[Cwo] FW: 2014 Summary Before Voting REVISED!

[Charles Sanders]

I think NA QP should be NA Sprint
On Sep 17, 2013 7:22 AM, "Jim Talens" <jtalens at verizon.net> wrote:

> Oops, I added a sentence to the wrong paragraph.   So point 3 should not
> have included the comment about JA conditions.  That should have been in
> para. 4.   So here we are again:****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* cwo-bounces at kkn.net [mailto:cwo-bounces at kkn.net] *On Behalf Of *Jim
> Talens
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 17, 2013 8:18 AM
> *To:* cwo at kkn.net
> *Subject:* Re: [Cwo] 2014 Summary Before Voting****
>
> ** **
>
> 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****
>
> ** **
>
> **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.   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.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> 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****
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cwo mailing list
> Cwo at kkn.net
> http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/cwo
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.kkn.net/pipermail/cwo/attachments/20130917/7cf392ef/attachment-0001.html