December 2010 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

IN-News
by Kustosik, Lisa, KA1UFZ 15 Dec '10

15 Dec '10

<<121510.doc>> IN-Newsletter <<Microsoft Word Picture>> Vol. 33, No. 50 December 15, 2010 -- Covers the period December 5-11. Upcoming Meetings and Events Programs & Services Committee: January 20 @ 8:30am - ARRL HQ Administration & Finance Committee January 20 @ 8:30am - ARRL HQ Annual Board Meeting January 21-22, 2011 @ 9:00am in Windsor, CT Media & Public Relations Reported by Allen Pitts, W1AGP The Media Hits column was sent to QST, text for a web page describing hams' work in public events (parades, marathons, etc.) was created and will parallel the development of a new flier on the same topic which should go to press this week. Also expected to go to press is the new presentation folder showing all 5 of the ARRL pillars. In addition, with help from Harold Kramer, a page explaining the 5 pillars has been created at http://www.arrl.org/arrl-five-pillars . The deadline for the 2010 Leonard Award was Dec 10 and there were multiple nominations in each of the three categories. The materials have been scanned, duplicated and/or computerized in some way and mailed on CD's to each of the PRC members for their voting. Allen is also working with Bill Pasternak and the other task group members in creating an outline for a quality 2011 technical video within the expected budget. Development Reported by Mary Hobart, K1MMH Development continues integrated efforts to increase revenue by year end. To that end, the paper version of the December issue of Spectrum Defense Matters(SDM) was mailed by post to more than 30,000 prior donors. That same issue has been posted in the Spectrum Defense Fun d section of the ARRL web site, and a link to it was emailed to more than 90,000 ARRL members. Simultaneously, a story was developed for the web news crawl and the ARRL letter. The Spectrum Defense Fun now stands at 68% of its 2010 goal with 2 weeks remaining in the year. Development is acknowledging contributions of $3- or more by December 31 with a $10 gift certificate on ARRL publications orders. Development has been advised of a pending estate gift in the form of an insurance policy. No details are available. A story on the million-dollar gift from the estate of Iona and Charles Mathias, K8KGD was prepared for the web and the ARRL letter. Production/Editorial Reported by Joel Kleinman, N1BKE Khrystyne Keane wrote and distributed The ARRL Letter and voiced and produced ARRL Audio News for December 9, 2010. Lab Reported by Ed Hare, W1RFI RFI The new Smart Meter FAQ Page http://www.arrl.org/smart-meters seems to have been worth the effort. A number of hams have commented on it. An LED bulb that was sent to the Lab for conducted emissions testing exceeded the Part 18 limits for consumer lighting. Many of these products seem to be coming from overseas, and in some cases, from eBay sources located outside the United States. An RFI case in to a ham Ohio involves an ultraviolet light in his neighbor's septic tank system. Mike Gruber built up a fluorescent light fixture to test various electronic ballasts. Mike found preliminary results to exceed Part 18 limits for consumer lighting devices. The ballast is rated for non-consumer lighting. Product Review Bob Allison is working with an economy HF rig manufacturer to eliminate a frequency wobble. Membership & Volunteer Programs Reported by Dave Patton, NN1N W1AW Thanks to Bob Heil, K9EID, owner of Heil Sound, for his donation to W1AW of a new microphone, the PR-31BW. This microphone is in use in Studio One on the Yaesu FTdx9000D. Joe processed regular QSL cards requests. He also assembled a new AFSK/FSK interface for use in Studio One with the Icom IC-7700. Joe also worked the early afternoon/night shifts on Monday and Tuesday for the vacationing Scott Gee. Scott worked on fast and slow code practice files for the first part of the month of December. Field Organization/Public Service Team Incumbents Section Managers Jay Urish, W5GM (North Texas), Jim Brooks, KY4Z (Kentucky), and Carl Gardenias, WU6D (Orange) were nominated to run for new terms of office of their respective Sections starting on April 1, 2011. After the Friday, December 10, deadline for receipt of nominations for this election cycle passed, there were no other nominees from North Texas, Kentucky or Orange. There will be one SM election this winter, and that will be in Arkansas. Dale Temple, W5RXU, is running for election, and incumbent Arkansas Section Manager J.M. Rowe, N5XFW, is running for re-election. Here is a review of the following incumbent ARRL Section Managers that were nominated to run for new terms of office earlier in the season. They do not face opposition. Their new two-year terms of office begin on April 1, 2011: Tom Fagan, K7DF (Arizona); Tom Brehmer, N0LOH (Iowa); Malcolm Keown, W5XX; Doug Dunn, K7YD (Montana); Garth Crowe, N7XKT (Wyoming). Radio amateurs form Ohio, Orange, and South Texas have joined the Field Organization as Official Observers this week. Documentation was received from the South Texas OOC which he had received from one of his OOs regarding ongoing infractions on 75 meters. After being reviewed, this was forwarded to the FCC for their consideration. A report of a problem with the ID on a Western New York repeater is being followed up on. Reports of Over the Horizon radars on 15 and 40 meters were received as well as interference to an RV net on 20 meters. Work is progressing on a revision to the OO training guide. Chuck Skolaut compiled and forwarded the monthly monitoring report to the IARU Region 2 coordinator. Interference to an Eastern Massachusetts repeater was reported and the respective OOC was alerted. Documentation was received regarding interference to a California 2 meter repeater and was forwarded to the FCC. Chuck also participated in the SKYWARN Recognition Day held on December 4. This event was co-sponsored by ARRL and the National Weather Service. Sincerely Compiled by, Lisa Kustosik, KA1UFZ Assistant to the CEO Staff Absentee List All Staff 12/24 Holiday All Staff 12/31 Holiday Margie Bourgoin 12/20-12/23 Vacation Jackie Ferreira 12/23 Vacation `` 12/30 Vacation Steve Ford 12/23-12/31 Vacation Scott Gee 12/23 Vacation Joel Hallas 12/22-12/29 Vacation Dan Henderson 12/6-1/10 Medical Leave Mary Hobart 12/27-12/28 Vacation Bob Inderbitzen 12/27-12/30 Vacation Maryann Macdonald 12/27-12/31 Vacation Bill Moore 12/27-1/4 Vacation Diane Petrilli 12/20-12/22 Vacation `` 12/27-12/29 Vacation Allen Pitts 12/17 Vacation `` 12/24-12/31 Vacation Steve Sant Andrea 12/27-12/30 Vacation Barry Shelley 12/16-12/23 Vacation Dave Sumner 12/22-12/23 Vacation `` 12/30 Vacation

1 0

Your Xmas Card & Message
by Kustosik, Lisa, KA1UFZ 15 Dec '10

15 Dec '10

Earle Smith, VE6NM has been fighting an illness and has finally retired at age 80. Please keep him in your thoughts and prayers. His message below: Appreciate it if you would pass along my regards to Dave K1ZZ and other ARRL HQ friends. Merry Christmas and a wonderful New Year 2011 to all. Take care, Love Earle - VE6NM

1 0

Re: FCC sets effective date for vanity/club rules changes
by Chris Imlay 15 Dec '10

15 Dec '10

Greetings. Further to Dave's message below, the Executive Committee is now considering the filing of a Petition for Reconsideration or Partial Reconsideration in this proceeding and has ordered the preparation of a draft of such. The effective date of the rules adopted in this order does not affect the date on which any Petition for Reconsideration would be due. That date is statutory and is 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register. Because the publication date is today, a petition for reconsideration would be due January 14, 2011 or before (a week before the Board Meeting). The filing of a petition for reconsideration does NOT toll the effective date of the new rules, and a stay of such is both unnecessary and practically an impossibility in this proceeding. 73, Chris W3KD Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper. P.C. 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD(a)ARRL.ORG -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <dsumner(a)arrl.org> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Wed, Dec 15, 2010 1:30 pm Subject: FCC sets effective date for vanity/club rules changes This morning the Report and Order in FCC WT Docket No. 09-209 concerning vanity and club call signs appeared in the Federal Register. The effective date of the rules changes was to be 60 days after publication in the Federal Register so that becomes February 14, 2011. Happy Valentine’s Day. Dave K1ZZ

1 0

Test
by James F. Boehner MD 15 Dec '10

15 Dec '10

Test message Sent from my iPhone

1 0

FCC sets effective date for vanity/club rules changes
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 15 Dec '10

15 Dec '10

This morning the Report and Order in FCC WT Docket No. 09-209 concerning vanity and club call signs appeared in the Federal Register. The effective date of the rules changes was to be 60 days after publication in the Federal Register so that becomes February 14, 2011. Happy Valentine's Day. Dave K1ZZ

1 0

RE: SM appointments
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 15 Dec '10

15 Dec '10

Thanks, Jim - that's helpful. Dave ________________________________ From: James F. Boehner MD [mailto:jboehner01@yahoo.com] Sent: Wed 12/15/2010 5:27 AM To: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ; arrl-odv Subject: SM appointments Being a recent SM (well, about a year ago), I think I see the concern. On the previous website, doing appointments was very easy. The website knew who you were (SM), and what section you were from. The appointments were in a "drop down box". All I had to do was pick the appointment from a drop-down box and put in the call of the appointee. The member database was queried, and member data was displayed. In fact, it would also tell you if the prospective appointee's membership had lapsed-so that you could stop the processing at that point. It would then let you know if the prospective appointee held that position, and give an option to appoint (if not already an appointee) or cancel the appointment. Two or three "clicks" and you were done. The data was then automatically sent to Leona/Steve for entry into the ARRL (Siebel) system. Now I see that the process to add or delete an appointee is much like the old postcard system, just with no stamp needed. So, it is true that the functionality of adding/deleting appointees has decreased. I polled our Division SM's. Of the two that responded, one would deal directly with Leona, and the other fills out the top two and bottom two lines of the web form and submits it to Leona. So, I mention this as an observation. I was very impressed with the functionality of doing appointments with the previous website. This one is functional, but not quite as elegant. The difference is invisible to us and the members, but not to the SM's. '73 de JIM N2ZZ ARRL Vice Director Roanoke Division ARRL, the national association for Amateur RadioT -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 11:01 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: Web project status report Brian, I wanted to check with Steve Ewald before responding to your message about the Rocky Mountain SMs. When an SM fills out the online FSD-211 appointment form http://www.arrl.org/fsd-211-field-organization-appointment-form either to make or to cancel an appointment, what happens is that a message is generated to Leona who then inputs the data into the Siebel system. The database on the website is updated from Siebel. So in terms of getting the data back out to the SM via the website, it makes no difference whether he/she has filled out the FSD-211, emails Leona without using the form, talks to her on the phone, or mails her a letter. Early on, there were problems with cancelled appointments continuing to be shown on the website. Steve says this is no longer the case; occasionally a record will need to be resynced, but this is rare. It's normal for an SM to have his/her own database of appointees. Every three months we pull an Excel file of each section's appointees from Siebel and send it to each SM. We also do it on request, i.e. if the SM or (with the SM's permission) one of the section level appointees (usually SEC or STM) wants the file of their appointees at some other time. The report generator will make it possible to provide this on demand without staff intervention. 73, Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Brian Mileshosky [mailto:n5zgt@swcp.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 1:26 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: Web project status report Dave -- I agree with Bill's comments below as they relate to our membership, but also want to bring our SMs into the discussion as well. Dwayne and I recently held a telecon with all our SMs to see how things were in their world, to share ideas, etc. The website was an expected topic, and the SMs spoke with obvious frustration about their SM pages and their belief that things exhibit less functionality now than there was in the SM area of the old site. One example they spoke to in great length was the Field appointment database, the difficulty of adding/deleting volunteers via it, odd information (I am shown, in my role as Director, as appointed by the NM SM), no real indication or confirmation that information was submited other than a common and generic "thank you" email, etc. Essentially all four (of my four) SMs find it quicker, easier, and more efficient to conduct such business via Leona Adams, and maintain their own database of appointees in Excel. In other words, they are abandoning the new ARRL website that so much money was put towards because they now find better service and utility elsewhere. And in so doing, they are burdoning a staff member (who our SMs love to deal with, by the way) with something that the website should be taking off her shoulders. Both of these end results are HUGE problems. Certain (or all?) priorities ought to be revisited. They ought to be categorized as "must haves" and "would be nice to haves". As "needs to restore pre-existing functionality" and "wants to expand into new directions" The former of each category should then drive the agenda, to a large degree. Getting our SM's page functional and easy for them to use ought to be high on the list in terms of funding and budget, especially when they are otherwise abandoning the website in favor of their own alternatives. I understand various aspects of the SM page have different complexities and can't be tackled all at once or necessarily quickly. On the other hand committing time and funds to audio RSS development isn't going to make those SM's lives any easier, at least before their own stuff is taken care of so they can do their jobs. Echoing Bill's comments, I too wish for the site to be completed before we look at expanding it, and especially before handing over new funds to Fathom. 73, Brian N5ZGT

1 0

SM Appointee database concerns
by James F. Boehner MD 15 Dec '10

15 Dec '10

Not sure if the ODV reflector is down, so I will resend my note. Sorry if there is duplication. '73 de JIM N2ZZ ARRL Vice Director Roanoke Division ARRL, the national association for Amateur RadioT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Being a recent SM (well, about a year ago), I think I see the concern. On the previous website, doing appointments was very easy. The website knew who you were (SM), and what section you were from. The appointments were in a "drop down box". All I had to do was pick the appointment from a drop-down box and put in the call of the appointee. The member database was queried, and member data was displayed. In fact, it would also tell you if the prospective appointee's membership had lapsed-so that you could stop the processing at that point. It would then let you know if the prospective appointee held that position, and give an option to appoint (if not already an appointee) or cancel the appointment. Two or three "clicks" and you were done. The data was then automatically sent to Leona/Steve for entry into the ARRL (Siebel) system. Now I see that the process to add or delete an appointee is much like the old postcard system, just with no stamp needed. So, it is true that the functionality of adding/deleting appointees has decreased. I polled our Division SM's. Of the two that responded, one would deal directly with Leona, and the other fills out the top two and bottom two lines of the web form and submits it to Leona. So, I mention this as an observation. I was very impressed with the functionality of doing appointments with the previous website. This one is functional, but not quite as elegant. The difference is invisible to us and the members, but not to the SM's. '73 de JIM N2ZZ ARRL Vice Director Roanoke Division ARRL, the national association for Amateur RadioT

1 0

RE: Web project status report
by James F. Boehner MD 15 Dec '10

15 Dec '10

Being a recent SM (well, about a year ago), I think I see the concern. On the previous website, doing appointments was very easy. The website knew who you were (SM), and what section you were from. The appointments were in a "drop down box". All I had to do was pick the appointment from a drop-down box and put in the call of the appointee. The member database was queried, and member data was displayed. In fact, it would also tell you if the prospective appointee's membership had lapsed-so that you could stop the processing at that point. It would then let you know if the prospective appointee held that position, and give an option to appoint (if not already an appointee) or cancel the appointment. Two or three "clicks" and you were done. The data was then automatically sent to Leona/Steve for entry into the ARRL (Siebel) system. Now I see that the process to add or delete an appointee is much like the old postcard system, just with no stamp needed. So, it is true that the functionality of adding/deleting appointees has decreased. I polled our Division SM's. Of the two that responded, one would deal directly with Leona, and the other fills out the top two and bottom two lines of the web form and submits it to Leona. So, I mention this as an observation. I was very impressed with the functionality of doing appointments with the previous website. This one is functional, but not quite as elegant. The difference is invisible to us and the members, but not to the SM's. '73 de JIM N2ZZ ARRL Vice Director Roanoke Division ARRL, the national association for Amateur RadioT -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 11:01 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: Web project status report Brian, I wanted to check with Steve Ewald before responding to your message about the Rocky Mountain SMs. When an SM fills out the online FSD-211 appointment form http://www.arrl.org/fsd-211-field-organization-appointment-form either to make or to cancel an appointment, what happens is that a message is generated to Leona who then inputs the data into the Siebel system. The database on the website is updated from Siebel. So in terms of getting the data back out to the SM via the website, it makes no difference whether he/she has filled out the FSD-211, emails Leona without using the form, talks to her on the phone, or mails her a letter. Early on, there were problems with cancelled appointments continuing to be shown on the website. Steve says this is no longer the case; occasionally a record will need to be resynced, but this is rare. It's normal for an SM to have his/her own database of appointees. Every three months we pull an Excel file of each section's appointees from Siebel and send it to each SM. We also do it on request, i.e. if the SM or (with the SM's permission) one of the section level appointees (usually SEC or STM) wants the file of their appointees at some other time. The report generator will make it possible to provide this on demand without staff intervention. 73, Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Brian Mileshosky [mailto:n5zgt@swcp.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 1:26 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: Web project status report Dave -- I agree with Bill's comments below as they relate to our membership, but also want to bring our SMs into the discussion as well. Dwayne and I recently held a telecon with all our SMs to see how things were in their world, to share ideas, etc. The website was an expected topic, and the SMs spoke with obvious frustration about their SM pages and their belief that things exhibit less functionality now than there was in the SM area of the old site. One example they spoke to in great length was the Field appointment database, the difficulty of adding/deleting volunteers via it, odd information (I am shown, in my role as Director, as appointed by the NM SM), no real indication or confirmation that information was submited other than a common and generic "thank you" email, etc. Essentially all four (of my four) SMs find it quicker, easier, and more efficient to conduct such business via Leona Adams, and maintain their own database of appointees in Excel. In other words, they are abandoning the new ARRL website that so much money was put towards because they now find better service and utility elsewhere. And in so doing, they are burdoning a staff member (who our SMs love to deal with, by the way) with something that the website should be taking off her shoulders. Both of these end results are HUGE problems. Certain (or all?) priorities ought to be revisited. They ought to be categorized as "must haves" and "would be nice to haves". As "needs to restore pre-existing functionality" and "wants to expand into new directions" The former of each category should then drive the agenda, to a large degree. Getting our SM's page functional and easy for them to use ought to be high on the list in terms of funding and budget, especially when they are otherwise abandoning the website in favor of their own alternatives. I understand various aspects of the SM page have different complexities and can't be tackled all at once or necessarily quickly. On the other hand committing time and funds to audio RSS development isn't going to make those SM's lives any easier, at least before their own stuff is taken care of so they can do their jobs. Echoing Bill's comments, I too wish for the site to be completed before we look at expanding it, and especially before handing over new funds to Fathom. 73, Brian N5ZGT

1 0

SM appointments
by James F. Boehner MD 15 Dec '10

15 Dec '10

Being a recent SM (well, about a year ago), I think I see the concern. On the previous website, doing appointments was very easy. The website knew who you were (SM), and what section you were from. The appointments were in a "drop down box". All I had to do was pick the appointment from a drop-down box and put in the call of the appointee. The member database was queried, and member data was displayed. In fact, it would also tell you if the prospective appointee's membership had lapsed-so that you could stop the processing at that point. It would then let you know if the prospective appointee held that position, and give an option to appoint (if not already an appointee) or cancel the appointment. Two or three "clicks" and you were done. The data was then automatically sent to Leona/Steve for entry into the ARRL (Siebel) system. Now I see that the process to add or delete an appointee is much like the old postcard system, just with no stamp needed. So, it is true that the functionality of adding/deleting appointees has decreased. I polled our Division SM's. Of the two that responded, one would deal directly with Leona, and the other fills out the top two and bottom two lines of the web form and submits it to Leona. So, I mention this as an observation. I was very impressed with the functionality of doing appointments with the previous website. This one is functional, but not quite as elegant. The difference is invisible to us and the members, but not to the SM's. '73 de JIM N2ZZ ARRL Vice Director Roanoke Division ARRL, the national association for Amateur RadioT -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 11:01 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: Web project status report Brian, I wanted to check with Steve Ewald before responding to your message about the Rocky Mountain SMs. When an SM fills out the online FSD-211 appointment form http://www.arrl.org/fsd-211-field-organization-appointment-form either to make or to cancel an appointment, what happens is that a message is generated to Leona who then inputs the data into the Siebel system. The database on the website is updated from Siebel. So in terms of getting the data back out to the SM via the website, it makes no difference whether he/she has filled out the FSD-211, emails Leona without using the form, talks to her on the phone, or mails her a letter. Early on, there were problems with cancelled appointments continuing to be shown on the website. Steve says this is no longer the case; occasionally a record will need to be resynced, but this is rare. It's normal for an SM to have his/her own database of appointees. Every three months we pull an Excel file of each section's appointees from Siebel and send it to each SM. We also do it on request, i.e. if the SM or (with the SM's permission) one of the section level appointees (usually SEC or STM) wants the file of their appointees at some other time. The report generator will make it possible to provide this on demand without staff intervention. 73, Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Brian Mileshosky [mailto:n5zgt@swcp.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 1:26 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: Web project status report Dave -- I agree with Bill's comments below as they relate to our membership, but also want to bring our SMs into the discussion as well. Dwayne and I recently held a telecon with all our SMs to see how things were in their world, to share ideas, etc. The website was an expected topic, and the SMs spoke with obvious frustration about their SM pages and their belief that things exhibit less functionality now than there was in the SM area of the old site. One example they spoke to in great length was the Field appointment database, the difficulty of adding/deleting volunteers via it, odd information (I am shown, in my role as Director, as appointed by the NM SM), no real indication or confirmation that information was submited other than a common and generic "thank you" email, etc. Essentially all four (of my four) SMs find it quicker, easier, and more efficient to conduct such business via Leona Adams, and maintain their own database of appointees in Excel. In other words, they are abandoning the new ARRL website that so much money was put towards because they now find better service and utility elsewhere. And in so doing, they are burdoning a staff member (who our SMs love to deal with, by the way) with something that the website should be taking off her shoulders. Both of these end results are HUGE problems. Certain (or all?) priorities ought to be revisited. They ought to be categorized as "must haves" and "would be nice to haves". As "needs to restore pre-existing functionality" and "wants to expand into new directions" The former of each category should then drive the agenda, to a large degree. Getting our SM's page functional and easy for them to use ought to be high on the list in terms of funding and budget, especially when they are otherwise abandoning the website in favor of their own alternatives. I understand various aspects of the SM page have different complexities and can't be tackled all at once or necessarily quickly. On the other hand committing time and funds to audio RSS development isn't going to make those SM's lives any easier, at least before their own stuff is taken care of so they can do their jobs. Echoing Bill's comments, I too wish for the site to be completed before we look at expanding it, and especially before handing over new funds to Fathom. 73, Brian N5ZGT

1 0

Re: Site performance
by Chris 14 Dec '10

14 Dec '10

Bob, we don't have much recourse against Fathom on the basis of the contract we have with them at the present time. That would be a dead end. 73, Chris W3KD Bob Vallio <rbvallio(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ ><dsumner(a)arrl.org>wrote, in part: > >"The database architecture makes the performance of a single server the >critical element in how quickly requests can be fulfilled. That can’t be >scaled up. " > >What that tells me is that the design of this over-priced, under-managed >implementation, of a system that was purported to be a boon to our members >and our bottom line, was faulty. When is it time to accept our losses, >which are increasing at what appears to be an exponential rate, and scrap >this albatross? There must be another way, which probably should include >the offers of help from some extremely qualified volunteers. Has any >consideration been given to seeking monetary redress from the vendor for >failing to provide us with a functional product. Perhaps Chris can offer >some insight as to that possibility. > >Bob Vallio. W6RGG

1 0