USFA Election 2008 Debate Question #4: Role of Technology and Implementation

[dberke]

Originally Posted by Wafath

(ok, as I understand the system, #3 isn't about getting data into the DB, it is about comparing the DB of registered fencers against the USFA DB, right? Perhaps a better diagram would look like:

                  various USFA DB
                          ^
                          |
                          |
                          v
Web Form --a-->  my DB  --b--> interim DB --c-->  TM Input.

Steps a & c could be fully automated, but step b (comparing information from myDB to the USFA DBs, verifying membership, rankings, qualification, immigration status, etc,) may be only partially automated.)

For a completely automated solution, granted. But for a semi-automated solution, would it really be that difficult? I have done this for reasonably sized USFA competitions (400+ entrants) from AskFRED & the publicly available USFA membership info. I have done this verification both with FT 2.1 and with some hacked-together Perl scripts. The jury is still out for which worked better, but my results were similar. It took about a day of work to do it, and most of the time was spent familiarizing myself with the system & doing dry runs.

I can't imagine any scenario where having to type in the information from faxes & mailed entries would work any faster. No matter what, I would still have to do the verification step.

Now, granted, I don't know _exactly_ what is needed by XSeed. And the USFA has to worry about qualification paths, and so many other things. But what am I missing here?

W

For the most part, I agree with your assessment. The validation of data collected against the data in the old database is the hard part. I don't think typing in faxed/mailed entries is faster, but I do question whether the manual step that validates the data collected from a web form would be any faster.

Also, generating the data from the interim database for XSeed would be quite a challenge, given how convoluted the data files are.

Again, this begs the question - why build this one-off temporary system at all? AskFRED already works and has the integration with Fencing Time that will be necessary if the USFA switches to it. Wouldn't it be a better use of resources to bring AskFRED into line with the USFA's needs rather than building something entirely new? Even if it takes a longer, it will result in a much better system that will serve the membership better.

Dan

[CadetVet]

Originally Posted by dberke

For the most part, I agree with your assessment. The validation of data collected against the data in the old database is the hard part. I don't think typing in faxed/mailed entries is faster, but I do question whether the manual step that validates the data collected from a web form would be any faster.

Also, generating the data from the interim database for XSeed would be quite a challenge, given how convoluted the data files are.

Again, this begs the question - why build this one-off temporary system at all? AskFRED already works and has the integration with Fencing Time that will be necessary if the USFA switches to it. Wouldn't it be a better use of resources to bring AskFRED into line with the USFA's needs rather than building something entirely new? Even if it takes a longer, it will result in a much better system that will serve the membership better.

Dan

No, not Dan's - but the reasoning against using a fencer-built, fencer-maintained product. Frankly, unless there are some massive architectural reasons why AF and FT cannot be scaled to support NAC's and Nationals, then fine. But to turn our back on products developed by US fencers - primarily because they were developed by US fencers - is kind of silly.

The valid question to as Peet (and to test) is whether AF can handle the load (both from an architecture and a bandwidth perspective). If it can, great - we've got a winner. If it cannot, then what will it take to fix it?

Contracting with a third party not involved in fencing is certainly "fairer" - it makes sure that no individual fencer benefits from the largesse of the organization. That kind of fairness has f**ked up division events in SoCal and beyond (we can't have an event in that club - they might recruit some of our fencers - so lets pay an unrelated third party for it, etc.).

Again, it is a simple factual question. Can the products work? If not, can they be easily adjusted to work (new hosting provider, maybe a new payment back-end?) If so, lets support our own for a change - not some third-party, venture-backed company that will drain more resources from our sport than it provides. After all, we at least know who's throat to choke in the event of a problem

Gary.

[Wafath]

Originally Posted by dberke

Again, this begs the question - why build this one-off temporary system at all? AskFRED already works and has the integration with Fencing Time that will be necessary if the USFA switches to it. Wouldn't it be a better use of resources to bring AskFRED into line with the USFA's needs rather than building something entirely new? Even if it takes a longer, it will result in a much better system that will serve the membership better.

I guess this gets to my hinted question: I don't understand why AskFRED could not be used today for NAC registration, and save time and money. Just a simple AskFRED -> CSV dump -> hand merge into USFA DB -> XSeed Files. Sure, any competent hack could automate some of those steps, and maybe giving certain developers some beer money might even make the whole thing sexy. But ... it seems to me that it would be better than what we are doing now.

Perhaps I am severely underestimating what it would take to get the AskFRED data into XSeed; it has been 5 years since I have run XSeed, and I can't seem to find any good info online.

I ask myself: "What would you do if you had to do registration for a NAC?" and my answer every time is "set it up on AskFRED, do the glue by hand/hacked up scripts/spreadsheet manipulation."

So ... what am I missing? I am willing to stipulate that I have severely underestimated part of the problem. I agree with every statement posted here that we shouldn't spend money on a half-arsed system.

W

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by dberke

Again, this begs the question - why build this one-off temporary system at all? AskFRED already works and has the integration with Fencing Time that will be necessary if the USFA switches to it. Wouldn't it be a better use of resources to bring AskFRED into line with the USFA's needs rather than building something entirely new? Even if it takes a longer, it will result in a much better system that will serve the membership better.

Dan

Because in a few short days we can get a half-assed system that doesn't really work but promises to save thousands of dollars from the Magic Technology Fairy armed with her Comma Wand.

It'll save as much money as every other software project that tries to cut corners and do things on the cheap, and quickly enough so that the decision makers can say they got things implemented on the schedule they promised.

[dberke]

Originally Posted by Wafath

I guess this gets to my hinted question: I don't understand why AskFRED could not be used today for NAC registration, and save time and money. Just a simple AskFRED -> CSV dump -> hand merge into USFA DB -> XSeed Files. Sure, any competent hack could automate some of those steps, and maybe giving certain developers some beer money might even make the whole thing sexy. But ... it seems to me that it would be better than what we are doing now.

Perhaps I am severely underestimating what it would take to get the AskFRED data into XSeed; it has been 5 years since I have run XSeed, and I can't seem to find any good info online.

I ask myself: "What would you do if you had to do registration for a NAC?" and my answer every time is "set it up on AskFRED, do the glue by hand/hacked up scripts/spreadsheet manipulation."

So ... what am I missing? I am willing to stipulate that I have severely underestimated part of the problem. I agree with every statement posted here that we shouldn't spend money on a half-arsed system.

I made a similar suggestion in one of my earlier posts. Even if the list of registrants needs to be printed out from AskFRED and entered by hand into the USFA's existing database, that should still be about the same efficiency as the current paper-based system.

Converting data from AskFRED to XSeed so that it can be imported directly is the process that would be hard to automate. Not impossible, of course - it's just software. But it isn't something I think the USFA should spend money on (whether the data's coming from AskFRED or a new hacked-together online system.) Of course, someone with some free time on their hands could potentially do the work for fun...

The only other thing that could potentially be a problem is the signing of the waivers like on the current forms. But those waivers could be distributed via AskFRED and the signed copy could just be mailed/faxed back like it currently is.

The nice thing about using AskFRED in this way is that it would be an incremental step towards a wholly integrated solution. Not only would it make things easier for the membership, but it would serve as a prototype for the bigger system. Eventually, AskFRED's database could be the USFA's master membership database and serve as the backbone for all of the future features.

Or, we could look into using Active.com and not get any of that!

Dan

[dberke]

Originally Posted by tchwojko

Because in a few short days we can get a half-assed system that doesn't really work but promises to save thousands of dollars from the Magic Technology Fairy armed with her Comma Wand.

It'll save as much money as every other software project that tries to cut corners and do things on the cheap, and quickly enough so that the decision makers can say they got things implemented on the schedule they promised.

The long weekend is now past... I wonder if the Magic Technology Fairy visited ivlobane and helped him figure out how to solve all of the USFA's technological problems using CSV files....

Sorry, I couldn't resist!

Dan

[noodle]

Originally Posted by dberke

The only other thing that could potentially be a problem is the signing of the waivers like on the current forms. But those waivers could be distributed via AskFRED and the signed copy could just be mailed/faxed back like it currently is.

imo, have them turn in waivers upon checkin for the event. if they didn't bring one, have them fill it out there to the side.
solves all problems, prevents faxes/mailing.

Originally Posted by dberke

Or, we could look into using Active.com and not get any of that!

gag. active.com is a great solution for standard sports. we're a non-standard sport with too much extra stuff to track. something custom, whether an integration of stuff we already have or something totally new, is the best solution, imo.

we'd want to get something that saves the USFA time and/or money, not something that we'd both pay for and have to spend extra time/overhead on top of the system to meet needs.

[teacup]

Originally Posted by noodle

imo, have them turn in waivers upon checkin for the event. if they didn't bring one, have them fill it out there to the side.
solves all problems, prevents faxes/mailing.

Though not that many, what would happen to fencers under 18 who forgot to bring a waiver and who are not traveling with a parent?

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by teacup

Though not that many, what would happen to fencers under 18 who forgot to bring a waiver and who are not traveling with a parent?

They are instructed to have a seat next to the delegates from Michigan and Florida.

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by teacup

Though not that many, what would happen to fencers under 18 who forgot to bring a waiver and who are not traveling with a parent?

Nice life lesson there. Action (or lack thereof) -> consequence.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by noodle

gag. active.com is a great solution for standard sports.

Not from everything I've heard from anybody but Active.com...

-m

[noodle]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

Not from everything I've heard from anybody but Active.com...

-m

care to share about what you've heard?

Originally Posted by teacup

Though not that many, what would happen to fencers under 18 who forgot to bring a waiver and who are not traveling with a parent?

they *could* mail it in, i'm just saying that you can do things totally online and only have to show up in person.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by noodle

care to share about what you've heard?

Using the search function here...

Originally Posted by oso97

Interesting you should ask...

The place I teach at has a tennis center associated with it, and I've talked to some of the pro staff there a couple of times, about general organization issues - tennis vs fencing, coaching of young kids, various different things. And they HATE Active.... with a burning, horrific passion.

Originally Posted by Peach

I've had to use Active.com twice in the last couple of weeks (one was for a road race), and I really dislike it. FRED is much better.

Originally Posted by Peach

1. I don't know which module. I'm a fencer, not a software designer, club owner, or tournament organizer. I have attempted to use it to register for certain tournaments this past year, the year before, and the year before, and never liked it, and I have given up trying to use it. I mail my entry in instead.

Most of the rest of the complaints I found were either referencing using Active.com in a fencing setting or were non-specific about being in another sport, so it's likely they were for fencing.

-B

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Most of the rest of the complaints I found were either referencing using Active.com in a fencing setting or were non-specific about being in another sport, so it's likely they were for fencing.

-B

Kinda cute how you left stuff out.

Sheez, talk about cherry picking anecdotes. You know better.

Man people are getting crazy around here...

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Kinda cute how you left stuff out.

Sheez, talk about cherry picking anecdotes. You know better.

Man people are getting crazy around here...

He gave a sampling with a way of finding the rest of the anecdotes. I don't recall reading any positive anecdotes, but I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has had positive experiences with Active. (Other than a demo during a sales pitch.)

Internet reviews sometimes have a skew towards negative reviews, because they're the ones that had a significant enough experience to bother writing something. If a site like Active is doing things right, then you won't notice it's there, and hence won't write about it.

If someone were to promote Active as a solution, I certainly would hope that they'd go investigate real world usages of it, and see how it performs, especially how it performs when there are problems.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Kinda cute how you left stuff out.

Sheez, talk about cherry picking anecdotes. You know better.

Man people are getting crazy around here...

Please kindly link to the positive reviews he omitted (except for Tracy who has never actually USED the system, just seen a demo as part of Active's presentation). I don't recall seeing any.

-m

[Mr Epee]

Quote: