January 2015 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:23862] Thinking about IT and projects at ARRL
by G Widin 26 Jan '15

26 Jan '15

Attached is my analysis of the issues that affect getting IT projects completed at ARRL. At least at present, I ask that this be kept within the Board family. I won't repeat what's in the "cover letter" in the attached PDF. But there is one question that this document does not address--if the analysis is right, what should be done as a practical matter to begin changing how we do projects? I don't have a complete answer, but one example is what we're doing with the Logbook Study Committee. Non-staff members of the committee have been acting as "product managers" by ensuring that organizational boundaries don't get in the way of project progress. In addition, the committee has begun a business analysis of how we would pay for an addition to staff to act as a product manager, on the ground at Newington. I'm looking forward to a discussion of how we should and can change how we pursue significant projects at ARRL. 73, Greg, K0GW

1 0

[arrl-odv:23861] Committee update
by Kay Craigie 24 Jan '15

24 Jan '15

1 0

[arrl-odv:23855] "DXCC Approved"
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 24 Jan '15

24 Jan '15

Just to keep us all on the same page: The Remote Ham Radio ad for March QST was submitted with a "DXCC APPROVED" stamp on the regular ad. We have declined to accept the ad in that form. While the RHR principals have reason to celebrate - the DX Advisory Committee's recommended changes would have caused them major problems -- the rules changes adopted by the Board didn't change the existing rules very much. Making contacts for DXCC credit using RHR was allowed under the DXCC Rules last week, and still is this week, but to say that RHR, specifically, is approved by or for DXCC implies an endorsement that has not been made. This afternoon I spoke with Ray Higgins, W2RE of RHR to explain why the ad was declined. Ray accepted my explanation and agreed to revert to their regular ad with no mention of DXCC. Thanks to Brian, N5ZGT for flagging this. 73, Dave K1ZZ

3 2

[arrl-odv:23859] "DXCC Approved"
by James F. Boehner MD 23 Jan '15

23 Jan '15

Agreed. There was no touchdown, so no spiking of the ball in the end zone! ’73 de JIM N2ZZ From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of G Widin Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:17 PM To: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Cc: Jahnke, Deb, K1DAJ; arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:23857] Re: "DXCC Approved" Dave and Brian, Thanks for noticing and handling it this way. In my opinion, this is exactly the right call. 73, Greg, K0GW On Friday, January 23, 2015, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <dsumner(a)arrl.org> wrote: Just to keep us all on the same page: The Remote Ham Radio ad for March QST was submitted with a “DXCC APPROVED” stamp on the regular ad. We have declined to accept the ad in that form. While the RHR principals have reason to celebrate – the DX Advisory Committee’s recommended changes would have caused them major problems -- the rules changes adopted by the Board didn’t change the existing rules very much. Making contacts for DXCC credit using RHR was allowed under the DXCC Rules last week, and still is this week, but to say that RHR, specifically, is approved by or for DXCC implies an endorsement that has not been made. This afternoon I spoke with Ray Higgins, W2RE of RHR to explain why the ad was declined. Ray accepted my explanation and agreed to revert to their regular ad with no mention of DXCC. Thanks to Brian, N5ZGT for flagging this. 73, Dave K1ZZ

1 0

[arrl-odv:23858] IT Status Report
by James F. Boehner MD 23 Jan '15

23 Jan '15

Barry, Thank you for this report-I think periodic reports of this detail are necessary to keep us all informed as to ITs workflow and appreciation of ITs technical debt. This may be a very naïve question, but other than avoidance of placing new projects ahead of the technical debt reduction, is there anything the board can do to assist? I realize that this is the purview of the A&F committee, but I did want to ask the question here. 73 de JIM N2ZZ From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Shelley, Barry, N1VXY Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 3:39 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:23856] IT Status Report The following information and attached report should be considered ARRL Board Confidential. At the Board meeting last week, staff committed to distributing a copy of the IT Project status report updated for 12/31/14. Prior iterations of the report have been distributed to the A&F Committee. The report is attached and encompasses projects from both the 2014 and 2015 Plans. It requires some explanation. The report is segregated in 4 sections along the lines of the identified IT resources: 1. Table 1a Web application and software development projects; 2. Table 1b LoTW software development projects; 3. Table 1c Infrastructure projects 4. Table 1d Projects completed in Q3/Q4 2014 The report was prepared by Michael Keane, K1MK, ARRL IT Manager and includes comments from him at the beginning. In addition, on page 7 of the report, I have included a chart of the overview of the software system design process that is referred to in the Tables. This was part of a presentation that Michael made to the A&F Committee in April of last year. As you will see, each project has a Estimated Time to Complete (ETC). The overall accuracy of those estimates depends heavily on where the specific project is in its particular life cycle. Estimates for projects in the Inception stage are obviously going to be less precise than those in the Construction stage. As a general rule of thumb, the estimates can be categorized as: * Prior to Systems Requirements Review -- estimates are of rough order of magnitude accuracy * Following System Requirements Review -- estimates should be refined to a factor of two or better * Following Preliminary Design Review -- 30% accuracy * Following Critical Design Review -- 10% accuracy As discussed during the Board meeting, IT resources are routinely over committed as shown in particular in Table 1a where the projects show an estimated ETC total of 60.5 months in comparison to the available resources of 23 months. The allocation of LoTW and Infrastructure projects is more in line with the available resources. I should also point out that the project highlighted in the Board minutes at Minute 30 (nominally referred to as the Volunteer Instructor Database) is encompassed in the project titled AIS Education Module. This was noted at the Board meeting but I wanted to note it again here. We will be setting up a meeting in the near future to begin the process of developing the specifications for this project. Im sure you will have questions and we will be happy to answer them. 73, Barry J. Shelley, N1VXY Chief Financial Officer ARRL, Inc. The National Association for Amateur Radio (860) 594-0212 www.arrl.org

1 0

[arrl-odv:23856] IT Status Report
by Shelley, Barry, N1VXY 23 Jan '15

23 Jan '15

The following information and attached report should be considered "ARRL Board Confidential". At the Board meeting last week, staff committed to distributing a copy of the IT Project status report updated for 12/31/14. Prior iterations of the report have been distributed to the A&F Committee. The report is attached and encompasses projects from both the 2014 and 2015 Plans. It requires some explanation. The report is segregated in 4 sections along the lines of the identified IT resources: 1. Table 1a - Web application and software development projects; 2. Table 1b - LoTW software development projects; 3. Table 1c - Infrastructure projects 4. Table 1d - Projects completed in Q3/Q4 2014 The report was prepared by Michael Keane, K1MK, ARRL IT Manager and includes comments from him at the beginning. In addition, on page 7 of the report, I have included a chart of the overview of the software system design process that is referred to in the Tables. This was part of a presentation that Michael made to the A&F Committee in April of last year. As you will see, each project has a Estimated Time to Complete (ETC). The overall accuracy of those estimates depends heavily on where the specific project is in its particular life cycle. Estimates for projects in the "Inception" stage are obviously going to be less precise than those in the Construction stage. As a general rule of thumb, the estimates can be categorized as: * Prior to Systems Requirements Review -- estimates are of rough order of magnitude accuracy * Following System Requirements Review -- estimates should be refined to a factor of two or better * Following Preliminary Design Review -- 30% accuracy * Following Critical Design Review -- 10% accuracy As discussed during the Board meeting, IT resources are routinely over committed as shown in particular in Table 1a where the projects show an estimated ETC total of 60.5 months in comparison to the available resources of 23 months. The allocation of LoTW and Infrastructure projects is more in line with the available resources. I should also point out that the project highlighted in the Board minutes at Minute 30 (nominally referred to as the Volunteer Instructor Database) is encompassed in the project titled "AIS Education Module". This was noted at the Board meeting but I wanted to note it again here. We will be setting up a meeting in the near future to begin the process of developing the specifications for this project. I'm sure you will have questions and we will be happy to answer them. 73, Barry J. Shelley, N1VXY Chief Financial Officer ARRL, Inc. The National Association for Amateur Radio (860) 594-0212 www.arrl.org

1 0

[arrl-odv:23854] Board Minutes Approval Procedure
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 23 Jan '15

23 Jan '15

We have some new members of ODV since the last time the minutes of a Board Meeting were approved, so let me describe the procedure. The Board-mandated procedure for approving the minutes is as follows: 1. The Secretary will circulate draft minutes to Board members as soon as possible after the meeting. [Completed on January 22] 2. Once Board members have had the opportunity to review the draft and offer comment, a final draft will be circulated. [I have made the edits suggested so far, but as you have only had 22 hours to review a 20-page document I would like to hold off issuing the final draft until Monday morning.] 3. Ten days after distribution of the final draft, the Secretary will call for a vote by electronic mail to approve the minutes. [This would be Thursday, February 5.] 4. The minutes will be declared as approved upon the receipt of affirmative votes of eight or more directors within the ten days of the call for the vote. 5. The final draft minutes will continue to be made available to members following their circulation to Board members and prior to formal approval. [I plan to do this next Monday afternoon.] 73, David Sumner, K1ZZ Secretary

1 0

[arrl-odv:23853] Thanks for Warm Welcome and A Tribute to N2ZZ and W4PWF
by Bill Morine N2COP 23 Jan '15

23 Jan '15

Dear Directors, Vice Directors and ARRL Officials: I am both grateful and humbled by the numerous warm notes of congratulations and welcome I have received as the newly appointed Vice Director for the Roanoke Division. When I was North Carolina Section Manager and Chairman of ARRL's Public Relations Committee (PRC), I was able to forge a strong working relationship with Dr. Jim Boehner, N2ZZ, as both the then Vice Director of the Roanoke Division and as Board Liaison to the PRC. I very much look forward to working with him and with you all ahead. As a final note, I want to publicly recognize and thank Dennis Bodson, W4PWF, for his service as Roanoke Division Director and to congratulate him on his appointment as an Honorary Vice President. Dennis was enormously supportive of me and the North Carolina section when I was SM, and I will always appreciate his dedication to all of Amateur Radio. 73, Bill Morine, N2COP

1 0

[arrl-odv:23845] Draft Board Minutes
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 23 Jan '15

23 Jan '15

Here are the draft minutes of the Board's January 16-17 meeting. Please advise me of any errors or omissions you spot. 73, Dave K1ZZ

5 6

[arrl-odv:23849] Fwd: [SixClub] New DXCC Rules Adopted By HQ ARRL
by Doug Rehman 23 Jan '15

23 Jan '15

And so it begins... Doug K4AC/kp4 Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: "Richard Joey Fiero II A.R.S. W5TFW" Date:01/23/2015 8:27 AM (GMT-04:00) To: dx-qsl(a)mailman.qth.net Cc: 'World Wide Six Meter Club' Subject: [SixClub] New DXCC Rules Adopted By HQ ARRL >From arrl.org/new remote operation rules as they pertain to dxcc: Subsection 11 acknowledges that technological advances “add to the difficulty in defining rules for DXCC,” but stresses that the intent of the rules is what’s important. “It will continue to be up to the operator to decide what types of legal remote control operating he/she will use (if any) to contribute to an operating award,” the new rule concludes. The WWHRAC(World Wide Ham Radio Awards Committee) had an emergency/urgent meeting earlier today(Jan 21, 2015) in reference to the changes the arrl has just made to their dxcc program in reference to remote operations and the dxcc program. Whereas the arrl has established a high level of trust in the "intent" of the rules and whereas the arrl is counting on the individual operator to decide on what "types of legal remote control operating he/she will use", it therefore seems to be perfectly logical for the WWHRAC to expand their rules even further considering especially the trust placed in/on the individual operator. Therefore whe WWHRAC has decided to offer all DX awards to any ham in the world based on the individual's intent. The rules as set forth by the WWHRAC have been reduced to a minimum. Following is a synopsis of the new rules to be announced soon: Rule 1: No ham regardless of license class will be denied any DX award including multi-band, multi-mode or any combination thereof if the ham making application will sign a letter implying their intent to work the necessary stations in order to qualify for the award sought. WWHRAC will no longer need any proof of any contact on any band or mode which will reduce processing time and save the WWHRAC money. Any proof of contact submitted with award applications will be be destroyed and under no circumstances be returned to the applicant. Also, we will not verify any claimed contact via LOTW, QRZ or any other data base. WWHRAC is doing all it can to help hams all over the world in their pursuit of awards. The WWHRAC feels the following fee schedule is fair and equitable considering that once the awards have been issued the fee for endorsements is minimal. Here is the fee schedule being considered by the WWHRAC: Initial DXCC: $300 Multi-band DXCC: 2 bands--$400, 3 bands--$600 and for each band above 3 add $400 per band up 1296MHZ. Modes and bands all count as separate awards. Special endorsements such as QRP add $2000. More fees are in the works and the WWHRAC hopes the DX community considers these fees to be fair and equitable. One reason for the fees is for the creation and maintenance of all the remote stations all over the world. The remote station fees are not finalized but the remote stations are available to any ham even if they have not acquired a license yet. In such cases a person(would be ham) would be required to sign a separate letter of "intent" to acquire a ham license. Further the WWHRAC has eliminated all license checks and feels that all hams with or without a license can be trusted due to their glowing "intent" and desire to work DX. More to follow in the coming days as the Committee has a few kinks to work out regarding the fees. The good news is any ham, implied or literal, can as of this writing apply for and acquire any DX award they wish to own and freely display proudly on their radio room or bathroom. Good "Intentionally" DX to all......................... 73, G. A. Freely(Give Away)(no call sign, but I intend to get one) 73, _____ From _____ <http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com> <http://www.avast.com/>

1 0