[QCWA] Rhetoric and Purpose

[Matt Tinker]

Hi Paul,
Very good point to having a good discussion regarding the future of the 
QCWA. I'm not sure how to solve the current problem, if it is really a 
problem?  I joined the QCWA because it was a milestone (25 years as a Ham 
!!), and I am very proud of being an Ham. I would believe that most of us 
joined for the same reason.  Having a social/historical aspect to any 
organization is very good, and provides an excellent opportunity for 
Amateur's to get together and share ideas and tall stories etc.  Being 
"Pro-Active" as you stated, is not an elitist attitude in my opinion. I 
think there is room for both aspects social/historical and becoming more 
active in the direction of Amateur Radio.  As you stated this is a hobby of 
diverse interests and ideas, I submit that diversity is what can make for 
common ground and effective programs for that diversity.  This is a large 
organization with a ton of potential to infuse leadership, knowledge, and 
experience to the future of amateur radio.  The social/historical aspect is 
very enjoyable, and I enjoy our local Chapter meetings very much, but I 
also can see the QCWA active in programs on a National basis to expand 
Amateur Radio, and inform the public of who, what, when and where.  What 
those types of programs are I cannot say at this time, but with input from 
our membership, and thoughtful planning by our Board of Directors I'm sure 
we can become the same QCWA , but also a different QCWA in the future.

73
Matt Tinker
W9PW


At 11:51 AM 04/10/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>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