It seems to me with all the skewering of the ARRL, one item that appears to be very relevant is the communication to the members of a division and the reverse and thus to the board of the ARRL. I believe I've heard something like "they don't listen to me or there is no avenue for comments". As a member you have the option, that is, make your views known or remain silent. As a non-member you also have made a choice. Forums such as this reflector and other avenues are just that...a grip and complain session; for the whiners. Real progress is made when people care, when people converse, when people have factual data and mostly when there are those who really wish to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Whether one agrees with the two RM proposals, I really don't care. But I do care about the relevance of communications to and from ARRL members. Those who choose not to be an ARRL member have by default lost that option. Much as been said here about the ARRL not caring. I for one don't believe that. Perhaps we, those in the Great Lakes division, are just blessed with great leadership. Somehow, though, I don't believe we are the only ones. I just have not heard from other divisions, nor do I want to.
If those wish to flame me, fine. I've got a delete key. If you wish to be part of the solution, then contribute your views to your own division director. Note especially the following: "...you will have considerable opportunity to be heard and once heard, your input will be considered very seriously." There are those who will not believe this...words mean little, action does. We will see. Today is a new day....make the future count. History is just that, history. Below is the most recent communications to the 'members' of the ARRL Great Lakes division from: ARRL Great Lakes Division Director: James Weaver, K8JE ********* NOW FOR THE BANDPLAN All references to frequencies contained in ARRL's Regulation Primarily by Bandwidth petition have been limited to the where the several bandwidth segments will lie within our bands. None of these references said anything about the fine details of band planning -- e.g., where will Techs be allowed to operate, where can fully-automatic control be used, etc? There are still more aspects to band planning than this, but I think you have the idea. In other words, the tough work has not yet been discussed. More accurately, the tough work just began at the January ARRL Board of Directors meeting. The beginning was a discussion of the process to be used in developing the bandplan. The most critical conclusion the Board appropriately reached is that we will need a lot of input from members and nonmembers alike as we proceed with the band planning. It is too early to call for input on the bandplan, but I want to let you know you will have considerable opportunity to be heard and once heard, your input will be considered very seriously. The objective of all this is to develop a bandplan that is logical and has sufficient buy-in from the amateur community that it is respected and observed voluntarily by the Amateur Radio community. ********************************** 73, Larry KC8JX __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
