Date   

locked Re: Minutes for March 2, 2019 Meeting Posted

Frank Wolfe
 

Randy,

I completely agree with your assessment with regard to, "When we fail to solve problems, such as the lack of frequency pairs for new technology, over some period of time the users will just stop paying attention to the Repeater Council and put things on the air anyway."  This was exactly what led us to the 10 pairs we "created" for the new narrow-band equipment hitting the market (Kenny corrected me, it was about 8 years ago). Are 10 pairs enough to satisfy the demand? No, of course not, but this has acted like a relief valve on the pressure cooker, so we could move forward in an ordered, controlled way. It has also brought us to a point where we can talk about how to shape the future expansion of evolving technology.

From the Coordinator point of view, options are limited, but there are options, nonetheless. Given that there is no "new spectrum" available, and not wanting to force any existing system off the air (never mind that we have no such authority in the first place) the next steps need to be carefully looked at. This is an "all hands evolution" as we used to say. While there are no dumb ideas, even a lot of very good ideas probably won't solve our problems.

So, how do we take a sack that is already full, and add another load of repeaters to it?  The field is open for discussion.

73

Frank, NM7R

----



On Tuesday, March 5, 2019, 5:43:43 PM PST, Randy Neals <randy@...> wrote:


Daron,

Your story is very similar to what I've heard from other locations.

I'm originally from the Western New York Southern Ontario Repeater Council (WNYSORC) area. (Toronto, Buffalo and Southern Ontario from Detroit to north of Rochester)
There hasn't been a VHF pair available there in 15 or maybe 20  years. Most new repeaters on VHF are uncoordinated.
Our neighboring council, the Saint Lawrence Valley Repeater Council (SLVRC) has a similar problem anywhere along the US/Canada border from Lake Ontario/Rochester/Syracuse etc.
Combine that with difficult relationship with UNYREPCO, the coordinator in Rochester and Upstate , NY. UNYREPCO coordinates private repeaters, and will hold a coordination for years, even if the repeater is long off the air.

Both WNYSORC and SLVRC are struggling to remain relevant. They have no new VHF coordinations to offer. UHF is a long wait list.
Because Repeater Book has become the defacto Repeater Guide and because people are putting up many uncoordinated repeaters, WNYSORC and SLVRC are not a solution to the problem, so they tend to be ignored.

If there is a lesson in that experience that I can pass on, it would be that Repeater Councils can only remain relevant and have some respect/authority if they solve problems for their patrons which are both old and new repeater owners.
When we fail to solve problems, such as the lack of frequency pairs for new technology, over some period of time the users will just stop paying attention to the Repeater Council and put things on the air anyway.
Our Repeater Councils back east were primarily run by long-term / well established repeater owners who had no incentive to make it easy for new repeater owners, or new technology.

In contrast, what I see here in W Washington is quite civilized - But it would be fair to note the obvious differences in population - 10+ Million population in WNYSORC area, and about half that here in Western Washington.
If you doubled the ham population in Western Washington, it would be quite a bit harder to coordinate a new pair than it is today.

73,
Randy
W3RWN / VE3RWN
Burien, WA









On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 4:15 PM daron wilson <daron@...> wrote:

I agree with Frank’s assessment of this issue for the most part.  Ideally, it would be great to work with all the groups to some common direction, but there are some barriers.  California make some interesting decisions, I’ve yet to find anyone down there that is ‘pleased’ with the way things came out on VHF.

 

Our terrain is significantly different than much of the WWARA coverage area, our user base is also often of a different mindset.  Not that either user base is right or wrong, but they may not have the same interests or priorities.  However, it seems very reasonable for us to be talking to each other about our thoughts and plans, particularly long term band plan changes that would require some planning and good marketing to deliver.

 

We wrestled with this years ago when Dstar came up.  There was a substantial grant for a lot of digital equipment, and no VHF pairs in the metro area to place new repeaters on.  I’ll never forget the push from the ARES section leader that they simply must have digital pairs made available for this equipment or ‘people were going to die’.  The only workable solution we could agree on was that they could eliminate an analog repeater, and create a digital splinter frequency on each side of the former analog channel, occupy one with their digital repeater and the other splinter would be used elsewhere where it could fit.  To date, I believe only one repeater changed in that manner to accommodate it, and as we found out the 6.25khz signal wasn’t that narrow all the way down.   During that time when we posed the option of creating some digital pairs out of some lightly used packet and simplex area, the feedback from the membership and the ARES groups was brutal.  To date my VHF Dstar repeater runs on an uncoordinated pair, as nothing is available for VHF coordination on a good sized hilltop.

 

Perhaps looking more long term at narrow banding would be an easy starting point to work between two or three groups.

 

Thanks for the dialog, I’m certain that working together even if we end up with different solutions is bound to be better than the alternatives.

 

73

 

Daron N7HQR

Chairman, ORRC, Inc.

 

 

From: wwara@groups.io [mailto:wwara@groups.io] On Behalf Of Frank Wolfe via Groups.Io
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2019 1:14 PM
To: wwara@groups.io
Subject: Re: [wwara] Minutes for March 2, 2019 Meeting Posted

 

Randy,

 

That is a nice idea, but in the past it has proven not so easy to realize. California is cut off from Oregon by mountains (and sparse population) along the border very effectively for VHF/UHF. In the past, California has danced to its own drummer, for example, using 15 kHz steps on 2-meters versus 20-kHz steps in the Pacific Northwest. If you want to try to lead such a discussion, you are welcome to try. I don't think you could get agreement between the various groups within California, just to start with.

 

With respect to V/UHF user communities, There are at least three in Washington State (Puget Sound, Eastern WA, and the southwestern corner of WA). Oregon is mostly divided by the Cascades as well, although the western region south of Eugene is also different from that north of that city, and the coast tends to march to a different drummer.

 

Each region has different needs and solutions. Any single solution that tried to satisfy the preferences and needs of all these regions would end up satisfying none of them. That was the driving force behind regional coordination organizations in the first place.

 

Channel bandwidth is driven by technology. Co-channel cooperation, and therefore the number of viable repeaters possible within a given area, is driven by users (population density, skills, habits and demands). This varies greatly between regions.

 

Please join the discussion, though.

 

73

 

Frank, NM7R

 

 

 

On Tuesday, March 5, 2019, 11:00:04 AM PST, Randy Neals <randy@...> wrote:

 

 

 

Following this with interest...


Wondering if this should not be an entire West Coast consultation and plan development as topography more than state lines affect VHF/UHF propagation.
Everyone west of the mountains / the I-5 Corridor is in the same VHF/UHF propagation region and is interrelated north-south.
To that extent, a consistent standard across the west that harmonizes the approach to channel bandwidth, assignment and policies could well be in the best interest of amateur radio.

BCARCC
WWARA
ORRC
NARCC
TASMA
220SMA
SCRRBA
With appropriate engagement of inland coordinators as well.

 

Randy
W3RWN
Burien, WA

 

On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 10:24 AM Kenny Richards <kenny@...> wrote:

Daron,

Please share, just remind people that it was a proposal and meant to kick start the discussion, not the final plan. :-)  There were two critical missing points brought up during the meeting and will be the focus of the working group to address over the next couple months. (The exact channel plan being one of them) Another point that came up during the meeting that I didn't call out was trying to align our neighbor coordination bodies with the plan once we have a proposal that seems to work. ORCC and BC were specifically called out, but IACC would certainly be invited as well. So I'm glad you are reaching out pro-actively. :-)

Having regular sync up of WWARA and ORCC working groups would be great. 

73,
Kenny




locked Re: Minutes for March 2, 2019 Meeting Posted

Randy Neals
 

Daron,

Your story is very similar to what I've heard from other locations.

I'm originally from the Western New York Southern Ontario Repeater Council (WNYSORC) area. (Toronto, Buffalo and Southern Ontario from Detroit to north of Rochester)
There hasn't been a VHF pair available there in 15 or maybe 20  years. Most new repeaters on VHF are uncoordinated.
Our neighboring council, the Saint Lawrence Valley Repeater Council (SLVRC) has a similar problem anywhere along the US/Canada border from Lake Ontario/Rochester/Syracuse etc.
Combine that with difficult relationship with UNYREPCO, the coordinator in Rochester and Upstate , NY. UNYREPCO coordinates private repeaters, and will hold a coordination for years, even if the repeater is long off the air.

Both WNYSORC and SLVRC are struggling to remain relevant. They have no new VHF coordinations to offer. UHF is a long wait list.
Because Repeater Book has become the defacto Repeater Guide and because people are putting up many uncoordinated repeaters, WNYSORC and SLVRC are not a solution to the problem, so they tend to be ignored.

If there is a lesson in that experience that I can pass on, it would be that Repeater Councils can only remain relevant and have some respect/authority if they solve problems for their patrons which are both old and new repeater owners.
When we fail to solve problems, such as the lack of frequency pairs for new technology, over some period of time the users will just stop paying attention to the Repeater Council and put things on the air anyway.
Our Repeater Councils back east were primarily run by long-term / well established repeater owners who had no incentive to make it easy for new repeater owners, or new technology.

In contrast, what I see here in W Washington is quite civilized - But it would be fair to note the obvious differences in population - 10+ Million population in WNYSORC area, and about half that here in Western Washington.
If you doubled the ham population in Western Washington, it would be quite a bit harder to coordinate a new pair than it is today.

73,
Randy
W3RWN / VE3RWN
Burien, WA









On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 4:15 PM daron wilson <daron@...> wrote:

I agree with Frank’s assessment of this issue for the most part.  Ideally, it would be great to work with all the groups to some common direction, but there are some barriers.  California make some interesting decisions, I’ve yet to find anyone down there that is ‘pleased’ with the way things came out on VHF.

 

Our terrain is significantly different than much of the WWARA coverage area, our user base is also often of a different mindset.  Not that either user base is right or wrong, but they may not have the same interests or priorities.  However, it seems very reasonable for us to be talking to each other about our thoughts and plans, particularly long term band plan changes that would require some planning and good marketing to deliver.

 

We wrestled with this years ago when Dstar came up.  There was a substantial grant for a lot of digital equipment, and no VHF pairs in the metro area to place new repeaters on.  I’ll never forget the push from the ARES section leader that they simply must have digital pairs made available for this equipment or ‘people were going to die’.  The only workable solution we could agree on was that they could eliminate an analog repeater, and create a digital splinter frequency on each side of the former analog channel, occupy one with their digital repeater and the other splinter would be used elsewhere where it could fit.  To date, I believe only one repeater changed in that manner to accommodate it, and as we found out the 6.25khz signal wasn’t that narrow all the way down.   During that time when we posed the option of creating some digital pairs out of some lightly used packet and simplex area, the feedback from the membership and the ARES groups was brutal.  To date my VHF Dstar repeater runs on an uncoordinated pair, as nothing is available for VHF coordination on a good sized hilltop.

 

Perhaps looking more long term at narrow banding would be an easy starting point to work between two or three groups.

 

Thanks for the dialog, I’m certain that working together even if we end up with different solutions is bound to be better than the alternatives.

 

73

 

Daron N7HQR

Chairman, ORRC, Inc.

 

 

From: wwara@groups.io [mailto:wwara@groups.io] On Behalf Of Frank Wolfe via Groups.Io
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2019 1:14 PM
To: wwara@groups.io
Subject: Re: [wwara] Minutes for March 2, 2019 Meeting Posted

 

Randy,

 

That is a nice idea, but in the past it has proven not so easy to realize. California is cut off from Oregon by mountains (and sparse population) along the border very effectively for VHF/UHF. In the past, California has danced to its own drummer, for example, using 15 kHz steps on 2-meters versus 20-kHz steps in the Pacific Northwest. If you want to try to lead such a discussion, you are welcome to try. I don't think you could get agreement between the various groups within California, just to start with.

 

With respect to V/UHF user communities, There are at least three in Washington State (Puget Sound, Eastern WA, and the southwestern corner of WA). Oregon is mostly divided by the Cascades as well, although the western region south of Eugene is also different from that north of that city, and the coast tends to march to a different drummer.

 

Each region has different needs and solutions. Any single solution that tried to satisfy the preferences and needs of all these regions would end up satisfying none of them. That was the driving force behind regional coordination organizations in the first place.

 

Channel bandwidth is driven by technology. Co-channel cooperation, and therefore the number of viable repeaters possible within a given area, is driven by users (population density, skills, habits and demands). This varies greatly between regions.

 

Please join the discussion, though.

 

73

 

Frank, NM7R

 

 

 

On Tuesday, March 5, 2019, 11:00:04 AM PST, Randy Neals <randy@...> wrote:

 

 

 

Following this with interest...


Wondering if this should not be an entire West Coast consultation and plan development as topography more than state lines affect VHF/UHF propagation.
Everyone west of the mountains / the I-5 Corridor is in the same VHF/UHF propagation region and is interrelated north-south.
To that extent, a consistent standard across the west that harmonizes the approach to channel bandwidth, assignment and policies could well be in the best interest of amateur radio.

BCARCC
WWARA
ORRC
NARCC
TASMA
220SMA
SCRRBA
With appropriate engagement of inland coordinators as well.

 

Randy
W3RWN
Burien, WA

 

On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 10:24 AM Kenny Richards <kenny@...> wrote:

Daron,

Please share, just remind people that it was a proposal and meant to kick start the discussion, not the final plan. :-)  There were two critical missing points brought up during the meeting and will be the focus of the working group to address over the next couple months. (The exact channel plan being one of them) Another point that came up during the meeting that I didn't call out was trying to align our neighbor coordination bodies with the plan once we have a proposal that seems to work. ORCC and BC were specifically called out, but IACC would certainly be invited as well. So I'm glad you are reaching out pro-actively. :-)

Having regular sync up of WWARA and ORCC working groups would be great. 

73,
Kenny




locked Re: Minutes for March 2, 2019 Meeting Posted

daron wilson
 

I agree with Frank’s assessment of this issue for the most part.  Ideally, it would be great to work with all the groups to some common direction, but there are some barriers.  California make some interesting decisions, I’ve yet to find anyone down there that is ‘pleased’ with the way things came out on VHF.

 

Our terrain is significantly different than much of the WWARA coverage area, our user base is also often of a different mindset.  Not that either user base is right or wrong, but they may not have the same interests or priorities.  However, it seems very reasonable for us to be talking to each other about our thoughts and plans, particularly long term band plan changes that would require some planning and good marketing to deliver.

 

We wrestled with this years ago when Dstar came up.  There was a substantial grant for a lot of digital equipment, and no VHF pairs in the metro area to place new repeaters on.  I’ll never forget the push from the ARES section leader that they simply must have digital pairs made available for this equipment or ‘people were going to die’.  The only workable solution we could agree on was that they could eliminate an analog repeater, and create a digital splinter frequency on each side of the former analog channel, occupy one with their digital repeater and the other splinter would be used elsewhere where it could fit.  To date, I believe only one repeater changed in that manner to accommodate it, and as we found out the 6.25khz signal wasn’t that narrow all the way down.   During that time when we posed the option of creating some digital pairs out of some lightly used packet and simplex area, the feedback from the membership and the ARES groups was brutal.  To date my VHF Dstar repeater runs on an uncoordinated pair, as nothing is available for VHF coordination on a good sized hilltop.

 

Perhaps looking more long term at narrow banding would be an easy starting point to work between two or three groups.

 

Thanks for the dialog, I’m certain that working together even if we end up with different solutions is bound to be better than the alternatives.

 

73

 

Daron N7HQR

Chairman, ORRC, Inc.

 

 

From: wwara@groups.io [mailto:wwara@groups.io] On Behalf Of Frank Wolfe via Groups.Io
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2019 1:14 PM
To: wwara@groups.io
Subject: Re: [wwara] Minutes for March 2, 2019 Meeting Posted

 

Randy,

 

That is a nice idea, but in the past it has proven not so easy to realize. California is cut off from Oregon by mountains (and sparse population) along the border very effectively for VHF/UHF. In the past, California has danced to its own drummer, for example, using 15 kHz steps on 2-meters versus 20-kHz steps in the Pacific Northwest. If you want to try to lead such a discussion, you are welcome to try. I don't think you could get agreement between the various groups within California, just to start with.

 

With respect to V/UHF user communities, There are at least three in Washington State (Puget Sound, Eastern WA, and the southwestern corner of WA). Oregon is mostly divided by the Cascades as well, although the western region south of Eugene is also different from that north of that city, and the coast tends to march to a different drummer.

 

Each region has different needs and solutions. Any single solution that tried to satisfy the preferences and needs of all these regions would end up satisfying none of them. That was the driving force behind regional coordination organizations in the first place.

 

Channel bandwidth is driven by technology. Co-channel cooperation, and therefore the number of viable repeaters possible within a given area, is driven by users (population density, skills, habits and demands). This varies greatly between regions.

 

Please join the discussion, though.

 

73

 

Frank, NM7R

 

 

 

On Tuesday, March 5, 2019, 11:00:04 AM PST, Randy Neals <randy@...> wrote:

 

 

 

Following this with interest...


Wondering if this should not be an entire West Coast consultation and plan development as topography more than state lines affect VHF/UHF propagation.
Everyone west of the mountains / the I-5 Corridor is in the same VHF/UHF propagation region and is interrelated north-south.
To that extent, a consistent standard across the west that harmonizes the approach to channel bandwidth, assignment and policies could well be in the best interest of amateur radio.

BCARCC
WWARA
ORRC
NARCC
TASMA
220SMA
SCRRBA
With appropriate engagement of inland coordinators as well.

 

Randy
W3RWN
Burien, WA

 

On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 10:24 AM Kenny Richards <kenny@...> wrote:

Daron,

Please share, just remind people that it was a proposal and meant to kick start the discussion, not the final plan. :-)  There were two critical missing points brought up during the meeting and will be the focus of the working group to address over the next couple months. (The exact channel plan being one of them) Another point that came up during the meeting that I didn't call out was trying to align our neighbor coordination bodies with the plan once we have a proposal that seems to work. ORCC and BC were specifically called out, but IACC would certainly be invited as well. So I'm glad you are reaching out pro-actively. :-)

Having regular sync up of WWARA and ORCC working groups would be great. 

73,
Kenny




locked Re: Minutes for March 2, 2019 Meeting Posted

Frank Wolfe
 

Randy,

That is a nice idea, but in the past it has proven not so easy to realize. California is cut off from Oregon by mountains (and sparse population) along the border very effectively for VHF/UHF. In the past, California has danced to its own drummer, for example, using 15 kHz steps on 2-meters versus 20-kHz steps in the Pacific Northwest. If you want to try to lead such a discussion, you are welcome to try. I don't think you could get agreement between the various groups within California, just to start with.

With respect to V/UHF user communities, There are at least three in Washington State (Puget Sound, Eastern WA, and the southwestern corner of WA). Oregon is mostly divided by the Cascades as well, although the western region south of Eugene is also different from that north of that city, and the coast tends to march to a different drummer.

Each region has different needs and solutions. Any single solution that tried to satisfy the preferences and needs of all these regions would end up satisfying none of them. That was the driving force behind regional coordination organizations in the first place.

Channel bandwidth is driven by technology. Co-channel cooperation, and therefore the number of viable repeaters possible within a given area, is driven by users (population density, skills, habits and demands). This varies greatly between regions.

Please join the discussion, though.

73

Frank, NM7R



On Tuesday, March 5, 2019, 11:00:04 AM PST, Randy Neals <randy@...> wrote:



Following this with interest...

Wondering if this should not be an entire West Coast consultation and plan development as topography more than state lines affect VHF/UHF propagation.
Everyone west of the mountains / the I-5 Corridor is in the same VHF/UHF propagation region and is interrelated north-south.
To that extent, a consistent standard across the west that harmonizes the approach to channel bandwidth, assignment and policies could well be in the best interest of amateur radio.

BCARCC
WWARA
ORRC
NARCC
TASMA
220SMA
SCRRBA
With appropriate engagement of inland coordinators as well.

Randy
W3RWN
Burien, WA


On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 10:24 AM Kenny Richards <kenny@...> wrote:
Daron,

Please share, just remind people that it was a proposal and meant to kick start the discussion, not the final plan. :-)  There were two critical missing points brought up during the meeting and will be the focus of the working group to address over the next couple months. (The exact channel plan being one of them) Another point that came up during the meeting that I didn't call out was trying to align our neighbor coordination bodies with the plan once we have a proposal that seems to work. ORCC and BC were specifically called out, but IACC would certainly be invited as well. So I'm glad you are reaching out pro-actively. :-)

Having regular sync up of WWARA and ORCC working groups would be great. 

73,
Kenny





locked Re: Minutes for March 2, 2019 Meeting Posted

Kenny Richards
 

>However, it's worth some time consulting with the neighbors, and trying to do the right thing.
>If the right thing is not possible, at least we tried and have the moral authority to do something less optimal, locally.

Agreed, which is why there was action items taken during the meeting to reach out to the ORCC and BC group. (Daron just beat us to the punch)

Kenny


locked Re: Minutes for March 2, 2019 Meeting Posted

Randy Neals
 

Thanks Kenny,

I also recognize that trying to bring together the West Coast in one plan is not simple or easy.
It's hard enough to get consensus in one coordinating area.

However, it's worth some time consulting with the neighbors, and trying to do the right thing.
If the right thing is not possible, at least we tried and have the moral authority to do something less optimal, locally.

Randy


On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 12:15 PM Kenny Richards <kenny@...> wrote:
Randy,

I applaud your foresight and bold suggestion, it would certainly be a great if the all the coordination bodies on the west coast could agree on the details of the transition. When the committee has something ready to share with a wider audience, I will be happy to engage you for driving this effort across all the groups you mentioned. 

Thanks
Kenny


locked Re: Minutes for March 2, 2019 Meeting Posted

Kenny Richards
 

Randy,

I applaud your foresight and bold suggestion, it would certainly be a great if the all the coordination bodies on the west coast could agree on the details of the transition. When the committee has something ready to share with a wider audience, I will be happy to engage you for driving this effort across all the groups you mentioned. 

Thanks
Kenny


locked Re: Minutes for March 2, 2019 Meeting Posted

Randy Neals
 


Following this with interest...

Wondering if this should not be an entire West Coast consultation and plan development as topography more than state lines affect VHF/UHF propagation.
Everyone west of the mountains / the I-5 Corridor is in the same VHF/UHF propagation region and is interrelated north-south.
To that extent, a consistent standard across the west that harmonizes the approach to channel bandwidth, assignment and policies could well be in the best interest of amateur radio.

BCARCC
WWARA
ORRC
NARCC
TASMA
220SMA
SCRRBA
With appropriate engagement of inland coordinators as well.

Randy
W3RWN
Burien, WA


On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 10:24 AM Kenny Richards <kenny@...> wrote:
Daron,

Please share, just remind people that it was a proposal and meant to kick start the discussion, not the final plan. :-)  There were two critical missing points brought up during the meeting and will be the focus of the working group to address over the next couple months. (The exact channel plan being one of them) Another point that came up during the meeting that I didn't call out was trying to align our neighbor coordination bodies with the plan once we have a proposal that seems to work. ORCC and BC were specifically called out, but IACC would certainly be invited as well. So I'm glad you are reaching out pro-actively. :-)

Having regular sync up of WWARA and ORCC working groups would be great. 

73,
Kenny





locked Re: Minutes for March 2, 2019 Meeting Posted

Frank Wolfe
 

Daron,

I don't think WWARA has any problem with your sharing the information. It was presented during our last quarterly meeting. Those meetings are open to the public, and we have always wanted input from repeater-owners and repeater-users, as well as the rest of the Amateur community.

I don't want to speak for Kenny, or steal his ideas, but his presentation did bring our focus onto next steps. Our creation of the ten "new" narrow-band channels has punted this question down the field (about a decade from when we adopted them), giving us some breathing room, but we all see the transition to narrow-band (almost entirely digital) platforms as the "next big thing". We also appreciate that the rate of change is accelerating, and will overtake us before we are really ready for it.

It is imperative that we work together to minimize conflict at the border between our two areas. That means sharing ideas, both what we see as working, and what is not.

I'm looking forward to SeaPac and a chance to toss some ideas around...

73

Frank, NM7R
Chair, WWARA



On Tuesday, March 5, 2019, 9:46:41 AM PST, daron wilson <daron@...> wrote:


Kenny,

 

Do you mind if I share your narrow band considerations with the ORRC board?  It would be nice to start some regular meetings between the two boards if at all possible and see if we can find some common ground on this area.  I’d like to share what you put together with our board so we can keep in the loop if you don’t mind.

 

Thanks,


Daron N7HQR

Chairman, ORRC

 

From: wwara@groups.io [mailto:wwara@groups.io] On Behalf Of Kenny Richards
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2019 9:33 AM
To: wwara@groups.io
Subject: [wwara] Minutes for March 2, 2019 Meeting Posted

 

I posted the minutes from the March 2 meeting to the file section here and on the WWARA website.

In addition to the meeting minutes, I also attached a copy of a proposal I wrote for how the WWARA could transition from 20kHz channels to narrowband (either 12.5kHz and/or 6.25kHz) channels. This question has been a regular topic during board meetings for the last nine months and the last couple general membership meetings. 

One of the points raised on Saturday was the 'voting' membership has declined in the WWARA over the last couple years. This isn't really a concern from a financial point of view, the group has plenty of funds. But it also means we have a much small number of repeater owners and users taking part in the governance of the group. As we start discussing the a major transition for the repeater sub-band in Washington, it would really be beneficial to have more voices apart of the discussion.

If you don't normally pay much attention to the WWARA because the leadership is doing a good job, now is a good time to start checking in. Please reach out to me if you are interested in helping develop the proposal for how the WWARA will transition to narrowband channels.

73,
Kenny, KU7M
WWARA Secretary
kenny@...


locked Re: Minutes for March 2, 2019 Meeting Posted

Kenny Richards
 

Daron,

Please share, just remind people that it was a proposal and meant to kick start the discussion, not the final plan. :-)  There were two critical missing points brought up during the meeting and will be the focus of the working group to address over the next couple months. (The exact channel plan being one of them) Another point that came up during the meeting that I didn't call out was trying to align our neighbor coordination bodies with the plan once we have a proposal that seems to work. ORCC and BC were specifically called out, but IACC would certainly be invited as well. So I'm glad you are reaching out pro-actively. :-)

Having regular sync up of WWARA and ORCC working groups would be great. 

73,
Kenny





locked Re: Minutes for March 2, 2019 Meeting Posted

daron wilson
 

Kenny,

 

Do you mind if I share your narrow band considerations with the ORRC board?  It would be nice to start some regular meetings between the two boards if at all possible and see if we can find some common ground on this area.  I’d like to share what you put together with our board so we can keep in the loop if you don’t mind.

 

Thanks,


Daron N7HQR

Chairman, ORRC

 

From: wwara@groups.io [mailto:wwara@groups.io] On Behalf Of Kenny Richards
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2019 9:33 AM
To: wwara@groups.io
Subject: [wwara] Minutes for March 2, 2019 Meeting Posted

 

I posted the minutes from the March 2 meeting to the file section here and on the WWARA website.

In addition to the meeting minutes, I also attached a copy of a proposal I wrote for how the WWARA could transition from 20kHz channels to narrowband (either 12.5kHz and/or 6.25kHz) channels. This question has been a regular topic during board meetings for the last nine months and the last couple general membership meetings. 

One of the points raised on Saturday was the 'voting' membership has declined in the WWARA over the last couple years. This isn't really a concern from a financial point of view, the group has plenty of funds. But it also means we have a much small number of repeater owners and users taking part in the governance of the group. As we start discussing the a major transition for the repeater sub-band in Washington, it would really be beneficial to have more voices apart of the discussion.

If you don't normally pay much attention to the WWARA because the leadership is doing a good job, now is a good time to start checking in. Please reach out to me if you are interested in helping develop the proposal for how the WWARA will transition to narrowband channels.

73,
Kenny, KU7M
WWARA Secretary
kenny@...


locked Minutes for March 2, 2019 Meeting Posted

Kenny Richards
 

I posted the minutes from the March 2 meeting to the file section here and on the WWARA website.

In addition to the meeting minutes, I also attached a copy of a proposal I wrote for how the WWARA could transition from 20kHz channels to narrowband (either 12.5kHz and/or 6.25kHz) channels. This question has been a regular topic during board meetings for the last nine months and the last couple general membership meetings. 

One of the points raised on Saturday was the 'voting' membership has declined in the WWARA over the last couple years. This isn't really a concern from a financial point of view, the group has plenty of funds. But it also means we have a much small number of repeater owners and users taking part in the governance of the group. As we start discussing the a major transition for the repeater sub-band in Washington, it would really be beneficial to have more voices apart of the discussion.

If you don't normally pay much attention to the WWARA because the leadership is doing a good job, now is a good time to start checking in. Please reach out to me if you are interested in helping develop the proposal for how the WWARA will transition to narrowband channels.

73,
Kenny, KU7M
WWARA Secretary
kenny@...


53.17 K7LWH / W7OXR Rose Hill Repeater

Frank Wolfe
 

The 53.17  K7LWH / W7OXR  Rose Hill Repeater has successfully completed its testing period, and has been recommended for Coordination by a vote of the Board. It now goes to the Membership for a 2-week comment period. If any WWARA Member has a reason against this repeater being recommended for Coordination, please advise the Board before March 14, 2019.

Frank Wolfe, NM7R,
WWARA 6meter Band Chair


New file uploaded to wwara@groups.io

wwara@groups.io Notification <wwara+notification@...>
 

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the wwara@groups.io group.

File: WWARA_Agenda_03022019.pdf

Uploaded By: Kenny Richards

Description:
Agenda for March 2, 2019 Meeting

You can access this file at the URL:
https://groups.io/g/wwara/files/MeetingMinutes2019/WWARA_Agenda_03022019.pdf

Cheers,
The Groups.io Team


Member comment period open - 224.24 W7UFI Haystack Mt

Peter Dahl, WA7FUS
 

Following an uneventful test period the coordination of this repeater has been approved by the WWARA board. As is our regular policy this repeater will receive it's certificate of coordination provided that members provide no reasons for not granting full coordination to this repeater by March 12.


Member comment period open - 145.35 W7BBO Purdy

Peter Dahl, WA7FUS
 

Following an uneventful test period the coordination of this repeater has been transferred from K7PAG in Olalla to W7BBO to serve as the KA7EOC repeater in Purdy. This repeater will receive it's certificate of coordination provided that there are no objections submitted by March 7.


Comment period open for 3 new coordinations

Peter Dahl, WA7FUS
 

Successful test periods and board coordination approval has been completed for the following 2 meter DMR repeaters.
146.4375 AF7PR Baldi Mt
146.5 AF7PR and Mount Baker ARC  Lookout Mt (Bellingham)
147.02 AF7PR Rattlesnake Mt - Northbend/Snoqualmi

Comment period will be open until March 5. If no objections are submitted regarding these applications they will will receive their certificates of coordination.


Member comment period open N7NFY, Haystack

Howard Wilhelm
 

Following an uneventful test period the comment period is open for the relocated 443.875 on Haystack. If no negative comments are received the repeater will be considered coordinated Feburary 27.


Member comment period open - 146.78 WW7CH Paradise-Mt Rainier

Peter Dahl, WA7FUS
 

Following an uneventful test period the coordination of WW7CH's 146.78 repeater at Paradise on Mt Rainier has been approved by the board.
As is our regular policy this repeater will receive it's certificate of coordination on February 14th provided there are no negative comments received.


Member comment period open 441.875 WC7T Haystack Mtn.

Howard Wilhelm
 

Following an uneventful test period the coordination of this repeater has been approved by the WWARA board. As is our regular policy this repeater will receive it's certificate of coordination on January 27th, provided there are no negative comments received.

281 - 300 of 1345