[Cwo] CW OPEN sked change

[Alan Maenchen]

Sounds like a good possibility.  I would avoid making any quick decisions
about this. Instead make a list of possibilities and mull it over a bit.
There is no need to do anything at the moment. Log checking and processing
is a looming task that has me worried.

Another thing to think about is contest compatibility.  I tried to get JAs
to give me a name, but was rebuffed. CQP has the annual VK/ZL Oceanic
contest to contend with, but the exchanges are close enough to being
compatible that we can work each other for mutual benefit. That was my
thought about accepting 599 as a serial number.  A little compromise is a
good thing when both sides win.

73, Alan  AD6E




On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Rob <k6rb at baymoon.com> wrote:

> **
>  Gents:
>
> I've had another look at the perpetual calendar and the last weekend of
> September (which precedes by one week the Cal QSO Party) has only one
> conflict - RSGB 80 M Club Contest, that goes for a few hours and is confined
> to RSGB members and 80 meters. This looks like a weekend that would have
> virtually no big conflicts. I found that the IOTA thing at the end of July
> had about 650 CW logs submitted (almost all from EU). That's a lot.
>
> By doing it then we get the benefit of earlier darkness in session 2 which
> could allow for earlier 40 meter opening; longer darkness path between west
> coast US and points west (e.g. JA and VK/ZL); and the possibility of much
> greater EU participation.
>
> So, my current recommendation would be to go with last weekend of
> September. What say?
>
> Rob K6RB
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Alan Maenchen <ad6e at arrl.net>
> *To:* Rob <k6rb at baymoon.com>
> *Cc:* Peter Chamalian <w1rm at arrl.net> ; Jim Talens <jtalens at verizon.net> ;
> KZ5D at aol.com ; cwo at kkn.net
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 21, 2011 12:28 PM
> *Subject:* Re: CW OPEN sked change
>
> I've been on an IOTA expedition and generated some HUGE pileups. It's a big
> deal in EU and growing in NA.
>
> Need to look at the rules to see if the split format of CWO would really
> cause trouble or not.  We assumed RDA was no big deal either and learned the
> hard way not to brush off these events as "minor".
>
> Alan
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Rob <k6rb at baymoon.com> wrote:
>
>> **
>> Alan,
>>
>> I would opt for doing the CW OPEN on the 4th weekend of August. The only
>> conflict is RSGB IOTA. Big deal! We might lose K6VVA in that one (hi). It
>> would avoid a lot of other stuff and still have the event occur roughly
>> around the time it did this time. Having a winter CWO would be tough but
>> perhaps there's a possibility. I would rather get an annual CWO refined to
>> where it was a well-attended and fun event. We're definitely on the way to
>> accomplishing that.
>>
>> Rob K6RB
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Alan Maenchen <ad6e at arrl.net>
>> *To:* Bruce Horn <bhorn at hornucopia.com>
>> *Cc:* Rob <k6rb at baymoon.com> ; Peter Chamalian <w1rm at arrl.net> ; Jim
>> Talens <jtalens at verizon.net> ; KZ5D at aol.com ; cwo at kkn.net
>> *Sent:* Sunday, August 21, 2011 11:25 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: CW OPEN sked change
>>
>> Bruce,
>>
>> Look at the positive side:  I made a bunch of QSOs in NAQP SSB while
>> waiting for the next CWO session.  I would not have made any SSB QSOs if it
>> were not for CWO.   :-)    I'd like to see data on how CWO affected NAQP
>> participation this year. My gut feel is that it was a minimal impact, but I
>> could be wrong.  I love NAQP CW, but I've never entered the SSB (or RTTY)
>> version.
>>
>> The big problem for CWO was RDA and Keyman contests.  It's impossible to
>> pick any weekend that has no conflicts. However, I think we were clobbered
>> by those two events that limited CWO to a NA only event.  That is
>> unfortunate.  Interestingly, we only received one complaint about stepping
>> on those toes.  That was from a DL who warned about the RDA activity.
>>
>> I agree with Rob that it was too early in the planning stage to do a July
>> event. However, we need to think seriously about a different date.  I've
>> already had a request for a winter CWO, but I doubt that would be possible.
>>
>> 73, Alan  AD6E
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Bruce Horn <bhorn at hornucopia.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  Hi Rob,
>>>
>>> As the manager of the NAQP SSB contest I certainly would like to see the
>>> CW Open moved to a weekend that didn't conflict with the NAQP, which has
>>> been scheduled on the 3rd full weekend in August for a very long time.
>>> However, the 3rd weekend in July is the perpetual date of the NAQP-RTTY
>>> contest.
>>>
>>> 73 de Bruce, WA7BNM   (bhorn at hornucopia.com)
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From: *"Rob" <k6rb at baymoon.com>
>>> *To: *"Bruce Horn" <bhorn at hornucopia.com>
>>> *Cc: *"Alan Maenchen" <ad6e at arrl.net>, "Peter Chamalian" <w1rm at arrl.net>,
>>> "Jim Talens" <jtalens at verizon.net>, KZ5D at aol.com
>>> *Sent: *Sunday, August 21, 2011 7:54:38 AM
>>> *Subject: *CW OPEN sked change
>>>
>>>
>>> Bruce,
>>>
>>> I think there's a concensus to change the date for next year's CW OPEN to
>>> that weekend in July (July 23, 2011, this year) where there are virtually no
>>> conflicts. We were too far down the road, this year, to change it. I see in
>>> your perpetual calendar that that weekend looks really good. Has anything
>>> changed on that score? If not, I would estimate it's about a 99 percent
>>> likelihood that next year's CW OPEN and all subsequent ones will be on that
>>> third weekend of July timeframe.
>>>
>>> This year, we ran into some problems because of the Russian RDA and
>>> Japan's "keyman." We'd like to avoid that conflict and the one with NAQP
>>> SSB, too.
>>>
>>> Let me know. Thanks for your major help in score submittal, Bruce. It
>>> makes a huge difference.
>>>
>>> Rob K6RB
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.kkn.net/pipermail/cwo/attachments/20110821/f403649d/attachment.html