"KØHB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
news |
| "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