Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: A Rebuttal to an Unfortunate Article in the Sept-Oct 2020 AMSAT Journal  (Read 1152 times)

W5PFG

  • Member
  • Posts: 15
    • HomeURL
Re: A Rebuttal to an Unfortunate Article in the Sept-Oct 2020 AMSAT Journal
« Reply #15 on: December 16, 2020, 12:26:11 PM »

AMSAT is a "non profit" that took a PPP loan that was funded by American taxpayers but turned down grant money offered by another organization that they see as a rival and an enemy, neither of which ORI is. This is fact.

Who said ORI is a rival and enemy of AMSAT? If that's the case, Ms. Thompson clearly has a conflict of interest and should immediately resign from one or both organizations.

Your claim that AMSAT turned down money offered by another organization lacks evidence. Repeating a lie from someone else does not make it fact.
Logged

WE4B

  • Member
  • Posts: 165
Re: A Rebuttal to an Unfortunate Article in the Sept-Oct 2020 AMSAT Journal
« Reply #16 on: December 16, 2020, 01:00:44 PM »

On the AMSAT-BB mailing list, there was a post from Bob McGwier N4HY, who is on the ARDC Grant Committee, stating that AMSAT-NA did NOT sign-up to attend a ARDC public meeting where they could get information about grants and to answer any questions. Basically, AMSAT-NA, once again, has missed another opportunity. Kinda sounds like AMSAT-NA isn't doing what's necessary to get grants and monies from ARDC:


Source: https://www.amsat.org/pipermail/amsat-bb/2020-October/080020.html

The EVP, and Board member, of AMSAT-NA, Paul Stoetzer N8HM, responded to, what seemed to me to be one last plea from ARDC to have AMSAT-NA participate. AMSAT-NA does NOT write grant requests. AMSAT-NA, rather than act like most non-profit organizations which constantly seek out ways to fund themselves, continues to just be apathetic about funding. Why would the beleaguered N8HM think that ARDC should contact AMSAT-NA? Shouldn't AMSAT-NA be constantly seeking funds? I cannot believe that N8HM thinks that organizations should contact AMSAT-NA to give them money:


Source: https://www.amsat.org/pipermail/amsat-bb/2020-October/080022.html

Here we have an example of an AMSAT-NA Board member and Executive Vice President clearly stating that AMSAT-NA doesn't want anything to do with ORI (who died and made him god?). Let's not forget that ORI is a member society of AMSAT-NA and the work they perform is freely available to AMSAT-NA:


Source: https://twitter.com/PRStoetzer/status/1304225580464955392

TLDR; ORI seeks, and receives, grant money and has been effective in doing so to the sum of over half-a-million-dollars in 2020. AMSAT-NA refuses to seek grant money. ORI is a member society of AMSAT-NA and benefits from work that ORI performs but legacy, incumbent AMSAT-NA Board members take it upon themselves to speak out of turn and claim that "we" (not sure who we is... legacy, incumbents?) don't want anything from ORI. It definitely looks like to me that legacy, incumbent Board members are turning down resources from ORI, and others.

This is all documented fact. Why are legacy, incumbent AMSAT-NA so threatened by ORI?
Logged

W5PFG

  • Member
  • Posts: 15
    • HomeURL
Re: A Rebuttal to an Unfortunate Article in the Sept-Oct 2020 AMSAT Journal
« Reply #17 on: December 16, 2020, 03:11:34 PM »

Are we to believe a sitting, incumbent, legacy AMSAT Board of Director like Ms. Thompson who also sits on the board at ORI couldn't have made that meeting known to AMSAT? This appears to be a blatant conflict of interest that many members have raised as a concern. 

Are we to ignore that Phil Karn, ARDC President, cleared the air on the topic regarding the ARDC meeting's public notice? 
https://www.amsat.org/pipermail/amsat-bb/2020-October/080028.html

It's mighty rich for an individual to claim AMSAT doesn't do any fundraising or grant pursuits when they've previously railed against AMSAT for "begging" on social media. It doesn't surprise me since this individual repeatedly and purposely twists the context of any spoken or written word to fit his propaganda narrative.
Logged

WE4B

  • Member
  • Posts: 165
Re: A Rebuttal to an Unfortunate Article in the Sept-Oct 2020 AMSAT Journal
« Reply #18 on: December 16, 2020, 05:32:06 PM »

Once again, we see more smoke and mirrors attempting to deflect from documented facts.

Are we to believe a sitting, incumbent, legacy AMSAT Board of Director like Ms. Thompson who also sits on the board at ORI couldn't have made that meeting known to AMSAT? This appears to be a blatant conflict of interest that many members have raised as a concern.

Did the President of AMSAT-NA at the time, you, call for regularly scheduled Board meetings where business such as this could be discussed? No, you didn't. This is why it's important to have regularly scheduled meetings for any organization, yet, AMSAT-NA still continues to not have regularly scheduled meetings.

Also, doesn't AMSAT-NA have a new VP position that was established in 2019? A VP of Development that is supposed to be responsible for seeking grants and other fundraising activities? Why isn't this VP doing their job? If this person isn't capable, or willing, to do the job they should be immediately replaced.

There's no need to blame Ms. Thompson for something that isn't her responsibility. The blame should lie on the President for not ensuring that there were regular business meetings and on an ineffective VP of Development.

Source(s): http://amsat.wd9ewk.net/
                https://w5nyv.blogspot.com/2019/09/

Quote
Are we to ignore that Phil Karn, ARDC President, cleared the air on the topic regarding the ARDC meeting's public notice? 
https://www.amsat.org/pipermail/amsat-bb/2020-October/080028.html

I'm not sure what air needed clearing. ARDC had a meeting. Nobody from AMSAT-NA attended and Phil simply stated that there would be more meetings.

Quote
It's mighty rich for an individual to claim AMSAT doesn't do any fundraising or grant pursuits when they've previously railed against AMSAT for "begging" on social media. It doesn't surprise me since this individual repeatedly and purposely twists the context of any spoken or written word to fit his propaganda narrative.

I don't recall anyone twisting anything. I do recall saying that I found it pathetic that those in leadership positions within AMSAT-NA came unglued when ORI got half-a-million-dollars from ARDC and shortly thereafter a fundraising campaign was started by AMSAT-NA where members were asked to give $50. At the time it sounded like begging to me, and, it still does now. ORI worked hard and received half-a-million-dollars, in the form of a grant, for their work whereas AMSAT-NA Officers did no work but simply begged members for $50. Like I mentioned earlier, the VP of Development should be replaced by someone that is willing to seek out grants and substantial fundraising possibilities.
Logged

VE3WGO

  • Member
  • Posts: 666
Re: A Rebuttal to an Unfortunate Article in the Sept-Oct 2020 AMSAT Journal
« Reply #19 on: December 17, 2020, 05:22:43 PM »

ARDC says that they will be able to grant around $5 million per year, so Amsat needs to endeavour to get closely connected to them.  Phil KA9Q mentions that there will be a wider audience next time, which implies (but does not actually state) the possibility of including Amsat.

With its long standing support of educational activities and STEM collaborations, I am surprised Amsat wasn't already seeking and receiving grants of this type and size to support ongoing satellite evolution.  Maybe it has?

It is time for Amsat to take the next step toward targeting a new generation of reliable satellites that can offer some increased technical challenges to users and students.  One level up from the current crop of satellites.  Maybe the GOLF series is the way, don't know.  Something that will stimulate interesting construction and programming projects for the ground stations that hobbyists and organizations can get involved in.  I don't know what those technical challenges might look like now, but it seems to be the way to get people interested, and stay interested.  In Phase 2 and 3 a decade or two ago, many stations used kit or home-built converters, transverters, preamps, tracking units, and antennas, and this provided the kind of challenges that attracted users (and increased club memberships!)

73, Ed
Logged

WE4B

  • Member
  • Posts: 165
Re: A Rebuttal to an Unfortunate Article in the Sept-Oct 2020 AMSAT Journal
« Reply #20 on: December 19, 2020, 06:22:08 PM »

With its long standing support of educational activities and STEM collaborations, I am surprised Amsat wasn't already seeking and receiving grants of this type and size to support ongoing satellite evolution.  Maybe it has?

No, it hasn't AMSAT-NA created another appointed, Vice President position called the VP of Development that was supposed to be in charge of seeking grants and other such monies. To date, the VP of Development's biggest achievement was getting a 'Remove Before Flight' keychain in the AMSAT-NA online store.

There's millions of dollars out there but someone has to go to the trouble of writing a grant request for it and AMSAT-NA doesn't seek grants as stated by AMSAT-NA Board member who is also the Executive Vice President:



AMSAT-NA members should be mad and should vote out these legacy, incumbent Board members that do nothing to advance AMSAT-NA but members are just apathetic and won't vote them out. Eventually, this will lead to the demise of the organization.
Logged

W4HIJ

  • Member
  • Posts: 453
Re: A Rebuttal to an Unfortunate Article in the Sept-Oct 2020 AMSAT Journal
« Reply #21 on: December 20, 2020, 08:24:01 AM »

AMSAT is a "non profit" that took a PPP loan that was funded by American taxpayers but turned down grant money offered by another organization that they see as a rival and an enemy, neither of which ORI is. This is fact.

Who said ORI is a rival and enemy of AMSAT? If that's the case, Ms. Thompson clearly has a conflict of interest and should immediately resign from one or both organizations.

Your claim that AMSAT turned down money offered by another organization lacks evidence. Repeating a lie from someone else does not make it fact.
What I said was is that AMSAT "sees" ORI as a rival and an enemy. Surely your powers of reading comprehension are better that you just demonstrated. I mean you just quoted me where I said "neither  of which ORI is".  AMSAT's bias is completely obvious to anyone who has spent any time on the AMSAT BB. Ms. Thompson and anyone else who supports ORI are routinely censored and any praise for Ms. Thompson's efforts to move AMSAT out of it's over decade long period of stagnation is as well. I was present on the BB and I know. You may have silenced me there but you can't silence me here.

 Proof makes things fact and the proof of AMSAT turning down grant money has been presented here and elsewhere. Your denials don't change that.

Michael, W4HIJ
« Last Edit: December 20, 2020, 08:45:36 AM by W4HIJ »
Logged

WE4B

  • Member
  • Posts: 165
Re: A Rebuttal to an Unfortunate Article in the Sept-Oct 2020 AMSAT Journal
« Reply #22 on: December 20, 2020, 05:41:02 PM »

Proof makes things fact and the proof of AMSAT turning down grant money has been presented here and elsewhere. Your denials don't change that.

Trust me, they will continue to use smoke and mirrors to distract from what is really happening. They can continue to deny, but as you have stated, denials don't change a thing.
Logged

W4HIJ

  • Member
  • Posts: 453
Re: A Rebuttal to an Unfortunate Article in the Sept-Oct 2020 AMSAT Journal
« Reply #23 on: December 20, 2020, 08:04:27 PM »

Proof makes things fact and the proof of AMSAT turning down grant money has been presented here and elsewhere. Your denials don't change that.

Trust me, they will continue to use smoke and mirrors to distract from what is really happening. They can continue to deny, but as you have stated, denials don't change a thing.
Yeah I know but it's important to keep letting them know that the BS they sling over on their bully pulpit BB where they regularly censor facts doesn't fly here in an open forum.
73,
Michael, W4HIJ
Logged

W5PFG

  • Member
  • Posts: 15
    • HomeURL
Re: A Rebuttal to an Unfortunate Article in the Sept-Oct 2020 AMSAT Journal
« Reply #24 on: December 21, 2020, 10:51:45 AM »

Proof makes things fact and the proof of AMSAT turning down grant money has been presented here and elsewhere.

Michael, W4HIJ

Where is this mythical proof?  Someone saying something is so doesn't make it so.
Logged

W5NYV

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
Re: A Rebuttal to an Unfortunate Article in the Sept-Oct 2020 AMSAT Journal
« Reply #25 on: December 22, 2020, 07:10:21 PM »

This reply is disappointing. There are no "falsehoods" here.

One can tell from 1) the lack of open source publication 2) zero open source community participation from AMSAT-NA and 3) public statements from multiple officers and Directors clearly opposing open source and 4) a longstanding refusal to adopt written policies about the use of open source by AMSAT-NA that:

AMSAT-NA does not support open source at this time.

This is not in any doubt, especially given the most recent article by Jerry Buxton, referenced above.

This could (and should) change. I have strong faith that it will.

There's an invoice and contract from Spring 2020 that was submitted by AMSAT's legal consulting firm. It is specifically for open source ITAR/EAR policy development, and includes work for proprietary policies as a fall-back. This was a board action. It remains unpaid and unsigned.

This invoice was submitted directly to Clayton Coleman while he was president of AMSAT-NA. This invoice has been submitted to the current board of directors and all the senior officers and the current president. It was also mailed to the AMSAT office. Like, with stamps.

So far, it seems to have been ignored all three times it's been forwarded to the organization.

This is bad. At the very least, a written policy for proprietary/commercial ITAR/EAR should exist to protect the volunteers.

However, we really shouldn't settle for restrictive, expensive, and proprietary policies. There is such good news here!

Recent regulatory innovations, described fully and repeatedly to the board of directors of AMSAT, establish a clear low-risk path for open source volunteer work. No, you don't need to "rip out" existing work. No, you don't need to abandon NDAs forever. But, they should be a last resort.

High-quality licenses like CERN OHL 2.0 cover the major issues and, most importantly, allow the inclusion of proprietary tools and work. That proprietary component has to be available to the general public. It has to be something anyone can get (or pay for), in order to recreate the work. This allows the use of tools like Xilinx Vivado to create open source HDL code to implement advanced digital functions. See the CERN OHL 2.0 license website for more details.

The draft annual AMSAT budget, received this week, does not include enough money to even cover the invoiced retainer from the consulting firm. There's no mention of this work, at all, in the budget submitted. This is an extremely disappointing oversight. This budget is usually discussed at AMSAT Symposium, but was delayed this year, until now.

The proposed board meeting to discuss this budget is scheduled for 29 December 2020. I will bring this invoice up again for a fourth time. The policy work is already done - it needs a legal review and that costs money.

If you want to attend this board meeting, then speak up and contact your favorite AMSAT Officer or Director for an invitation.

AREx was definitely an AMSAT project, according to ARISS. The current status is unclear, given the uncertainty about Gateway and the halting of AREx meetings in late summer for a "reboot". Not only did I make the motion for AMSAT to formally support AREx, but I obtained written support from JAMSAT, ORI, and TAPR. I co-wrote the architecture document that was reviewed in the summer 2020 ARISS International summit. It got wildly enthusiastic and highly positive reviews and support ("phenomenal" "the most professional engineering I have seen in ARISS" "this is what I joined to see ARISS do"). It's delightful to get feedback like this. The design has only improved in the intervening months.

ORI is building that hardware architecture right now. Whether AREx continues or not (I sure hope it does) doesn't matter, since the open source elements have been adopted by three different space-related organizations and are the backbone of two SBIR grant applications.

It's disappointing that ARISS declined the fundraising support contract and (to paraphrase) told ORI to "get lost! you have cooties!". I can't explain that. It's bizarre to be told to get lost when you offer six figures of money and quality engineering work, but hey - it's *their party and they get to be in charge*. When one makes a written offer of technical and financial support directly to a senior officer of AMSAT, one expects it to be evaluated. The answer, when presented as an organizational answer, has to be taken at face value. It didn't work out this time. One cannot take it personally.

The proposed contract, declined by ARISS/AMSAT, was sent to relevant leaders, published on AMSAT-BB, and can be found in the ORI repository here: https://github.com/phase4ground/documents/blob/master/Papers_Articles_Presentations/Articles_and_Announcements/AREx-Support-Contract-July-2020.pdf

After it was declined (in writing), ORI moved on and found other partners. So, things worked out very well in the end. The current situation, with several open source and industry partners and a substantial increase in very positive contact with NASA, simply would not be possible staying with ARISS. ARISS completely controls contact with NASA, within the organization. It's structured in a top-down, authoritarian, and opaque manner. It declares itself the only portal to NASA for amateur radio. That's the desired pattern at ARISS. It's not inherently bad. It was well worth reaching out and interacting and attempting to formalize the relationship.

All foundations that funded ORI were strongly supportive of the plan to support ARISS.

ARISS leadership knew about the larger grant amount, before it was publicized, because I shared it with them in writing. My take is that they would rather be completely in charge than have increased funding, if that increased funding meant having to collaborate with other orgs.

ARISS leadership starting insisting late in the process on having "one team only". But, they did not provide a way for individuals to join this unspecified team. There was no repo or mailing list. There was no CoC or participant policies or agreements or anything like that. You're either on a WebEx invite for a monthly conference call, or you're not. There appears to be a lot of behind-the-scenes communication and decisions that ordinary volunteers are simply not part of. It is very informal.

This is not the way I do things, but there is definitely room for more than one way to do amateur radio in space, and those ways should not be treated like or portrayed as some sort of existential threat. I support ARISS and did a solid fundraiser for them a couple of years ago. I've helped locally with school contacts. The ISS power supply was built here in San Diego, and I got to see it happen. Totally neat!

ARISS may change their mind in the future and adopt open source designs and policies. Great, lots of us are here to help, including me. They don't want to today? No problem - I'm not the manager you're looking for.

I do look forward to AMSAT paying the invoice for legal work to establish open source ITAR/EAR policies at AMSAT, the way the US State Department intends for us to do, which will open the door to substantially increased funding and volunteer opportunities. And, a return to free and open international collaboration.

Opposing open source policy work, by burying invoices and ignoring the State Department and attacking open source in the Journal, is counter-productive to the mission of AMSAT. If the vote fails, then that's a disappointing thing, but it's just one vote. I have confidence others will follow and correct the current direction. The overall lay of the land is very clear. Open source has produced a powerfully positive sea change in technology and is the superior strategy for the Amateur Radio Satellite Service.

-Michelle W5NYV


I respectfully caution readers about echoing statements that AMSAT turned down any grant monies received by ORI.

"AMSAT isn’t getting funding like the half-million recently allocated to ORI – an amount which could easily also go to AMSAT if they were willing to work on Open Source.

Incredibly, ORI offered to share the granted funds with AMSAT/AREx, and AMSAT/AREx declined."

This statement is comprised of several falsehoods.

1. AMSAT is willing to work on Open Source. AMSAT has a decades-long history of sharing designs with the global amateur radio community. In fact, some of the AMSAT Fox Series circuit boards are published under an Open Hardware License. There is no AMSAT policy, written or otherwise, refusing Open Source development.

2. Note the use of "AMSAT/AREx" - There is no such entity name. AREx is a project separate of AMSAT, led by ARISS. The AMSAT Board of Directors, including Ms. Thompson, are aware of this. Ms Thompson voted for to affirm AMSAT's interest and participation in work for AREx, but not this mythical "AMSAT/AREx."

3. Ms. Thompson was relieved of her participation at AREx prior to the ARDC grant funding of $500,000 to ORI being announced.  Part of $500,000 was never on a table for AMSAT to refuse.

4. If ORI intended to share granted monies with other entities, this should be well-documented for several reasons: 1. The entity that granted them these funds will need a full accounting and 2. Offering cash funds to another organization is something that would be typically found in minutes of the corporation. 3. A grant offer should come with some formality - a letter, or at minimum, an email to the corporate address of the entity.

5. As an AMSAT Director, wouldn't Ms. Thompson have tried to let the organization know these funds are available from ORI? She's been vocal about many other things on her blogs and social media.
Logged

WE4B

  • Member
  • Posts: 165
Re: A Rebuttal to an Unfortunate Article in the Sept-Oct 2020 AMSAT Journal
« Reply #26 on: December 22, 2020, 08:32:29 PM »

What an AWESOME and TRUTHFUL response from a current AMSAT-NA Board member. Wow! It's refreshing to see words of truth spoken and not 'smoke and mirrors' from a failed Secretary and President who quit both jobs during times of controversy.

The fact is, anyone with half a brain, knows what is happening within the clubhouse of AMSAT-NA. Outsiders know what is happening. The best that AMSAT-NA can seem to field now to defend themselves is an AMSAT-NA Ambassador of a questionable history and an ex-President that resigned from both Secretary and President position. These aren't really people that people can feel warm and fuzzy about nor can organizations that provide donations and grants.

I am a paid AMSAT-NA member and formally request an invitation from you to the next meeting. Hopefully, others will as well.

The charade of legacy, incumbent AMSAT-NA Board members needs to end. Regular, 'blue collar' member such as myself are tired of their antics. The proof is right here in this thread.

Is it just me or does anyone else find it odd that no current, legacy, incumbent AMSAT-NA Board members or Officers are defending AMSAT-NA? The only thing being said here, in public, is from shills. The silence is quite deafening.

AMSAT-NA members need to wake-up and admonish and vote-out legacy, incumbent Board members that are effectively killing the organization and then attempt to cover it up with 'smoke and mirrors'.


This reply is disappointing. There are no "falsehoods" here.

One can tell from 1) the lack of open source publication 2) zero open source community participation from AMSAT-NA and 3) public statements from multiple officers and Directors clearly opposing open source and 4) a longstanding refusal to adopt written policies about the use of open source by AMSAT-NA that:

AMSAT-NA does not support open source at this time.

This is not in any doubt, especially given the most recent article by Jerry Buxton, referenced above.

This could (and should) change. I have strong faith that it will.

There's an invoice and contract from Spring 2020 that was submitted by AMSAT's legal consulting firm. It is specifically for open source ITAR/EAR policy development, and includes work for proprietary policies as a fall-back. This was a board action. It remains unpaid and unsigned.

This invoice was submitted directly to Clayton Coleman while he was president of AMSAT-NA. This invoice has been submitted to the current board of directors and all the senior officers and the current president. It was also mailed to the AMSAT office. Like, with stamps.

So far, it seems to have been ignored all three times it's been forwarded to the organization.

This is bad. At the very least, a written policy for proprietary/commercial ITAR/EAR should exist to protect the volunteers.

However, we really shouldn't settle for restrictive, expensive, and proprietary policies. There is such good news here!

Recent regulatory innovations, described fully and repeatedly to the board of directors of AMSAT, establish a clear low-risk path for open source volunteer work. No, you don't need to "rip out" existing work. No, you don't need to abandon NDAs forever. But, they should be a last resort.

High-quality licenses like CERN OHL 2.0 cover the major issues and, most importantly, allow the inclusion of proprietary tools and work. That proprietary component has to be available to the general public. It has to be something anyone can get (or pay for), in order to recreate the work. This allows the use of tools like Xilinx Vivado to create open source HDL code to implement advanced digital functions. See the CERN OHL 2.0 license website for more details.

The draft annual AMSAT budget, received this week, does not include enough money to even cover the invoiced retainer from the consulting firm. There's no mention of this work, at all, in the budget submitted. This is an extremely disappointing oversight. This budget is usually discussed at AMSAT Symposium, but was delayed this year, until now.

The proposed board meeting to discuss this budget is scheduled for 29 December 2020. I will bring this invoice up again for a fourth time. The policy work is already done - it needs a legal review and that costs money.

If you want to attend this board meeting, then speak up and contact your favorite AMSAT Officer or Director for an invitation.

AREx was definitely an AMSAT project, according to ARISS. The current status is unclear, given the uncertainty about Gateway and the halting of AREx meetings in late summer for a "reboot". Not only did I make the motion for AMSAT to formally support AREx, but I obtained written support from JAMSAT, ORI, and TAPR. I co-wrote the architecture document that was reviewed in the summer 2020 ARISS International summit. It got wildly enthusiastic and highly positive reviews and support ("phenomenal" "the most professional engineering I have seen in ARISS" "this is what I joined to see ARISS do"). It's delightful to get feedback like this. The design has only improved in the intervening months.

ORI is building that hardware architecture right now. Whether AREx continues or not (I sure hope it does) doesn't matter, since the open source elements have been adopted by three different space-related organizations and are the backbone of two SBIR grant applications.

It's disappointing that ARISS declined the fundraising support contract and (to paraphrase) told ORI to "get lost! you have cooties!". I can't explain that. It's bizarre to be told to get lost when you offer six figures of money and quality engineering work, but hey - it's *their party and they get to be in charge*. When one makes a written offer of technical and financial support directly to a senior officer of AMSAT, one expects it to be evaluated. The answer, when presented as an organizational answer, has to be taken at face value. It didn't work out this time. One cannot take it personally.

The proposed contract, declined by ARISS/AMSAT, was sent to relevant leaders, published on AMSAT-BB, and can be found in the ORI repository here: https://github.com/phase4ground/documents/blob/master/Papers_Articles_Presentations/Articles_and_Announcements/AREx-Support-Contract-July-2020.pdf

After it was declined (in writing), ORI moved on and found other partners. So, things worked out very well in the end. The current situation, with several open source and industry partners and a substantial increase in very positive contact with NASA, simply would not be possible staying with ARISS. ARISS completely controls contact with NASA, within the organization. It's structured in a top-down, authoritarian, and opaque manner. It declares itself the only portal to NASA for amateur radio. That's the desired pattern at ARISS. It's not inherently bad. It was well worth reaching out and interacting and attempting to formalize the relationship.

All foundations that funded ORI were strongly supportive of the plan to support ARISS.

ARISS leadership knew about the larger grant amount, before it was publicized, because I shared it with them in writing. My take is that they would rather be completely in charge than have increased funding, if that increased funding meant having to collaborate with other orgs.

ARISS leadership starting insisting late in the process on having "one team only". But, they did not provide a way for individuals to join this unspecified team. There was no repo or mailing list. There was no CoC or participant policies or agreements or anything like that. You're either on a WebEx invite for a monthly conference call, or you're not. There appears to be a lot of behind-the-scenes communication and decisions that ordinary volunteers are simply not part of. It is very informal.

This is not the way I do things, but there is definitely room for more than one way to do amateur radio in space, and those ways should not be treated like or portrayed as some sort of existential threat. I support ARISS and did a solid fundraiser for them a couple of years ago. I've helped locally with school contacts. The ISS power supply was built here in San Diego, and I got to see it happen. Totally neat!

ARISS may change their mind in the future and adopt open source designs and policies. Great, lots of us are here to help, including me. They don't want to today? No problem - I'm not the manager you're looking for.

I do look forward to AMSAT paying the invoice for legal work to establish open source ITAR/EAR policies at AMSAT, the way the US State Department intends for us to do, which will open the door to substantially increased funding and volunteer opportunities. And, a return to free and open international collaboration.

Opposing open source policy work, by burying invoices and ignoring the State Department and attacking open source in the Journal, is counter-productive to the mission of AMSAT. If the vote fails, then that's a disappointing thing, but it's just one vote. I have confidence others will follow and correct the current direction. The overall lay of the land is very clear. Open source has produced a powerfully positive sea change in technology and is the superior strategy for the Amateur Radio Satellite Service.

-Michelle W5NYV


I respectfully caution readers about echoing statements that AMSAT turned down any grant monies received by ORI.

"AMSAT isn’t getting funding like the half-million recently allocated to ORI – an amount which could easily also go to AMSAT if they were willing to work on Open Source.

Incredibly, ORI offered to share the granted funds with AMSAT/AREx, and AMSAT/AREx declined."

This statement is comprised of several falsehoods.

1. AMSAT is willing to work on Open Source. AMSAT has a decades-long history of sharing designs with the global amateur radio community. In fact, some of the AMSAT Fox Series circuit boards are published under an Open Hardware License. There is no AMSAT policy, written or otherwise, refusing Open Source development.

2. Note the use of "AMSAT/AREx" - There is no such entity name. AREx is a project separate of AMSAT, led by ARISS. The AMSAT Board of Directors, including Ms. Thompson, are aware of this. Ms Thompson voted for to affirm AMSAT's interest and participation in work for AREx, but not this mythical "AMSAT/AREx."

3. Ms. Thompson was relieved of her participation at AREx prior to the ARDC grant funding of $500,000 to ORI being announced.  Part of $500,000 was never on a table for AMSAT to refuse.

4. If ORI intended to share granted monies with other entities, this should be well-documented for several reasons: 1. The entity that granted them these funds will need a full accounting and 2. Offering cash funds to another organization is something that would be typically found in minutes of the corporation. 3. A grant offer should come with some formality - a letter, or at minimum, an email to the corporate address of the entity.

5. As an AMSAT Director, wouldn't Ms. Thompson have tried to let the organization know these funds are available from ORI? She's been vocal about many other things on her blogs and social media.
Logged

WE4B

  • Member
  • Posts: 165
Re: A Rebuttal to an Unfortunate Article in the Sept-Oct 2020 AMSAT Journal
« Reply #27 on: December 22, 2020, 09:22:30 PM »

Ooops.. I have misspoken and want to correct what I have written. The eHam forum software won't allow me to edit a prior post so I'll correct it here.

Clayton, W5PFG didn't resign from the Presidency, he simply served out the remaining time from the other failed President (Joe Spier) who abruptly resigned when AMSAT-NA received a letter from lawyers. This is the same Joe Spier who got a fake Russian 'medal' which was a source of controversy within AMSAT-NA.

Clayton, W5PFG, chose not to continue in his role as President but did resign as Secretary of AMSAT-NA. It's not really anything that was good for building a resume on either account.

Oddly, it seems as if Clayton, W5PFG went 'radio silent' (excuse the pun) after he published letter that basically said that legacy, incumbent Board members did involve themselves in a conspiracy to force out the two newest Board members. After the May/June AMSAT-NA Journal, nobody really heard from him. It's pretty safe to say that he wasn't an effective leader and won't have any AMSAT-NA awards named after him.

I just wanted to correct my faux pas. I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong. I'm old and human and that causes me to make mistakes. I admit when I do. The record is now corrected.
Logged

WE4B

  • Member
  • Posts: 165
Re: A Rebuttal to an Unfortunate Article in the Sept-Oct 2020 AMSAT Journal
« Reply #28 on: December 23, 2020, 08:15:36 PM »

This reply is disappointing. There are no "falsehoods" here.

One can tell from 1) the lack of open source publication 2) zero open source community participation from AMSAT-NA and 3) public statements from multiple officers and Directors clearly opposing open source and 4) a longstanding refusal to adopt written policies about the use of open source by AMSAT-NA that:

AMSAT-NA does not support open source at this time.


I've waited over 24 hours for a failed President/Secretary... an AMSAT-NA Ambassador or the current President that was anointed by his buddies to rebut these statements and say they weren't true... well... once again, the silence is deafening. They can't rebut the statements because the statements are true.

AMSAT-NA now only has shills that they release on social media which attempt to use 'smoke an mirrors' to deflect from the truth. When people read posts like this from current AMSAT-NA Board members that speak the real truth, the shills run and hide.

I have to admit, on this Christmas week, that the best get I will get this year is from W5NYV speaking truth and showing what liars and frauds the legacy, incumbents of AMSAT-NA really are.

Michelle, thank you for my gift. I wish all the other members of AMSAT-NA would wake-up and figure out how they have been misled and that they have have multiple lies told to them.

The legacy, incumbent leadership of AMSAT-NA is as corrupt as anything that can be imagined. It's well documented but it's up to the membership to vote them out of office. Apathy has led to the demise of AMSAT-NA.
Logged

W4HIJ

  • Member
  • Posts: 453
Re: A Rebuttal to an Unfortunate Article in the Sept-Oct 2020 AMSAT Journal
« Reply #29 on: December 26, 2020, 06:29:06 AM »

Proof makes things fact and the proof of AMSAT turning down grant money has been presented here and elsewhere.

Michael, W4HIJ

Where is this mythical proof?  Someone saying something is so doesn't make it so.
It's been shown to you over and over.  You can either read what's been presented and employ critical thinking skills to ascertain the facts or you can continue to engage in denial. My guess is you will continue to take the denial route and try to twist things around just as you did with my comment about AMSAT seeing ORI as a rival. That's the entire legacy board M.O. and it's a shame to see it but it is what it is. I have no more time to waste here, I have hobbies and a life to pursue. I'm researching and trying to get into EME.
 Hopefully the AMSAT membership wakes up and sees how you and your ilk are running the organization into the ground. If not, it will continue to slowly die and eventually be replaced. It saddens me to see what's happened to a once great amateur institution.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up