[EIDXA] Fw: [PVRC] CAC Recommendations on Changing ARRL DX Contest Rules

Sat Jun 18 12:49:38 EDT 2011

Hi EIDXA,
I got this email from Brad K4RT and thought it might be of interest to the 
club.

73,
Glen

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <k4rt at usa.net>
To: <kesselring73 at gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: [PVRC] CAC Recommendations on Changing ARRL DX Contest Rules

Yes - the more people that know about this the more input the ARRL can
receive.

------ Original Message ------
Received: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 12:01:24 AM EDT
From: <kesselring73 at gmail.com>
To: <k4rt at usa.net>
Subject: Re: [PVRC] CAC Recommendations on Changing ARRL DX Contest Rules

Can I forward to EIDXA?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <k4rt at usa.net>
To: "Grant" <kesselg at yahoo.com>; "Glen Kesselring" <kesselring73 at gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 11:03 PM
Subject: Fwd: [PVRC] CAC Recommendations on Changing ARRL DX Contest Rules

Thought the email below, which was posted on the Potomac Valley Radio Club
listserv (it's lengthy) might be of interest if you participate in the ARRL
DX
Contest.  73, Brad  P.S. Got my inverted L for low bands up today; still
looking for a tower.

------ Original Message ------
Received: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:42:28 PM EDT
From: <donovanf at starpower.net>
To: pvrc at mailman.qth.net
Subject: [PVRC] CAC Recommendations on Changing ARRL DX Contest Rules

This is the text that was missing from Chet's email:

---- Original Message -----
From: <artw4aa at bellsouth.net>
To: "Florida Contest Group" <fcg at kkn.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:33 PM
Subject: [FCG] Fw: [FRC] CAC Recommendations on Changing ARRL DX
CONTESTRules
- Background and Other Info

This is forwarded with W2GD's permission.  73, Art/W4AA

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Crovelli" <w2gd at hotmail.com>> To: <gofrc at yahoogroups.com>
Cc: <w2re at hudsonvalleytowers.com>; <k3ww at fast.net>; "K9RS"
<k9rs at yahoo.com>; <dave.n3rd at verizon.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 9:22 PM
Subject: [FRC] CAC Recommendations on Changing ARRL DX CONTEST
Rules - Background and Other Info

Fellow FRCers

By now many if not most  FRCers have heard something about the
ARRL Contest Advisory Committee (CAC) being tasked to recommend
rule changes for the ARRL DX Contest.  Unfortunately its all
true, the ARRL Program Services Committee (PSC) earlier this year
directed the CAC to consider and propose rule changes geared
toward improving participation and popularity of its premier
international event.

Why is this happening?   After asking this question of several
CAC members (from ARRL Divisions inside and outside our club
area) the primary reason seems to be that the ARRL DX Contest is
now the third most popular DX contest.  In recent years the CQ
WPX has moved up to the  Number 2 spot and the ARRL DX has
perceptively slipped to Number 3 position in terms of overall
popularity.

In reality, the ARRL DX Contest is now and has always been the
TOP 'targeted' DX event (one where participants work stations in
only one country or region vs. everyone works everyone contests).
So one could well argue ARRL HQ has tasked the CAC to find ways
to restore the ARRL DX to a position that is impossible to
achieve, on an apples to apples compariosn basis.  It outwardly
appears this may be more a case of organizational 'envy' and
"politics" than anything else.  Of course we really don't know
since the actions of the ARRL, PSC, CAC, and ARRL Awards
Committee lack transparency....by design and tradition, their
activities are kept secret.  But regardless of the reasons behind
this, there is a real danger the CAC will recommend rule changes
ways most FRCers would not find desirable.

So we're all talking from the same page regarding the facts and
recent events, below is a brief summary of where we are today
based upon back channel and other sources.

1.  Within the past 3 weeks the CAC voted 10 to 2 to recommend
some form of  distance based scoring system for the ARRL DX
Contest.  This is clearly a fundamental and radical proposition
that will significantly impact  contest results, both
domestically and internationally if approved.  The precise way
such a scoring methodology will be implemented is still under
investigation by the CAC.  Reportedly they plan to back test
various scoring algorithms to determine potential impact in
comparison to prior results before getting more specific.  Just
FYI, the Stew Perry 160 contest is the only major international
event that presently uses some form of distance based scoring.

As a club, and individually, the FRC was not afforded an
opportunity to comment on this CAC recommendation.  It was
discovered CAC representatives covering our club territory (N2MG
in the Atlantic Div. K2ONP in the Hudson Div,, and WC1M in the NE
Div.) haven't made an effort to reach out to the FRC membershp
for input on this and other issues pending before the committee.
This lack of solicitation has since been pointed out to these
gentleman.  K2ONP has begun keeping K3WW, W2RE and I in the loop
and is asking for our opinions.  We have not heard from N2MG
despite several emails.  It should be noted the CAC, HQ Awards
Committee, and PSC historically have operated in virtual secrecy.

An article written by NS3T and posted Monday at
http://www.radio-sport.net/arrldx_rules.htm has blown the cover
of the ARRL and CAC on their current ARRL DX Contest rule
deliberations.   I couldn't find any discussion at all on the
various contesting reflectors on the subject.  Not sure if there
is some censorship going on - hope not.

There are several scoring algorithm choices, but regardless of
which is selected, the impact of distance based scoring will
unavoidably result in a re-arranging of the order of finish for
the top twenty or thirty competitors in all Single Op entry
classes, with a new advantage going to stations on the edge of
the black hole and further west, and a disadvantage (compared to
current rules) to entrants in eastern Canada, New England and the
Mid-Atlantic (for stations closer to EU).  Its likely a change in
scoring formula will delight US participants to our west, but
actual results of the contest probably won't change that much,
with the exception of ME and Maritime Canada which would bare the
brunt of this change.  On the DX side, distance based scoring
virtually assures victory to those operating from Northern Africa
in high sunspot years.  It's unlikely a Carib station will be
able to overcome the distance/points per Q advantage with contact
volume.

Right now it appears the CAC will pass along to the PSC a
recommendation for some form of distance based scoring.  It will
be up to the HQ Awards Committee and then the  Program Services
Committee (PSC) members to agree or disagree.  More on how the
rule change approval process works a little later.

2.  The CAC is now considering the question of operating time
limits for single op entries.   A few options have been discussed
and apparently as of this week, a movement to eliminate the
existing 48 hour time limit for single op entrants has ended.
But still on the table is consideration and possible creation of
a new Single Op entry class based upon some shorter time frame.
The CAC has discussed a number of options (24, 36, 40 and 44
hours), and someone on the PSC or at ARRL HQ has suggested a 24
hour option.  But apparently a proposal for a 24 hour class has
thus far seen little support from CAC members.>

Fortunately the CAC chairman WC1M has seen the light and now
understands the 'IRON MAN' 48 hour version of ARRL DX must be
retained.  Creating a new 24 or 36 hour category probably would
not change things that much, and might increase participation by
those entrants who cannot or do not want to commit to a full 48
hour effort.  What has not happened so far (as far as I can
determine) is CAC discussion about viable ways to increase DX
participation.

********************

Now that we all have the same info,  what should the FRC and
individual FRCers do to help shape the ARRL DX Contest debate and
prevent rule changes that are not desired or in our or the
contest community's best interests?

The FRC club officers and selected members of the Policy
Committee have been discussing the situation informally.  The
president is planning to call a Policy Committee meeting soon to
discuss this and other club business.  It is likely this body
will develop a position paper for submission to the CAC and other
decision-makers to ensure the FRC is 'on the record' with
specific recommendations and opinions.

It is important to understand the process in place that governs
how the ARRL makes contest rule changes.

It is not well known nor understood but the ARRL Contest Advisory
Committee cannot initiate rule changes nor discuss any subject
not approved by the PSC.  They can only act upon requests tasked
to them by the ARRL Programs and Services Committee (PSC).  The
PSC is a standing committee of the ARRL Board of Directors.  The
PSC has various duties under the ARRL ByLaws and members of the
PSC are all ARRL Directors appointed by the ARRL President.   The
present members of the PSC, appointed by former FRCer and current
ARRL President  Kay Craigie are Mr. Edgar, N3LLR (PSC Chair and
our Atlantic Division Director),  Mr. Cox, K5MC, Ms. Birmingham,
KA2ANF (CAC committee liasion and Hudson Division Director), Mr.
Fenstermaker, K9JF, Mr. Norton, N6AA, and Mr.Tiemstra, K6JAT.  As
you can see from the list there are at least two active
contesters (K9JF and N6AA) on the PSC.  Rule changes to major
ARRL operating events are approved by the full Board of Directors

In practice, contest rule changes recommended by the CAC must
first pass through the HQ Awards Committee for review, evaluation
and comment, and may be returned to the CAC for further
evaluation and changes, before reaching the PSC.  The HQ Awards
Committee is made up of six HQ staffers selected by the
Membership and Volunteer Programs Manager (currently Dave Patton,
NN1N).  Two of the members must be the DXCC and Contest Managers.
The names/calls of the other four Awards Committee members is
unpublished (my request this week to NN1N for the names of the
other HQ Awards Committee members was denied).  In all cases,
contest rule changes must have HQ Awards Committee approval
before they will be acted upon by the PSC.  Likewise the PSC must
approve rule changes before the full board votes.

As you can see the CAC has no charter of its own to implement
change.  They can only make recommendations on approved issues.
Any rule change request must also be agreed to by the HQ Awards
Committee and the Personal Services Committee before reaching the
ARRL BoD for approval.  In essence, there are several levels of
review before a rule change is approved, all of which offer
potential intervention points for direct contact and lobbying .
If the CAC does something radical and in our view harmful, there
are several levels beyond to make a case against their actions.
So the good news, CAC recommendations are rarely a done deal out
of the box.

Individual FRCers are encouraged to express their views directly
to ARRL officials.  Ranting on a reflector might make you feel
good, but your views count more when in the hands of those making
decisions.  One approach is to correspond with your CAC
representative and let him know your thoughts on the ARRL DX
Contest and how you would like to the contest scored and
administered.  Well thought out and logically presented ideas are
more likely to be given serious consideration when compared to
off the cuff, emotional arguements.

I suggest sending your comments to ARRL Division's CAC
representative, with copies to the CAC Chairman WC1M, to the CAC/
PSC liaison (presently KA2ANF), and finally be sure to send a
copy to your ARRL Director.

Keep watching the FRC reflector and other contesting news sources
for CAC updates.

73,

John Crovelli W2GD
VP, Frankford Radio Club

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

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