[QCWA] 2010 Membership

[Jeffrey Angus]

  On 8/17/2010 2:32 PM, Raymond Makul wrote:
> I think our publications put too much emphasis on
> honoring members way up in the age range via
> longevity awards.  I have a friend, age 47,  who
> wanted to join QCWA (and he is very respectful and
> helpful to elderly hams) but he was put off by
> reading the Journal, where he saw mostly people
> 30-50 years older than himself.

Perhaps the QCWA needs to re-focus on it's stated purpose.
"Welcoming anyone who has been licensed 25 years or more."

I am, however, beginning to see a pattern here that might just
explain the attitudes and friction.

Everyone that was licensed prior to WWII, would have, at the
latest, been eligible to join the QCWA by 1965. What would be
the big changes after that date? Vietnam, Nixon, hippies, civil
rights and TouchTone(tm) telephones. No more steam engines,
or propeller driven commercial airplanes.

And the newly licensed folks that got their tickets between
1945 and 1965 would have all been Elmered by this batch
of older hams.

The world changed, almost over night. It suddenly became a
lot smaller and a lot scarier.

What has happened in just the last 25 years? Cell phones, the
internet, personal computers, amateur packet radio and no-
code.

Just like the dinosaurs, they never saw the comet coming. But
they HAVE seen the changes that happened after the "impact."

Alvin Toffler spoke about this back in 1970 with his book, Future
Shock.

Perhaps what we need to do now, is to make our goal and
purpose to welcome new members. To openly embrace the
new technologies. (Or at least technology that has happened
between 1945 and 1985. *wink*)

Associate Memberships for people that have been licensed
less than 25 years years is not the solution. That's only a
short term "we want more money" for the chapters.  If we
continue to treat newcomers as we have in the past, they
won't even consider joining us after they've done their 25
years.

Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi