I want to concur with much of what Ria has said about the Advisory Committees. One of the privileges of being a “dinosaur” is that I was around when many things started, including the CAC and DXAC. At that time, the ACs were promoted – and membership understood them – as accepting input from the membership (and from non-members, as well, since a good idea is a good idea regardless of where it comes from). Input would be collected, collated, sifted, sorted by the ACs – all with an eye to seeing if there was a common thread that might be worth “passing up the chain” to whatever Board Committee had cognizance back then, along with any AC comments, recommendations, etc. The ACs could also initiate surveys, if they so chose. In particular, we in the field saw the ACs as giving “the little gun” and the casual participant an opportunity to have a voice. Somewhere along the way, that whole process got subverted. Over the years, many of us gave up on the ACs, primarily for three perceptions: * There was little turn-over on the ACs, which had a heavy concentration of “big guns” * The ACs didn’t seem interested in giving much credence to member input * The crowning blow: The ACs were directed to accept tasking only from PSC, not from members Now we hear they’re to be replaced by small groups of “subject matter experts”. If someone calls me a “subject matter expert”, isn’t that an invitation for me to ignore input from anyone else who isn’t similarly titled? IMO, a casual participant in a contest is as much a “subject matter expert” as any top gun because s/he is the only person in the world who fully knows what s/he likes and dislikes about a given contest. Further, if it weren’t for those casual participants, top guns wouldn’t have half the fun they do! Basically, the input I’ve been getting from other contesters both before and after I became a Director is that between HQ, the PSC/Board, and the ACs there appears to be a big NIH factor in play. I’m probably the last person in the world who would want to see contest rules needlessly or willy-nilly changed from year to year but I also believe a good idea deserves honest consideration, regardless of its origin. What I would add to Ria’s list of recommendations is to explicitly direct the ACs to be receptive to random member input. I would also propose user “focus groups” and “beta test populations” to test market (even if only on paper or in a Zoom meeting) proposed changes with a truly broad-based group of contesters and even non-contesters. I think that’s part of her “data, data, data” comment (where she says “What do the members want? How do members do these activities?”) but I believe a clear statement requiring, encouraging, and incorporating member input is needed. One final observation: There is already a body of “subject matter experts” out there that the League and other organizations need to pay more attention to before monkeying with contest rules: contest logging software authors. It’s easy to sit at your desk and think up screwball “off time” rules for the RTTY Round-Up when you don’t have to write the code for implementing those rules in logging programs that are expected to provide users their scores and remaining operating hours in real time. Bud, W2RU From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> on behalf of "rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 6:55 PM To: "Ritz, Mike, W7VO, (Dir, NW)" <w7vo@comcast.net> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:31657] Re: PSC Motion 1 thoughts Hi Mike, Thanks for the feedback. I still oppose this motion as written. #1. Membership still sees the PSC as being in control. They see the PSC as not having membership comprised of those who are heavily involved in the two main radiosport activities - contesting and DXing. They do see the CAC as having those. Sure, the one per division advisory committees have largely really no impact on the final decisions coming out of PSC. However, the impression I get is that CAC and DXAC really don't have a say in anything and are largely ignored. I can name several times the PSC and other Board committees went against what the DXAC and CAC recommended. Some pretty big ones - like the addition of Scarborough Reef to the DXCC list - were a result of overruling what the DXAC had recommended. The abolishment of these advisory committees and the new ad-hoc working groups in its place have given the impression that the PSC wants more or less full control and does not want significant external input. We've since abolished the requirement that contest rules changes get approved by the full Board. So this means that five directors now get to decide on contest rules, pretty much on their own. They can call an ad-hoc committee if they wish, but there's really no requirement to do so and the recommendation can once again be ignored. #2. The DXAC and CAC are not allowed to bring their own ideas to the PSC for consideration. Instead they are tasked with ideas and have to evaluate them. This is a waste of their talent, as the ideas come from the PSC and the PSC is still likely to overrule them. See #1. Here is how I would strengthen the CAC and DXAC. 1. Impose term limits. 4 years and you're out, with staggered terms. We need to have a rotation of CAC and DXAC members and not make it a patronage position as it has largely been. 2. Encourage diversity - youth, women, minorities etc. This should be taken as a suggestion and not a hard requirement for a quota. 3. Actively recruit VHF+ contesters. As it is, much of the CAC is HF-centric. DXAC is an HF centric activity so this does not apply. there. 4. Have the editors of NCJ and the contest newsletter as ad-hoc members. For the DXAC, recruit one to three international members, preferably one from each ITU region. Additionally: Demand that they be proactive, not reactive. They should be convening regularly and submitting their own ideas to the PSC. PSC can have their own ideas, but you have a pool of experts, use them. Empower the chair to lead, and not follow. Disruptive members can be removed with consent of the division director, and a new one appointed. If we choose to not bind to divisions, that is fine, let the PSC consent to removal. This should be rare, anyway. At a high level, PSC and CAC/DXAC should be discussing ideas that both committees come up with. And finally - Data, data, data. The decisions out of these committees don't seem to be driven by properly surveyed and collected data. NCJ did a survey and it was a rare event, but it gave us an insight into contesting. Our decisions should be data driven. What do the members want? How do members do these activities? That should be driving the CAC and DXAC. 73 Ria, N2RJ On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 4:30 PM Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net<mailto:w7vo@comcast.net>> wrote: As a member of PSC for the last two years, I thought I'd provide my fellow Board members my thoughts on the motion to restructure the two PSC advisory committees. Take it for what it is worth. 1. The current two advisory committees (CAC and DXAC), are fixed, and are comprised of one appointed representative from each ARRL Division per committee. The committees rarely change members, so the committee make-up remains pretty stoic over time, and arguably, somewhat ceremonial in nature. 2. While members of these committees are certainly "subject matter experts" themselves, are they all up on the latest technologies? How many of the CAC members operate digital contests using FT8/FT4, the most popular mode on HF operating at the moment? The answer is "very few, if any", so are they really the best ones to consult on a digital mode contest rule? Wouldn't it be be better to "ask the experts" themselves? 3. It is felt that with the advent of e-mail, e-surveys that can be conducted by the Radiosport team at HQ, and social media, the "one member per division, per committee" structure is archaic. At present ARRL HQ has the ability to work directly with the contest and DX community on issues, they don't need individual Division representatives to "work their territories" to provide feedback. The survey and questionnaire that HQ put out last year about Sweepstakes activities is a great example of this. They received great feedback from the Sweepstakes participants themselves. 4. The current advisory committees are tasked assignments from the PSC as required to provide input on a matter, they are not autonomous. Nothing will change here. Tasks will be assigned by HQ radiosport staff to those that know the most about the subject at hand, and not be limited to consulting whomever a Director appoints for his or her Division. 5. There was a PSC tasking requested by the Executive Committee way back in 2018 that started this all, as there have been issues in the past in getting tasks completed by the two advisory committees in a timely fashion. It is thought that the new "tiger team" approach will be much faster in getting things accomplished. With a larger "pool of experts" to draw on, the PSC is not limited to just those two fixed committees for input. Adhoc committees can be put together specific to a particular topic as well. 6. Current DXAC and CAC members will be encouraged to apply to be a part of the new "pool of experts", as well others within the DX and contest community. Nobody will be purposefully left out, or is going to get thrown out in the streets. 7. This change will allow the PSC to draw on "experts" with expertises beyond the current two advisory committees to tackle other issues beyond just the DX and contest genres. In my opinion, this change is to both increase efficiency and the quality of input provided to help the PSC make good decisions for our members. It's not to squelch input from anybody. In fact, I'm sure many of the best of each discipline (contesting and DXing), in the world will end up becoming members of the "expert pools". Lastly, if for some reason this doesn't work out, we can always go back to what we had before. Just my two watts. 73; Mike W7VO _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv