Mike, I think you are correct. I missed that it was also sent to the LoTW list. For everyone to read,,, here it is again. :) Mark, HDX *From: *Dave AA6YQ <aa6yq@ambersoft.com> *Date: *Sunday, January 31, 2021 at 10:37 PM *To: *"ARRL-LoTW@groups.arrl.org" <ARRL-LoTW@groups.arrl.org> *Cc: *"Hippisley, George (Bud), W2RU, (Dir, RK)" <w2ru@arrl.org>, "Williams, Dale, WA8EFK (Dir, GL)" <wa8efk@arrl.org>, "Norris, David, K5UZ (Dir, DL)" <dnorris@arrl.org>, "Norton, Richard N6AA (Dir, SW)" < richardjnorton@yahoo.com>, "Hopengarten, Fred, K1VR, (Dir, NE)" < fred@antennazoning.com>, "Ryan, Jeff, K0RM (Dir, RM)" <k0rm@arrl.org>, "Stratton, John, N5AUS (Dir, WG)" <n5aus@n5aus.com>, "Carlson, Kermit, W9XA (Dir, CD)" <kcarlson@arrl.org>, "Holden, Matt, K0BBC (Dir, DD)" < mtholde@gmail.com>, 'Mickey N4MB' <n4mb@arrl.net>, "Ritz, Mike, W7VO, (Dir, NW)" <w7vo@comcast.net>, "Jairam, Ria, N2RJ (Dir, HD)" <n2rj@arrl.org>, "Blocksome, Rod, K0DAS (Dir, MW)" <rblocksome@arrl.org>, "Abernethy, Tom, W3TOM (Dir, AT)" <w3tom@arrl.org>, "Shelley, Barry, N1VXY" < bshelley@arrl.org>, "Vallio, Bob, W6RGG (2nd VP)" <w6rgg@arrl.org>, "Middleton, Diane, W2DLM (CFO)" <dmiddleton@arrl.org>, "Raisbeck, Mike, K1TWF (1st VP)" <K1TWF@arrl.org>, "Roderick, Rick, K5UR (President)" < K5UR@arrl.org>, "Niswander, Rick, K7GM (Treasurer)" <rniswander@arrl.org>, "Stafford, Rod, W6ROD (Intl Affairs VP)" <W6ROD@arrl.org>, Greg K0GW < gpwidin@comcast.net>, "Bernstein, Dave, AA6YQ" <aa6yq@ambersoft.com> *Subject: *RE: [ARRL-LoTW] LoTW 2.0 + AA6YQ comments below The January 2021 ARRL LoTW committee minutes make interesting reading: http://www.arrl.org/files/file/ODV/Board%20Meeting%20Jan%202021/Document%202... 21.pdf In an online interview with K3LR < https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1138&v=5bKv6InXAkg&feature=youtu.be> in December, David Minster AA2AA (ARRL’s new CEO) talks excitedly about “Project X”, a complete re-engineering/re-imagining of LoTW plus the awards admin as a cloud-based system … with usability and functionality improvements. Great to see overt support from the top, including things mentioned recently on here e.g. ‘a dashboard’. I’d love to see some mock-ups to find out what that might be. + I spent ~35 years in the computer hardware and software engineering business at Data General (minicomputers, microprocessors, operating systems, compilers) and Rational Software. Rational developed the software process and tools successfully employed in large-scale projects like the Space Station avionics, the Canadian Air Traffic Control System, several commercial aircraft, several military command-and-control systems, stock exchanges, and embedded medical equipment like pacemakers and defibrillators; as the founding VP Development, I spent a quarter of my time engaged with our customers to listen to their critique and suggestions. + Over that span and since I retired after IBM bought Rational, I can count the number of instances on one hand in which a significant existing system was successfully maintained in parallel with the development of a new replacement system from scratch. Microsoft, for example, accomplished it with Windows NT: they hired Dave Cutler (architect of DEC's VAX VMS operating system), gave him an unlimited budget, and protected him politically. Mostly, the result of this approach is disaster - with both the existing project and its intended replacement starved for resources and management attention; in more than one case, the competition escalated to sabotage. In this day and age, spending years designing and implementing a significant online system without continuous feedback from users is just stupid. The "we'll pull a beautiful LoTW 2.0 rabbit out of our hat two years from now" approach is a classic anti-pattern. + The approach far more likely to succeed is to design the desired future architecture, and then define an evolutionary roadmap that achieves that future architecture through a sequence of incremental steps starting with the current system. Each step produces an iteration that can be tested and deployed to the user community. After each such iteration, user feedback and lessons learned drive updates to the architecture and roadmap, and the next iteration proceeds. Not only is the end result more likely satisfy user needs, users see a continuous stream of incremental improvements. In software engineering, we call this "iterative development"; it's been in successful use for decades. + We evolved just such a going-forward plan in the ARRL LoTW Committee, of which I was a member from its founding in 2013 until the ARRL removed all development resources from LotW in late 2017, eliminating any possibility of implementing it. + Several weeks ago, after viewing the "Project X" segment of the video cited above, I conveyed this perspective to CEO Minster via email; evidently his "I will respond to every email" policy does not apply to all ARRL members. + The ARRL removed all development resources from LoTW in late 2017 to salvage its failed attempt to out-source the much-needed replacement of its DXCC system; that replacement DXCC system has yet to see the light of day. Around the same time, the ARRL spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a commercial Association Management software package: http://www.arrl.org/news/reshaping-arrl-objectives-refocusing-arrl-hq-struct... + When last I checked, this software package had still not been deployed. + LoTW's two decades of tribulations are the result of a well-meaning but software-naïve management that accepted a ludicrously under-scoped project plan, and then insisted on adding functionality rather than addressing all of the corners cut during its initial implementation - like functional testing, performance testing, stress testing, usability testing, and documentation for users; it's no wonder the thing ground to a halt in late 2012. + When you can barely keep a rickety Cessna airborne, putting a colony on Mars should not be your next objective. + I wish the ARRL team luck, but luck won't help. In software engineering, hope is not a strategy. 73, Dave, AA6YQ - licensed as Novice: 1990 - ARRL Technical Innovation Award: 2008 - #1 DXCC Honor Roll: 2008 - DXCC Challenge 3000: 2008 - ARRL Presidents Award: 2020 On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 2:20 PM Mike Raisbeck via arrl-odv < arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote:
Ria et al.,
Just to be sure, are we referring to the "RE: [ARRL-LoTW] LoTW 2.0" diatribe that YQ sent? If so, Ria, you should have gotten it - he sent it to n2rj@arrl.org. Bill - it does appear that he missed you.
If it was a different email, I'd like a copy ;-)
73, Mike K1TWF
-----Original Message----- From: rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com> To: ac0wmoo11@gmail.com Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Sent: Mon, Feb 1, 2021 4:29 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:31882] Re: Advice please
He didn’t copy me either.
Maybe we ought to see what he said.
73 Ria N2RJ
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 3:59 PM AC0W Bill <ac0wmoo11@gmail.com> wrote:
He didn’t copy all the directors either, I had to receive second hand also.
My opinion is your time is spent better elsewhere. Whatever you send him he will use for ammunition in another message.
Someone else noticed some of his references are a little dated. While he takes shots at you, his references are to statements made by previous CEO’s.
Bill AC0W
*From:* arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> *On Behalf Of *Mark J Tharp *Sent:* Monday, February 1, 2021 2:31 PM *To:* Minster, David NA2AA (CEO) <dminster@arrl.org> *Cc:* arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> *Subject:* [arrl-odv:31878] Re: Advice please
I agree with Bud. YQ seems to be the kind that will never let up, and IMHO the less ammunition you provide in a reply, the better.
Also, YQ did not cc all the Vice directors in his letter, so some may be curious what the hub bub is about. I received it second hand so do not feel it appropriate to share myself.
Mark, HDX
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 10:04 AM Minster, David NA2AA (CEO) < dminster@arrl.org> wrote:
Dear ODV,
As you know, I am very open to your guidance and advice. It is key to my success, and ultimately the success of ARRL. I firmly believe that.
I have read the diatribe many of you received from Dave Bernstein, AA6YQ, regarding LoTW.
I have authored a private response to him – which I have not sent – but if you were to read it, you would conclude that it is firm and brutally honest.
So here’s my question: how do YOU take Dave’s soapbox rants and self-aggrandizing, especially when it comes to attacking the CEO (who he did not copy on his rant)?
Do you feel it is something worthy of me attempting to manage, or have you (like many) given up on him as a lost cause and feel that I should just ignore his feedback?
I’d really like to have him as a resource, but I am struggling with his complete and sustained inability to collaborate and his non-factual statements used to further his inflexible points of view.
This is an important issue because creating a collaborative environment with members is everything to me. And it is something that must be managed.
David _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv