Repeaters need functional band coordination. ------ Original Message ------ Received: Fri, 08 May 2009 07:52:59 PM PDT From: Dean Nash <n4...@yahoo.com> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA & 70 cm band coordination
> I'm sorry, can SOMEone please tell me how this thread related to building repeaters? > > > 73 de N4SHD > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Ed Yoho <w6yj_ya...@67hz.net> > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Friday, May 8, 2009 6:17:27 PM > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA & 70 cm band coordination > > > > > > raffertysec wrote: > > It strikes me as very odd that you insist on keeping this on a Yahoo Group that is nationwide instead of allowing the locals to go to a neutral place.. You don't make a dime off of the advertising here, so what does it matter? I referenced SCAROA two by URL oprior to commenting to you. You even replied to one message. > > > > http://scaroa. org. SCAROA has well over 100 repeater owner members that are able to speak with qanonimity until they are ready to speak in their real voice. Most send PM's back and forth but it is a start. > > > > This discussion does not need to be on a natiowide group or even a subset of that group. Why do you claim ownership of a topic that you want gone anyway? Take it to SCAROA. They have been working with the ARRL and the NFCC directly. > > > > I respectfully ask the moderator to close this thread. > > > > (Kevin and Scott - please forgive the off topic post) > > I am not sure where the "well over 100 repeater owner members" comes > from as the SCAROA membership page has a grand total of eleven members - > seven of which are TASMA board members that appear to have joined today > (likely to see what you have been talking about) and have never posted > there. Discounting the TASMA board members, that leaves a grand total of > four members. Of those four, one is listed as not being a repeater > owner. Unless my math is wrong, that leaves three independent repeater > owners as members. > > Looking at the few posts there (shall I say rants), it would appear > whomever is posting has a negative / odd /twisted perspective of > repeater ownership. > > The repeater-builder- coordination group has 35 members. The last posting > was in December 2007. Before that, there were three posts in January > 2007. It is a nice idea, but for whatever reason has not been well > accepted by repeater owners. > > Neither of the groups above seem to be a viable place to get the issues > heard and discussed by a large number of repeater system owners. > > I would guess that many folks who have dealt with any coordination > committee in a metropolitan area have had complaints about their local > committee(s) . > > Perhaps instead of attempting to start a new / alternative coordination > group(s), those that feel slighted should run for office within the > current committees and implement the changes they believe would enhance > the current methods. Both SCRRBA and TASMA hold elections. No one is > stopping you or anyone else from running for office. > > I'm confident there are things within both committees that could be done > better / more efficiently. But considering the number of systems they > each have purview over, I'm not sure what you or anyone could do better > (and still hold a full time job). > > Much of the current discussion of TASMA taking over the 440 band from > SCRRBA could be stopped permanently if Bob or any of the other TASMA > board members would state unequivocally that they are not planning, > discussing, nor thinking of doing so and would not in the future either. > > Ed Yoho > W6YJ > (an evil repeater owner for more than forty years) > > > > > >
