Jay, I simply must try to shed some additional light on where I'm coming from. K4CJX is most emphatically not pushing the advisory committee idea on ME. (I need no encouragement from Steve Waterman for that!) If such an advisory committee were to be approved by the BOD, I can also assure you that I would not appoint K4CJX to be the Delta Division representative. Steve is most definitely a Winlink fanatic; I know a number of hams within the Delta Division with very impressive EmComm credentials and operating experience in ARES, NTS, Winlink, MARS, etc., who are much better suited by temperament to sit on an advisory committee. I got the idea when Dave Patton mentioned that the BOD might want to create an EmComm AC during the PSC meeting this past January. I thought it was a very good idea then and I still do. The folks I've talked with in my home Division, including the current AR, LA, MS, and TN Section Managers, think the BOD isn't paying adequate attention to EmComm; they believe the creation of such an advisory committee would, at the very least, be a move in the right direction. BTW, I am a member of the PSC subcommittee studying EmComm (Greg W4OZK is the chairman and the other two committee members are Tom W3TOM and Dennis Dura K2DCD). The subcommittee presented a progress report to the PSC on April 4. I expressed some rather serious misgivings about the current direction of the subcommittee during the PSC meeting, but since my concerns didn't appear to make much of an impression on anybody else, I decided to share the progress report with the LA and MS Section Managers for their feedback. (I was really beginning to doubt my judgment at that point!) Much to my personal relief, however, both of the SMs responded to me with many of the same concerns. I summarized the concerns held by the two SMs and myself to the subcommittee, but the response I received back was essentially words to the effect that I should not have shared the progress report with the SMs. I told Greg I was sorry if I violated the normal protocol (I certainly didn't think the subcommittee report contained any confidential information), but I also told him that the procedure of seeking feedback from appropriate League members is an issue that the PSC, if not the entire Board, needs to discuss. When I received the email from K4CJX the other night, I decided to pass it along to the ODV with my EmComm AC suggestion. 73, K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Bellows" <jbellows@skypoint.com> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 11:46 PM Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:17832] RE: [arrl-odv:17824] RE: [arrl-odv:17815] EmComm Advisory Committee?

The current discussion arose from comments from Steve Waterman, K4CJX to Mickey. Steve is an avowed Winlink zealot who feels Winlink isn't being given its due and isn't being backed and promoted by the NERPC committee or ARRL. Frankly I am inclined to think Steve wants a second bite at that apple and is pushing the committee idea to foster that result. I would be surprised and disappointed if true believers such as Steve and the D-Star advocates didn't press their case. ARRL ought to make sure that new useful technologies and systems are featured in QST and on the Website, but I don't believe ARRL should back or endorse any particular system or technology, particularly a proprietary technology.

There are any number of excellent technologies and systems out there. There are any number of professional emcomm folks out there who are Amateurs. Just because a technology or system exists or an Amateur has expertise in structured governmental or NGO communications doesn't mean that technology, system or expertise is transportable to Amateur emcomm services. Let's not forget the needs or seek the input of guys on the line, the SM's and SEC's, when dealing with emcomm issues.

73, Jay, K0QB