Locked Topics

[Andrew Podner 994055]

Okie dokie,

 

I will start with the domain name thing. USA is on it's 2nd domain name that I am aware of. Essentially what happened with the original domain name was not transferred when there was a change in leadership. Then came the .net domain that we have now. That domain name cannot not be walked away with by a disgruntled USA staff member, which is a good thing.

 

Now then, we registered .us and .info for 2 reasons, First I had a defined plan to spread our IT over separate sites to prevent a total system crash that took out everything at once. The next reason was that it prevents any future domain hijack from being possible. I can tell you that although I have not yet done it, before I step out of this position, those domains will be safeguarded against "I am taking my toys and going home", as will the source code, access, and docomeentation of the website. No one person should be able to bring the house down, and I can promise you this will not happen on my watch; it is not fair to the members or the people who have poured effort into building it for someone to be able to tear it down singlehandedly.

 

The website overhaul......oh wow, talk about your all time plans going awry. Maybe I will post my original strategic plan for IT in the USA forum. I had figured for a year long process of slowly reviewing and updating things. But that all changed when we got attacked. Let me just clear up kinda what the deal was when that happened. Our system was previously sitting on a VATSIM server, that is not the case now. When the server virus went around and we got hit, it not only affected us, it hit part of VATSIM and I believe also another 1 or maybe 2 divisions that were in the same spot.

 

We recovered day one, and then took another hit. At that point I told VATSIM that I really felt bad that our systems had taken down part of their and others infrastructure and that the most responsible thing we could do was to not depend on them for a server, I felt that even though it was not anyone's fault per se, we still bore the responsibility because the attack was in our part of the server and that was not good.

 

So we threw up the temporary site and patched code for about 3 days to slowly become functional. Then I decided that we had to start from the ground up because we could expend twice as much effort patching as it would take to build a new site in modern coding conventions. When I audited out systems, which were made of a compilation of 7 or 8 packages that were all heavily modded, I felt that we could shed 60% of the code due to features unused in all those packages. But the main problem was as I stated in the other thread, you had to shut off too many safety features for the site to work, so really we were bent over a barrel for tests, promotions, email...... the whole shooting match.

 

So in summary, from my seat, there will be some structural changes to ensure that no one person can pull the plug and ensure at least some measure of stability from now on, at least with regards to that which I can control, because I truly do not think that it is fair to the membership to suffer the effects of something like that.

 

I understand a lot of the frustration, and I have been there, I can certainly understand that there is skepticism. But I will tell you that as far as our Data Services issues are concerned, I am committed to making it work for the members, because it does no good to make it just work for me or the rest of the USA Staff.

 

edited for cruddy spelling

 

Best Regards

[Luke Kolin]

Since I receive a PM or two implying that I've been positive or constructive, let me add a few things to try and dispel that myth.

 

One of the things that has continually surprised me and I've complained about before is the sheer number of positions in VATUSA. I remain unconvinced that they're all truly necessary and I think there are some severe drawbacks to having them all.

 

There are 22 ARTCCs within VATUSA. [Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming an ATM, DATM, Training Coordinator, Webmaster and one or two other staff members (events, facilities engineer, etc., let's average 1.5 per ARTCC) we're staffing VATUSA under the [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umption that we'll have 121 staff members, plus another dozen or so at the VATUSA level. Do we really have 133 members of VATUSA C1-rated or above, with over six months' experience and who are willing to volunteer for admin duties in addition to controlling regularly? (To give you some perspective, there have only been just over 400 members all over the world C1-I3 who've logged into VATSIM in the past week.)

 

Is 133 staff-capable VATUSA members a valid [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umption?

 

If that is a valid [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umption, let's drill down further. Do we have 23 individuals who are capable of leading an ARTCC training program as a Training Coordinator, who are rated I1-I3? It's incredibly hard to find competent specialists. One of the things that I remarked on when I read the ZAU forums recently was the difficulty the ARTCC staff had in finding someone competent and committed to build a web site for them. Plenty of people express interest, but how many can a) actually do the work competently and b) are willing to dedicate 6-9 months at least to do the job right? I think anyone in VATSIM who's tried to hire volunteers in specialist roles has lamented this. Yet VATUSA's staffing model [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umes that we can find not one, but 23 individuals who meet these criteria? No wonder the tech infrastructure is an uncoordinated disaster. (And that, by the way, is just lowering the bar to someone who can build a basic web site; never mind security, disaster recovery, etc.)

 

So again, is it valid to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume that there are at least 23 competent web architects/syadmins in VATUSA, and at least 23 training coordinators and at least 23 good facilities engineers?

 

Finally, if that is a valid [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umption, can we safely [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume that these individuals are equally distributed in their geography and interest, that each ARTCC will have access to at least one of each at any given time?

 

I don't think anyone would answer all of these questions in the affirmative, yet VATUSA's staffing structure is based upon all of these [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umptions and I've yet to see anyone seriously question it. Alex, your "State of VATUSA" message had as an item to fill staff vacancies, but you're fighting a lost battle. Call me negative, but you will never be in a position where you have 130 people who are capable of filling all those roles at the same time during your tenure as VATUSA1. Your successor will not, either. Maybe if things go really well two or three years down the road VATUSA might get to that point, and at that point you have a structure that will accommodate that embarr[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ment of riches, but until that time you should devise a structure based on what you have, not what you want.

 

When Delta Virtual started, we had a staff of two - a CEO and a Webmaster. For 30 people that made sense, and over the years we grew and grew. And as we grew, we hired a few more staff, made up a few new positions until today we have over 2,700 active members and about 36 staff. I'm a little disappointed that we've dropped below 100:1, but overall things seem to work reasonably well. And if we grow further, there are more positions we can create if necessary, but not until then. Because as you add more positions, you (by definition) get more turnover and there's the perception that there's a revolving door of staff. Just like VATUSA.

 

Different ARTCCs are significantly different in size, and need different staff levels. Do we really need 22 DATMs and 22 Training Coordinators? Do we really need Regional Directors if there are some ARTCCs in a Region begging for staff? Does it make sense to have some ARTCCs with a Facility Advisory Board, when others could use even a single person to make a few sector files and organize some charts? If different ARTCCs are begging for web skills, couldn't VATUSA create a consistently branded, backed up and secure site that has all the common features that every ARTCC needs to provide and allow all of the areas to use it?

 

Business philosophy seems to wax and wane between centralization and decentralization every few years. In-source, then out-source. And I think VATUSA has gone too far down the decentralization and it's time to bring things inward a bit. I don't think have 23 good webmasters, or 23 good web sites. Let's start with one. And do we really need to pay for 23 (or 26) different domain names? That extra amount alone can pay for a dedicated server for four months.

 

Let's make a realistic determination of what staff members each ARTCC legitimately has, and start kicking people functionally upstairs into roles where they can support multiple ARTCCs. Let's identify up-and-coming leaders and encourage them to "take a tour" around multiple facilities to gain experience, fill gaps and provide their expertise to areas that ordinarily wouldn't get it. Some people have personalities suited better to building than maintaining. Others are the opposite. Some are intensely driven that might do well building from scratch and would be a disaster at an established ARTCC. As a volunteer organization, we can't "compel" individuals to leave a role or facility they are comfortable with against their will. But certainly you as VATUSA1 can create a culture where this can be encouraged, rewarded and promoted.

 

I am under no illusions that VATSIM will eliminate politics. Despite their stated goal, the Founders created a structure encouraging extensive politics the day VATSIM was founded. We're not going to get rid of that, but I've found that the more titles and more formalisim you have, the more politics and the more you attract the wrong type of people. I know you're continuing what's already started, but to use terms like "administration" and "chain of command" merely perpetuates things. You're not the President or Governor, this isn't the military, and any time we use terms that are political or military, you'll attract those who like politics or giving orders.

 

If I had a suggestion for you, it's to take an audit of all the qualified staff you have between VATUSA and the 22 ARTCCs; then figure out how to best distribute them in a way that provides consistently better coverage across the entire country. I think you'll find that your list is considerably shorter than 133 names long; you'll also probably find that you're not short-staffed, either.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

[Bo Gercke 845743]

.....

 

OMG! We have a winner! I wish that for 1 second that I could articulate myself this eloquently. Beautifully written.

[Andrew Podner 994055]

So would you say then that VATUSA should provide an alternative for ARTCCs who do not wish to incur the expense or time involved in maintaining a website?

 

I want to try and hone in on this specific point and get some real dialog on this to understand what your specific suggestion would be for this part.....

[Scott DeWoody]

Great points Luke, problem is, that like any large orgainization, the leader needs to be just that, a leader and has to not only be capable of such things, but also willing to incorporate those things. Which could be entirely opposite of the agenda at hand.

[Bo Gercke 845743]

....

 

This one needs a new thread. I'll go first.

[Andrew Podner 994055]

roger that

[Luke Kolin]

So would you say then that VATUSA should provide an alternative for ARTCCs who do not wish to incur the expense or time involved in maintaining a website? I want to try and hone in on this specific point and get some real dialog on this to understand what your specific suggestion would be for this part.....

 

At one point, I made a proposal that VATSIM shouldn't have Divisional or Regional web sites, either.

 

But to answer your question, yes. I see the ARTCC web sites as providing a diversion and dilution of effort, preventing a common branding, having multiple attack vectors and all of this outweighs any advantage that you may get from allowing each ARTCC to experiment. If I were in your shoes, I'd solicit feedback from the ARTCC staffs as to the features they find most effective, then implement them on the VATUSA site so that each ARTCC has access to them, even if they don't have a webmaster on staff. You then have a single web site to secure and back up, single source control repository for files, common branding, etc.

 

Early on in our existence, some of our staff tried to set up individual web sites for the different equipment programs. The problem with this was that each would look different, have different features and capabilities, and we had no way of enforcing common standards or continuity between staff members. It became easier in the long run, believe it or not, for me to incorporate suggestions from the individual staff members and enable a feature for all programs than it was to have a hodge-podge of different sites. I think you'll find the same.

 

How different are the sites between ARTCCs, excluding look and feel? If an ARTCC has competent sysadmins and/or development staff, couldn't you put them to productive use creating and maintaining features for all of VATUSA?

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

[Andrew Podner 994055]

I'll hang on and wait for the new thread