[Cwo] 2014 Summary Before Voting

Tue Sep 17 05:17:45 PDT 2013

My view in response to Dean's summary:  

1.        I do not view as sacrosanct the "first partial weekend of August"
as precluding August 23.  This is not a Club Bylaw, after all.  So August 23
can remain a candidate weekend.

2.        Excellent summary, Dean, that based on stark facts correctly
distills the choices as being between August 23 and Sept 6.   SAC on Sept 20
is too direct and massive a conflict; Sept 13 is FOC; Aug 30 is YO DX, Sept
27 is major RTTY.

3.        There has been considerable discussion about the indirect conflict
with NA QP on September 6.   Hank and I feel that this is just too much of a
distraction given they butt up against each other in part.  There is
sizeable participation in NA QP and it seems doubtful most CW operators can
easily accommodate both efforts in one weekend.  It's one or the other, with
maybe some attention to the two non-adjoining CWO sessions by NA QP
participants.   Overall, I rate this is a major distraction because it would
likely reduce CWO participation significantly overall, not just for one
session.  Still, the NA QP is not Sweepstakes, after all.   So it's not an
event killer.  Moreover, I do not think that at the end of the day it's
smart to shift hours to allow a breathing space between that one CWO session
and NA QP.  It would remove the symmetry of our 3-sessions and does not
remove the negative impact of adjoining events.  Also, if conditions are not
really good, and given the overall sunspot cycle situation they are not
likely to be good, the overall JA level of participation would at best be
very limited and mostly to W6/7.

4.        August 23 is problematic in that it conflicts with three minor
state contests and one JA Ham Fair.   The participation levels of the three
state QSO parties (KS, OH, HI) strike me as a lesser distraction than we
face on Sept 6.  As to the JA Ham Fair, Rob has done a great job in
garnering interest in CWops in Japan.  To what extent would CWO during the
JA Ham Fair result in a conflict that either undermines what Rob has done or
would simply preclude JA participation?  My guess is that this has a far
lesser impact than the consequences of holding CWO on Sept 6, even combining
the impacts of two state QSO parties with the JA Ham Fair.  Moreover, it
would hopefully be only for 2014.  Besides, the goodwill that Rob has
developed with JA guys remains in terms of membership welcoming,
participating in CWT events, and even CWO to the extent that some or many JA
guys still have some access to CWO.  If we explain to them about our
Hobson's choice of dates and apologize, I suspect we will escape any
noticeable negative lasting impact.   We might even issue a special article
of some kind in July 2014 in Solid Copy featuring JA membership and noting
in that the unfortunate circumstances that forced us to choose August 23 for
CWO in 2014.  

I await a response from those who know about FOC scheduling to see about CWO
for year 2015 and whether FOC has already reserved the Sept 13 (plus or
minus) for that year.  If not, we should jump on that to make it a perpetual
CWO date.  Or not!

My vote:  I wish I could weight my vote!  I would say 51% for August 23 and
49% for Sept. 6.  

Jim, N3JT

From: cwo-bounces at kkn.net [mailto:cwo-bounces at kkn.net] On Behalf Of D Faklis
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 7:34 AM
To: cwo at kkn.net
Subject: [Cwo] 2014 Summary Before Voting

I have tried to capture the meat of the concensus building process.  I'm
sure I missed some of the discussions.  Please check me carefully.  This
email was sent to CWO at KKN.net and I assume that everyone involved
receives reflector emails.  

Starting at the beginning:

What is the "new date?" Is it last zulu Friday in August? Or zulu Friday of
first (partial) weekend in September? Or ... ?
73, Hank, W6SX

Good question Hank.  I think we decided on the first (partial) weekend in
Sept. Be it Sat Aug 31 (zulu) like this year or first Sept Saturday (zulu).
Need to look at the 2014 contest calendar and see if that's a problem or
not.  I haven't done that. Might be we were just lucky this year with the
split weekend.
73, Alan, AD6E

If we make it last weekend of August, it would be Aug 30 2014. If we keep it
first full or partial weekend in September, it will be Sep 6 2014.
Rob K6RB

Then, for these dates, YODX and NA Sprint are identified as concerns by the
group.  A search for a new date begins.  Conflicts are identified by the
group.

Primary conflicts:  Tokyo Ham Fair (23 AUG 14), YODX (30 AUG 14), NA Sprint
(7 SEP 14), FOC (13 SEP 14), SAC CW (20 SEP 14), CQWW RTTY (27 SEP 14)

Secondary conflicts: HIQP and OHQP (23 AUG 14), WAQP (20 SEP 14), TXQP (27
SEP 14)

Unknown potential conflicts: KSQP (23 AUG 14)

YODX, FOC and CQWW RTTY achieve "keep out" status by the group:  30 AUG, 13
SEP, 27 SEP are essentially deemed no good by the group.

This leaves 23 AUG, 6 SEP, and 20 SEP as possibilities around this
timeframe.

Review 23 AUG:  Tokyo Ham Fair, HIQP and OHQP are conflicts.  KSQP may be a
conflict.
Review 6 SEP:  NA Sprint conflict.  No overlap in time; Sprint begins when
CW Open would end.
Review 20 SEP:  SAC CW and WAQP are conflicts

Analysis 23 AUG:  In 2013, there was no conflict with Tokyo Ham Fair and 6
JA logs have been received out of a total of 246 for Session 1.  >90 logs
from EU/W.Asia.  Remainder NA.  I have not processed Session 2 or 3.  HI and
OH QPs take in about 200 logs each.  Most of the group feels that concurrent
state QPs will not impact the CWO greatly.  

Analysis 6 SEP:   45% overlap in operators Sprint/CWO.  W6SX, NW2K, N3JT
weigh this data against a 6 SEP CWO.  K6RB and AD6E are leaning OK with 6
SEP.  I can't find evidence on where W1RM, K6MM, NO5W stand on this date. 

Analysis 20 SEP:  SAC CW seems to be a late addition to the discussion.
Here is a link to some stats:  http://www.sactest.net/blog/statistics/  1200
logs received in 2012.  92 logs from NA.  874 logs from EU.  146 logs from
Asia.  RST and serial number.

Proposed Cull:  20 SEP (SAC CW) seems more occupied than 30 AUG (YODX)

Please comment on this email and its assumptions and please decide if 20 SEP
should be removed from consideration.  After the comment period, I'd like to
convene a vote.

Thanks!

73, Dean, NW2K 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.kkn.net/pipermail/cwo/attachments/20130917/a7462848/attachment-0001.html 