View Full Version : How I Won the Protocol Wars
N5PVL
08-24-2004, 11:54 AM
Quote[/b] ] Note that this article was originally published as part of my weblog, located HERE. (http://www.hamblog.com/blog_n5pvl.php)
Protocol Warrior behavior:
Character flaw common among digital ham radio enthusiasts, where consideration of a pet product, project, paradigm, or protocol looms larger in their thoughts and motivation than any consideration of the amateur radio service itself, or for their fellow hams.
A protocol warrior is full of certainty that his way, and only his way is worthy of consideration. Hams who do something different are ( ignorant, luddites, lids, troublemakers, ) etc., and so are not worthy of everyday decency, consideration, or cooperation.
To a protocol warrior, it is "OK" to undercut or marginalize their fellow hams, as long as those hams are doing something different. Since they use a "competing" product, project, paradigm, or protocol, then they are the "competition", worthy only of hostility.
More than once, I have heard protocol warriors professing a craven, shameless eagerness for ham radio's "old guard" to pass away. - Where ignorance marries arrogance, there you find a protocol warrior.
This, instead of their treating their fellow hams with the respect, consideration and amity that has marked this hobby since its beginning.
Obviously this attitude has no place in Ham Radio - but it has found a way into the hobby anyway, and does not appear to be going away on it's own. Many digital enthusiasts remember packet radio's protocol wars as a note of discord within the hobby from a decade or more ago, not realizing that this problem is still with us today.
Just as it was a decade ago, the protocol wars stunt the progress that would otherwise be possible with digital amateur radio. Protocol Warrior attitudes have brought digital ham radio in the US to a virtual standstill, making it almost impossible to evaluate and apply new technology as it becomes available.
Many hams criticize the ARRL for not taking a lead in developing a digital ham radio network in the US. - They criticize because they do not understand that almost every digital proposal the ARRL gets is put forward as a "hatchet job" on other methods that are proposed or that are already in use by many hams. Everybody seems to want their pet product, project, paradigm, or protocol to be given top consideration, at everything and everybody else's expense.
TAPR's IP Only promotion that they had going through Steve Stroh's column in CQ magazine a few years ago is an example of shameless protocol warrior behavior. Literally every digital enthusiast who did not care for amateur tcpip ( the great majority ) were instantly marginalized and left out by this program.
This organization that sees nothing wrong with policy that excludes the great majority of hams is looked to for leadership in digital amateur radio.
A recent proposal to the ARRL concerning ARES emergency communications had three of the big wheels from SCS communications "packed" into the committee. SCS is the German company that manufactures the $1,000 PACTOR III modems that take up fifteen PSK31 QSO's worth of bandwidth... Want to guess what modem and protocol their proposal requires for the national emergency communications network?
I have communicated with this group and they have no interest whatsoever in working with anybody doing anything even slightly different. To them, cooperation with other hams would be a waste of time. Unprofitable too, I am sure.
It's precisely this "My way or the Highway" attitude that has made it almost impossible for the ARRL to act upon the great majority of the proposals they get. - Most of them are loaded up with this same combination of ignorance and arrogance, the kind associated with protocol warrior behavior.
Whatever finally is proposed, good or bad, is immediately attacked. In fact, it is almost impossible to discuss packet radio networking anywhere without being attacked by protocol warriors. It is no different in the ARRL's board room, which goes far in explaining the ARRL's general lack of progress with digital ham radio.
This is a primary malaise of amateur packet radio in the USA. - Protocol Warrior behavior.
How I Won the Protocol Wars
Perhaps because I am an old hand at digital amateur radio and can remember how friendly and inclusive packet radio was before the protocol wars, I have taken an interest in this problem.
Packet radio used to fit in with ham radio a lot better than it does today. It used to be mainstream, but now most really decent hams avoid packet - because of the intolerant, often nasty "protocol warrior" behavior that is so widely associated with amateur packet radio today. Nobody wants discord and disharmony, or to be run down because of the equipment or software they use.
My first clue in getting past this problem was that in discussions and arguements with Protocol Warrior types, they were always outraged at my unfairness if I brought up the idea of considering their fellow hams. They reacted this way almost every time... This response was so out of whack with everything I have ever known about ham radio that I immediately recognized this as their central weakness, their blind spot; the hole in their internal logic.
Perhaps the most outrageously anti-ham aspect of protocol warrior thinking, I discovered, was the recurring theme of the "protocol" somehow being held in higher consideration than people, ( fellow hams ) especially when those people use a "competing" protocol. The idea of cooperation with "Joe Ham" was just too repugnant to consider. If you are not of the alleged "elite", then you are out.
Over and over, I saw a lack of respect for their fellow hams, a cynical attitude about the hobby, and a basic inability to play well with others as outstanding characteristics of the protocol warrior. This told me that a good counter-attitude would be to respect hams, and the hobby that brings them together to work and play.
As a packet networker, this implied to me that the emphasis on products, projects, paradigm, and protocol was misplaced. - That the most important network component was it's people, and that people who had built working, usable network used and enjoyed by average hams were the real experts in the art of packet radio.
I quit looking at what equipment a digital group was using, or what protocol they were using, and instead looked for the results they were obtaining. I started looking for people who had discovered how to play well with others because every time I found that, I also found impressive accomplishment, no matter what kind of equipment they used.
This blog is getting long, and I believe my main points have been made, so now I will invite you to look over the NETWORK page at USPacket, to see the kind of expertise that matters in the amateur packet radio world today. - The kind that we need more of, just as we need less of the kind of thinking that drives the "protocol warrior" in us all.
USPacket.org (http://www.uspacket.org)
Charles Brabham, #N5PVL # #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
Director: USPacket
http://www.uspacket.org
n5pvl@uspacket.org
W3MIV
08-24-2004, 05:23 PM
After mulling it over, I simply cannot let this topic drift away unmentioned.
It seems to me that this entire post is nothing short of the kind of "protocol warrior" humbug that the esteemed poster decries.
Is not packet a mode deader than poor Yorick on most HF activities in the US?
Are not Pactor II and Pactor III, pricey as they are, vastly more efficacious in moving information without error in a minimum of time over HF?
Are not those who condemn the Tusconians guilty of the same kinds of attempts at the same sorts of, shall we say, "mode cleansing"?
Is not Clover, rarer now than virtue in the Clinton hacienda, not vastly less hoggish of bandwidth than packet?
This post is not the first attempt to raise Lazarus, and I doubt it will be the last, but I have to support the decision to promote WL2K and Pactor x over packet when the messages are important.
I love plinking with my .22; but when there's work to be done, it's the ol' trusty 1911 that I reach for. Sometimes, size DOES matter; goes for cost, too.
Flame away, folks. I am wearing my tinfoil jock strap.
The article paraphrased is:
I use Packet and I'm getting a little tired of being put down by those punks using modern modes. #If I am as productive then don't pee on my shoes!
....which is simular to another argument that goes...
I use CW and I'm getting tired of being put down by those "gimme" punks using modern digital modes. #If I can get through with a message, then don't pee on my shoes!
Many months ago I made the argument that if CW goes today, then other modes (including SSB) go next to make room for the modern digital modes on HF. #The "Protocal Warrior" is but another name for the "Change Warrior". #He's the goob armed with nothing but contempt for anything traditional or not trendy....it has to be new, cool, happening! #The Protocol/Change Warrior speaks in absolutes so there can be no argument, and none is tolerated.
When you said that it was about "people" not "protocol", Charles, you were indeed right. # What is it about the traditional modes that really BOTHERS the "Protocol/Change Warrior"? #Could it be something as simple as the "Warrior" is not the center of attention? #Could it be that faced with the work necessary to be accepted by traditional Amateurs, the "warrior" would rather start his/her own religion with the "warrior" self elected as Queen? #
It gets down to people who are too lazy to address every issue and make decisions. #It's easier to "decree" that your side is cool and the other side are a bunch of dummies. #LOL. You get statements like: #"Cool people use Protocol XYZ and those that don't are neanderthal grunts" which is the same as "Bottom line, change happens, even in the Amateur Service... if you don't like it, sell your rig and go live in a cave where nothing will ever change".
W3MIV
08-24-2004, 09:36 PM
As usual, Charlie, you make good points.
Where I differ is when the commo is important—ARES, RACES, MARS, whatever—and the vagaries of HF working its charms on packet could result in failure. I think the issues buzzing around this whole WL2K/Pactor II/III circus need to keep that in perspective.
And CW is not going to go away. It may well be joined by other narrow-bandwidth modes like PSK31, MFSK16, etc, but it will live on long after we are dead and forgotten.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
N5PVL
08-24-2004, 09:39 PM
Quote[/b] ]The "Protocal Warrior" is but another name for the "Change Warrior". #
Not really.
Plenty of hams, the great majority in fact manage to utilize new modes without using it as an excuse for sub-ham behavior.
My experience has been that your "change warriors" are fighting against change, not for it.
The handle "protocol warrior" fits them best, as their ignorant actions do more to stagnate digital ham radio than anything else. I thought the article made that clear.
Quote[/b] ]I use Packet and I'm getting a little tired of being put down by those punks using modern modes. #If I am as productive then don't pee on my shoes!
Hardly...
I do a good deal of on-the-air experimenting with the newer digital modes. Check my bio info here at QRZ or at E-Ham.
It doesn't really matter to me what product, project, paradigm, or protocol the person displays ignorant, arrogant "protocol warrior" behavior in relation to. One excuse to act like a jerk is just as bad as another, eh?
Most "protocol warriors" have tunnel-vision, and so are amazingly ignorant about what other hams do. - It's common for them to excitedly suggest a "new idea" that has been in regular use for decades. We are not talking about the brightest lights in the chandelier, here, or about people with any broad knowlegability about the hobby.
There is no good reason for amateurs to behave the way I have outlined in the article above. It is common behavior only because it hasn't been discussed very much so far, only tolerated.
Once it gets dragged out where everybody knows what it is and what it does, we will begin to see a reduced incidence of "protocol warrior" behavior.
Putting a name and a definition on it is a good first step in dealing with it.
I don't expect to see much arguement in favor of ignorant, arrogant behavior... I few lame-o attempts may be made, but for the most part those folks will serve to unwittingly illustrate my point much better than their own.
Charles, #N5PVL
K7JBQ
08-24-2004, 09:43 PM
Another good thing about CW: No protocol needed. No TNC either. No sound board. No silly arguments.
Uh, strike that last one.
73,
Bill
Quote[/b] ]MIV: Where I differ is when the commo is important—ARES, RACES, MARS, whatever—and the vagaries of HF working its charms on packet could result in failure. I think the issues buzzing around this whole WL2K/Pactor II/III circus need to keep that in perspective.
But you would agree that this is a thoughtful process where pros and cons are weighed and compromses met to keep as many people happy as possible, right? #Or is this where one group comes in, declares itself God and wants all creatures to bow in worship?
PVL,
I think you missed the context of "change warrior". #You also missed the two opening statements about "peeing on shoes" as how your opponents would view your remarks. #Your ideas were pretty well thought out and I agree with what you said. #I merely add that the profile of a "protocol warrior" fits other aspects of life, love, computers, Amateur Radio. #Examples:
1. Proponents of blind change in Amateur Radio to get their "way" (aka "Change Warrior")
2. Proponents of different Computers (Mac vs IBM for example).
3. Unix versus the world.
4. "c" versus other languages of it's age
5. Perl versus the world
6. Democrats versus whomever.....
7. Religious nuts versus "satan" (us).
8. Wastoid lifestyle versus the suits
9. Abortion/Right to Life
Get it?
W3MIV
08-24-2004, 11:27 PM
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Aug. 24 2004,18:09)]Quote[/b] ]MIV: Where I differ is when the commo is important—ARES, RACES, MARS, whatever—and the vagaries of HF working its charms on packet could result in failure. I think the issues buzzing around this whole WL2K/Pactor II/III circus need to keep that in perspective.
But you would agree that this is a thoughtful process where pros and cons are weighed and compromses met to keep as many people happy as possible, right? #
I do, indeed, agree.
Too often, however, regardless of issue or merit, honest motives are harshly impugned by short-sighted visionaries hawking pet modes/ideas/philosophies/causes.
There is always more than one way to skin a cat. There is, however, also a BEST way to skin the critter depending on whether you seek the meat or the hide.
Too few of the protagonists are interested in the other guy's merits.
MIV,
I agree 100% too. #To debate an issue and to invest thought in trying to determine what is best is what we should all do. #To try to change things while remembering the people involved is a noble goal as well.
To propose mindless change as something we "must do" just because it is change (and we all know that change is good right?)....is dumb and lazy.
This sounds like what went on during the the early days of FM repeaters!
Anyone have any estimates as to how many hams are regular users of digital modes, and what the installed base is compared to the installed base of SSB/CW/FM stations?
73
George
K3UD
W3MIV
08-25-2004, 01:43 PM
G:
Judging from the PSK31 QSOs I am seeing on 20m, it is a fairly large number of folks. What surprised me is the number of OFs who have leapt onto the PSK wagon.
I am anxious to investigate Q15x25 (think I got that moniker right) but have come across anyone using it. It uses far more bandwidth than PSK31, of course, but (from what I have read) may be far more robust than HF packet or even Pactor I.
I listen in on PSK from time to time and I found that it is almost like an internet chatroom. It looked like many of the stations were sending pre-formatted text docs with almost every contact with reletively little actual conversation going on. However, it does move data rather well.
73
George
k3UD
W3MIV
08-25-2004, 04:33 PM
Quote[/b] (K3UD @ Aug. 25 2004,11:16)]...it is almost like an internet chatroom...
I think that is a good description of the way many folks are using it -- kind of like a hybrid of RTTY and MS Messenger over the air.
The software (I prefer MixW to the others I have assayed) employs macros that can be tailored to call a CQ, send an info or a brag file, and end a QSO with little more intervention than pressing a function key. You are not, however, limited to such use any more than one is limited to the kinds of "wham-bam-thankyew-ma'am" QSOs one hears on SSB or CW, especially in contests or DX collection.
I had a pleasant rag-chew with a fellow from Texas the other day that only cut short because it was dinner time and I had to feed the troops.
Like any other mode of operation, it is what you make of it. It is not as robust as CW, by any means, but it is surprsingly capable of holding up through lots of HF sturm und drang.
Give it a try, the software is free (mostly) and you may find you like it.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
N5PVL
08-25-2004, 05:15 PM
W3MIV said:
Quote[/b] ]
I am anxious to investigate Q15x25 (think I got that moniker right) but have come across anyone using it. It uses far more bandwidth than PSK31, of course, but (from what I have read) may be far more robust than HF packet or even Pactor I.
I am familiar with Q15x25 mode. It uses 15 PSK streams at @ 88.3 baud each, adding up to an effective 2500 baud - hence the name Q15x25.
You can run it with MIXW, or Flex32, and I believe there is a Linux version.
Q15x25 acts just like packet. It is a connected mode, with good error correction.
In fact, the Flex32 setup can be used to create a Q15x25/Packet gateway. I did that, hooked up a serial link to a BBS computer, and hey presto! - The first ( and still only ) Q15x25 BBS station! It could just have easily been a DX cluster, or my personal keyboard of course. Any Packet application would work with it, through the gateway.
Q15x25 is the same width as PACTOR III.
In use, it is very fast under excellent propagation, but no faster than 300 baud packet when the band gets a little noisy. - The mode is not "robust" on HF. - If the band is really noisy, it doesn't work as well as HF Packet.
Q15x25 enthusiasts use it to swap jpeg images with error correction.
I found it to be kinda marginal on HF, especially when you consider how much spectrum it takes up.
Read the early entries in the Q15x25 Yahoo group, and you'll hear stories about how hard it is to find a clear spot on any active band that is that wide. I ran across the same thing.
Where I got the best use out of Q15x25 mode was on VHF - over the local FM voice repeater !
Q15x25 tends to long "PACLEN" for lack of a better word, and if you bump the TXDelay up to 600ms -- 1 second or so, it works very well indeed over a voice repeater. The long PACLEN makes up for the long TXD, giving you a reasonably efficient setup.
This gives you 2500 baud digital capability over just about any voice repeater.
Digital capability over a voice repeater has obvious e-comm applications - but my favorite thing is how it trains hams in using mixed-modes. ( Voice and Digital together. )
When Voice goes digital, it will all ( Packet and Voice ) be on one server anyway. - Q15x25 gives you a chance to practice mixed-mode operation on a plain old analog repeater right now.
A new wide soundcard mode more robust than Q15x25 is currently in the works. That's about all I can say about it right now, though. It's not my project.
Charles, N5PVL
W3MIV
08-25-2004, 06:37 PM
Thanks for the heads up, Charles.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
N5PVL
08-26-2004, 01:16 PM
W3MIV:
Don't let me discourage you from playing with Q15x25 mode.
I was just rattling off what I had found out about it, which is limited to a few experiments I did on 20 and 30 meters, along with the VHF stuff I mentioned.
It may be that Q15x25 is well suited to ten meters, due to 10m's on/off nature. When 10m is working, it usually works very well. Propagation there is more VHF-like, so it stands to reason that Q15x25 would perform much better there than on the lower bands. - The same would apply to six meters, only more so.
The Q15x25 guys mentioned working it on 15 meters, which I never did look into at all.
I never tried to run IP over Q15x25 either, though I do not see any reason why you couldn't. ( I think that IP on HF was one of the original goals in Q15x25's development.)
Anyway, the point is that Q15x25 has been looked at, but not thoroughly. The more hams who play with it, the more we will find out about it, the way I see at it. Don't let me discourage you from playing with this mode... It's fun!
Charles, N5PVL
W3MIV
08-26-2004, 02:31 PM
Thanks for the consideration, Charles, but I am not easily run off by other folks' modal assays, however worthwhile or accurate. I will 'spearmint and bloody my own nose an embarrassing number of times before declaring it a bust.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
n1zzz
08-27-2004, 10:29 PM
I have worked on nearly all of the digital modes out there on HF, and each have their strengths and weaknesses.
I think the mode wars stem from the fact that ham radio operators are as interested in the process of moving information as the information itself. This is a good thing, because otherwise we would have turned off the rig and picked up the phone, or turned on the internet years ago.
In daily operations, people should use whatever mode they enjoy using, while keeping with the Amatuer's code. It matters little if two people want to chat on CW or Q15X25, as long as they are enjoying themselves.
When emergency communications is the issue of the day, things need to change. In such times, we facilitate communications. The served agencies care little of what mode, or how it works; they want their traffic passed as quickly and as accurately as possible. This is where the "mode wars" can get in the way of our ability to provide service.
On the HF digital network front, there are currently 3 modes used: HF Packet, Pactor, and a spattering of Clover. I have used all three modes to access BBS' and Pactor knocks the socks of the other two in both robustness and data transfer rate.
The ARRL was looking to see what systems are available, and which one can best serve the needs of the people we want to work for. From that data, they made a decision. It may be unfortunate that the HF data system they chose required a pactor modem, and a very expensive pactor modem for the best connections, but there wasn't anything else out there at the time that could compare. If something (mode or network) comes along that is better, I am sure that the ARRL will look into it.
So in the end, when it comes to rag chewing, play with whatever mode floats your boat, but when it comes to Ecomm, use the most efficent mode possible for the application.
73
Jeremy N1ZZZ
N5PVL
08-27-2004, 11:50 PM
Jeremy N1ZZZ says:
Quote[/b] ]
So in the end, when it comes to rag chewing, play with whatever mode floats your boat, but when it comes to Ecomm, use the most efficent mode possible for the application.
Nobody is proposing a PACTOR III network.
This Winlink2000 group does not propose to use PACTOR III for emergency communications. Instead, they propose to use the Internet for the bulk of thier emergency communications, and only operate the Winlink 2000 equipment in those rare cases where the Internet cannot do the job. #- This is one of the many stories this group hands out, depending on who is talking to them, and what is being discussed.
If you point out the fact that nobody in their right mind would spend 1000 bux on a controller that only gets used 'if the Internet can't do the job", why then you get another story.
They've got a million of them.
Another story I got from them was that the number of PACTOR III stations we can set up and use daily is only limited by the amount of grant money our group can finagle. - Laws of physics and responsible spectrum management be damned!
Another story was that anybody could use PACTOR I #to access the new system.
Another story is that only PACTOR III will be accepted, posting logic similar to what you just presented.
It all depends on who is asking what, where. These folks are really "nuanced".
I assume that these people have good reason to want to obfuscate about what they are doing - bandwidth wise. - Whatever that may or may not be.
This is why the PACTOR III deal and the bandwidth - proposal are joined together at the waist. - To confuse hams as to what these people are trying to pull.
I've seen legitimate outfits operate - and I've seen scam artists. My take on this is that the Winlink2000 / bandwidth group has a scam artist or two in the woodpile.
The entire thing should be set aside until it can all be clarified and discussed. Two or three weeks to discuss a matter like this is ridiculous.
The parts of the proposal that involve packet radio and networking digital ham radio on HF were done without consulting any of the recognized experts in this area... Instead, folks from TAPR who have a "protocol war" axe to grind against the HF digital network was "allowed" to make these descisions for all of us.
It amazes me how the ARRL will consult anybody EXCEPT the people who do digtal ham radio on HF, when developing policy about digital ham radio on HF.
Like I said in the article "How I won the Protocol Wars", it's not the equipment... It's the people that matter most.
My feeling about this is that here we are, witnessing the corruption that the DHS grant money is already bringing down upon this noble hobby.
That's why it's suddenty "OK" to marginalize large numbers of hams, dictate what mode hams must use, etc. and so on. - Stuff that would never have been even suggested just a few years ago.
Another victory for the terrorists.
Charles, #N5PVL
N5PVL
08-30-2004, 05:40 AM
ARRL Ad-Hoc Digital Committee: #Protocol Warriors, all.
Remember the "bandar-log" from the jungle book tales?
"We are the wisest - We all say so, so it must be true!"
Charles, N5PVL
Methinks that we are seeing the true, underlying premise of N5PVL's post. I sense, by the reading of his post, that he feels that folks who are in the know of modern digital techniques in ham radio were/are ignored nad not consulted.
He also feels/believes that the group who proposed the W2LINK system has become spin-meisters who have 'answers to all questions' and he finds this to be a problem.
It SEEMS as if he is miffed or upset that he was not part of consulted group.
IT MAY not be accurate. .but that is the tone and sense I pick up when reading his post.
I am NOT involved with digital groups, have ZERO connection with W2LINK or anything they are deciding. I am just noting what I see coming through his post.
He may not mean that. but that's the intent and sense that comes through, to me, who is simply one of 'the masses' of people who are NOT 'in the inner sanctum sanctorum' of the digitial issues.
I'm NOT picking on N5PVL.. I'm only pointing out what may color or confuse folks who attempt to glean some valueable info from the prior posts.
K3FT
N5PVL said.
(excerpted sections noted)
....."This is one of the many stories this group hands out, depending on who is talking to them, and what is being discussed."
"..They've got a million of them..."
"...It all depends on who is asking what, where. These folks are really "nuanced"."
"I assume that these people have good reason to want to obfuscate about what they are doing - bandwidth wise. - Whatever that may or may not be.
This is why the PACTOR III deal and the bandwidth - proposal are joined together at the waist. - To confuse hams as to what these people are trying to pull.
I've seen legitimate outfits operate - and I've seen scam artists. My take on this is that the Winlink2000 / bandwidth group has a scam artist or two in the woodpile."
The entire thing should be set aside until it can all be clarified and discussed. Two or three weeks to discuss a matter like this is ridiculous.
The parts of the proposal that involve packet radio and networking digital ham radio on HF were done without consulting any of the recognized experts in this area... Instead, folks from TAPR who have a "protocol war" axe to grind against the HF digital network was "allowed" to make these descisions for all of us.
It amazes me how the ARRL will consult anybody EXCEPT the people who do digtal ham radio on HF, when developing policy about digital ham radio on HF.
My feeling about this is that here we are, witnessing the corruption that the DHS grant money is already bringing down upon this noble hobby.
Another victory for the terrorists.
Charles, N5PVL
Blackmail can be the only reason for some of the goings on. What else would be the reason for new open bandwidth allocation that seeks to kill off older operations. Sound open to you? Personally, I think some of the AD-Hoc Committee members must have a picture of some of the ARRL Board leaving a motel with floozies or something.
W3MIV
08-30-2004, 04:21 PM
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Aug. 30 2004,12:03)]...a picture of some of the ARRL Board leaving a motel with floozies....
Worse. It was Janet Reno.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
N5PVL
08-31-2004, 02:11 AM
K3FT went back looking at my old posts, trying to find some kind of sense in all that stuff.
He missed quite a bit, but most of his asessments on what he did get were pretty good, I thought.
There were a couple of assessments that did not ring true though:
Quote[/b] ]He also feels/believes that the group who proposed the W2LINK system has become spin-meisters who have 'answers to all questions' and he finds this to be a problem.
This would be better put as:
"He also feels/believes that the group who proposed the W2LINK system are primarily spin-meisters, and he finds this to be a problem."
The other instance:
Quote[/b] ]It SEEMS as if he is miffed or upset that he was not part of consulted group.
That is how it seems to you, which is pretty hard to argue with. It seems - the way it seems, eh?
For the record though, I am very happy that I am not part of the Ad-Hoc Digital Committee, as it stands today.
If I were, I'd be associated with the kind of thinking that put the US Packet network down in the late 1980's, and which has kept it down since.
I think I'll just pass on that one! I'm not one to run in cliques anyway.
Even if they put together a new group with people who were actually qualified to judge such matters, that would still leave me out, I afraid. I am unable to travel, and right off of the top of my head, I can think of a number of hams that I would much rather see in there than myself.
With a really decent digital committee though, I could do some good by making occasional proposals, or by acting as a troubleshooter outside of the committee.
Go back to the original post about "protocol warriors" and read the definition there - That is what I see in the ARRL's AD-Hoc Digital Committee as it has stood for over a decade now.
The one I really feel sorry for right now is Jim Haynie, the president of the ARRL. All of these people are asking him questions about the reasoning behind the new proposals and when he asks the AHDC how to answer those questions, they blow smoke at him. - Then he goes back with no worthwhile answers to offer. GIGO. - And it's really not Jim Haynie's fault.
Who else has he got to consult?
Charles, #N5PVL