[QCWA] QCWA Membership requirements

[Dave - VE3JX]

Greetings to all,

What an interesting discussion this is!  I am thoroughly enjoying the
variety of ideas and opinions on this topic.  Like everyone, I have my own
ideas about what QCWA is, and what improvements can be made.  So, here goes
nothing, hi hi.

Generally, I am in favour of retaining the 25 year requirement.  As I see
it, one of the primary purposes of QCWA is to honour long-term amateurs.  It
is a society one can join only after one has been part of ham radio for 25
years or more.  What happens after joining is another matter.  With many
chapters, social events are generally less frequent than the local amateur
radio club.  Most mentoring and elmering is going to be at that local level
and that local venue.  QCWA members probably figure prominently in those
tasks, albeit as part of their local scene vs. QCWA.

Many QCWA members may not have 25 years experience in ham radio.  They may
have received their first ticket a quarter century ago, but left it for a
while, came back to it, then left it, only to return to it later on.  No
matter, they were there in earlier times of the avocation.  QCWA honours
them with membership, in effect saying: "Thanks for hanging around our hobby
for 25 years."

As for younger ones being inducted into QCWA, that is already happening.
Some amateurs, especially in the U.S., were first licenced in their early
teens; some as pre-teens.  This was no doubt due to the "Novice" licence
that was available.  That means that some are eligible in their thirties to
join QCWA.  That's great; but I don't think we need to lower the bar to
bring in an even younger crowd.  That does not seem to be the primary
purpose of QCWA.

However, I have more concern with the other end of the age spectrum.  There
are several retirees that have entered the hobby in our area; probably
everywhere.  These folk will generally not live long enough to qualify for
QCWA under the present rules.  Should we be looking at ways to include them
in QCWA as they pursue our great hobby in their twilight years?

Here is a proposal to address that.

We could set up a second class, calling it "associate" or "special" or
whatever.  To preserve the concept of "Quarter Century", we could use a
formula such as:

	 (AGE + Years since 1st licenced) minus 50 = 25.  [Minimum Years since 1st
licenced = 5 Years]

As you can see, from the formula, any person 70+ (in age) would need only 5
years service to qualify for this level of membership.  The number of years
as a ham required would increase the younger a person is.  Or, looking at it
the other way, the formula increasingly benefits those over 50 years.  At 70
and above, the formula bows to the minmum requisite of 5 years.

The key to using this type of formula is that the answer is 25 (i.e. quarter
century) or more for eligibility.  Thus, it preserves respect for the name:
QCWA.  The 5 year minimum recognizes the need to have some experience as a
ham before eligibility.

This would be a "cheap" class of membership, in that they would probably
never be eligible for the normal certificates that QCWA issues.  But, it
would give them a sense of belonging and, locally, certificates could be
issued to mark various personal milestones, at the chapter level.  They
might be a non-voting class, but have all other privileges; or they might
have full voting privileges.  This suggestion might help alleviate concern
over membership numbers for QCWA National.

There are probably many reasons why this may not work, but then again, maybe
it would.  I am part of a "seniors" radio club in the Sault.  We have, and
have had, newer senior radio amateurs here that also have radio experience
in the past.  Here are two examples.  One was a radio tech with the Canadian
Navy, dating back to Korea.  The second was a radio op on Corvettes during
WWII.  They both turned to ham radio after retirement.  The latter is in his
80's and got his ham ticket in 2002.  Obviously, he'd never qualify for QCWA
unless he is blessed with extreme longevity.  The former became licenced
around 1990, but, unfortunately, he passed away last year.  (I know that he
would have joined if he could.)

And so, the question remains: Is there a place in QCWA for such "seniors"?
If so, this formula, or variation of it, may be the answer.

What do you think?  Good idea?  Out in left field?  Your thoughts are just
as valid as mine; maybe more so.

Cheers,

Dave Hayes VE3JX
QCWA Life #33597
  OOTC #4483