This thread has gone from helping out a builder with a coordination problem to a discussion of internal ORRC politics.
The only question I would have is whether any of the OTHER coordinators are working with anyone other than ORRC. If not, the new groups are not considering the existing repeaters around them, either. Consider it rhetorical - the answer need not be posted. Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: > Daron- > There is no reason why other coordination groups need to jump thru the > hoops (what you called "provisions in the bylaws") of the ORRC to become > coordinating bodies. Instead they can do exactly the same as the ORRC did > and have their 'constituents' recognize the group they desire. If it was > good enough for the ORRC, it should be good enough for other groups. > > It is sad that you have made the statement "unfortunate that dissatisfied > constituents failed to get involved and make a change, assuming it was > needed". Let me give you a couple examples: > > 1. Personally, I was an ORRC board member for most years between 1989 and 2002 > and served as an officer of the board for several of those years. > > 2. Dick Suber (K7DDI) spent many years on the ORRC board (probably over 20 > yrs) > > Neither Dick or myself "failed to get involved" but we apparently did fail at > making a change in ORRC. So we started to focus in a direction where we could > make positive changes. The ORRC needs to change, and they have at least 2-3 > board members who want to run it for their own personal gain rather than doing > what is right. I hope the ORRC can change some day. > > > ------ Original Message ------ > Received: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 02:24:55 PM PST > From: "Daron Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> John.I never made any reference to the NFCC creating anything, I simply >> pointed out the one recognized group for Oregon per the NFCC. The >> 'constituents' of Oregon did exactly that with the ORRC, and there are >> provisions in the bylaws for any other legitimate group to challenge and >> become the coordination group for a particular area. Neither of the groups >> you reference have exercised that challenge, mostly because it requires the >> proposed coordination body produce organizational bylaws, demonstrate >> organization, and solicit a legitimate vote of all the repeater owners in >> the intended area. >> >> I'll spare the group the rest of the examples you posted, I was involved in >> packet at the same time, chaired the Oregon Packet Radio Association and >> worked with and then past Doug W7XI. My VHF repeater was coordinated in >> 1985 or so, it is log number 24, I am familiar with much of the history and >> have been involved with it for 23 years. >> >> I find it unfortunate that dissatisfied constituents failed to get involved >> and make a change, assuming it was needed. If we all did that, we'd have > 40 >> or more coordination groups in Oregon. It makes no sense. If there is one >> group, coordination is rather easy, because everyone involved is there at >> one time and any conflicts can quickly be addressed. If there were 10 >> groups, an application that might be on a high peak could mean coordinating >> that with 9 other groups. >> >> Time will tell. Again, I invite you to become part of the solution. >> >> 73 N7HQR >> >> > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
