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

Re: Year End Expenses
by Rod Blocksome 13 Dec '10

13 Dec '10

Barry, I have no outstanding expenses. 73's, Rod Blocksome, K0DAS Midwest V-Dir ----- Original Message ----- From: Shelley, Barry, N1VXY To: arrl-odv Cc: Middleton, Diane Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 2:25 PM Subject: Year End Expenses Ladies and Gentlemen: As we're fast approaching the end of the year, it is the season for my annual plea regarding the timely submission of expense reports related to 2010. To be able to prepare accurate financial reports for the Board meeting, we need as much information about the year that we can get and filing of request for expense reimbursement are important to be able to report Division, Officer and Committee expenses properly. We are asking that you submit any expense reimbursement requests for 2010 expenses by no later than Friday, January 7, 2011. I realize that you probably won't have all your Division's administrative costs by that date but you can, if you wish, submit estimates for things like phone bills and we will simply accrue for those costs for the financial reports. When the actual bill arrives, just submit it for reimbursement as you would normally and we will take care of the proper accounting. Thank you in advance for you assistance. Have a happy and safe holiday season. 73, Barry J. Shelley, N1VXY Chief Financial Officer ARRL, Inc-The National Association for Amateur RadioT 225 Main St. Newington, CT 06111 www.arrl.org Phone: (860) 594-0212 E-mail: bshelley(a)arrl.org

1 0

RE: ARRL Website Complaint....
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 13 Dec '10

13 Dec '10

Bill, I think I addressed this in another reply -- Jon emphasizes that it is not a scalable bandwidth or server issue. Dave P.S. Sorry to be responding to these somewhat haphazardly. I took last Friday off and have a bit of a backlog to work through. -----Original Message----- From: Bill Edgar [mailto:n3llr@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 12:02 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: ARRL Website Complaint.... I wonder if we had scalable bandwidth and servers at Rackspace or some other ISP, would this fix the slow website issues. It is my understanding that during heavy use periods, scalable service expands the amount of bandwidth (opens the pipeline more) to permit more users to use the site and permits more servers to be utilized during the heavy load periods. If we buy additional servers to bring this in-house, will scalable bandwidth and severs be available and utilized during peak load periods? - Bill -----Original Message----- From: Cliff Ahrens [mailto:cliff.ahrens@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 10:50 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: ARRL Website Complaint.... Given the number of complaints about the Web server response time, and the increased usage of the Web site and ARRL store during the holiday season, should staff consider a temporary increase of the amount of server space being rented in the Rackspace cloud. As Dave noted, the 2011 Plan recommended to the Board by staff and the A&F committee includes purchasing 4 in-house Web servers at an approximate cost of $6,000, with a projected implementation at the end of the 1st Qtr 2011. The increased rental cost at Rackspace would be a short-term fix, pending the move to in-house servers. And maybe that move could be expedited as well. Cliff K0CA

1 0

RE: Web project status report
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 13 Dec '10

13 Dec '10

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: Web project status report
by JRS 13 Dec '10

13 Dec '10

David As to "2.1 Query Report" in your reply to Bob Vallio: will one of the template formats be PDF? 73 *-----------------------------------------------------* ** John Robert Stratton N5AUS West Gulf Division Vice Director West Gulf Division Legislative Action Chair Office telephone: 512-445-6262 Cell: 512-426-2028 PO Box 2232 Austin, Texas 78768-2232 *-----------------------------------------------------* On 12/9/10 8:10 AM, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote: > > Bob, I reviewed this, including the proposed contract language that > had been vetted by Chris Imlay, with the A&F Committee at the November > 20 meeting. I provided an explanation in last week's report but > perhaps the somewhat longer explanation I gave A&F will be helpful: > > I mentioned earlier that there are two enhancements for which we would > like to contract with Fathom. Discussion of three enhancements had > been going on for some time, with Chris Imlay becoming involved in the > development of a contract form that Chris feels is suitable. Chris had > signed off on the contract on October 19, but I wanted to review the > projects with Jon Bloom before proceeding. The result of that review > was that we decided to eliminate one of the three projects and to > scale back a second one. Jon believes that the two remaining projects > are within Fathom's capabilities, that they are better able to deliver > them than our staff will be in a reasonable time frame, and that > therefore -- somewhat exceptionally -- the best course of action for > us to take is to enter into the contract. The revised contract is > attached. I have told Kim Mitola that I will let her know whether we > want to proceed right after this A&F Committee meeting. They are > listed on page 81 of the Proposed 2011-2012 Plan as two of three > examples of web enhancements for which we are budgeting some capital > expenditures for outside programming, but with the committee's > concurrence I would much prefer to proceed with them now. > > The projects are described as follows in the draft contract: > > *2.1. Query Report. *Fathom will develop and integrate into the ARRL > website the ability for ARRL Directors, Section managers and members > to conduct for themselves data queries (for example, event dates, > times, club activities and the like) and the ability to print the > results of the query. Fathom will implement this functionality as follows: > > Users perform a search on the website the same way they currently do. > If the search returns results, a button, link or drop-down will appear > along with the results to allow the user to generate a report based on > the current search results. > > Each type of data can have one or more fixed templates. In the case > where there is more than one template option, the user will be given a > choice of which template to use. A template may output any type of > format (e.g., HTML, plain text, CSV, XML...). Fathom will provide > sample HTML and CSV templates; ARRL will be responsible for modifying > or creating additional templates as needed. > > This capability will be available for each type of data for which a > search page is provided if one or more templates are configured for > that search type. > > The number of records that can be returned in a report will be limited > to a finite number. The limit will be configurable for each kind of data. > > *2.2. Audio RSS Feed. *Fathom will design, implement, test and deploy > an addition to the PagesController that has the ability to read and > display audio media in an RSS format compatible with iTunes.® This > will allow ARRL to feature audio media content of any page-builder > page within iTunes. > > There is some urgency, particularly with respect to the audio RSS > feed, which we are being asked about almost daily. What we expect > Fathom to deliver in each case is a function within the content > management system, which at this point their programmers are much more > familiar with. This was Jon Bloom's recommendation, despite his strong > bias against farming anything out, so he and his staff can deal with > other priorities. > > I am still waiting to hear back from Kim Mitola. > > 73, > > Dave K1ZZ > > *From:*Bob Vallio [mailto:rbvallio@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 08, 2010 8:38 PM > *To:* arrl-odv > *Subject:* Re: Web project status report > > Please see theover-sized red print in the paragraph below. As near > as I can tell from what I have read, those two enhancements are not > critical to our mission.. We have spent, in my opinion, way too much > money for a poor product from Fathom. What is the urgency to spend > even more money for Fathom to work on those two items right now? I > believe they are well within the capabilities of our own personnel to > manage at some time in the near future. > > Bob Vallio, W6RGG > > > On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <dsumner(a)arrl.org > <mailto:dsumner@arrl.org>> wrote: > > Officers, Directors and Vice Directors: > > Here is this week's website project status report. > > Last week Jon Bloom was preoccupied with programming necessary to > production of the next edition of the Repeater Directory and could not > devote much attention to the website. Partly as a result, just four > Bugzilla tickets were closed. On Monday, December 6 the IT and Sales & > Marketing staffs held a joint meeting to review e-store and membership > issues. While this led to a couple of tickets being closed, the net > result was an increase in the bug list as we tried to capture > everything needing attention (including desired enhancements).As of > now there are 68 items on the bug list, two of which > aretheenhancements that we would like Fathom to do under a > supplemental contract(I'm awaiting a call back from Kim Mitola) and > another 32 of which are staff-assigned enhancements (in addition > there's one enhancement currently assigned to Fathom that I expect us > to take back). Of the remaining 33, 15 are bugs that are assigned to > Fathom and 18 are assigned to ARRL staff. In the coming weeks, these > two numbers will be the best measures of progress toward completion of > the transition. There may be some new ones added as we go along, but > ideally we will see the two numbers decline and ultimately reach zero. > > I have sent a message to Section Managers following up on the one I > sent on November 18 about the "big club list." I have made the same > request of them that I did of you: to make public at least the basic > contact information in their Member Profile. I also asked them to make > the same request of their section leadership appointees. I hope the > response is as good as it was among officers, directors and vice > directors. > > 73, > > Dave Sumner, K1ZZ >

2 3

RE: ARRL Website Comments.....
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 13 Dec '10

13 Dec '10

Jim [Boehner], thanks for your comments. Your concerns about the potential downsides of hosting the website on internal servers are shared by IT staff, principally the matter of 24/7 support. However, at the time the 2011 Plan was being assembled this appeared to be the best way to address the performance issue. To quote from the Capital Acquisition section of the Plan that we presented to A&F prior to its November 20 meeting and that Barry Shelley sent to ODV on December 2: _____ C. Servers of ARRL Web Site The ARRL website is presently hosted in the Rackspace cloud, sharing server resources with other Rackspace customers. This was done when we discovered late in the process of deploying the new site that the system requires many more processors than anticipated -- more than can be provided in a single server. However, in the cloud we are sharing resources with other cloud users, and the site's performance suffers because of this. We considered getting additional leased servers at Rackspace or another provider but concluded it would be more cost-effective and more manageable to move the site back to HQ. (HQ Internet connectivity was upgraded substantially this year, making this move feasible.) We are requesting the addition of four small server-grade machines. The requested machines, which have multi-core processors but not much in the way of disk storage or memory, are to be used to service Web-page requests under the guidance of a master server. This is the same configuration as the present cloud-based system, but the hardware will be fully dedicated to the Web site, providing higher performance, and the backing database will be run on optimized SAN storage, substantially ameliorating one of the main bottlenecks of the present site. Each of the servers costs $1,500, amounting to a total of $6,000. _____ Since this was written, Rackspace has announced a new service that Jon thinks MIGHT be a better answer but he has to do more research before he can be sure. There is no question but that the site was busy over the weekend. On a typical weekend the Web store handles 50-75 orders. After a typical Friday email promoting publications we get about 200 orders. This past weekend, in response to a $5 flat rate shipping offer the Web store received nearly 350 orders. Dave K1ZZ

1 0

Year End Expenses
by Shelley, Barry, N1VXY 13 Dec '10

13 Dec '10

Ladies and Gentlemen: As we're fast approaching the end of the year, it is the season for my annual plea regarding the timely submission of expense reports related to 2010. To be able to prepare accurate financial reports for the Board meeting, we need as much information about the year that we can get and filing of request for expense reimbursement are important to be able to report Division, Officer and Committee expenses properly. We are asking that you submit any expense reimbursement requests for 2010 expenses by no later than Friday, January 7, 2011. I realize that you probably won't have all your Division's administrative costs by that date but you can, if you wish, submit estimates for things like phone bills and we will simply accrue for those costs for the financial reports. When the actual bill arrives, just submit it for reimbursement as you would normally and we will take care of the proper accounting. Thank you in advance for you assistance. Have a happy and safe holiday season. 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: ARRL Website Complaint....
by Marty Woll 13 Dec '10

13 Dec '10

ARRL Web Site ComplaintI just went to place an order on the ARRL site, and it went reasonably quickly. However, because it did not apply the Diamond Club discount (Amy Hurtado tells me that fix is in the queue already), I terminated the process and ordered by telephone, where the lady on the other end was extremely efficient (possible future contest operator?). 73, Marty N6VI

1 0

Re: ARRL Website Comments.....
by MICKEY COX 13 Dec '10

13 Dec '10

Jim, I assure you that I take the comments of all the Vice Directors seriously. Thanks very much for your comments below regarding the website issue. 73, Mickey K5MC ________________________________ From: James F. Boehner MD <jboehner01(a)yahoo.com> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Sun, December 12, 2010 8:54:31 PM Subject: ARRL Website Comments..... Like everyone, I have received numerous comments on the new website. Interestingly, though, most of the comments I receive are positive. There are numerous corrections and suggestions, but they mostly are in a positive light. My personal comments are the same. There need to be corrections and increased functionality, but my load times for each web page are fairly reasonable, given the content. I was not able to attend board meetings when a new website was approved, but I understand there was considerable support for the project. The old website had limited functionality, and to "move to the next level", a significant upgrade was necessary. i.e. a risk. The old website was a good resource for members but did not have much appeal to the outside world - at least in my opinion and from comments I received. I was comfortable with the old website while an SM. I used it daily, and the functionality made it easy to handle SM duties. I have observed younger individuals using the web. I noted that they use the web much differently than I do. The new website takes advantage of the way younger individuals use the web. My SM replacement said it best - that the old website was the window for the membership to view amateur radio, while the new website was the window to the world. That being said, I have seen intense animosity towards Fathom. There apparently were some contract issues of which I am not privy. There were monies paid to Fathom, of which many on the board seem to feel were excessive for the product delivered. Still, they seem to have some value, as our CEO and Chief IS officer have both indicated that there are two projects that need to be outsourced to them at this time. It appears that our CEO is taking a two-tiered approach to the website 1) handling problems and functionality issues through a Bugzilla ticket system and 2) wishing to add new functionality to the website. I do not see why both approaches could not be accomplished at the same time. If we waited until all bugs and functionality issues were completed, we would most likely be looking at a new web overhaul. I do not want my comments to be construed as micromanagement. That is the last thing this web project needs. There have been numerous comments about load times and time-outs. From what I understand, we are using the Rackspace cloud. From what I have read, they are one of the best cloud servers available. I am unclear as to where the internet problems lie. I assume that in our contract with them, there are metrics they guarantee, with transactions per second, page load times, etc. Have there been website audits to see if they are performing at the level that they should? If not, there are third parties that do audits, and will notify if performance goes down below a set point. Additionally, I assume they have multiple internet access points, should one go down. They advertise 24/7 "fanatical" support. When I saw that ARRL was looking to take the servers "in house", I was a bit concerned. It appears that this was done to have more control over the system, and address load times, as reported by those on the board. I read that John Bloom felt that this would be an improvement, but have metrics been done with the ARRL HQ internet service? Could it handle the load that the ARRL website gets from day to day? Would there be a 24/7 call system to correct problems? What if the internet service provider goes down? Is there power backup beyond the usual UPS's? I guess the main question would be whether a loss of the website overnight or a few days (during an ice storm) would be considered a significant problem. In short, ARRL is in the business of promoting Amateur Radio, not being an expert on all things related to the internet. As a Vice Director, I am not privy to all the details of the web project, nor do I expect my comments to be taken seriously. However, I see the web project was taken over personally by our CEO. Despite frustration with internal and external pressures, he has done due diligence in evaluating ways to correct current problems while moving the project forward. It is time that we come together as a board family and give him the support he needs to be successful! '73 de JIM N2ZZ ARRL Vice Director Roanoke Division ARRL, the national association for Amateur RadioT -----Original Message----- From: Cliff Ahrens [mailto:cliff.ahrens@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 10:50 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: ARRL Website Complaint.... Given the number of complaints about the Web server response time, and the increased usage of the Web site and ARRL store during the holiday season, should staff consider a temporary increase of the amount of server space being rented in the Rackspace cloud. As Dave noted, the 2011 Plan recommended to the Board by staff and the A&F committee includes purchasing 4 in-house Web servers at an approximate cost of $6,000, with a projected implementation at the end of the 1st Qtr 2011. The increased rental cost at Rackspace would be a short-term fix, pending the move to in-house servers. And maybe that move could be expedited as well. Cliff K0CA

1 0

RE: ARRL Website Complaint....
by Bill Edgar 13 Dec '10

13 Dec '10

I wonder if we had scalable bandwidth and servers at Rackspace or some other ISP, would this fix the slow website issues. It is my understanding that during heavy use periods, scalable service expands the amount of bandwidth (opens the pipeline more) to permit more users to use the site and permits more servers to be utilized during the heavy load periods. If we buy additional servers to bring this in-house, will scalable bandwidth and severs be available and utilized during peak load periods? - Bill -----Original Message----- From: Cliff Ahrens [mailto:cliff.ahrens@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 10:50 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: ARRL Website Complaint.... Given the number of complaints about the Web server response time, and the increased usage of the Web site and ARRL store during the holiday season, should staff consider a temporary increase of the amount of server space being rented in the Rackspace cloud. As Dave noted, the 2011 Plan recommended to the Board by staff and the A&F committee includes purchasing 4 in-house Web servers at an approximate cost of $6,000, with a projected implementation at the end of the 1st Qtr 2011. The increased rental cost at Rackspace would be a short-term fix, pending the move to in-house servers. And maybe that move could be expedited as well. Cliff K0CA

1 0

ARRL Website Comments.....
by James F. Boehner MD 13 Dec '10

13 Dec '10

Like everyone, I have received numerous comments on the new website. Interestingly, though, most of the comments I receive are positive. There are numerous corrections and suggestions, but they mostly are in a positive light. My personal comments are the same. There need to be corrections and increased functionality, but my load times for each web page are fairly reasonable, given the content. I was not able to attend board meetings when a new website was approved, but I understand there was considerable support for the project. The old website had limited functionality, and to "move to the next level", a significant upgrade was necessary. i.e. a risk. The old website was a good resource for members but did not have much appeal to the outside world - at least in my opinion and from comments I received. I was comfortable with the old website while an SM. I used it daily, and the functionality made it easy to handle SM duties. I have observed younger individuals using the web. I noted that they use the web much differently than I do. The new website takes advantage of the way younger individuals use the web. My SM replacement said it best - that the old website was the window for the membership to view amateur radio, while the new website was the window to the world. That being said, I have seen intense animosity towards Fathom. There apparently were some contract issues of which I am not privy. There were monies paid to Fathom, of which many on the board seem to feel were excessive for the product delivered. Still, they seem to have some value, as our CEO and Chief IS officer have both indicated that there are two projects that need to be outsourced to them at this time. It appears that our CEO is taking a two-tiered approach to the website 1) handling problems and functionality issues through a Bugzilla ticket system and 2) wishing to add new functionality to the website. I do not see why both approaches could not be accomplished at the same time. If we waited until all bugs and functionality issues were completed, we would most likely be looking at a new web overhaul. I do not want my comments to be construed as micromanagement. That is the last thing this web project needs. There have been numerous comments about load times and time-outs. From what I understand, we are using the Rackspace cloud. From what I have read, they are one of the best cloud servers available. I am unclear as to where the internet problems lie. I assume that in our contract with them, there are metrics they guarantee, with transactions per second, page load times, etc. Have there been website audits to see if they are performing at the level that they should? If not, there are third parties that do audits, and will notify if performance goes down below a set point. Additionally, I assume they have multiple internet access points, should one go down. They advertise 24/7 "fanatical" support. When I saw that ARRL was looking to take the servers "in house", I was a bit concerned. It appears that this was done to have more control over the system, and address load times, as reported by those on the board. I read that John Bloom felt that this would be an improvement, but have metrics been done with the ARRL HQ internet service? Could it handle the load that the ARRL website gets from day to day? Would there be a 24/7 call system to correct problems? What if the internet service provider goes down? Is there power backup beyond the usual UPS's? I guess the main question would be whether a loss of the website overnight or a few days (during an ice storm) would be considered a significant problem. In short, ARRL is in the business of promoting Amateur Radio, not being an expert on all things related to the internet. As a Vice Director, I am not privy to all the details of the web project, nor do I expect my comments to be taken seriously. However, I see the web project was taken over personally by our CEO. Despite frustration with internal and external pressures, he has done due diligence in evaluating ways to correct current problems while moving the project forward. It is time that we come together as a board family and give him the support he needs to be successful! '73 de JIM N2ZZ ARRL Vice Director Roanoke Division ARRL, the national association for Amateur RadioT -----Original Message----- From: Cliff Ahrens [mailto:cliff.ahrens@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 10:50 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: ARRL Website Complaint.... Given the number of complaints about the Web server response time, and the increased usage of the Web site and ARRL store during the holiday season, should staff consider a temporary increase of the amount of server space being rented in the Rackspace cloud. As Dave noted, the 2011 Plan recommended to the Board by staff and the A&F committee includes purchasing 4 in-house Web servers at an approximate cost of $6,000, with a projected implementation at the end of the 1st Qtr 2011. The increased rental cost at Rackspace would be a short-term fix, pending the move to in-house servers. And maybe that move could be expedited as well. Cliff K0CA

1 0