Point regarding the creation of new divisions

[1341101]

Something I have noticed whilst on VATSIM, is that it's hard for sub-divisions to make the necessary steps in order to apply to become their own division. I think all divisions have been set out from before and I have seen instances where sub-divisions that are very independent from their overlying division, find it very hard to just become their own division, despite it being very appropriate for a multitude of reasons, also considering the fact that there are many "divisions" (VATIL for example) that are small, but function well as an independent division.

My question is, will there be a possibility for GCAP to include a clause about what steps and requirements are necessary for a local region (i.e. a sub-division) to seek to become their own division?

This isn't really a problem for sub-divisions, as new sub-divisions are quite common and are typically laid out in divisional policies.

Edited October 5, 2021 at 06:34 PM by 1341101

[Matthew Bartels]

I don’t think this concept falls within the remit of GCAP. Something that should be discussed yes, but to outline that if your sub-division meets a,b, and c then you should be your own division would be out of order of this policy.

[Anastasios Petros Stefopou]

This should be discussed with the appropriate Region VP and the division is part of.  its not linked with gcap in any way. 

[1341101]

58 minutes ago, Anastasios Petros Stefopou said:

This should be discussed with the appropriate Region VP and the division is part of.  its not linked with gcap in any way. 

From what I have been told by others, the communities in question were told that there is no set process of creating a new division and that not even the RVPs had the power to set something like a new division in place, thus, the communities were never able to form a new division. Just what I have been told. I understand that this is not related to GCAP but if we are looking to standardise things and to increase accessibility overall and to create straight-forward processes, I think at least some sort of policy should be set in-place, with relevant details and instructions on what has to be done and achieved in order to commence the process of forming a new division, similar to loads of points within GCAP itself, where region VPs make decisions of similar heights. 

[Anastasios Petros Stefopou]

13 hours ago, 1341101 said:

From what I have been told by others

What is your source? By others tells me nothing its too general. 

13 hours ago, 1341101 said:

that not even the RVPs had the power to set something like a new division in place

If a Governor cant do it, then who can?

13 hours ago, 1341101 said:

some sort of policy should be set in-place, with relevant details and instructions on what has to be done and achieved in order to commence the process of forming a new division,

What is the function of a division to your view? Why should these even need to exist? Whats the use or the goal of having more divisions than there are right now?

This is way out of gcap topic and scope. But thanks for your stating your opinion anyways. Some things cant be put in a piece of paper and common sense is a better solution. Forming a new or disolving a division has variables that to my view is too hard to put in a paper. 

 

[1341101]

21 hours ago, Anastasios Petros Stefopou said:

What is your source? By others tells me nothing its too general. 

 

vACC Ukraine - they were interested in becoming a new division and from what their staff told me, they were unable to do so due to the reasons listed above.

Quote

If a Governor cant do it, then who can?

I'm stating what I've been told.

Quote

What is the function of a division to your view? Why should these even need to exist? Whats the use or the goal of having more divisions than there are right now?

This is way out of gcap topic and scope. But thanks for your stating your opinion anyways. Some things cant be put in a piece of paper and common sense is a better solution. Forming a new or disolving a division has variables that to my view is too hard to put in a paper. 

Like I said, vACCs have their own reasons - mainly because such vACCs are very independent to their division and instead of the divisions being there to assist them, it gets to the point where such vACCs just experience setbacks and limitations, due to the fact that they are within a division. Cultural independence and overall size is also a factor. Why is VATSIM Israel its own division? Why is Japan its own division? Why is UK its own division?

[Anastasios Petros Stefopou]

The source providing you info is inaccurate. Its easy to break things up if not working for any reason, the hard is to make it work. Since you are strong on your opinion (although i provide basic info) you will be able to answer those questions. Apples and oranges cant be put in the same scale. This is my final post on this. Its out of topic.

[Mateusz Zymla]

7 hours ago, 1341101 said:

vACC Ukraine - they were interested in becoming a new division and from what their staff told me, they were unable to do so due to the reasons listed above.

I personally heard plenty of ideas, many years back, regarding splitting VATEUD due to their current sizing, from either west, east, north and south part of it, in general to split it to a half to better coordinate local actions.

However, it depends on the vision of the divisions in general. Some divisions keep pushing most of the topics that should be "part of cross-VACC agreements", limiting themselves to just administrative functions. Some, are more proactive and take the opportunity to be a platform hosting these "cross-subdivision" actions.

Edited October 7, 2021 at 05:22 PM by Mateusz Zymla