[FADCA] Trip to Boston

[bud Thompson]

Subject changed from Re: [FADCA] Security guidelines

Saturday March 6

Dave - Thanks for the entre'.  Time for me to weigh in.

Yes - There is no question about my  lurking with so much to do -
post-Hamcation FADCA sec/treas stuff yet to complete - and home front
stuff.  Sally and I are over the house guest in late Jan and those
immediately following HamCation - now getting ready for a large crowd
at the end of March! I'm painting bedrooms that have not had fresh
paint for 12 years! Arrrghh!

* * *

I've been comfortable lurking as, like most others, I simply don't
have the stomach or time for  the bashing that went back and forth
earlier  - Seems the fadca e-mail server is dormant for about eight to
12 months - then someone offers something - and away we go! I've got
too much to accomplish with what little time I have to do more than
read then go back to more productive activities.

* * *

Now we have something I can sink my teeth in to - finding sites to
fill in the Layered Packet Network. This was one of the main
discussions at the FADCA meeting at HamCation.

Dave - not sure exactly what you mean about "supporting documents" -
but from a FADCA standpoint you can refer to the By-Laws on the
www.fadca.org website.  That would at least provide some support that
FADCA is an organization interested in ham radio digital stuff in the
State of Florida. You can also refer to the FADCA website - at least
it indicates some level of interest.  This would indicate a history of
digital activity going back perhaps more than 20 years.

I've been sec/treas of FADCA for ten years and don't recall and
cannot find any resolution/motion/action indicating FADCA, as an
organization, supports or promotes any specific mode,
protocol, or network.  We might see if John Green, WB4MOZ has any
recollection on that - he goes back further than I do.

Personally I believe FADCA should be more active, as an organization,
in promotional activities, but that is a topic for  another day.  One
of the  resolutions made at the FADCA meeting at HamCation is a start
in the right direction.

My spin is that there are several hams (not near enough) around the
state  who are also FADCA members- or otherwise associated - that
have, over the years, worked collectively to put the Layered Packet
Network together.  FADCA District Directors have generally been the
driving force in their districts - often with little help.  There has
been a lot of cooperation and coordination through interested hams,
many of  who have been FADCA members - but not under any specific
guidelines through FADCA.

While it has been generally piece-meal the network has been growing,
and it could all come together easily with (1) new LAN/Switch sites in
just the right places to fill
in, and (2) more reliable RF backbones between sites.  This was also
discussed in detail at the FADCA meeting last month and is mentioned
in the Power Point show.

>From a practical viewpoint, however, there are not sufficient funds,
human resources, or interest in solving the woes of the world in as
many ways as might be appropriate.  I am concerned about the possible
dilution of available human and financial resources in many Ham Radio
activities relative to EMCOMMs (which is my personal passion within
Ham Radio.)

If you need some 501.3c support - I have contacts with two local Ham
Groups that can supply that.  While the FADCA By-Laws reference
501.3c I can't find anything in the records I have that FADCA has,
in fact, 501.3c status.  (Here is another call upon John WB4MOZ for
his memory.)

If you think it would be advantageous to your pursuit for FADCA to
take a more official stand - we can certainly do that through the
normal process of having an appropriate proposal made, a following
discussion, and action/vote by the BOD.  A general proposal to make
FADCA look more engaged in support for the Layered Packet Network
would not be rocket science - or shouldn't be!

We don't need to wait for HamCation or another large HamFest.

Any membership meeting or BOD meeting may be 'conducted' via e-mail,
telephone, or other electronic means w/o the need for a physical
eye-ball to eye-ball meeting.  It is the prerogative of the BOD to
conduct business for FADA, but certainly inputs from members
should be considered - most start at the membership level.

* * * *
Now back to finding tower sites -

REFERENCE the map slides in the Power Point Show for Hamcation:

In my District  -5 - we have sites north of Orlando quite well
situated and only need fill in LANS/switch at Gainesville, Ocala, and
Lake County.

The 50 mile 9.6kb UHF link from DAB to St. Augustine (in District 7)
works quite well.  The 50 mile 9.6kb UHF link from Orlando to
Melbourne (in District 3) should work better than it does - I've just
not been back to the Orlando site since the install in May 2009.  I
plan to do that one of these days when I can find time. We need a site
in Lake County to link with DeLand or Orlando (both latter sites can
support an addition RF port.)  We don't  have anything linked to the
SW or West from Orlando into District 4. Some intermediate site with
sufficient elevation from Orlando SW down the I-4 corridor would be a
welcomed sight! While the Orlando LAN serves southward pretty good, we
also don't have full LAN coverage in  Osceolla County.

Phil Royce KE4PWE had some ideas regarding finding some sites around
the areas - we discussed that at the FADCA meeting as well.

Let me know how I can help.

73,

bud N0IA

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "D.Calder" <n4zkf at n4zkf.com>
To: "'Florida Amateur Digital Communication Association'"
<fadca at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 11:45
Subject: Re: [FADCA] Security guidelines


> Mr. N0IA lurking in the background. I need any supporting documents
> you think would help the cause
> and trip to Boston when you get time and don't have a houseful of
> guests.
>
> Dave
> n4zkf
>