DM: current status of P150 conversion

As I thought hijacking the SMP thread is not ok, I started a new one here:
Continuing the discussion from Mapping feature question /suggestion:

I am quite astonished you are not informed about the number of summits to be deleted in DM. In my statement dated 23.03.2015 I presented my first, rough analysis of the number of references to be deleted/remaining:

To my mind this statement was circulated around the MT. At least Rob’s (G0HRT) answer was: “We will comment when all MT has had opportunity to read it.”

I agree with you, that a small number of new references will be result of a in-depth analysis. E.g. DM/TH will gain 6 new/reactivated references and in DM/BW I estimate about 16 new P150 references. Of course this gain will not influence the loss of a majority of the existing references noticeable. So this is quite a difference to the revision of OE.

Ok, perhaps you do not trust my numbers. But later on Andy (MM0FMF) has given his numbers in his Statement on DM Association

339 even sounds worse than 386, not to talk about 286. This was the last information the MT has published regarding the DM summit list. As it was never superseded by a new statement I assume this is still true.

My access to the working version of the summits list was removed so I have no possibility to check the progress the MT makes in revising the DM summits list.

Several participants already have asked me about the future summits lists in DM. Unfortunately I was not able to give them reliable information.
As even members of the MT like you, Brian, seem not to know what is happening to the DM summits list, there seems to be a significant lack of information flow.

73 de Michael, DB7MM
(meanwhile I have found out, I am still association manager of DM)

I am of course aware of these 286/339/386 figures, and of course the final figures are likely to be in this ball park, but they derive from SRTM analysis. Now I am not an expert on this sort of analysis, but I do know that there are certain sources of possible errors, so each summit has to be checked on an individual basis, and we have a team appointed to work together to do the necessary checking. The MT do not jog their elbows, they get out of the way and let the team work unhindered. The team will report when they have completed their work and we will move forward from there. So you see, until this team has reported I am as in the dark as you are, and as I see it, that is the way that things should be.

You guys in DM will have to be like the MT, and “contain your souls in patience”.


1 Like

One warning and one only, Rob. Ad hominem attacks are not permitted on the Reflector.

I have it on good authority that the MT will collectively censure any member who steps outside the bounds of professional conduct expected of him or her. Apologies for any transgressive behaviour, however, would seem to be purely at the discretion of the erring member.

If the cap fits, wear it.

For anybody reading this post, Brian has seen fit to remove a previous comment of mine in this thread, in which I made mention of his conduct in a prior discussion.


Really, Rob. You complained in waspish terms about a discussion that I brought to a close on April 8th after no less than 528 posts, and although the topic was P100/P150 the discussion had devolved into arguing about methods of governance. I closed it with the following words:

“Things have started to get silly, it is really time to bring this marathon thread to an end. The MT have followed it closely, have read and weighed all the opinions expressed here. In the end the responsibility rests with the MT who make decisions based on what they think is best for SOTA as a whole.”

I should add that at no point in that discussion does the callsign DM1CM appear, so you appear to be accusing me of improper behaviour in closing down a tired discussion that you did not participate in yourself.

Please adhere to the Acceptable Use Policy in your future communications. It would really give me no pleasure to do my duty and remove your access for contravening that policy.


Brian, I was referring to this discussion of just three posts, in which I was able to write just one post before the thread was closed with the following words from you: “I know to a nicety when a line has been crossed, so I am closing this thread before it, too, descends into bar room language”.

I’d like to point out that, during that particular discussion, no lines of propriety had been crossed by any of the participants, myself included. Yet you closed the discussion peremptorily before any such line might be crossed.

If at any point, you consider it your duty to remove my access, please feel free to do so. I can always decamp and go elsewhere…


I repeat, Rob, it would give me no pleasure to remove your access, or that of anybody else, and I really mean that. None the less, such actions when unavoidable are my duty.

Thank you for the clarification. I had forgotten that thread. Yes, I closed that thread pre-emptively, and in view of your intemperate language when writing to the MT prior to that thread I still think I was right to do so. Note, though, that in doing so my intention was to protect you from the consequences of your unfortunate tendency to descend into intemperate language. As I have said on several occasions, I am not here to censure peoples opinions, I am here to keep the discourse respectful.


You seem to be confusing the public and private spheres there, Brian. My message to the MT as you put it was a message directed specifically to one particular member of the MT, and I believed at the time that it would be read only by that member. What else should one think when the “Send message to” dropdown in the Contact page allows the user to choose either the entire MT team, or a particular member? Of what use is the dropdown, if all messages are in any case regularly scanned by all MT members?

Users of the SOTA website Contact page have no way of knowing that in fact the entire MT regularly inspect the contents of all such messages to the MT, since no hint of this exists anywhere in the Contact page. Had I known that, I would not have permitted myself to “descend into intemperate language” as you put it, and would have written a far less abrasive message.

Be that as it may, I considered the message I wrote to the MT to be essentially private in nature, and not for public consumption or viewing. So when aspects of that private message were made public in the above-mentioned thread, and the decision to close the thread being based not on the contents of the thread itself, but rather on the contents of the private message, I saw red. And I still do.

Now, I’d be interested if you would point to instances of my “unfortunate tendency to descend into intemperate language” in this public forum.


That facility essentially is “Contact the MT”, so we all get a copy of the incoming message, but it is marked for the attention of the individual MT member nominated. The wording on the website could probably by clearer on this; thank you for the input.

Suggest the specific argument this thread has become is continued via private emails as it will be beyond tedious for most SOTA enthusiasts.

[quote=“M1EYP, post:11, topic:11866”]
Suggest the specific argument this thread has become is continued via private emails as it will be beyond tedious for most SOTA enthusiasts.
[/quote]To become tedious in the extreme is, it would seem, another of my unfortunate tendencies…

Fair enough, Tom.

I will add just one thing - if anybody disagrees with one of my decisions as Moderator, it would be best if they say so with reasons in a PEM. I am open to persuasion though in the end the decision is mine.


Brian, if you cannot be swayed with a discussion in a public forum, I see no point in continuing that discussion privately. As far as I’m concerned, this particular topic is closed, but without resolution.


Not at all! It’s good to see Big Brother protects us from harm and even from ourselves.