[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (meteorobs) Is NAMN and the ALPO Meteor Section needed?
GeoZay>Can anyone tell me why that either NAMN and the ALPO Meteor section
are now
>needed or should exist? <<
Bedient>>Perhaps it's appropriate to turn the question back on you, George...
Why
shouldn't they exist? <<
Because there is no apparent valid reason why they should.
Biedient>>They fulfill quite different functions. NAMN
continues in the vein that it was started, as a dues-free, strictly
electronic organization that attracts quite a few new observers via the
Internet. <<
And AMS is not able to do this in the same manner that NAMN does? Aren't you
the AMS internet electronic coordinator or something like that? If under the
title of NAMN or AMS, how would a new person know the difference if he got
the same treatment?
Biedient>>ALPO is another fertile group for recruitment, and if we were to
disband the ALPO Meteor Section, we would be cutting ourself off from a
valuable group of amateur observers.<<
I can see where this would have some validity. But if there were no ALPO
meteor section and an ALPO member decided on observing meteors, wouldn't he
most likely seek out a meteor organization somewhere? Probably look up
AMS....especially since he is already receiving the AMS Meteor Trails
publication to direct him to AMS for meteor observing guidance.
biedient>>We did have some discussion among the various players a year or so
ago
about folding the various groups into one - establishing a dues-free,
Internet-only membership category in AMS, and grandfathering ALPO
memberships into AMS. We didn't see any advantage in doing that, though. <<
You don't see any advantage? Maybe not much of a short term advantage....but
in the long term it should seem obvious....Consolidation with an eventual
larger AMS membership. Less confusion for a person to decide which meteor
organization to join up with.
biedient>>Mark Davis' role in the organization is a very important one, and
is not
"redundant" at all. He acts as a clearinghouse for data submitted to the
three prime organizations in North America, NAMN, AMS, and ALPO, and
insures that data are submitted to IMO, archived with AMS, and he does
preliminary analysis which is published in Meteor Trails. <<
If the three prime organizations were to consolidate under the heading of the
AMS, there wouldn't be much of a clearinghouse of different organizations for
him to sort out data from prior to forwarding it on to IMO. Couldn't he still
archive data with AMS and make preliminary analysis for Meteor Trails without
having to say he belongs to NAMN? Couldn't he do this functioning as the AMS
coordinator that he is now?
biedient>>Prior to this,
we had a catch-as-catch-can situation where observers might submit their
data to one, two or even three separate organizations individually... THAT
was redundant, and led to the possibility or duplicate observations
residing in common databases. We now tell our observers to submit ONE copy
of their material to Mark Davis, and that hard-working guy does the rest.<<
So you are already essentially acting as one organization in practice, but
still encumbered with three titles? Then I go back to my original question,
"Is NAMN and the ALPO Meteor Section needed?"
biedient>>As for Bob Lunsford, his primary duty is publishing Meteor Trails.
He has
discontinued the separate ALPO publication, and we send Meteor Trails to
those that were receiving the ALPO publication. Bob indeed wears another
hat in IMO, but it's a complementary hat to what he does in AMS, necessary
in its own right and not duplicating anything he does in AMS. <<
I understand Bob's position within IMO and recognize it as a necessity. I
also recognize Bob's function in AMS as useful. Bob's discontinuing the ALPO
publication and replacing it with Meteor Trails was also a good idea. A step
in the right direction towards eliminating the redundancy of having three
U.S. meteor organizations.
Biedient>>This would be a good place to plug the AMS and Meteor Trails. The
AMS
continues to communicate with its members largely by postal mail. There
are quite a few individuals out there that are not on the Internet for
various reasons, and they should not be excluded from participation. <<
Good idea. I still haven't seen any arguments that would necessitate having
NAMN, AMS and ALPO Meteor Section as currently structured where one
organization could do the same quite efficiently.
GeoZay
To UNSUBSCRIBE from the 'meteorobs' email list, use the Web form at:
http://www.tiacdot net/users/lewkaren/meteorobs/subscribe.html