USFA accepts Election

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by T

1. Is buying a projector and hooking it to a computer (with something larger than a 10 pitch font) such a big problem that it can't be resolved over a weekend?
   
2. Does online registration present such huge obstacles that it cannot be resolved by the beginning of next season?
   
3. Are preparing financial statements and allowing members access to that information such a huge security problem that it would topple the association?
   
4. Are putting on profitable NACs such an unreasonable expectation that we are willing to accept it and not ask why?
   
5. Is the fact that USFA membership has actually declined not raise a red flag as to the direction our organization is headed?
   
6. Is the idea that we were able to collect 551 signatures in 2.5 weekends not indicative of how many USFA members feel about the direction we are headed?

Well, but we must ask ourselves: How will any of these changes benefit the elite Div I and Junior fencers and international results? That is and apparently has always been the deciding issue.

With the possible exception of number 4 on your list, every dollar spent would be a dollar not available for elite fencing, international travel, athlete awards, national coaching and, to be fair, bureaucratic waste ( like "staff retreats" ).

Ergo, low priorities, now and always, until we get a leadership which is actually willing to spend less on prestige uses and more on the hoi polloi.

Is that you?

[epeeforlife]

Originally Posted by gorgie101

My thoughts exactly. You may have gotten an election, but you lost my vote in the process. I am sure that you have lost many others too.

Ahhh gorgie, gorgie, gorgie - my RMS mistress Somehow I doubt T was counting on your vote. My vote, on the other hand, is up for grabs. Who can make epeeforlife love life more ?

Originally Posted by gorgie101

You still have not answered the above question. I would like to know the answer and I am sure I am not the only one.

After reading through all of the important info on this, it is quite clear that neither side took this seriously until someone decided to make an issue of it. People “still wondering” about this have already made up their minds. If you want to change epeeforlife’s mind, you need more!

[dberke]

Originally Posted by T

Is buying a projector and hooking it to a computer (with something larger than a 10 pitch font) such a big problem that it can't be resolved over a weekend?

Since I have some very relevant experience on this point, I have to comment...

Yes, it is a much bigger problem than you think. We experimented with projectors at the Tucson, Dallas, and Richmond NACs. In large part, they were minimally useful due to the lighting conditions present in virtually every convention center. And that was even using an industrial-strength projector - the "office" models that you can buy for $600 at Office Depot are way too underpowered.

A better solution would be to buy reasonably large LCD screens and place them in several locations around the venue (perhaps near the bulletin boards where things are currently posted.) Now you're talking a reasonably large capital outlay - upwards of $1000 per screen, and probably another $500 for a padded shipping case for transportation. If you figure 3 or 4 screens, that's $5-6k, and that doesn't include the additional cost for shipping them to/from the NACs along with the rest of the equipment. On top of all of that, you need to buy the equipment necessary to distribute the video signals over long distances, which I have priced out and is upwards of another $1000.

This is a great example of something that, on the surface, sounds like there is a "quick fix" that is easy to do but you will quickly realize tht it's a more complex problem than meets the eye. While I'd love to see the USFA spend money on these kinds of things, the decision to do that has to be part of a larger financial strategy, especially given the current financial issues.

Originally Posted by T

[*]Does online registration present such huge obstacles that it cannot be resolved by the beginning of next season?

The problem of online registration is a symptom of a deeper technological issue, and the "quick fix" will just lead us down a path to having yet another system that doesn't work well with others or scale for future needs. Addressing the root issue is what is necessary, and the speed at which that can be done is dependant on how much money the USFA is willing to spend. And again, that has to be part of a larger financial strategy that addresses the whole organization.

Many of the USFA's current technological problems are the result of years of applying "quick fixes" for problems as they arose. We're at a point where we need to go rearchitect everything from the ground up so that all of the current and future needs are met. More quick fixes are just putting lipstick on a pig.

Dan

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by dberke

Since I have some very relevant experience on this point, I have to comment...

Yes, it is a much bigger problem than you think. We experimented with projectors at the Tucson, Dallas, and Richmond NACs. In large part, they were minimally useful due to the lighting conditions present in virtually every convention center. And that was even using an industrial-strength projector - the "office" models that you can buy for $600 at Office Depot are way too underpowered.

A better solution would be to buy reasonably large LCD screens and place them in several locations around the venue (perhaps near the bulletin boards where things are currently posted.) Now you're talking a reasonably large capital outlay - upwards of $1000 per screen, and probably another $500 for a padded shipping case for transportation. If you figure 3 or 4 screens, that's $5-6k, and that doesn't include the additional cost for shipping them to/from the NACs along with the rest of the equipment. On top of all of that, you need to buy the equipment necessary to distribute the video signals over long distances, which I have priced out and is upwards of another $1000.

So, 7 grand in investments. Assume 1000$ for transporting the whole set between each SN. Assume 5 years write-off, and no interest - only ballpark figure needed. Assume that all non-SN use is pure gravy, no predicted income there. Total expenses before writeoff: 12 Grand. Assume 7000 entries for each SN. Cost per entry: 12000/(7000*5)=0.34$.

Slap an additional 50 cents on each entry fee to give some leeway if the back-of-the-envelope calculation does not work out.

Zany idea: Develop software that automatically generates SMS messages to all fencers about their next poule assignment, etc. Make the message content specific for every fencer.
Pro: no cost for screens, all fencers can read info at their own time. No lighting issues.
Con: Increases load on the central BC computer.


Have a nice time!


Peter Gustafsson

[CadetVet]

Originally Posted by dberke

Many of the USFA's current technological problems are the result of years of applying "quick fixes" for problems as they arose. We're at a point where we need to go rearchitect everything from the ground up so that all of the current and future needs are met. More quick fixes are just putting lipstick on a pig.

Dan

Dan is absolutely correct about quick fixes and the problems that they can create. Most large corporations are saddled with legacy quick fixes that often hand-tie them from moving forward in key and critical manners.

In my mind (and I have a lot of expertise here, too), we should look for an off-the-shelf solution to handle registration, etc. Perhaps even go to an ASP/SaaS solution rather than bringing it in-house. Done correctly, this can reduce capital outlay and shorten development time dramatically - and if properly implemented - can prevent significant transition-in and transition-out issues.

The good news for us is that we have factual data regarding volume, timeliness, etc., that will allow us to properly scale and price whatever solution we come up with. Here we're ahead, because our volume estimates will not be subject to speculation. However, I would caution us that developing a solution in-house may not be the best idea (although I know that we have a lot of great developers within the organization) simply because we don't have the manpower or expertise to manage such a development effort - particularly with the other chaos that have to have to deal with.

All of that aside, we should clearly address our priorities in the following sequence: (1) financial stability and controls; (2) customer-facing issues (registration and web site); (3) referee and bout committee issues; and (4) cool bells and whistles. We should pick a couple of priority efforts in each area and manage them properly to completion - rather than trying to make progress in every problem that we identify and winding up with an unmanageable mess. Yes, this means that certain pet projects will have to wait, but at least the priority projects have a chance of getting done.

CV

[Inquartata]

How about just putting up the pools sheets et al in more than three locations?

And in a larger font...

The existing technology is adequate, it just isn't being optimally utilized.

[mgriff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

How about just putting up the pools sheets et al in more than three locations?

And in a larger font...

The existing technology is adequate, it just isn't being optimally utilized.

I can tell you why we only post in three or four locations--most convention centers no longer allow us to use the walls for posting, and they charge outrageous amounts for bulletin board rentals (not to mention that the bulletin boards are wobbly, unstable, and a general pain to use). We could buy our own bulletin boards, I suppose, but then we've got to consider packing and shipping for them--I'm not sure they'd fit into the packing crates we use now, even disassembled, and considering how flimsy they are, they are remarkably heavy, which certainly has to be considered in light of the cost of fuel these days.

Three or four posting locations is also pretty much the most we can do with the number of runners we usually have available. Often lately, we've tried making general announcements for runners (as in, "if you're willing to help us post, please report to the bout committee immediately"), with pretty good results, which helps some, but isn't a technique I'd be happy having to routinely rely on. (Believe it or not, we've found that not everyone is competent at posting pools and tableaux.) If BC staff has to post more, that means they aren't doing the other steps needed to get the event moving, which slows thing down even more than they already are.

As to the large print, poor old XSeed has two sizes of print--Normal Teensy and Slightly Larger. Dan Berke's been doing amazing things since last October with FencingTime to make it do what we need, and once he gets that whole multiple-computer thing handled, we might finally be able to adopt FT, which has much more legible and attractive printouts, among its many other nice features.

We routinely now have tournament copiers that are capable of enlargements, but they usually only use letter and legal size paper, which means that we'd have to tile the larger lists and tables, which means lots of aligning and taping, and more time and more runners.

It's yet another of those trade-offs we keep getting stuck with--do we get the information out as fast as we can or do we make it big enough for people not to have to crowd around and squint? Personally, I'd love to implement Dan's vision of the flat screen displays, but like he says in his earlier post, that's expensive enough that we can't just do it willy-nilly without some serious consideration of our priorities.

If you can figure out a way to make the technology we have work better than we're able to make it do things now, please email me. We BC types are always open to suggestions we haven't already thought of or tried for improving tournaments.

Mary

[epeeforlife]

Originally Posted by dberke

Many of the USFA's current technological problems are the result of years of applying "quick fixes" for problems as they arose.

I'm sorry, you mentioned "USFA's current technological problems". You need some current technology before you can have technological problems.

[fencinginDC]

Regarding registration and other comprehensive systems:

Here is where the management skills come into play. We have at least three people with a pretty good idea of the challenges, the costs, several alternatives, and the technical connections to fill in blanks as needed. Have them do the research (if they would agree to do so) and come up with the best option(s), with the details.

Then another group would look at funding. Fundraising could target connections in the IT industry. It's a well defined need, with broad benefits, and a sponsor could be easily be attached to it for recognition. Some kind of tournament committee (maybe a sub-set) would consider the impact of charging higher fees, or how the changes would benefit the fencers, or would reduce time/costs for the tournament.

The effort would be supported by the USFA professional staff as needed, and likely coordiated by the executive director, with direction provided by the Board or Executive Committee.

Regarding the display problem:

Has anyone considered that linking with a national appliance rental company like Aaron's, which could provide televisions from their local stores, and even deliver and help install them. Of course, this is assuming that big TVs are the best answer. Severals references have been made to other systems in other countries. We need a few knowledgeable people to do some leg work as part of the plan to address that particular problem.

Regarding multiple projects:

There is no reason that multiple project can't be done at the same time. The key is asking for help and finding the right people. The executive director, under the guidance of the Board, should be able to accomplish that.


This is just off-the-top-of-the-head stuff. Others can probably do it better than me. And it's not rocket science if you are trained and have non-profit or corporate management experience. Please stop (not you Peter) assuming that stuff is not possible simply because we haven't done it before. Just get it done.

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Hi!

So, 7 grand in investments. Assume 1000$ for transporting the whole set between each SN. Assume 5 years write-off, and no interest - only ballpark figure needed. Assume that all non-SN use is pure gravy, no predicted income there. Total expenses before writeoff: 12 Grand. Assume 7000 entries for each SN. Cost per entry: 12000/(7000*5)=0.34$.

Slap an additional 50 cents on each entry fee to give some leeway if the back-of-the-envelope calculation does not work out.

Zany idea: Develop software that automatically generates SMS messages to all fencers about their next poule assignment, etc. Make the message content specific for every fencer.
Pro: no cost for screens, all fencers can read info at their own time. No lighting issues.
Con: Increases load on the central BC computer.


Have a nice time!


Peter Gustafsson

[mgriff]

Originally Posted by CadetVet

All of that aside, we should clearly address our priorities in the following sequence: (1) financial stability and controls; (2) customer-facing issues (registration and web site); (3) referee and bout committee issues; and (4) cool bells and whistles. We should pick a couple of priority efforts in each area and manage them properly to completion - rather than trying to make progress in every problem that we identify and winding up with an unmanageable mess. Yes, this means that certain pet projects will have to wait, but at least the priority projects have a chance of getting done.

CV

I'd toss governance in ahead of the cool bells and whistles. I used to think only my own division and section were dysfunctional, but since I started working national tournaments I've learned that mine are nowhere near the most dysfunctional in the country. And it's been clear for some years that the basic structure and bylaws of USFA need to be rethought. Governance is a huge issue (among all too many that all interact).

Mary

[T]

Originally Posted by CadetVet

Dan is absolutely correct about quick fixes and the problems that they can create. Most large corporations are saddled with legacy quick fixes that often hand-tie them from moving forward in key and critical manners.

I agree about the quick fixes not necessarily being the best fix but I think we are past the 'quick' part. I'm not sure that I agree that resolving this problem is necessarily a quick fix. I see several very good solutions on this page alone. Priorities about finances first - no argument there - but the kind of money for LCD screens is relatively small if you divide it over the number of NACs there are in one season (let alone over the life of the equipment) and the number of entries. Entry fees are not small but they are not large either. In fact, they are the smallest expense item when compared to the rest of the expenses over the NAC weekend for any fencer.

In my mind (and I have a lot of expertise here, too), we should look for an off-the-shelf solution to handle registration, etc. Perhaps even go to an ASP/SaaS solution rather than bringing it in-house. Done correctly, this can reduce capital outlay and shorten development time dramatically - and if properly implemented - can prevent significant transition-in and transition-out issues. The good news for us is that we have factual data regarding volume, timeliness, etc., that will allow us to properly scale and price whatever solution we come up with. Here we're ahead, because our volume estimates will not be subject to speculation. However, I would caution us that developing a solution in-house may not be the best idea (although I know that we have a lot of great developers within the organization) simply because we don't have the manpower or expertise to manage such a development effort - particularly with the other chaos that have to have to deal with.

I agree, this is the best idea (as I also have some expertise in this area). The USFA should not try to bring this in-house. Existing products are available that would suit our purposes. I definitely agree that an Application Service Provider (ASP) is the best way to go. Minimal customization will be needed but we aren't talking about too much more than a database system that many other companies use. The server is hosted off-site and the costs are incurred monthly as opposed to upfront and are usually paid per user. Citrix systems are an excellent choice for this and by definition, require little if any hardware or software upgrades.

All of that aside, we should clearly address our priorities in the following sequence: (1) financial stability and controls; (2) customer-facing issues (registration and web site); (3) referee and bout committee issues; and (4) cool bells and whistles. We should pick a couple of priority efforts in each area and manage them properly to completion - rather than trying to make progress in every problem that we identify and winding up with an unmanageable mess.
CV

Again, I agree with the priorities (which are almost identical to the ones listed on our website). While prioritizing is an important issue, everything is so inter-related that they cannot easily be separated. Consequently addressing one of them requires addressing another (here is where the quick fix solutions could become problems). I think the 'unmanageable mess' comes when you try to address one priority without incorporating related issues into the decision-making process. In other words, the implemented solution makes a related problem worse.

Yes, this means that certain pet projects will have to wait, but at least the priority projects have a chance of getting done.

Again, we are in the same camp on this one. Everyone's pet projects need to be put on hold (no pork belly projects allowed). The savings in expenses from implementing technological advances will more than pay for themselves. This ties into customer service improvements.

Instead of stating all of the obstacles that need to be cleared before these types of projects can be accomplished, our time would be better spent (as fencinginDC states) figuring out how to make it happen. I suspect if we just get 5 or 6 of the visitors to this thread together in a room (either via the internet or face-to-face at the summer nationals, for instance), we could probably figure out the major issues and possible solutions to them and get it done. After everyone did their homework for a month or so, we would probably be able to come back together with a solution that fit everyone's needs and within budget. Realistically, this is not a quick fix (even if the timeframe to accomplish it is a bit 'quicker' than most other USFA decision).

[T]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Well, but we must ask ourselves: How will any of these changes benefit the elite Div I and Junior fencers and international results? That is and apparently has always been the deciding issue.

With the possible exception of number 4 on your list, every dollar spent would be a dollar not available for elite fencing, international travel, athlete awards, national coaching and, to be fair, bureaucratic waste ( like "staff retreats" ).

Ergo, low priorities, now and always, until we get a leadership which is actually willing to spend less on prestige uses and more on the hoi polloi.

Is that you?

Every dollar spent for elite fencing, international travel, athlete awards (for performance) will most likely be funded primarily by the USOC and the USFA trust.

"Bureaucratic waste" items are exactly the kind of items that would get cut. Unfortunately, some of this bureacratic waste occurs at the elite level. For instance, sending (and paying) a team coach to "coach" at a designated cadet international event is often a "bureaucratic waste". This can also be true at junior and senior world cups (not in every case but in many cases). Unfortunately, coaches take these assignments so they can travel to the cadet, junior, or senior event and coach their student for free. They are supposed to help the other 11 or 15 fencers but often, this does not occur. Fencers and their parents are left to their own devices while the designated coach attends to their own fencer (at least until their own fencer is eliminated). The concept of a team coach going to designated events needs to be examined for it's effectiveness. At what point does the coach provide a service to the fencers. Unless a coach has good knowledge of an individual fencer, that coach is not likely to provide much useful info to that fencer on the strip. In fact, it could be just the opposite.

I know that you are the resident skeptic so you can take this info as you want. If anyone wants to know what we stand for, they simply need to go to our website. Very few of the priorities deal with elite fencers. A few of our candidates may come from this perspective but that is not where our priorities lie. Sure, we will argue for funding from the USOC for elite and developmental programs. If we don't do this, then the USFA as an organization is not fulfilling one of its primary goals. But this is only one goal of the organization. $1million or so of the membership dues come from non elite members (assuming 20,000 members at $50/year). In addition, the majority of the NAC registration fees are from nonelite fencers. If we can get the NACs in the black, most of this 'profit' can go back into member services used primarily by nonelite fencers. The trick will be finding the right combination of size, frequency, location, etc of the NACs to make this happen.

The USFA needs to grow its membership base. The membership base will always consist of 1 or 2% elite athletes. We need to establish membership services that address the needs of the other 99% of the membership base.

[jfarmer]

Originally Posted by dberke

Since I have some very relevant experience on this point, I have to comment...

Yes, it is a much bigger problem than you think. We experimented with projectors at the Tucson, Dallas, and Richmond NACs. In large part, they were minimally useful due to the lighting conditions present in virtually every convention center. And that was even using an industrial-strength projector - the "office" models that you can buy for $600 at Office Depot are way too underpowered.

A better solution would be to buy reasonably large LCD screens and place them in several locations around the venue (perhaps near the bulletin boards where things are currently posted.) Now you're talking a reasonably large capital outlay - upwards of $1000 per screen, and probably another $500 for a padded shipping case for transportation. If you figure 3 or 4 screens, that's $5-6k, and that doesn't include the additional cost for shipping them to/from the NACs along with the rest of the equipment. On top of all of that, you need to buy the equipment necessary to distribute the video signals over long distances, which I have priced out and is upwards of another $1000.

This is a great example of something that, on the surface, sounds like there is a "quick fix" that is easy to do but you will quickly realize tht it's a more complex problem than meets the eye. While I'd love to see the USFA spend money on these kinds of things, the decision to do that has to be part of a larger financial strategy, especially given the current financial issues.

Dan,

That's because you're looking at the problem wrong.

If large video displays are desired and telling people results, where they should report to, etc. is important than tackle it this way.

First, FencingTime shouldn't have display management code in it. That ties you to locating displays near bout committee tables, or requires long video repeater setups (something I've dealt with in the past, not a good way to go.) Rather, have FT, or Xseed, or whatever, export/make an application interface available to publish the contents of it's database. (Note, not a raw interface, but "cooked" for control & protection.) Then run a small web server app (Apache is probably to heavy, but doable on any platform.) that creates dynamic pages of pool assignments, results, Now calling Fencer X, etc...

With this running a whole world of possible uses comes up. Set up one or more WiFi access in the venue (or make it a requirement that the venue provide it) and suddenly any fencer, coach, team, etc. can open a laptop and see the data anywhere in the venue. Any displays needed around the venue can be fed by setting up a small kiosk computer with a WiFi adapter feeding a display. (Wifi problems? Ethernet cable is cheap & easy.) People want to watch several bouts around the venue? Small camera and a streaming server solves that problem. Better yet, cut a deal with FencingPictures to share video (raw goes out on the streaming server, not archived, FP gets access to more cameras all over the place).


But, but, but what of the cost for all this? The USFA doesn't need to buy much of anything. You contract it out. You either cut a deal with one of the larger video rental places or arrange a contract with a local company in each city. They get to hang nice banners around advertising that they are providing video support & USFA gets a good deal.. (And they're many national & local video production companies around, just like there are many sound & lighting production companies. What you thought all those big touring concerts bought all those lights and sound equipment? Nope, it's all rented, either for the duration of the trip, or on a city by city basis.)

We want a dozen video kiosks scattered around a NAC's venue? Cut a contract to have them in place (or go through the venue management...), specific screen size & brightness levels, connected in a simple Ethernet and we will provide a CD to load their software...

Different what's been done before by the USFA? Probably. Will it work? Certainly. This is how many, many trade shows, etc. operate. It's not new technology. It's not hard technology. It does require some work to be done (which the USFA might pay for part of.....)

[dberke]

Originally Posted by jfarmer

Dan,

That's because you're looking at the problem wrong.

If large video displays are desired and telling people results, where they should report to, etc. is important than tackle it this way.

First, FencingTime shouldn't have display management code in it. That ties you to locating displays near bout committee tables, or requires long video repeater setups (something I've dealt with in the past, not a good way to go.) Rather, have FT, or Xseed, or whatever, export/make an application interface available to publish the contents of it's database. (Note, not a raw interface, but "cooked" for control & protection.) Then run a small web server app (Apache is probably to heavy, but doable on any platform.) that creates dynamic pages of pool assignments, results, Now calling Fencer X, etc...

I agree with what you've written above, and that is exactly the direction FT is moving in. The conversion from what was originally intended as a single-user application to a multi-user app with shared database is complicated, but it is underway.

Originally Posted by jfarmer

With this running a whole world of possible uses comes up. Set up one or more WiFi access in the venue (or make it a requirement that the venue provide it) and suddenly any fencer, coach, team, etc. can open a laptop and see the data anywhere in the venue. Any displays needed around the venue can be fed by setting up a small kiosk computer with a WiFi adapter feeding a display. (Wifi problems? Ethernet cable is cheap & easy.) People want to watch several bouts around the venue? Small camera and a streaming server solves that problem. Better yet, cut a deal with FencingPictures to share video (raw goes out on the streaming server, not archived, FP gets access to more cameras all over the place).

Kiosks with all that data (well, except for the video) are part of my ultimate vision, as well as many other features not mentioned above.

Originally Posted by jfarmer

But, but, but what of the cost for all this? The USFA doesn't need to buy much of anything. You contract it out. You either cut a deal with one of the larger video rental places or arrange a contract with a local company in each city. They get to hang nice banners around advertising that they are providing video support & USFA gets a good deal.. (And they're many national & local video production companies around, just like there are many sound & lighting production companies. What you thought all those big touring concerts bought all those lights and sound equipment? Nope, it's all rented, either for the duration of the trip, or on a city by city basis.)

Streaming video isn't something that needs to be mixed with the tournament data. I would run that off of a separate server, with little to no reliance on the tournament data.

There's nothing stopping someone from trying to arrange something like this now and giving it a trial run. Quite frankly, I don't think this is on the USFA's radar because they have much more important issues to handle in terms of on-site tournament management.

Originally Posted by jfarmer

We want a dozen video kiosks scattered around a NAC's venue? Cut a contract to have them in place (or go through the venue management...), specific screen size & brightness levels, connected in a simple Ethernet and we will provide a CD to load their software...

Different what's been done before by the USFA? Probably. Will it work? Certainly. This is how many, many trade shows, etc. operate. It's not new technology. It's not hard technology. It does require some work to be done (which the USFA might pay for part of.....)

Again, all good ideas. It's just a matter of time and money. Guess which the USFA has more of...

Dan

[jfarmer]

Originally Posted by mgriff

As to the large print, poor old XSeed has two sizes of print--Normal Teensy and Slightly Larger. Dan Berke's been doing amazing things since last October with FencingTime to make it do what we need, and once he gets that whole multiple-computer thing handled, we might finally be able to adopt FT, which has much more legible and attractive printouts, among its many other nice features.

We routinely now have tournament copiers that are capable of enlargements, but they usually only use letter and legal size paper, which means that we'd have to tile the larger lists and tables, which means lots of aligning and taping, and more time and more runners.

It's yet another of those trade-offs we keep getting stuck with--do we get the information out as fast as we can or do we make it big enough for people not to have to crowd around and squint? Personally, I'd love to implement Dan's vision of the flat screen displays, but like he says in his earlier post, that's expensive enough that we can't just do it willy-nilly without some serious consideration of our priorities.

If you can figure out a way to make the technology we have work better than we're able to make it do things now, please email me. We BC types are always open to suggestions we haven't already thought of or tried for improving tournaments.

Mary

As much as I like FencingTime, and respect Dan, if it's underlying technology is having problems with multiple user interfaces and multiple methods of data display, then perhaps it's not the right tool. I mean, that kind of problem was solved before I first started tossing code at 16bit minicomputers some 30+ years ago...

Data management and data entry are two different things, as are data display & reporting. What I'm hearing is that everyone is looking for 1. a "do all-be all" computer solution for NACs, and 2. "We have to look at the problems and formulate a detailed plan."

The first is so far down the wrong path that I'm not sure how to explain it. Afterall, that's Xseed in a nutshell. What's to gain if the new monolith is named FencingTime?

The second sounds like a case of "Analysis Paralysis" (*) just waiting to happen. I'm a big believer in Aglie Development, both for software and processes. (And operating a NAC is really just dealing with a set of processes, like any project or business.) Find problem spots in the processes (software systems) & make a first cut in partitioning (factoring) them out. Pick a problem spot and build a better solution with exposed interfaces, & be prepared to replace it later. Find another problem, or needed feature. Repeat and rinse. Yeah, you might have to go back and replace processes/code, but you get benefits much quicker. I've seen this work & make improvements in productivity, efficiency, quality, etc. in way too many industries and software projects...

As for the large display problem, see my other post for methods to implement it...

(*) Analysis Paralysis happens when you keep investing time & money into defining the problem and it's solution and never get around to solving the problem...

[jfarmer]

Originally Posted by dberke

I agree with what you've written above, and that is exactly the direction FT is moving in. The conversion from what was originally intended as a single-user application to a multi-user app with shared database is complicated, but it is underway.

I'm glad to hear that. What I would love to hear is that there is a published application interface to the tournament database and that the DB was something like Mysql or PostgreSQL. As I mentioned in another comment, FT going in that direction would be very nice. (Also I'm not a fan of .NET or C##...)

Originally Posted by dberke

Streaming video isn't something that needs to be mixed with the tournament data. I would run that off of a separate server, with little to no reliance on the tournament data.

Oh, I wouldn't mix the streaming video server code with the tournament data. That point is, once you separate the display & reporting functions to something like apache, then all sorts of nice abilities pop up, and many of them are inexpensive and would be seen as real "customer benefits" to NAC attendees.

Originally Posted by dberke

There's nothing stopping someone from trying to arrange something like this now and giving it a trial run. Quite frankly, I don't think this is on the USFA's radar because they have much more important issues to handle in terms of on-site tournament management.

Again, all good ideas. It's just a matter of time and money. Guess which the USFA has more of...

Dan

Here's what I'm thinking. Partition FT's functionality such that you can publish the interface to the DB (Java class, etc.) and either let the USFA pay you to develop the web based display, multiple data entry stations, etc. or let other developers provide bits to do some of it.. Possibly open source? What it sounds like is that since there's no funding, to develop these things, you only get to work on FT when "the real job that pays the bills" allows you to do so. My point of view is that the USFA should support some of this development...

[dberke]

Originally Posted by jfarmer

As much as I like FencingTime, and respect Dan, if it's underlying technology is having problems with multiple user interfaces and multiple methods of data display, then perhaps it's not the right tool. I mean, that kind of problem was solved before I first started tossing code at 16bit minicomputers some 30+ years ago...

Keep in mind that the original design for FT was as a single user app, and it was designed as such. The database was entirely in memory and there were no synchronization issues. Moving to a multi-user environment is, as I'm sure you know, is a major shift in architecture. Quite frankly, I'm shocked that the transition is going as smoothly as it is...

Originally Posted by jfarmer

Data management and data entry are two different things, as are data display & reporting. What I'm hearing is that everyone is looking for 1. a "do all-be all" computer solution for NACs, and 2. "We have to look at the problems and formulate a detailed plan."

The first is so far down the wrong path that I'm not sure how to explain it. Afterall, that's Xseed in a nutshell. What's to gain if the new monolith is named FencingTime?

I think you may be confusing my earlier comments on rearchitecting the USFA systems and the comments regarding information display at NACs. Let me clarify:

When I mentioned rearchitecting the entire system, I was talking about the USFA's membership database, which is the heart of things like online registration and online membership sign-up. The planning needed there is the design of a proper database schema so that all of the dependent systems can get the data they need.

At a NAC, you would be running a local server that hosts the tournament data (from FT or whatever.) The registration data will have come from the membership database via a well-defined interface. The tournament is then run off of that server (since there's no guarantee that the NAC will have a live internet connection, especially considering how much convention centers charge for one!). Results will then be uploaded to the membership database (or other Fencing Results and Event Database) via another well-defined interface.

Originally Posted by jfarmer

The second sounds like a case of "Analysis Paralysis" (*) just waiting to happen. I'm a big believer in Aglie Development, both for software and processes. (And operating a NAC is really just dealing with a set of processes, like any project or business.) Find problem spots in the processes (software systems) & make a first cut in partitioning (factoring) them out. Pick a problem spot and build a better solution with exposed interfaces, & be prepared to replace it later. Find another problem, or needed feature. Repeat and rinse. Yeah, you might have to go back and replace processes/code, but you get benefits much quicker. I've seen this work & make improvements in productivity, efficiency, quality, etc. in way too many industries and software projects...

I too am a big fan of agile, and that's why I think it's important to keep each major component separate - so they can evolve independently. The design work is in defining those interfaces for data exchange so that they can all talk to each other with a minimal amount of headache.

Dan

[dberke]

Originally Posted by jfarmer

I'm glad to hear that. What I would love to hear is that there is a published application interface to the tournament database and that the DB was something like Mysql or PostgreSQL. As I mentioned in another comment, FT going in that direction would be very nice. (Also I'm not a fan of .NET or C##...)

Yup, that's where I'm heading. Which database technology I use to back the thing is fairly flexible - currently I'm using SQL Server but I could also use MySQL or whatever.

Originally Posted by jfarmer

Oh, I wouldn't mix the streaming video server code with the tournament data. That point is, once you separate the display & reporting functions to something like apache, then all sorts of nice abilities pop up, and many of them are inexpensive and would be seen as real "customer benefits" to NAC attendees.

Agreed, once I have the tournament data in the database, all sorts of fun stuff can be done by the web server.

Originally Posted by jfarmer

Here's what I'm thinking. Partition FT's functionality such that you can publish the interface to the DB (Java class, etc.) and either let the USFA pay you to develop the web based display, multiple data entry stations, etc. or let other developers provide bits to do some of it.. Possibly open source? What it sounds like is that since there's no funding, to develop these things, you only get to work on FT when "the real job that pays the bills" allows you to do so. My point of view is that the USFA should support some of this development...

90% of FT was written between the hours of midnight and 3am.... as you said, the real job pays the bills! It would be nice if the USFA funded some of this, and maybe they will someday, but until that time comes...

Dan

[T]

Originally Posted by jfarmer

What it sounds like is that since there's no funding, to develop these things, you only get to work on FT when "the real job that pays the bills" allows you to do so. My point of view is that the USFA should support some of this development...

I rest my case. Many of the obstacles at least have been identified and some of the potential problems solved. That just took overnight on a Sunday.

Jfarmer is correct! The USFA should be supporting this kind of development. Fencing is not the only sport that could use a system like this. What about the option of the USFA supporting this type of development and splitting some of the proceeds as it gets marketed to other countries or other sports? There are many creative ways to make this happen.

Money is an issue but you can't just stop everything while you sort those things out. The biggest problem was budget over-runs (or so it appears). Establish systems to monitor budgets and procedures to contain the uncertainty of your major expenses and you have already solved most if not all of the problem. Of course, you still have the debt to pay off but as with every organization or individual, you pay the debt down in a systematic way over time. You shouldn't rush to pay down the debt if it ceases to make the organization functional. It didn't happen overnight - it won't be cured overnight.

I think the consensus is that this needs to happen. My point is that it should have happened already. While the solutions may not be as obvious as the problems, there is a finite set of options. The solution-set is not that large. We figure out which direction we want to go and then figure out a way to make it happen. Phases? Probably. But any system is best introduced in phases.

We have already seen that by not moving forward - we are moving backward.

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Ergo, low priorities, now and always, until we get a leadership which is actually willing to spend less on prestige uses and more on the hoi polloi.

Can you name some other worthwhile projects -- other than "A NAC in every back yard" ? I'm not challenging you on this, I'm just curious if there is something you think the USFA could provide for your local fencing that isn't a NAC?

Allen Evans