Dick,Until a compromise is embodied in something permanent, it remains fragile. If CAI were to feel that ARRL is not committed to the compromise, it might decide that it cannot be trusted, and opt out of the agreement. Legislators becoming aware of dissension might reach similar conclusions. Those operating on behalf of the Parity Act have enough to do without fighting a rear-guard operation created by ourselves.
This is not to say that there should never be disagreement within the Board, just that it needs to remain "in the family," as Chris has pointed out.
73,
Greg, K0GW
On Wednesday, June 8, 2016, Richard J. Norton <
richardjnorton@gmail.com> wrote:
Huh?
I don't understand.
If the goal of the ARRL is to get CAI and legislators to accept the "compromise," it would appear to me that being able to say, "We have compromised so much that an ARRL director has been openly critical, and some members are complaining," would be helpful in convincing CAI and legislators that they should believe that the ARRL has indeed compromised enough, and the requested legislation is fair, and should pass.
What am I missing? Why are some of you upset?
73,
Dick Norton, N6AA