[QCWA] Rhetoric and Purpose

[B Roske]

Hi Paul,

The answer is, we need both groups.  Most local clubs give an excellent 
example of why.

Our membership is divided into two major categories.  Those that work and 
those that are retired.
The first group have difficulty in attending weekday lunch meetings, while 
many of the later can't or don't like to drive after dark.  We need to hold 
two meetings and month.  Hopefully the annual or BI annual meeting will be 
scheduled so that most can attend.   More work yes, but needed to survive.

73,
Bob Roske, N0UF
QCWA Vice President
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Walcott, Paul" <PWalcott at smartbus.org>
To: <QCWA at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 10:51 AM
Subject: [QCWA] Rhetoric and Purpose


Greetings All,

Lately as I've been reading threads on the reflector there's been an
unpleasant level of rancor and rhetoric, but somehow today I realized
that most of this conflict revolves around people with two very
different views of one central question:  What is, and what should be
the role of the QCWA in the larger picture of amateur radio in both the
present and the future?

 One view seems to hold that the QCWA exists mainly as a social
organization for old timers.  Closely related to that social function we
would provide an avenue for reminiscence of the old days and in that way
we would help preserve historic information as it is related to ham
radio.

 The second view seems to be much more proactive.  In this view the QCWA
should have an active role in guiding the future of ham radio.  Some of
the people holding this view would like the QCWA to take over much of
the guidance which has historically been a function of the ARRL.
(Didn't Wayne Greene say as much in editorials he wrote during the early
'80's?)  Others don't take quite as broad a view, but do see the QCWA as
a supplement to the traditional role of the ARRL.

 Unfortunately I have problems with both of these views.

 In the first case, the "Social/Historical" QCWA we run the risk of
becoming, or at least being perceived as the old geezers.  In an era of
the world-wide-web and satellites we'll find it hard to attract members
who's interests aren't what we (the present membership) don't consider
traditional amateur radio.

 And in the second view, the "proactive" QCWA, with our membership
requirement of 25 years experience, we run the risk of being perceived
as or perhaps actually becoming elitist.  In a hobby with as many
different and diverse interests as ham radio, the last thing we need is
for any group to be seen as elitist.

 I don't have any easy answer.  I just hope that we can find some middle
ground to avoid the perils I've touched upon.  Most of all, I hope we
can have a reasoned discussion while turning down the rhetoric level by
several notches.

 73's,

Paul

WD8H

(Life member of both the QCWA and ARRL)

______________________________________________________________
QCWA mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qcwa
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
Post: mailto:QCWA at mailman.qth.net