Donations are accepted. We appreciate the help!
Click here for RSS feeds or use the email signup form below to be notified about new radio-sport.net news updates
"We expect to complete the tasking well ahead of the January ARRL Board Meeting," said Dick Green WC1M, the head of the ARRL Contest Advisory Committee.
A regular report by Green on CAC activities, which is now publicly available on the ARRL web site, details five basic structural changes that have been raised and discussed for the ARRL DX Contest:
"Preliminary polling indicated overwhelming support among CAC members for distance-based scoring," wrote Green, which was the same kind of response that radio-sport.net received from contesters around the world, though strong opposition does exist in some quarters.
The change has long been demanded by some because of the "substantial advantage enjoyed by stations located in the Northeastern US and Caribbean," according to the CAC report.
"I think the distance scoring would be a good idea," said Rodney Martin NY4S in an email to radio-sport.net.
"The distance rule would level the playing field, to some extent," Martin added.
"I am whole heartedly in agreement with implementing this," said Ed Richardson VE4EAR.
"It would assist with compensating those in the centers of each continent with the shorter openings for intercontinental propagation," the much sought after Canadian added in an email.
But not everyone agrees obviously, and those comments have come in to radio-sport.net as well.
"Despite being in an area that might benefit from distance based scoring I don't think it is a good idea - not for a major contest like this one," wrote Marvin Bloomquist N5AW, who manages big scores in major contests from his QTH in Texas.
Bloomquist suggests something for ARRL DX that has been used in some contests, where the individual call areas of certain countries become multipliers to even things out a bit.
"The idea of adding JA, VK, and ZL districts as multipliers is also one that might level the playing field a bit," said Bloomquist. However, geographic advantages will always be there - competition against others in your area is the only thing that overcomes that."
As for the other possible changes, the CAC report says DX-to-DX contacts - even at a low point value - did not get much support and there was no real majority for new limits on single operator operating.
The idea of a new 24-hour category has been talked about for numerous big contests, and here "the CAC was discussing various formats for a 24- hour category, including “Any 24”, “Day 1 or Day 2”, and “24 Hours after the first QSO.”
"There are advantages and disadvantages to each alternative," Green wrote.
While the rules for the 2012 ARRL DX Contests have not yet been published on the ARRL web site, the discussion on new rules for next year seems unlikely to be resolved in time, but it does not mean this effort is being abandoned.
"The CAC has not yet completed the tasking, which is quite broad in scope," wrote Green in his report, he noted "substantial progress over the past several months, including extended discussion and study of major issues related to scoring and operating hours."
The delay in work on ARRL DX rules changes stems from leaks centering on the proposals before the Contest Advisory Committee about the nature of the rules modifications.
In his report to the ARRL, WC1M spends a good chunk of the review going over his options on how to deal with the leaks and the uproar they caused about the work of the CAC.
Green's final recommendation is that the Contest Advisory Committee be scrapped and rebuilt from scratch.
"The only way to be sure that the leaker has been neutralized is to disband the CAC, dismissing all current representatives, and create a new CAC," wrote Green.
"Yet, while it’s helpful for the CAC to hear opinions and proposals from the contest community, in this case the process by which the information became public is unacceptable," Green wrote.
"After giving the matter much thought," Green added in the ARRL CAC Report, "I recommend Option 6D: The ARRL Board should disband the CAC and reform the group under a more effective structure."
The report can be read in full on the ARRL web site.
Asked this past week if any action had been taken to disband the CAC as yet, Green sent radio-sport.net a simple reply.
"No."
Here is what he wrote about temporarily suspending the CAC's work:
"I do not see how the CAC can conduct its business when anything posted on the CAC reflector will be forwarded to persons outside the ARRL, and from there to the public reflectors and the press. Under such circumstances, most members will be reluctant to make proposals, express opinions or vote, even when our discussions are purely theoretical, and even though our votes do not determine the final outcome. It seems likely that CAC representatives will come under intense pressure from the contest community on all issues we discuss, curtailing any chance of a free and creative forum..."
"Accordingly, I have temporarily suspended CAC activities until I can confer with the PSC on the best course of action."
Finally, Green goes over the "Possible Solutions."
"After much reflection, I’ve arrived at the following possible solutions to the leak:
A. Continue with business as usual and tolerate the leaks
B. Make all CAC deliberations public
C. Catch the person who is leaking CAC reflector traffic
D. Disband and reorganize the CAC
Option 6A: I do not believe that tolerating the leak is a viable solution, but will do so if that is the recommendation of the PSC.
Option 6B: Making CAC deliberations public will, in my opinion, undermine freedom of thought and expression by CAC representatives. That said, it would admittedly improve the CAC’s ability to gather input from the contest community on the issues we study. In any case, the way the CAC operates would change dramatically.
Option 6C: There is a way to catch the person who is leaking emails, but it would require deceiving the perpetrator. This may be viewed by some as perfectly justifiable, but by others as unethical. Personally, I don’t believe it’s in the best interests of ARRL to condone or be associated with a deception, no matter how unacceptable the behavior of the perpetrator.
Option 6D: The only way to be sure that the leaker has been neutralized is to disband the CAC, dismissing all current representatives, and create a new CAC. If this path is chosen, I urge that the opportunity be taken to restructure the CAC to be a more effective group. In particular, the CAC needs to be smaller, and therefore should not have a representative from each Division..."
"After giving the matter much thought, I recommend Option 6D: The ARRL Board should disband the CAC and reform the group under a more effective structure."