[QCWA] QCWA Membership requirements

Thu Jul 24 10:25:34 EDT 2008

Hi Vernon,

I respect your opinion...however, 25 years is 25 years....
No matter how you slice it.....

I know a great deal of FANTASTIC A-1 ops who have been
licensed for way over 25 years and are not even close to the
age of 50.
Respecting those licensed, let's say in 1983 but born in
1958 to meet your suggested "full membership level"....
..who may know a little bit more about TUBE theory,
Spark gap technology etc...

However, the young man let's say born in 1964, licensed in
1977 and is only 44 years old now.....can probably teach the
more senior ham a thing or two about new digital modes,
MMSSTV, MMTTY, other digital modes, SO2R contesting....DXing
through better use of software...etc..... and brings a huge
volume of "know how" to any group...not just QCWA....

The QCWA members I have been involved with over the past 7
years or so show little to no interest (as a very large
majority.. not a 100% blanket statement...) in learning
something new....or feel there is too much to "remember"
...etc.....

SO...in a perfect world we can all find some middle ground
to "learn" from each other...but the "DESIRE" has to be
there or it will not manifest itself into anything with
added value...

QCWA is what it is..... and we will probably see little
change in its direction any time soon.... only when the
majority of its members become united in change due to
whatever demographics becomes applicable.... will it
happen..... and I am sure I will.....for I was born in 1964,
was licensed in 1977,...and....I am 44 years
young!!!!!<smiling> 
ALL MODES...ALL CODES....ALL BANDS....Viva CW!!!!!

73
Jose - N1BAA
Keep to the code
50 WPM or bust

> 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
> >
> >   
> __________________________________________________________
> ____ 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

_________________________________________

Check your Email accounts at http://www.MyEmail.com

Login from home, work, school.  Anywhere!