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

[mgriff]

God, why

[Online registration] ---3---> [USFA database] ---4---> [XSeed]???

Forget XSeed and the USFA DB. Is XSeed protected in the bylaws or something? I'm seeing a way to produce the same end result from multiple event specific WuFoo forms into FT, just give me until after the three day weekend to work the details.

Because FT does not yet do all that we need it to do for NACs and SN. (Dan B is good, but even he needs time to design and code.) For any interim/short-term registration solution, we're still looking at XSeed, sad as that may be, which is one of the main reasons many of us believe an interim solution would not be worth the effort. Far better to spend the time and energy on a real long-term solution that would actually make a positive difference.

Mary

[peet]

God, why

[Online registration] ---3---> [USFA database] ---4---> [XSeed]???

Forget XSeed and the USFA DB. Is XSeed protected in the bylaws or something? I'm seeing a way to produce the same end result from multiple event specific WuFoo forms into FT, just give me until after the three day weekend to work the details.

I don't think you can retool the whole national office and the NAC Bout Committee in one fell swoop in a few short months.

Well, not without p**sing off a lot of people, and breaking a whole bunch of stuff in the process.

Much as we'd like to crowbar the USFA into the 20th century (while the rest of us live in the 21st ), it's gonna have to be step by step.

-p

[epeemike81]

God, why

[Online registration] ---3---> [USFA database] ---4---> [XSeed]???

Forget XSeed and the USFA DB. Is XSeed protected in the bylaws or something? I'm seeing a way to produce the same end result from multiple event specific WuFoo forms into FT, just give me until after the three day weekend to work the details.

In your process to go from WuFoo (btw, why not AskFRED, which already has extracts straight to Fencing time?), where is the step of membership confirmation? Age verification? Ratings verification?

It is these things which require the USFA database. these verifications need to happen before the registration is accepted. Until and unless you have a systematic way to do this, processing registration will remain a drain on the office staff. Hence why a fundamental (and EXTREMELY non-trivial) first step is to create a new USFA DB which will be flexible enough to play nice with whatever online registration and tournament management systems we eventually decide to use.

-m

[ivlobane]

Because FT does not yet do all that we need it to do for NACs and SN. (Dan B is good, but even he needs time to design and code.) For any interim/short-term registration solution, we're still looking at XSeed, sad as that may be, which is one of the main reasons many of us believe an interim solution would not be worth the effort. Far better to spend the time and energy on a real long-term solution that would actually make a positive difference.

Mary

I've heard this before, I understand FT does nto handle refs and other things, but I refuse to be boxed into this line of though. It's my time anyway, right?

[KD5MDK]

It's you time to spend, but you look a bit silly arguing with a software developer whether his software is capable of meeting a requirements list you seem to ignore.

[ivlobane]

It's you time to spend, but you look a bit silly arguing with a software developer whether his software is capable of meeting a requirements list you seem to ignore.

That's right: I'm altogether ignoring the requirements of the process the USFA is using, not whether FT can meet them or not...

I am not ignoring whether FT can be used to accomodate a different process that produces the same outcome with a lot less manhours and paper.

And yes, askFRED would work I'm sure, but I'm not a database designer nor do I have access to it. I am working with a WYSIWYG front end that can produce a flexible CSV file.

[dberke]

That's right: I'm altogether ignoring the requirements of the process the USFA is using, not whether FT can meet them or not...

As a general rule, ignoring the requirements is generally a bad idea when you're trying to design just about anything, whether it's software ("must validate memberships ratings, point rankings, etc.") or a doghouse ("must be large enough for dog")...

If you want a solution that can be running in a couple of months, you can't ignore that process. If you think we can replace the whole process end-to-end in two months, I would like to make a rather sizable cash wager with you that you can't.

I am not ignoring whether FT can be used to accomodate a different process that produces the same outcome with a lot less manhours and paper.

And yes, askFRED would work I'm sure, but I'm not a database designer nor do I have access to it. I am working with a WYSIWYG front end that can produce a flexible CSV file.

I think that explains everything.

Let me make a suggestion. Rather than playing with CSV files, go outside and enjoy the sun this weekend. You'll be much happer that you did come Tuesday morning.

Dan

[telkanuru]

That's right: I'm altogether ignoring the requirements of the process the USFA is using, not whether FT can meet them or not...

I am not ignoring whether FT can be used to accomodate a different process that produces the same outcome with a lot less manhours and paper.

And yes, askFRED would work I'm sure, but I'm not a database designer nor do I have access to it. I am working with a WYSIWYG front end that can produce a flexible CSV file.

Brief synopsis- I know nothing about the subject at hand, but I'm on the internet, so I can easily debate experts in the field!

[tchwojko]

If you think we can replace the whole process end-to-end in two months, I would like to make a rather sizable cash wager with you that you can't.

Would you donate your winnings to help with the USFA finance issues?

[ivlobane]

I think that explains everything.

Dan

The only thing that should explain is that I'm trying already developed tools that could become your competition. If it has been agreed the interim solution will have a manual component to it, I fail to see why the verification part can't be severed from that crazy DB. Where is the objective argument?

[dberke]

The only thing that should explain is that I'm trying already developed tools that could become your competition.

You are? What tools that you are trying compete with Fencing Time?

I also fail to see why the verification part can't be severed from that crazy DB. Where is the objective argument?

The database is essential to the verification step, because it contatins the data that you are verifying against!

I don't know how much more objective that can get... you have fencer data (regardless of where it came from, online or paper) that has to be verified against the USFA's records (in a database somewhere.) That has to be done no matter what combination of systems you're using.

Dan

[ivlobane]

The database is essential to the verification step, because it contatins the data that you are verifying against!

Dan

You quoted me before I had a chance to clarify. If there is to be a manual verification process, the current USFA DB does not need to be a part of the system.

[dberke]

You quoted me before I had a chance to clarify. If there is to be a manual verification process, the current USFA DB does not need to be a part of the system.

Good lord.

Please fill in the blank:

Fencer X submits their entry into a NAC (by mail/fax/online, it doesn't matter.) The USFA checks ____________________ to verify that Fencer X's membership is current before allowing him to enter the event.

(Hint: It's something designed to hold data.)

Dan

[tchwojko]

Good lord.

Please fill in the blank:

Fencer X submits their entry into a NAC (by mail/fax/online, it doesn't matter.) The USFA checks ____________________ to verify that Fencer X's membership is current before allowing him to enter the event.

(Hint: It's something designed to hold data.)

Dan

The CSV file, obviously!

[ivlobane]

Good lord.

Please fill in the blank:

Fencer X submits their entry into a NAC (by mail/fax/online, it doesn't matter.) The USFA checks ____________________ to verify that Fencer X's membership is current before allowing him to enter the event.

(Hint: It's something designed to hold data.)

Dan

Using the eyes.

[dberke]

Using the eyes.

Ok, let me rephrase since that apparently wasn't clear:

Please fill in the blank:

Fencer X submits their entry into a NAC (by mail/fax/online, it doesn't matter.) Using their eyes, the USFA compares the submitted information to ____________________ to verify that Fencer X's membership is current before allowing him to enter the event.

Dan

[epeemike81]

Using the eyes.

and the eyes are looking at... what, exactly?

-m

[tchwojko]

and the eyes are looking at... what, exactly?

-m

Evidently a theory on brontosauruses.

[Inquartata]

I started to write a response about a half dozen times, but I haven't written any water cooler posts, and I don't intend to start now.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

[Wafath]

The devil is in the details of arrow #3. Getting data into the USFA database isn't a simple process, no matter what online system is being used. I'm not saying it can't be done, but the complexity of doing that is much higher than you think.

(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