I am surprised to hear that a plan to to cover those who are not able to read the web site now exists. The last I heard, the plan to circulate Section News via postcards had been abandoned. Jay, can you fill us in on the new plan? 73. Jim, W6CF walstrom@mchsi.com wrote:

As I said at the June VRC meeting, my main concern with the proposal to move Section News from QST to the web site was that I did not want to see anyone left behind. It had been my opinion prior to the meeting that there was a plan in place to cover those who were not able to get to the web site or still wanted to receive Section News by mail to continue to do so. The word at the VRC meeting was that there was no such plan, but in a subsequent conversation with Jay Bellows I was told there indeed was such a plan. How economic the plan is I do not know. If I interpret Jim's numbers correctly, a range of 3476 to 7148 members could be interested in this alternate source for Section News. If we can cover this range, I don't see anyone being left behind. I do not see a fatal flaw existing here.

Section News has been a popular feature in QST because for a long, long time, it was the only way of getting news from the sections to the members in those sections. Despite the built in publication delay, the limited space, and spartan format, it was the best we had. That is no longer the case with the inception of the internet. The selling points I have given to the Midwest Division members for moving Section News to the web is, potentially, at least, you can get Section News faster, get more of it, and with pictures and other format enhancements than you can with what is printed in QST currently. Those who chose the alternate source will also get Section News faster as well.

At the June meeting I shared a draft motion I had prepared for the January 2002 Board Meeting that was designed grant the web site equal official status with QST. When I e-mailed the draft text to the VRC Dave Sumner correctly pointed out that this is really a change to the by-laws. Beyond the comments made in St. Louis I only had comments from Dave and Bill on the draft. My intent was to grant equal status to the web site with that which QST currently is granted and not diminish the status of QST. If there is a way to enhance the language to show that QST does not appear to lose any prestige as the official journal by granting equal status to the web site, I am all ears.

One thing I would still like to see is a way of adding the web version of Section News to the CD ROM compendium with QST, NCJ, and QEX. If space is an issue on the CD ROM, perhaps we should consider dropping NCJ and/or QEX or adding a second CD.

I am puzzled how the proposal to move Section News from QST to the web can be interpretted as a lack of support for the field organization. Frankly, I thought the well intentioned changes to the rules and regs that VRC proposed and the board passed in January contributed to the resignation. If we do not plan to fix those for fear of losing face with the rest of the Board, we need to be prepared to take heat from the field.

Technology has changed. We have an improved way to get news out to the members via the internet.

Times have changed, too. Unfortunately, for some of our membership, they will never realize that. I have some of those in the Midwest Division. Do we have to wait for all of them?

73,

Wade W0EJ/VE3

...

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Other than brief comments in late May by Jay Bellows, George Race, and myself, (ODV:7222, 7225, and 7227) nothing has been written recently on ODV regarding the proposed shift of Section News from QST to the web. With this posting I hope to stimulate more discussion on the subject prior to the July Board meeting. In this note I will discuss the Section News issue only, even though there is linkage between the Section News proposal and the proposal to move contest line scores to the web.

First I'll present some observations. These are primarily personal observations, with some influence from discussions I've had with a number of individuals, including SMs. Some of those I've talked with are from outside the Pacific Division. I've ended this email with conclusions and recommendations.

Observations

1) The proposal to remove Section News from QST has one fatal flaw, in my opinion. That is, no economical mechanism has been found thus far to provide Section News to those having no web access. The number of persons who would lose access to Section News is substantial: According to the READEX survey conducted in late 2000, 89% +/-3.6% (95% confidence level) of ARRL members have Internet access, which has been taken by some to be equivalent to web access. Therefore, according to the READEX survey some 11,360 to 23,360 ARRL members do not have access to the web and would therefore have no access to Section News if the proposal is implemented. (There is reason to believe that the numbers should be higher, but that's a different subject which I'll not cover here.) I cannot, in good conscience, vote for a proposal that will take from so many members a feature that has had a successful run of over 75 years. I will certainly listen to reason, but the information supplied to the Board thus far is not convincing.

2) Readership of Section News, according to the 2000 READEX survey, is around 27% (also with a margin of error), certainly not high, but not the lowest of the survey. It may be that the web will *increase* readership of Section News. Such an argument was given last January by Dave Sumner in ODV:6620. He wrote, in part, "Thinking positively, by using the electronic medium more effectively, we should be able to increase the number of members who read their Section News 'often' or more frequently to something more than 27%, even if we start out only being able to reach 89% of them." Perhaps Dave's optimism is justified. If it is, it can be proven by providing the service on both the web and in QST, then following up in time with analysis. Even so, an increase in overall readership will give no solace to those many thousands of members who will find themselves out in the proverbial left field. I don't believe it's proper to obtain that increase over the bodies of some 11,000 to 23,000 members who are taken out of the loop entirely.

3) Even if it were not for the fatal flaw mentioned above, I do not believe that the matter has been studied adequately. The amendment to Minute 41 of the January Board meeting stated, in its final paragraph, "WHEREAS, deferring the decision to relocate Section News and Contest Result line scores will afford an opportunity to evaluate variations and alternatives to the proposal." I've been waiting for "variations and alternatives" to be presented to the Board, but none have been forthcoming, thus far. There has been no significant coverage on the subject since the January Board meeting. Of course, variations and alternatives may be in preparation even as I write. If so, I urge the writers to get their material out soon. I submit that last minute coverage of variations and alternatives will not satisfy the requirement of Minute 41, for it will present the Board with information, but with insufficient time to understand, discuss, and evaluate that information prior to our July meeting.

4) The purpose of the recommendation to move Section News from QST, according to the 2002 Proposed Plan, page 25, is to maintain "a balanced magazine that favors the sections that readers like most (technical and nontechnical feature articles, simple projects and articles, Product Review and certain columns) while adjusting the frequency and page count of special-interest columns according to readership." Section News is under the gun, in part, because only 27% of our members read it "Almost Always/Often." How should popularity be balanced against other needs and desires of the membership and of the organization? That's a difficult question, of course, with no clear cut answer. For one point of view, consider the comments made last January by Rod Stafford in ODV:6626: "If you look at the cover of QST it states, 'Official Journal of ARRL The National Association for AMATEUR RADIO.' A lot about our organization can be learned by reading that publication. Not just articles about operating, or building components, or a DXpedition or even Ads. You learn about what our organization is doing on behalf of amateur radio, what we're interested in, and what our members are interested in and doing, etc. by reading through our flagship publication. Every time you take a part of our organization OUT of QST, I think you diminish it as THE monthly journal of our organization. As the JOURNAL of our organization I think we ought to cover as much of what our organization does and what our organization is about in our main publication." I agree with Rod. As we move membership content to the web, QST moves away from being a membership journal, and instead moves in the direction of being just another CQ Magazine. Further, our approach to this Section News issue has been interpreted by some as a lack of support by ARRL staff and the Board for its own field organization. I know of one Section Manager who resigned, in part as a protest to what he saw as such a lack of support. One other SM, one of our very best, has become so disillusioned that he does not plan to run for office again.

5) Do only 27% (or, 43,200 members) read Section News almost always or often because 73% of members don't particularly care? Perhaps so, but perhaps it could be due, at least in part, to the fact that Section News is the most unattractive column in QST, and surely the most difficult to find and read: The first page is always a complete page, but the remaining five are generally broken into 8 or more one or two column fragments. They meander through advertising at the rear of the magazine. The reader isn't even helped with "Continued on page xx" hints. Section News is printed in six point type, the size type generally reserved for the fine print in automobile sales contracts and in disclaimers for health care nostrums. Six point type may work for mice, but they really aren't suitable for humans. On the other hand, consider how some of our brethren handle their local news. The RSGB (Britain) publishes RadCom each month. Issues average about 100 pages, three of which contain nicely composed local news. The column is contained on successive pages, includes photographs, and mouse type is not used. The DARC's (Germany) CQ-DL also runs about 100 pages per month, but finds space in each issue for about four pages of local news, also nicely laid out, with photos. RAC (Canada) has had problems in recent years even turning out a magazine. They've had to drop back to bi-monthly, and generally run only 80 or so pages in each issue. Yet they consider their Section News (same name as ours, a holdover from when they were part of ARRL) so important that they find room for four pages in each issue. Now, I certainly don't suggest that QST must carry a local news column just because RSGB or DARC or RAC carries one. I also concede that the size and structure of our organizations differ. Still, could it be that we've overlooked something? Should we slow down and ask ourselves whether or not we are missing something in our headlong rush to move QST content to the web?

Conclusions and recommendations

I conclude from the observations above, that we are not ready to remove Section News from QST. I believe we should delay implementation indefinitely, until additional studies are completed. For starters, I suggest

1. We should continue to investigate other approaches to publishing Section News and managing the page count of QST. These should include additional approaches similar to those discussed in ODV:6620, but should also include the possibility of restructuring Section News to make it more attractive and useful to members.

2. Whatever technique we eventually use for publishing Section News (or some similar column), it should provide economical, convenient access to our *entire* membership.

3. While the studies are being conducted, Section News should continue to be published both on the web and in QST.

73. Jim, W6CF