"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

SNIP

Let's not forget that unless Bill is a master Sophist - and I highly
doubt that - he would not be espousing the mass upgrade of Technicians
unless he personally supported it.

All the fluff about membership wishes is just that - fluff.
- Mike KB3EIA -

I never denied my personal support for the upgrades. My comments are on
public display via the FCC ECFS on RM-10867 and 10870.

That wasn't my point, Bill. Or perhaps in a way, it was. Would you come
in here and tout NCI's likely support of the ARRL proposal if you say,
felt about the subject as Hans does?

There's no way I can assess what my answer would be since
I don't hold the views that Hans does. Hypothetical
constructs as to what a person might do if they had a
different opinion are really not answerable.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Bill Sohl wrote:


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


SNIP


Let's not forget that unless Bill is a master Sophist - and I highly
doubt that - he would not be espousing the mass upgrade of Technicians
unless he personally supported it.

All the fluff about membership wishes is just that - fluff.
- Mike KB3EIA -

I never denied my personal support for the upgrades. My comments are on
public display via the FCC ECFS on RM-10867 and 10870.

That wasn't my point, Bill. Or perhaps in a way, it was. Would you come
in here and tout NCI's likely support of the ARRL proposal if you say,
felt about the subject as Hans does?


There's no way I can assess what my answer would be since
I don't hold the views that Hans does. Hypothetical
constructs as to what a person might do if they had a
different opinion are really not answerable.

And now I know.

- mike KB3EIA -

"KØHB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...
|
| "KØHB" wrote in message
| k.net...
|
| "Bill Sohl" wrote
|
| | Neither ARRL nor NCVEC propose Tech level testing gor
| | General.
|
| The ARRL and NCVEC both propose that every individual (some 323,055
of
| them by todays numbers) who has currently passed Tech level testing
be
| eligible for advancement to General without further testing. That
| sounds to me like Tech level testing will get you a General ticket.
|
| That is a one-time adjustment/upgrade. It does not alter the testing
| requirements for General on a permanent basis. But enough, we
| can at best agree to disagree as I hold no prospect of changing
| your mind.
|
| Cheers,
| Bill K2UNK

Bill,

With all due respect, you have it bass-ackwards.

It's not your job to change my mind. It is my job to persuade you (a
director) to follow the wishes of me (the member).

Cheers,

Hans, K0HB
NCI # 4304


Hans,

With all due respect, your e-mails to NCI Directors have been answered, the
issues have been discussed with you, and your views have been taken into
account.
(As you have pointed out, you have not "been excommunicated" ... presumably
you still support the "prime directive" (as opposed to the "sole directive")
of eliminating Morse testing requirements ... it has been well-explained
that that is a core principle that is considered a pre-requisite for
membership in NCI.)

HOWEVER, with respect to the other aspects of the ARRL and NCVEC petitions,
you must realize, in all reasonableness, that you are only ONE of thousands
of NCI members - and your views were in the stark minority when we surveyed
US members to ask them 1) "Do you want us to comment on the other aspects of
the ARRL/NCVEC petitions?" and 2) "If your answer to (1) is affirmative,
what do you want us to say?"

To imply something is wrong because your individual (significantly minority)
views are not the determining factor in whatever the final NCI policy
decision might be is unrealistic and as a representative Board of Directors,
we would be remiss in our duties to the membership if we were to ignore an
overwhelming majority.

Regardless of the personal views of the NCI Directors, as the
representatives of a membership-supported organization, I believe we have an
obligation to convey the views of the membership to the FCC. (Which is not
to say that NCI Directors will not/have not filed their own *individual,
personal* comments with the FCC that may express somewhat different
*personal* views on some or all of the issues raised by the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions.)

73,
Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote

| ....and as a representative Board of Directors,
| we would be remiss in our duties to the membership
| if we were to ignore an overwhelming majority.

....and...

| Which is not to say that NCI Directors will not/have
| not filed their own *individual, personal* comments
| with the FCC that may express somewhat different
| *personal* views on some or all of the issues raised
| by the ARRL and NCVEC petitions.

That's an interesting dilemma, Carl, and I think how you handle it is a
measure of how well you're suited to a leadership role.

"As an elected official shall I officially support a wildly popular
opinion which I disagree with, then privately file a position with my
*personal* views in opposition to the organization which I represent?"

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
link.net...

"KØHB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...
|
| "KØHB" wrote in message
| k.net...
|
| "Bill Sohl" wrote
|
| | Neither ARRL nor NCVEC propose Tech level testing gor
| | General.
|
| The ARRL and NCVEC both propose that every individual (some 323,055
of
| them by todays numbers) who has currently passed Tech level testing
be
| eligible for advancement to General without further testing. That
| sounds to me like Tech level testing will get you a General ticket.
|
| That is a one-time adjustment/upgrade. It does not alter the testing
| requirements for General on a permanent basis. But enough, we
| can at best agree to disagree as I hold no prospect of changing
| your mind.
|
| Cheers,
| Bill K2UNK

Bill,

With all due respect, you have it bass-ackwards.

It's not your job to change my mind. It is my job to persuade you (a
director) to follow the wishes of me (the member).

You are ONE member. You did take the survey I presume?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

To his credit, Hans did take the survey and I'm sure that his views were
consistent with what he expresses here.

However, as Bill points out above, and I have pointed out in a separate
message, Hans is but one of thousands of NCI members, and the views he has
expressed are in an extreme minority.

Once again, it would be irresponsible for the NCI Board of Directors to
ignore the wishes of the vast majority of our membership in favor of
honoring Hans' wishes - though we certainly did listen to and consider his
views, and some of the NCI Directors even had lengthily e-mail discussions
with him.

73,
Carl - wk3c

"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Bill Sohl" wrote

|
| You are ONE member. You did take the survey I presume?
|

Indeed I did. And now I'm exercising my perogative to being the squeaky
wheel. Ain't democracy a damned fine thing!

Cheers,
de Hans, K0HB
--
SOC # 291 http://www.qsl.net/soc/
FISTS # 7419 http://www.fists.org
NCI # 4304 http://www.nocode.org/

Hans,

Squeak away ... your are entitled to your opinion, even if it is in an
extreme minority amongst the membership - and I'm sure I speak for all of
NCI's Directors when I say that our in-boxes are always open to comment from
you - and all of the other members of NCI.

Yes, democracy IS a damned fine thing!

73,
Carl - wk3c

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


KØHB wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote

|
| You are ONE member. You did take the survey I presume?
|

Indeed I did. And now I'm exercising my perogative to being the squeaky
wheel. Ain't democracy a damned fine thing!


Just so that you don't mind being a very small minority.

And remember, NCI isn't anywhere close to a Democracy

Mike,

I respectfully disagree with your assertion ... the whole reason NCI
surveyed US members on the issues involved in the ARRL and NCVEC petitions
was so that we would know their wishes and act in a representative manner.

73,
Carl - wk3c

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
KØHB wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...
|
| "KØHB" wrote in message
| k.net...
|
| "Bill Sohl" wrote
|
| | Neither ARRL nor NCVEC propose Tech level testing gor
| | General.
|
| The ARRL and NCVEC both propose that every individual (some 323,055
of
| them by todays numbers) who has currently passed Tech level testing
be
| eligible for advancement to General without further testing. That
| sounds to me like Tech level testing will get you a General ticket.
|
| That is a one-time adjustment/upgrade. It does not alter the testing
| requirements for General on a permanent basis. But enough, we
| can at best agree to disagree as I hold no prospect of changing
| your mind.
|
| Cheers,
| Bill K2UNK

Bill,

With all due respect, you have it bass-ackwards.

It's not your job to change my mind. It is my job to persuade you (a
director) to follow the wishes of me (the member).

You have it correct, Hans. But I'm afraid that isn't what they are all
about.


Mike ... are you suggesting that the NCI Board of Directors should have
ignored the wishes of an overwhelming majority of the membership and
listened only to Hans???

I don't think so ...

73,
Carl - wk3c

"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Bill Sohl" wrote

| The NCI membership supports a "one-time"
| upgrade.

That's probably not a remarkable revelation, given that the overwhelming
majority of the NCI members are Technicians who would naturally benefit
from such action.

The REAL question isn't what the NCI membership supports, but rather....


Q: Will the NCI Board of Directors recommend
upgrading all Tech/Tech+ licensees to General
without further testing?

A: (please select one and only one answer)
___ Yes
___ No
___ The Board will take no position on this matter

Cheers,

de Hans, K0HB
--
SOC # 291 http://www.qsl.net/soc/
FISTS # 7419 http://www.fists.org
NCI # 4304 http://www.nocode.org/

Hans,

WADR ... As a Board of Directors, the NCI BoD has an obligation to the
membership to represent its views.

Your "question" is so patently biased against the BoD acting in a manner
that is responsive to (and responsible to) the membership that I refuse to
play that game.

73,
Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote

| It sounds to me like you view "leadership" as "Listen to Hans' point
of view
| and 'have the courage' to ignore the majority."

Not at all. I am but a single data point, and I could be wrong (but so
far I've only been wrong once and that was the time I thought I was
wrong but I wasn't grin).

"A leader takes people where they want to go. A great leader takes
people where they don't necessarily want to go but ought to be."
---R. S. Carter

Put differently, leadership is not conducting a popularity poll and
representing that as the best for Amateur Radio, but rather representing
the best for Amateur Radio on the conviction that your constituents
elected you to make good choices.

73, de Hans, K0HB