Semi-Official ARRL Survey Site

[ky5u]

The subjects of this thread are:

1. If you're an ARRL member in Atlantic, Delta, or Great Lakes you will have received an email instructing you how to vote in the online website survey concerning RM-11306. Please go and vote no matter how you felt about RM-11305. I voted that I was clearly against it.

2. How valid is a website poll?


On #2 above: This is not mean spirited or anti-ARRL. I am actually impressed that some of the Directors are really trying to find out what members want. Cool and good job!

My concern is that half the local ARRL Amateurs I know here don't have computers. So how do they vote? You need an ARRL email address to vote in ths online poll as your registration requires a code verification sent to you at that address to complete your vote. My point specifically is that we have to have paper ballots printed in QST that non computer users can rip out and send in by mail. This is the least descriminitory way to vote.

One final point. The ARRL claims to represent all amateurs. I believe therefore that in a paper ballot vote, there be a "non-member" box to check which allows the ballot to be copied and distributed to many amateurs. The ARRL can reserve policy steerage to member opinions, but knowing how all amateurs feel can't be a bad thing. If nothing else they will know how their policies are received outside of AR. It may even help them get more members.

Good start ARRL! Be sure to publish the ballot results!

[wa3vjb]

Charlie I would be surprised if the survey is regarding RM-11305.

This was the proposal that would have relied on existing regulations against deliberate interference as the only prevailing authority to coordinate our modes and activities on HF.

It was proposed before the League's threatened bandwidth proposal, RM-11306, and sources have said the internal management of the club in Newington was quite upset that outsiders had stepped ahead of them with an alternative idea.

Both have since been withdrawn, tentatively in favor of the successful method of organizing operations on HF that have been in place with few problems for many, many years.

[ky5u]

Yes, Paul it was a typo. Thanks for catching it. Dyslexics of the world Untie!

[N5PVL]

Non-members can no longer even buy a copy of QST.

[W5HTW]

True, they can't. But even if they could, they couldn't vote. I think a tear out page in QST would be an effective way to reach all the members, and not waste time with non members.


Ed

[W3MIV]

You have to crawl before you can walk; walk before you can run.

The survey is not specifically targeted to RM-11306, though it does ask about views on that petition.

The goal of the survey is more to gather some current information about how the bands are being used by all modes, and about how many members are using various digital modes, including WinLink, D-Star, digital voice, etc.

The callsign@arrl.net "requirement" was chosen to minimize the chances of multiple voting or pirating of call signs. It is a verification mechanism that is somewhat more certain than cookies or other easily defeated schemes.

It is limited to members; if you don't think your opinion on issues is worth $39, then why should anyone else value it?

If you are a member of the ARRL and do not have an ARRL.net email address, you may go to the following link and obtain one:

email reflector (http://www.arrl.org/members-only/memdata.html?modify=1)

I would suggest that you also sign up for your Division newsletter so you can be informed of future surveys and other useful info.

[NN4RH]

Quote[/b] ] I would suggest that you also sign up for your Division newsletter so you can be informed of future surveys and other useful info.

How do I participate in this survey, since my Division (Roanoke) does not have newsletters or web sites or otherwise any communication at all with the members?

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ July 04 2007,09:38)]Quote[/b] ] I would suggest that you also sign up for your Division newsletter so you can be informed of future surveys and other useful info.

How do I participate in this survey, since my Division (Roanoke) does not have newsletters or web sites or otherwise any communication at all with the members?
The survey has been running only in the Great Lakes, Atlantic and Delta Divisions. It is hoped that more Divisions will participate in future surveys.

[N8CPA]

And the last question is room for a 100 word essay, regarding WL2K. 100 words about WL2k!

I suppose I could condense some of the paragraphs into single words, but most of those words would be 4 letter ones. Instead, I used a single sentence to express my opinion about Propietary, channelized, commercial by-pass systems on Amateur allocations. I just hope it was strong enough without the use of 4 letter words.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (N8CPA @ July 04 2007,10:45)]And the last question is room for a 100 word essay, regarding WL2K. #100 words about WL2k! #

I suppose I could condense some of the paragraphs into single words, but most of those words would be 4 letter ones. #Instead, I used a single sentence to express my opinion about Propietary, channelized, commercial by-pass systems on Amateur allocations. #I just hope it was strong enough without the use of 4 letter words.
I doubt if any of those four-letter words would not have been seen before.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[KB3LIX]

I tried to vote in the Atlantic survey, but the page was not available.
Must go and see if is back in service.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KB3LIX @ July 04 2007,11:50)]I tried to vote in the Atlantic survey, but the page was not available.
Must go and see if is back in service.
It will remain available until midnight of July 17. Please do take the survey.

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 04 2007,11:01)]Quote[/b] (N8CPA @ July 04 2007,10:45)]And the last question is room for a 100 word essay, regarding WL2K. 100 words about WL2k!

I suppose I could condense some of the paragraphs into single words, but most of those words would be 4 letter ones. Instead, I used a single sentence to express my opinion about Propietary, channelized, commercial by-pass systems on Amateur allocations. I just hope it was strong enough without the use of 4 letter words.
I doubt if any of those four-letter words would not have been seen before.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Additionally, one should be able to express a strongly held opinion without resorting to those four letter words.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ July 04 2007,12:08)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 04 2007,11:01)]Quote[/b] (N8CPA @ July 04 2007,10:45)]And the last question is room for a 100 word essay, regarding WL2K. #100 words about WL2k! #

I suppose I could condense some of the paragraphs into single words, but most of those words would be 4 letter ones. #Instead, I used a single sentence to express my opinion about Propietary, channelized, commercial by-pass systems on Amateur allocations. #I just hope it was strong enough without the use of 4 letter words.
I doubt if any of those four-letter words would not have been seen before.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Additionally, one should be able to express a strongly held opinion without resorting to those four letter words.
Though Steve may well have been in high dudgeon over the WL2K issue, he was only being facetious. He is far too much a gentlemen to have actually engaged in such vulgarity.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[wa3vjb]

I've been looking at the questions.
The wording is tilted, and the agenda looks obvious to me.

~~~~~~
In order for survey input to be counted, you will be asked to enter your email address to validate your answers. Answers from ONLY valid arrl.net addresses will be counted since this is the easiest method for us to make sure that answers from only ARRL members will be counted. Responses from those entries without a valid email address are automatically deleted. After entering your email address, the survey site will ask you for a password (this is not your ARRL password), which is a one time system generated password sent to you by email. Simply close the window at that point because the survey site will send an email to your address. Upon receipt of that email, all you will need to do is to click on the URL within the message to validate your answers. Thank you for your interest and your answers!

* 1. What Division are you from?

Atlantic Division: Includes the sections - Delaware, Eastern Pennsylvania, Maryland/District of Columbia, Northern New York, Southern New Jersey, Western New York and Weatern Pennsylvania
Delta Division: Includes the sections of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee
Great Lakes Division: Includes the sections - Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio
None of the above

* 2. Do you operate digital modes?

Yes
No


3. Do you operate APRS

Yes
No

* 4. Do you operate D-Star?

Yes
No

* 5. Do you operate digital voice?

Yes
No

* 6. Do you operate keyboard modes?

Yes
No

. Which keyboard modes do you use regularly?

Feldhell
Hellschreiber
MFSK
PSK31
PSK63
Olivia
RTTY

8. Do you operate store and forward modes?

Yes
No

You may select more than one.
* 9. Which store and forward modes do you use regularly?

Clover
G-Tor
Packet via TNC
Packet via soundcard
PacTOR
Other

* 10. Do you operate Winlink

Yes
No
11. Do you operate a PMBO

Yes
No

* 12. Do you use Winlink for emergency communications?

Yes
No

You may select more than one.
* 13. What bands do you use Winlink on?

HF
VHF
UHF

You may select more than one.
* 14. On what bands do you operate digital modes?

160m
80m
40m
30m
20m
15m
12m
10m
VHF
UHF

* 15. Do you operate CW?

Yes
No


* 16. Has the FCC's recent changes to the phone bands changed your operating habits?

Yes
No

* 17. Have you had to move a net or otherwise shift to a new frequency?

Yes
No

* 18. Do you operate HF phone?

Yes
No
19. Do you operate AM

Yes
No

* 20. Do you operate SSB

Yes
No

* 21. Has the FCC's re-farming of the phone frequencies affected your operating habits?

Yes
No

* 22. Have you had to move to a new frequency as a result?

Yes
No
Not applicable

* 23. Has the number of operators on your normal bands:

Increased
Decreased
Stayed about the same
24. About how many hours per week do you normally operate?

1 to 5 hours 6 to 10 hours
11 to 15 hours 16 to 20 hours
21 to 25 hours 26 to 30 hours
31 to 35 hours 36 to 40 hours
41 to 45 hours 46 to 50 hours
51 to 55 hours 56 to 60 hours
61 to 65 hours 66 to 70 hours
71 to 75 hours 76 to 80 hours
more than 80 hours

You may select more than one.
* 25. What other modes of operation do you work?

VHF FM
VHF SSB
UHF FM
UHF SSB
Above UHF
Mobile HF
Mobile VHF/UHF
Other
26. Did you read the bandwidth petition filed by the ARRL as RM-11306?

Yes
No
27. Do you feel you understood its contents?

Yes
No

* 28. Do you feel the ARRL adequately solicited your input on this petition?

Yes
No

* 29. Did you send your views on the petition in an email to bandwidth@arrl.org address?

Yes
No

* 30. Did you file a comment about RM-11306 on the FCC's ECFS?

Yes
No

Please select one of the two answers. You may also explain briefly why you selected your answer in the next question box or skip past it if you do not want to leave a comment.
* 31. Did you favor the petition?

Yes
No

You may briefly comment here about why you did or did not favor the ARRL bandwidth petition RM-11306. (limited to 100 words)
32. Comment about why you did or did not favor the petition
33. What is your license class

Amateur Extra
Advanced
General
Technician
Novice

* 34. How long have you been licensed?

1 to 5 years 6 to 10 years
11 to 15 years 16 to 20 years
21 to 25 years 26 to 30 years
31 to 35 years 36 to 40 years
41 to 45 years 46 to 50 years
51 to 55 years 56 to 60 years
61 to 65 years 66 to 70 years
71 to 75 years 76 to 80 years
Over 80 years

[wc5cw]

AG4YO, et al...

>"One final point. #The ARRL claims to represent all amateurs. I believe therefore that in a paper ballot vote, there be a "non-member" box to check which allows the ballot to be copied and distributed to many amateurs. #The ARRL can reserve policy steerage to member opinions, but knowing how all amateurs feel can't be a bad thing. #If nothing else they will know how their policies are received outside of AR. #It may even help them get more members."<-- AG4YO

An excellent point!...And it's my interpretation that David Sumner himself said that input from the amateur radio community, at large, was not only a good thing for ARRL policy making, it was a required element in the long-term best interest of amateur radio.*

* "It Seems To Us", QST, July 2006, p9.

The ARRL and the amateur radio community, at-large...An idea:

While there is ample opportunity to initiate contact with ARRL executives, directors and staff (see below), with the tools and the resources available to an organization as large and as technologically savvy as the ARRL, it seems to me that a formal mechanism having a continuous appearance and function could be installed and publicised for input by the community--ARRL Member or not--on any of the important issues facing amateur radio today...In other words, a departmentalized function put in place with topics listed issue-by-issue as important issues such as regulation and licensing requirements arise...This input would be then available for view by all executives, directors and staff at the ARRL as issues are placed on the table for discussion among the ARRL leadership...Such a function could be set up and operated in the form of a set of poll questions and/or invitation for comments related to the specific issue (the latter in form similar to what the FCC has in-place for comments regarding proposed rule making).

And while the purpose of the foregoing idea is to enhance the availability and the opportunity for the exchange of ideas, it may also become a bridge between concerned amateurs who have hitherto chosen not to be ARRL members, on the one hand, and the ARRL leadership who firmly believe they are the spokesperson for the amateur radio community here in the U.S., on the other.

Short of that, for those of us who are ARRL members but not within the Atlantic, Delta or Great Lakes Divisions, you can visit the page** linked here to gain access to your Division's Director and Vice Director (via e-mail or telephone), view their Division Newsletters and browse the Director's Division webpage, as available.

** http://www.arrl.org/divisions/

As a West Gulf Division ARRL member, I am fortunate to have a Director who voted "NO" against the original filing of RM-11306 and who voted "YES" to withdraw it...That being said, I still make my views known to him via e-mail as the occasion warrants.

FWIW

Bruce
WC5CW

[N8CPA]

Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ July 04 2007,13:08)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 04 2007,11:01)]Quote[/b] (N8CPA @ July 04 2007,10:45)]And the last question is room for a 100 word essay, regarding WL2K. #100 words about WL2k! #

I suppose I could condense some of the paragraphs into single words, but most of those words would be 4 letter ones. #Instead, I used a single sentence to express my opinion about Propietary, channelized, commercial by-pass systems on Amateur allocations. #I just hope it was strong enough without the use of 4 letter words.
I doubt if any of those four-letter words would not have been seen before.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Additionally, one should be able to express a strongly held opinion without resorting to those four letter words.
That is a matter of social context. But, given the venue, audience, and available bit space, I did make it a complex sentence with several commas and at least one semicolon, rather than buttressed sentiment.

But there are limits to my forebearance. Since I have yet to receive email confirmation that it was verified, and/or accepted, my blue thesaurus is still on the table if I have to re-write it. Whether I avail myself of those particular verbal tools will be decicded, if and when.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ July 04 2007,12:35)]I've been looking at the questions.
The wording is tilted, and the agenda looks obvious to me.
Please explain to me what you perceive to be an agenda?

Believe me, there was NO agenda in the formulation of the questions.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (N8CPA @ July 04 2007,12:49)]Since I have yet to receive email confirmation that it was verified, and/or accepted, my blue thesaurus is still on the table if I have to re-write it. #Whether I avail myself of those particular verbal tools will be decicded, if and when.
Once you hit the "submit" button, the system sends an email to your email address of record. Once you either copy and enter the number code in that email, or hit the verification link (either action will suffice) your survey is tallied. There will be NO other email "verification" that the tally took place.

Your input was received.

[kj3n]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ July 04 2007,09:12)]Non-members can no longer even buy a copy of QST.
Pardon me? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Plenty of QST magazines at HRO.

[kj3n]

Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ July 04 2007,09:18)]True, they can't.
Yes, they can. See above.

[wa3vjb]

Albert I've been reading tea leaves for many years, and I know when wording has a deliberate intent.

Here, they've twice tried to provoke a negative answer in a two-part question expressed to CW and phone operators.


* 16. Has the FCC's recent changes to the phone bands changed your operating habits?
* 17. Have you had to move a net or otherwise shift to a new frequency?


* 21. Has the FCC's re-farming of the phone frequencies affected your operating habits?
* 22. Have you had to move to a new frequency as a result?

Do you think the wording is neutral when it suggests being forced to do something as a result of something else?

Sumner, in particular, has already made public statements linking opposition to their bandwidth proposal with a natural reluctance to change.

In the example I have cited, the answers to an unbalanced question could be used to support an unfair premise -- that the FCC's decision making is somehow inferior to the one that may soon be placed on the table (again) for consideration.

In the second part of the two questions above, I would have avoided the pejorative assumption that it's a "problem" to move to a new frequency.

[wa3vjb]

Quote[/b] ]as large and as technologically savvy as the ARRL,

Sorry Bruce, the League is less than 100 paid staff, with subscriptions at less than 20 percent of its potential constituency.

The club is also technologically inept to the point of their having to withdraw a Petition before the FCC.

Paul/VJB

[wc5cw]

Fellow Forum Members...

Looking at the poll questions* and seeing the options for answer to Question 1 and no other information pertaining to qualifications for taking the poll except the e-mail @arrl.net requirement, it seems to me that any ARRL member in any Division can submit their answers to the poll questions...Is this a proper interpretation (or have I missed something here)?...And will these answers be counted among those that are valid returns?

* http://www.bestvote.org/phpQ/fillsurvey.php?sid=11

TIA

Bruce
WC5CW

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ July 04 2007,13:08)]Albert I've been reading tea leaves for many years, and I know when wording has a deliberate intent.

Here, they've twice tried to provoke a negative answer in a two-part question expressed to CW and phone operators.


* # #16. # #Has the FCC's recent changes to the phone bands changed your operating habits?
* # #17. # #Have you had to move a net or otherwise shift to a new frequency?


* # #21. # #Has the FCC's re-farming of the phone frequencies affected your operating habits?
* # #22. # #Have you had to move to a new frequency as a result?

Do you think the wording is neutral when it suggests being forced to do something as a result of something else?

Sumner, in particular, has already made public statements linking opposition to their bandwidth proposal with a natural reluctance to change. #

In the example I have cited, the answers to an unbalanced question could be used to support an unfair premise -- that the FCC's decision making is somehow inferior to the one that may soon be placed on the table (again) for consideration.

In the second part of the two questions above, I would have avoided the pejorative assumption that it's a "problem" to move to a new frequency.
Trust me, Paul, you are wrong. It seems you might be smoking those tea leaves instead of reading them. Please find another avocation; your fortune-telling days are clearly behind you. There was NO agenda. Guaranteed.

The questions were asked solely to see how much displacement the expansion of the phone bands might have caused. Some nets, both CW and phone, may been affected and the desire was to get an idea of to what extent that may have happened.

In hindsight, some of the wording in a few areas was poorly chosen. There was no agenda, however.

[wa3vjb]

Quote[/b] ]In hindsight, some of the wording in a few areas was poorly chosen

Given the "wording" the League's lawyer used to refute the opposition to their bandwidth petition, no wonder I wish I had been smoking something to kill the pain.

Well okay, lets move it ahead.

[N2RJ]

Oh boy. More whining from non-members about ARRL policies.

You aren't even a member! Why are you whining?

Look, if you have a beef with RM-11306 or any of its reincarnations (and I most certainly do oppose it) you can file your comments directly with the FCC. You don't need to involve ARRL. They are one voice out of many.

The FCC issues your license and regulates the airwaves, not ARRL.

Don't act like the ARRL is preventing you from letting your voice be heard. They aren't.

If you want ARRL to pay attention to you, join! I did, as much as I hate some of their positions. If you want to make change within ARRL, contact your division director, section manager, or run for office.

[wa3vjb]

Quote[/b] ]You aren't even a member! Why are you whining?

The ARRL's incompetency at favorably presenting the hobby to the public, and inept participation in the regulatory process have undercut the perceived value of ham radio in the eyes of industry, emergency communications agencies, and non-government organizations.

You should be concerned regardless of whether you subscribe to the League, and without hesitancy that you can directly act on those concerns.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ July 04 2007,13:46)]Quote[/b] ]You aren't even a member! Why are you whining?

The ARRL's incompetency at favorably presenting the hobby to the public, and inept participation in the regulatory process have undercut the perceived value of ham radio in the eyes of industry, emergency communications agencies, and non-government organizations.

You should be concerned regardless of whether you subscribe to the League, and without hesitancy that you can directly act on those concerns.
So why not just bypass the league and go directly to the FCC?

If the problems stem from hairbrained ideas out of Newington as some claim, why are hams giving them attention?

[wc5cw]

WA3VJB, (et al)...

>"Sorry Bruce, the League is less than 100 paid staff, #with subscriptions at less than 20 percent of its potential constituency...The club is also technologically inept to the point of their having to withdraw a Petition before the FCC."<-- Paul/VJB

Paul, with all due respects, I #posted my remarks specifically within the subject of League-to-amateur radio community discourse...And I believe (in difference to your "broad brush opinion") that they have the resources and technology to implement a formal, departmentalized venue and operating mechanism as I briefly outlined in my text...For the most part the "ineptness" of a "less than 100 paid staff" has set-up and continues to manage a number of venues for communications that work quite well, as a rule.

Furthermore, my remarks were only an idea to promote a more visible, more dedicated means of communication between the League and non-members on important issues to come before the Board of Directors such as regulation and licensing ...Some may view the idea as counterproductive to benefits of ARRL Membership or duplicity of the processes now in-place for Member-to-League correspondence, but as AG4YO suggested (and based on the presupposition held by League leadership that the ARRL is the spokesperson for the community, at-large), input from the community--ARRL Member or not--may be a good thing to help avoid many of the side issues and much of the speculation and mistrust that surrounded RM-11306*...That's it, (to put it in simple terms).

73,

Bruce
WC5CW

Edit: *And btw, FWIW, I did not gain a real understanding of the long-term and troublesome aspects of the proposal as written into RM-11306 until early this year, but found it defective in its writing and not what I would support, so I was against its adoption and pleased with its withdrawal...Now I will do what I can as an amateur radio operator and as a member of the ARRL to be sure whatever proposal is filed gets it right with respect to any "band plan by bandwidth" regulation including broadband digital signals, auto and semi-auto operation and its interference to other modes, safeguards for the traditional, analog modes of CW, AM and SSB within our allocations, and compatibility with respect to use of the bands by others within other ITU Regions.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ July 04 2007,13:11)]The club is also technologically inept to the point of their having to withdraw a Petition before the FCC.
Et tu, Brute?

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

RM-11307 ring any bells?

[wa3vjb]

Yer off by two, OM, please try to get it straight. :laugh:

[WA2CWA]

It's interesting that this "survey" is not mentioned on the ARRL web site, the Delta web site (sorry, they don't even have a web site), but each of their Sections do, and it's not mentioned there. There is no mention or link to this "survey" anywhere on the Great Lakes Division web site. There is a mention of a "survey" on the Atlantic Division web site, but it ended June 30, 2007, and no mention of any other "survey".

Further, in the initial thread: "If you're an ARRL member in Atlantic, Delta, or Great Lakes you will have received an email instructing you how to vote in the online website survey". This doesn't target all members in those Divisions, only those that opted to get some type of Division news or newsletter by e-mail.

In my opinion, this looks and sounds like several Division Directors, who are either somewhat clueless as to what their members think, to lazy or feel it's too costly or inconvenient to travel to hamfests and clubs to talk to members and nonmembers, or are just trying to save face and maybe their positions, after RM-11306 got beat up so badly by so many amateurs.

Further investigation revealed the Atlantic Division initiated “the survey”.
Jim Weaver said: “This is because my friend Bill Edgar, N3LLR, the Atlantic Division Director initiated the survey and then asked Henry Leggette, WD4Q, Delta Division Director and me (Jim Weaver) if we'd like to participate. We helped develop the poll and joined in the activity.”

Again, in my opinion, this is not an ARRL Headquarters sponsored activity. As far as the poll questions are concerned, you probably need to take that up with the three respective Directors mentioned above.

Pete, wa2cwa

[wa3vjb]

Quote[/b] ]whatever proposal is filed gets it right with respect to any "band plan by bandwidth" regulation

Bruce, the League's administrators have a major problem that will not be overcome by tweaking the wording of the Petition that has already been rejected by concept.

The problem is the premise itself -- that coordinating our activities based on bandwidth would provide a better means than the system we have successfully been using.

Folks like yourself, and there are p lenty in the amen chorus that believes the League can do no wrong, come in a step later than that, presuming because the idea has been uttered by Newington, that the next step is to find the best way to implement it.

The League's administrators were told during the draft proposal phase (lasting years) that the concept does not have the support of the broader amateur community.

Their people continue to misinterpret the clearly-stated opposition as an endorsement to proceed.

You've got a lot of work to do if you hope to convince them to abandon the idea, and instead work with the existing, accepted system of coordination that we all take custody of every day we are on the air.

Paul/VJB

[wa3vjb]

Quote[/b] ]this is not an ARRL Headquarters sponsored activity.

OBOY OBOY OBOY

What? Ho !!!

A unilateral, independent thought has emerged and it is NOT publicly tainted (endorsed) by Newington !!


Great Scott ! , Pete, praise the fellows, don't call them names. They're taking the lead at actually obtaining information.
Quote[/b] ]
In my opinion, this looks and sounds like several Division Directors, who are either somewhat clueless as to what their members think, to lazy or feel it's too costly or inconvenient to travel to hamfests and clubs to talk to members and nonmembers, or are just trying to save face and maybe their positions, after RM-11306 got beat up so badly by so many amateurs.


More reason for me to re-join so's I can pat my putative Director on the back and say KEEP AT IT DOOD.

Oh, I bet he hasn't gotten the memo yet.
~~~~~~~
Re: Unsanctioned polls
Bill,

As you know, the ARRL National Leadership carefully controls our group's "message" in all public utterances. You will recall that when President Jim Haynie ran the place, he valiantly tried to do battle with our enemies on QRZ.com, but found himself constantly outmatched, effectively digging himself into a hole.

I am shocked, and frankly disappointed that you, as a freshman elected official, should violate the control we have tried to maintain to avoid just the very pitfall poor Jim suffered. You know he's still on medication for stress?

Now you've opened a Pandora's box with your little survey, where people can express themselves and hope they've actually been heard. We have struggled to avoid this at all costs, since insulating our pure thoughts is the only way to protect our dogma.

I hope that you will immediately trash all responses, and do not read them, and in the future kindly ask for opinions only from our brain filter, Paul Rinaldo, who has been encrusted with this knowledge solely.

Signed,

an anonymous League official

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ July 04 2007,14:57)]Yer off by two, OM, please try to get it straight. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Sorry 'bout that. I was the product of a Catholic parochial school -- always notoriously bad about science and aritmetic back then.


http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KB3LIX]

I went back this afternoon and got in just fine.
Survey completed.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (wc5cw @ July 04 2007,13:22)]Fellow Forum Members...

Looking at the poll questions* and seeing the options for answer to Question 1 and no other information pertaining to qualifications for taking the poll except the e-mail @arrl.net requirement, it seems to me that any ARRL member in any Division can submit their answers to the poll questions...Is this a proper interpretation (or have I missed something here)?...And will these answers be counted among those that are valid returns?

* http://www.bestvote.org/phpQ/fillsurvey.php?sid=11

TIA

Bruce
WC5CW
If one completes the survey, yet does not offer a valid callsign@arrl.net email address, or does not post any email address, the input from that respondent will be rejected.

Although the survey was not specifically sent to any other Divisions than Atlantic, Great Lakes and Delta, the Division anomaly is not so important as the proper email address.

In my post on the prior page, I provided a link through which any ARRL member can easily obtain such an email address, and this will validate your input.

The purpose was not to exclude non-members so much as it was to make sure that each respondent is a genuine licensee and that the callsign is not being pirated just to make multiple entries on the survey.

If anyone did complete the survey and did not use the proper, verifiable email address, that input will be rejected. Best to go to the link I provided on the previous page and get the email address before you do the survey.

73

[wc5cw]

AG4YO, WA3VJB, et al...

Paul...Some illuminating comments in response to your assertions regarding ARRL activities, members and membership:

>"The problem is the premise itself -- that coordinating our activities based on bandwidth would provide a better means than the system we have successfully been using."<-- Paul/VJB

Yes, I agree...The premise of band plan by bandwidth without an overlay of sub-band segments designed for the respect and protection of traditional modes and narrow bandwidth digital modes is faulty...That's why I disapproved of RM-11306 in its original and amended form.

>"Folks like yourself, and there are p lenty in the amen chorus that believes the League can do no wrong, come in a step later than that, presuming because the idea has been uttered by Newington, that the next step is to find the best way to implement it."<-- Paul/VJB

With all due respects you have little understanding of my positions with regard to any number of issues past or present as they relate to regulation, policy or ARRL behavior...Your characterization of me and "folks like yourself" is without merit and blatantly wrong...Because I and others have chosen to be ARRL members does not mean that we are in lock-step with the HQ executives and decision makers.

>"The League's administrators were told during the draft proposal phase (lasting years) that the concept does not have the support of the broader amateur community."<-- Paul/VJB

And history may repeat itself if the voices of ARRL members expressing their opinion and concern are too few and too meek this time around...You can ignore certain aspects of reality as to the past, present and future presence of the ARRL in regulatory matters, but the fact is that discussion of a proposal in some form will be undertaken in less than 2 weeks as it pertains to band planning and accommodating digital communications systems.

>"Their people continue to misinterpret the clearly-stated opposition as an endorsement to proceed."<-- Paul/VJB

Okay, I don't know about any "endorsement to proceed" this time around...I think the action resulting in the withdrawal of RM-11306 in April would--in part--contradict or at least question the mindset you seem to imply...We shall see...But IMHO, your voice (and many, many others) is one that should be heard within the ARRL organization...It seems to me that if you, Paul, had gotten the attention of Joel Harrison to the point that he was taking notes as you state, you've got something worth saying as it relates to any new proposal for band plan regulation as an ARRL member before it is drafted (and not only as a resident ARRL critic sitting on the sidelines here at QRZ.COM)...But that's your call...In the meantime, please do not lump me and others together as in a passive, unthinking, "amen chorus" group of individuals who endorse all ARRL policy emanating from Newington. #

Respectfully and FWIW,

Bruce
WC5CW

Footnote to W3MIV:

Re: ARRL Division Directors' Poll

Thanks...And yes, I did understand about the @arrl.net e-mail alias (I've had one since 1999 or whenever they offered it.)...But Question 1 has as a selection for answer: "None of the above"...Leads me to believe that they are perhaps using the answer to Question 1 as a filter but I don't know if its a bandpass filter for the first three selections and/or bandstop filter for the last selection.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (wc5cw @ July 04 2007,17:59)]...But Question 1 has as a selection for answer: "None of the above"...Leads me to believe that they are perhaps using the answer to Question 1 as a filter but I don't know if its a bandpass filter for the first three selections and/or bandstop filter for the last selection.
Clumsy wording, Bruce. Should probably have read "Other" instead. It was thrown in at the last moment because of the chance that some members other than Delta, Atlantic or GL members might find the survey and wade in.

This is all new stuff in many ways. As I posted elsewhere, you gotta crawl before you can walk...

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

73

[KI4PEQ]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 04 2007,07:02)]Yes, Paul it was a typo. #Thanks for catching it. #Dyslexics of the world Untie!
So you admit to being a dyslexic. Do you lie awake at night, wondering if there is a dog? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[wa3vjb]

Quote[/b] ] whatever proposal is filed gets it right with respect to any "band plan by bandwidth"

Here's the presumption on your part Bruce which led me to conclude as I did.

There need not be a proposal, and there specifically should not be a "band plan by bandwidth" as you have phrased it.

Thanks for clarifying your other points. Far too often in polite discourse such as this, we take snapshots of a person's point of view and respond accordingly.

I am glad you've spent time on illumination, since I don't know you, and am unaware of your participation to date in ARRL political policy, regulatory filings, and other activities that affect subscribers as well as the greater Amateur community.

Regards,

Paul/VJB

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 04 2007,07:52)]My concern is that half the local ARRL Amateurs I know here don't have computers. #So how do they vote? #You need an ARRL email address to vote in ths online poll as your registration requires a code verification sent to you at that address to complete your vote. #My point specifically is that we have to have paper ballots printed in QST that non computer users can rip out and send in by mail. This is the least descriminitory way to vote.

One final point. #The ARRL claims to represent all amateurs. I believe therefore that in a paper ballot vote, there be a "non-member" box to check which allows the ballot to be copied and distributed to many amateurs. #The ARRL can reserve policy steerage to member opinions, but knowing how all amateurs feel can't be a bad thing. #If nothing else they will know how their policies are received outside of AR. #It may even help them get more members.
I have been giving this some thought, Charlie. I concede the point that there are members who, being bereft of a computer, cannot vote in this (or a similar) survey. Given the presence of the computer in our society, though, I cannot believe that there are too many of them. I don't have a ready answer to solve that problem.

As to the "centralization" of the survey, however, I am not so sure that such a program would be the best. Beyond the substantial costs of such an operation (not just the printing and mailing, but the subsequent handling, collation and analysis would be daunting -- even optical readers (which are, themselves, costly) are subject to error and problems resulting from damaged, "folded stapled or spindled" http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif forms, etc.

The "totally-in-computer" system solves lots of those problems and permits ready access to the information. The internet distribution and surveying structure has a lot to recommend it in terms of speed, ease and efficiency. Also, the verification process, while not perfect, is faster, easier and far less costly than a system of trying to manually validate replies. Or do you consider that all replies should count, even those from non-hams or from those scurrilous few who would pirate a call just to cause a bit of trouble? I don't.

Lastly, Charlie, do you really want all of the data to be solely in the hands of the HQ staff? I do not here cast aspersions on that staff, believing them to be honest and honorable folks who take their missions seriously.

But I think I much prefer to see such outreach programs as surveying member views remain at the Director level. These are the folks we elect to serve us, and they are the ones who should be our first level of communication. It is they, sitting as a governing board, who bear the ulitmate responsibility for all that takes place in our behalf. And it is they whom we should hold responsible when things deviate from the paths we deem appropriate.

No, Charlie. I believe it is best to proceed along the path that is slowly being blazed here. If there are Directors who do not wish to participate, or who resist the idea of measuring the views of their constituencies, then perhaps the solution is to seek new Directors in those instances rather than to put all of our outreach eggs in a single basket in Newington -- rather than distributed in fifteen different henhouses around the nation.

73

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 05 2007,04:18)]Beyond the substantial costs of such an operation (not just the printing and mailing, but the subsequent handling, collation and analysis would be daunting -- even optical readers (which are, themselves, costly) are subject to error and problems resulting from damaged, "folded stapled or spindled" http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif forms, etc.
Jesus H. Shwartz, Albert! What "costs"? QST goes out ballot or not so why not include the ballot. The member pays return postage. The votes could be counted by volunteers as I have proposed countless times here. As far as electronic readers, the League just spent upwards of $50K to replace the antennas at W1AW when only one was broken. What's more important, the members opinions or new antennas? Bet I could find enough "other" (to the tune of $500K) expenses to pay for readers.

I support the League in many things they do, but be careful my friend, your "reasons" are beginning to sound like the league "robot" answers.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 05 2007,07:50)]I support the League in many things they do, but be careful my friend, your "reasons" are beginning to sound like the league "robot" answers.
I think you know better than that, Charlie.

You did not touch upon the more important issue, in my opinion, of keeping the input "decentralized." Were I a "robot," would advocacy of such a position make sense?

For all of you guys who see ghosts and spooks hiding behind bushes and fostering hidden agendas and promoting schemes that benefit only the few at the expense of the many, the issue of keeping outreach at the least centralized level would seem important.

[N8CPA]

As I suspected, I had to refile my comment. I never did receive the verification email, because I didn't use the @arrl.net addy. So I resubmitted it--this time with fewer commas and semicolons. And this time I got the confirmation pwd.

Now don't worry! My reserve vocabulary remained on the bench. But oh, how they wanted to play!

[wa3vjb]

Albert,


People who are willing to help do not want to see their effort wasted. They also don't want to feel patronized when a group's leadership would accept only a certain kind of help (say, money).

In reality, the ARRL has many hands available to accomplish its work. More of those hands would raise to volunteer toward goals that more of us can support.

Meantime, some of those who are running the ARRL for the time being fail to understand their constituency. Many of us out here do not wish to help losers perpetuate misguided policies and a secret, backroom style of management.

One influence toward change includes pressuring them from outside, through withholding our support as well as stepping around their mismanagement to promote fresh ideas.

I am happy to learn that Bill Edgar, the Atlantic Division Director, has apparently crossed the bridge from a non-management role and kept some fresh ideas intact. I applaud his initiating an on-line poll to help him and other Directors prepare for this month's closed-door meeting.

Here's hoping the results of that poll will be made public to subscribers and outsiders alike.

In order to take part in his fresh idea, I am today joining the League to express myself in the poll before deadline.

I am compelled, however to make my support conditional, and that the League will be on probation come renewal time, when I will assess their continued progress or determine that Bill's project is an anomaly, and that The Memo like the parody I wrote will remain standard operating procedure.

Paul/VJB

[K3UD]

I might have missed it in the email I received from Jim Weaver (Great Lakes Director) but I saw no mention of publishing the results to the membership. Wondering if this will be used as an internal document for ARRL use only or if we will get a chance to see the results.

73
George
K3UD

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ July 05 2007,09:38)]Albert,


People who are willing to help do not want to see their effort wasted. They also don't want to feel patronized when a group's leadership would accept only a certain kind of help (say, money).

In reality, the ARRL has many hands available to accomplish its work. More of those hands would raise to volunteer toward goals that more of us can support.

Meantime, some of those who are running the ARRL for the time being fail to understand their constituency. Many of us out here do not wish to help losers perpetuate misguided policies and a secret, backroom style of management.

One influence toward change includes pressuring them from outside, through withholding our support as well as stepping around their mismanagement to promote fresh ideas.

I am happy to learn that Bill Edgar, the Atlantic Division Director, has apparently crossed the bridge from a non-management role and kept some fresh ideas intact. #I applaud his initiating an on-line poll to help him and other Directors prepare for this month's closed-door meeting. #

Here's hoping the results of that poll will be made public to subscribers and outsiders alike.

In order to take part in his fresh idea, I am today joining the League to express myself in the poll before deadline.

I am compelled, however to make my support conditional, and that the League will be on probation come renewal time, when I will assess their continued progress or determine that Bill's project is an anomaly, and that The Memo like the parody I wrote will remain standard operating procedure.

Paul/VJB
I don't disagree with a single point of your post, Paul, and I applaud your decision. Thank you for the support. We need folks of your caliber pushing for change.

A big part of the problem is that there are fifteen Directors -- not just one or two or three who are committed to trying a new avenue that could lead us to positive change.

I will tell you honestly that the ARRL is ALWAYS on probation in my opinion. I feel the same way about every other organization to which I belong, not least the US citizenry. You've got to keep pressure on them at all times.

I do not, however, believe that pressure from the outside is as effective as do you, apparently. My experience is that it inspires more "bunker-mindedness" than anything else.

You say there are now "many hands available," but I believe that has been a large part of the problem in recent years. Too few have become ACTIVE members -- sure, they pay their dues regularly and sit on the john reading the newest QST, but when push comes to shove, they take a pass. "Let George do it."

We can surely agree to disagree on which pressure is the more effective, since I am hopeful that you will now be able to add your voice to the growing numbers who hanker for change and are willing to step forth and put out some effort to achieve it. Your voice will be loud and clear, in or out.

Again, thank you and welcome aboard. With a few more good men, we can win in the end.

73, as always

[w3wn]

Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ July 04 2007,10:38)]Quote[/b] ] I would suggest that you also sign up for your Division newsletter so you can be informed of future surveys and other useful info.

How do I participate in this survey, since my Division (Roanoke) does not have newsletters or web sites or otherwise any communication at all with the members?
Write your Division Director, Assistant Division Director, your Section Manager, and any other ARRL elected official in your division that you know of, and inform them that you believe they should participate in this.

Then get everyone you know of who is also an ARRL member to do the same.

If you don't care for the response you get, then perchance it is time to find candidates to run against those individuals in the next Section or Division election.

[w3wn]

Quote[/b] (WA2CWA @ July 04 2007,16:06)]Again, in my opinion, this is not an ARRL Headquarters sponsored activity. As far as the poll questions are concerned, you probably need to take that up with the three respective Directors mentioned above.
So?

The survey in question started because one Division Director, Bill Edgard N3LLR, wanted to hear from a reasonable sampling of the ARRL members in the Division what they thought. That way, IMHO, he is better prepared to represent us at the Board meetings and with other interactions with the ARRL Hq staff.

This is a good thing! That several other Division Directors agreed, and then helped fine-tune the survey and distribute it to their division members, is an even better thing!

I've been reading for months on various forum threads about how non-responsive (or so it is claimed, usually by non-members) the ARRL Board allegedly is. So now we have several Board members trying to poll us for our opinions.

I'd be more concerned with the Directors who have chosen NOT to try and emulate this in one form or another, than to be bashing those who are doing just what we've asked them to do.

Now as to why Bill has chosen email -- frankly, I could guess, but rather than speculate, if you really want to know, why don't you ask him?

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (w3wn @ July 05 2007,10:31)]Now as to why Bill has chosen email -- frankly, I could guess, but rather than speculate, if you really want to know, why don't you ask him?
This internet system is faster and cheaper than any sort of snail mail system. No printing, mailing or other administrative costs to cause more commentary on the ARRL annual report entries. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

The need to be sure that each entry is being made by the licensee whose call is being used is another significant consideration. By requiring a particular ARRL-based email address -- one that is verifiable as being both a valid licensee and the actual owner of the call -- is an important tool for making sure that the data gathered is as accurate and verifiable as possible. What good what the information be if it could easily be challenged as being phony or pushed by special interests (as can easily be done with lots of internet polls)?

There are those who criticise the fact that this survey is being made of ARRL members only. I see nothing wrong with that; it is an ARRL survey, and I do not believe the League has any obligation to put it out for everyone else. It surely is easy enough to send in dues and get the proper validation email address, and anyone who feels strongly about having his or her voice heard in a survey such as this one should step up to the plate.

Far be it from me to advise anyone in another Division on how to handle a recalcitrant Director. I know what I would do, however.

73

[wc5cw]

AG4YO, et al...

Re: Activities, Communications and Accountability

An excellent condensation of ideas as put forth by several forum participants, including the recent postings by AG4YO, WA3VJB and W3MIV.

To be brief:

Comments by Harrison and others saying they (the ARRL leadership) has to do a better job of describing/explaining/justifying its actions and the details and effects of any new proposal for changing Part 97 rules as they relate to regulation, I think its a fair statement that the ARRL HQ staff has been busy in the past few months managing "damage control" from the failed effort of RM-11306...This may, in part, be a "red flag" awareness among the CEO, President, Vice Presidents and other voting members of the Executive Committee of a need for more transparency and unambiguous, clearly stated position in terms of motives, reasons for and effects of proposals and other meaningful actions as taken by the leadership in Newington that affect the Membership and the amateur radio community, at large...In a word, "accountability".

And, to speculate with guarded optimism:

Charlie, AG4YO suggested an outreach to ARRL members who do not have or use a computer...Although I personally think those numbers are small, the idea of the so-called tear-away "bingo card" or equivalent insert into QST (coupled with a corresponding article or editorial about the issue(s) that are the subject of the card) has merit in a larger sense...It not only levels the playing field to some extent among nearly all Members by removing any "digital access" bias, it may encourage those who do sit on the sidelines as W3MIV has suggested, to take part...IMHO, it could be a strong and dramatic statement of the ARRL's efforts to reach out to the membership on important issues.

And I would reiterate my idea of a permanent and formal, electronically "departmentalized" venue for the express purpose of Member solicitation and feedback...All solicitations would be sent to Members en mass from HQ but responses would be returned to individual Division Directors by incorporating specialized mailboxes for each Division Director, Vice Director and/or other appointed and trusted Division "volunteer"...This would address the concern of "centralization" of information, as voiced by Albert, W3MIV.

I am all for public discourse and debate...In my opinion, it is the only healthy way to research, formulate and adopt policy that affects the ARRL Membership and the community, at large...In that regard, I too would hope that the results of the current poll and any future polls be made public as expressed by Paul, WA3VJB.

If the ARRL Leadership puts only twenty percent of the effort and expense into meaningful communications that it does soliciting new and renewal Memberships, and beyond the once-a-month "It Seems To Us" column in QST offers methods of direct exchange of ideas with, for example, well-written and "hidden agenda free" polls and subsequent feedback from Members both electronically and by QST inserts, a lot of the apathy, the second-guessing and the mistrust may go away...And, IMHO, a newly found and tremendously fruitful asset will be found: A larger, possibly more enthusiastic "hey, I matter", more active Membership (as demonstrated with the addition of, for example, Paul/VJB to the rolls).

Nothing particularly revolutionary in concept, but that's part of my view for a more accountable, more in-touch leadership and directorship within the ARRL.

FWIW,

Bruce
WC5CW

Edit: For clarity of expression

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (wc5cw @ July 05 2007,15:33)]AG4YO, et al...

Re: Activities, Communications and Accountability

An excellent condensation of ideas as put forth by several forum participants, including the recent postings by AG4YO, WA3VJB and W3MIV.

To be brief:

...
Nothing particularly revolutionary in concept, but that's part of my view for a more accountable, more in-touch leadership and directorship within the ARRL.
I snipped the quote solely because the post is just above and easily read.

All of these are worthy ideas, Bruce, and they merit being put forward to your Director and to the "powers" in Newington. The only problem I see is that there is an institutional inertia that must be overcome, and that is not an easy task. Information is power, and power is a coveted tool in any bureaucracy. That is why I remain reluctant to see centralization. What happened to the input sent to bandwidth@arrl.net? Were there gems amidst the scree that accumulated somewhere?

The survey that is now being conducted is being done because it is what is possible now to do. More may be possible once other Directors see what may be easily accomplished and the value that they might derive from regular member input on a wide range of topical issues. The internet approach offers substantial advantages that make this survey possible now.

I urge you to promote your ideas and send them. The more of your type of reasoning that reaches the many Directors and executives the more likely it may be that change can come. It will not come without being pushed, however.

[N8CPA]

According to an email bulletin I just got from K8JE [Dir. GLD], 58% of repsondents are in GLD, even though Delta and Atlantic Divisions were notified two days before he gave us the word. #He also stressfully reiterates that the League itself knew nothing about the survey until they started getting calls about why members in other divisions had not been invited to participate. #

The survey is strictly for Delta, Atlantic and Great Lakes. #You can contact your SMs and Directors if you want something similar in your own divisions. #And if you are in Delta and Atlantic divisions, please take the survey and urge other members to participate, since the smaller GLD should not constitute the majority response.

[wa3vjb]

Why make much of a disproportionate share of responses from any one division. Regional differences in the response data are probably small, wouldn't you think?

By "League itself," I presume you mean the Brain Trust in Newington. It's a wonder they answered the phone, spending time formulating the language of the poisoned pen letter in response to this, this, open display of information.

Ruined their Friday.
Quote[/b] ]
Re: Unsanctioned polls
Bill,

As you know, the ARRL National Leadership carefully controls our group's "message" in all public utterances. You will recall that when President Jim Haynie ran the place, he valiantly tried to do battle with our enemies on QRZ.com, but found himself constantly outmatched, effectively digging himself into a hole.

I am shocked, and frankly disappointed that you, as a freshman elected official, should violate the control we have tried to maintain to avoid just the very pitfall poor Jim suffered. You know he's still on medication for stress?

Now you've opened a Pandora's box with your little survey, where people can express themselves and hope they've actually been heard. We have struggled to avoid this at all costs, since insulating our pure thoughts is the only way to protect our dogma.

I hope that you will immediately trash all responses, and do not read them, and in the future kindly ask for opinions only from our brain filter, Paul Rinaldo, who has been encrusted with this knowledge solely.

Signed,

an anonymous League official

[ky5u]

That letter is a joke, right? Even the League ain't THAT bad. Right?

[wa3vjb]

That's the problem, Charlie, the little joke above seems a little too plausible.

I hope the joke's not on us with this survey, you know, that a few directors were "allowed" to float a poll to see how awful it would be for the national administrative function, if they ever were to ask "for real."

The validation for me shall be if the poll results are revealed to us in their entirety, not cherry-picked. That's what happened a couple of years ago when the Back-Room Boys at Newington took stock of the responses they drew for their threatened bandwidth petition, and kept a tight lid on the sentiment expressed.

It wasn't until we saw formal comments in the FCC's public filing system that we saw the depth and logic of the well-reasoned opposition that should have killed the ARRL proposal before it got to federal regulators.

The reason Bill and the other directors may some consequences this time is that the results of a survey such as this may commit the group's administrators to a response.

Hide the results = no response needed. Or don't ask in the first place.

This will create a different world for them, genie out of the bottle and all that.

--Paul/VJB

[ky5u]

I agree that this is probably the underlying attitude. When you read the "petition withdrawn" article in QST (pretty much same on posted here), there is an underlying seething from the hired help. Statements made by Sumner that the petition was not to further Winlink are an example of how they try to mislead members. Let's see:

1. ARRL Ad Hoc committee was 4 to 3 made of Winlink supporters.
2. Petition opened up voice bands to wideband data.
3. Primary user of wideband data would be Winlink.

Duh!? How darned stupid do they thing Amateurs are?

When you ask a question, you get a brain-dead scripted answer or the dog poop on a shoe treatment. And it's all about a handful of people wanting the power to control the ARRL to drive what they devine as the "holy" path for AR to take. You start shaking that tree and the monkeys start screaming. The QST article was a sad "sour grapes" testimonial to the state of the ARRL by a bunch of screaming chimps. Thank God some of the Directors are beginning to do the right thing.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 07 2007,14:11)]I agree that this is probably the underlying attitude. #When you read the "petition withdrawn" article in QST (pretty much same on posted here), there is an underlying seething from the hired help. #Statements made by Sumner that the petition was not to further Winlink are an example of how they try to mislead members. #Let's see:

1. ARRL Ad Hoc committee was 4 to 3 made of Winlink supporters.
2. Petition opened up voice bands to wideband data.
3. Primary user of wideband data would be Winlink.

Duh!? #How darned stupid do they thing Amateurs are?

When you ask a question, you get a brain-dead scripted answer or the dog poop on a shoe treatment. #And it's all about a handful of people wanting the power to control the ARRL to drive what they devine as the "holy" path for AR to take. You start shaking that tree and the monkeys start screaming. #The QST article was a sad "sour grapes" testimonial to the state of the ARRL by a bunch of screaming chimps. #Thank God some of the Directors are beginning to do the right thing.
I honestly think you're wrong, Charlie. I think the excuses that were offered about "misunderstanding" were done in order to deflect embarrassment, which is what you should expect from any large organization that suffered the kind of shock the ARRL suffered on RM-11306.

There is no doubt they got their fingers caught under the lid of the cookie jar and a good, hard swat on the butt from "mom."

A large part of the problem stems from an institutional inertia that sets in with many such outfits -- it is a form of "in-breeding" that begins to affect their outlook on everything. "We know what is best," is their thinking, and they have come to it because they all think alike. There is little effort to look outside, even when a window is right over the desk.

Make no mistake: This is not going to easily be cured or changed. It will be a fight to change attitudes that have become so deeply embedded. The messages need to be made to the Directors -- not the three who are on board with this tiny effort to sample members' views, but with the other twelve. There is where the need lay.

In the final appraisal, it is the Board of Directors that holds the power of the ARRL in its hands. It needs to reassert itself boldly, and three out of fifteen cannot do that alone.

Everyone who is in a Division other than GL, Delta or Atlantic needs to get on the horn and jaw-bone his or her Director and let him know that more is expected than just showing up, yawning and voting between naps.

It can be done.

[W3MIV]

As of this morning, we have somewhat more than 2,400 responses to the survey. Thank you to all who participated.

The participation has been good, overall. In the Atlantic Division, we have about 13,000 ARRL members. Of that total, about half participate in the email newsletter, which is dependent upon the callsign@arrl.net address that we mandated for participation in the survey. That 6,500 or so members form the survey group pool. If you want to join that pool, all you need to do is go to the ARRL website, sign in, and go to the member profile and opt in by setting up the email reflector address and signing on to a Division newsletter. Simple.

The final numbers, of course, will not be known until the survey ends, but as of now 1,020 members in Atlantic have participated. That means that we have had a 15.7% response, which is excellent. The other two Divisions' responses are in that same range.

The survey will end tonight at midnight, so just a little time remains if you are a League member in Atlantic, Delta or Great Lakes and have not yet taken this survey.

The Board meeting takes place at the end of this week. Your chance to have some input on the current survey is drawing to a close. Don't let this window of opportunity mash your fingers by being too late!

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[K3UD]

The good response from the Great Lakes division is probably not unusual. Jim Weaver K8JE has been polling the division for at least several years and the members in the division seem to look forward to them. Jim also reports the results to the division membership via his monthly division newsletter. IMHO this is the best way to keep the membership in ANY division informed as to what is going on in the division and at ARRL HQ.

Kudos to all three division directors who are doing the polling.

73
George
K3UD

[W3MIV]

Well, this first survey of three Divisions is history. We received a total of about 2,453 responses, which may be revised downward slightly if some of them prove erroneous (which, alas, has been the result of many who would not follow the very simple requirement to use the proper email address so it could be validated).

The overall response represents about fifteen percent of the targeted constituencies, which is an excellent participation total. What is most gratifying is that, in every instance, the final percentages were established very quickly in the early replies, and they remained within a couple of tenths of a percent as the total climbed. This speaks well for the reliability of the data we received.

All will be revealed sometime after the close of the ARRL Board meeting, probably in August. All of the Directors are now in transit (no, Gloria, that OTHER meaning) so nothing more will happen until all of the dust settles.

Thanks to one and who took the tiny bit of effort required to participate.

[N8CPA]

Yeah. It took me two tries. On the first, I used my normal email and the site required arrl.net. It took on the second try, though.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (N8CPA @ July 18 2007,07:43)]Yeah. #It took me two tries. #On the first, I used my normal email and the site required arrl.net. #It took on the second try, though.
The reason that was done, Steve, was to assure that each respondent was 1) licensed, 2) a member of the ARRL and 3) precisely who he or she purported to be and not a pirated or invented callsign. Without these safeguards, it would be impossible to defend the integrity of the data.

As it was, there were a few who tried using various email addresses in an effort to enter multiple responses. All were caught, and a single response was recorded for each such cheater. Those that could not be validated were rejected entirely.

[ky5u]

Would be interesting to know which way they were trying to stack the vote.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 18 2007,21:41)]Would be interesting to know which way they were trying to stack the vote.
Fortunately, there were only a couple that seemed to be intentional attempts to circumvent the validation and enter more than one response.

The non-validated responses are flagged -- they are bright red -- and if they do not meet the standards for verifiability they are deleted. I don't believe there was any attempt to determine their actual input.

As you no doubt assume, they were probably aiming at skewing the responses on the bandwidth petition, which I would agree would seem the most logical assumption. Fortunately (both for the fundamental ethics of the amateur community as well as integrity of the data) there were only a couple of scoundrels -- too few of them to make much difference even had they succeeded.

It would not seem to make much sense to try to "run up" any other categories that those few questions. But no record was kept of anything along those lines since that was not the purpose of the survey.

It has shown itself to be a very useful tool, but it requires far more work to manage than one might imagine.