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

[dberke]

Wow, I haven't used BASIC since 1986 when I learned C...

Originally Posted by ivlobane

So if this piece can be done manually but paperless, why not have an interim process flow something like this:

10 INPUT Simple Online Form+Credit card payment

20 Visual_verify (Manhours+mail$$$ < Current Paper Processing?)

Visually verifying data on-screen versus off of paper is probably the same amout of work. If you want to make the argument that it's cheaper to email the registration confirmations rather than mail them, then I agree... but they could potentially start doing that now.

Originally Posted by ivlobane

30 IF Visual_verify=OK THEN GOTO 100

40 ELSE Send_Reject_email

50 END

100 Generate_Event_Specific _CSV _file_for_FencingTime (WuFoo has a very flexible reports system)

110 END

!Please dont get techical on the silly BASIC analogy, but add issues in between the steps...!

Did you read my previous post about how the CSV file would not go to Fencing Time, but rather, would have to be reconciled with the USFA's database? I think that explained it pretty well.

Dan

[keith]

Originally Posted by peet

I'm not sure what you mean by "reassignments"

In terms of what people spend their time doing in the national office. Clearly a quick fix online registration soultion (leaving aside which one) would be a positive for the membership. Of course if it does not reduce the workload of the office staff it doesn't really give any benefit, short or long term, to the organisation. Both sets of candidates are arguing for redifining the roles of the full time staff - neither, as far as I can tell, have explained how that can possibly happen in the near or medium term.

Originally Posted by peet

That would be a yes, with the obvious caveat that the "what" of each scenario is so far only party defined.

As above the devil is always in the detail.

Originally Posted by peet

Ok, sorry if I'm being dense, but I don't really get this one. Can you spell it out for me?

Well it's a parable, who do you identify with?

Or

How do I know which candidates are not going to foolish enough to screw you over yet not gullible enough to let you screw the USFA over*?


*working on the principle that, this being the USFA, happily ever after is not an option.

[peet]

Originally Posted by ivlobane

Oi, Peet, c'mon now, up until very recently, you never actually said that it was. I always hoped and assumed that it was, but I could not speak for you or Tracy.

We may have begun discussing it recently, but this:

Originally Posted by peet

Use of FRED as a near term non-integrated NAC registration solution:

With very little modification, FRED could provide a minimum level of service just for NAC registration, which would be much the same as using a generic online forms solution, except that (1) the forms and controls are already fencing-specific, and (2) it would already have information about a lot of the fencers. In particular, this would not provide any verification of the information that fencers enter (ratings and the like). Just like any other non-integrated solution (e.g. wufoo, active, mambo), the national office staff would have to verify everything against their records, just as they do today.

Came before this:

Originally Posted by ivlobane

Personally, I would much rather see FRED as USFA registration system, but that does not sound like it is guaranteed to be implemented within fall'08. Possibly a simple forms portion, but same goes for Active or WuFoo.

And before this:

Originally Posted by ivlobane

A
3: She gave USFFC a deadline, but cannot commit to askFRED,

And most importantly, before the email Tracy sent out that makes it sound like the active.com thing is a done deal. She did send me a personal email at the same time saying that alternatives would be considered via RFP (which I definitely appreciate), but on the whole, you have to admit, it would be easy for people to get the impression from those posts that active.com is the deal, and FRED is not an option.

Originally Posted by ivlobane

And her considering an alternative seems to have forced you to come out and say it.

But wouldn't it have been nicer if she'd just asked? Until all the stuff about active.com came up, I had no way of knowing that she was trying to set up a non-integrated interim solution for deployment in time for next season. She and I had some discussions via email over recent months about a longer term integrated solution, but the first I'd been asked about getting something running in time for next season was:

Originally Posted by T

So, this question is for PEET...
What do you need to make askFRED available for NAC registration now? and has anyone ever asked you? I know you gave a proposal a few years ago which included a much more comprehensive system (which you never received a response about) but what about this one component for NAC registration alone?

But maybe I misunderstood some earlier communication on the subject.


And just 'cause it bears repeating: All of my posts & opinions on the subject are purely for/against technological issues, not partisan to any one candidate for the USFA offices.

-p

[peet]

Originally Posted by keith

In terms of what people spend their time doing in the national office. Clearly a quick fix online registration soultion (leaving aside which one) would be a positive for the membership. Of course if it does not reduce the workload of the office staff it doesn't really give any benefit, short or long term, to the organisation.

Oh, I see.
That's definitely true; it would be best if even a near-term interim solution made life at least a little easier for the office staff. I'd love to visit the office to see how things work there. Last season, the USFA and I had in fact made plans for me to do that. Then unfortunately, just at the last minute, a contractual obligation between the USFA and the USOC came to light that foiled those plans.

Boy, that was a bummer.

Originally Posted by keith

How do I know which candidates are not going to foolish enough to screw you over yet not gullible enough to let you screw the USFA over*?

Ah, I get it.
That's a good point. I guess that's what contracts are for. Too bad I'm not a lawyer; if I get close to working with the USFA, I'm gonna have to go find one......

-p

[KD5MDK]

If you don't have 5 in your club you're not like any other fencing club I've seen.

[peet]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

If you don't have 5 in your club you're not like any other fencing club I've seen.

LOL!
Agreed. I've never had to look outside my immediate fencing community (two clubs) for a lawyer, doctor, or computer geek.

-p

[KD5MDK]

I should modify my statement to exclude Collegiate Clubs, which are instead filled with Lawyers, Doctors and Engineers in Training.

[ivlobane]

Originally Posted by dberke

Visually verifying data on-screen versus off of paper is probably the same amout of work. If you want to make the argument that it's cheaper to email the registration confirmations rather than mail them, then I agree... but they could potentially start doing that now.
Dan

Don't forget the manual payment processing, and I could easily argue that doing verification on screen will be much faster than from paper, especially with some decent PC skills and/or a two-monitor setup.

Originally Posted by dberke

Did you read my previous post about how the CSV file would not go to Fencing Time, but rather, would have to be reconciled with the USFA's database? I think that explained it pretty well.

I think I actually quoted it, so please remedy my non-software engineer ignorance:

1. Have you seen the USFA database?
2. What the hell is it exactly? I heard it's just a giant Excel spreadsheet! Is that true?
3. If the USFA DB is so horrible, and if one visually verifies, why does the CSV need to be digitally reconciled with anything???

[KD5MDK]

1) Yes he has, from previous posts here.
2) It's on an AS/400. I don't know if it's in DB2 or something more exotic
3) Probably for the XSeed export, since FencingTime has confirmed to be not yet ready for full blown NAC useage.

[peet]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

I should modify my statement to exclude Collegiate Clubs, which are instead filled with Lawyers, Doctors and Engineers in Training.

And to be fair, I should also say that I've never had to look outside of fencing for an artist, massage therapist, or yoga instructor either...


-p

[ivlobane]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

1) Yes he has, from previous posts here.
2) It's on an AS/400. I don't know if it's in DB2 or something more exotic
3) Probably for the XSeed export, since FencingTime has confirmed to be not yet ready for full blown NAC useage.

A pre-2000 AS/400??? ...or pre-1990?

Someone please confirm or deny this!

and to 3):

If FT can run the Cherry Blossom, why can't it run a NAC, even if with a sneaker-net between PCs?

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by ivlobane

A pre-2000 AS/400??? ...or pre-1990?

Yeah, pretty much... There's a reason that people are saying there are more fundamental infrastructure changes to take care of on the back end before online reg will save the office time...

-m

[dberke]

Originally Posted by ivlobane

If FT can run the Cherry Blossom, why can't it run a NAC, even if with a sneaker-net between PCs?

There are features not currently present in FT that the USFA needs before it can be used to run NACs. For example, FT does not track referee usage(*), which is an important function that they need. There are other more arcane details that need changing - things involving seeding, repechahge, etc. It's a lot of small things, all of which I'm working on.

FT really isn't a factor in this whole online registration debate. While FT and AskFRED work great togther, we won't see the benefits of that until the USFA switches to it. If we're trying to do something in the short-term, it has to work with the current database and XSeed, otherwise it's just creating new work in some areas, negating the savings made in others.

Dan

(*) Actually, I have referee tracking finished in the current in-development version, so that's pretty much solved!

[IanSerotkin]

Speaking as a professional software engineering manager (previously a software developer and software technical lead), I can virtually guarantee that any "interim solution" in this situation will, in order:

1) Be behind schedule.
2) Go over budget.
3) Be hated.
4) Become the permanent solution.

Given the USFA's current financial and budgetary situation, I would consider it completely unsound to invest ANY money into an interim solution.

I would be more than willing to, for whoever ends up winning the election, help shape and review the RFP. For free.

[ivlobane]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

Yeah, pretty much... There's a reason that people are saying there are more fundamental infrastructure changes to take care of on the back end before online reg will save the office time...

-m

Yes, like throw that damn thing away... and use a remote server farm. Like askFRED, WuFoo and Active...

BTW, I am playing with WuFoo CSV outputs to see if FT can eat them...

[ivlobane]

Originally Posted by IanSerotkin

Speaking as a professional software engineering manager (previously a software developer and software technical lead), I can virtually guarantee that any "interim solution" in this situation will...

VMWare is a lifesaver, hehe...

[KD5MDK]

Actually, VMWare is a piece of software. Lifesaver is a piece of candy.

[telkanuru]

Quote:

<