I checked with my brother who is currently in the job market as a C++ programmer. He said the posting sounds like this position is looking for a C++ programmer on Linux/Unix. There is a shortage of those. He stated it would take some time for a C++ programmer for Windows to get up-to-speed on Linux/Unix so they would not hit the ground running. Bonnie Altus AB7ZQ Northwestern Division Vice Director From: arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Doug Rehman Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 1:22 PM To: 'Shelley, Barry, N1VXY'; 'arrl-odv' Subject: [arrl-odv:22452] Re: LOTW Programmer & IT Task Priority Barry: I’ve altered the subject of this thread to make it easier to track the different topics. My understanding is that this position was authorized by the Board last July and now we don’t even have a viable candidate some 7 months later. C++ is not some arcane programming language that only a few programmers know. I realize that finding the right or nearly right candidate slims the pool, but being at the beginning stage of the search 7 months later is inexplicable. I asked Mr. Keane about how the position was originally advertised; he told me a couple of means including in one of the ARRL news emails. I don’t recall seeing it—perhaps it was buried in an edition that had something else that caught my attention and I missed it. I’d strongly recommend sending out an email blast to the entire membership advertising the position (and only advertising the position). It costs us nothing but may yield the right candidate. Likewise putting it on the ARRL’s FaceBook page and twitter account will spread the word at no additional cost. Yet another advertising venue would be to put an ad in QST of significant enough size to catch attention. I’m certain that the fantastic people in the advertising and graphics sections could put something together that couldn’t be overlooked. While the right candidate might not be an ARRL member, it’s quite possible that an ARRL member knows the right candidate. On a different but still IT related topic, during the discussion of a subsequently withdrawn motion you promised the Board that you would provide a list of the IT section’s current taskings along with their priority so that the Board could review the priorities. I don’t recall ever receiving that list. Doug K4AC From: Shelley, Barry, N1VXY [mailto:bshelley@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:21 AM To: k4ac; arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:22446] Committee Reports From January Board Meeting Doug: To answer your specific question, we have yet to identify a qualified candidate. Initially, we went out to the marketplace through national search sites, our web site and the professional networks of the people who comprise the LoTW advisory groups. Those efforts returned relatively few (less than 10) resumes which, quite honestly, was disappointing. None was a perfect candidate and several didn’t even have the necessary C++ programming experience we’re looking for. The LoTW back end is written in C++. Of the two most interesting candidates that we interviewed, one (a ham) didn’t have enough C++ background and the other, as it turns out, didn’t have permission to work in the United States. Something he failed to mention when he applied. Michael Keane feels, and I agree, that we need someone who can hit the ground running. Hiring a less experienced programmer will only result in a longer training period and a drain on Michael’s time which could be used for other projects. We expect this individual to take a leadership role in LoTW going forward. Since the Board meeting we’ve expanded our search by contacting a search firm that specializes in programmers and I’ve tried to expand that through some contacts I have locally although I suspect the search firm will be more fruitful. We’ve relaxed the initial requirement for the individual to work in Newington but this a) makes the requirement for experience with the ability to work independently even more important and b) opens up the possibility of our having a remote employee which would create nexus in another state. This would result in our having to collect and remit sales tax on sales in that particular state. Not something we can’t do, just another complication and explanation to members of that state. We continue to look and I’ve made this a priority for Michael early this year. 73, Barry J. Shelley, N1VXY Chief Financial Officer ARRL, Inc. The National Association for Amateur Radio (860) 594-0212 www.arrl.org <http://www.arrl.org> From: arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Rehman, Doug, K4AC Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 10:02 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:22446] Committee Reports From January Board Meeting We are nearly a month since the January Board Meeting, yet the committee reports have still not been posted for the membership to view. (http://www.arrl.org/committee-reports) I’ve received a request for the DXAC Report which I find on the ODV secured portion of the website. I presume I can forward that to the member, but the point is that they should be able to find it themselves. At the point we are publishing the minutes of the Board Meeting, why aren’t we publishing the Committee Reports? Is there a reason why this information hasn’t been published yet? As long as we’re on the topic of things not being published yet, what’s the status of the RM-11708 FAQ? While I’m on a roll, have we hired the LOTW programmer yet? If not, why not? Thanks & 73, Doug Doug Rehman, K4AC Director Southeastern Division ARRL—The National Association for Amateur Radio® doug@k4ac.com <mailto:doug@k4ac.com> www.arrlse.org <http://www.arrlse.org/> www.facebook.com/arrlse <http://www.facebook.com/arrlse>