Bill,
Here
are the answers to your questions.
1.
Why are we giving more money to Fathom to add the same
features we had under the old web site and should have been part of their
original work?
The general
principle, agreed on by us and Fathom, is that features on the old site will be
carried over the new site. They have never disputed that. However,
this can sometimes be a gray area because the new site works differently than
the old site because of the local content control system. Transitioning
from one technology to another is not always a one to one correlation.
2.
How much extra are we now being asked to pay for the
data downloads that SMs and ODV used to get under the old web site?
There would be no
charge to simply add the previous report functionality. We want to
implement an improved report generator and we have been working with Fathom to
determine exactly how to implement this.
An expanded and
improved report generator would provide a more uniform interface to the users
and simplify site maintenance. The expanded version of the Report
Generator will cost between $10K and $15K depending on the features that we
want to add such as users having the ability to choose the fields they want and
the format of the report.
3.
Why wasn't this done under the original proposal
agreement?
See above. We probably should
have specified the report function more precisely, but we did not.
4.
What other features did we have on the old site that we
need and used, and are not available on the new site?
The features that are still missing
are detailed in the report that I sent the Board on Saturday. The
previous site evolved over 15 years and contained many functions.
Because of the size of the site, there may still be some features that may not
be working correctly, but I believe that we have captured them and we are
correcting the majority of the problems.
5.
We're over budget, way past the completion dates, still
having problems with the new site AND still being asked to send more money to
Fathom.
We are not over budget with payments
to Fathom with regard to payments due them on the original agreement. In fact,
we still are withholding a small amount of money (approx $4200) from the
original project budget from them. Barry did an analysis of the time and
effort Web project for you previously.
Some new
questions that come to mind:
6.
Your items 5 and 15 report generator and expanded RSS
audio feeds is dependent upon a new agreement/contract with Fathom for
additional work. Has A&F or the EC approved the expenditure of
additional funds to Fathom, if not, under whose authority would those funds be
released?
I discussed this
with Jim Fenstermaker and the A & F Committee that we anticipated some
follow on work with Fathom. We will need to have some continuing relationship
with Fathom until our IT Department has the time and expertise to do all
the work on the Site ourselves.
The
new agreement, that Chris Imlay is helping me with, will specify the terms and
conditions of our overall business relationship with Fathom. Individual
projects will be added to the master agreement as required and approved.
Because of the
sensitivity of our relationship with Fathom, I discuss any expenditure with
Dave and for any large expenditure, I would let Jim Fenstermaker know about
it. Additional work to date beyond the original contract has been less
than $500. This was for two additions to the Contact Form : http://www.arrl.org/contact-arrl
1. A Subject
field
2. A Broken Links
category.
These were not in
the original specs for the contact form.
7.
Several weeks ago, I found I no longer had access to
download files within ODV. I sent a note to Dave K1ZZ and access was
restored the following day. Early last week, I tried to get a list of clubs
within the WPA Section on the Search for ARRL Affiliated Clubs in public side
of the website and was presented with a list of the first 8 clubs within
WPA. Upon selecting “next” for the next 8 clubs, the search
was lost and I was given page 2 for 2196 clubs. I passed that information
to Katie who acknowledged the search list was not operating properly and she
would see about getting it fixed. To date, it still isn’t fixed and
I haven’t been told when it might be fixed. It would be nice to
know what bugs or problems we are still seeing with the website. Perhaps
a listing from Bugzilla posted on ODV?
I am sorry about
the Club query form. The second page worked previously but Fathom has
been working on the Club data along with Jon’s staff so something must
have broken while they were working on it. We have put in a priority
request with Fathom this morning again to get it fixed.
I don’t
think that Bugzilla would be the best way to do this since it is really a
browser based IT tool. I will continue to provide regular updates and
other updates of importance as they occur.
8.
Item 11 – Make Interactive Forums
Operational. I’d rather see features/functions of the old website
put in place before we do any additional work on making new features work and I
know my members and volunteers within the Atlantic Division feel the same way.
Our highest
priorities are restoring the functionality of the Web Site and revenue related
improvements. Among the lower priority items, some are easier and less
time consuming than others. The Forum capability has been a part of the
Content Management System since launch and will take relatively little time to
implement this feature after the higher priority items are resolved.
9.
Item 15 – Expanded RSS Audio Feeds. Same is
my item 8.
This is the same
situation as the Report generator. We are trying to develop a feature
that can be used across all content pages, not just a hard code on a single
page. We never anticipated the demand for RSS feeds across the site when
we started two years ago, but it is now a more common Web feature and we want
to make it available across all content pages.
73,
Harold
Harold Kramer, WJ1B
Chief Operating Officer
ARRL -the national association for Amateur Radio
225 Main Street
Newington, CT 06111
(860) 594 -0220