November 2007 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

FW: DXCC award Modes
by John Bellows 28 Nov '07

28 Nov '07

GM: As I was reading this morning's email I saw the following from N9FTC/4. (Greg -- Welcome to the ARRL Board ;<) ) In light of the current CQ editorial discussion it seemed worthwhile noting the following comment in Mr. Stein's email. "I have also been shown articles in CQ magazine that do not talk so highly about the ARRL and its inter-workings." 73, Jay, KØQB -----Original Message----- From: Tim & Suzanne Stein [mailto:twstein@fairpoint.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 8:21 AM To: mallphin(a)aol.com; k1zz(a)arrl.org; cshalvoy(a)worldnet.att.net; w9wu(a)arrl.net; k0pc(a)arrl.net; af5m(a)cebridge.net; w8qid(a)arrl.net; na2r(a)nac.net; bmorgan(a)fidnet.com; w1yrc(a)arrl.org; n7ro(a)arrl.net; k6ta(a)arrl.net; gdixon(a)fmtc.net; n7ka(a)comcast.net; k5vt(a)aol.com; nt5c(a)texas.net; scotts(a)tartannet.ns.ca; k0ca(a)arrl.net; nn1n(a)arrl.org; staratula(a)arrl.org; w3tom(a)arrl.org; n3llr(a)arrl.org; w9gig(a)arrl.org; k9km(a)arrl.org; k0qb(a)arrl.org; k0gw(a)arrl.org; wd4q(a)arrl.org; wa5tmc(a)arrl.org; k8je(a)arrl.org; ki4la(a)arrl.org; n2ff(a)arrl.org; ka2anf(a)arrl.org; k0bj(a)arrl.org; k0ca(a)arrl.org; k1ki(a)arrl.org; k1twf(a)arrl.org; k9jf(a)arrl.org; k7zm(a)arrl.org; w6rgg(a)arrl.org; n6ajo(a)arrl.org; w4pwf(a)arrl.org; n4ros(a)arrl.org; ws7w(a)arrl.org; n5zgt(a)arrl.org; w4rh(a)arrl.org; w4ru(a)arrl.org; n6aa(a)arrl.org; aa7a(a)arrl.org; n5ok(a)arrl.org; k5rav(a)arrl.org Subject: DXCC award Modes Fellow Amateurs: I am Tim Stein N9FTC/4, a life member of the ARRL for many years, now living in Overstreet/Wewahitchka, Florida. I have just recently decided to hang some awards on the shack wall. The first was W.A.S. RTTY certificate number #474 dated 30 June 2006. I was greatly surprised and proud to have the number 474, as I thought that there must have been many more issued before I got mine. I then went to work on W.A.S. PSK-31 which I received 17 October 2006. There was no number on this award. It would have been nice if there had been one. I worked W.A.S. RTTY and W.A.S. PSK-31 both on 20 meters, however, there is no mention of the BAND worked on either award. Both awards would have been much more meaningful with more information added, such as BAND, MODE, NUMBER. I then went to work on DXCC PSK-31 20 Meters and accomplished this task on my 63rd birthday, November 4, 2007. I called the ARRL Awards Division and talked to a nice and very helpful young lady. She told me where to find the forms I needed to submit my cards for checking. While filling out the forms I noticed that there was no listing for PSK-31 on the form. I call the nice young lady again and questioned her as to how to do this. I was told that I would have to list my DXCC award under RTTY. I was dumbfounded as to why this was so. I was told that you fellows of the DX Advisory Committee had never made provisions for the new digital modes. The ARRL, as I have understood it, has used these awards programs to gain new members, retain old members, and to spur new operating activities on the bands. This has been a fundamental practice for the many years that I have been a member. I agree, it should be this way. Hopefully it will help keep the ARRL a strong working organization dedicated to us, the Amateur Radio Operators. What I cannot understand is why there is a consensus, with most all of the amateurs I have talked to in the last few weeks, about this issue of DXCC modes. I have also been shown articles in CQ magazine that do not talk so highly about the ARRL and its inter-workings. My question to you, to keep this note to the point, is: If the ARRL wants to increase membership and use its awards programs to do so, why are you so reluctant to offer awards certificates with the new digital modes, and numbers showing sequence of their issue. We the members are willing and do pay what ever fees you set for these awards. A few more dollars from us for the time it takes to put decent information on these awards would willingly be paid. I do understand there are many awards out there already for other modes like CW and SSB that you could not assign sequential numbers to. But with a little thought this could be done to the new modes and awards in the future. I await your reply. Thanks.Tim N9FTC/4 twstein(a)fairpoint.net

1 0

Rocky Mountain Division survey
by Brian Mileshosky 28 Nov '07

28 Nov '07

Hi Everyone - Rev and I conducted a somewhat extensive survey during the month of September. It was designed over the four months prior with the help of ARRL members around the division. Thanks to Bill N3LLR for lending us a huge hand as well. We just completed the compilation of results and I wanted to pass it your way about 1-2 days prior to when it'll be formally released to the Division and its section managers. While this speaks only for the members of the Rocky Mountain Division, there is some good information for all of us, including suggestions on what we all can improve on. I hope that it, along with the results from the recent Atlantic-Delta-Great Lakes division survey, provides a degree of background information for us to consider while in the board room. See the attached PDF file. It is also available at http://www.tribcsp.com/~arrlrm/survey/survey_results.pdf (NOT FOR PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE until I place the link on the homepage of our Division's website in a day or so). Some of my impressions from the results: --- League members seem to reside all over the chart in terms of how long they've been licensed, and how long they've been a member. A good thing! --- The number of folks volunteering in the field organization is nice, but can be improved greatly. While it's up to the SMs to promote and manage their field organizations, this may be an area where the League can promote volunteering and the opportunities to volunteer a bit more, somehow. --- The statistics on what ARRL services/benefits are utilized by my division's members is a good metric. It might be of interest to Harold and others to know. --- Not a lot of folks attend ARRL forums at their hamfests in the division.not sure if this is also true around the county. Admittedly, Colorado - the bulk of the division membership and survey takers - mainly conducts swapfests as fundraisers for their clubs. Those usually don't have any forums, which might account for a number of the "no" answers. Anyhow, this is something to promote more since nothing beats being in the same room as an ARRL leader to hear the skinny on League matters. --- The League's BPL efforts, particularly the court case.enthusiastic support from the membership (as we hope and expect) --- Regulation by bandwidth.our members didn't disagree with it as much as we thought, however there clearly wasn't significant support either. What strikes me is the huge number of folks who 'didn't know' if they supported the proposal - that (to me) indicates a problem with our educating them of the proposal, its concept, and its rationale. Also, what strikes me is the number of folks who DID NOT let their thoughts be known to ARRL or the FCC when solicited. They didn't play a role in the process. Did they not care? Give up on us? Leave it to the next guy to worry about? --- ARRL's legislative priorities.a significant number of people said they didn't even know what they were (though they all support them greatly as the next few stats show). I wonder if the same is true in other parts of the country. This suggests the need for better promotion to the membership. --- The direct-answer/feedback questions reveal a bunch of ideas and desires from our dues-paying members. These might be of interest to everyone on the Board. Please consider reading through them. Comments and impressions are welcomed. Again, this is not to be distributed anywhere else until posted to the public at http://www.tribcsp.com/~arrlrm 73, Brian N5ZGT ARRL Vice-Director, Rocky Mountain Division ARRL Director-elect, Rocky Mountain Division

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:16149] Re:December CQ editorial
by John Bellows 28 Nov '07

28 Nov '07

Joel: I couldnt disagree more. We followed the approach now proposed by Dick Norton last time. Some six months ago we faced a similar situation and did nothing. What was the result--the December CQ Here We Go Again editorial? Once again Rich Moseson reconstructs the facts in an effort to tar the ARRL Board as the Secret Society. I havent said anything thus far because you said Dave would be crafting a response this week; however Daves most recent ODV suggests no response is in the offing. As noted in the attachment my thought last time was to attempt to clarify the issues in an effort to see if W2VU was interested in the facts or just fanning the flames. We did nothing so W2VU felt free to play even faster and looser with the facts this time around. A lie unchallenged becomes truth. If you doubt me try asking John Kerry how not responding to the Swift Boat ads worked for him in 2004. With all due respect, not even having an explanation of what happened at Region 2 on the Web page was a flat out error. The ARRL Letter is hardly a substitute. If Moseson is wrong we ought to say so by accurately and respectfully pointing out his misstatements and mischaracterizations to our members on the Web and in QST. ARRL and its members deserve no less. 73, Jay, KØQB -----Original Message----- From: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 8:42 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:16149] Re:December CQ editorial Hi Dick, With the exception of your last paragraph (which I have no current position on) I completely and wholeheartedly agree with everything you said. 73 Joel W5ZN p.s. Hope your contest effort from HR was successful -----Original Message----- From: Richard J. Norton [mailto:richardjnorton@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 6:26 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:16149] Re:December CQ editorial I'm of the belief that being involved in anything will occasionally result in misrepresentations or misquotes in media. It's part of the cost of doing business. I'm also of the belief that the CQ editorial will have no significant impact on the League, even if no response is forthcoming. If you read threads on QRZ.COM, you will see a handful of perennial anti-ARRL folks lobbing grenades at the ARRL-perpetrated injustice of the moment. Other than the the anti-ARRL crowd and a struggling publisher looking for attention, hardly anybody is activated by this stuff. I do not think the ARRL should directly respond or engage the CQ Magazine people. I wouldn't be upset if nothing at all was done. However, the concept of a "Rumor Control" section on the ARRL web-site might be a decent idea. It adds a certain amount of zing to an otherwise pretty unexciting page. I'd also suggest not identifying the source as CQ, but just stating the rumor and then the facts. I do strongly suggest a heading of "Rumor Control - [Bandplan]" or something. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA On Nov 24, 2007 7:43 AM, Joel Harrison <w5zn(a)arrl.org> wrote: > > > > For those of you that subscribe to CQ, you will see Rich Moseson's editorial > in the December issue. For those like me that don't, it is attached. > > > > It is unfortunate that Rich has chosen to fill his editorial with writing > based on blatantly false statements and rumors. > > > > Dave will be crafting a response next week. > > > > 73 Joel W5ZN > >

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:16149] Re:December CQ editorial
by John Bellows 28 Nov '07

28 Nov '07

Joel: I couldn't disagree more. We followed the approach now proposed by Dick Norton last time. Some six months ago we faced a similar situation and did nothing. What was the result--the December CQ "Here We Go Again" editorial? Once again Rich Moseson reconstructs the facts in an effort to tar the ARRL Board as the "Secret Society." I haven't said anything thus far because you said Dave would be crafting a response this week; however Dave's most recent ODV suggests no response is in the offing. As noted in the attachment my thought last time was to attempt to clarify the issues in an effort to see if W2VU was interested in the facts or just "fanning the flames." We did nothing so W2VU felt free to play even faster and looser with the facts this time around. A lie unchallenged becomes truth. If you doubt me try asking John Kerry how not responding to the "Swift Boat" ads worked from him in 2004. With all due respect, not even having an explanation of what happened at Region 2 on the Web page was a flat out error. The ARRL Letter is hardly a substitute. If Moseson is wrong we ought to say so by accurately and respectfully pointing out his misstatements and mischaracterizations to our members on the Web and in QST. ARRL and its members deserve no less. 73, Jay, -----Original Message----- From: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 8:42 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:16149] Re:December CQ editorial Hi Dick, With the exception of your last paragraph (which I have no current position on) I completely and wholeheartedly agree with everything you said. 73 Joel W5ZN p.s. Hope your contest effort from HR was successful -----Original Message----- From: Richard J. Norton [mailto:richardjnorton@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 6:26 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:16149] Re:December CQ editorial I'm of the belief that being involved in anything will occasionally result in misrepresentations or misquotes in media. It's part of the cost of doing business. I'm also of the belief that the CQ editorial will have no significant impact on the League, even if no response is forthcoming. If you read threads on QRZ.COM, you will see a handful of perennial anti-ARRL folks lobbing grenades at the ARRL-perpetrated injustice of the moment. Other than the the anti-ARRL crowd and a struggling publisher looking for attention, hardly anybody is activated by this stuff. I do not think the ARRL should directly respond or engage the CQ Magazine people. I wouldn't be upset if nothing at all was done. However, the concept of a "Rumor Control" section on the ARRL web-site might be a decent idea. It adds a certain amount of zing to an otherwise pretty unexciting page. I'd also suggest not identifying the source as CQ, but just stating the rumor and then the facts. I do strongly suggest a heading of "Rumor Control - [Bandplan]" or something. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA On Nov 24, 2007 7:43 AM, Joel Harrison <w5zn(a)arrl.org> wrote: > > > > For those of you that subscribe to CQ, you will see Rich Moseson's editorial > in the December issue. For those like me that don't, it is attached. > > > > It is unfortunate that Rich has chosen to fill his editorial with writing > based on blatantly false statements and rumors. > > > > Dave will be crafting a response next week. > > > > 73 Joel W5ZN > >

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:16149] Re:December CQ editorial
by Joel Harrison 28 Nov '07

28 Nov '07

Hi Dick, With the exception of your last paragraph (which I have no current position on) I completely and wholeheartedly agree with everything you said. 73 Joel W5ZN p.s. Hope your contest effort from HR was successful -----Original Message----- From: Richard J. Norton [mailto:richardjnorton@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 6:26 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:16149] Re:December CQ editorial I'm of the belief that being involved in anything will occasionally result in misrepresentations or misquotes in media. It's part of the cost of doing business. I'm also of the belief that the CQ editorial will have no significant impact on the League, even if no response is forthcoming. If you read threads on QRZ.COM, you will see a handful of perennial anti-ARRL folks lobbing grenades at the ARRL-perpetrated injustice of the moment. Other than the the anti-ARRL crowd and a struggling publisher looking for attention, hardly anybody is activated by this stuff. I do not think the ARRL should directly respond or engage the CQ Magazine people. I wouldn't be upset if nothing at all was done. However, the concept of a "Rumor Control" section on the ARRL web-site might be a decent idea. It adds a certain amount of zing to an otherwise pretty unexciting page. I'd also suggest not identifying the source as CQ, but just stating the rumor and then the facts. I do strongly suggest a heading of "Rumor Control - [Bandplan]" or something. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA On Nov 24, 2007 7:43 AM, Joel Harrison <w5zn(a)arrl.org> wrote: > > > > For those of you that subscribe to CQ, you will see Rich Moseson's editorial > in the December issue. For those like me that don't, it is attached. > > > > It is unfortunate that Rich has chosen to fill his editorial with writing > based on blatantly false statements and rumors. > > > > Dave will be crafting a response next week. > > > > 73 Joel W5ZN > >

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:16147] RE: [arrl-odv:16142] RE: December CQ editorial
by Joel Harrison 28 Nov '07

28 Nov '07

Jim, No one is, or has suggested, "running" to Dick Ross. That ain't happening. For many years, dating back before you were on the board, Ross would, on occasion every couple of years, come to HQ or Dave would have a reason to visit CQ and they would chat about various things in Amateur Radio in general. That is a good thing. If that opportunity pops up in the near future I'm sure Dave will, as usual, take advantage of the opportunity to discuss Amateur Radio life in general, but he sure isn't digging his Hushpuppies out of the closet and waxing them up for a "run" over to Hicksville, NY. Joel -----Original Message----- From: K8JE [mailto:K8JE@arrl.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 4:13 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:16147] RE: [arrl-odv:16142] RE: December CQ editorial I think there is a fine line between freedom of the press, and setting the record straight. "Running" to Dick Ross could easily be construed as attempting to interfere with freedom of the press. On the other hand, a well-written, hard-hitting, fact-filled, documented letter to the editor and/or discussion in ARRL publications is an example of supporting this freedom. Having said the above, I remain concerned that we are not doing everything we can feasibly do to fix the public image of ARRL that exists in many members as well as nonmembers minds. This is an era of unprecedented access to instantaneous communication regardless of the legitimacy of the communication. I believe we have neither recognized the degree to which anti-ARRL commu8nication by League bashers is being accepted by all-too-many hams, nor have we developed modern, relevant means for nullifying the effects of these attacks. It isn't our grandparent's era of communication and relative goodwill. The publicity axiom of "I don't care what you say about me so long as you spell my name correctly" holds true any longer regarding organizations that rely on public support to survive. The axiom, "The louder and longer one proclaims an untruth, the greater the number of people who come to accept it as fact" certainly is at least as true as ever. FWIW, Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is! Members - The Reason ARRL Is! -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 4:28 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:16147] RE: [arrl-odv:16142] RE: December CQ editorial Tom is correct that there was no separate Web story after the conference. There was an extensive report in the September 21 ARRL Letter, however. There is a full-page report on the Region 2 conference, including the URL of the Region 2 band plan, on page 74 of December QST. In both cases the report included the fact that the Region 2 plan is modeled on the Region 1 plan, something that Rich neglects to mention either in the editorial or in the brief item, credited to Radio Amateurs of Canada, on page 4. (The RAC item also included the Region 1 reference.) Rich's basic argument is that the ARRL's decisionmaking processes are not as open and transparent as they could be or should be. In this instance he happens to have seized on something which in fact isn't an example of that at all. I have not talked to Dick Ross about either editorial. It's been a while since we have gotten together informally, which we have done in the past from time to time. We don't often actively engage the other independent amateur radio media. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Tom Frenaye [mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 7:32 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:16142] RE: December CQ editorial At 03:27 PM 11/26/2007, Joel wrote: >QSL Brian. >Dave and I agree that the response should be worded such that Rich will come to his own realization that he really goofed on a couple of points. Wording it differently would serve no purpose but to encourage Rich to write yet another bad editorial, which ARRL and amateur radio doesn't need. I think we need to reply differently than we did last time (just six months ago). Have we had any discussions with Rich's boss? It looks like we don't advertise in CQ, so there's none to pull. Still, I'm feeling like cooperation with CQ should chill for a while. Jay Bellows had some good suggestions last time - I was hoping to see CQ acknowledge they had their facts wrong, but unless I missed it, nothing was ever reported. I can't imagine why we still have someone who can't follow the basics of "getting the facts straight" (or even ask us for the facts) on our PR Committee. It gives him more credibility than it gives us. Further, I think we need to take a different approach to this kind of story. This one seems to have started on one person's web site, then spread through others, with flames fanned by fringe groups who seem to need a cause of their own PR, and finally found a home in a "respected" publication. We generally do not engage the writers at any stage of the discussion, except for those that write to us individually. Those responses don't generally get shared with everyone who read the original flames. Maybe we need a "rumor control" (or "setting the record straight") section of the ARRL web site. I see from yesterday's In-News that "A rapidly spreading rumor of Riley's being forced to retire after his decision NOT to do so was silenced." Perhaps rumor control happens more than I realize - so why don't we talk about it/them publicly? Do we regularly contact other ham radio publications like CQ and WorldRadio (are there really any others of significance?) and offer to answer questions, to promote specific stories of our own, etc? That might make for opportunities for questions to be answered before damage is done. As I noted in an email exchange with Joel in mid-October, the only story on our web site about the Region 2 Conference in Brazil was on September 11th as the conference opened. I still can't find one that reported on the activities that took place - including any report on the bandplan that seems to have created all of the aggravation. Nothing found in Nov or Dec QST so maybe it'll be in January? I really hate to see all of our hard work on international issues tarnished by the bad reporting by W2VU and CQ, and our lack of reporting. -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

[arrl-odv:16149] Re:December CQ editorial
by Richard J. Norton 28 Nov '07

28 Nov '07

I'm of the belief that being involved in anything will occasionally result in misrepresentations or misquotes in media. It's part of the cost of doing business. I'm also of the belief that the CQ editorial will have no significant impact on the League, even if no response is forthcoming. If you read threads on QRZ.COM, you will see a handful of perennial anti-ARRL folks lobbing grenades at the ARRL-perpetrated injustice of the moment. Other than the the anti-ARRL crowd and a struggling publisher looking for attention, hardly anybody is activated by this stuff. I do not think the ARRL should directly respond or engage the CQ Magazine people. I wouldn't be upset if nothing at all was done. However, the concept of a "Rumor Control" section on the ARRL web-site might be a decent idea. It adds a certain amount of zing to an otherwise pretty unexciting page. I'd also suggest not identifying the source as CQ, but just stating the rumor and then the facts. I do strongly suggest a heading of "Rumor Control - [Bandplan]" or something. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA On Nov 24, 2007 7:43 AM, Joel Harrison <w5zn(a)arrl.org> wrote: > > > > For those of you that subscribe to CQ, you will see Rich Moseson's editorial > in the December issue. For those like me that don't, it is attached. > > > > It is unfortunate that Rich has chosen to fill his editorial with writing > based on blatantly false statements and rumors. > > > > Dave will be crafting a response next week. > > > > 73 Joel W5ZN > >

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:16147] RE: [arrl-odv:16142] RE: December CQ editorial
by K8JE 27 Nov '07

27 Nov '07

I think there is a fine line between freedom of the press, and setting the record straight. "Running" to Dick Ross could easily be construed as attempting to interfere with freedom of the press. On the other hand, a well-written, hard-hitting, fact-filled, documented letter to the editor and/or discussion in ARRL publications is an example of supporting this freedom. Having said the above, I remain concerned that we are not doing everything we can feasibly do to fix the public image of ARRL that exists in many members as well as nonmembers minds. This is an era of unprecedented access to instantaneous communication regardless of the legitimacy of the communication. I believe we have neither recognized the degree to which anti-ARRL commu8nication by League bashers is being accepted by all-too-many hams, nor have we developed modern, relevant means for nullifying the effects of these attacks. It isn't our grandparent's era of communication and relative goodwill. The publicity axiom of "I don't care what you say about me so long as you spell my name correctly" holds true any longer regarding organizations that rely on public support to survive. The axiom, "The louder and longer one proclaims an untruth, the greater the number of people who come to accept it as fact" certainly is at least as true as ever. FWIW, Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is! Members - The Reason ARRL Is! -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 4:28 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:16147] RE: [arrl-odv:16142] RE: December CQ editorial Tom is correct that there was no separate Web story after the conference. There was an extensive report in the September 21 ARRL Letter, however. There is a full-page report on the Region 2 conference, including the URL of the Region 2 band plan, on page 74 of December QST. In both cases the report included the fact that the Region 2 plan is modeled on the Region 1 plan, something that Rich neglects to mention either in the editorial or in the brief item, credited to Radio Amateurs of Canada, on page 4. (The RAC item also included the Region 1 reference.) Rich's basic argument is that the ARRL's decisionmaking processes are not as open and transparent as they could be or should be. In this instance he happens to have seized on something which in fact isn't an example of that at all. I have not talked to Dick Ross about either editorial. It's been a while since we have gotten together informally, which we have done in the past from time to time. We don't often actively engage the other independent amateur radio media. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Tom Frenaye [mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 7:32 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:16142] RE: December CQ editorial At 03:27 PM 11/26/2007, Joel wrote: >QSL Brian. >Dave and I agree that the response should be worded such that Rich will come to his own realization that he really goofed on a couple of points. Wording it differently would serve no purpose but to encourage Rich to write yet another bad editorial, which ARRL and amateur radio doesn't need. I think we need to reply differently than we did last time (just six months ago). Have we had any discussions with Rich's boss? It looks like we don't advertise in CQ, so there's none to pull. Still, I'm feeling like cooperation with CQ should chill for a while. Jay Bellows had some good suggestions last time - I was hoping to see CQ acknowledge they had their facts wrong, but unless I missed it, nothing was ever reported. I can't imagine why we still have someone who can't follow the basics of "getting the facts straight" (or even ask us for the facts) on our PR Committee. It gives him more credibility than it gives us. Further, I think we need to take a different approach to this kind of story. This one seems to have started on one person's web site, then spread through others, with flames fanned by fringe groups who seem to need a cause of their own PR, and finally found a home in a "respected" publication. We generally do not engage the writers at any stage of the discussion, except for those that write to us individually. Those responses don't generally get shared with everyone who read the original flames. Maybe we need a "rumor control" (or "setting the record straight") section of the ARRL web site. I see from yesterday's In-News that "A rapidly spreading rumor of Riley's being forced to retire after his decision NOT to do so was silenced." Perhaps rumor control happens more than I realize - so why don't we talk about it/them publicly? Do we regularly contact other ham radio publications like CQ and WorldRadio (are there really any others of significance?) and offer to answer questions, to promote specific stories of our own, etc? That might make for opportunities for questions to be answered before damage is done. As I noted in an email exchange with Joel in mid-October, the only story on our web site about the Region 2 Conference in Brazil was on September 11th as the conference opened. I still can't find one that reported on the activities that took place - including any report on the bandplan that seems to have created all of the aggravation. Nothing found in Nov or Dec QST so maybe it'll be in January? I really hate to see all of our hard work on international issues tarnished by the bad reporting by W2VU and CQ, and our lack of reporting. -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

[arrl-odv:16147] RE: [arrl-odv:16142] RE: December CQ editorial
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 27 Nov '07

27 Nov '07

Tom is correct that there was no separate Web story after the conference. There was an extensive report in the September 21 ARRL Letter, however. There is a full-page report on the Region 2 conference, including the URL of the Region 2 band plan, on page 74 of December QST. In both cases the report included the fact that the Region 2 plan is modeled on the Region 1 plan, something that Rich neglects to mention either in the editorial or in the brief item, credited to Radio Amateurs of Canada, on page 4. (The RAC item also included the Region 1 reference.) Rich's basic argument is that the ARRL's decisionmaking processes are not as open and transparent as they could be or should be. In this instance he happens to have seized on something which in fact isn't an example of that at all. I have not talked to Dick Ross about either editorial. It's been a while since we have gotten together informally, which we have done in the past from time to time. We don't often actively engage the other independent amateur radio media. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Tom Frenaye [mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 7:32 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:16142] RE: December CQ editorial At 03:27 PM 11/26/2007, Joel wrote: >QSL Brian. >Dave and I agree that the response should be worded such that Rich will come to his own realization that he really goofed on a couple of points. Wording it differently would serve no purpose but to encourage Rich to write yet another bad editorial, which ARRL and amateur radio doesn't need. I think we need to reply differently than we did last time (just six months ago). Have we had any discussions with Rich's boss? It looks like we don't advertise in CQ, so there's none to pull. Still, I'm feeling like cooperation with CQ should chill for a while. Jay Bellows had some good suggestions last time - I was hoping to see CQ acknowledge they had their facts wrong, but unless I missed it, nothing was ever reported. I can't imagine why we still have someone who can't follow the basics of "getting the facts straight" (or even ask us for the facts) on our PR Committee. It gives him more credibility than it gives us. Further, I think we need to take a different approach to this kind of story. This one seems to have started on one person's web site, then spread through others, with flames fanned by fringe groups who seem to need a cause of their own PR, and finally found a home in a "respected" publication. We generally do not engage the writers at any stage of the discussion, except for those that write to us individually. Those responses don't generally get shared with everyone who read the original flames. Maybe we need a "rumor control" (or "setting the record straight") section of the ARRL web site. I see from yesterday's In-News that "A rapidly spreading rumor of Riley's being forced to retire after his decision NOT to do so was silenced." Perhaps rumor control happens more than I realize - so why don't we talk about it/them publicly? Do we regularly contact other ham radio publications like CQ and WorldRadio (are there really any others of significance?) and offer to answer questions, to promote specific stories of our own, etc? That might make for opportunities for questions to be answered before damage is done. As I noted in an email exchange with Joel in mid-October, the only story on our web site about the Region 2 Conference in Brazil was on September 11th as the conference opened. I still can't find one that reported on the activities that took place - including any report on the bandplan that seems to have created all of the aggravation. Nothing found in Nov or Dec QST so maybe it'll be in January? I really hate to see all of our hard work on international issues tarnished by the bad reporting by W2VU and CQ, and our lack of reporting. -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

[arrl-odv:16146] RE: November State Legislative Report
by n3llr＠earthlink.net 27 Nov '07

27 Nov '07

Joel, We've got a teleconference coming up with our division section managers and division Asst Dirs. This is good information for them simply to be aware of what is going on with legislation within the division. - Bill N3LLR -----Original Message----- From: "Joel Harrison" <w5zn(a)arrl.org> Subj: RE: November State Legislative Report Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:59 pm Size: 10K To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Bill, Im not sure there is really any point sending it to the Legislative Action Program members since they do not have any state-level responsibilities. Of course, the SMs do and it can be sent to them, although it is probably good idea, if the Director decides to send it to the SMs, to edit it down to the applicable states within the division, otherwise it would be a large file with a lot of non-pertinent info. 73 Joel W5ZN From: Bill Edgar [mailto:n3llr@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 2:12 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: November State Legislative Report Joel, Is this information available to be shared with members of the Legislative Action program with our divisions and with the Section Managers within our division? - Bill N3LLR From: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 2:43 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: November State Legislative Report Attached is the November state legislative report from Chwat & Co. Joel

1 0