In reply to M1EYP:
Thought that was the case, thanks for the clarification Tom.
73 Mike
The SOTA Management Team wishes to make the following announcement with regard to this issue:
It is certainly the case that the SOTA Management Team, and the Extended Management Group (comprising MT plus Association Managers) is currently undertaking a major review of the General Rules, with particular attention to prominence and summit eligibility.
The timetable has not yet been agreed, but the final result include that summits in all associations must comply with that association’s prominence level. This will result in some summits being necessarily deleted, but a notice period will be given allowing for final activations of such summits, and all previously earned chaser and activator points will remain valid.
Ultimately, the SOTA Management Team has decided that all SOTA summits must be separate hills conforming to the minimum vertical separation/prominence adopted by each Association, as is the case throughout the vast majority of the Programme already.
Work is ongoing, and when the new General Rules document is published, an announcement will be made.
SOTA Management Team
In reply to M1EYP:
It would perhaps have been better to keep quiet than give such an ambiguous statement.
This can be read two ways:-
All associations will comply with one central general rule on prominance.
Associations can set their own prominence level which all their summits must adhere to.
Confused of Rawdon
Roger G4OWG
Hi Roger
In fact both interpretations come into play.
All associations must comply with the central general rule about the MINIMUM prominence.
Above that, associations can, and do set their own prominence level to which all summits must adhere.
That is the same as the existing situation, except that there are some contradictions that need to be addressed and the wording of the General Rules improved to make them more robust and helpful to potential new associations.
This is exactly what we are working on, and it is a long, detailed and incredibly time-consuming task. Please bear with us. Our absolute priority is to get it right for the long-term good of the SOTA Programme.
Tom M1EYP
In reply to M1EYP:
All associations must comply with the central general rule about the
MINIMUM prominence.
‘Therin lies the rub’ Tom - as all else is subservient to this rule it should be the sole topic of discussion at the first stage, as everything else is determined by its resolution 
Roger G4OWG
In reply to DF2GN:
Hi all,
in our local ham radio club we have made portable radio operation getting a new hightlight of our hobby using SOTA award program during the past two years. If it will become true, that a lot of those “near by summits” will be deleted in the future, you will destroy this little flower of activity, which just has started growing here. I do not see any need to change the rules that way! There will be less participants, if they have to go lots of kilometers to (drive) reach a summit!
For me it seems to be much better to keep rules, which are not 100% perfect, but to keep pepole having fun with the hobby. Those people populate good promotion for SOTA program. So if you get rid of those fans, you could forget about the award-program in the future!
Hope to see you on the air soon.
73,
Bert, DF2PI
In reply to G4OWG:
“… as all else is subservient to this rule it should be the sole topic of discussion at the first stage, as everything else is determined by its resolution”.
Hmmmm… logic would dictate that Roger. It is a pity that logic does not seem to exist in this situation.
73, Gerald
hi all,
back from work.
thanks Tom for your statement.you give me a very important answer.
“Ultimately, the SOTA Management Team has decided that all SOTA summits must be separate hills conforming to the minimum vertical separation/prominence adopted by each Association”
thats means many summits in europe will be deleted in future.
is that the way to go ? i can´t hear any more this discussions about the “Quality” of summits. for me its not important if you have 10minutes or 5 hours to reach the summit-top. in first my goal is to contact as many chasers as possibe and have fun with portable-radio in nature. if i wan´t to make sport i run on the feldberg,but without sota-rig. don´t make sota activations only possible for a exclusive group. think about older hams or handicaped om´s . and not everyone will drive many kilometers to try out activate a summit first time in the sota program.look on the activity on the hf bands and say that the many summits in DM are wrong. for me its better to make up 100qso´s with many chasers as only a few from a high-quality summit with a vhf-handheld. and i spoke about international sota.
why this strong and many rules ? why not also easier summits ?
and why only a few people have a discussion about the future from sota?
why not make a voting and ask all menbers of sota about "summit-prominences"
and the chasers if they wan´t only work quality summits or also not so big ones. think in first sota is made every day from the activators and chasers . why not ask them the rules are ok or not ! ?
greetings
klaus df2gn
In reply to DF2PI:
For me it seems to be much better to keep rules, which are not 100%
perfect, but to keep pepole having fun with the hobby. Those people
populate good promotion for SOTA program. So if you get rid of those
fans, you could forget about the award-program in the future!
Well spoken, Bert. I totally agree with your words.
Is there any need to change the rules? I can´t see any.
73, Steffen, DL3JPN
In reply to DL3JPN:
There has been no change in rules. The sentence quoted by Klaus merely re-affirms an existing rule of SOTA which is already written into the rules of your Association. Check them out. If any summits have to be deleted, they will have to be deleted because in error they do not conform to your own rules.
73
Brian G8ADD
In reply to G8ADD:
Hi Brian
Have I missed something here? My understanding is that both the DL and DM ARM’s, although containing a general recommendation that summits should have 150m prominence, allow for recognition of valid summits to be at the discretion of their Association Management Teams. This was perfectly in accordance with the General Rules until the changes of 10th Jan 2008, when the option of discretion was removed and an absolute requirement for 150m prominence imposed.
This puts many existing ARMs in conflict with the General Rules, deletion of summits will thus in the main be required to re-align the ARMs with them.
It is to be hoped a suitable compromise will soon be agreed and implemented to rectify this awkward situation.
73 de Paul G4MD
In reply to G4MD:
The problem from my view is that people are, in general, commenting on rumour rather than fact. When the rumours suggest something we all enjoy, SOTA, is about to end it’s completely understandable people will make comments though. As of yet, nothing has changed. From a personal view, the proposed changes make sense to me. That doesn’t automatically make them right, just that I don’t see them having any impact on my SOTA activities.
There is the issue that whenever the rules are changed you will end up with, for want of a better expression, winners and losers. And, of course, if you perceive yourself as a loser, you may well be very vocal about the changes. Possibly more so than those who may be classed as winners. Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s ever possible to make such a significant change without some people being very upset.
Andy
MM0FMF
In reply to MM0FMF:
From what I can gather Andy, this problem was highlighted at the outset, some years ago, when the changes wouldn’t have had such a big impact, if it had been dealt with then, we wouldn’t be having this debate right now.
Mike GW0DSP
In reply to GW0DSP:
People make decisions which often seem like good ideas at the time and only with hindsight do they appear as mistakes. The important issue here is that the mistake has been recognised and that something is being done about it.
So Mike what would you do now. You can leave the rules as they are and suffer from a vocal minority of G-hams complaining about how it’s not fair that you can get loads of points in a day in DL. (I believe that includes yourself.) Or you can change the rules and suffer from complaints from activators in DL that it will drastically affect SOTA in DL.
What are you going to do? Oh, and you can’t sit on the fence or come out with weak responses like “I wouldn’t have got into this situation to start with.”
As they say, we live in interesting times. 
Andy
MM0FMF
In reply to MM0FMF:
Andy I can only offer one response to that.
Hindsight was not required when the original decision was made. MT were informed at the time of the setting up of DL that problems would arise in the future and that they should address the problem at the outset to prevent these problems arising in years to come. MT ignored that advice and only have themselves to blame for the current situation.
What would I do now?
I would act in the best interests of SOTA. I would go the exact opposite way to MT and give ALL associations the same ruling as DL, thus in the case of the UK giving us more summits, problem solved.
This is a huge issue Andy and is killing sota.
MT are too set in their ways, they need to listen to the participants points of view for once before it is too late.
Better still change over to a democratically elected MT. I wonder how many of the current MT would be left if we had the right to vote in the MT as is the case in other organisations?
Mike GW0DSP
I have said my piece, no personal offence is intended, just my personal opinion in reply to your questions.
In reply to GW0DSP:
Congrats mike for that !
“What would I do now?
I would act in the best interests of SOTA. I would go the exact opposite way to MT and give ALL associations the same ruling as DL, thus in the case of the UK giving us more summits, problem solved”
100% agree with that !!
vy 73 klaus
In reply to DF2GN:
Hi Klaus, even a blind man on a galloping horse could see the simple solution required here.
Vy 73 Mike
yes,
the new order with the 150m vert. seperation of a summit as fix has not only
affect in DL/DM.Also in other european assocs. are summits to delete then. OE,HB9,F etc. …
so why all other assocs must take a summit reference who is made for uk-summits ?
why not set the uk-Summits refs to the topo of the rest of assocs in europe.the marylins can´t be the standard for all !
vy 73 klaus df2gn
In reply to DF2GN:
Exactly Klaus, it’s the only answer that makes any sense.
The alternative is that we will lose associations across Europe, is that the aim of SOTA, I hope not.
I would urge MT to reconsider and kill two birds with one stone, leave DL as it is and give us the same in the UK. This would give us more summits, less travelling and would even incude new summits in areas deprived of summits under the present rules.
vy 73 Mike GW0DSP
In reply to M1EYP:
“but a notice period will be given allowing for final activations of such summits”
Are people really expecting “us” to go out, on a final run, to “activate” something that will be considered not valid (aka illegal) the next day?
What for? Since, apparently, SOTA is not considered to be points chasing contest?
My personal opinion, and you may kick me out of the program if you want to (aka censorship as just recently done), if you (aka MT) plan to remove so many summits, not just “some summits” as stated above, don’t you think people will loose interest into SOTA? Its recent success (let’s consider the last 12 months) was mainly due to the fact that there also summits that are easy to reach. Don’t expect people on the mainland to travel long distances to do a single summit just because some envy the folks in DL who can do “a lot of points” within one day.
I’ve done a number of 1s and if it would have been just because of the points, I’d be better off staying at home.
We are told, we are talking about rumors. Some statements are clear enough that they can’t be considered rumors anymore, or? But since the general policy seems to be to exclude the public opinion, that’s what free speech generates.
I wonder if it’s still worth the effort to invest into new, better equipment knowing that probably soon, there’s nothing left to activate in my greater area. hw?
73 Norby (quite disappointed)