[ADXA] DXAC Meeting, Results

[Rory Bowers]

Hi Steve and the group,
The comments about making it easier to achieve Honor Roll through the
deletion of "inactive entities' I found interesting.  Many Honor Roll
holders worked very hard for the achievement and it would be sad to
diminish the importance and difficulty of their achievement.  But there is
also the question about the hordes of us DXCC holders who may never see
Honor Roll  accomplishment because of all of the inactive entities still on
the list.  I feel that the accomplishment of working the "very rare one" is
one of personal achievement.  Deleting the entity would have no effect on
how I would feel about having already worked it.
73,
Rory, K5CKS

On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 1:00 PM Steven Rutledge <crownhaven at bellsouth.net>
wrote:

> A DXAC meeting was held this past Sunday.  It was well attended.  These
> were the items put forth for discussion:
>
> 1) 4U1A county status
> 2) Balleny & Scott Island county status
> 3) VADXCC petition to suspend inactive countries
> (with possible consideration to reconsider honor roll threshold)
> 4) Return of RTTY only DXCC Award
> 5) Additional DXCC Award suggestions
> 6) Field "Card Checker" guidelines, rules adjustments considerations
> 7) Thoughts on DXCC 2025
>
> Regarding  1) and 2), under current DXCC rules, neither qualify for
> country status.
>
> Regarding 3) It was generally agreed that this was a bad idea.  BS7 was
> discussed but it was pointed out that it was declared a DXCC country under
> rules that existed at that time.  If we recommended that it be dropped,
> where does it end?
>
> Regarding 4)  There didn't seem to be much enthusiasm for a separate RTTY
> award.  Currently, RTTY is combined with the rest of the digital modes.
> Personally, I would not be against this, a Q on RTTY takes a lot more
> effort than an FT8 Q.
>
> Regarding 5)  There are over 20 DXCC awards.  It wasn't felt that adding
> additional awards would increase participation, cause an increase in
> membership or retention.
>
> Regarding 6)  We didn't touch that one.  I personally don't see a problem
> in my area with getting cards checked.  In any event, it isn't up to the
> DXAC to make changes to this program.
>
> Regarding 7)  The last review and changes to the DXCC program was DXCC
> 2000.  Is there need for a reevaluation of DXCC 2000?  Is the DXCC program
> healthy?  Can it be updated?  Are changes even needed?  We agreed further
> discussion was warranted.
>
> One member suggested that countries that had not been active for a period
> of years be put into suspended status to give newer operators a chance at
> the Honor Roll.  It was the ultimate feeling of the DXAC that the DXCC
> program should be not be diminished due to a minority of operators
> inability to achieve it.
>
> FT8 was also discussed.  It was pointed out that new, young hams are more
> interested in communicating via data than Phone or CW, the latter of which
> isn't even required for an amateur license anymore.
>
> I've tried to make this as brief as possible.  The meeting was 1.5 hours
> long and it would be impossible to recount all comments.
>
> If you have any questions or suggestions, please contact me.  And feel
> free to pass this along to any ops in Delta who are interested and might
> not be DXAC members.
> Steve Rutledge, N4JQQ, DXAC, Delta
> ______________________________________________________________
> ADXA mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/adxa
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:ADXA at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/adxa/attachments/20221010/2eb5d659/attachment-0001.html>