[CW] numbers ?

[N2EY@aol.com]

In a message dated 3/29/04 2:02:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
scottamcmullen@yahoo.com writes:


> --- N2EY@aol.com wrote:
> > If you think the ARRL proposal is bad, check out the
> > NCVEC proposal. Has all the bad ideas of the ARRL
> > proposal plus some that are much, much worse. NCVEC
> > proposal is so bad it makes the ARRL one look good
> > by comparison.
> 
> i agree with this. i didn't like the arrl proposal 
> very much, but the ncvec's is worse.
> 
> what is somewhat maddening is that the ncvec seems
> to me to "pretend" to represent more than they in fact
> represent.

I agree 100%. 


> 
> they "ostensibly" represent the volunteer examiner
> coordinators, but i have a friend who is a w5yi ve,
> and they have *never* solicited his opinion on any
> of these matters. and the arrl has a policy of not
> permitting itself to be represented through another
> organization, so they, as a matter of policy, 
> abstain from voting on items like this at ncvec
> board meetings. so the ncvec, in effect, represent
> only non-arrl ve's. 

If that! As I understand it, the NCVEC proposal was crafted by a small 
committee (one guess who called tha shots in that committee) and then the VEC reps 
voted on it. The result was not unanimous or even close to unanimous, with or 
without ARRL. 

The important point is that, to my knolwedge,  those VEC reps are not elected 
by the VEs they supposedly represent. Nor are the VEs polled. 

At least ARRL has elected directors and they asked for member opinion. NCVEC 
didn't even go that far, and if the majority don;t like the NCVEC proposal, 
they cannot vote out the people who approved it. 


my guess is that most ve teams 
> 
> are arrl teams, so the ncvec *really* represents 
> -less- than half of all ve teams, yet they parade 
> about as if the represented all vecs.

Exactly. 


> 
> i know some people may dislike me for saying this;
> i think that quitting arrl will likely increase the 
> relative influence of non-representative,
> unaccountable organizations like the ncvec.
> 

There are actually *four* proposals now open for comment:

ARRL
NCVEC
"FAR" - a group of six hams who wrote a proposal
K4SX - proposes no change except raising the Extra code test to 13 wpm.


> at least in the arrl, you can participate in the
> elections for directors and section managers, and
> there is the expectation that directors are
> accountable to you.
> 

You can also run for a post yourself. 


--

Here's why I think the NCVEC proposal is much worse than ARRL's:

1) NCVEC proposes replacing rules questions on the entry level test with a 
signed statement that the ham-to-be has a copy of Part 97. They say the rules 
can't be tested effectively with their proposed 20 question test. I say that if 
the test is too small to test the regs, make it bigger! If *anyhting* needs to 
be tested, it's the rules and regs.

2) NCVEC proposes only manufactured gear or approved kits for entry level, 
and no more than 30 volt finals. 

3) NCVEC proposes even more narrowing of the CW/digital bands

Has anyone else read KL7CC's "Amateur Radio for the 21st Century" paper that 
outlined what the NCVEC proposal was going to be? If not, look it up and read 
it, and note carefully the tone of the paper. I wrote a detailed rebuttal and 
sent it to the NCVEC committee, but all I got was a thank you.

If anyone is interested I can post my commentary on it.

73 de Jim, N2EY


--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML
or had an attachment.  Attachments are not allowed.  To learn how
to post in Plain-Text go to: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html  ---