B R A V O ! ----- Original Message ----- From: <jmax@attglobal.net> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 4:16 PM Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7402] Re: Section News QST and the Web, Part 2

I haven't time today to respond to Jay's interesting emails on the subject of Section News, but I can't resist taking a few moments to respond to Frank.

Frank Fallon wrote:

...

As Jay said, "It is time to move ahead."

I believe that Jay and Wade have it right. This is no longer a burning issue.

It's an issue as long as people have legitimate concerns and until the decision is made!

...

Yes, I heard some negative comments last December and January and that has since stopped. The web is a better way to handle the Section News. The SM in my division who was very vocal and negative on the issue is also the heaviest user of the web. He puts out a very interesting monthly newsletter via the web. He also conduced a survey and asked members to respond to me. (I call that torture by e-mail.) The torture did not last long and I did not recant. His survey showed that most members did not read the QST SM column but liked his monthly web based SM news.

The issue has, for the most part, gone away.

The complaints have gone away, but the issue is still here.

...

We have a better technology for this information and we can also improve it's length, depth (pictures) and timeliness.

Agree. I believe that the technology is there and members can eventually be better served. My concern isn't *if* the change should take place, but rather *when* it should take place and how we can accomodate the membership as we transition. I don't think we're ready.

...

We also have a method for dealing with the web challenged.

Disagree. The method for dealing with the web challenged is flawed, for as proposed it doesn't accomodate a significant number of readers who choose to read sections other than their own. Hams in the Nevada Section have close associations with those in SV Section. Hams in SF and SV Sections have close associations with those in Oregon Section. There's cross-reading going on. That will disappear under the present proposal.

I've been told that change is always disruptive, and there's no way that we can bring everyone along. I agree. But 1/10 the membership is just plain too many. We need evolution, not revolution.

...

It's time to make it official.

It's a bit like trying to hold on to spark here! I am constantly amazed that a segment of our ham radio hobby/service, which is so steeped in technology, has a small group who again and again resist any move to a new and better way. Oh well.

I am no Luddite. However, I do believe that the interests of minorities should somehow be protected, the minorities here being those many thousands who are presently web challenged. We should evolve to the new capability, not rip a member benefit from some thousands of them, providing them with something less than an equal replacement.

...

But we were guilty of not having the program up and running before we rammed it down members throats and I think that is why we had a problem in the first place.

Agree. And we still have a problem. We're still ramming it down members' throats.

73. Jim, W6CF

...

Frank....N2FF.....