December 2010 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

Re: Site performance
by Bob Vallio 14 Dec '10

14 Dec '10

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <dsumner(a)arrl.org>wrote, in part: "The database architecture makes the performance of a single server the critical element in how quickly requests can be fulfilled. That can’t be scaled up. " What that tells me is that the design of this over-priced, under-managed implementation, of a system that was purported to be a boon to our members and our bottom line, was faulty. When is it time to accept our losses, which are increasing at what appears to be an exponential rate, and scrap this albatross? There must be another way, which probably should include the offers of help from some extremely qualified volunteers. Has any consideration been given to seeking monetary redress from the vendor for failing to provide us with a functional product. Perhaps Chris can offer some insight as to that possibility. Bob Vallio. W6RGG

1 0

Site performance
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 14 Dec '10

14 Dec '10

The IT staff looked at what was happening with the website on Saturday, when several of you reported connection issues. The site was busy. There were about a million hits that day. That's not the number of visitors; each visit generates multiple hits. There were about 20,000 requests for the home page. Of those, 2,200 received an abnormal response code. That's 11% of the total requests for the main page, which is at least an order of magnitude above what would generally be regarded as acceptable. The busiest times when "502 errors" (service temporarily overloaded) were the most common were between 1810 and 1910 UTC and between 2330 UTC and 0200 UTC Sunday, becoming particularly intense after 0030 UTC. We have found no evidence of a denial of service attack; as far as we have been able to determine it was just heavy demand. Site performance is continuing to be problematic. Sales and Marketing staff fielded a half-dozen phone calls this afternoon from people who had been unable to complete an online order. Of course, we apologized and took their orders by phone. Some of you have asked whether the problem could be addressed by adding more resources at Rackspace, temporarily or otherwise. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. The database architecture makes the performance of a single server the critical element in how quickly requests can be fulfilled. That can't be scaled up. Our current cloud-based hosting system is not as efficient in this regard as dedicated hardware would be, which is what led Jon Bloom to propose bringing the servers in-house as part of the 2011 capital plan. However, since then Rackspace has offered new services that might better meet our needs. Jon is studying the current alternatives being offered by Rackspace and in the next week will compare the best of those with his earlier recommendation to bring the servers in-house. Dave Sumner, K1ZZ

1 0

RE: Web project status report
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 14 Dec '10

14 Dec '10

Brian, I wanted to check with Steve Ewald before responding to your message about the Rocky Mountain SMs. When an SM fills out the online FSD-211 appointment form http://www.arrl.org/fsd-211-field-organization-appointment-form either to make or to cancel an appointment, what happens is that a message is generated to Leona who then inputs the data into the Siebel system. The database on the website is updated from Siebel. So in terms of getting the data back out to the SM via the website, it makes no difference whether he/she has filled out the FSD-211, emails Leona without using the form, talks to her on the phone, or mails her a letter. Early on, there were problems with cancelled appointments continuing to be shown on the website. Steve says this is no longer the case; occasionally a record will need to be resynced, but this is rare. It's normal for an SM to have his/her own database of appointees. Every three months we pull an Excel file of each section's appointees from Siebel and send it to each SM. We also do it on request, i.e. if the SM or (with the SM's permission) one of the section level appointees (usually SEC or STM) wants the file of their appointees at some other time. The report generator will make it possible to provide this on demand without staff intervention. 73, Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Brian Mileshosky [mailto:n5zgt@swcp.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 1:26 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: Web project status report Dave -- I agree with Bill's comments below as they relate to our membership, but also want to bring our SMs into the discussion as well. Dwayne and I recently held a telecon with all our SMs to see how things were in their world, to share ideas, etc. The website was an expected topic, and the SMs spoke with obvious frustration about their SM pages and their belief that things exhibit less functionality now than there was in the SM area of the old site. One example they spoke to in great length was the Field appointment database, the difficulty of adding/deleting volunteers via it, odd information (I am shown, in my role as Director, as appointed by the NM SM), no real indication or confirmation that information was submited other than a common and generic "thank you" email, etc. Essentially all four (of my four) SMs find it quicker, easier, and more efficient to conduct such business via Leona Adams, and maintain their own database of appointees in Excel. In other words, they are abandoning the new ARRL website that so much money was put towards because they now find better service and utility elsewhere. And in so doing, they are burdoning a staff member (who our SMs love to deal with, by the way) with something that the website should be taking off her shoulders. Both of these end results are HUGE problems. Certain (or all?) priorities ought to be revisited. They ought to be categorized as "must haves" and "would be nice to haves". As "needs to restore pre-existing functionality" and "wants to expand into new directions" The former of each category should then drive the agenda, to a large degree. Getting our SM's page functional and easy for them to use ought to be high on the list in terms of funding and budget, especially when they are otherwise abandoning the website in favor of their own alternatives. I understand various aspects of the SM page have different complexities and can't be tackled all at once or necessarily quickly. On the other hand committing time and funds to audio RSS development isn't going to make those SM's lives any easier, at least before their own stuff is taken care of so they can do their jobs. Echoing Bill's comments, I too wish for the site to be completed before we look at expanding it, and especially before handing over new funds to Fathom. 73, Brian N5ZGT On Thu, 9 Dec 2010, Bill Edgar wrote: > Dave, > > > > I'm assuming that the vetting by Chris was for legal issues and not for > overall approval of concept. > > > > I'm really concerned we're spending more money with Fathom especially since > the original project is not finished. > > > > I'm equally concerned that we are spending money for an audio RSS feed for > the website. An overwhelming majority of members that I've talked to in my > division don't even know what it is, let alone feel it is worth spending > additional money on. > > > > We've got members who are upset with the website. Below is a sample email > from one member Tim Duffy K3LR, a loyal ARRL member and Maxim society > member, whose subject title was: Trying to buy at ARRL.org - website still > a train wreck. > > > > Hi Bill: > > > > I bought 5 books. It took 32 minutes. I have a 20 MB connection - doing a > trace route to the ARRL server - looking at how slow things are - reminded > me of dial up connections. > > > > The ARRL website is slow and clunky - to say the least. > > I got the Proxy error 5 times during the transaction. If it was any other > web site - I would have quit. CQ's web site is 10 times faster. > > > > 32 minutes to buy 5 books - just terrible. Wonder how many people give up - > and never come back - this is a sad representation of the ARRL > > > > > > Back to my original question. When will the web site be fixed? Or is this > the way it is? > > > > Did the BOD approve payment (paid the invoice) to the company that produced > the current website? If so, double shame. Once for allowing a Purchase Order > to an incompetent supplier with no supervision/oversight, then again for > paying an invoice for something the ARRL (and its dues paying membership) > are still waiting to receive - a usable web site. > > > > > > 73, > > Tim K3LR > > > > Your answer to Tim that we would be adding capacity as part of next year's > budget was appreciated and accepted for now, but I'll bet if you asked the > majority of our members, they'd say to use the money requested for the audio > RSS feed to pay for additional capacity now. Because Tim is outspoken, we > found out that he had a problem with ordering from the website. How many > lost sales did we have because other people found the same results with our > website being slow and bailed out - and not to come back again? > > > > Please understand that I appreciate the project has new management and it > may take a little more time to get it finished AND we've seen some good > successes, but I'd rather see the website finished than add new features > that most member probably won't use. > > > > - Bill > > > > > > From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] > Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 8:49 AM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: RE: Web project status report > > > > Bill, I explained this in my December 1 report: > > The A&F Committee also reviewed a draft contract with Fathom that had been > vetted by Chris Imlay. The contract is for two enhancements: the report > generator "Widget" mentioned earlier and an audio RSS feed. While our bias > is strongly in the direction of doing things ourselves from this point > forward, we believe these two projects are within Fathom's capabilities and > that they are better able to deliver them than our own staff will be in a > reasonable time frame. I forwarded the proposed contract to Kim Mitola at > Fathom just before Thanksgiving; she has acknowledged but needs to confirm > their ability to meet the proposed completion schedule in light of the > upcoming holidays and other commitments. > > Dave > > > > From: Bill Edgar [mailto:n3llr@earthlink.net] > Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 10:01 PM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: RE: Web project status report > > > > Dave, > > > > What are the two enhancements for the website that we need Fathom to do work > for us? > > > > Thanks. > > > > - Bill N3LLR > > > > ARRL Director, Rocky Mountain Division On the web at www.RockyMountainDivision.org

1 0

Mileage Reimbursement for 2011
by Shelley, Barry, N1VXY 14 Dec '10

14 Dec '10

The IRS has announced the standard mileage rates to be used to calculate the deductible costs of operating an automobile for business and charitable purposes in 2011. Longstanding ARRL policy states that we use the business rate determined by the IRS as the rate for reimbursement of mileage incurred by staff and volunteers in service to the organization. Accordingly, the rate for reimbursement for mileage incurred in 2011 will be $0.51 per mile. This is up $0.01 from the rate in 2010. For those interested, the mileage rate used for calculating deductions for charitable purposes is $0.14 per mile. I've attached a revised expense reimbursement report form that should be used for travel expenses incurred in 2011 which incorporates the new rate. Please let me know if you have any questions. 73, Barry J. Shelley, N1VXY Chief Financial Officer ARRL, Inc-The National Association for Amateur Radio(tm) 225 Main St. Newington, CT 06111 www.arrl.org <http://www.arrl.org/> Phone: (860) 594-0212 E-mail: bshelley(a)arrl.org <mailto:bshelley@arrl.org>

1 0

RE: Web project status report
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 14 Dec '10

14 Dec '10

Brian, in my absence Friday a Bugzilla ticket was opened about the listing of Directors and Vice Directors in the field appointments database. Via Steve Ewald I have sent two messages to SMs about the site and have asked for their feedback. A few have responded; I hope more will use that channel. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Brian Mileshosky [mailto:n5zgt@swcp.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 1:26 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: Web project status report Dave -- I agree with Bill's comments below as they relate to our membership, but also want to bring our SMs into the discussion as well. Dwayne and I recently held a telecon with all our SMs to see how things were in their world, to share ideas, etc. The website was an expected topic, and the SMs spoke with obvious frustration about their SM pages and their belief that things exhibit less functionality now than there was in the SM area of the old site. One example they spoke to in great length was the Field appointment database, the difficulty of adding/deleting volunteers via it, odd information (I am shown, in my role as Director, as appointed by the NM SM), no real indication or confirmation that information was submited other than a common and generic "thank you" email, etc. Essentially all four (of my four) SMs find it quicker, easier, and more efficient to conduct such business via Leona Adams, and maintain their own database of appointees in Excel. In other words, they are abandoning the new ARRL website that so much money was put towards because they now find better service and utility elsewhere. And in so doing, they are burdoning a staff member (who our SMs love to deal with, by the way) with something that the website should be taking off her shoulders. Both of these end results are HUGE problems. Certain (or all?) priorities ought to be revisited. They ought to be categorized as "must haves" and "would be nice to haves". As "needs to restore pre-existing functionality" and "wants to expand into new directions" The former of each category should then drive the agenda, to a large degree. Getting our SM's page functional and easy for them to use ought to be high on the list in terms of funding and budget, especially when they are otherwise abandoning the website in favor of their own alternatives. I understand various aspects of the SM page have different complexities and can't be tackled all at once or necessarily quickly. On the other hand committing time and funds to audio RSS development isn't going to make those SM's lives any easier, at least before their own stuff is taken care of so they can do their jobs. Echoing Bill's comments, I too wish for the site to be completed before we look at expanding it, and especially before handing over new funds to Fathom. 73, Brian N5ZGT On Thu, 9 Dec 2010, Bill Edgar wrote: > Dave, > > > > I'm assuming that the vetting by Chris was for legal issues and not for > overall approval of concept. > > > > I'm really concerned we're spending more money with Fathom especially since > the original project is not finished. > > > > I'm equally concerned that we are spending money for an audio RSS feed for > the website. An overwhelming majority of members that I've talked to in my > division don't even know what it is, let alone feel it is worth spending > additional money on. > > > > We've got members who are upset with the website. Below is a sample email > from one member Tim Duffy K3LR, a loyal ARRL member and Maxim society > member, whose subject title was: Trying to buy at ARRL.org - website still > a train wreck. > > > > Hi Bill: > > > > I bought 5 books. It took 32 minutes. I have a 20 MB connection - doing a > trace route to the ARRL server - looking at how slow things are - reminded > me of dial up connections. > > > > The ARRL website is slow and clunky - to say the least. > > I got the Proxy error 5 times during the transaction. If it was any other > web site - I would have quit. CQ's web site is 10 times faster. > > > > 32 minutes to buy 5 books - just terrible. Wonder how many people give up - > and never come back - this is a sad representation of the ARRL > > > > > > Back to my original question. When will the web site be fixed? Or is this > the way it is? > > > > Did the BOD approve payment (paid the invoice) to the company that produced > the current website? If so, double shame. Once for allowing a Purchase Order > to an incompetent supplier with no supervision/oversight, then again for > paying an invoice for something the ARRL (and its dues paying membership) > are still waiting to receive - a usable web site. > > > > > > 73, > > Tim K3LR > > > > Your answer to Tim that we would be adding capacity as part of next year's > budget was appreciated and accepted for now, but I'll bet if you asked the > majority of our members, they'd say to use the money requested for the audio > RSS feed to pay for additional capacity now. Because Tim is outspoken, we > found out that he had a problem with ordering from the website. How many > lost sales did we have because other people found the same results with our > website being slow and bailed out - and not to come back again? > > > > Please understand that I appreciate the project has new management and it > may take a little more time to get it finished AND we've seen some good > successes, but I'd rather see the website finished than add new features > that most member probably won't use. > > > > - Bill > > > > > > From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] > Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 8:49 AM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: RE: Web project status report > > > > Bill, I explained this in my December 1 report: > > The A&F Committee also reviewed a draft contract with Fathom that had been > vetted by Chris Imlay. The contract is for two enhancements: the report > generator "Widget" mentioned earlier and an audio RSS feed. While our bias > is strongly in the direction of doing things ourselves from this point > forward, we believe these two projects are within Fathom's capabilities and > that they are better able to deliver them than our own staff will be in a > reasonable time frame. I forwarded the proposed contract to Kim Mitola at > Fathom just before Thanksgiving; she has acknowledged but needs to confirm > their ability to meet the proposed completion schedule in light of the > upcoming holidays and other commitments. > > Dave > > > > From: Bill Edgar [mailto:n3llr@earthlink.net] > Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 10:01 PM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: RE: Web project status report > > > > Dave, > > > > What are the two enhancements for the website that we need Fathom to do work > for us? > > > > Thanks. > > > > - Bill N3LLR > > > > ARRL Director, Rocky Mountain Division On the web at www.RockyMountainDivision.org

1 1

Re: Web project status report
by Gary Johnston KI4LA 14 Dec '10

14 Dec '10

Demand will probably be proportional to the number of hams who are becoming aware that this service is available. Sent from Gary's iPhone 4. On Dec 13, 2010, at 5:50 PM, "Bill Edgar" <n3llr(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > Thanks Dave. > > > > How many people do we have downloading the ARRL Audio News via iTunes? > > > > What is the cost for the RSS Audio feed from Fathom? > > > > How many members are asking for this feature? > > > > I appreciate your help. > > > > - Bill > > > > From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] > Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 5:22 PM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: RE: Web project status report > > > > Bill, yes, of course Chris was looking at the legal aspect. > > > > Your members might not recognize “audio RSS feed” but at least some of them would recognize “ARRL Audio News via iTunes” which is one application. > > > > Dave > > > > > > From: Bill Edgar [mailto:n3llr@earthlink.net] > Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 7:30 PM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: RE: Web project status report > > > > Dave, > > > > I’m assuming that the vetting by Chris was for legal issues and not for overall approval of concept. > > > > I’m really concerned we’re spending more money with Fathom especially since the original project is not finished. > > > > I’m equally concerned that we are spending money for an audio RSS feed for the website. An overwhelming majority of members that I’ve talked to in my division don’t even know what it is, let alone feel it is worth spending additional money on. > > > > We’ve got members who are upset with the website. Below is a sample email from one member Tim Duffy K3LR, a loyal ARRL member and Maxim society member, whose subject title was: Trying to buy at ARRL.org – website still a train wreck. > > > > Hi Bill: > > > > I bought 5 books. It took 32 minutes. I have a 20 MB connection – doing a trace route to the ARRL server – looking at how slow things are – reminded me of dial up connections. > > > > The ARRL website is slow and clunky – to say the least. > > I got the Proxy error 5 times during the transaction. If it was any other web site – I would have quit. CQ’s web site is 10 times faster. > > > > 32 minutes to buy 5 books – just terrible. Wonder how many people give up – and never come back – this is a sad representation of the ARRL > > > > > > Back to my original question. When will the web site be fixed? Or is this the way it is? > > > > Did the BOD approve payment (paid the invoice) to the company that produced the current website? If so, double shame. Once for allowing a Purchase Order to an incompetent supplier with no supervision/oversight, then again for paying an invoice for something the ARRL (and its dues paying membership) are still waiting to receive – a usable web site. > > > > > > 73, > > Tim K3LR > > > > Your answer to Tim that we would be adding capacity as part of next year’s budget was appreciated and accepted for now, but I’ll bet if you asked the majority of our members, they’d say to use the money requested for the audio RSS feed to pay for additional capacity now. Because Tim is outspoken, we found out that he had a problem with ordering from the website. How many lost sales did we have because other people found the same results with our website being slow and bailed out – and not to come back again? > > > > Please understand that I appreciate the project has new management and it may take a little more time to get it finished AND we’ve seen some good successes, but I’d rather see the website finished than add new features that most member probably won’t use. > > > > - Bill > > > > From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] > Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 8:49 AM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: RE: Web project status report > > > > Bill, I explained this in my December 1 report: > > The A&F Committee also reviewed a draft contract with Fathom that had been vetted by Chris Imlay. The contract is for two enhancements: the report generator “Widget” mentioned earlier and an audio RSS feed. While our bias is strongly in the direction of doing things ourselves from this point forward, we believe these two projects are within Fathom’s capabilities and that they are better able to deliver them than our own staff will be in a reasonable time frame. I forwarded the proposed contract to Kim Mitola at Fathom just before Thanksgiving; she has acknowledged but needs to confirm their ability to meet the proposed completion schedule in light of the upcoming holidays and other commitments. > > Dave > > > > From: Bill Edgar [mailto:n3llr@earthlink.net] > Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 10:01 PM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: RE: Web project status report > > > > Dave, > > > > What are the two enhancements for the website that we need Fathom to do work for us? > > > > Thanks. > > > > - Bill N3LLR > > > > F497D'>- Bill N3LLR >

1 0

Re: Web project status report and RSS feed
by Frank Fallon 14 Dec '10

14 Dec '10

As a recent iPod user and also user of the Ham Morse app I came across the ARRL RSS played out in cw in that app. With that app you can chose a number of RSS feeds to listen to. There are about 7 choices and ARRL is in there with the NYTimes and BBC. It's a pretty neat app. I'll let the rest of the board and A & F debate whether it's worth $2400. BTW I got my iPod for Marriott points. Again thanks, ARRL. Frank...N2FF..... On 12/14/2010 1:11 AM, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote: > Bill, during the last three months of 2009 there were 73,000 hits on > the audio RSS feed. > iTunes is just an example. What Fathom will deliver (by December 22 > according to the schedule) is a widget for the content management > system that will allow broader use of the feed in other areas of the site. > The cost is $2400. As I may have mentioned before, the reason the IT > Department asked for this solution rather than eventually to do it > themselves -- Jon's strong bias being toward in-house solutions -- is > that our staff lacks experience building widgets. Given everything > else that's on their plate it seemed reasonable to accept their > recommendation. Why now rather than later? Speaking just for myself, > in the not too distant future I hope to not be doing business with Fathom. > Dave >

1 0

RE: Web project status report
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 14 Dec '10

14 Dec '10

Bill, during the last three months of 2009 there were 73,000 hits on the audio RSS feed. iTunes is just an example. What Fathom will deliver (by December 22 according to the schedule) is a widget for the content management system that will allow broader use of the feed in other areas of the site. The cost is $2400. As I may have mentioned before, the reason the IT Department asked for this solution rather than eventually to do it themselves -- Jon's strong bias being toward in-house solutions -- is that our staff lacks experience building widgets. Given everything else that's on their plate it seemed reasonable to accept their recommendation. Why now rather than later? Speaking just for myself, in the not too distant future I hope to not be doing business with Fathom. Dave ________________________________ From: Bill Edgar [mailto:n3llr@earthlink.net] Sent: Mon 12/13/2010 10:50 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: Web project status report Thanks Dave. How many people do we have downloading the ARRL Audio News via iTunes? What is the cost for the RSS Audio feed from Fathom? How many members are asking for this feature? I appreciate your help. - Bill From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 5:22 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: Web project status report Bill, yes, of course Chris was looking at the legal aspect. Your members might not recognize "audio RSS feed" but at least some of them would recognize "ARRL Audio News via iTunes" which is one application. Dave From: Bill Edgar [mailto:n3llr@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 7:30 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: Web project status report Dave, I'm assuming that the vetting by Chris was for legal issues and not for overall approval of concept. I'm really concerned we're spending more money with Fathom especially since the original project is not finished. I'm equally concerned that we are spending money for an audio RSS feed for the website. An overwhelming majority of members that I've talked to in my division don't even know what it is, let alone feel it is worth spending additional money on. We've got members who are upset with the website. Below is a sample email from one member Tim Duffy K3LR, a loyal ARRL member and Maxim society member, whose subject title was: Trying to buy at ARRL.org - website still a train wreck. Hi Bill: I bought 5 books. It took 32 minutes. I have a 20 MB connection - doing a trace route to the ARRL server - looking at how slow things are - reminded me of dial up connections. The ARRL website is slow and clunky - to say the least. I got the Proxy error 5 times during the transaction. If it was any other web site - I would have quit. CQ's web site is 10 times faster. 32 minutes to buy 5 books - just terrible. Wonder how many people give up - and never come back - this is a sad representation of the ARRL Back to my original question. When will the web site be fixed? Or is this the way it is? Did the BOD approve payment (paid the invoice) to the company that produced the current website? If so, double shame. Once for allowing a Purchase Order to an incompetent supplier with no supervision/oversight, then again for paying an invoice for something the ARRL (and its dues paying membership) are still waiting to receive - a usable web site. 73, Tim K3LR Your answer to Tim that we would be adding capacity as part of next year's budget was appreciated and accepted for now, but I'll bet if you asked the majority of our members, they'd say to use the money requested for the audio RSS feed to pay for additional capacity now. Because Tim is outspoken, we found out that he had a problem with ordering from the website. How many lost sales did we have because other people found the same results with our website being slow and bailed out - and not to come back again? Please understand that I appreciate the project has new management and it may take a little more time to get it finished AND we've seen some good successes, but I'd rather see the website finished than add new features that most member probably won't use. - Bill From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 8:49 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: Web project status report Bill, I explained this in my December 1 report: The A&F Committee also reviewed a draft contract with Fathom that had been vetted by Chris Imlay. The contract is for two enhancements: the report generator "Widget" mentioned earlier and an audio RSS feed. While our bias is strongly in the direction of doing things ourselves from this point forward, we believe these two projects are within Fathom's capabilities and that they are better able to deliver them than our own staff will be in a reasonable time frame. I forwarded the proposed contract to Kim Mitola at Fathom just before Thanksgiving; she has acknowledged but needs to confirm their ability to meet the proposed completion schedule in light of the upcoming holidays and other commitments. Dave From: Bill Edgar [mailto:n3llr@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 10:01 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: Web project status report Dave, What are the two enhancements for the website that we need Fathom to do work for us? Thanks. - Bill N3LLR

1 0

RE: ARRL Web Site Complaint
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 13 Dec '10

13 Dec '10

Bob [Vallio], you will not find anyone on the ARRL staff who will defend Fathom's work. We want to whittle down the bugs Fathom is still working on as quickly as possible and end that aspect of our relationship. In the meantime, every day our IT Department is able to do more with the site on its own. We all want to get to the point, and the sooner the better, where site performance and functionality are no longer issues. I don't know of a better way to do that than what we're doing. Dave

1 0

RE: Web project status report
by Bill Edgar 13 Dec '10

13 Dec '10

Thanks Dave. How many people do we have downloading the ARRL Audio News via iTunes? What is the cost for the RSS Audio feed from Fathom? How many members are asking for this feature? I appreciate your help. - Bill From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 5:22 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: Web project status report Bill, yes, of course Chris was looking at the legal aspect. Your members might not recognize "audio RSS feed" but at least some of them would recognize "ARRL Audio News via iTunes" which is one application. Dave From: Bill Edgar [mailto:n3llr@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 7:30 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: Web project status report Dave, I'm assuming that the vetting by Chris was for legal issues and not for overall approval of concept. I'm really concerned we're spending more money with Fathom especially since the original project is not finished. I'm equally concerned that we are spending money for an audio RSS feed for the website. An overwhelming majority of members that I've talked to in my division don't even know what it is, let alone feel it is worth spending additional money on. We've got members who are upset with the website. Below is a sample email from one member Tim Duffy K3LR, a loyal ARRL member and Maxim society member, whose subject title was: Trying to buy at ARRL.org - website still a train wreck. Hi Bill: I bought 5 books. It took 32 minutes. I have a 20 MB connection - doing a trace route to the ARRL server - looking at how slow things are - reminded me of dial up connections. The ARRL website is slow and clunky - to say the least. I got the Proxy error 5 times during the transaction. If it was any other web site - I would have quit. CQ's web site is 10 times faster. 32 minutes to buy 5 books - just terrible. Wonder how many people give up - and never come back - this is a sad representation of the ARRL Back to my original question. When will the web site be fixed? Or is this the way it is? Did the BOD approve payment (paid the invoice) to the company that produced the current website? If so, double shame. Once for allowing a Purchase Order to an incompetent supplier with no supervision/oversight, then again for paying an invoice for something the ARRL (and its dues paying membership) are still waiting to receive - a usable web site. 73, Tim K3LR Your answer to Tim that we would be adding capacity as part of next year's budget was appreciated and accepted for now, but I'll bet if you asked the majority of our members, they'd say to use the money requested for the audio RSS feed to pay for additional capacity now. Because Tim is outspoken, we found out that he had a problem with ordering from the website. How many lost sales did we have because other people found the same results with our website being slow and bailed out - and not to come back again? Please understand that I appreciate the project has new management and it may take a little more time to get it finished AND we've seen some good successes, but I'd rather see the website finished than add new features that most member probably won't use. - Bill From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 8:49 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: Web project status report Bill, I explained this in my December 1 report: The A&F Committee also reviewed a draft contract with Fathom that had been vetted by Chris Imlay. The contract is for two enhancements: the report generator "Widget" mentioned earlier and an audio RSS feed. While our bias is strongly in the direction of doing things ourselves from this point forward, we believe these two projects are within Fathom's capabilities and that they are better able to deliver them than our own staff will be in a reasonable time frame. I forwarded the proposed contract to Kim Mitola at Fathom just before Thanksgiving; she has acknowledged but needs to confirm their ability to meet the proposed completion schedule in light of the upcoming holidays and other commitments. Dave From: Bill Edgar [mailto:n3llr@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 10:01 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: Web project status report Dave, What are the two enhancements for the website that we need Fathom to do work for us? Thanks. - Bill N3LLR

1 0