[ECAC] Next moves

Fri Jan 31 01:59:07 EST 2014

Dave and fomer members of the ECAC

Dave you stated, " I'm open to other approaches to this if someone has an 
idea"

So as I have suggusted in my other email, the NTS Chairs, NTSD Coordintors,
Al W3YVQ are all willing to work with you and the former members of the
ECAC to get to the number one goal of making a great document. The NTS
Chair's agree that there are some very good idea's in what the ECAC
submitted and I would agree as well, but there was also some things that the
ECAC still misunderstood at the end regarding the NTS and it's operation.

If you feel that there was some serious misstatements of fact working with
the NTS Chairs, NTSD Coordintors and Al W3YVQ  I'm sure working with
them would straight out what both sides are thinking and improve the 
document
vastly.

If we all just stick our heads in the sand and complain it dosen't do any 
good
for either side of the subject, amateur radio is all about working together 
and
how can you work out your indifference's if you don't talk to the people you
have a indifference with.

Thus I have given you a differant approach
.
73 Chuck W5KAV
ARRL Pacific Area Digital Coordinator NTSD

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Colter" <dbcolter at myfairpoint.net>
To: "'Jeff Ryan'" <k0rm at arrl.net>; <ecac at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: [ECAC] Next moves

> 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
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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 