[QCWA] QCWA Membership requirements

[Vernon Fix]

Hi Dave and all,
    Good discussion, love it!
    Dave, this is close to the best suggestion yet.  I do NOT want to 
cheaper the QCWA by taking away the 25 year requirement.  We've learned 
what happened when we cheapened the licensing requirements.  One rule  
the FCC should have kept was the year between license steps on 
upgrading.  It really bugs me that someone can take all the tests in one 
day and become an Extra.
    I was licensed when I was 19 in 1949 but I respect age and wisdom 
greatly.  One comment with a possible change to your formula, a minimum 
period of 5 years no matter what the age.  I'm 78, so would I get in 
with no experience, not likely.  Once qualified give them full 
privileges, make no second class citizens.
    Keep the 25 years and modify it for age over 50 so they can get full 
membership.  Set some requirement for minimum time served, ie; 5or 10 
years then allow it.  Best idea yet.
73's,
Vernon, w4thn, Chapter-119, Virginia Beach, VA
QCWA# 12997


Dave - VE3JX wrote:
> 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
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>