This could get real interesting, real fast, since the big difference between
SCRRBA and TASMA band plans is whether the 70cm repeater inputs should be
above or below the outputs. They are opposite polarities!
73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY
-Original Message-
From: Jeff [mailto:jeff.92...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 3:30 PM
To: repeaterownersassociat...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TASMA makes a move to take over coordinating responsibilities
for the 440 band
Larry,
In my personal opinion, I would not want a repeater trustee, or repeater
owner to be heading up a coordinating committee. NO6B, as I recall,
has been both while on various decision making positions at TASMA.
Also, anyone on TASMA or SCRBBA should NOT be considered for
any coordination of any kind while also engaged in coordination, and
even after leaving a coordination group, should give up their rights
to a new coordination for some period, say 5 years.
There is probably a desire on the part of some 2-meter repeater
owners to take over some of the 440 coordinations to further their
global expansion plans, or linking plans, or whatever they have in
mind for 440.
Good luck.
Jeff, W6FCC
Formerly WA4EGT
--- On Mon, 5/4/09, larryw6lar larryw6...@verizon.net wrote:
From: larryw6lar larryw6...@verizon.net
Subject: Re: TASMA makes a move to take over coordinating
responsibilities for the 440 band
To: repeaterownersassociat...@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, May 4, 2009, 11:14 AM
WA6ARC wrote:
A storm is brewing in Southern California as TASMA makes a move to
take over coordinating responsibilities for the 440 band. In what
one
repeater owner referred to as a turf war, others believe the
move
will streamline the process, eliminate duplication and cut costs
of
services by eliminating SCRRBA.
Multiple complaints have been heard over the years about the lack
of
cooperation with repeater owners and SCRRBA leadership. A group of
repeater owners recently approached TASMA and requested that TASMA
assume the role of coordinator of the 440 band and the new board
at
TASMA agreed in principle to move ahead with the idea.
TASMA established a working group at the December meeting and the
group has issued a recommendation to the members to change the
bylaws
of TASMA to become the 440 band coordinator.
Below are the proposed changes that will be voted on by TASMA
membership at the next general meeting.
1. Meeting began with a discussion of the proposed bylaw changes
necessary to enable 440 coordination. The bylaw changes had been
revised based on the discussions in the April 25 meeting. Two set
of
changes were presented. The first marked Vote 1 consisted of
three
bylaw changes that needed to be made to enable 440 coordination.
The
second marked Vote 2 was a bylaw change to change the
organizations
name. The bylaws were reviewed and were accepted without any
changes.
2. The draft motion to be presented to the membership to enable
440
coordination was reviewed and discussed. There was a discussion
about
wording changes Bob NO6B wanted to see in the second paragraph.
All
attendees agreed to change the motion to incorporate the changes
Bob
proposed to the committee. The discussion also touched on how 70
centimeter functional standards might differ from 2 Meter
standards.
All attendees agreed to start the process using the 2 meter
standards
and to have the Technical Committee decide the functional standard
changes necessary for 70 centimeters using standard TASMA
procedures.
3. The section of the motion to provide grandfathered coordination
was
discussed. The discussion centered around the length of time of
the
transition period in which grandfathered coordinations would be
allowed. The discussion was about how much time was reasonable to
submit a RFC for grandfathered coordination and how fast the
Technical
Committee could respond to grandfather RFCs. There was concern
that
the Technical Committee may be overwhelmed by the volume of
grandfathered coordination requests. There was also concern that
lack
of a deadline would create problems for the Technical Committee in
the
long run. After considerable discussion, the attendees decided to
set
the grandfather RFC time limit to expire 12/31/11. The time period
was
set for six months to inform the amateur community about the
changes
and for eighteen months to submit the grandfather RFC. The
attendees
also decided that the deadline applied to the submission of the
grandfather RFC to
