[arrl-odv:31651] PSC Motion 1 thoughts
As a member of PSC for the last two years, I thought I'd provide my fellow Board members my thoughts on the motion to restructure the two PSC advisory committees. Take it for what it is worth. 1. The current two advisory committees (CAC and DXAC), are fixed, and are comprised of one appointed representative from each ARRL Division per committee. The committees rarely change members, so the committee make-up remains pretty stoic over time, and arguably, somewhat ceremonial in nature. 2. While members of these committees are certainly "subject matter experts" themselves, are they all up on the latest technologies? How many of the CAC members operate digital contests using FT8/FT4, the most popular mode on HF operating at the moment? The answer is "very few, if any", so are they really the best ones to consult on a digital mode contest rule? Wouldn't it be be better to "ask the experts" themselves? 3. It is felt that with the advent of e-mail, e-surveys that can be conducted by the Radiosport team at HQ, and social media, the "one member per division, per committee" structure is archaic. At present ARRL HQ has the ability to work directly with the contest and DX community on issues, they don't need individual Division representatives to "work their territories" to provide feedback. The survey and questionnaire that HQ put out last year about Sweepstakes activities is a great example of this. They received great feedback from the Sweepstakes participants themselves. 4. The current advisory committees are tasked assignments from the PSC as required to provide input on a matter, they are not autonomous. Nothing will change here. Tasks will be assigned by HQ radiosport staff to those that know the most about the subject at hand, and not be limited to consulting whomever a Director appoints for his or her Division. 5. There was a PSC tasking requested by the Executive Committee way back in 2018 that started this all, as there have been issues in the past in getting tasks completed by the two advisory committees in a timely fashion. It is thought that the new "tiger team" approach will be much faster in getting things accomplished. With a larger "pool of experts" to draw on, the PSC is not limited to just those two fixed committees for input. Adhoc committees can be put together specific to a particular topic as well. 6. Current DXAC and CAC members will be encouraged to apply to be a part of the new "pool of experts", as well others within the DX and contest community. Nobody will be purposefully left out, or is going to get thrown out in the streets. 7. This change will allow the PSC to draw on "experts" with expertises beyond the current two advisory committees to tackle other issues beyond just the DX and contest genres. In my opinion, this change is to both increase efficiency and the quality of input provided to help the PSC make good decisions for our members. It's not to squelch input from anybody. In fact, I'm sure many of the best of each discipline (contesting and DXing), in the world will end up becoming members of the "expert pools". Lastly, if for some reason this doesn't work out, we can always go back to what we had before. Just my two watts. 73; Mike W7VO
Hi Mike, Thanks for the feedback. I still oppose this motion as written. #1. Membership still sees the PSC as being in control. They see the PSC as not having membership comprised of those who are heavily involved in the two main radiosport activities - contesting and DXing. They do see the CAC as having those. Sure, the one per division advisory committees have largely really no impact on the final decisions coming out of PSC. However, the impression I get is that CAC and DXAC really don't have a say in anything and are largely ignored. I can name several times the PSC and other Board committees went against what the DXAC and CAC recommended. Some pretty big ones - like the addition of Scarborough Reef to the DXCC list - were a result of overruling what the DXAC had recommended. The abolishment of these advisory committees and the new ad-hoc working groups in its place have given the impression that the PSC wants more or less full control and does not want significant external input. We've since abolished the requirement that contest rules changes get approved by the full Board. So this means that five directors now get to decide on contest rules, pretty much on their own. They can call an ad-hoc committee if they wish, but there's really no requirement to do so and the recommendation can once again be ignored. #2. The DXAC and CAC are not allowed to bring their own ideas to the PSC for consideration. Instead they are tasked with ideas and have to evaluate them. This is a waste of their talent, as the ideas come from the PSC and the PSC is still likely to overrule them. See #1. Here is how I would strengthen the CAC and DXAC. 1. Impose term limits. 4 years and you're out, with staggered terms. We need to have a rotation of CAC and DXAC members and not make it a patronage position as it has largely been. 2. Encourage diversity - youth, women, minorities etc. This should be taken as a suggestion and not a hard requirement for a quota. 3. Actively recruit VHF+ contesters. As it is, much of the CAC is HF-centric. DXAC is an HF centric activity so this does not apply. there. 4. Have the editors of NCJ and the contest newsletter as ad-hoc members. For the DXAC, recruit one to three international members, preferably one from each ITU region. Additionally: Demand that they be proactive, not reactive. They should be convening regularly and submitting their own ideas to the PSC. PSC can have their own ideas, but you have a pool of experts, use them. Empower the chair to lead, and not follow. Disruptive members can be removed with consent of the division director, and a new one appointed. If we choose to not bind to divisions, that is fine, let the PSC consent to removal. This should be rare, anyway. At a high level, PSC and CAC/DXAC should be discussing ideas that both committees come up with. And finally - Data, data, data. The decisions out of these committees don't seem to be driven by properly surveyed and collected data. NCJ did a survey and it was a rare event, but it gave us an insight into contesting. Our decisions should be data driven. What do the members want? How do members do these activities? That should be driving the CAC and DXAC. 73 Ria, N2RJ On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 4:30 PM Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net> wrote:
As a member of PSC for the last two years, I thought I'd provide my fellow Board members my thoughts on the motion to restructure the two PSC advisory committees. Take it for what it is worth.
1. The current two advisory committees (CAC and DXAC), are fixed, and are comprised of one appointed representative from each ARRL Division per committee. The committees rarely change members, so the committee make-up remains pretty stoic over time, and arguably, somewhat ceremonial in nature.
2. While members of these committees are certainly "subject matter experts" themselves, are they all up on the latest technologies? How many of the CAC members operate digital contests using FT8/FT4, the most popular mode on HF operating at the moment? The answer is "very few, if any", so are they really the best ones to consult on a digital mode contest rule? Wouldn't it be be better to "ask the experts" themselves?
3. It is felt that with the advent of e-mail, e-surveys that can be conducted by the Radiosport team at HQ, and social media, the "one member per division, per committee" structure is archaic. At present ARRL HQ has the ability to work directly with the contest and DX community on issues, they don't need individual Division representatives to "work their territories" to provide feedback. The survey and questionnaire that HQ put out last year about Sweepstakes activities is a great example of this. They received great feedback from the Sweepstakes participants themselves.
4. The current advisory committees are tasked assignments from the PSC as required to provide input on a matter, they are not autonomous. Nothing will change here. Tasks will be assigned by HQ radiosport staff to those that know the most about the subject at hand, and not be limited to consulting whomever a Director appoints for his or her Division.
5. There was a PSC tasking requested by the Executive Committee way back in 2018 that started this all, as there have been issues in the past in getting tasks completed by the two advisory committees in a timely fashion. It is thought that the new "tiger team" approach will be much faster in getting things accomplished. With a larger "pool of experts" to draw on, the PSC is not limited to just those two fixed committees for input. Adhoc committees can be put together specific to a particular topic as well.
6. Current DXAC and CAC members will be encouraged to apply to be a part of the new "pool of experts", as well others within the DX and contest community. Nobody will be purposefully left out, or is going to get thrown out in the streets.
7. This change will allow the PSC to draw on "experts" with expertises beyond the current two advisory committees to tackle other issues beyond just the DX and contest genres.
In my opinion, this change is to both increase efficiency and the quality of input provided to help the PSC make good decisions for our members. It's not to squelch input from anybody. In fact, I'm sure many of the best of each discipline (contesting and DXing), in the world will end up becoming members of the "expert pools".
Lastly, if for some reason this doesn't work out, we can always go back to what we had before.
Just my two watts.
73; Mike W7VO
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Bravo, Ria. I like your ideas as expressed below, especially term limits, and being pro-active (ability to submit ideas). -Fred K1VR -----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of rjairam@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 6:55 PM To: Michael Ritz Cc: arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org Subject: [arrl-odv:31657] Re: PSC Motion 1 thoughts Hi Mike, Thanks for the feedback. I still oppose this motion as written. #1. Membership still sees the PSC as being in control. They see the PSC as not having membership comprised of those who are heavily involved in the two main radiosport activities - contesting and DXing. They do see the CAC as having those. Sure, the one per division advisory committees have largely really no impact on the final decisions coming out of PSC. However, the impression I get is that CAC and DXAC really don't have a say in anything and are largely ignored. I can name several times the PSC and other Board committees went against what the DXAC and CAC recommended. Some pretty big ones - like the addition of Scarborough Reef to the DXCC list - were a result of overruling what the DXAC had recommended. The abolishment of these advisory committees and the new ad-hoc working groups in its place have given the impression that the PSC wants more or less full control and does not want significant external input. We've since abolished the requirement that contest rules changes get approved by the full Board. So this means that five directors now get to decide on contest rules, pretty much on their own. They can call an ad-hoc committee if they wish, but there's really no requirement to do so and the recommendation can once again be ignored. #2. The DXAC and CAC are not allowed to bring their own ideas to the PSC for consideration. Instead they are tasked with ideas and have to evaluate them. This is a waste of their talent, as the ideas come from the PSC and the PSC is still likely to overrule them. See #1. Here is how I would strengthen the CAC and DXAC. 1. Impose term limits. 4 years and you're out, with staggered terms. We need to have a rotation of CAC and DXAC members and not make it a patronage position as it has largely been. 2. Encourage diversity - youth, women, minorities etc. This should be taken as a suggestion and not a hard requirement for a quota. 3. Actively recruit VHF+ contesters. As it is, much of the CAC is HF-centric. DXAC is an HF centric activity so this does not apply. there. 4. Have the editors of NCJ and the contest newsletter as ad-hoc members. For the DXAC, recruit one to three international members, preferably one from each ITU region. Additionally: Demand that they be proactive, not reactive. They should be convening regularly and submitting their own ideas to the PSC. PSC can have their own ideas, but you have a pool of experts, use them. Empower the chair to lead, and not follow. Disruptive members can be removed with consent of the division director, and a new one appointed. If we choose to not bind to divisions, that is fine, let the PSC consent to removal. This should be rare, anyway. At a high level, PSC and CAC/DXAC should be discussing ideas that both committees come up with. And finally - Data, data, data. The decisions out of these committees don't seem to be driven by properly surveyed and collected data. NCJ did a survey and it was a rare event, but it gave us an insight into contesting. Our decisions should be data driven. What do the members want? How do members do these activities? That should be driving the CAC and DXAC. 73 Ria, N2RJ On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 4:30 PM Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net> wrote:
As a member of PSC for the last two years, I thought I'd provide my fellow
Board members my thoughts on the motion to restructure the two PSC advisory committees. Take it for what it is worth.
1. The current two advisory committees (CAC and DXAC), are fixed, and are
comprised of one appointed representative from each ARRL Division per committee. The committees rarely change members, so the committee make-up remains pretty stoic over time, and arguably, somewhat ceremonial in nature.
2. While members of these committees are certainly "subject matter
experts" themselves, are they all up on the latest technologies? How many of the CAC members operate digital contests using FT8/FT4, the most popular mode on HF operating at the moment? The answer is "very few, if any", so are they really the best ones to consult on a digital mode contest rule? Wouldn't it be be better to "ask the experts" themselves?
3. It is felt that with the advent of e-mail, e-surveys that can be
conducted by the Radiosport team at HQ, and social media, the "one member per division, per committee" structure is archaic. At present ARRL HQ has the ability to work directly with the contest and DX community on issues, they don't need individual Division representatives to "work their territories" to provide feedback. The survey and questionnaire that HQ put out last year about Sweepstakes activities is a great example of this. They received great feedback from the Sweepstakes participants themselves.
4. The current advisory committees are tasked assignments from the PSC as
required to provide input on a matter, they are not autonomous. Nothing will change here. Tasks will be assigned by HQ radiosport staff to those that know the most about the subject at hand, and not be limited to consulting whomever a Director appoints for his or her Division.
5. There was a PSC tasking requested by the Executive Committee way back
in 2018 that started this all, as there have been issues in the past in getting tasks completed by the two advisory committees in a timely fashion. It is thought that the new "tiger team" approach will be much faster in getting things accomplished. With a larger "pool of experts" to draw on, the PSC is not limited to just those two fixed committees for input. Adhoc committees can be put together specific to a particular topic as well.
6. Current DXAC and CAC members will be encouraged to apply to be a part
of the new "pool of experts", as well others within the DX and contest community. Nobody will be purposefully left out, or is going to get thrown out in the streets.
7. This change will allow the PSC to draw on "experts" with expertises
beyond the current two advisory committees to tackle other issues beyond just the DX and contest genres.
In my opinion, this change is to both increase efficiency and the quality
of input provided to help the PSC make good decisions for our members. It's not to squelch input from anybody. In fact, I'm sure many of the best of each discipline (contesting and DXing), in the world will end up becoming members of the "expert pools".
Lastly, if for some reason this doesn't work out, we can always go back to
what we had before.
Just my two watts.
73; Mike W7VO
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
I want to concur with much of what Ria has said about the Advisory Committees. One of the privileges of being a “dinosaur” is that I was around when many things started, including the CAC and DXAC. At that time, the ACs were promoted – and membership understood them – as accepting input from the membership (and from non-members, as well, since a good idea is a good idea regardless of where it comes from). Input would be collected, collated, sifted, sorted by the ACs – all with an eye to seeing if there was a common thread that might be worth “passing up the chain” to whatever Board Committee had cognizance back then, along with any AC comments, recommendations, etc. The ACs could also initiate surveys, if they so chose. In particular, we in the field saw the ACs as giving “the little gun” and the casual participant an opportunity to have a voice. Somewhere along the way, that whole process got subverted. Over the years, many of us gave up on the ACs, primarily for three perceptions: * There was little turn-over on the ACs, which had a heavy concentration of “big guns” * The ACs didn’t seem interested in giving much credence to member input * The crowning blow: The ACs were directed to accept tasking only from PSC, not from members Now we hear they’re to be replaced by small groups of “subject matter experts”. If someone calls me a “subject matter expert”, isn’t that an invitation for me to ignore input from anyone else who isn’t similarly titled? IMO, a casual participant in a contest is as much a “subject matter expert” as any top gun because s/he is the only person in the world who fully knows what s/he likes and dislikes about a given contest. Further, if it weren’t for those casual participants, top guns wouldn’t have half the fun they do! Basically, the input I’ve been getting from other contesters both before and after I became a Director is that between HQ, the PSC/Board, and the ACs there appears to be a big NIH factor in play. I’m probably the last person in the world who would want to see contest rules needlessly or willy-nilly changed from year to year but I also believe a good idea deserves honest consideration, regardless of its origin. What I would add to Ria’s list of recommendations is to explicitly direct the ACs to be receptive to random member input. I would also propose user “focus groups” and “beta test populations” to test market (even if only on paper or in a Zoom meeting) proposed changes with a truly broad-based group of contesters and even non-contesters. I think that’s part of her “data, data, data” comment (where she says “What do the members want? How do members do these activities?”) but I believe a clear statement requiring, encouraging, and incorporating member input is needed. One final observation: There is already a body of “subject matter experts” out there that the League and other organizations need to pay more attention to before monkeying with contest rules: contest logging software authors. It’s easy to sit at your desk and think up screwball “off time” rules for the RTTY Round-Up when you don’t have to write the code for implementing those rules in logging programs that are expected to provide users their scores and remaining operating hours in real time. Bud, W2RU From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> on behalf of "rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 6:55 PM To: "Ritz, Mike, W7VO, (Dir, NW)" <w7vo@comcast.net> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:31657] Re: PSC Motion 1 thoughts Hi Mike, Thanks for the feedback. I still oppose this motion as written. #1. Membership still sees the PSC as being in control. They see the PSC as not having membership comprised of those who are heavily involved in the two main radiosport activities - contesting and DXing. They do see the CAC as having those. Sure, the one per division advisory committees have largely really no impact on the final decisions coming out of PSC. However, the impression I get is that CAC and DXAC really don't have a say in anything and are largely ignored. I can name several times the PSC and other Board committees went against what the DXAC and CAC recommended. Some pretty big ones - like the addition of Scarborough Reef to the DXCC list - were a result of overruling what the DXAC had recommended. The abolishment of these advisory committees and the new ad-hoc working groups in its place have given the impression that the PSC wants more or less full control and does not want significant external input. We've since abolished the requirement that contest rules changes get approved by the full Board. So this means that five directors now get to decide on contest rules, pretty much on their own. They can call an ad-hoc committee if they wish, but there's really no requirement to do so and the recommendation can once again be ignored. #2. The DXAC and CAC are not allowed to bring their own ideas to the PSC for consideration. Instead they are tasked with ideas and have to evaluate them. This is a waste of their talent, as the ideas come from the PSC and the PSC is still likely to overrule them. See #1. Here is how I would strengthen the CAC and DXAC. 1. Impose term limits. 4 years and you're out, with staggered terms. We need to have a rotation of CAC and DXAC members and not make it a patronage position as it has largely been. 2. Encourage diversity - youth, women, minorities etc. This should be taken as a suggestion and not a hard requirement for a quota. 3. Actively recruit VHF+ contesters. As it is, much of the CAC is HF-centric. DXAC is an HF centric activity so this does not apply. there. 4. Have the editors of NCJ and the contest newsletter as ad-hoc members. For the DXAC, recruit one to three international members, preferably one from each ITU region. Additionally: Demand that they be proactive, not reactive. They should be convening regularly and submitting their own ideas to the PSC. PSC can have their own ideas, but you have a pool of experts, use them. Empower the chair to lead, and not follow. Disruptive members can be removed with consent of the division director, and a new one appointed. If we choose to not bind to divisions, that is fine, let the PSC consent to removal. This should be rare, anyway. At a high level, PSC and CAC/DXAC should be discussing ideas that both committees come up with. And finally - Data, data, data. The decisions out of these committees don't seem to be driven by properly surveyed and collected data. NCJ did a survey and it was a rare event, but it gave us an insight into contesting. Our decisions should be data driven. What do the members want? How do members do these activities? That should be driving the CAC and DXAC. 73 Ria, N2RJ On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 4:30 PM Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net<mailto:w7vo@comcast.net>> wrote: As a member of PSC for the last two years, I thought I'd provide my fellow Board members my thoughts on the motion to restructure the two PSC advisory committees. Take it for what it is worth. 1. The current two advisory committees (CAC and DXAC), are fixed, and are comprised of one appointed representative from each ARRL Division per committee. The committees rarely change members, so the committee make-up remains pretty stoic over time, and arguably, somewhat ceremonial in nature. 2. While members of these committees are certainly "subject matter experts" themselves, are they all up on the latest technologies? How many of the CAC members operate digital contests using FT8/FT4, the most popular mode on HF operating at the moment? The answer is "very few, if any", so are they really the best ones to consult on a digital mode contest rule? Wouldn't it be be better to "ask the experts" themselves? 3. It is felt that with the advent of e-mail, e-surveys that can be conducted by the Radiosport team at HQ, and social media, the "one member per division, per committee" structure is archaic. At present ARRL HQ has the ability to work directly with the contest and DX community on issues, they don't need individual Division representatives to "work their territories" to provide feedback. The survey and questionnaire that HQ put out last year about Sweepstakes activities is a great example of this. They received great feedback from the Sweepstakes participants themselves. 4. The current advisory committees are tasked assignments from the PSC as required to provide input on a matter, they are not autonomous. Nothing will change here. Tasks will be assigned by HQ radiosport staff to those that know the most about the subject at hand, and not be limited to consulting whomever a Director appoints for his or her Division. 5. There was a PSC tasking requested by the Executive Committee way back in 2018 that started this all, as there have been issues in the past in getting tasks completed by the two advisory committees in a timely fashion. It is thought that the new "tiger team" approach will be much faster in getting things accomplished. With a larger "pool of experts" to draw on, the PSC is not limited to just those two fixed committees for input. Adhoc committees can be put together specific to a particular topic as well. 6. Current DXAC and CAC members will be encouraged to apply to be a part of the new "pool of experts", as well others within the DX and contest community. Nobody will be purposefully left out, or is going to get thrown out in the streets. 7. This change will allow the PSC to draw on "experts" with expertises beyond the current two advisory committees to tackle other issues beyond just the DX and contest genres. In my opinion, this change is to both increase efficiency and the quality of input provided to help the PSC make good decisions for our members. It's not to squelch input from anybody. In fact, I'm sure many of the best of each discipline (contesting and DXing), in the world will end up becoming members of the "expert pools". Lastly, if for some reason this doesn't work out, we can always go back to what we had before. Just my two watts. 73; Mike W7VO _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Greetings Ria, As for your comments concerning term limit, the present rules currently have members are to serve 3 year terms and a maximum of 2 terms. I think a good starting point is to abide the current rules, below is link to the rules. Very simple no changes need just follow the current rules. This will force us to replace several members as many have been on there for more than 6 years. Updating the appointments will allow us to address some of your other points during this appointment process. I find it interesting some of your comments are similar to comments I've received from some of the CAC members. One thing in the current rules I think that should be changed at some point is the appointment being "for a term concurrent with that of the Director". Being brand new at this and all the stuff I'm learning about I find it very challenging to comply with that rule in the short amount of time I've been at this. Who knows maybe that is part of the issue why the terms aren't being properly followed and applies. Bill AC0W Director Dakota Division http://www.arrl.org/arrl-rules-regulations -----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> On Behalf Of rjairam@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 5:55 PM To: Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net> Cc: arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org Subject: [arrl-odv:31657] Re: PSC Motion 1 thoughts Hi Mike, Thanks for the feedback. I still oppose this motion as written. #1. Membership still sees the PSC as being in control. They see the PSC as not having membership comprised of those who are heavily involved in the two main radiosport activities - contesting and DXing. They do see the CAC as having those. Sure, the one per division advisory committees have largely really no impact on the final decisions coming out of PSC. However, the impression I get is that CAC and DXAC really don't have a say in anything and are largely ignored. I can name several times the PSC and other Board committees went against what the DXAC and CAC recommended. Some pretty big ones - like the addition of Scarborough Reef to the DXCC list - were a result of overruling what the DXAC had recommended. The abolishment of these advisory committees and the new ad-hoc working groups in its place have given the impression that the PSC wants more or less full control and does not want significant external input. We've since abolished the requirement that contest rules changes get approved by the full Board. So this means that five directors now get to decide on contest rules, pretty much on their own. They can call an ad-hoc committee if they wish, but there's really no requirement to do so and the recommendation can once again be ignored. #2. The DXAC and CAC are not allowed to bring their own ideas to the PSC for consideration. Instead they are tasked with ideas and have to evaluate them. This is a waste of their talent, as the ideas come from the PSC and the PSC is still likely to overrule them. See #1. Here is how I would strengthen the CAC and DXAC. 1. Impose term limits. 4 years and you're out, with staggered terms. We need to have a rotation of CAC and DXAC members and not make it a patronage position as it has largely been. 2. Encourage diversity - youth, women, minorities etc. This should be taken as a suggestion and not a hard requirement for a quota. 3. Actively recruit VHF+ contesters. As it is, much of the CAC is HF-centric. DXAC is an HF centric activity so this does not apply. there. 4. Have the editors of NCJ and the contest newsletter as ad-hoc members. For the DXAC, recruit one to three international members, preferably one from each ITU region. Additionally: Demand that they be proactive, not reactive. They should be convening regularly and submitting their own ideas to the PSC. PSC can have their own ideas, but you have a pool of experts, use them. Empower the chair to lead, and not follow. Disruptive members can be removed with consent of the division director, and a new one appointed. If we choose to not bind to divisions, that is fine, let the PSC consent to removal. This should be rare, anyway. At a high level, PSC and CAC/DXAC should be discussing ideas that both committees come up with. And finally - Data, data, data. The decisions out of these committees don't seem to be driven by properly surveyed and collected data. NCJ did a survey and it was a rare event, but it gave us an insight into contesting. Our decisions should be data driven. What do the members want? How do members do these activities? That should be driving the CAC and DXAC. 73 Ria, N2RJ On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 4:30 PM Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net> wrote:
As a member of PSC for the last two years, I thought I'd provide my fellow
Board members my thoughts on the motion to restructure the two PSC advisory committees. Take it for what it is worth.
1. The current two advisory committees (CAC and DXAC), are fixed, and are
comprised of one appointed representative from each ARRL Division per committee. The committees rarely change members, so the committee make-up remains pretty stoic over time, and arguably, somewhat ceremonial in nature.
2. While members of these committees are certainly "subject matter
experts" themselves, are they all up on the latest technologies? How many of the CAC members operate digital contests using FT8/FT4, the most popular mode on HF operating at the moment? The answer is "very few, if any", so are they really the best ones to consult on a digital mode contest rule? Wouldn't it be be better to "ask the experts" themselves?
3. It is felt that with the advent of e-mail, e-surveys that can be
conducted by the Radiosport team at HQ, and social media, the "one member per division, per committee" structure is archaic. At present ARRL HQ has the ability to work directly with the contest and DX community on issues, they don't need individual Division representatives to "work their territories" to provide feedback. The survey and questionnaire that HQ put out last year about Sweepstakes activities is a great example of this. They received great feedback from the Sweepstakes participants themselves.
4. The current advisory committees are tasked assignments from the PSC as
required to provide input on a matter, they are not autonomous. Nothing will change here. Tasks will be assigned by HQ radiosport staff to those that know the most about the subject at hand, and not be limited to consulting whomever a Director appoints for his or her Division.
5. There was a PSC tasking requested by the Executive Committee way back
in 2018 that started this all, as there have been issues in the past in getting tasks completed by the two advisory committees in a timely fashion. It is thought that the new "tiger team" approach will be much faster in getting things accomplished. With a larger "pool of experts" to draw on, the PSC is not limited to just those two fixed committees for input. Adhoc committees can be put together specific to a particular topic as well.
6. Current DXAC and CAC members will be encouraged to apply to be a part
of the new "pool of experts", as well others within the DX and contest community. Nobody will be purposefully left out, or is going to get thrown out in the streets.
7. This change will allow the PSC to draw on "experts" with expertises
beyond the current two advisory committees to tackle other issues beyond just the DX and contest genres.
In my opinion, this change is to both increase efficiency and the quality
of input provided to help the PSC make good decisions for our members. It's not to squelch input from anybody. In fact, I'm sure many of the best of each discipline (contesting and DXing), in the world will end up becoming members of the "expert pools".
Lastly, if for some reason this doesn't work out, we can always go back to
what we had before.
Just my two watts.
73; Mike W7VO
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
One of the issues that I had (in the days of a CEO who wasn't exactly sharp, IMO) was that I arrived and had to ask for a list of appointees. My contact info was taken from my qualification form, and it had changed, so it ended up in QST. I think you probably all know one another personally in Dakota 😉, but there are 15k members and 7 sections in Southeastern! At some point in time, new directors should have an onboarding process that includes lists of appointees, time in the job, the Field org people. Maybe one day we will have all this in a directory... An onboarding process with information would be a lot more valuable than the 5 or so hours sitting in front of attorneys. The attorney session should be done with a readable document and a brief quiz.... Mickey Baker, N4MB Palm Beach Gardens, FL *“The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead." Robert K. Greenleaf* On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 8:24 PM AC0W Bill <ac0wmoo11@gmail.com> wrote:
Greetings Ria,
As for your comments concerning term limit, the present rules currently have members are to serve 3 year terms and a maximum of 2 terms. I think a good starting point is to abide the current rules, below is link to the rules. Very simple no changes need just follow the current rules. This will force us to replace several members as many have been on there for more than 6 years.
Updating the appointments will allow us to address some of your other points during this appointment process. I find it interesting some of your comments are similar to comments I've received from some of the CAC members.
One thing in the current rules I think that should be changed at some point is the appointment being "for a term concurrent with that of the Director". Being brand new at this and all the stuff I'm learning about I find it very challenging to comply with that rule in the short amount of time I've been at this. Who knows maybe that is part of the issue why the terms aren't being properly followed and applies.
Bill AC0W Director Dakota Division
http://www.arrl.org/arrl-rules-regulations
-----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> On Behalf Of rjairam@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 5:55 PM To: Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net> Cc: arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org Subject: [arrl-odv:31657] Re: PSC Motion 1 thoughts
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the feedback. I still oppose this motion as written.
#1. Membership still sees the PSC as being in control. They see the PSC as not having membership comprised of those who are heavily involved in the two main radiosport activities - contesting and DXing. They do see the CAC as having those. Sure, the one per division advisory committees have largely really no impact on the final decisions coming out of PSC. However, the impression I get is that CAC and DXAC really don't have a say in anything and are largely ignored. I can name several times the PSC and other Board committees went against what the DXAC and CAC recommended. Some pretty big ones - like the addition of Scarborough Reef to the DXCC list - were a result of overruling what the DXAC had recommended. The abolishment of these advisory committees and the new ad-hoc working groups in its place have given the impression that the PSC wants more or less full control and does not want significant external input. We've since abolished the requirement that contest rules changes get approved by the full Board. So this means that five directors now get to decide on contest rules, pretty much on their own. They can call an ad-hoc committee if they wish, but there's really no requirement to do so and the recommendation can once again be ignored.
#2. The DXAC and CAC are not allowed to bring their own ideas to the PSC for consideration. Instead they are tasked with ideas and have to evaluate them. This is a waste of their talent, as the ideas come from the PSC and the PSC is still likely to overrule them. See #1.
Here is how I would strengthen the CAC and DXAC.
1. Impose term limits. 4 years and you're out, with staggered terms. We need to have a rotation of CAC and DXAC members and not make it a patronage position as it has largely been. 2. Encourage diversity - youth, women, minorities etc. This should be taken as a suggestion and not a hard requirement for a quota. 3. Actively recruit VHF+ contesters. As it is, much of the CAC is HF-centric. DXAC is an HF centric activity so this does not apply. there. 4. Have the editors of NCJ and the contest newsletter as ad-hoc members. For the DXAC, recruit one to three international members, preferably one from each ITU region.
Additionally: Demand that they be proactive, not reactive. They should be convening regularly and submitting their own ideas to the PSC. PSC can have their own ideas, but you have a pool of experts, use them. Empower the chair to lead, and not follow. Disruptive members can be removed with consent of the division director, and a new one appointed. If we choose to not bind to divisions, that is fine, let the PSC consent to removal. This should be rare, anyway. At a high level, PSC and CAC/DXAC should be discussing ideas that both committees come up with.
And finally - Data, data, data. The decisions out of these committees don't seem to be driven by properly surveyed and collected data. NCJ did a survey and it was a rare event, but it gave us an insight into contesting. Our decisions should be data driven. What do the members want? How do members do these activities? That should be driving the CAC and DXAC.
73 Ria, N2RJ
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 4:30 PM Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net> wrote:
As a member of PSC for the last two years, I thought I'd provide my
fellow Board members my thoughts on the motion to restructure the two PSC advisory committees. Take it for what it is worth.
1. The current two advisory committees (CAC and DXAC), are fixed, and are
comprised of one appointed representative from each ARRL Division per committee. The committees rarely change members, so the committee make-up remains pretty stoic over time, and arguably, somewhat ceremonial in nature.
2. While members of these committees are certainly "subject matter
experts" themselves, are they all up on the latest technologies? How many of the CAC members operate digital contests using FT8/FT4, the most popular mode on HF operating at the moment? The answer is "very few, if any", so are they really the best ones to consult on a digital mode contest rule? Wouldn't it be be better to "ask the experts" themselves?
3. It is felt that with the advent of e-mail, e-surveys that can be
conducted by the Radiosport team at HQ, and social media, the "one member per division, per committee" structure is archaic. At present ARRL HQ has the ability to work directly with the contest and DX community on issues, they don't need individual Division representatives to "work their territories" to provide feedback. The survey and questionnaire that HQ put out last year about Sweepstakes activities is a great example of this. They received great feedback from the Sweepstakes participants themselves.
4. The current advisory committees are tasked assignments from the PSC as
required to provide input on a matter, they are not autonomous. Nothing will change here. Tasks will be assigned by HQ radiosport staff to those that know the most about the subject at hand, and not be limited to consulting whomever a Director appoints for his or her Division.
5. There was a PSC tasking requested by the Executive Committee way back
in 2018 that started this all, as there have been issues in the past in getting tasks completed by the two advisory committees in a timely fashion. It is thought that the new "tiger team" approach will be much faster in getting things accomplished. With a larger "pool of experts" to draw on, the PSC is not limited to just those two fixed committees for input. Adhoc committees can be put together specific to a particular topic as well.
6. Current DXAC and CAC members will be encouraged to apply to be a part
of the new "pool of experts", as well others within the DX and contest community. Nobody will be purposefully left out, or is going to get thrown out in the streets.
7. This change will allow the PSC to draw on "experts" with expertises
beyond the current two advisory committees to tackle other issues beyond just the DX and contest genres.
In my opinion, this change is to both increase efficiency and the quality
of input provided to help the PSC make good decisions for our members. It's not to squelch input from anybody. In fact, I'm sure many of the best of each discipline (contesting and DXing), in the world will end up becoming members of the "expert pools".
Lastly, if for some reason this doesn't work out, we can always go back
to what we had before.
Just my two watts.
73; Mike W7VO
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Hello Mike et al, I do have a few comments about your thoughts on the CAC and DXAC; 1). If the membership of both Committee are though of and regarded as strictly ceremonial, that speaks volumes about the manner in which PSC regards their subcommittee. I certainly doubt that the 30-plus members of either Commitee would be involvedif they were to learn that the PSC Chair regards them as being "arguably, somewhat ceremonial in nature." I do know that members of the CAC recently tried unsuccessfully to advance ideas to the Chair of the PSC, and there was no dialogue or conversation. 2). With regards to being on top of the state of the art; In the Central Division I havetwo matter experts on Contesting and DX'ing. Craig Thompson K9CT >IS< a contesting subject matter expert - please take a look at http://www.k9ct.us/ and the related subpages, especially those indicating of his latest station-building project. Craig and I have been friends for a long time and he understands contesting from all of the perspectives which include small stations,large station as well as from the perspective from major expeditions from locations such as Bouvet, Swains, Conway Reef, Midway, Sint Marten, Admsterdam Is, Pitcairn, Palmyra Atoll, Navassa, Isla DelCocos, and many others. The Central Division DXAC representatives has similar pedigree with many decades of experience. Jim O'Connel, W9WU's most important contribution was to derive a solid definition of a DX entity that has now survived for many decades. Craig Thompson, K9CT, is the successful founder of an electronics manufacturing firm and Jim O'Connell W9WU, has been a career prosecutor with the US Attorney's office in Chicago. So please believe me, these members of the Advisory Committees do not engaged in their committee involvement with an intent to be ceremonial window-dressing for the Board or your Committee. They both take seriously the responsibility of representing the members of our Division in the subject area matters that arise. They would be greatly displeased with your characterizations, even more so than I. Your statment about lack of understanding the modern DX and Contestsetting clearly demonstrates to me the need to keep the assignment of experts for these two Advisory Committees a prerogative of and an assignment made by the individual Division Directors and not a designation authority relegated to the PSC Chair and or the head of the RadioSport Department. 3). For a variety of reasons, the ARRL governance structure was created and remains based on membership representation from geographically separate areas. While the Divisions were created out of the need to support trans-continental traffic handling, the difference in propagation and regional characteristics continue to play an important part in the diverse and differing issue that our Division members experience. One of the largest differences in operations for either DXing or Contesting is the availability of either propagation or activity. As a result the specifics of both activities does vary according to the location of the participants and the representation on these Committees as presently practiced does equitably address that consideration. 4. The advancements of technology for contacting representatives itself does not require a departure from the 15-member advisory committees to a smaller, staff-selected centralized group. What it does require is the application by the Committee to use the new technology for their task. Nothing in that technology requires the loss of a distributed group that has diversity of residence. The purpose of these appointed individuals to to advise the Director and Vice Director, not the RadioSport staff. The system of these Committees was created and should exist to support the Board decision making, not the RadioSport department. There is no reason that PSC cannot convene a task group from those who have been selected by the Directors to serve on these Committees. It is PSC and not RadioSport Department staff who should driving this process. RadioSport is expected to advise the Board from the perspective of the running these League activities but I see no advantage in having them select our choices of volunteer advisors. Staff already has the over-riding input of adjudication of both areas of concern by means of the "Awards Committee". 5. The EC directive that gave rise to this motion predates my election to the EC. I was involved peripherally since the VHF Contest working group that was formed at the 2014 Centennial Board Meeting was able to work quickly to enhance participation if VHF Contest by modifying the rules environment for VHF Contesting. I do know as a member of the VRAC (1980's) as well as member and Chair of the VUAC (2005-2014) that in the larger Committees consensus can be difficult to derive. But in each of my tenures I found that the greatest lack of consensus would arise from details connected to the characteristic of our different Divisions. The consideration of differences that arise as a result of geographical diversity is essential. 6.7, etc. Mike you are correct when you state that the DXAC and CAC needing to be responsive to the PSC needs. I also have recently seen instances where some members have stated incorrect and viscous rumors without foundations. IF there is failing to address those derisive issues of responsiveness and to properly control conduct within the Committee, that responsibility lies with each Director on this Board since problems such as those are correctable. For the most part the Committees seem to be treated as the unwanted step-children of the PSC and the Board. If these are the subject matter experts, then the PSC and the entire Board should at least be listening to their thoughts and recommendations. At a minimum, the PSC should be willing to receive and acknowledge recommendations. Treating these groups with the benign neglect that has become customary is unacceptable. I believe that the one-member per Division is STILL the best possible method to provide transparent governance of these to two competitive amateur activities for the members of my Division. Since these Committees are the representative interface from the amateur contest and DX communities to the Board, I believe it is incumbent on each Director to remain directly involved in the selection of the subject matter experts for matters concerning DX'ing and Contesting. A fifteen member advisory committee system must remain. This will take attention and work but the results can continue to be of great benefit to the League if properly managed. I do not support the Motion. 73, Kermit Carlson W9XA On Wednesday, January 13, 2021, 3:30:26 PM CST, Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net> wrote: As a member of PSC for the last two years, I thought I'd provide my fellow Board members my thoughts on the motion to restructure the two PSC advisory committees. Take it for what it is worth. 1. The current two advisory committees (CAC and DXAC), are fixed, and are comprised of one appointed representative from each ARRL Division per committee. The committees rarely change members, so the committee make-up remains pretty stoic over time, and arguably, somewhat ceremonial in nature. 2. While members of these committees are certainly "subject matter experts" themselves, are they all up on the latest technologies? How many of the CAC members operate digital contests using FT8/FT4, the most popular mode on HF operating at the moment? The answer is "very few, if any", so are they really the best ones to consult on a digital mode contest rule? Wouldn't it be be better to "ask the experts" themselves? 3. It is felt that with the advent of e-mail, e-surveys that can be conducted by the Radiosport team at HQ, and social media, the "one member per division, per committee" structure is archaic. At present ARRL HQ has the ability to work directly with the contest and DX community on issues, they don't need individual Division representatives to "work their territories" to provide feedback. The survey and questionnaire that HQ put out last year about Sweepstakes activities is a great example of this. They received great feedback from the Sweepstakes participants themselves. 4. The current advisory committees are tasked assignments from the PSC as required to provide input on a matter, they are not autonomous. Nothing will change here. Tasks will be assigned by HQ radiosport staff to those that know the most about the subject at hand, and not be limited to consulting whomever a Director appoints for his or her Division. 5. There was a PSC tasking requested by the Executive Committee way back in 2018 that started this all, as there have been issues in the past in getting tasks completed by the two advisory committees in a timely fashion. It is thought that the new "tiger team" approach will be much faster in getting things accomplished. With a larger "pool of experts" to draw on, the PSC is not limited to just those two fixed committees for input. Adhoc committees can be put together specific to a particular topic as well. 6. Current DXAC and CAC members will be encouraged to apply to be a part of the new "pool of experts", as well others within the DX and contest community. Nobody will be purposefully left out, or is going to get thrown out in the streets. 7. This change will allow the PSC to draw on "experts" with expertises beyond the current two advisory committees to tackle other issues beyond just the DX and contest genres. In my opinion, this change is to both increase efficiency and the quality of input provided to help the PSC make good decisions for our members. It's not to squelch input from anybody. In fact, I'm sure many of the best of each discipline (contesting and DXing), in the world will end up becoming members of the "expert pools". Lastly, if for some reason this doesn't work out, we can always go back to what we had before. Just my two watts. 73; Mike W7VO _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Thanks, Kermit. You are correct on many accounts, as were Ria, Fred, and Bud. My thoughts were based upon what I remember being brought up in the meetings, and what I've observed as a PSC member the last two years. I offered them up as a starting point of dialog prior to the meeting, knowing it would be somewhat controversial. It appears at this point PSC 1 may not have enough support to pass, or may pass or fail by a small margin. I don't think a vote so close on this is in the best interest of the Board, or ARRL members. There is no deadline to get this issue handled, after all, it's been in the PSC for several years now, what's another six months? ;-). Maybe the PSC can bring back something better now that it has some feedback from the rest of the Board. (Which maybe it should have gotten anyway...) That is making me wonder if the PSC needs to withdraw this motion, and work to develop a hybrid system model that makes the best by modifying or updating the existing AC structure, rather than completely abandoning and starting over. As interim PSC Chair, (until Saturday...), I would like to know where each Director stands on PSC 1 at present. I'll be calling each of you to discuss, or please send me a private e-mail. So far I have Ria, Bud and Kermit as NOs, and a lot of question marks. I may be calling a short special Zoom meeting of the PSC later today to discuss the findings. Everyone, please QRX. 73; Mike W7VO
On 01/14/2021 10:29 AM Kermit Carlson via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote:
Hello Mike et al,
I do have a few comments about your thoughts on the CAC and DXAC;
1). If the membership of both Committee are though of and regarded as strictly ceremonial, that speaks volumes about the manner in which PSC regards their subcommittee.
I certainly doubt that the 30-plus members of either Commitee would be involved if they were to learn that the PSC Chair regards them as being "arguably, somewhat ceremonial in nature." I do know that members of the CAC recently tried unsuccessfully to advance ideas to the Chair of the PSC, and there was no dialogue or conversation.
2). With regards to being on top of the state of the art; In the Central Division I have two matter experts on Contesting and DX'ing.
Craig Thompson K9CT >IS< a contesting subject matter expert - please take a look at http://www.k9ct.us/ and the related subpages, especially those indicating of his latest station-building project. Craig and I have been friends for a long time and he understands contesting from all of the perspectives which include small stations, large station as well as from the perspective from major expeditions from locations such as Bouvet, Swains, Conway Reef, Midway, Sint Marten, Admsterdam Is, Pitcairn, Palmyra Atoll, Navassa, Isla DelCocos, and many others.
The Central Division DXAC representatives has similar pedigree with many decades of experience. Jim O'Connel, W9WU's most important contribution was to derive a solid definition of a DX entity that has now survived for many decades.
Craig Thompson, K9CT, is the successful founder of an electronics manufacturing firm and Jim O'Connell W9WU, has been a career prosecutor with the US Attorney's office in Chicago. So please believe me, these members of the Advisory Committees do not engaged in their committee involvement with an intent to be ceremonial window-dressing for the Board or your Committee. They both take seriously the responsibility of representing the members of our Division in the subject area matters that arise. They would be greatly displeased with your characterizations, even more so than I.
Your statment about lack of understanding the modern DX and Contest setting clearly demonstrates to me the need to keep the assignment of experts for these two Advisory Committees a prerogative of and an assignment made by the individual Division Directors and not a designation authority relegated to the PSC Chair and or the head of the RadioSport Department.
3). For a variety of reasons, the ARRL governance structure was created and remains based on membership representation from geographically separate areas. While the Divisions were created out of the need to support trans-continental traffic handling, the difference in propagation and regional characteristics continue to play an important part in the diverse and differing issue that our Division members experience. One of the largest differences in operations for either DXing or Contesting is the availability of either propagation or activity. As a result the specifics of both activities does vary according to the location of the participants and the representation on these Committees as presently practiced does equitably address that consideration.
4. The advancements of technology for contacting representatives itself does not require a departure from the 15-member advisory committees to a smaller, staff-selected centralized group. What it does require is the application by the Committee to use the new technology for their task. Nothing in that technology requires the loss of a distributed group that has diversity of residence. The purpose of these appointed individuals to to advise the Director and Vice Director, not the RadioSport staff. The system of these Committees was created and should exist to support the Board decision making, not the RadioSport department. There is no reason that PSC cannot convene a task group from those who have been selected by the Directors to serve on these Committees. It is PSC and not RadioSport Department staff who should driving this process. RadioSport is expected to advise the Board from the perspective of the running these League activities but I see no advantage in having them select our choices of volunteer advisors. Staff already has the over-riding input of adjudication of both areas of concern by means of the "Awards Committee".
5. The EC directive that gave rise to this motion predates my election to the EC. I was involved peripherally since the VHF Contest working group that was formed at the 2014 Centennial Board Meeting was able to work quickly to enhance participation if VHF Contest by modifying the rules environment for VHF Contesting. I do know as a member of the VRAC (1980's) as well as member and Chair of the VUAC (2005-2014) that in the larger Committees consensus can be difficult to derive. But in each of my tenures I found that the greatest lack of consensus would arise from details connected to the characteristic of our different Divisions. The consideration of differences that arise as a result of geographical diversity is essential.
6.7, etc. Mike you are correct when you state that the DXAC and CAC needing to be responsive to the PSC needs. I also have recently seen instances where some members have stated incorrect and viscous rumors without foundations. IF there is failing to address those derisive issues of responsiveness and to properly control conduct within the Committee, that responsibility lies with each Director on this Board since problems such as those are correctable . For the most part the Committees seem to be treated as the unwanted step-children of the PSC and the Board. If these are the subject matter experts, then the PSC and the entire Board should at least be listening to their thoughts and recommendations. At a minimum, the PSC should be willing to receive and acknowledge recommendations. Treating these groups with the benign neglect that has become customary is unacceptable.
I believe that the one-member per Division is STILL the best possible method to provide transparent governance of these to two competitive amateur activities for the members of my Division. Since these Committees are the representative interface from the amateur contest and DX communities to the Board, I believe it is incumbent on each Director to remain directly involved in the selection of the subject matter experts for matters concerning DX'ing and Contesting. A fifteen member advisory committee system must remain. This will take attention and work but the results can continue to be of great benefit to the League if properly managed.
I do not support the Motion.
73, Kermit Carlson W9XA
On Wednesday, January 13, 2021, 3:30:26 PM CST, Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net> wrote:
As a member of PSC for the last two years, I thought I'd provide my fellow Board members my thoughts on the motion to restructure the two PSC advisory committees. Take it for what it is worth.
1. The current two advisory committees (CAC and DXAC), are fixed, and are comprised of one appointed representative from each ARRL Division per committee. The committees rarely change members, so the committee make-up remains pretty stoic over time, and arguably, somewhat ceremonial in nature.
2. While members of these committees are certainly "subject matter experts" themselves, are they all up on the latest technologies? How many of the CAC members operate digital contests using FT8/FT4, the most popular mode on HF operating at the moment? The answer is "very few, if any", so are they really the best ones to consult on a digital mode contest rule? Wouldn't it be be better to "ask the experts" themselves?
3. It is felt that with the advent of e-mail, e-surveys that can be conducted by the Radiosport team at HQ, and social media, the "one member per division, per committee" structure is archaic. At present ARRL HQ has the ability to work directly with the contest and DX community on issues, they don't need individual Division representatives to "work their territories" to provide feedback. The survey and questionnaire that HQ put out last year about Sweepstakes activities is a great example of this. They received great feedback from the Sweepstakes participants themselves.
4. The current advisory committees are tasked assignments from the PSC as required to provide input on a matter, they are not autonomous. Nothing will change here. Tasks will be assigned by HQ radiosport staff to those that know the most about the subject at hand, and not be limited to consulting whomever a Director appoints for his or her Division.
5. There was a PSC tasking requested by the Executive Committee way back in 2018 that started this all, as there have been issues in the past in getting tasks completed by the two advisory committees in a timely fashion. It is thought that the new "tiger team" approach will be much faster in getting things accomplished. With a larger "pool of experts" to draw on, the PSC is not limited to just those two fixed committees for input. Adhoc committees can be put together specific to a particular topic as well.
6. Current DXAC and CAC members will be encouraged to apply to be a part of the new "pool of experts", as well others within the DX and contest community. Nobody will be purposefully left out, or is going to get thrown out in the streets.
7. This change will allow the PSC to draw on "experts" with expertises beyond the current two advisory committees to tackle other issues beyond just the DX and contest genres.
In my opinion, this change is to both increase efficiency and the quality of input provided to help the PSC make good decisions for our members. It's not to squelch input from anybody. In fact, I'm sure many of the best of each discipline (contesting and DXing), in the world will end up becoming members of the "expert pools".
Lastly, if for some reason this doesn't work out, we can always go back to what we had before.
Just my two watts.
73; Mike W7VO
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
I oppose this motion. It falls into something related to contests that has been generated rapidly by a small group, and not vetted by those impacted. I continue to suggest that anything like this be considered for six months, and comments from the Advisory Committee members and ARRL members be considered. This is bringing unneeded negative publicity to the Board and PSC in particular. There is no reason any PSC member or Board member can't consult with anyone they choose on any subject. If you need advice, find an expert or impacted person, or anyone you choose, and ask. You do not need them to be approved by any subset of the Board or PSC. 73, Dick, N6AA On Wednesday, January 13, 2021, 01:30:26 PM PST, Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net> wrote: As a member of PSC for the last two years, I thought I'd provide my fellow Board members my thoughts on the motion to restructure the two PSC advisory committees. Take it for what it is worth. 1. The current two advisory committees (CAC and DXAC), are fixed, and are comprised of one appointed representative from each ARRL Division per committee. The committees rarely change members, so the committee make-up remains pretty stoic over time, and arguably, somewhat ceremonial in nature. 2. While members of these committees are certainly "subject matter experts" themselves, are they all up on the latest technologies? How many of the CAC members operate digital contests using FT8/FT4, the most popular mode on HF operating at the moment? The answer is "very few, if any", so are they really the best ones to consult on a digital mode contest rule? Wouldn't it be be better to "ask the experts" themselves? 3. It is felt that with the advent of e-mail, e-surveys that can be conducted by the Radiosport team at HQ, and social media, the "one member per division, per committee" structure is archaic. At present ARRL HQ has the ability to work directly with the contest and DX community on issues, they don't need individual Division representatives to "work their territories" to provide feedback. The survey and questionnaire that HQ put out last year about Sweepstakes activities is a great example of this. They received great feedback from the Sweepstakes participants themselves. 4. The current advisory committees are tasked assignments from the PSC as required to provide input on a matter, they are not autonomous. Nothing will change here. Tasks will be assigned by HQ radiosport staff to those that know the most about the subject at hand, and not be limited to consulting whomever a Director appoints for his or her Division. 5. There was a PSC tasking requested by the Executive Committee way back in 2018 that started this all, as there have been issues in the past in getting tasks completed by the two advisory committees in a timely fashion. It is thought that the new "tiger team" approach will be much faster in getting things accomplished. With a larger "pool of experts" to draw on, the PSC is not limited to just those two fixed committees for input. Adhoc committees can be put together specific to a particular topic as well. 6. Current DXAC and CAC members will be encouraged to apply to be a part of the new "pool of experts", as well others within the DX and contest community. Nobody will be purposefully left out, or is going to get thrown out in the streets. 7. This change will allow the PSC to draw on "experts" with expertises beyond the current two advisory committees to tackle other issues beyond just the DX and contest genres. In my opinion, this change is to both increase efficiency and the quality of input provided to help the PSC make good decisions for our members. It's not to squelch input from anybody. In fact, I'm sure many of the best of each discipline (contesting and DXing), in the world will end up becoming members of the "expert pools". Lastly, if for some reason this doesn't work out, we can always go back to what we had before. Just my two watts. 73; Mike W7VO _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
participants (8)
-
AC0W Bill -
Hippisley, George (Bud), W2RU, (Dir, RK) -
hopengarten＠post.harvard.edu -
Kermit Carlson -
Michael Ritz -
Mickey Baker -
Richard Norton -
rjairam＠gmail.com