Dick; I certainly can understand some your points, and while I cannot speak for the PSC, I would like to clarify a few things from my perspective as a member of the PSC: 1. The title of your e-mail is misleading. As long as I've been on the PSC (only two years), I don't remember there being any "PSC initiated changes" to ARRL contest rules, save the waivers for Field Day last year, (assuming Field Day is a "contest".) In the cases I can remember, all have come from taskings either sent through or initiated by the CAC, or requests from the Radiosport staff at HQ. The PSC has either approved, or in some cases, denied recommended changes brought to it. Some of these recommendations have been with the CAC longer than I've been on the Board. 2. From what I've seen, these decisions are not done willy-nilly. The CAC, the current "pool of contest experts", has been brought in for tasking as appropriate. Norm, Bart, and Dan Henderson are all on the PSC, and have always been asked how this will affect their operations. When we did the hasty rules change for Field Day, Dan Henderson personally contacted all major logging software people and asked for their input regarding the severity of changes on their software. All came back to him as "no problem", so we went with it. Please also note that ALL PSC approved contest changes are to be published to the full Board for comments before implementation by HQ staff. Board members certainly have the opportunity to seek your member input during that time, and report findings and recommendations back to the PSC. In closely monitoring contest related social media I have learned one thing; somebody is going to complain no matter what we do. That said, how does the ARRL deal with the challenges brought on by advancements in technology, (such as fully remote operating), or coming up with innovative ways to get more amateurs into radiosport? "Doing nothing" is not going to cut it in the long run and if something doesn't work, the option is ALWAYS there to remove the change and revert back to the prior rules. 3. On the issue of ON4UN, it's my understanding and belief that he was a notable and "well-known worldwide" ARRL member, and his ARRL published books on low-band operating and antennas are arguably the defacto "bibles" for those wanting to learn about that unique segment of HF operating. Since the announcement I have seen nothing but praise on social media regarding our 160 meter contest plaque in recognition of him. (Has anybody besides Dick received any negative comments?) Please also remember that t his hobby we all enjoy is by nature truly global, and the reach of ARRL does not end at the US borders. I do not believe that a six month "cooling off" period would have changed the outcome of this decision. Dick, what we are talking about is about a $75 per year plaque, not a giant expense in the grand scheme of things, and the guys at Radiosport agreed they could easily deal with it. This is a decision they could have just as easily come up with on their own as well, but it began in this case with a request from PSC members. Lastly, the one thing we need to think about as a Board is the implications of "that's how we've always done it", and "we've never done that before, so we shouldn't" on the future of the ARRL. That's not how things either evolve or improve, and the ARRL gets criticized heavily for this "limiting" ideal rather often. Mr. Minster had a great commentary in the January QST entitled A Culture of "YES" . We, as Board members, need to support that thought and have that in the back of our minds as we deal with what we do here. In my view it's the correct approach for our organization's longevity. All the above said, Dick, thanks for your valued input on this. I appreciate it. 73; Mike W7VO

On 12/28/2020 9:01 AM Richard Norton via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote:

The ARRL's contest program is quite mature and adequately successful. It is not in need of emergency change. The program functions with a great deal of the work being performed offsite by non-employee software developers, log-checkers, and authors of QST and web articles.

Radio contesting can be quite esoteric, and a knowledgeable Contest Advisory Committee exists to aid in keeping contest rules and administration relevant.

Lately the Board's Programs and Services Committee has rapidly and single-handedly made a number of changes to contests, none of which have been received particularly well by the contest community. There is an infrastructure of log-submission software, immediate claimed-score-reporting software, log-checking software, score-assembling software, and result-reporting software that is impacted when categories are added or changed. Most of this is done by unpaid volunteers, some of who question whether the handful of entrants affected by what might be thought to be a small change are worth the unpaid volunteer's efforts. Also comments have been received asking why a Board of Directors is working in the weeds of radio contests. I have spent time trying to justify these actions, and my best defense has been to tell people in so many words, that the PSC means well.

There can be many issues and potential impacts of changes, and I have suggested taking considerable time to gather input before making any additions, changes, or perceived improvements. In a recent phone call to a Director that I consider a friend, I suggested not making any contest changes unless a topic has been debated for a minimum of six months, and the CAC is strongly in agreement with the proposed action.

My suggestion failed and soon after the call, the PSC came up with another perceived improvement. It added an ARRL-funded plaque honoring the late John Devoldere, ON4UN, to be given to the single-operator winner of the ARRL's 160-meter Contest. John Devoldere was the author of the book, ON4UN's Low-Band DXing, which was published by the League.

I'm sure that the PSC members felt they were doing the League good by their action, but once again questions arose. All of the following questions and points initially came from others, not me.

- Why did the League choose to honor a foreign Amateur with a plaque given in what is essentially a domestic USA contest? a couple of Belgian hams may make a few contacts in the ARRL 160, but foreign hams do not pay attention to who wins a domestic USA contest.

- There are no plaques or awards other than certificates for the ARRL 160 and 10 meter contests. This is a noticeable change.

- The League has not honored any USA hams with plaques for any of its contests. Why didn't the League choose to initially honor some US ham with a plaque for winning something? Why did it honor a foreign ham?

- ON4UN was a paid author, not a volunteer. He was not a 160-meter pioneer. The book is a nice collection of technical Low-Band information, but ON4UN was not the first person to write a book on 160-meters. Also, although he had participated in the ARRL 160-meter Contest at one time, he did not in the last 10 years of his life.

- CQ magazine, with a contest program roughly the same size as the League's, has a number of plaques honoring hams, particularly deceased hams. All the plaques are sponsored by donors. None are funded by CQ. Why did the PSC select the League to fund this plaque? Why didn't it invite donor sponsorship? Why did it make this a permanent yearly financial League expense?

If the PSC actually considered any of these issues or questions, and has a response that should be made known, please let me know.

Again, I'm sure the PSC members thought they were doing good, but this appears to be something that was rushed through without considering all potential issues. I thought it ironic that no PSC members appear to have even participated in the recent running of the ARRL 160.

A friend who knew ON4UN substantially better than I did, and even spent considerable time with him in his Belgian station, commented, "I would let ON4UN's body of work speak for itself rather than getting distracted by a dipsh*t trophy." This should give an idea of how even the existence this plaque has been received.

This idea appears to have been rushed. Please take the suggestion of a six-month consideration period, with input received from all potentially impacted parties, before any contest changes or improvements are made.

73,

Dick, N6AA _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv