[RVRC] (no subject)

[marvin bronstein]

Fellow RVRC members,
First allow me to express my feelings and opinion that what Craig* has written here should be followed by the club.  In cases where clubs grow to be a sizeable group, the format of our club (head officers and appointed committees) where the membership at large is asked to 'vote' on all matters, ceases to work well.  We are too large a group to continue the practice of every member having a voice in every action that any committee wants to take.  Clubs that are large as ours and larger clubs have formed an organization run by a "Board of Directors" headed by officers elected from the membership at-large.  The membership therefore makes 'policy determinations' by popular vote but the 'workings' of the club are relegated to the Board and officers.  
If RVRC members do not wish to 'convert' to such a form of 'business', we must all agree that the committees appointed should be allowed to do their work without the constant "micro-managing" that clogs up the efforts.  We all, essentially, are together in this hobby and in this club as a 'past-time' and this shouldn't become an 'anvil' hanging on our necks!
The Committees should be allowed, unfettered, to conduct their work WITHIN the financial limits set forth by the membership at large!  (They do this now.)

Please offer up your support to Craig and our officers in their efforts for the benefits to the club.  I am certain that, in the end, we will all be happy with the outcomes.  But keep in mind, we are a HOBBY,  and ham radio activity is a PASTIME which should NEVER INTERFERE WITH FAMILY AND OBLIGATIONS!  If it takes a little longer to get where we want to go, let it be a goal we can work towards........it'll happen in good time.  If any member feels that they can advance the cause with a financial 'stimulus' please don't give it a second thought and go ahead....GIVE! (It could help us make our goals even faster!)

Fraternally.

73,
Marv, K2VHW    
*Tech. committee chairman                                                            
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~HAPPY HOLIDAYS~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 


The W2QW machines are controlled by our system computer that relies on the Asterisk PBX software. This software is based on Voip and it not only allows for local control of the club repeaters but it allows linking to external systems when the Internet is available. Access to ECHOLINK and to our net partners (currently K2ETS, and formerly the machines linked to the KB2EAR hub) requires Internet access. The ALLSTARlink.org WebTransceiver access that allows you to connect to any ALLSTARlink machine anywhere in the world and then call up our RVRC machines (same concept as IRLP) also requires Internet. Even regular IRLP would require Internet if that proprietary system would allow coexistence with other Internet based control systems. Access to our machines using cell phone apps, computer apps and other non RF means all require Internet.

Removing the Internet would require a total restructuring of the W2QW system and it would remove our current net capabilities. Using a dedicated RF link to other systems would require cooperation by the other groups and in the current situation, we do not have finances to replace the computer based repeater controls with hardware controllers and RF links to manage them.

The club elects officers to represents the club's best interest. The technical committee tries very hard to keep us on the air with the most reliable system we can provide, with the best ability to manage the system and to manage the costs.

If we are going to second guess every decision and haggle about every technical detail at meetings, we are not going to have a reliable system nor will we be able to move forward. I do not personally want to see us get into a gridlock situation. Please trust the officer's decision and the technical committee's intentions and recommendations. I know I don't have any personal interest in Cablevision, or Verizon. We are 'tenants' at the Lund site and we rely on sharing the services because we cannot realistically fully separate the services at this time or in the near future.

Let's please chalk this up to our 'cost of doing business'. If Susan needs to go to FIOS because of poor service by Cablevision then we need to find a way to support that move. She could disconnect Cablevision on her own and go straight to residential FIOS leaving us on our own to figure out a solution. She doesn't have to let us connect to the house internet source. In the longer view, Asterisk requires the Internet to link with the ALLSTARlink network. Removing Asterisk is not practical due to the investment in hardware and support that are already built in. We have discussed these alternatives before so let's move on..

Respectfully
Craig Saums
AC2FE