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