Being a recent SM (well, about a year ago), I think I see the concern. On the previous website, doing appointments was very easy. The website knew who you were (SM), and what section you were from. The appointments were in a "drop down box". All I had to do was pick the appointment from a drop-down box and put in the call of the appointee. The member database was queried, and member data was displayed. In fact, it would also tell you if the prospective appointee's membership had lapsed-so that you could stop the processing at that point. It would then let you know if the prospective appointee held that position, and give an option to appoint (if not already an appointee) or cancel the appointment. Two or three "clicks" and you were done. The data was then automatically sent to Leona/Steve for entry into the ARRL (Siebel) system. Now I see that the process to add or delete an appointee is much like the old postcard system, just with no stamp needed. So, it is true that the functionality of adding/deleting appointees has decreased. I polled our Division SM's. Of the two that responded, one would deal directly with Leona, and the other fills out the top two and bottom two lines of the web form and submits it to Leona. So, I mention this as an observation. I was very impressed with the functionality of doing appointments with the previous website. This one is functional, but not quite as elegant. The difference is invisible to us and the members, but not to the SM's. '73 de JIM N2ZZ ARRL Vice Director Roanoke Division ARRL, the national association for Amateur RadioT -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 11:01 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: Web project status report 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