"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"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 Hans is no longer of any use to you and your agenda, eh?

- Mike KB3EIA -

No, Mike, I never said that ...

AFAIK, Hans still supports the goal of NCI to eliminate Morse test
requirements.

And, as Hans himself has said, he has not been "excommunicated" from NCI for
having differing views on the other restructuring proposals than the
majority of the members ...

Carl - wk3c

"KØHB" wrote

|
| In addition to this ill-conceived notion of free upgrades, we have
| looming another proposal for what amounts to an "Applicance Class"
| license. NCI has polled it's members on that gem also, and heaven
help
| us if I'm again a "stark minority" in opposition!
|

On reflection, Mike, it seems there's some hope on this one. I found
this encouraging item:

I agree with you that we should vigorously resist classes
that legitimize "know-nothing appliance operator" status
.. and any form of "type acceptance" as well ...

73,
Carl - wa6vse

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

No, I think that NCI members have opinions about everything from
antenna covenants to BPL threats to abortion to pledge of allegiance and
on and on.

I just don't see where they have relevance to what was *once* NCI's
purpose - abolishment of Morse code testing as a requirement of licensing.

Again, I don't hear you complaining about FISTS stepping out of bounds.

The instant upgrade of most amateurs to General is not related to code
testing as far as I can see. And the unfairness to the people the "day
after" that suddenly have to take a harder test.

Perhaps NCI should poll it's members about gay marriage? ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Perhaps FISTS should.

KØHB wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote


| It seems to me that NCI could easily have stuck to their initial
| premise of only wanting to get rid of Element one and go from
| there. But they are not. Must be disappointing for you.

I don't have a problem with the NCI leadership (actually, let me make
that Leadership) taking a stand on any issue they wish. Hey, it's a
free country. (In fact, I was confident that Carl (and a few other
Leaders in several organizations including NCI) were forward looking
enough to vigorously OPPOSE actions which tended to dilute the technical
base of our hobby.)

And once upon I time, we were told that they *did* oppose downgrading a
test.


But I have a real problem when the Leaders run a beauty-contest poll
instead of making responsible decisions based on what's best for the
Amateur Radio Service.

There is a widespread and horrible misconception that it is ALL about
"the majority". I see it all the time. On many issues, a majority will
suffice. But there are some things that speak to something higher.

Can a majority in a democracy vote to dissolve the democracy?

Many times the majority would vote to enact laws that are illegal or
unconstitutional.

A leader that simply does what the majority of members or votes want is
not a leader. He is an employee.


Asking the NCI membership, overwhelmingly Technicians, whether upgrading
Technicians to General without testing is a good idea is pretty much
akin to asking the cannibals of ZL whether the Christians should send
more well-fattened missionaries. The answer is a foregone conclusion!
Now they hide behind that "mandate" rather than taking a responsible
stand against the "Great ARRL Giveaway".

In addition to this ill-conceived notion of free upgrades, we have
looming another proposal for what amounts to an "Applicance Class"
license. NCI has polled it's members on that gem also, and heaven help
us if I'm again a "stark minority" in opposition!


Right, the employee thing again. When I have been in a leadership
position, I have often polled the membership about their wishes. But it
was always with letting them know that their opinion was taken under
advisement.

Often we made our decisions with the desires of the majority as a
guide. However, there were a few occasions that we did not, and for good
reasons. There were even a couple times that I defied the board of
directors on a voted issue. Each time I offered my resignation as the
price of that defiance. Not once was it accepted, nor was my act of
defiance overruled.

Of course it helped that in each case I was proven right in the end.
But sometimes you just HAVE to do what is right if you are going to be a
real leader. It is one hell of a lot harder than just "well this is what
the majority wanted". But oh man, it feels a lot better.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote in message
...

Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions ...
From: "KØHB"
Date: 4/24/2004 2:18 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: . net

"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

A different Carter (Jimmy, to be specific...) tried this. He wound

up

gutting the intelligence community, tied our hands in covert operations,

ran

the inflation rate into double digits, left us humilated in world opinion

for

444 days and got several of my friends killed.

When I vote for someone, I expect he will represent the

majority...Not use

his election as a license to do what HE wants to do despite guidance from

hbis

constituents to the contrary.

Steve, K4YZ


Steve,

Thanks for speaking up for the responsibilities of elected representatives
to BE representative of their constituents rather than using their position
as a platform for their personal views.

I particularly appreciate you comment in light of the fact that I know you
don't agree with me (or NCI) on some of the issues.

If that is how it is, The officials should be hired as employees, and
vetted for compliance and obedience. Why elect anyone. Simply poll the
constituants, and do exactly what the majority asks.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote

|
| I think there are two sides to every coin .... and there are subtle,
yet
| important, differences between "leadership" and "representation."
|

There are important differences between "leadership" and
"representation" but they are NOT subtle!

"Representation" says "Elect me and I will do whatever is the most
popular based on the last poll, regardless if it's in our best
interest."

"Leadership" says "Elect me and I will do whatever is our best interest,
regardless how unpopular."

73, de Hans, K0HB



Hans,

I disagree. The differences are more subtle - and much less cynical - that
you state.


Would you do whatever your constituants asked, as long as it was a
majority opinion?

Even if you knew it was wrong?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"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.

And I respectfully thought that NCI was solely against the Element 1
test.

NCI's *primary* goal is the elimination of Morse testing.

However, the NCI Bylaws, as Rick, W7RT, pointed out, contemplate and allow
for NCI to comment from time to time on issues that would have an effect on
at least a significant part of the membership.

Since the ARRL petition would have an effect on the structure of amateur
classes and privileges (both code-related and not) that will likely last for
at least a decade (we don't envision the FCC considering major changes for
about that long after a major restructuring), the Board felt it necessary to
ask the membership for their views.

First we asked, "Should NCI comment on the issues in the ARRL petition other
than the code test issue?"
Then, we asked for comment on the other issues point by point.

But now NCI is coming out in favor of giving most hams priveleges
that they haven't been tested for.

As outlined by the ARRL, a "one time adjustment" seems the only practical
way to clean up the overly complicated license structure that had evolved
over the years.

And, as a number of experienced, yet realistic, hams have pointed out, the
amount and level of material in the 200-ish page "Now you're talking!" study
guide (and on the Tech test) is not all that different from the old General
that I took at the FCC's old Long Beach, CA office over 25 years ago.

The fact is that many people mis-remember the tests they took many years ago
as being harder than they really were ... I guess that's human nature ...
after you get used to something it seems easier (and correspondingly the
beginning stages are remembered as harder).

And there is still that nasty "day after" thing, when th eetsting
regimin goes up again...... or does it?

The testing regieme doesn't *have* to "go up again" ... NOBODY has proposed
that the testing regieme be changed ... only that, in the interest of
"nobody loses privileges" (which was a DISASTER in the past), that there be
a one-time "adjustment" to make everyone fit the new structure without
losing ...

73,
Carl - wk3c

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote

|
| I think there are two sides to every coin .... and there are subtle,
yet
| important, differences between "leadership" and "representation."
|

There are important differences between "leadership" and
"representation" but they are NOT subtle!

"Representation" says "Elect me and I will do whatever is the most
popular based on the last poll, regardless if it's in our best
interest."

"Leadership" says "Elect me and I will do whatever is our best interest,
regardless how unpopular."

73, de Hans, K0HB



Hans,

I disagree. The differences are more subtle - and much less cynical -
that
you state.


Would you do whatever your constituants asked, as long as it was a
majority opinion?

Even if you knew it was wrong?

Mike,

If it was morally wrong (like killing, etc.) or illegal, no ... of course
not.

But the ARRL proposals don't fall into either category, nor do the NCVEC
proposals.

NCI's comments state *what our members said they think about the ARRL and
NCVEC proposals* ... with the percentages from the surveys.

I believe the surveys were scientifically and statistically sound (and
secure):
the response rate was just over 50% - exceptionally good for surveys by
virtually any standard
each respondent had an individually assigned unique password, that was sent
to them by e-mail (by a "merge" from the member database)
then they were sent an "invitation" from the survey site (same mailing list
used) with a unique URL corresponding to their invitation/password
the survey site only allows one response per respondent (and tracks IP
addresses to make it easy to do a quick check to see if someone is trying to
hack it to "stack the deck"), etc.

So, what is "wrong" with NCI telling the FCC what its members said they
think about the ARRL and NCVEC petitions?

Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote

|
| As outlined by the ARRL, a "one time adjustment" seems the only
practical
| way to clean up the overly complicated license structure that had
evolved
| over the years.
|

It's instructive to note that ARRL and NCI, (not FCC) are characterizing
the license structure as "overly complicated". With only modest
changes, this structure has been extant since 1951, before the age of
computerized record keeping and modern database. How come it's suddenly
"overly complicated"?

But suppose for the moment that it IS overly complicated and needs
reform... to use a term from another NCI Director, do we need to be
"hellbent" to do it in one swell foop? I recall a proposal by one
WA6VSE a few years back that would have transformed the structure from
it's present state into a 2-class structure in as little as 5 years,
with no free passes and with nobody being stripped of privileges. The
details escape me, but I'm sure we could Google it up and have a look.

Or if the administrative burden isn't really at FCC but at the VEC's
like ARRL and W5YI, well there's another proposal floating about which
would overnight limit their testing burden to just two classes. No
Morse test to give, and only two written tests. Again, not a soul would
get a free pass and not a soul would be stripped of any privilege they
now enjoy. You can view that proposal at http://tinyurl.com/wce9

| And, as a number of experienced, yet realistic, hams have pointed out,
the
| amount and level of material in the 200-ish page "Now you're talking!"
study
| guide (and on the Tech test) is not all that different from the old
General
| that I took at the FCC's old Long Beach, CA office over 25 years ago.

We're not talking about 25-years ago. We're talking about today.

Today an applicant needs to pass a single 35 question exam to acquire
a Technician license.
Today an applicant needs to pass a second 35 question exam (which
contains material not tested in the Technician exam) to acquire a
General license.

The ARRL proposal to waive the second examination for all todays
Technicains (about a third of a million) effectively states that todays
Technican exam is perfectly adequate for General class privileges. If
that is true, then ipso facto we can make the case that forevermore the
exam for General need be no more technically demanding than todays
fall-off-a-log-easy entry level Technician exam.

Now you and Ed Hare at ARRL can spin-doctor all you wish, but reality
doesn't care what you believe.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KØHB" wrote

|
| In addition to this ill-conceived notion of free upgrades, we have
| looming another proposal for what amounts to an "Applicance Class"
| license. NCI has polled it's members on that gem also, and heaven
help
| us if I'm again a "stark minority" in opposition!
|

On reflection, Mike, it seems there's some hope on this one. I found
this encouraging item:

I agree with you that we should vigorously resist classes
that legitimize "know-nothing appliance operator" status
.. and any form of "type acceptance" as well ...

73,
Carl - wa6vse

And, Hans, I don't believe that the ARRL proposals do anything of the sort
.... what they propose is a novice test that is more like the novice test of
old than today's (more difficult) Tech test as the "entry point" - and to
give the holders of that license enough privileges (access to HF) to allow
them to be "mainstreamed" and "get a taste of what 'real ham radio' is
like," so they'll remain interested and have an incentive to learn and
upgrade, rather than becoming bored and dropping out. (I would find it
boring if I lived in a place where there were few hams, fewer repeaters,
etc. - basically nobody to talk to - and I was restricted to VHF/UHF.)

There is no proposal to reduce the level of difficulty or comprehensiveness
of the General or Extra tests.

A majority of NCI's members opposed the NCVEC proposals for "commercial gear
only" and "low (=30V) finals only" for beginners, so it appears that they
want (or, more accurately, want beginners to have) the freedom to experiment
and tinker - as well as the opportunity to be able to pick up that "first HF
rig" as a hamfest special (maybe even a "fixer-upper") that's older,
cheaper, and has tube finals ... (and I would have concerns that a
"commercial only" limitation could eventually lead to "type acceptance"
requirements - which would drive up the cost of gear considerably)

While my personal comments supported the ARRL proposals (except, of course,
for the "keep the code test for Extra" part), I also in my *personal*
comments opposed those NCVEC proposals ... but if NCI's membership had
"voted" the other way in the survey, NCI's comments would have reported the
numbers accurately even though *I* would have disagreed.

There is a misperception that NCI members are all "newcomers who want
something for nothing" ... in actuallity, I think many, if not most, readers
here will be surprised to know the breakdown of how long the NCI members who
responded to the survey have been licensed:

Not licensed yet 1.3%
0-1 years 4.7%
1-2 years 7.6%
2-5 years 22.3%
5-10 years 23.6%
10-20 years 30.3%
20 years 10.3%

So, over 40% have been licensed for over 10 years, and just barely shy of
2/3 have been licensed for more than 5 years ... with another 22% between 2
and 5 years.

So you can see that we're not exactly "over-run with newbies wanting a
freebie ..."

73,
Carl - wk3c