1. Never works 2. Most likely solution. OR, have them help out existing repeater trustees.
3. This usually results in giving priority to the worst repeaters and keeping those that would be better off the air. The best repeaters are usually maintained by one person. Also, define 'shared'. It's not hard to get supporters in name only. 4. Take a good repeater off the air because the trustee changes? I know clubs that change trustees every year. Again, this would lead to the removal of some of the more popular repeaters all to serve someone who wants to put up a garage repeater. (note that there is no 'b' in garage) Make those who want to put up repeaters go 'into it' with those who have repeaters on the air. There is no reason to add to the number of repeaters just to add to the number of repeaters. OR, have them put on a repeater in an 'unpopular' band in order to get activity there. Why does nobody use the (pick one) band? Because there are no repeaters there. Why are there no repeaters? Because there are no users. At one time, 2M WAS the black sheep band. Other bands can gain in popularity, too, given a chance. Who cares if the chicken or the egg was first? Create one and the other will follow. SNP pairs are good, too. Lots of times, someone wants to put a repeater up, files an application, and never actually follows through. This is a PITA for the coordinators since you then have to decoordinate them - a lengthy process. Joe M. > Paul Plack wrote: > > Nate, > > I'll summarize a way-too-long dissertation I bored the list with the > other night... > > (1) Allow would-be repeater-builders to submit joint applications to > share a frequency pair by time-of-day, day-of-week, or whatever other > scheme they propose. > (2) Announce the change in policy, and allow those already on the > waiting list to choose partners for a pair-share scheme > (3) Prioritize shared applications above individual ones on the > waiting list > (4) Turn existing coordinations in to the pool at any change > of licensee (or owner, if different) > > If cooperation will help you get a pair, that's when it's most likely > to happen. > > If you break the long-held expectation that a ham repeater > coordination is grandfathered forever, for the holder to hand off to a > friend, be snarfed up by a coordinator or be sold along with the > hardware to the highest bidder, you'll eventually eliminate the > waiting list. Do that, and you'll also reduce corruption among > coordinators. The competition of which you speak will then return to > 75m SSB, its traditional and proper home. > > I'm not holding my breath! > > 73, > Paul, AE4KR > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Nate Duehr > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 3:57 PM > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] UHF duplexers and preamps > > > ...there will ALWAYS be the "I can do it better" crowd > owning and > > operating repeaters. You don't like how their systems > sound, so you > > get on a waiting list to show them you can "do it better". > How we > > break this cycle of disfunction, I don't know... > > > Anyone reading along have any ideas on how to stop this > madness? > >
