In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"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).

But ultimately it comes down to popularity, because if the "leader" makes
unpopular-enough decision(s), he/she may not be a "leader" anymore. This
happens in government, in business (if a decision isn't popular-enough with
customers and/or stockholders), and in almost all voluntary organizations.

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.

Agreed!

But the leaders of the NCVEC committee disagree with us.

And some of the provisions of the "Communicator" work against that. (No rigs
over 30 volts??)

But others will argue that an easier entry-level license will attract more new
hams, and therefore more who will want to *understand radio*. After all, isn't
education one of the B&Ps of the ARS?

It boils down to the old argument of:

"Become a ham to learn about radio"

vs.

"Learn about radio to become a ham"

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 ...

They *do* have the intestinal fortitude to make the "right" call. But there's
disagreement about what that call is. There are honest people on all sides of
most disagreements.

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.

Others describe the ARRL leadership as "self appointed gods of radio" who claim
to "know what is best". And they use that description as a reason not to join.

Like it or not, it's ultimately a popularity contest. And the long term is hard
to gauge because things aren't left alone long enough. Even when they are,
there is often little agreement with what the results mean.

For example, did US amateur radio grow faster in the nocodetest 90s than in the
allcodetest 80s?

What I was referring to were things like CW practice, bulletins, etc.
All
of that could
be provided (and much is) by the web site, and probably would reduce
operating
costs. (Though doing things by non-radio means is heresy to some ...)

IOW, you want to shut down the station.

No, I wasn't saying that ... I was just "thinking out loud" about what
things
might be more cost-effectively provided by other means.

If the bulletins and code practice were done online instead of on-air, what
would be left of W1AW?

The whole point of W1AW is to do those things by *radio*. If we're
going to use the website for bulletins and code practice, why not rag
chewing, traffic handling, DX chasing, contesting......

I've always said that the ampr.org domain should be come a much more
integrated, vibrant part of the internet as a whole ...

But what have you *done* to make that a reality except for talking about it?

73 de Jim, N2EY