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

[dberke]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

In an election between "insiders for change" vs. "outsiders for change," I completely buy the argument that insiders are capable of producing far more actual change than the outsiders can. Outsiders constantly run into the reality of why things aren't already fixed. Insiders know the rationale and have the contacts and relationships to make the changes that need to be made. I think T's proposal is a good example of outsider's attempts to change things.

I agree with your assessment.

Originally Posted by dcmdale

On the other hand, insiders tend not to attempt as much. A committee-drafted set of requirements with heavy integration requirements and a lengthy project timeline under a methodology that lends itself to death-march projects smells strongly of a very expensive failure.

I think a better way to put this is that "insiders" may be a bit more cautious when making changes. They understand the interconnectedness of the entire system, and how small changes in one place can result in changes in a seemingly unrelated area. As a result, they are more likely to try to understand those effects before commiting to a change.

As an example, suppose you have a committee propose a new rating system for fencers. Their recommendation probably only focused on how the new system would work. Yet it also affects the technology side of things - how is the data stored in the database, how is it integrated into the tournament software, etc. If the new rating system was adopted without those considerations, it would quickly run into problems.

Originally Posted by dcmdale

The arguments for deep integration bother me. A event registration service should not need to know the structure of a membership database. It only needs to be able to query to find out whether a particular person is a member, whether they are eligible to fencing in a particular event, and what there rating/points are. Maybe a couple of other things that I am not thinking of immediately, but certainly ascertainable. The logical interface is not that hard. Deep integration means that if you change the membership database 5 years from now, you will be rewriting the events registration too. That's not a good design. Keith mentioned "Copeland." That is probably lost on people who weren't at Apple during a particular period, but I absolutely agree with the parallel.

I don't think anyone is proposing a system that is deeply integrated, or at least in the way you're describing it. I agree that a registration service should only need to access the data via some basic queries, but the problem is that the current system is not even capable of that. So, since we're at square one, we need to not only build the new database that houses the data, but we need to define those queries and the interface for them. Agreeing on that interface is the important part - once that's done, the database and online registration could be built separately.

Dan

[peet]

Originally Posted by dberke

I don't think anyone is proposing a system that is deeply integrated, or at least in the way you're describing it. I agree that a registration service should only need to access the data via some basic queries, but the problem is that the current system is not even capable of that. So, since we're, at square one, we need to not only build the new database that houses the data, but we need to define those queries and the interface for them. Agreeing on that interface is the important part - once that's done, the database and online registration could be built separately.

Dan

What he said (better than I did).

-p

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by dberke

I think a better way to put this is that "insiders" may be a bit more cautious when making changes. They understand the interconnectedness of the entire system, and how small changes in one place can result in changes in a seemingly unrelated area. As a result, they are more likely to try to understand those effects before commiting to a change.

I agree with this entirely. The strength of the insider group is precisely in its understanding of the implications of change. But this strength *can be* (as opposed to *is*) its greatest weakness as well. Understanding the interconnectedness and implications of change can be overwhelming to some. In others, it causes them to miss the opportunity for systematic change because they are focused on incremental change. To *some* insiders, changing anything presents a Gordian Knot problem. As I have said elsewhere putting on my hat as someone with lots of experience with non-profit governance: there are some aspects of the USFA that need some quality facetime with a high-speed freight train. I won't even write about some of my concerns in a public forum to avoid calling attention to them. There are other areas that need to be managed much more circumspectly. What I am looking to see in the various candidates, particularly the NC candidates, it whether they are able to both leverage both their insider knowledge and to recognize and seize opportunity for more radical change. I understand that you (Dan) have made a judgment on this favorable to the NC candidates. I don't know these people personally, and am evaluating.

Originally Posted by dberke

As an example, suppose you have a committee propose a new rating system for fencers. Their recommendation probably only focused on how the new system would work. Yet it also affects the technology side of things - how is the data stored in the database, how is it integrated into the tournament software, etc. If the new rating system was adopted without those considerations, it would quickly run into problems.

Absolutely true, again going to the strengths inherent in being an insider.

Originally Posted by dberke

I don't think anyone is proposing a system that is deeply integrated, or at least in the way you're describing it. I agree that a registration service should only need to access the data via some basic queries, but the problem is that the current system is not even capable of that. So, since we're at square one, we need to not only build the new database that houses the data, but we need to define those queries and the interface for them. Agreeing on that interface is the important part - once that's done, the database and online registration could be built separately.

Originally Posted by peet

What he said (better than I did).

Understand that what I wanted to hear them say (either side) was:

Originally Posted by What should have been said

We will strive to acquire (beg, borrow, buy) the services of a couple of tech-heads with strong, proven skills in nimble, iterative, needs-focused development and an understanding of modern light-weight architecture who also have strong subject matter expertise. We will bring them in for a series of working sessions with the staff and committees to prototype and refine a working system.

What I am hearing from you and Peet is what I wanted to hear, but it isn't what I read in the NC plan. What I am reacting to in the NC Plan is "The Committee Strikes Back," mid-1980's approach. People actually still do (or attempt) projects in that vein, so it is difficult for me to discount that they actually mean it. The proposal seemed to come from the "We Design Heavy Iron" handbook.

I fully understand that you two, left alone and given the freedom/permission, could do wonders for the USFA in a reasonable time for reasonable compensation. Your products speak for themselves.

From an election perspective, what I am asking myself it whether the NC Candidates would give you (or, if the negotiations don't work out for you, some other intelligent, competent, tech-heads) the freedom to do it right, or whether they intend to have committees suck the life out of you. The FFC proposal is scattershot and ill-advised, but that environment can be more rewarding to those who accomplish things.

I also understand that you (Dan) have worked with Kalle in a productive approach and that you feel that you can work with her administration in a positive way. That is part of what surprises me about the tone of the NC document.

Elections are about overall judgments of how particular people will be able to work in the future. I am not attacking the NC slate, just raising my eyebrows at how they presented their proposal.

[DJ Apostrophe]

Originally Posted by what should have been said

We will strive to acquire (beg, borrow, buy) the services of a couple of tech-heads with strong, proven skills in nimble, iterative, needs-focused development and an understanding of modern light-weight architecture who also have strong subject matter expertise. We will bring them in for a series of working sessions with the staff and committees to prototype and refine a working system.

For the sake of argument... what if what you see on the NC slate's site actually came from some of those tech-heads you want to hear from?

-w

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by DJ Apostrophe

For the sake of argument... what if what you see on the NC slate's site actually came from some of those tech-heads you want to hear from?

<smile>There was a qualifier to "tech head."

The NC plan obviously has a heavy professional IT influence. I would have guessed that the author(s) either came from IT or from someone who worked closely with IT (or both). If you tell me that there were people with a strong technical background involved, it would probably confirm my suspicion.

And raise my concerns.

I have worked projects with multi-thousand page requirements documents. I have also worked highly agile projects and some that tried to blend the techniques. Both styles have inherent strengths and weaknesses. I am not a fan of any given style for all situations. IMHO, this is a *bad* project for heavy-weight methodologies. Agile methods will produce a better product, far quicker, and far less expensive.

What worries me when I read this proposal is that there is someone pointing to their IT stripes saying, "This is the way that Real IT(tm) works and this is how we are going to do it."

[KD5MDK]

That in substantial contrast to the petitioners and their "This is how Fake IT does it" plan.

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

IMHO, this is a *bad* project for heavy-weight methodologies. Agile methods will produce a better product, far quicker, and far less expensive.

I hardly think that the Nominating Committee slate is going to advocate for a Rational Rose UML, with multiple signoffs on every change to the specification, focus groups, a strict bug tracking defect system integration, and ISO 9000 certification. I think they have other problems they'd rather deal with (like the other 90% of their proposals).

I do think that slate will figure out WTF they're trying to accomplish before investing effort (and more importantly money) into the project. I saw a multi-phase process with intermediate deliverables that makes things better bits at a time, with appropriate awareness of dependencies on other systems.

Most importantly, I didn't see a Magic Technology Fairy in their plans.

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

I am finding myself siding with Keith here...

In an election between "insiders for change" vs. "outsiders for change," I completely buy the argument that insiders are capable of producing far more actual change than the outsiders can. Outsiders constantly run into the reality of why things aren't already fixed. Insiders know the rationale and have the contacts and relationships to make the changes that need to be made. I think T's proposal is a good example of outsider's attempts to change things.

On the other hand, insiders tend not to attempt as much. A committee-drafted set of requirements with heavy integration requirements and a lengthy project timeline under a methodology that lends itself to death-march projects smells strongly of a very expensive failure.
l.

The concern which has been voiced is that, I believe, 6 of the NomCom slate were deeply involved in the current administration. It is only now with an election being forced upon them that these ideas are being displayed. So if nothing else the election is forcing things to be made public. But again in this past quadrennial according to Michael Massik all of this was being dealt with. So we've already seen what the insiders produced.

What I contend is needed is someone with the interest and the authority and responsibility to make it happen. And to me that means the President of the USFA. What we've seen on the NomCom slate so far is a committee response which is what we saw in the past quadrennial. Analysis - if indeed there was any thing done at all - leading into paralysis.

I am noting that Ms Weeks has yet to deal directly to the unwashed masses here. A state of affairs that I am afraid would continue if she were President. One of these days some of us may even meet her. Tracy Hurley on the other hand has shown a willingness to enter into dialog and say what she's thinking. And I feel she's shown flexibility in her approach trying to think outside of the box that seems to have imprisoned the current administration. Which is why I've been urging people to vote for her.

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

The concern which has been voiced is that, I believe, 6 of the NomCom slate were deeply involved in the current administration.

Deeply involved, as in bringing to light the horrible finances?

It is only now with an election being forced upon them that these ideas are being displayed. So if nothing else the election is forcing things to be made public.

As in the uncontested secretary posting regular information on fencing.net? Getting stuff published as soon after he has the information? Horrors!

But again in this past quadrennial according to Michael Massik all of this was being dealt with. So we've already seen what the insiders produced.

You've seen what the previous set of officers produced. It is not at all correct to conflate them with ANY of the current candidates.

What I contend is needed is someone with the interest and the authority and responsibility to make it happen. And to me that means the President of the USFA.

(My emphasis added) And that would be entirely incorrect. The president does not have dictatorial powers.

What we've seen on the NomCom slate so far is a committee response which is what we saw in the past quadrennial.

Another commonality is that all the candidates are human. Let's put monkeys in charge! (Hey I found a reason to use that smiley!)

Analysis - if indeed there was any thing done at all - leading into paralysis.

We're guaranteed SOMETHING will happen because of the financial situation.

I am noting that Ms Weeks has yet to deal directly to the unwashed masses here. A state of affairs that I am afraid would continue if she were President. One of these days some of us may even meet her.

The slate is posting as a group. *shrug* I don't care if I never meet her, as long as she does her job.

Tracy Hurley on the other hand has shown a willingness to enter into dialog and say what she's thinking. And I feel she's shown flexibility in her approach trying to think outside of the box that seems to have imprisoned the current administration.

I have to admit Magic Technology Fairies are well outside the box. I can't say I've seen flexibility. And again, it's not correct to conflate the current administration with any of the current candidates.

The USFA doesn't need to go outside the box. It needs competence. We're not reinventing anything here.

Which is why I've been urging people to vote for her.

I disagree, but sincerely, thanks for being part of the process. If you're involved, you're learning and teaching.

[gorgie101]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

The concern which has been voiced is that, I believe, 6 of the NomCom slate were deeply involved in the current administration. It is only now with an election being forced upon them that these ideas are being displayed. So if nothing else the election is forcing things to be made public. But again in this past quadrennial according to Michael Massik all of this was being dealt with. So we've already seen what the insiders produced.

6 of the nom-com committee, where do you get the number from? That statement is false. Dr. Weeks is TC chair which is a NON voting member of the EX Com. Ro, granted is an existing VP and EX Com member but has been able to get a few things accomplished in his small area of responsibility. Jerry, Greg and Brad are only board members not members of the EX Com or current admin and, as has been stated before, are only three people out of 27 current BOD members. Mark was TC chair like 8 years ago. No one is deeply involved with the current Ex Com. Why are you complaining about Brad anyway?

Originally Posted by jjefferies

What I contend is needed is someone with the interest and the authority and responsibility to make it happen. And to me that means the President of the USFA. What we've seen on the NomCom slate so far is a committee response which is what we saw in the past quadrennial. Analysis - if indeed there was any thing done at all - leading into paralysis.

Last I checked the USFA is not a dictatorship. The President does not have the authority to make ANY thing happen with out the approval of the FULL EX Com. or BOD. The Ex Com is given authority by the BOD. A committee response from the NOM Com slate is how it SHOULD be done because that is how the USFA is governed.( see the bylaws)

Originally Posted by jjefferies

I am noting that Ms Weeks has yet to deal directly to the unwashed masses here. A state of affairs that I am afraid would continue if she were President. One of these days some of us may even meet her. Tracy Hurley on the other hand has shown a willingness to enter into dialog and say what she's thinking. And I feel she's shown flexibility in her approach trying to think outside of the box that seems to have imprisoned the current administration. Which is why I've been urging people to vote for her.

Dr. Weeks not posting here does not surprise me. Fencing.net is not the be-all, end-all of the fencing world. IF it was then I would have lots more faith in the straw polls.

[Peach]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

I am noting that Ms Weeks has yet to deal directly to the unwashed masses here. A state of affairs that I am afraid would continue if she were President. One of these days some of us may even meet her.

Kalle is probably more familiar to most of us by face if not by name than many of the other candidates, because she's what I'd call a hardworking "unwashed masses" type herself--her daughter fenced and she's been plugging away helping out in the ranks for a long time. She's a pleasant, efficient, super-competent person who did a great deal of bout committee work at national events. She could always spare a courteous word for everyone, even those who were complaining bitterly. You probably know her already. I've certainly had lots of amiable short conversations with her while handing her slips & things.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

I am noting that Ms Weeks has yet to deal directly to the unwashed masses here.

I did post a message from Kalle* about a week and a half ago.

Generally we've left most of the group communications to Greg and myself, as we were already well-known to the fora denizens. Kalle, as mentioned, has been very involved in the significant statements even when it was either Greg or I making the actual post.

-B

* I've noticed that the perma-links don't always work well when people have different settings for number of posts/page. The post in question is #82 in the thread.

[Goldgar]

Originally Posted by Peach

Kalle is probably more familiar to most of us by face if not by name than many of the other candidates, because she's what I'd call a hardworking "unwashed masses" type herself--her daughter fenced [...]

Her son, too. Both her children were good fencers, though I don't think either fences now.

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

Tracy Hurley on the other hand has shown a willingness to enter into dialog and say what she's thinking.

And her cause most likely would have been helped if she hadn't...

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Goldgar

Her son, too. Both her children were good fencers, though I don't think either fences now.

Which has the advantage of meaning they don't pose a conflict of interest, unlike Tracy's daughters.

-m