USFA accepts Election

[noodle]

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, and i don't think anyone would disagree.

Originally Posted by CadetVet

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.

here i disagree. why? because that is what we already have for memberships. and it sucks. and its a substantial extra expense for the fencer on each membership. why should the membership-at-large be footing that much of the bill for something that will (or should -- if its not, then its a bad implementation) only help the USFA and reduce USFA overhead costs? also, its just plain ugly.
https://secure2.ersvp.com/associatio.../usfa/join.htm


i wrote a longer post, opening up a new can of worms, but i cut it down to this: IF the USFA is going to make a push to change how some things are done, with online registration FRED integration, etc etc., they should invest the full effort to making everything as good as it can be. don't do it half-assed. improve everything, modernize, streamline, reduce overhead costs, and save money.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by darius

Why campaign if there's no election? The fact that you automatically ascribe some sort of malice to an NC slate of folks most of us know to be passionate about the development of the sport is troubling, but in my eyes it speaks more about you than it does them.

I've had conversations with many of the NC nominees, before and after they were nominated. They may have not always been relevant to running the organization, but they've always given me the impression that they're well-reasoned rational individuals who have been walking the walk at various levels for some time. Greg Dilworth has already been working on the finance angle, which is IMO our most pressing problem...he has the ability to hit the ground running, and I have no ability to say that for the USFFC slate.

What were you doing before you wanted to be president? Outside of coaching and advocating for your own girls (a worthy goal), how were you involved in bettering the organization? If reaching out to coaches was a high-priority, why haven't we heard anything from the USFCA regarding your goals?

The only interaction I've had with you was one-sided, and has no reflection of your capability. It does, however, speak poorly of your character, which is important if you're making decisions for an organization on whose existence my livelihood depends (to some extent).

Mike Marx told me that in his involvement with the USFA, the NC slate was easily the best group of candidates he's ever seen nominated. I'm not sure I should say that without clearing it with him first, but hell ... it's pertinent information -- he's been around a long time and involved with fencing in nearly every capacity.

Given all these things, my mind's made up, unless there's a smoking gun or something incredible that the USFFC slate brings to the table. The USFFC slate may be qualified to run an organization, but given the amount of acrimony (lawsuit? media blitz? negative assertions?) that you've injected into this, I question your ability to effectively lead such a diverse organization.

darius

QFT.

-m

[epeemike81]

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.

Not to mention that until and unless the BC can be changed to use a different piece of software (FencingTime, for example) this solution can not in fact be persued.

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

The above are perfect examples of issues which are far more complex than the Hurley slate believe. I know for a fact (as I've had discussions with them about this) that the Nominated candidates have extremely in depth knowledge about these areas and know how to proceed immediately with them (though the result may not be immediate). The learning curve for the Hurley slate would be a lot more steep.

-m

[epeemike81]

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.

Actually, the existing technology is NOT adequate. XSeed cannot print in a larger font.

-m

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

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.

Originally Posted by T

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.

Tracy: can I take it that we are in agreement on this topic?

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

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.

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...

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).

jfarmer - is not your proposal quite close to a considerably more fleshed-out version of my idea?


Have a nice time!


Peter Gustafsson

[teacup]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

Actually, the existing technology is NOT adequate. XSeed cannot print in a larger font.

-m

Why do we have to use XSeed? or Fencing Time? Why can't the US use existing technology?

I too love Fencing Time but if the USFA doesn't want to use it or there are problems, there are programs that other countries are using that work fine with monitors and computers. Not only are the Germans and French able to post information on monitors and computers at the venue but that information is live on the internet around the world.

And the argument about US tournament being too large can't be used when the German cadet events have over 200 fencers with four sets of pools and repachage at 64.

The April NAC with a small number of entrants would have been a great opportunity to test out another program.

If the USFA doesn't want to use AskFRED, what about Sporg which is used by CFF? What about Enguarde or tournamentsoftware.com?

This year's summer nationals are in Silicon Valley surely the TC could manage to hook up a few monitors and use an existing program even for one event. (Note, I am not suggesting projection.)

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by T

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.

T, this is not the revolutionary discussion you think it is... these obstacles were all identified long ago by those people who have been working on these issues. None of what dberke has said here is news to me, and I'm not even all that involved. The fact that you are hailing this as an innovative discussion shows just how little you know about the issues you propose to solve.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by teacup

Why do we have to use XSeed? or Fencing Time? Why can't the US use existing technology?

I too love Fencing Time but there are programs that other countries are using that work fine with monitors and computers. Not only are the Germans and French able to post information on monitors and computers at the venue but that information is live on the internet around the world.

And the argument about US tournament being too large can't be used when the German cadet events have over 200 fencers with four sets of pools and repachage at 64.

The April NAC with a small number of entrants would have been a great opportunity to test out another program.

If the USFA doesn't want to use AskFRED, what about Sporg which is used by CFF? What about Enguarde or tournamentsoftware.com?

This year's summer nationals are in Silicon Valley surely the TC could manage to hook up a few monitors and use an existing program even for one event. (Not I am not suggesting projection.)

I am a big fan of engarde, and that is what we (Prise de Fer) use to run tournaments. That said, since it is designed for FIE events, there are some USFA specific issues that it doesn't deal well with (large pool to top seed, for example).

Just as with Fencing Time, these issues need to be resolved or worked around in order to use it for national events. The major difference which would lead me to support the use of Fencing Time is that we have a responsive programmer for that system.

The bottom line that everybody can see is that XSeed has outgrown its usefulness and needs to be replaced.

-m

[teacup]

The vast majority of fencers from novice to elite cannot understand why tournaments are run as they are using minuscule fonts posted on three boards, with faxed in entries, etc. If the system is not able to be changed, it may be appropriate to put an explanation on the USFA website as to why tournaments are run this way.

Members are frustrated. Maybe it is time they are given an explanation.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by teacup

The vast majority of fencers from novice to elite cannot understand why tournaments are run as they are using minuscule fonts posted on three boards, with faxed in entries, etc. If the system is not able to be changed, it may be appropriate to put an explanation on the USFA website as to why tournaments are run this way.

I agree, and the problems which need solving are myriad. The largest one is personnel. There are many great people on both the Bout Committee and FOC running these events and they are frequently handicapped by other, ineffective members of the Bout Committee/FOC. The important thing to do here is elect the slate of candidates who know who are the effective personnel and who are the bottlenecks. I simply don't think that Ms. Hurley has that knowledge.

Let me ask this directly: Regardless of which slate is elected, there will be an effort to drastically improve the organization of tournaments. The Tournament Committee in the next quadrennial will preside over and guide a very large number of changes to the way we run tournaments. It is, thus, quite key that somebody with a strategic vision for how tournaments should be run chair that committee. Tracy, should the position be open, who would you appoint as Tournament Committee Chair?

-m

[Mr Epee]

Epeemike,

I don't quite understand your deep hatred for Tracy.

Last week you were cackling about the possibility that one of her daughters may have risked NCAA eligibility by fencing on a club team at nationals.

This week you are making repeated remarks about her intelligence.

What gives?

The crux of your posting in this thread is that the problems of the USFA can only be solved by individuals with special inside knowledge of the USFA. This is an extremely poor stance to take on the issue. You've managed to reduce discussion to the level of "It's a cheerleader thang. You just wouldn't understand". While it's amusing printed on the back of a HS girls boyshorts, it's not really an acceptable approach to dealing with the current situation.

[teacup]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

I agree, and the problems which need solving are myriad. The largest one is personnel. There are many great people on both the Bout Committee and FOC running these events and they are frequently handicapped by other, ineffective members of the Bout Committee/FOC. The important thing to do here is elect the slate of candidates who know who are the effective personnel and who are the bottlenecks. I simply don't think that Ms. Hurley has that knowledge.

-m

Well, I meant something a little different. Such as:

The USFA is unable to use a bigger font because.........

The USFA is unable to have on-line registration because.......

This can be done now. It doesn't matter who is in charge. I think the membership is owed an explanation since so many keep asking why these things can't be done.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

This week you are making repeated remarks about her intelligence.

Not her intelligence, but rather her knowledge and experience. I hold no personal animosity toward Tracy, but simply feel she is not the right option to lead our organization (and more importantly, feel that the nominated candidates ARE the right option).

I'm expressing that opinion.

Btw, I don't believe I was "cackling" about the possibility that Kelly had jeopardized her eligibility (which she hadn't - I had been misinformed).

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by teacup

Well, I meant something a little different. Such as:

The USFA is unable to use a bigger font because.........

The USFA is unable to have on-line registration because.......

This can be done now. It doesn't matter who is in charge. I think the membership is owed an explanation since so many keep asking why these things can't be done.

And has been done multiple times on this thread and others.

The USFA is unable to use a bigger font until we switch tournament software. There is a fair amount of institutional inertia involved, but we are now at a place where a change would be accepted relatively easily, which means right now the only issue is working through the legitimate issues presented by the alternative software options. Dan and others are working on that.

The on-line registration issue is more complex (and I have less understanding of it), but my limited understanding is that the USOC is persuing an online registration solution which would be applied to multiple sports, and the USFA has elected to be part of that project. The delays are, thus, not in our shop right now. It is certainly legitimate to question whether pursuing that option instead of our own (or outsourcing to AskFRED) was the correct decision, but I don't feel informed enough to make that determination.

-m

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

There are many great people on both the Bout Committee and FOC running these events and they are frequently handicapped by other, ineffective members of the Bout Committee/FOC.

If you were to hold Kalle to the same strict standards as you've been applying to Tracy, wouldn't you need to raise an eyebrow about this "handicapped bottleneck"...since Kalle's been widely touted as a consummate tournament services professional? And if Xseed is broadly known to be the problem...what leadership role has she taken in removing it and implementing more user-friendly software?

[teacup]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

And has been done multiple times on this thread and others.

The USFA is unable to use a bigger font until we switch tournament software. There is a fair amount of institutional inertia involved, but we are now at a place where a change would be accepted relatively easily, which means right now the only issue is working through the legitimate issues presented by the alternative software options. Dan and others are working on that.

The on-line registration issue is more complex (and I have less understanding of it), but my limited understanding is that the USOC is persuing an online registration solution which would be applied to multiple sports, and the USFA has elected to be part of that project. The delays are, thus, not in our shop right now. It is certainly legitimate to question whether pursuing that option instead of our own (or outsourcing to AskFRED) was the correct decision, but I don't feel informed enough to make that determination.

-m

But has this information been posted on the USFA website and emailed to the members?

Not everyone reads fencing.net.

Also, people will ask is what is the proposed time line for the switch?

[epeeforlife]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

I hold no personal animosity toward Tracy

Are you sure? It seems quite obvious.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

Not her intelligence, but rather her knowledge and experience. I hold no personal animosity toward Tracy, but simply feel she is not the right option to lead our organization (and more importantly, feel that the nominated candidates ARE the right option).

I'm expressing that opinion.

Btw, I don't believe I was "cackling" about the possibility that Kelly had jeopardized her eligibility (which she hadn't - I had been misinformed).

-m

I know you had been misinformed... the fact that you didn't bother to fact check indicates that the reality of a situation isn't going to get in the way of taking a jab at her expense.

You are welcome to express your opinions (heck I routinely express things that AREN'T my opinion), however, your opinions seem pointed not towards solutions, but rather repeating vague statements about how complicated things are in US Fencer.

Remember just because something is complicated to YOU doesn't mean that it's complicated to someone else.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

If you were to hold Kalle to the same strict standards as you've been applying to Tracy, wouldn't you need to raise an eyebrow about this "handicapped bottleneck"...since Kalle's been widely touted as a consummate tournament services professional? And if Xseed is broadly known to be the problem...what leadership role has she taken in removing it and implementing more user-friendly software?

If you look at who the recent hires are on the Bout Committee, they're all efficient people. It's trending correctly during her time as TC Chair, which is about all I can judge on. Institutional change comes with limited speed.

As for getting rid of XSeed, dBerke shadowed some NACs last year from the Bout Committee table and experimented with projection. While I don't know for sure, I'd certainly guess that the TC Chair was involved in pursuing that option.

Dan, can you shed any more light on this?

-m

[teacup]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

If you look at who the recent hires are on the Bout Committee, they're all efficient people. It's trending correctly during her time as TC Chair, which is about all I can judge on. Institutional change comes with limited speed.

As for getting rid of XSeed, dBerke shadowed some NACs last year from the Bout Committee table and experimented with projection. While I don't know for sure, I'd certainly guess that the TC Chair was involved in pursuing that option.

Dan, can you shed any more light on this?

-m

Wasn't that quite awhile ago? Maybe even last year's summer nationals?

It would be really helpful if an official explanation with specific details as to the state of tournament management was released on the USFA website and to the membership from someone on the Tournament Committee.