[ECAC] Next moves

Thu Jan 30 17:41:24 EST 2014

Hi Jeff,
Normally, I would agree that we should let it sit until we hear from the
P&SC. I have no problem with NTS submitting their own proposal, which they
did. It was written by Al W3YVQ. 

Their "analysis" of our report, apparently written by Rob Griffin N6YR from
NTS, is another matter entirely. It's full of serious misstatements of fact
and could have the effect of a "poison pen" letter. Our rebuttal response
would simply point out the errors of fact to re-level the playing field.

We know from feedback from certain P&SC members that it's already causing
confusion, and my own director is concerned it might result in nothing
happening at all. It's also problematic in that apparently not all the NTS
signatories saw the analysis paper, let alone approved its contents.

In addition, remember we decided as a group back at the beginning that we
would follow up after submission and try to shepherd it along to help
prevent it dying on the vine as did previous proposals. That suggestion came
from Dave Sumner and was supported by others. If we can deal with this issue
sooner than later, perhaps the process will be able to move forward as
hoped.

That said, I'm open to other approaches to this if someone has an idea.

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 Jeff Ryan
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 3:07 PM
To: ecac at qth.net
Subject: Re: [ECAC] Next moves

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 

______________________________________________________________
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

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2247 / Virus Database: 3684/6545 - Release Date: 01/30/14