[ECAC] Next moves

[Jeff Ryan]

All: 

Last I knew, the ECAC report was accepted with thanks. I'm uncertain as to the immediate need for a supplementary submission because we feel the NTS 'rebuttal' submission to be incorrect. We stand by our report as submitted. Period. We should not get into an argument over the merits of a document that was not submitted by the ECAC. Everyone understands that there was dissent within the committee--- such dissent is normal, expected and does not require further comment. Just like a Supreme Court decision--- the minority is free to publish a report but that doesn't alter the validity of the majority report-- nor does the Court ever update, amend or further justify its decision based on comments in a minority report. 

If a member of the PSC or the board cares to ask specific questions they are free to do so but I would caution against mounting a defense lest onlookers get the impression that ECAC members believe we need to mount a defense where none is necessary-- casting doubt about our belief in our own report and adding fuel to the "ARES versus NTS will never understand each other" debate. 

Again: We stand by our report. Period. 

Please let me know if I've missed something. 

73, 

Jeff Ryan, K0RM 
Rocky Mountain Division 



----- Original Message -----

From: "Dave Colter" <dbcolter at myfairpoint.net> 
To: ecac at qth.net 
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 11:26:12 AM 
Subject: Re: [ECAC] Next moves 

I'd like others to fact check the rebuttal to make sure my memory is correct 
(often doubtful of late!), and then we can tweak it and send it off to P&SC. 
I'd also like to find out who received their proposal and the analysis to 
make sure everyone gets our side of the story. 



Beyond that, I think we should: 

1) Develop a brief document contrasting the two proposals and their goals 
and approach. 

2) Talk to our Directors, and start talking about this with as many people 
in as many forums as possible, asking them to contact their own directors. 



Obviously, if anyone has other ideas or suggestions, let 'em fly. That's why 
we have this email group. 



I think what we don't want (or need) to do is attack the NTS proposal in the 
factually challenged way their "analysis" paper did ours. Our proposal is 
strong enough that we can keep it 100% factual and objective and do just 
fine. 



As an aside, it appears that at least one key NTS staffer whose name was 
signed to their analysis of our proposal never saw it, before or after it 
was sent out. I have wonder how many other "signers" didn't see it. Chuck, 
perhaps you can answer that one. 



Regards, 

Dave Colter, WA1ZCN 

ASEC - Operations, Training 

State EOC Team 

NH-ARES 

www.nh-ares.org 

603-763-4976, option 1 



Vice Chairman 

ARRL Emergency Communications Advisory Committee 

New England Division Representative 

. 



-----Original Message----- 
From: ecac-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:ecac-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On 
Behalf Of John J. McDonough 
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 11:43 AM 
To: ecac at mailman.qth.net 
Subject: Re: [ECAC] Attempt #2 - NTS proposal and commentary 



So, what is our next move? 



73 de WB8RCR 



______________________________________________________________ 
ECAC mailing list 
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/ecac 
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm 
Post: mailto:ECAC at mailman.qth.net 

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net 
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html