[PaQSO] Ontario to become 4 RAC mults.

Mon Feb 27 11:42:13 EST 2012

Sweepstakes is shortly (3 weeks) after PAQP so the S/W folks would have to
respond quicker for PAQP than SS if changes to the PAQP will occur during
the 2012 event, although the demand for SS will obviously be much greater.
I'm sure the s/w developers for the bigger logging programs are already
thinking about this and waiting for the final details so they can quickly
act.  The next problem is getting individual users to use the latest
program.  I personally always use the latest version of N1MM prior to ANY
contest I operate, just to make sure I've captured any rules updates as
well as bug fixes or product improvements.  If somebody uses an older out
of date program and ends up losing out on certain multipliers it is their
own fault.  Also, doesn't this same situation apply to the CA QSO Party
which is held one week prior to the PAQP?  I wonder how they are going to
handle this (just to get another data point which may or may not be used in
steering a decision for the PAQP).

First, one should assume that consistent use of ARRL/RAC section
abbreviations should be used.  Two paths (there could be others) I see for
going forward for this year's PAQP would be:

   1. Continue to use ON as in past years for the 2012 PAQP and likely
   update it for 2013 and following, by which time the various "big" logging
   programs will already have it updated accordingly and giving all S/W
   developers at least one full year to implement the updates.  If a S/W
   developer doesn't update it during 2013 then it is obvious that their
   software will not be on the "preferred" list going forward.  But, what if
   the "big" programs already have it updated in anticipation of SS and other
   contests?  I think this situation could easily have been taken care of with
   the K3EQF software if it is still similar to what it was when I wanted to
   use it for the first year of the MidAtlantic QSO Party when I created my
   own multiplier list based on the quick release of their rules prior to that
   event (poor timing to have it on Mother's Day Weekend, otherwise it could
   have been a fun event).  Would S/W updated for SS with the new sections
   give an incorrect multiplier count for PAQP 2012.  Hmm, an interesting
   quandary!  One should be able to easily enough to find and combine all of
   the four possible Ontario sections into a single section with a minimal
   effort if that is what the PAQP 2012 rules require if a logging program had
   already split them out.
   2. Contact the various logging program's S/W developers that have
   supported PAQP logging in recent years and see if they will be able to
   quickly implement changes once the RAC announces formally the
   abbreviations.  If not, then the decision tree goes back to #1 above.
   Okay, but what if 3 out of 4 can implement the changes but the 4th one
   cannot?  Does the 4th program fall off the list of "suggested" programs for
   this year or with a note of "use at your own risk" (which should apply to
   all logging software programs anyway)?

The choice of a logging program to use by and individual or a group is a
personal choice and everyone will have their preferred programs.  They
should be there for convenience (of the contestant and the organizing body)
and it seems that for many contests are a requirement (with rules that
entries with over 50 contacts in the log must have an electronic log).
Rarely (only very small events) do I ever log by hand anymore and frankly
the better logging programs have made me a better contester, and I don't
even use 25% of the capabilities of N1MM Logger.  The rules of the PAQP
will apply to all who participate and it is up to each entrant to make sure
they log their contacts correctly based on the rules going into the
contest.  Obviously a change of the rules a month or so prior to this
year's event could make things complicated for this year.  While I would
like to get extra multipliers for a higher score, I would want to utilize a
software package capable of supporting this without having to make
additional notes and correct things later.  At least having some sort of
idea of how the new Ontario sections will be handled for this year sooner
than later would be helpful to minimize chaos within the last moments prior
the the 2012 PAQP, even if the new section abbreviations are not yet known
as of today yet.  Given the timing of the implementation I might suggest
that it be "status quo" for 2012 PAQP and implement updates for 2013 PAQP,
giving more time for software developers to implement the updates to the
logging programs as well as the post-contest data crunching performed by
NARC.

I don't see that the VE3 prefix would possibly change, as Mike, N3LI, had
suggested, as it is an administrative change for RAC (equivalent of ARRL)
and would likely not affect the IC (Industry Canada, equivalent of our FCC
as I understand it) licensing of VE3/VA3 for all of Ontario.  An example of
that same sort of change here in the states over the last decade or so
would have been additional ARRL sections in New York, which is still the
2nd call area, or additional ARRL sections for FL or TX in their respective
call areas, however these changes were transparent to the FCC licensing.
Looking farther back in history when the Upper Peninsula of Michigan was
part of the 9th call area (as an "annex" of Wisconsin) while the Lower
Peninsula was the 8th call area (a LONG time ago), obviously the FCC would
have had to modify their licensing accordingly when the U.P. of Michigan
was restructured under the 8th call area, however that was probably a
decision from the FCC and not the ARRL (I don't know for sure, I'm just
surmising this).  Oh, closer to home (well, my home since 1994, here in
PA), prior to WWII, apparently Western PA was in the 8th call area while
Eastern PA was in the 2nd call area, but also at the time there was no "0"
call area.  I believe restructuring again was done by the FCC

Mark, NK8Q

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Tad Danley <tdanley at suddenlink.net> wrote:

> I imagine once the RAC decides what the new abbreviations are, the
> software folks will go to work so they have it ready before Sweepstakes.
>
> Tad Danley, K3TD
> EM10dq
>
>
> On 2/27/2012 8:12 AM, Michael Coslo wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 2012, at 7:21 AM, Mark K3MSB wrote:
> >
> >> Another perspective:  I doubt people are going to upgrade their software
> >> until the folks that make the PA QSO Party rules make a decision on this
> >> issue.
> > And we wait upon the RAC and ARRL. I need those abbreviations, but I'm
> not driving the bus.
> >
> > Is Ontario going to remain VE3? Or what? If I try to second guess, I'll
> bet I'm wrong.
> >
> >> We've used the WB3W software at our club,  but I've used the N1MM
> package
> >> at home for years;  I'm not surprised it can be easily reconfigured as
> it's
> >> a well maintained piece of software.
> > Another thing to remember is that not only do we have different "brands"
> of software, we have different versions within a brand. A mistake or change
> or implementation is forever. Someone will be using an outdated version.
> >
> >> The bottom line is make a decision.  You're going to have unhappy
> campers
> >> regardless of which way you go!
> >
> > As soon as we have enough to make a decision. Imagine the effects if I
> unilaterally decide NON, EON, WON, and SON, but they decide something else,
> later.
> >
> > Actually those aren't too bad! It will wreck the preferred VE1, VE2
> mults. Maybe. Sorta.
> >
> > But I have a lot of software to rewrite and databases to change - I'd
> love for them to make a quick decision. There are a lot of other contests
> who have to be chomping at the bit about this also.
> >
> > If this stretches on too much longer, we'll end up keeping it the same
> for now.
> >
> >       - 73 de Mike N3LI -
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > PaQSO mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/paqso
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> > Post: mailto:PaQSO at mailman.qth.net
> >
> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >
> >
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> PaQSO mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/paqso
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:PaQSO at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>