Jump to content

Why is Matt the whipping boy for this Public Review?

Recommended Posts

While I have disagreed with many things Matt Bartels has said in this GCAP Public Review, I still want to thank him for tirelessly responding to sooo many issues (complaints).

My one question: Were you nominated to answer for the BOG as a whole? I know the BOG reviewed this. I know a whole committee designed this. Why are you the only one who seems to be the lone voice trying to explain and defend the reasoning for everything written here?

Is this intentional to provide a unified voice from the BOG? I feel like a few other voices should step up and address some of the things here. At least the more hot-button issues. (I imagine they are reading most of it, but it would be nice to acknowledge that more than one BOG member is watching here. Gentlemen, I think Matt could use some backup in some of these discussions. He is going to need a long vacation after this Review Period.)

Rob Nabieszko | VATCAN3

Director of Training, VATCAN

[email protected]


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because I signed up for it. If we can actually get some good out of this process and make positive changes for the network, then it’s worth the years off my life 🙂

  • Haha 1

You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

Forever and always "Just the events guy"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Kirk Christie said:

Matt Bartels
VP: Marketing & Communication

Because its his job role?

You clearly missed the point. The GCAP is a very important policy that will change the way VATSIM works from the ATC perspective, so what Rob meant, was that we are not getting much of a perspective from the other members of the BoG, as their opinion regarding the topics that are discussed here are very crucial. Hence the question.

C1-rated controller

[email protected] | dsolesvik#0001


Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2021 at 12:37 PM, Felix Soest said:

At the risk of being slightly off topic - why is there no VP for ATC Training in the BoG? Surely that position would be responsible for these topics?

Correct me if I'm wrong. In the past several revisions of the CoR I believe that this was an actual position of it's own. At the moment these tasks are delegated to the respective VP Region Director as outlined in Article II. - §2.03 - C3 to C5:

Vice President XYZ: Acts as the Board of Governors’ representative to the various Divisions within the XYZ Region. Responsible for activity growth, provision of ATC and ATC training.


Division Director, VATSIM Middle East & North Africa  
VATSIM Network Senior Supervisor, Team 5
##  [email protected] 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Board of Governors

All members of the Board have been intimately involved in the preparation for this public review. Matt has done a great job in leading the charge.

I think you will find the draft was only posted publicly a few days ago - I'm not sure what engagement we would expect from the rest of the group until the community has had a bit of time to offer their comments, given that we have already commented extensively prior to the public review. It's certainly my intention to return to this topic and engage in the conversation over the coming week.

  • Like 4


## [email protected]
Facebook Twitter Instagram
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...