VATNA Policy Approval Question, attempt #2

[J Jason Vodnansky 810003]

http://vatna.net/docs/NA_Policy_0105.pdf

Since apparently the moderators are locking threads now, I will ask again...

 

Reference this policy from VATNA...

 

If an ATM wants to write a LOA, prior to its implementation, does said LOA need to be approved by anyone other than the ATMs?

 

Yes or No question.

 

James Jason Vodnansky

810003

[Ian Elchitz 810151]

Write an email.

[Andrew Miller 873677]

If it's an external LOA or SOP that effects other ARTCCs yes. If it's an internet LOA or SOP that only effects that ARTCC leave it to the ATM. Atleast that's my opinion how it should be done, I don't know if that's how it's done now.

[Richard Green 810012]

I really don't see what the issue is...

I have seen several occasions where unwritten rules were used on people.

 

Whats wrong with having the rules approved, they need to be in line with VATSIM anyways?

I think 99% of the rules and regulations are perfectly fine as they are, its the ones that aren't that need to be fixed.

 

I don't see where all the rules have been thrown out the window... policies need to be uniform across the network. No one should be allowed for example, to exclude anyone below a C1 from anywhere. Rules are supposed to be inclusionary not exclusionary... we need to remember we are here to get people controlling... not setting up fifedoms to leep people away.

 

I for one thing a review of rules is fine, as long as its uniform and that ATMs have the right to appeal if they feel wronged.

[Scott Johnston 890281]

How about we just cut the political [Mod - lovely stuff] out? Hell, this isn't even real life.

[Craig Merriman 834118]

The policy does not address ATC coordination, such as LOAs between centers or procedural matters. It only addresses rules such as transfers, visiting controller policy, position restrictions and other rules related to how members are treated.

[Andrew Doubleday]

This isn't the impression that I was given from my regional director per our conversation last night...

 

Here's how it started:

 

VATUSA8: Andrew, as per VATNA1, any policy not written in the Regional Division site is not valid. If you want your TRACON SOPs to be valid, you'll have to get them OKd by VATNA1

 

So, you're now telling me that I do NOT need to send my policies to you for approval?

[Richard Green 810012]

The policy does not address ATC coordination, such as LOAs between centers or procedural matters. It only addresses rules such as transfers, visiting controller policy, position restrictions and other rules related to how members are treated.

[Steve Ogrodowski 876322]

So, you're now telling me that I do NOT need to send my policies to you for approval?

 

As stated by Craig:

It only addresses rules such as transfers, visiting controller policy, position restrictions and other rules related to how members are treated.

 

YES. You need to send him your Policies for approval. Actually, according to the policy, you send the policy to the Division Director (Right now, VATUSA2). He takes it from there.

 

NO. You do not need to send him your SOP (Procedures) and LOA (Procedures).

 

You see it from the horse's mouth. VATUSA8 was obviously mistaken in his interpretation. We're having something of a communications breakdown around here.

Edited March 8, 2007 at 09:44 PM by Guest

[Andrew Doubleday]

Maybe this policy needs to be rethought or reworded because my regional director was obviously misinterpretting the policy then (not that I entirely blame him).

 

Have a look at the policy... what Craig is saying and what the policy says are two totally seperate things just about...

 

AD

[Richard Green 810012]

Andrew -

 

I completly agree with you on the fact that the policy needs to be rewritten.....

 

The way it currently is worded to me says that how your controllers tie their shoes is to be approved, but in my conversation with Craig today when I voiced my concerns he [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ured me that my interpetation was wrong and that after he leaves works (since he can't fix it at work) it will be corrected to more accuratley reflect the intent of the policy.

 

In all honesty I doubt this would even be an issue if a few ATMs would just abide by the CoC/CoR when it comes to ratings.

[Steve Ogrodowski 876322]

The way it currently is worded to me says that how your controllers tie their shoes is to be approved, but in my conversation with Craig today when I voiced my concerns he [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ured me that my interpetation was wrong and that after he leaves works (since he can't fix it at work) it will be corrected to more accuratley reflect the intent of the policy.

 

Really? I don't see it that way at all. The five bullet points, I think, make clear what the intention is...and whether there is a question on the definition of "Rule," the intent can be seen to ensure all Rules are within the scope of VATSIM Regs. And there is a further background paragraph about why the DD must approve policy anyways.

 

But, if Craig will be revising the policy, that's fine...the only thing I understand was misleading was of the term "Rule" and whether it could be applied to SOP/LOA as well. Personally, I think it is quite clear as it is...but that's just me.

[Richard Green 810012]

 

But, if Craig will be revising the policy, that's fine...the only thing I understand was misleading was of the term "Rule" and whether it could be applied to SOP/LOA as well. Personally, I think it is quite clear as it is...but that's just me.

 

Steve the policy was quasi-clear...

 

The issue was that "I" wanted to know for my own well-being that the intent of the changes wern't as sinister or draconian as Jason wants us to think.

 

I did the right thing... I went to the source and ASKED him the question. I didn't post [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umptions or try to stir up a horner's nest.

 

The vast majority of the issues that people complain about on these forums are:

1. Miscommunications

2. Misunderstandings

3. People twisting things for their own political or personal reasons

 

There are times when a beef should be aired here but thats only when the chain of authrotiy has been followed to the top.

 

Some people tend to jump the gun as a matter of habit rather than exeception.

[Josh Hjemvick 811983]

Since I've been out of some people's hair for a while:

 

Does VATNA have any meeting minutes that deal with the discussion of this policy change?

 

Thanks

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

Since I've been out of some people's hair for a while:

 

Does VATNA have any meeting minutes that deal with the discussion of this policy change?

 

Thanks

 

Should he? If you have a point, make it. But it had better elevate this conversation or I lock it as I have the other attempts to take this down the drain.

[Josh Hjemvick 811983]

Since I've been out of some people's hair for a while:

 

Does VATNA have any meeting minutes that deal with the discussion of this policy change?

 

Thanks

 

Should he? If you have a point, make it. But it had better elevate this conversation or I lock it as I have the other attempts to take this down the drain.

 

Wow. . . feel free to e-mail me Kyle. I already see where Craig replied to the original poster. Just looking towards reading the minutes - that is, if they exist, if they don't, then so be it.

 

Does He? I don't know, you tell me. I was simply asking if there were any meeting minutes available where this policy was discussed. A number of other VATxxx regions (even the BoG) post their meeting minutes. Was only asking if there was one available.

 

My point has been made.

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

Sounded like you were fishing. You say not, so that's cool.

 

I'd address the question directly to Craig and he'd be able to point you at any minutes if they exist.

 

c dot merriman at vatsim dot net

[Craig Merriman 834118]

Nope, no meeting minutes. It was something we discussed among the EC members between EC meetings. I'm sure it'll be an agenda item for the next EC meeting.