"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In no particular order:

1) Representation of amateur radio (what other organization or
individual
would
do anyhting like the 121 page commentary on BPL?)

Representation of what the Board *perceives* to be the wishes of the
membership.
I don't believe that non-members get the same attention on issues as
members, but
that is reasonable, since member dues support the ARRL.

This member supports the ARRL. Also, this member did not receive a
questionare when the ARRL was conducting a poll of members and
non-members.

Perhaps they did a random survey of some percentage of the membership?

They hired READEX to do a survey. It was supposedly a scientific
sample of the membership.

That was 1996.

5) Elected officials (they listen even if they don't agree)

YMMV, depending on what area you live in, whether your Director is
open-minded and progressive, etc.

Apparently they think that they cannot present the needs or want of
both camps until they come to a concensus.

The "c-word" is an excuse to do nothing.

No, it isn't. And it's spelled "consensus", as WK3C demonstrates.

The "c-word" came into use because FCC said some years ago that they
weren't going to do any serious restructuring until the amateur radio
community came up with a consensus on what they wanted. That policy
was quite visibly abandoned in 1998 when FCC issued an NPRM without
any consensus being evident.

But for several years the FCC was quite happy to
avoid the issue based on the "consensus" argument.
By 1998, the writing apparently was on the wall
in the FCC that there probably was no rational reason
to retain code testing. The FCC then gave pro-code
advocates the opportunity to provide reasons for
code testing and for various code speeds. The pro-code
arguments were insufficient and all were denied
by the FCC as being rational or otherwise justifiable.

On some things there may
never be consensus - should the ARRL do nothing?

Depends on the issue and how close to a consensus exists. There's a
world of difference between a 90% majority and a 51% majority, for
example.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

Yep. It's the annual "vintage radio" issue. Says so right on the cover.

Thank you, Thank You, THANK YOU!!!

You're welcome.

You make my point exactly!!!

Of course.

I'm very much an ARRL supporter,

And a long-time member...

but an "Annual Vintage Radio Issue" is a
pathetic statement about the technical leadership out of 225 Main Street.

Why is it "pathetic"? A significant number of hams are interested in "vintage"
radio. Just like a significant number of people like antique furniture, classic
cars, oldies music, past films and books, vintage clothing, etc. Doesn't mean
they are "stuck in the past".

I know a 9 year old who is fascinated with Louisa May Alcott's "Little Women" -
both the book and the 1949 film version. Is that "pathetic"? How about folks
who restore and drive classic cars like 1960s Corvairs or Triumphs?

Sorta validates LHA's persistent jeremiads about how backward amateurs seem
to him.

The organ grinder plays the same few tunes over and over. No matter what we
hams did, or what the ARRL published, we'd get the same jeremiads from him.
He's not involved. Anyone can sit on the sidelines like he does.

How much nicer if there were an "Annual Future Systems Issue".

Why not? Isn't there room for both?

How many articles have there been in QST over the past few years on PSK, MFSK,
WSJT, digital voice, IRLP.....?

How many articles on "future systems" have you submitted? Or anyone else here,
for that matter?

You say you want more "tinkerers". At least the vintage radio folks are
tinkering, and have an idea how their rigs work. They aren;t just buying and
plugging in, with no concept of what goes on behind the panel. Isn't that a
step in the right direction?

I think one reason "vintage" radio has gained popularity is that many hams
*want* to be knowledgeable and skilled in the technical side of radio, but the
"future systems" stuff is too sterile and too inaccessible to them. Look at old
radio mags and see how many "Build This Radio!" articles there were, describing
receivers and transmitters that could be built by someone with a few tools and
some basic knowledge. How much of that do you see in amateur radio magazines
today?

If a 50+ year old transmitter on a wooden chassis can put out a legal signal
and make QSOs, what't the problem? Guess we've got to keep that sort of thing
secret - might cut into Ikensu's sales....

73 de Jim, N2EY

"KØHB" wrote in message
link.net...

"N2EY" wrote


Yep. It's the annual "vintage radio" issue. Says so right on the cover.


Thank you, Thank You, THANK YOU!!! You make my point exactly!!!

I'm very much an ARRL supporter, but an "Annual Vintage Radio Issue" is a
pathetic statement about the technical leadership out of 225 Main Street.
Sorta validates LHA's persistent jeremiads about how backward amateurs
seem
to him. How much nicer if there were an "Annual Future Systems Issue".

73, de Hans, K0HB


Is it really too much to have one issue out of 12 address vintage radio?
Afterall there are some hams to whom this is of interest either practical or
just as a window into history. Although my own interest is in new radios
and how much they can pack into how little space, the vintage issue is a
nice relaxing look at the past.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message

...

Leadership is
when one has the courage and wisdom to make a sound judgement
and then "do the right thing."

Who decides what "the right thing" really is?


That's what "leadership" is *supposed* to be there for ... to make
the tough calls when the answer isn't necessarily obvious (or may
be right, but not overwhelmingly popular).

Sure. In one group I was the director of, I directly defied a board
decision, reinstating something that they revoked. But even then, I
relied on the input of the people that were affected by the board's
decision. They were displeased by the decision, and appealed to me to do
something. They were right, so I did it. Then offered my resignation to
the board for the defiance. (being a leader does not give you unlimited
power)

Oddly enough, my offer was unanimously rejected. I think the rest of the
BOD was actually relieved.

But the occasional and very uncomfortable times that you have to stick
your neck out does not releas you from a obligation to listen as often
as possible.


For example, look at
that "21st century" paper (CQ published it, btw, and it was in their
mill before I evder saw it, so don't give me a hard time about it). Is
the "Communicator" idea "the right thing"?


No ... we need more people who understand radio, not more appliance
operators.

and we are headed in the opposite direction.


Otherwise, they could just do a web vote
popularity contest on every issue and wouldn't need Directors ... the
staff could handle the whole thing ...

And if that vote runs opposite to what you think is "the right thing"?


I wasn't advocating a popularity contest ... just saying that if nobody in
"leadership" has the cajones and good judgement to make the right call,
then it might as well devolve to that ...

Must be pretty good to always know what the "right call" is.


It sounds to me like you're saying the ARRL Directors should sometimes
go against what the majority of members say they want. Do you really
think that's a good idea?


Yes ... the leadership should, theoretically at least, have superior
knowledge,
insight, and experience and should be there to guide, not simply be a bunch
of political "yes men" to a majority who may/may not necessarily make the
best
choices in terms of what's in the best interests of ham radio long term.

Of course not. But they still have to represent their constituents. In
our locale, we have had a number of County commissioners that believed
they had the right ideas, to the point of ignoring what a large majority
of the citezenry wanted, and with their "leadership" saddled the county
with a huge new and unnesesary project and the billing therof.
Commisioner 1 was the lowest vote-getter in the next election, and
commisioner two was smart enough to not run again for that office. THe
only one re-elected was the sole commissioner who voted against the project.

These people displayed your kind of "leadership". Once.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Yep. It's the annual "vintage radio" issue. Says so right on the cover.


Thank you, Thank You, THANK YOU!!! You make my point exactly!!!

I'm very much an ARRL supporter, but an "Annual Vintage Radio Issue" is a
pathetic statement about the technical leadership out of 225 Main Street.
Sorta validates LHA's persistent jeremiads about how backward amateurs
seem
to him. How much nicer if there were an "Annual Future Systems Issue".

73, de Hans, K0HB


Hello there Hans ......

Again I have to say that our service, hobby, endeavor, passion, pastime,
escape or whatever description or definition one makes is like the blind men
and the elephant. Each have a part and use their senses-perception to come
up with a concrete explanation of what they have. Ham radio is like this
..... and it is a strength not a weakness.

I know a lot of fellows will say that the service is strictly defined by the
FCC. That is a given but it has evolved into other areas. Kudos to the
ARRL for a nostalgia issue or any topic issue that generates interest.

I really think it is myopic to beat that "technical" horse as a lot of
fellows are not as interested as others ... part 97 or not. Grabbing the
technical end of the elephant and saying it is more important for the future
just may not be the case ....I don't know. Technology will come and be
absorbed by future hams more on the basis of modification of use rather than
basic "new" discoveries.

Like it or not the "marketplace" drives the existence of publications. I
used to subscribe to Ham Radio .....if it was "that good" then we would
still be getting it. The technos aspect just didn't ring enough ham bells
out there.


I'd like to say to all on the newsgroup .... Merry Christmas and the best
for 04

73 KI3R Tom Popovic KI3R Belle Vernon Pa

KØHB wrote:

"N2EY" wrote


That means passing the post-restructuring 35 question Tech test is "more
difficult" than passing both the pre-restructuring 30 question Novice
test *and* the 5 wpm code receiving test.



Yes. (But only barely, and it is woefully inadequate for the resultant
privileges.)

So you think it is not only more difficult, but it is nott difficult enough?

Have the changes of 2000 gotten us more tinkerers per unit time than

before?


What the hell are "tinkerers per unit time"? The generally accepted
language of rrap is English.

Funny, I understood that. We'll work through this with you Hans. 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

"KØHB" wrote:

"N2EY" wrote


Yep. It's the annual "vintage radio" issue. Says so right on the cover.


Thank you, Thank You, THANK YOU!!! You make my point exactly!!!

I'm very much an ARRL supporter, but an "Annual Vintage Radio Issue" is a
pathetic statement about the technical leadership out of 225 Main Street.

I can't agree. I enjoy articles about vintage rigs. There is every
indication that there are many others who enjoy them. I collect vintage
rigs and restore them.

Sorta validates LHA's persistent jeremiads about how backward amateurs seem
to him. How much nicer if there were an "Annual Future Systems Issue".

While I enjoy my vintage equipment, I don't use it every day. I run a
Ten-Tec Orion. It is something from the present which was very much the
future only a few short months ago. Len likes to prattle about ancient
morse code yet most of us don't stick with only one mode. I discount
Len's rants heavily since he isn't really involved and has little idea
what radio amateurs are doing.

Dave K8MN

N2EY wrote:

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:


"N2EY" wrote


Last time a construction article with Nuvistors in it was when?
Probably 1965 or so. Almost 40 years.

The current issue of QST has some really up-to-date-technology in it, not
quite Nuvistors, but well beyond spark.


Yep. It's the annual "vintage radio" issue. Says so right on the cover.

Yup, and a very interesting issue it is to me.

For example, a full length article on how important the quartz crystal
industry was to winning the war. (WW-II, that is!)


Yep. It's the annual "vintage radio" issue. Says so right on the cover. Radio
grade quartz was mined back then - today it's grown.

Or another full length article on bringing a DX-100 AM transmitter (1955
era) up to factory spec.


Yep. It's the annual "vintage radio" issue. Says so right on the cover.

The DX-100 was basically a bargain version of the Viking 2/ 122 VFO combo in
one box. Not as good, though. YMMV.

The article tells how a ham bought an old Heathkit rig on eBay, fixed it up,
and put it on the air. Looks like he had fun doing it, too. Rig was actually
Made In USA, and the present owner actually worked on it hisself. Very
electro-politically incorrect.


Or how about the leading edge article on restoring a 1948 wooden-chassis
homebrew 2-tube transmitter?


Yep. It's the annual "vintage radio" issue. Says so right on the cover.

The DX-100 was basically a bargain version of the Viking 2/ 122 VFO combo in
one box. Not as good, though. YMMV.

The article tells how a ham bought an old homebrew rig on eBay, fixed it up,
made a few modifications and put it on the air. Looks like he had fun doing it,
too. Rig was actually home-built by a ham - not even a kit. Parts were all Made
In USA, and the present owner actually worked on it hisself. And it puts out a
perfectly clean signal. Very, very electro-politically incorrect, though.

How dare these hams actually work on their own rigs! Next thing you know,
they'll be turning their backs on Ikensu....

Hang around, and pretty soon -- perhaps within the decade -- we'll get up to
Nuvistor technology!


PS: I almost forgot to mention, there's also some tantalizing information

in this issue about panoramic reception, developed in 1932 by F3HM. Maybe
it'll catch on!


I recall about a decade ago when the IC-781 appeared how gaga some folks were
over the display. As if nobody had ever done it before. Shades of the QS-59
receiver....

Also in the same issue of QST:

- Article on using a transmitter-receiver modules to eliminate the key cable
(tail wagging the dog..)

- 5 page article on the K1B Baker Island DXpedition

- Article on contesting as a "little pistol"

- Article on "casual" RTTY contesting

- "Short Takes" column on MultiPSK freeware package (does several flavors of
PSK, SSTV, RTTY, AMTOR, Hellschreiber, and (oh yes) CW

- 3-1/2 page article on building an AC wattmeter

- 2 page "Hands On Radio" column. This is #12 in a series - subject is FETs.

- 2 page "Hints and Kinks" column.

- 5 page review of the Ten Tec Orion

- 2 page review of the SGC add on audio DSP unit (ADSP2)

- Correspondence from Members, Happenings, Technical Correspondence, Public
Service, DX, Exam Info, World above 50 MHz, At The Foundation, Old Radio, YL
News, SKs, New Products, 75/50/25 years ago in QST, Contest and hamfest
calendars, W1AW schedule...

- Microwavelengths (Part 1 of an article about microwave LNAs - no nuvistors in
sight)

- Results of June VHF contest, School club Roundup, August UHF contest.

- and more. 160 pages this issue.

How many articles of cutting-edge technology have you submitted?

I've though of writing an article or two for QST myself. Probably
wouldn't be cutting edge. Most contributions I could make would be
geared toward homebrewing, and most likely on panel layout technique,
ergonomics and (gasp) aesthetics. If they print an article about doing
panels in Powerpoint, the state of Amateur radio equipment layout could
use the boost.

Hans would probably still make fun of it tho'! ;^)


- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"Brian" wrote in message
om...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message

...

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

Apparently they think that they cannot present the needs or want of
both camps until they come to a concensus.


The "c-word" is an excuse to do nothing.

No it doesn't. I've used consensus building for years. I don't do it
unless a decision *needs* to be made. I even use it in situations where
I have absolute dictatorial power, such as on my Ice Hockey team. I find
out what the guys think on a lot of the issues. Then as long as it makes
sense, and is within the rules I'll decide what they like. You'd be
surprised how well they listen to you when they *need* to when you
listen to them when you *should*.

The Finnish government is made up of numerous political parties. There
isn't much difference between most of them. Finns have typically
governed through concensus politics. This has been their way for
decades and they seem to have less trouble in getting things done than
we do.

Other BOD activities I've been involved in are run the same way -
although I don't have absolute power there! 8^)

On some things there may
never be consensus - should the ARRL do nothing? Leadership is
when one has the courage and wisdom to make a sound judgement
and then "do the right thing."

Sure, ya have to do that sometimes. Problem is that if you use that
courage and wisdom in the wrong way, you can find yourself on the
outside pretty quickly. Then you're a leader with no flock. No leader at
all.

Jimmy Carter comes to mind. Len Anderson comes to mind.

Otherwise, they could just do a web vote

familiar with web voting?

popularity contest on every issue and wouldn't need Directors ... the
staff could handle the whole thing ...

Leaders get usually get elected or appointed or whatever because they
have some values that appeal to those who are to be governed. The most
successful leaders I know ask for and get as much input as they can when
faced with decisions. Figuring that you know the answers and what you
know is right regardless is hubris.

As Phil Kane pointed out, there have been occasions when a "leader" in
the ARRL has been recalled. There've been other occasions when an ARRL
leader has been ousted in regular elections.

Dave K8MN

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"KØHB" wrote in message
link.net...

"N2EY" wrote


It sounds to me like you're saying the ARRL Directors should sometimes
go against what the majority of members say they want. Do you really
think that's a good idea?


Yes, sometimes I think it IS a good idea. That sort of activity is often
called leadership.

Other times I think it's NOT a good idea.

The mark of a good leader is determining the difference.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Hans,

You and I are on the same frequency on this one ... you said it
clearer than I did the first time, but hopefully my explanation was
better in response to Jim's question.

73,
Carl - wk3c

Carl, that's the one aspect that I have found the most disappointing
about the ARRL leadership, they "governed" - like Clinton - with
polls.

Their big poll was one of the most poorly constructed polls I've ever
seen. Even worse is that they paid an outside agency to do it - with
our dues money. The fact that -I- helped pay for that poll and I
didn't even receive a questionaire was just icing on the cake.

I never saw the ARRL vision of the future as anything other than old
men in Western Union garb tapping away at their keys. That should be
their vision of the past, not the future. Repeating the past over and
over again gets the ARS where? One more tube regen receiver article
will likely put me over the edge.

I know the ARRL is a superb watchdog concerning legislation that
affects the ARS. They are also the best publishing house on radio
related material. Their lab reviews are unrivaled. And their
operating activities are lots of fun. Thus, I continue to support the
ARRL.

But with respect to the future, just about any decision is better than
no decision.

73, Brian