Tournament Software Project

[oiuyt]

Posted to usfencing.org yesterday:

http://usfencing.org/about-tournamen...ftware-project

RFP available on or about 3 January 2011.

This page is provided as a resource to potential bidders on the USFA's Tournament Software Project.

The purpose of this project is to provide the USFA with the next generation of tournament software that will replace the current tournament management software.

[noodle]

good luck, dan.

on a separate note, looks like this is implying that railstation is going to be acting as the official askfred of the USFA. i have two questions:

1) will future full event results (including the full bout results structure) be posted on railstation? there seems to be generic requirements ("Post tournament data activity") but no indication of the mechanism.
2) what are the odds that i could ever get past XSeed tournament files? the terrible PDF scans of pool sheets and such currently available aren't quite cutting it for me.

[KD5MDK]

I'll sort of assemble my queries into posts as I go along.

Software must be able to import the following fields from the tournament registration
database: Membership Number, Name, Club, Club2, Division, Country, Date of Birth, Event
Code, Classification and Point Standing by Event

Does this mean we have deprecated the "School" field?

○ Auto assign referees (see appendix)

Don't see an appendix on that topic.

[noodle]

also, if the software is required to import fields from the tournament registration database, does that imply that the software would have direct database access, or that there's going to be a public API created for it?

[dberke]

good luck, dan.

on a separate note, looks like this is implying that railstation is going to be acting as the official askfred of the USFA. i have two questions:

1) will future full event results (including the full bout results structure) be posted on railstation? there seems to be generic requirements ("Post tournament data activity") but no indication of the mechanism.
2) what are the odds that i could ever get past XSeed tournament files? the terrible PDF scans of pool sheets and such currently available aren't quite cutting it for me.

Thanks!

I'm going to do a detailed review of the requirements this weekend, but after a quick read I estimate that the new SQL-backed version of FT that I'm working on (FT v4.0) currently meets 80% of the requirements. It shouldn't be difficult to get that to 100%.

Dan

[tchwojko]

Thanks!

I'm going to do a detailed review of the requirements this weekend, but after a quick read I estimate that the new SQL-backed version of FT that I'm working on (FT v4.0) currently meets 80% of the requirements. It shouldn't be difficult to get that to 100%.

Dan

Dan, you're tempting the software gods by flouting the 80/20 rule.

[noodle]

Dan, you're tempting the software gods by flouting the 80/20 rule.

whatever, he has a thousand years to get it done.

Nationals 2012 – solo operation of software

another Q: why didn't we have this level of transparency and such when we picked hang-a-star and subsequently railstation?

[oso97]

another Q: why didn't we have this level of transparency and such when we picked hang-a-star and subsequently railstation?

The Technology Development Task Force tried to get it. But we were told by the Executive Director at the time that it wasn't necessary. And when we took our concerns to the President and Treasurer the response was "This is Kurt's thing, and he will live or die on it. We are NOT going to interfere."

Hang-A-Star was picked because they had good salespeople, and the person making the decision (and the people supervising that decider) did not listen to the technical experts that they couldn't do the job. Railstation was picked ... because they came to the rescue when Hang-A-Star failed. That is really about the sum total of the reason they were picked rather than going through another full bid process.

Note: I'm probably now going to be castigated privately for "not being a team player" and "talking about things openly that shouldn't be" and this will no doubt be another black mark in the book against me for "talking bad."

[noodle]

The Technology Development Task Force tried to get it. But we were told by the Executive Director at the time that it wasn't necessary. And when we took our concerns to the President and Treasurer the response was "This is Kurt's thing, and he will live or die on it. We are NOT going to interfere."

Hang-A-Star was picked because they had good salespeople, and the person making the decision (and the people supervising that decider) did not listen to the technical experts that they couldn't do the job. Railstation was picked ... because they came to the rescue when Hang-A-Star failed. That is really about the sum total of the reason they were picked rather than going through another full bid process.

Note: I'm probably now going to be castigated privately for "not being a team player" and "talking about things openly that shouldn't be" and this will no doubt be another black mark in the book against me for "talking bad."

i know, i saw the document and was on the website task force that also got ignored.

it makes me wonder what would happen if i just built a better/cheaper proverbial mousetrap for membership management and presented it to the USFA. i won't, of course, it would take too much time. but with this exception, the software and technology bid process seems to have historically been "ooh, shiny".

[DangerMouse]

i know, i saw the document and was on the website task force that also got ignored.

it makes me wonder what would happen if i just built a better/cheaper proverbial mousetrap for membership management and presented it to the USFA. i won't, of course, it would take too much time. but with this exception, the software and technology bid process seems to have historically been "ooh, shiny".

You mean like FRED? With minor modifcation.

[noodle]

You mean like FRED? With minor modifcation.

no, but with fred integration

[KD5MDK]

You mean like FRED? With minor modifcation.

FRED has very little to do with membership management, so it would actually be extremely different. Which isn't to say that FRED shows a design and usability that shows what it should look like.

[noodle]

FRED has very little to do with membership management, so it would actually be extremely different. Which isn't to say that FRED shows a design and usability that shows what it should look like.

i don't think thats necessarily true. i mean, of course it would've needed work, but it wasn't that far off unless the USFA had some crazy requirements.

[nahouw]

whatever, he has a thousand years to get it done.



another Q: why didn't we have this level of transparency and such when we picked hang-a-star and subsequently railstation?

an excellent point - why didn't we?

[nahouw]

The Technology Development Task Force tried to get it. But we were told by the Executive Director at the time that it wasn't necessary. And when we took our concerns to the President and Treasurer the response was "This is Kurt's thing, and he will live or die on it. We are NOT going to interfere."

Hang-A-Star was picked because they had good salespeople, and the person making the decision (and the people supervising that decider) did not listen to the technical experts that they couldn't do the job. Railstation was picked ... because they came to the rescue when Hang-A-Star failed. That is really about the sum total of the reason they were picked rather than going through another full bid process.

Note: I'm probably now going to be castigated privately for "not being a team player" and "talking about things openly that shouldn't be" and this will no doubt be another black mark in the book against me for "talking bad."

so, the FORMER executive director, president and treasurer all went with the party line of following the former ED and opposite the technology task force? brilliant. democracy at work.

[Jason]

so, the FORMER executive director, president and treasurer all went with the party line of following the former ED and opposite the technology task force? brilliant. democracy at work.

If it makes you feel any better, you can think of them as the former executive director, the current president, and the current executive director. There now. Doesn't that seem better?

[KD5MDK]

i don't think thats necessarily true. i mean, of course it would've needed work, but it wasn't that far off unless the USFA had some crazy requirements.

Well, I think having expiring memberships, multiple membership classes, etc would have been critical features. Not to mention all the necessary access controls. Peet clearly would have known exactly what to do etc, I'm just saying these weren't part of the FRED design.

[DangerMouse]

Not knowing Peet's code at all, I'm positive I could modify the backend database to handle all of this in less than a day. Writing code on the interface side would take a bit longer. My point is that FRED already has a database of fencers, has access control components (to login), and is set up to collect money. The rest of the software development process is non-trivial, but it's not exactly difficult either.

[noodle]

Not knowing Peet's code at all, I'm positive I could modify the backend database to handle all of this in less than a day. Writing code on the interface side would take a bit longer. My point is that FRED already has a database of fencers, has access control components (to login), and is set up to collect money. The rest of the software development process is non-trivial, but it's not exactly difficult either.

yeah, my thoughts exactly. especially since the payment gateway is already integrated and stuff, i don't think changing fred to be a capable membership management database would be difficult at all, hypothetically. the question is more along the lines of what kind of particulars the USFA wanted.

[Conscience]

The Technology Development Task Force tried to get it. But we were told by the Executive Director at the time that it wasn't necessary. And when we took our concerns to the President and Treasurer the response was "This is Kurt's thing, and he will live or die on it. We are NOT going to interfere."

Hang-A-Star was picked because they had good salespeople, and the person making the decision (and the people supervising that decider) did not listen to the technical experts that they couldn't do the job. Railstation was picked ... because they came to the rescue when Hang-A-Star failed. That is really about the sum total of the reason they were picked rather than going through another full bid process.

Note: I'm probably now going to be castigated privately for "not being a team player" and "talking about things openly that shouldn't be" and this will no doubt be another black mark in the book against me for "talking bad."

"We've made a choice, and you're going to be happy." Funny how things change with the wind of popular opinion.