January 2008 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:16407] Re: ZF2BJ QRV
by Bruce Frahm 27 Jan '08

27 Jan '08

Finally figured out to use the dipole, NOT the inv-L, and to use the tuner. Still, can't really get a run going. Fun nonetheless and 6 was open from Orlando to NM but in a thin N/S band. I am not in this seriously, but don't show up mid-contest at a shack you were at a year ago if you expect to rock 'n roll :-) My ears were semi-OK on the flights so think scuba will work OK too. Cliff, I worked "our" contest station (JPL/Dayton). Caught K1KI on too. 73 ZF2BJ On Jan 26, 2008 9:53 PM, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <dsumner(a)arrl.org> wrote: > Bruce, K0BJ just checked in on 160 meters as ZF2BJ. > > Dave K1ZZ >

1 0

[arrl-odv:16406] ZF2BJ QRV
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 27 Jan '08

27 Jan '08

Bruce, K0BJ just checked in on 160 meters as ZF2BJ. Dave K1ZZ

1 0

[arrl-odv:16405] Re:Board meeting agenda, SM question
by Rod Stafford W6ROD 27 Jan '08

27 Jan '08

Brian I have some comments and observations regarding the comments made by the New Mexico SM. Since he's apparently just been elected maybe he can be excused for not being aware that the ARRL Board meets the 3rd Friday and Saturday EVERY January and July. I would be very surprised if an Annual or a Second ARRL Board meeting snuck up on any SM and took them by surprise. That having been said, it seems to me if an SM has a particular issue to bring to the attention of the ARRL Board then they certainly should know who to contact, i.e. their very own director. I have to chuckle a little about the comment that "a lot" of SMs were upset because they didn't get the agenda before the meeting. SMs have never got the agenda before the meeting! Maybe they've been upset all these years and didn't say anything. ;) That's not to say I agree they shouldn't get it. It just hasn't been done. If the agenda has something on it related to the Field Organization, it usually doesn't get as far as the Board meeting without the SMs giving input. You might also point out the minutes of all the ARRL Board Meetings that can be seen on the ARRL web site. As a part of the minutes, the agenda for the meeting is always set out in general terms. I would point out to him that the nearly identical pro forma agenda varies very little from meeting to meeting. That will give him an idea what will be on the agenda for July. We talked about Long Range Planning this past meeting including the original LRPC came up with "cabinet meetings" where the director gets the SMs and Asst Directors together a couple of times a year just before the Board meetings to discuss the upcoming meeting and issues that might arise. I know since the early 80's that's been going on in the Pacific Division and I think Bob Vallio still does that. I believe quite a few of the directors do the same. Sorry if I'm a little testy, I've been stuck indoors for days with continual rain. I'm getting cabin fever. hi hi 73, Rod W6ROD p.s. The more I think about it I'm getting upset because I wasn't given an agenda before the Board meetings when I was an SM. Damn! Come to think of it, if I had brought that issue up to my Director when I was SM he likely would have said, "when we want your input, we'll ask for it." At 05:29 PM 1/26/2008, Brian Mileshosky wrote: >All > >First, does anyone have an agenda for the last board meeting in electronic >format? If so, can someone please send it to me? > >We had a swapfest today and I was talking with New Mexicos newly elected >Section Manager. He commented that a lot of Section Managers were angry >that they didnt know what was on the agenda for the board meeting in >advance so they could provide input. > >I explained that the agenda is pretty general, and the meeting is >predominantly committee and officer reports, which then result in motions >depending on the discussion that takes place. I dont know of a single >motion (at least in my time on the board) that have been prepared in >advance of the meeting, much less specific topics of discussion (outside >of committee reports) such as the regulation by bandwidth topic which >was promoted as being a topic of the board meeting in advance. After >offering this explanation his comment was to the effect of thats not a >good way to run a board meeting. Now, hes a great guy, brand new to the >section manager job, not aware of how board meetings are conducted, and >probably getting opinions from other opinionated section managers. > >As for his thats not a good way comment, I dont know any better way to >conduct our meetings unless we have a separate pre-meeting to cast things >in concrete before we have the real board meeting. > >Does anybody have a better explanation I can provide him? Id like to >share our agenda with him so he sees how general it is, with nearly >nothing on it for advanced discussion other than the scheduled discussion >of reports. > >On a separate note, I think offering the SMs a summary of board decisions >was a wise move, and we should consider giving them a heads up of whats >to occur at future board meetings as is appropriate, depending on the >topic, and depending on if we ODVers know whats to be put on the table >so they dont feel isolated. > >Thanks and 73, >Brian N5ZGT Rod Stafford W6ROD Photos: www.flickr.com/photos/rodstaffordphotography

1 0

Board meeting agenda, SM question
by Brian Mileshosky 27 Jan '08

27 Jan '08

All - First, does anyone have an agenda for the last board meeting in electronic format? If so, can someone please send it to me? We had a swapfest today and I was talking with New Mexico's newly elected Section Manager. He commented that 'a lot' of Section Managers were angry that they didn't know what was on the agenda for the board meeting in advance so they could provide input. I explained that the agenda is pretty general, and the meeting is predominantly committee and officer reports, which then result in motions depending on the discussion that takes place. I don't know of a single motion (at least in my time on the board) that have been prepared in advance of the meeting, much less specific topics of discussion (outside of committee reports) such as the regulation by bandwidth topic - which was promoted as being a topic of the board meeting in advance. After offering this explanation his comment was to the effect of "that's not a good way to run a board meeting." Now, he's a great guy, brand new to the section manager job, not aware of how board meetings are conducted, and probably getting opinions from other opinionated section managers. As for his "that's not a good way" comment, I don't know any better way to conduct our meetings unless we have a separate pre-meeting to cast things in concrete before we have the real board meeting. Does anybody have a better explanation I can provide him? I'd like to share our agenda with him so he sees how general it is, with nearly nothing on it for advanced discussion other than the scheduled discussion of reports. On a separate note, I think offering the SMs a summary of board decisions was a wise move, and we should consider giving them a heads up of what's to occur at future board meetings - as is appropriate, depending on the topic, and depending on if we ODVers know what's to be put on the table - so they don't feel isolated. Thanks and 73, Brian N5ZGT

1 0

[arrl-odv:16403] Winlink
by David Woolweaver 27 Jan '08

27 Jan '08

I attended a Winlink seminar today at Port Isabel near Padre Island. The information in Andy Oppel's recent report to the ODV is identical to what I was told at the seminar. Winlink PMBO stations are migrating to a new software, Radio Message Server (RMS). The new software is reported to be easier to setup and offers more features. The present Telpac stations will also migrate to new software soon. Find below a comment from a Winlink official. "The Winlink 2000 Amateur system is being converted from the current PMBOs to a "Radio Message Server" system. Each such system will have what is called "active signal detection," meaning that if another station of any type is on frequency, it won't transmit. " David, K5RAV

1 0

[arrl-odv:16402] Re: Winlink PMBOs
by Andy Oppel 26 Jan '08

26 Jan '08

That wasn't a deduction on my part -- it is what Steve Waterman told me was going on regarding the rumor that all the developers had shut down their PMBOs. By the way, he called me -- I wasn't soliciting his comments. To your point, I agree with you and my comment was not intended to imply otherwise. Allowing e-mail off the Internet to enter their system without some sort of review is asking for trouble. In an Emcomm scenario, there should be an amateur at the served agency to supervise the system and train the non-hams who might be inputting messages what is and is not permitted. It's the traffic coming the other way that presents a serious control issue (which of course includes spam - 90% of the e-mail I get on andyoppel.com is spam). On top of that, I'm far from convinced that the sending/receiving of routine personal e-mail, as done by all those boaters and RVers is in the best interest of amateur radio. However, my support for Winlink as a tool in the toolbox has always been from an Emcomm perspective. -- Andy Oppel, N6AJO At 01:32 PM 1/26/2008, w3kd(a)aol.com wrote: >Andy, that is a possibility, but it is not something that can be >deduced from the use of the new software. Dan Henderson's source is >someone quite familiar with Winlink and I believe that there is more >to the issue of the design team's continued or discontinued >operation of their own PMBOs than just status printouts. But we will >check. In any case, the control issue for PMBOs remains an active >concern on the part of the FCC. Cross indicated to me the other day >on the phone that only local control of PMBOs, in his view, provides >the requisite compliance opportunity. > >Having seen examples of the spam that comes through (to W1AW), I >agree with him. Steve Waterman's only defense to that is that the >recipient of the spam can regulate it. That is not sufficient where >the non-ham, spam material can be inserted into the system and >transmitted by a licensed Amateur transmitter without any review. > >73, Chris W3KD > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Andy Oppel <andy(a)andyoppel.com> >To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> >Sent: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 2:14 pm >Subject: [arrl-odv:16400] Winlink PMBOs > >Recalling the discussion at the annual meeting regarding Winlink >PMBOs being shut down, particularly among the Winlink Development >Team, I found out today that they are deploying a new generation of >their technology, replacing PMBOs with what they call RMS Packet and >RMS Pactor. The Winlink website only reports the status of PMBO >stations, so those that have been converted to RMS show as >"offline". So it appears to me that some folks who birddog Winlink >constantly noticed the pattern and attempted to make an issue of it. > >73, >Andy Oppel, N6AJO >Vice Director, Pacific Division >American Radio Relay League (ARRL) >The National Association for Amateur Radio > ><mailto:n6ajo@arrl.org>n6ajo(a)arrl.org >home: (510) 864-2299 >cell: (510) 912-0985 > >---------- >More new features than ever. Check out the new ><http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=ao…>AOL >Mail! Andy Oppel andy(a)andyoppel.com andy_oppel(a)alamedanet.net

1 0

Re: [arrl-odv:16400] Winlink PMBOs
by w3kd＠aol.com 26 Jan '08

26 Jan '08

Andy, that is a possibility, but it is not something that can be deduced from the use of the new software. Dan Henderson's source is someone quite familiar with Winlink and I believe that there is more to the issue of the design team's continued or discontinued operation of their own PMBOs?than just status printouts. But we will check. In any case, the control issue for PMBOs remains an active concern on the part of the FCC. Cross indicated to me the other day on the phone that only local control of PMBOs, in his view, provides the requisite compliance opportunity. Having seen examples of the spam that comes through (to W1AW), I agree with him. Steve Waterman's only defense to that is that the recipient of the spam can regulate it. That is not sufficient where the non-ham, spam material can be inserted into the system and transmitted by a licensed Amateur transmitter without any review. 73, Chris W3KD -----Original Message----- From: Andy Oppel <andy(a)andyoppel.com> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 2:14 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:16400] Winlink PMBOs Recalling the discussion at the annual meeting regarding Winlink PMBOs being shut down, particularly among the Winlink Development Team, I found out today that they are deploying a new generation of their technology, replacing PMBOs with what they call RMS Packet and RMS Pactor.? The Winlink website only reports the status of PMBO stations, so those that have been converted to RMS show as "offline".? So it appears to me that some folks who birddog Winlink constantly noticed the pattern and attempted to make an issue of it. 73, Andy Oppel, N6AJO Vice Director, Pacific Division American Radio Relay League (ARRL) The National Association for Amateur Radio n6ajo(a)arrl.org home:? (510) 864-2299 cell:???? (510) 912-0985 ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com

1 0

[arrl-odv:16400] Winlink PMBOs
by Andy Oppel 26 Jan '08

26 Jan '08

Recalling the discussion at the annual meeting regarding Winlink PMBOs being shut down, particularly among the Winlink Development Team, I found out today that they are deploying a new generation of their technology, replacing PMBOs with what they call RMS Packet and RMS Pactor. The Winlink website only reports the status of PMBO stations, so those that have been converted to RMS show as "offline". So it appears to me that some folks who birddog Winlink constantly noticed the pattern and attempted to make an issue of it. 73, Andy Oppel, N6AJO Vice Director, Pacific Division American Radio Relay League (ARRL) The National Association for Amateur Radio n6ajo(a)arrl.org home: (510) 864-2299 cell: (510) 912-0985

1 0

[arrl-odv:16399] W4RH - one correction
by Tom Frenaye 25 Jan '08

25 Jan '08

Frank Butler mentioned to me that he had a non-contiguous term on the ARRL Foundation board. Not only has he served since January 1989 until today, he also had a term from January 1980 through January 1983. Twenty-two years and counting on the ARRLF! -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org President, ARRL Foundation http://www.arrl.org/arrlf/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:16383] Illness?
by K8JE 25 Jan '08

25 Jan '08

Bill, I don't know if this is a follow-through with what hit me on Saturday, but I've has to buy a couple of cases of Puffs tissues since returning. Nothing but a head full of crap (technical medical term), but this is enough. Speaking of Giants, get them out of my head!!! All you who are joining me in a "cold" of some form, don't. Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Directorl ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: <mailto:k8je@arrl.org> k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is! Members - The Reason ARRL Is! _____ From: William Sawders [mailto:k7zm@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 7:41 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:16383] Illness? Anyone else come down with this horrible cough, aches and pains? I have been in bed since I got home Sunday night! Almost like the "whooping cough". Just wondering. Thanks for a great meeting and it was a pleasure to serve on the A & F Committee. Here's to good health in the new year! Go Giants! Bill Sawders, K7ZM VD NW Div.

1 0