September 2005 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:13036] Web Search Update and Plan
by Kramer, Harold, WJ1B 12 Sep '05

12 Sep '05

To: ODV At the July Board meeting, the Board requested some better options for the search functions on the ARRL Web Site. Jon Bloom, Hugh Brower and Tom Hogerty have recommended the option outlined below which we plan to implement by mid-November. Here is the Executive Summary of that report along with the complete document from Jon and his staff. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Providing a robust search capability on a corporate website is a major undertaking, according to several major research organizations. ARRL has in the past used a number of free 'shareware' search tools to provide search capabilities on ARRLWeb. As presently configured these are not well suited to such a large site as ARRL's (11,000+ documents, one million hits per day). Sites with a large number of content pages typically require specialized search tools from commercial vendors. Vendor solutions come as either software which runs on a customer's servers, or as an all-in-one hardware + software package. Because of the overhead that a search engine requires, we recommend that the search function be separated from the physical ARRLWeb server. ARRL Web/Software Development Department has identified the Google Mini "appliance" as the best overall solution to the limitations of the current search tool. Sold by Google, the most popular search engine on the Internet, the Mini will allow the ARRL site to be indexed and searchable in the same manner as the current Google.com site searches the entire Internet. The cost of this appliance is $3,000 to purchase and it will require external web hosting at an approximate cost of $100 per month. We will implement this solution with a target completion date of November 11, 2005. The attached document describes the background and analysis that led us to this conclusion. Harold Kramer, WJ1B Chief Operating Officer ARRL - The National Association for Amateur Radio 225 Main Street Newington, CT 06111 860 594 0220 www.arrl.org/

1 0

[arrl-odv:13035] Responses to Member Inquiries re Atlantic Division Elections
by W3KD＠aol.com 12 Sep '05

12 Sep '05

The following is subject to the attorney-client privilege and is work-product and is confidential. As you know, Carl Stevenson, WK3C, has been found by the Elections and Ethics Committee to be ineligible pursuant to Article 11 of the ARRL Articles of Association to run for Atlantic Division Director in the current election. This decision was affirmed by the Executive Committee. Carl asked that the full Board review the decision of the Executive Committee. Mr. Haynie polled the Board on the subject to determine the Board's wishes. A majority of the Board has decided not to review the EC decision. Carl had previously retained counsel to advise him about this matter. We were asked by the law firm Carl retained not to make any public announcement about Carl's eligibility determination until it was final, because to do so might harm his business reputation. While they cannot dictate what announcements we make, and we are under no obligation to act consistently with that admonition, we have in fact refrained from any public reference to Carl's eligibility, other than to announce the qualified candidate list, without mention of Carl at all. The election is proceeding according to the normal schedule. In the meantime, however, after the EC review, but before we informed Carl that the Board had decided not to review the issue, Carl "went public" with this and has attempted to enlist the "court of public opinion". In doing so, Carl himself has made very public the eligibilty determination. He has, in effect, mooted the admonition from his lawyers (who have indicated that Carl is handling this issue himself, and they are not now involved, but they and Carl have been sending mixed signals about this, and the nature of their involvement is not entirely clear). Carl has achieved some modest success in getting a few people to send messages, some really quite impertinent, some more polite, but each saying that the Board should review Carl's eligibility determination. Dave Sumner drafted in his usual masterful way, a really good standard response to these folks, who have heard only Carl's version of the issue. Dave's response is short, and precise, and should be used in response to all written or e-mail inquries about this. But because of the continued threat of litigation by Carl, individual Directors and Vice Directors are asked to consider refraining from responding individually, even to the point of avoiding even forwarding Dave Sumner's response to the correspondent yourselves. It would be best if all responses were routed through Dave Patton. We don't expect many, but this could be a tactic by Carl, rather than a bona fide effort to persuade the Board to change its mind. There are few of these messages, but you may have received one, typically from an Atlantic Division member, sent to the whole Board. Please forward such to Dave Patton at HQ for response. Thanks. 73, Chris W3KD

1 0

[arrl-odv:13034] FW: Other voices - Ham radio gets renewed respect
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 11 Sep '05

11 Sep '05

________________________________ From: tips(a)publicus.com on behalf of Cincinnati.Com Sent: Sat 9/10/2005 5:09 PM To: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Subject: Other voices - Ham radio gets renewed respect Hello, k1zz(a)arrl.org, joe (k8qoe(a)arrl.org) wanted you to see this article: Other voices - Ham radio gets renewed respect http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2005509100320 Today's Cincinnati Enquirer - special column on the editorial page. Cincinnati.Com: Your key to the city

1 0

Katrina Volunteer's Experience In Houston
by dick＠pobox.com 10 Sep '05

10 Sep '05

10 SEP, 2005 - 1220 CDT For your weekend reading pleasure... If you go to the URL below, you will read a long, detailed story of a Houston volunteer's first two days experience trying to help with the Katrina refugee arrival. In summary, you will read about a real- life Chinese fire drill... a real mess. http://www.aarong.thinkcomputer.com/essays/index.html?id=6 When you go to this location, you will have the option of reading the fine print plain text or a nicely formatted larger print PDF file. - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[arrl-odv:13032] Re: Determination of Eligibility
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 10 Sep '05

10 Sep '05

I agree that Greg has stated the situation exactly right on both points: Article 11 has been correctly applied, but it may well be too restrictive. Many associations have policies that require that all potential conflicts be revealed in advance, and that the Board member recuse him- or herself on any matter on which there might be a real or perceived conflict. We have studied Article 11 in the past without finding a generally acceptable modification. Dave K1ZZ ________________________________ From: Greg Milnes [mailto:w7oz@comcast.net] Sent: Wed 9/7/2005 1:56 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12992] Re: Determination of Eligibility Dennis Speaking as a Board member and not as an E & E member, I can say that Article 11 of the Articles of Association do not talk about conflicts of interest but really speak to the potential (in a financial sense). "No person shall be eligible . . .whose business connections are of such a nature that he could gain financially through the shaping of the affairs of the League by the Board, or by the improper exploitation of his office for the furtherance of his own aims or those of his employer." Article 11 goes on to speak to potential: "The primary test of eligibility under this Article shall be the freedom from commercial or governmental connections of such a nature that his influence in the affairs of the League could be used for his private benefit." In my opinion, if one wants to call this a "conflict of interest", then it seems to me that it matters not whether it is current or potential. Both are verboten. Is not it a conflict of interest to have that potential? I think yes. Speaking as a lawyer, it seems that current conflict and possible future conflict are essentially the same. Thus I see no difference between the E & E Committee findings and the EC. Is Article 11 an overly strict provision? Maybe. Do we want to go that far? Maybe. At any rate it is a subject that might be discussed by the Board at some future time. Finally, if all this sounds like gibberish, remember I used to do this for a living. 73/Greg W7OZ -----Original Message----- From: Dennis Bodson [mailto:bodsond@att.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 8:22 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12977] Determination of Eligibility Dear President Haynie: In reviewing the emails from the Elections and Ethics (E&E) Committee and the Executive Committee on this matter, it appears that the right hand and the left hand are not in agreement with each other. The E&E committee determined that there was a "conflict of interest" while the Executive Committee went out of their way to state emphatically that there was no conflict of interest at this time but that there was a potential for one in the future. As I read article 11, it states conflict of interest and not a potential conflict of interest. In light of the above, it is requested that the Board of Directors address this matter and make the final determination. Sincerely, Dennis Bodson ARRL Director Roanoke Division

1 0

[arrl-odv:13031] Eligibility
by Dennis Bodson 09 Sep '05

09 Sep '05

Dear President Haynie: Thank you for submitting my request the Board of Directors for consideration. It is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Dennis Bodson ARRL Director Roanoke Division

1 0

[arrl-odv:13030] Interesting Idea...
by dick＠pobox.com 09 Sep '05

09 Sep '05

New Backpack Puts Juice in Power Walking By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer - Thursday, September 8, 2005 As soldiers, hikers and students can testify, it takes energy to haul around a heavy backpack. Now, researchers have developed a backpack that turns that energy into electricity. It doesn't crank out a lot of juice just a bit more than 7 watts but that's enough to run things like an MP3 player, a personal data assistant, night vision goggles, a hand-held global positioning system or a GSM cell phone. The development could eventually allow field scientists, hikers, explorers, soldiers and disaster workers to produce their own electricity. The researchers used a backpack fastened to the carrying frame by springs. The up-and-down motion caused by walking powers a small generator, producing electricity that can be used directly or stored in a capacitor or battery. The device, developed by Lawrence C. Rome of the University of Pennsylvania, and colleagues, is reported in Friday's issue of the journal Science. The electricity-generating frame weighs about 10 pounds, Rome said in a telephone interview. He's working to lighten it, so it will weigh only a couple of pounds more than a standard backpack. Power generated increases as the load in the backpack gets heavier, he said. Tests ranged from loads of about 40 pounds to about 80 pounds. Rome developed the new backpack at the request of the Office of Naval Research, which was looking for ways to reduce the need for service members to carry lots of batteries to power equipment while on duty in Afghanistan. The researchers studied the movement of people walking, and concluded that the hips move up and down between 1.6 inches and 2.7 inches with each step. They then set about trying to exploit that movement. The result is the "suspended load backpack." It uses a rigid frame similar to regular backpacks, but instead of being attached directly to the frame, the load is suspended by springs, allowing it to move up and down as the person walks. That movement turns a small electrical generator producing current. In tests on a treadmill, walking on level ground and uphill both produced current, Rome said. Arthur D. Kuo of the University of Michigan's Department of Mechanical Engineering and Biomedical Engineering said the backpack is novel "because it generates useful amounts of electrical power, while costing less metabolic power than would be expected." Indeed, carrying the backpack uses only a little more energy than carrying a standard backpack of the same weight, said Rome, a biologist who also does research at the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Mass. He said volunteers testing the device altered their gait slightly to move more efficiently. "Metabolically speaking, we've found this to be much cheaper than we anticipated. The energy you exert could be offset by carrying an extra snack, which is nothing compared to weight of extra batteries," Rome said. "Pound for pound, food contains about 100-fold more energy than batteries." The concept resembles that of a self-winding watch where power is generated by the movement of the wearer, commented Kuo, who was not part of Rome's research team. The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Office of Naval Research and the University of Pennsylvania Research Foundation. A company called Lightning Packs LLC has been formed to improve the suspended-load backpack and to develop an ergonomic backpack based on the prototype. Lightning Packs has applied for patents on both inventions. Rome said he hopes to have the new version ready for testing in six months to a year. ================================

1 0

[arrl-odv:13029] Re: Determination of Eligibility
by Dennis Bodson 09 Sep '05

09 Sep '05

Greg: Thanks Dennis _____ From: Greg Milnes [mailto:w7oz@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 8:56 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12992] Re: Determination of Eligibility Dennis Speaking as a Board member and not as an E & E member, I can say that Article 11 of the Articles of Association do not talk about conflicts of interest but really speak to the potential (in a financial sense). "No person shall be eligible . . .whose business connections are of such a nature that he could gain financially through the shaping of the affairs of the League by the Board, or by the improper exploitation of his office for the furtherance of his own aims or those of his employer." Article 11 goes on to speak to potential: "The primary test of eligibility under this Article shall be the freedom from commercial or governmental connections of such a nature that his influence in the affairs of the League could be used for his private benefit." In my opinion, if one wants to call this a "conflict of interest", then it seems to me that it matters not whether it is current or potential. Both are verboten. Is not it a conflict of interest to have that potential? I think yes. Speaking as a lawyer, it seems that current conflict and possible future conflict are essentially the same. Thus I see no difference between the E & E Committee findings and the EC. Is Article 11 an overly strict provision? Maybe. Do we want to go that far? Maybe. At any rate it is a subject that might be discussed by the Board at some future time. Finally, if all this sounds like gibberish, remember I used to do this for a living. 73/Greg W7OZ -----Original Message----- From: Dennis Bodson [mailto:bodsond@att.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 8:22 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12977] Determination of Eligibility Dear President Haynie: In reviewing the emails from the Elections and Ethics (E&E) Committee and the Executive Committee on this matter, it appears that the right hand and the left hand are not in agreement with each other. The E&E committee determined that there was a "conflict of interest" while the Executive Committee went out of their way to state emphatically that there was no conflict of interest at this time but that there was a potential for one in the future. As I read article 11, it states conflict of interest and not a potential conflict of interest. In light of the above, it is requested that the Board of Directors address this matter and make the final determination. Sincerely, Dennis Bodson ARRL Director Roanoke Division

1 0

[arrl-odv:13028] Fwd: Director Candidate Eligibility, Atlantic Division Election
by W3KD＠aol.com 09 Sep '05

09 Sep '05

1 0

[arrl-odv:13027] Re: Membership info released to private company?
by W3KD＠aol.com 09 Sep '05

09 Sep '05

In a message dated 9/8/2005 9:05:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, frenaye(a)pcnet.com writes: > > I bet we can't restrict it to ham-radio-related companies for the same > reason that radio stores can't restrict sales of ham radios just to hams. > > -- Tom > Right, antitrust issues arise in doing that. Chris

1 0