[Lowfer] Future of LWCA (Long)
Brian Helms
[email protected]
Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:59:13 -0500
I'll break the ice on this post as I feel that it should be discussed. This
is not a personal criticism of this post nor is it an approval. Just what I
think straight out. Comments below.
----- Original Message -----
From: Les Rayburn <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 1:28 PM
Subject: [Lowfer] Future of LWCA (Long)
>
> After reading John Davis's comments in the February issue of the Lowdown,
> I'd like to clarify a few points, and ask for comments by other members of
> this list both LWCA members and non-members:
>
> DISCLAIMER+ None of this should be viewed as negative comments towards
> John Davis, Bill Oliver, or other tireless individuals who give so much to
> this
> hobby. Hopefully we can all agree or disagree without damage to personal
> relationships. Here goes:
>
> 1. I disagree with John that this list is not the appropriate place to
discuss
> the future of the LWCA. As a member, I'm very interested in hearing from
> anyone with an interest in longwave who is not a member.
I feel this is as good a place as any as long as the conversation stays
civil.
> Do they feel that the LWCA does not serve their interests? Is the content
in
> the Lowdown not meaningful to them? Why? If we want to see the club
> continue to grow and survive, these are key questions.
The only reason that I have not joined is out of pure laziness. I feel that
this group represents what I like to do in radio more than any other out
there. The few issues of the Lowdown of Dex's that I have thumbed through I
found to be very informative. It is the only publication of it's kind that
I know of.
> 2. John mentions a survey where the vast majority of the LWCA membership
> wants the Lowdown to remain a print only publication. I don't recall
seeing the
> results of this survey published anywhere. Can they please be made
available?
I'm sure there are no secret plots to alter the survey information just to
keep the publication printed. If I were a member I would sure vote for it
to stay a printed publication just so I would have information on paper and
read it without having it on a monitor. It's worked this long why change
it. Some people still do not have computers or do not want to mess with
them. I work on them 8 hours a day and I don't like to see one at all off
hours but have to keep up with e-mail.
>
> The same survey is said to reveal that members do not wish the LWCA to
> become a more political organization representing the wishes of it's
membership
> to other bodies like the FCC, ARRL, etc. Again, I'd love to read these
> comments.
Be careful here. I am anti big group all the way. Bad experiences in local
radio club and in other groups made me that way. Organization could
threaten the very existence that we enjoy today. Smart management would be
key to becoming organized. However we have to stop and make sure that our
cause in becoming a "political organization" is worth the possible ill
effects that this could bring on the group.
> How many members responded? How does that number compare with the total
> membership of the club?
> 3. John mentions that Bill Olivers is "looking into" using a service like
> PayPal
> to accept membership dues. A Paypal account can be opened in minutes...
> so I don't understand what there is to "look into". Either we're moving
forward
> towards the 21st century model or we are not.
We are not all Paypal experts. I have never messed with it and probably
never will. Dex tells me that they send you a notice with your last copy of
the lowdown to pay up. This is very simple and is obviously effective so
why change it. This is not going to threaten the existence I hope.
> If we make it easier to join and/or renew, we'll have more resources to
serve
> the needs of the membership. Lots of clubs are already using Paypal or
> similar services. Lots of shareware programmers too.
What kind of needs of the membership? Why not just send a payment by mail?
I don't think that this is a critical issue.(just my opinion)
> 4. John mentions the LWCA relationship with AMRAD. I've been very critical
of
> AMRAD's contributions to the longwave spectrum and point to them as
> the best example of what we can expect from amateur radio involvement
> in LF, unless the "lowfer" community is involved in those efforts.
>
> Basically, a lot of "reinventing the wheel". To me this is the best
> argument as to
> why the LWCA needs to become more active in it's relationship with other
> organizations. We have the experience at these frequencies to provide
useable
> guidance to newcomers.
No comment needed. :)
> 5. My main point. I still am looking for the following clarifications:
>
> a. A financial accounting of LWCA funds.
> b. Knowledge of who is paid by the LWCA and how much.
> c. An explanation of how positions of leadership are filled, and who makes
> the decisions for the "club". It seems to me that the LWCA is really
> just a magazine...and that there is a vested interest in it's remaining
so.
I'm sure that no one is making a profit here and if someone is making a
little then they deserve it for the material that they are sending out. Not
everyone is interested in having a club where people vote and read minutes.
This is for experimenters which I feel are mostly people that like
unorganized activities so it keeps their options open.
> If that is the case, then fine. You either subscribe to the magazine, or
> you don't.
> A club implies a body, with members who have some say over how the club
> conducts business.
>
> Maybe other club members don't think these are issues at all...but when
> you speak to former H. John Clements Award winners who had allowed
> their membership to lapse, because they don't think the "club" is relevant
> to them anymore, I submit it's time to take a hard look at things.
That's the opinion of one person. I'm not going to worry about anyone's
opinion but my on. The membership for the lwca is pretty large from what I
understand and people surely aren't fed up with it yet so why can't we allow
it to exist the way it is. It may seem backwards to some of the 21st
century thinkers but it has served it's purpose over the years and is a
great source of info.
Hope my replies weren't too uneducated but that is the way I feel about it.
I think that the group now is free to experiment and have fun. That is the
way it should be because when you put too much organization into anything it
looses it's flexibility real fast and also decreases the fun level.
73's Hope I don't get flamed for this
Brian Helms
KD4RLD
rld 185.555