Just to respond to the Board's QST comments from today: Paper Quality The paper used in the most recent issues of QST, in both weight and quality, remains the same paper approved for publication use, by the Board, years ago. I pulled 5-year-old QST issues from the Library for comparison to be sure. The cause of the wavy effect in the two most recent issues has been noticed and is being investigated. When we have an adequate explanation, we will share it with the Board. We are currently renegotiating the printing contract for QST. I have asked Becky to have the contract bid priced with upgrades to the paper. We are examining all our magazines, and will also include CQ Magazine, to evaluate paper thickness and print quality. Once we evaluate the cost impact of an upgrade to the 2021 budget, we may need to review with A&F. Content It is my understanding the difficulty in obtaining quality authors and content for QST has been a problem for years. While there is engineering and technical talent within the Membership, few have provided usable content for QST - meaning most pieces require significant re-writes, not just editing. We continue to recruit authors and chase relevant content, but rest assured that we are not sitting by, waiting for manuscripts to be thrown over the wall. We are making progress. As an example of that progress are the successful additions of new authors: N1NUG on an OTA article on Fox Hunting, WO2X on Station Automation with Node Red, and KE0OG as a replacement for The Doctor Is In. The effort to find reliable and competent authors continues. Aggressively. The comments made appear to not recognize that a large portion of our members are nostalgic. We regularly get emails that reference the 'Look Back' section of QST with fond memories. Emails in opposition to this section are few and far between. The other items that are adjacent to 'Look Back', such as '100, 50, 25' and 'Classic Radio', are columns. The 'Look Back' section is the first place where pages are cut when we have additional quality columns to publish. As the 'Look Back' section has been well-received by the Membership and provides the flexibility to add additional quality content, its removal could be a source of complaints by Members and would adversely impact our ability to add new pages of content. But, if the Board believes the downside to maintaining the 'Look Back' section outweighs the benefits, we will certainly abide the wishes of the Board. Advertising In terms of the upgraded Eton insert page in QST, I actually like it and we have received similar comments from Members and some Board Members. It should be kept in mind that as we reach out to 3rd party advertisers, as directed by the Board, some future advertisers may also wish to have an elevated presence in QST or may have more mainstream/current ideas on marketing that may be different from what has appeared in the past. Regarding Eton, we have a one-year contract that, as disclosed to A&F in its Fall meeting, is financially beneficial to the League. But, if the Board believes that the format of Eton's advertising is detrimental to QST, we will evaluate terminating their advertising contract. If the Board believes that the nature of Eton's ad - paper thickness, size, or position - should in the future be avoided, we will of course incorporate such limitations into our adverting standards. Thanks David