USFA accepts Election

[epeemike81]

Referees tend to be incredibly important to other referees. Their names and faces are not remotely interesting to the vast majority of fencers.

In fact, a good referee should be a lot like a good bartender. If he's doing his job correctly, you should hardly notice that he's there.

This is especially true in epee fencing.

yes, but the Head Referees tend to be a lot more well known, as that's who the coaches complain to when they DO notice their referee.

-m

[epeemike81]

I've been trying to let this one pass without commenting on it, but I just can't. It still shocks me.



So why am I shocked?

I'm shocked because it sounds like T's knowledge of what the TC does comes essentially from the Ops Manual and not much from actual contact or discussions with the TC members or even bout committee staff volunteers. This is rather like trying to referee a bout with only the knowledge obtained from the Rules Book. There's a reason the FOC gives practical exams, and that the highest referee ratings cannot be obtained without substantial tournament experience--knowing the rules is only the start.

The Ops Manual doesn't--and I'm not sure how it could--explain all the interactions among the various committees, like how a change in tournament formats such as adding more team competitions or dropping repechage (TC) might affect the international development programs (HPC & national coaches) or officials requirements (FOC), or how changes in the kinds of tournaments we offer (more and smaller, say) would affect the finances, in terms of the number and size of venues we'd need. All of these sorts of proposals require knowledge of the full range of their potential effects.

If the FFC's knowledge of how the USFA board, the national office, and all its current committees currently interact in fact comes mostly from the Ops Manual, I would be quite concerned about their ability to judge who to appoint to those committees, let alone to determine whether and how the existing committee structure should be changed to better serve USFA's needs.

If my inference of book knowledge without accompanying practical knowledge is incorrect, I hope that the FFC candidates will provide further explanation.

Certainly there are many referees who can work above their official referee ratings, but I don't believe there are many 10s who are ready for a Division I gold medal bout.

Mary

QFT.

-m

[ivlobane]

I work in the IT industry too and people with this attitude are why I have to deal with freetexted (as opposed to correctly coded) extracts from truly crappy databases and tools that were written with no forethought as to the reporting that they'd eventually want to do off them...

Planning now will improve the situation later.

-m

I'm not advocating poor product design. My point is that an IT specialist will be required to develop all this, while available, very flexible tools can be implemented for much cheaper than the IT contract.

[epeemike81]

I'm not advocating poor product design. My point is that an IT specialist will be required to develop all this, while available, very flexible tools can be implemented for much cheaper than the IT contract.

I think you're incorrect about what the NC Slate is saying. they are by no means ruling out using FRED and FT, they're simply noting that a necessary pre-requisite before doing any of this is improvements to the USFA central membership database. That database needs to be significantly re-designed and improved (a project which is already underway). go back up in the thread and read some of dberkes posts for more insight.

-m

[oso97]

What is this? The NomCom itself was promised something? And it's not anyone's biznass?

*sigh* Those things referred to do have ZERO to do with as the Nominating Committee. No member of the Nominating Committee was promised anything in return for submitting certain names. Sheesh. Get that through your thick head. Yea, I regret saying anything now, but read it in context for crying out loud.

What happened is that some members of the NC, who had been promised certain things for other work they had done were told that as a result of the decisions they made, it called into question their competence and maturity since they didn't make the "right" decisions, and totally unrelated things did not materialize. Want a full description? I'm not going to post it on the internet, but if you're so incredibly curious about the personal lives of the NC, feel free to seek us out at a tournament and talk to us one-on-one.

Here's a completely hypothetical timeline and set of circumstances. Note: the following is illustrative and allegorical, and not a specific recounting of events. Don't waste your time trying to figure out which camp and which coach is being talked about, because, its allegorical!

Lets say that a person was asked to serve as a member of the coaching squad for a particular camp. This camp is well attended, draws fencers from a wide group and derives substantial financial benefits for the coaching staff. The invitation was made in May 2007, before the Nominating Committee elections. In Miami, this person was elected to the Nominating Committee. This hypothetical camp might have been held in say, late July 2008. The person in question came to the camp, and was well received by the attendees and the other staff members. This person was asked to make sure he was available the following year to coach at the camp again. Then that fall, this lucky person is involved in the deliberations of the Nominating Committee. After the committee's report is turned in, our hypothetical member is contacted, and told that since the "right" decision wasn't made, then he can consider his invitation to coach at the camp the following summer rescinded. Its worth noting that the person making the decisions about hiring the coaches for the camp is NOT connected to the FFC slate or the NC slate.

Allegorical. Let me repeat that. Allegorical and illustrative. No, you don't get any more details. Its illustrative, none of your business, and the situation has since been corrected (again, by people unconnected to the FFC slate or the NC slate).

No member of the NC (so far as I am aware) was offered any quid-pro-quo for making (or not making) any specific nominations.

[ivlobane]

go back up in the thread and read some of dberkes posts for more insight.

-m

No, no time for that, I'll be happy to consider a different vote on tech if the NC slate post a proposal to their site. Please?

[jfarmer]

I work in the IT industry too and people with this attitude are why I have to deal with freetexted (as opposed to correctly coded) extracts from truly crappy databases and tools that were written with no forethought as to the reporting that they'd eventually want to do off them...

Planning now will improve the situation later.

-m

There's planning and there's too much planning. So far, what I'm hearing the NomComitt slate say is that "Everything is a mess and so complicated that we have to study it and devise a comprehensive plan to fix it all."

That's not going to work. If that's the case, then the USFA can't afford to do anything, because we don't have the manpower, we don't have the money..... Better to blow it all up and start over... (and yes as an IT consultant I have had to tell clients that. Usually they don't believe me, spend 10x the money & end up doing just that...)

There are a number of action items that have been identifed here and elsewhere, by both groups (and us bomb throwers...). Will they fix all the problems? No. Will going ahead and implementing some of them fix some of the problem spots? Yes. Will some of them turn out to be half-$ssed and have to be re-built? Most certainly. The key is to understand that things change, especially processes and make processes that adapt. (See Mgriff's comments about changes in tournament operations...)

[epeemike81]

No, no time for that, I'll be happy to make a different decision about tech if the NC slate post a proposal to their site. Please?

Of course not. No time to educate yourself, but plenty of time to post uninformed opinions! Ah, American politics at its best!

-m

[epeemike81]

That's not going to work. If that's the case, then the USFA can't afford to do anything, because we don't have the manpower, we don't have the money..... Better to blow it all up and start over... (and yes as an IT consultant I have had to tell clients that. Usually they don't believe me, spend 10x the money & end up doing just that...)

This is a lot closer to what the Nominated candidates are saying than what T is saying. T wants to implement quick and dirty solutions now, they want to immediately start implementing solutions in a comprehensive fashion.

It's the difference between quick and dirty or reasonably soon and good. I'll take good, thanks.

-m

[ivlobane]

Of course not. No time to educate yourself, but plenty of time to post uninformed opinions! Ah, American politics at its best!

-m

Nope, if you kindly used the forum engine with the little link button, I would be happy to, but it is absolutely unreasonable to expect me to wade through 150+ posts.

This is why I read webnews with links to things like factcheck.org and senate votes and such, instead of watching TV.

[lewis]

I think I am going to go back to lurking. I have posted this last month or so because many of the issues are of interest to me, many people have information I find interesting and can answer questions, and the underage fencers rule/violations/recent enforcement hit home. I do not fence, I do not ref, I do not do bout committee, and have read the rule book and athletes handbook only for specific answers to specific questions. I did take the reffing seminar twice though, I have 2 kids who are good fencers and we have spent a lot of time and money for training, equipment and tournaments. I look to the people on this forum for information and opinions and for the humor in some of the threads and posts.

I signed the petition for the alternate slate because I have been extremely frustrated by the usfa for the last several years. There were no 'prizes' offered when I was at their table. I don't know how I am going to vote but I wanted the opportunity for discussion and to hear different ideas about how to move the organization and the sport forward. Whenever I go to a NAC I find myself thinking "I hate fencing" and most of the time my kids do too - and not because they don't do just fine, it is all the other stuff some of it as trivial as the person giving out the medals can't be bothered to find out how to pronounce the fencers name or the coaches name correctly. After all not every person medals at every nac and those first time medalists are vastly important to the growth of the sport. The deference given to the perennial medalists and the ones identified as 'elite' by the usfa - is discouraging to the rank and file fencer and the beginning fencer. I sincerely hope my kids will fence beyond college - but I don't see a lot of NACs in their future beyond the junior events unless major changes take place.

I know some of the people up for election personally, I know others by reputation and the others I have quite frankly never heard of - let me just point out that I don't think any of you do your chosen candidates any good with the finger pointing, the sarcastic and personal attacks, and the veiled innuendos. The candidates posting here have made thoughtful posts and I appreciate it. I have read their websites, watched the video and will read anything else relevant that any of them suggest. When it comes time to vote I will do what I think is best for the organization. I will try not to hold it against any particular candidate that they have supporters who use the anonymity of the web to say and do things they would not do in person. Happy trails to you all.

[ivlobane]

There's planning and there's too much planning. So far, what I'm hearing the NomComitt slate say is that "Everything is a mess and so complicated that we have to study it and devise a comprehensive plan to fix it all."

That's not going to work. If that's the case, then the USFA can't afford to do anything, because we don't have the manpower, we don't have the money..... Better to blow it all up and start over... (and yes as an IT consultant I have had to tell clients that. Usually they don't believe me, spend 10x the money & end up doing just that...)

There are a number of action items that have been identifed here and elsewhere, by both groups (and us bomb throwers...). Will they fix all the problems? No. Will going ahead and implementing some of them fix some of the problem spots? Yes. Will some of them turn out to be half-$ssed and have to be re-built? Most certainly. The key is to understand that things change, especially processes and make processes that adapt. (See Mgriff's comments about changes in tournament operations...)

QFT

I see this as an NIH contractor all the time, it's so painful.

[dberke]

Nope, if you kindly used the forum engine with the little link button, I would be happy to, but it is absolutely unreasonable to expect me to wade through 150+ posts.

This is why I read webnews with links to things like factcheck.org and senate votes and such, instead of watching TV.

As an "IT Professional", one would think you'd be familiar with the search feature available on this forum.

Your unwillingness to read the evolving thread on the topic suggests your mind is closed to any ideas that challenge your current views. Would it be so bad if you read something by someone you disagreed with that actually conviced you to change your mind?

I resepect the opinions of informed people with which whom I disagree. I do not respect the opinions of people who don't feel it is necessary to hear both sides of an issue, especially when it takes so little effort to do so.

Dan

[ivlobane]

As an "IT Professional", one would think you'd be familiar with the search feature available on this forum.

Your unwillingness to read the evolving thread on the topic suggests your mind is closed to any ideas that challenge your current views. Would it be so bad if you read something by someone you disagreed with that actually conviced you to change your mind?

I resepect the opinions of informed people with which whom I disagree. I do not respect the opinions of people who don't feel it is necessary to hear both sides of an issue, especially when it takes so little effort to do so.

Dan

There is a big diffence between one click and searching for an unspecific text string. Its not bad, and I'll read it if you link to it.

[epeemike81]

No, no time for that, I'll be happy to consider a different vote on tech if the NC slate post a proposal to their site. Please?

http://usfanominees.com/wp-content/u...chproposal.pdf

In my opinion, a much more complete and reasonable plan than "Just do it in a weekend."

-m

[whtouche]

Are you serious? First belligerent, and then lazy?

It's not surprising to find somebody on this messageboard who is willing to post uninformed, and angry comments, in response to threads he has no read. But then to say "well if you wan't me to stop being a jerk you should prepare the cliff's notes for me" ? It's so much easier to just understand that you're not speaking from an informed position and ignore. If you want to be taken seriously in this discussion, you do the leg work.

And please, tone down your overactive sense of self-righteous indignation: nobody accused YOU specifically of taking a bribe. But given the facts, that goods were exchanged for signatures, can you reasonably assert that that does not fit the description of a bribe? Don't worry, you don't have to do any research to answer that question.

[ivlobane]

http://usfanominees.com/wp-content/u...chproposal.pdf

In my opinion, a much more complete and reasonable plan than "Just do it in a weekend."

-m

Well, my lazy ass just finished reading this, and it's good! The requirements for the database schema are well thought out. I'm also very happy to see that they are getting Dan Berke (FencingTime) and Peet Sasaki (askFRED) involved. My perfect world would be exactly as described in that document.

[SEM Fencer]

The question was asked and answered at the Election Committee meeting in Portland. The answer is they were aware of the deadline.

They were also aware that they were not candidates until the petition signatures were validated.

Thanks KD5MDK (not T)

So, I needed to be at the Election Committee meeting in Portland to get an answer from T? I mean, thanks for the info, but I'm reading THIS thread. T has responded to other questions in this thread, why not this one, too?

[gorgie101]

Because I smell a rat. And previous NomCom slates all failed to do what I want as a USFA member.

If previous NomCom slates have failed to do what you want it is becuase YOU have failed to be involved. You had a say in who was on the previous NonCom slate (assumeing you were a member at the time). The process is just like electing our reps in the House and Senate.

No, no time for that, I'll be happy to consider a different vote on tech if the NC slate post a proposal to their site. Please?

Oh sorry. Being more involved would require time.

[T]

Most of the comments posted on the previous pages are from people that are firmly entrenched with their decision about who they will vote for.

Mudslinging will not move the USFA forward but it does make for some great entertainment.

I have a series of 3 posts that I am making before I let this thread rest (it has gotten much too long and off-topic) is the idea of the membership database and online registration.

I will assume that because this process is perceived as being more complex than most people can imagine, I will assume that the database is poorly designed and odds are that fields are mixed as might be a problem that would be caused by setting up this kind of system in a spreadsheet. As the manager of research & technology at a national nonprofit organization, we used a database program which employed SQL server that was adequate for 50,000 clients. I helped design the system parameters as I had a knowledge of our needs.

Greg can argue that the problem is too complicated to solve quickly but that is just not the case. Millions of small (very small) companies run complex database programs with an online inventory and ordering system. I doubt seriously that an online registration and event registration system is any more complex than these systems and I suspect that it is simpler in many respects. And as part of an overall technology implementation, it works quite well as a first phase. There are plenty of third-party platforms out there that offer this solution at reasonable prices. I agree, it needs to be planned and aimed toward the future for growth. No argument there. But we’re talking about a database application that needs to run on a secure server that includes the expansion capability to add several additional modules. Take a look at what USATriathlon uses www.usatriathlon.org . The point is that there are successful and effective models out there that require little customization. Most everyone agrees that this is something that we want done. But you can’t give it to a committee and let them ponder over it for 3 years. A committee establishes the required information for proposals including data items, price, capacity, etc.; a staff person should issue a RFP from vendors, a committee should review the proposals, and a make a recommendation to accept one of them and begin implementation. This is a process that shouldn’t take more than 6 months and probably a lot less (and I never suggested that this process could be tackled in one weekend).

I agree that the technology plan outlined by the NC slate is well thought out. I’m glad to see it. And I agree that Peet and Dan would be excellent contributors to the RFP process (unless of course, they wanted to bid on part of it).

I agree that the USFA is in financial trouble and that we need to curtail extraneous expenses. Again, no argument there. However, you can’t cease operations in a period of financial troubles. The problem is that many people are operating under an organizational model which is not functional. Committees should provide a support or oversight role. There is nothing that I have proposed that requires bylaw changes. It does require some re-organization in the front office to place positions in more of a hierarchical position and will require the addition of several support staff functions (but we need these anyway). Accountability and transparency is just as important in all organizational decisions as it is in financial ones.

Again, mudslinging is fine – feel free to continue to do so. I highly suspect that no one on this thread is going to change their minds. I have not slung any mud even though a considerable amount has been slung at me with personal attacks on my motives and my intelligence. No problem, that’s politics but take note of who is doing the mudslinging, those are the ones that are likely to be obstructionists working to undermind progress. One thing that f.net is good for is bringing out all of the people who insist that things are too complicated and why things won’t work.

I respect people who disagree with me. Disagreement is a way to compromise and eventual consensus.