elected >>> to do more than that. Thanks for your comments and I can tell it is >>> important to you. >>> >>> Howard Huntington, K9KM >>> Central Division Vice Director >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Stephen Holland [mailto:sholland@mac.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 4:53 PM >>> To: k9km(a)arrl.org >>> Cc: w5jbp(a)arrl.org; w5zn(a)arrl.org; n3kn(a)arrl.org; wa6wzo(a)arrl.org; >>> w6rod(a)arrl.org; k1zz(a)arrl.net >>> Subject: I would like to see the Morse requirement eliminated. >>> >>> >>> Dear Howard, >>> >>> I'd like to see the morse code testing requirement eliminated. I >>> support the continued presence of the Morse code subbands and am >>> happy >>> to see folks enjoy themselves. However Morse code requirement is >>> outdated. >>> >>> As you are called on to advise on policy please include my voice >>> against the Morse code testing requirement in mind. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Stephen Holland, M.D. >>> Naperville, IL >>> KD4TTC

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10045] Draft Minutes, January 2004 Board Meeting
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 23 Jan '04

23 Jan '04

Here are the draft Minutes of the meeting. Please look them over and offer any corrections and suggestions to me by Monday morning, if possible. Because March QST has already gone to the printer with the Board Meeting article that references Board actions by minute number, we will have to keep the numbering the same unless there is a major problem with doing so. Thanks for your work and good humor during the meeting. As the Minutes show, we covered a lot of ground! 73, Dave Sumner, K1ZZ <<2004 Annual Meeting Minutes.doc>>

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10044] Re: Draft Petition for Rule Making, Article 25, and Appendix.
by dick＠pobox.com 23 Jan '04

23 Jan '04

23 JAN, 2004 - 1355 CST I have read the two documents and have no suggested changes. - Dick Isely, W9GIG

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10043] Re: senior increase
by Wilson, Mark K1RO 23 Jan '04

23 Jan '04

Sandy, the new rates are effective now. Staff has been busy this week updating the forms on the Web site, including http://www.arrl.org/members-only/ODV/app-odv.pdf and at http://www.arrl.org/member.pdf Obviously it will take a while for the old forms to work their way through the system and we will honor $34 memberships for a while, but we would prefer that you begin using the new forms as soon as possible. 73, Mark K1RO > -----Original Message----- > From: Donahue, Sandy (Vice Dir, GA) > Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 2:47 PM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10042] senior increase > > > The release on the senior dues increase (discount > decrease)says effective > immediately. How immediate is immediate? Foe those of us > going to ham events > this weekend and using old member apps how to we handle it? > 73 Sandy, W4RU > > > >

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10042] senior increase
by Sandy Donahue 23 Jan '04

23 Jan '04

The release on the senior dues increase (discount decrease)says effective immediately. How immediate is immediate? Foe those of us going to ham events this weekend and using old member apps how to we handle it? 73 Sandy, W4RU

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10040] Re: FAQ Page
by dick＠pobox.com 23 Jan '04

23 Jan '04

23 JAN, 2004 - 1320 CST Hello Coy... I have been using our restructuring PowerPoint presentation as my reference. I have sent copies of it to my three Section Managers and my 40 plus Assistant Directors. However, I think a restructuring FAQ on the ARRL web site would be a great help in answering questions - particularly for those who can't, or do not know how to, use a PowerPoint presentation. I will be attending one of the larger hamfest in the Chicago area Sunday morning and a restructuring FAQ that could be printed on a one or two sheet paper handout would be nice. 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10041] Re: FAQ Page
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 23 Jan '04

23 Jan '04

We have a draft FAQ. I'm working on the meeting minutes right now and will look at the draft FAQ after that. Dave -----Original Message----- From: dick(a)pobox.com [mailto:dick@pobox.com] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 2:31 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10040] Re: FAQ Page 23 JAN, 2004 - 1320 CST Hello Coy... I have been using our restructuring PowerPoint presentation as my reference. I have sent copies of it to my three Section Managers and my 40 plus Assistant Directors. However, I think a restructuring FAQ on the ARRL web site would be a great help in answering questions - particularly for those who can't, or do not know how to, use a PowerPoint presentation. I will be attending one of the larger hamfest in the Chicago area Sunday morning and a restructuring FAQ that could be printed on a one or two sheet paper handout would be nice. 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10038] Re: This one is too funny not to pass along.
by dick＠pobox.com 23 Jan '04

23 Jan '04

23 JAN 2004 - 1205 CST Now I finally understand why a few of the "real hams" are so upset about our license restructuring proposal. :) 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10039] FAQ Page
by n5ok.ok＠att.net 23 Jan '04

23 Jan '04

Howdy, I'm getting a lot of e-mail with tough questions about the restructuring proposal. They are quizzing me and at the same time sending the same question to our President or our CEO. It is fairly obvious they are trying to see if we are telling the same story. I have a couple that are particular bothersome. They must not have anything else to do and , yes, they are ARRL members. Is someone putting together a FAQ page with detailed answers so that we "ALL" are playing from the same sheet of music? It would also be a place we could send those with questions. Coy -- ARRL West Gulf Division Director Coy Day, N5OK 20685 SW 29th St Union City, OK 73090-9726 n5ok(a)arrl.org 405-483-5632

1 0