Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Alex Bailey

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
General Discussion / Where's Management?
« on: January 13, 2011, 03:24:21 PM »
Anthony raises a valid point. The TRC was designed to serve as a guide for initial training, which could relieve the training department of each ARTCC from teaching the basics that can be applied anywhere. This would allow for instructors to focus on the intricacies of their individual airspace, cutting down time spent instructing and combating burnout by instructors. It was also developed so that all training administrators could edit the material to keep it up to date. I'm not sure how it is being utilized now, but at one point this was the intent.

General Discussion / Where's Management?
« on: January 12, 2011, 09:33:14 PM »
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]What you're suggesting is that VATUSA is sufficiently unique that absolutely no objective comparison is possible with any other organization, no matter what its nature. Therefore, we have no objective way of determining whether the structure and size of VATUSA is effective. In the real world, this is completely unacceptable and won't get you anywhere. And having worked in structured volunteer and hobbyist organizations for 25 years this year, I can tell you it doesn't pass muster there either.[/quote]

I see where you are coming from, but I still can't lead myself to believe that we can compare VATUSA/VATSIM to other organizations carte blanche. I agree that we can determine effectiveness through comparison on some occasion and it is obvious that we all tap our professional experiences and apply (or used to apply) them to the network. However, companies have individuals who get paid and by virtue of the position can be fired. Unfortunately, VATSIM doesn't take that stance and in some instances it seems it would rather defend the troll rather than support the staff who wants to allow them to seek other opportunities, which in turn would benefit the organization as well as the individual who is no longer performing their duties. Not to mention that getting out of VATSIM politics is a gift on its own.  

I currently sit on the board of directors for a non-profit whose annual budget reaches into the latter half of the six figures. I've attempted to draw comparisons, but I simply can't find much common ground. Both include a bit of hobbyist mentality, involve donated resources (and we bring in income from our operations), and have a staff who are dedicated to improve the cause. Beyond this, I can't make the assertion that a certain number of staff should apply to both equally. I think VATSIM would be better off if our management style was adopted, but we know that won't be happening ever.  

One thing you should realize about VATUSA is that you need to see the division management as a different function than the ARTCC management. I can agree with you from a standpoint that assistants at the ARTCC level is absolutely ridiculous, period. I believe an ARTCC can and should utilize an ATM, Training Administrator, and an events guy. Deputy ATMs, probably not needed in most ARTCCs. As for the webmaster issue which you frequently tackle, I agree that more cooperation and sharing of resources should occur in order to prevent reinventing the wheel 20+ times in every facility, but it is a position that I don't believe fits into a bloated mess regardless. VATSIM had talked previously about expanding CERT to allow ARTCC leaders to manage rosters among other things, which in my opinion would reduce the level of backend work that webmasters at each ARTCC need to do (and would likely remove the need for their position entirely).

With that said, ARTCCs each have their own flavor, or personality if you will. I say let them operate as needed with sufficient oversight by VATUSA to prevent malicious activity and favoritism, which tends to happen at that level more than others.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Part of the challenge I see with VATUSA is that there's a group of individuals within an organization that aggressively promotes the notion that no one outside their group is capable of assessing their effectiveness with any accuracy. They don't seem to be capable of much introspection as to what of their duties are really necessary or required. Those are great signs of an organization incapable of self-improvement.[/quote]

I agree, but let me address your statement with a question. Doesn't this apply to the Board of Governors and Founders as well?  

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]I think you confuse the elimination and reorganization of positions with letting people go, and that's not what a good manager should do. If you have a good team of individuals (and I've seen nothing about any of them individually to suggest otherwise) there's nothing preventing you from changing the structure to best apply these individuals - maybe that requires bringing things out of the ARTCC level to VATUSA, maybe it involves pushing things upwards, etc.[/quote]

You're absolutely correct. In the instance that I described, it was my assessment that nothing could be done to keep those individuals on staff in the manner in which you describe. I didn't see anything that could be brought to the VATUSA level that we weren't already attempting to push voluntarily. Andrew did a lot of work as the webmaster to try and relieve those duties by the ARTCCs, but it was intended to be voluntary and some did use his services. The exception to the first point was after Andrew took over, when he moved Robert from the ATD to the Pilot Services position which had been discussed between all of us when I was still the director. It was entirely their idea and it was a good one, but it didn't resolve the issue of the 3 others and the communication director.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Instead, at some point we should grab a beer and you can explain to me how onerous and complicated it is. As a sign of my lack of malice, I'll pay[/quote]

I was actually driving through your area a day before the snow hit. However, your offer is enticing.  

General Discussion / Where's Management?
« on: January 12, 2011, 02:13:18 PM »
The discussion in this topic has been quite interesting and I guess I will chime in since I've held the Division Director and ATM positions. The crux of the matter is that people tend to compare the operations of VATSIM or VATUSA to a real world company, or other volunteer organizations, or virtual airlines. Quite frankly, that comparison cannot and should not be made. I see references to Delta Virtual, and no offense to Luke, but you tons more staff than VATUSA. You harp on the duties of the ATD, but your VA has multiple staff positions each with multiple assistants. I'm not saying that this structure is inefficient or inoperable, but you have a structure that mirrors VATUSA staff and yet you're here to criticize how this division operates. You've said it many times in public as well as to me; you aren't a controller and you don't understand how the administration of the ATC side of network operates. You ask questions in this thread to seek understanding, but many can see the maliciousness laced through each of your questions.

Mike explained his duties as the training director while I was the director of VATUSA. My intent with this post was to chime in with my opinions and experiences as director, and what was going through my mind in the process. I must admit that when I initially took the position, I filled all of the vacant positions out of precedence rather than a true understanding of what each would do with the team I was responsible for directing. I began to wonder why we needed so many ATDs, why we needed a communications manager, and what the consequences would be if I decided to cut back positions. However, I did not want to lose the people who were staffing these positions. The contributions by each ATD, by Ric, and everyone else on staff were too great to ask them to step down. It was ultimately my decision not to remove any of those positions from the structure unless one of the individuals resigned on their own accord, which never happened (and I didn't want it to happen either).

My deputy director was Alan Hensley who openly admitted that his position didn't serve much of any operational purpose except to be an advisor. Alan was correct, as his position didn't have any tangible duties to be seen by the division. However, his valuable insight and our friendship (which developed after his appointment, I didn't know Alan before) was what made his position so valuable to this division. He was also able to step in when I was away and he provided oversight among the staff ranks so I could focus on other duties. Someone can comment that he could have been an advisor without holding the position, but this is not the case since he had access to administrative pages of the division that was vital for continuity of operations in case I was unable to complete my duties.

I also found Mike's position to be incredibly important for how I was running VATUSA. His duties seemed endless, and Mike has a special talent for communicating with ARTCCs and maintaining not only the training department, but also providing excellent advice and input on division matters as a whole. I don't think anyone ever truly realizes the amount of work that goes into this hobby until they actually take a position and try it out. Luke, you should explore the ATC side of the network and see first-hand the intricacies of its operation.

I say all of this for one primary reason: each position in the division serves as a member of the director's team. And each position is in place to house a leader who will serve and provide direction to the members of the division. Anyone who accepts these positions simply for the title will not last long due to the amount of time involved with running the division. Also, I believe that whoever is tasked with the responsibility to hire these positions will recognize that a particular candidate has applied to do the work rather than accept the title. Additionally, each director should choose how he/she wants to run the division, with the obvious exception that continuity of operations is important. During my tenure, I found that each person was contributing to the successes of the division equally and therefore I had no reason to downsize at that time. Each person was able to complete their staffing duties *AND* enjoy the network sufficiently if they chose to do so.

Did I discuss partially or completely removing the ATD position? Yes. To be quite honest, I did want to remove the position because I believe that myself and Alan could have managed the ARTCCs sufficiently without the position. As I said earlier, the decision was a tough one and I found that the contributions by Tom, Robert, Cornell, and Roger were too great and their assistance was appreciated. Had I made the decision to remain as the director for longer than I did, then I'm sure appropriate action may have been taken down the road. But it simply was not an abrupt decision in my opinion.

To conclude my remarks, I will say that Gary is the director and he has the ability to lead this division however he sees fit. If he can operate without a training director or a deputy director, then that is his right and he should be supported for making that decision. I think that as long as VATUSA exists and is in place to provide support to the members of VATSIM, then it will continue to do so with 3 staff members or 30 staff members. The goal here is to fly and control, and have fun doing so. As long as you can do both of these things, then it seems unnecessary to troll forum discussions with irrelevant dialogue. VATUSA appears to be running properly, and it will be the Executive Committee's and BoG's job to oversee and ensure this continues to happen.

General Discussion / Integrity of the Network
« on: December 03, 2010, 12:43:11 AM »
Quote from: Richard Jenkins

Think we're talking about two different people. Andrew mentioned the person he was talking about as being the ZTL ATM in SATCO and a founder of VATSIM. That is Joel Lesser.

The communication're right. How the message is delivered is key. I also think there is an element of mistrust between the BoG/EC/USA. ATM's are convinced that VATSIM is here to dumb it down to IVAO and the Zone. Nothing could be further from the truth. What they want is quality training delivered in a timely manner with a minimum amount of delay that serves no relevant purpose.

The BoG/EC also have an issue in that they don't totally trust some of the ARTCC staff. When they find a staff member lying to them or playing games under the radar, it just reinforces their belief. Right now, we know about a DATM that is using double connections with a fake account to boost the stats at an airport he wants to make a major. If you're reading this..knock it off!

Don't always assume the worst. Those guys don't wake up each morning wondering how they can "F" with the guys in VATUSA. Like the off-peak thing. For whatever reason it was never discussed during the GRP review and GRP doesn't really allow for it as practiced now. So the common sense thing to do is put things in a holding pattern and get it resolved at the yearly review. I feel the off-peak issue is different than say a plain and simple GRP violation that just needs to stop. This issue has circumstances that sets it apart.


Why can't the whole gang think, act, and be like you?  

Now, if your last paragraph was how the issue was approached from the beginning you wouldn't have staff falling on their swords or spilling their kool-aid.

General Discussion / Integrity of the Network
« on: December 02, 2010, 10:57:23 PM »
Quote from: Richard Jenkins
Then he needs to open his mouth and say something, because it has been dead silence from him for quite some time. Instead of me constantly fighting with Collins about obfuscated training schema and coming off looking like a hardcore ATC nut, he could chime in and help.

Richard Jenkins
VATSIM Co-Founder
"I typed my way through Cal Scream 1"


He would have an ulcer if he returned to this. I'm pretty sure he was sick and tired of things when he was on VATUSA staff and how we were treated by the BoG during that time period, it could only be magnified now. You sat in his living room, so I think you know his character. When somebody like him throws in the towel, it means something.

Quite frankly, many of us no longer have the desire to participate in this network in its current state. The management of VATSIM have simply pushed people away, both in word and in action. You have the current President who tells people to leave if they don't like it (and they do leave). I still have a shred of compassion for this network so I tend to (attempt) to keep up on what is happening, and I do have concerns for where this place is headed. There are plenty of people who will just leave and never look back.

Since you mentioned Collins... the entire GRP and much of the current "status quo" was modeled after Oceania's policies and how they conduct business. I said this in the GRP forum and I'll repeat again: You can not take procedures that work for a division of a whopping 40 members and apply them to a division consisting of hundreds, if not a thousand, controllers and expect it to work. My administration with VATUSA did a lot of work to relieve some of the 1-on-1 training, thanks primarily to Mike Hodge, Rob Prescott, and Alan Hensley. We communicated this with the ARTCC staff and started a training website to be used for basic training so that ARTCCs could focus on teaching the intricacies of their airspace. But nobody above would recognize this or the progress made, the collective management only show their faces when something is done wrong or when they can stake someone to the wall.

But, you're here now Richard. You have to fix the top before you can come down here and fix the bottom. I would venture a guess that most of the resistance you meet here and in other divisions would reduce dramatically if your board members took a different approach with handling business. The way VATSIM management goes about communicating and managing the network could improve significantly. I think you could agree that many disagreements and conflicts stem not from what was said, but how it was said. The President telling people to leave if they don't like it is probably a good place to start, because after a while, people will start taking the advice.

Oh, and I can disagree with how VATSIM treats its members and its staff publicly now that I no longer hold any positions that they can threaten me with.  

General Discussion / Integrity of the Network
« on: November 08, 2010, 06:57:28 PM »
Boy I didn't think I'd return back to the forums, but some good friends ushered me back in this direction. I, too, left VATSIM for many of the reasons stated in this thread, although my view wasn't as popular back when I chose to make the decision. Everything said in this thread is entirely the reason why I resigned the Division Director position, and my dissent lead to my dismissal from the pilot training staff. I really feel bad for Gary, because as a former staff member I know exactly how it feels to not be considered as part of the solution to many problems. The BoG and Founders ARE out of touch with this organization and will continue to be until they actually listen to the constituency.

I would caution those applying the carte blanche principle to this debate. I can promise you that the entire BoG is not corrupt or out of touch, and I'm afraid Kyle Ramsey's remarks are being applied out of context. Kyle's experiences make him a valuable asset to VATSIM, and I would encourage everyone who has issues with VATSIM to speak with him because he WILL support a valid opinion that is supported by evidence. I worked with him for quite some time and I stand nothing to gain by the public praise, so take that for what it's worth.

Hopefully the upper management will recognize that David Klain's advice of "If you don't like it, then leave" is actually being taken. You've lost people who once had a passion for this hobby and for this organization. You are NOTHING without your volunteers, and this is something to think about as you see those of us who have left and those who are currently packing their bags. You're losing your playground.

[Insert all of AJ's post here, as he said it better than I could.]

- Alex

General Discussion / VATSIM VA Partner Audit Manager Position Opening
« on: March 29, 2010, 05:20:22 PM »
I think Bo's concern rests with the fact that the administrative facets of this organization are growing exponentially. Now we have assistant events coordinators, assistant TA's, and numerous assistants to BoG members. The problem is that the BoG members continually hire help to the point that they end up doing nothing except acting as the figure head. If they don't have the time or desire to complete their duties, then please resign and spare us all the heartache of having BoG members who don't do anything and can't seem to respond to emails.

VATSIM is quickly becoming a mess of bureaucracy, which Bo has been pointing out for many months if not years. Bo and I even exchanged shots at each other when I was USA1 over these very issues, funny thing is I discounted him as some typical idiot who is out there to stroke his own ego. After speaking with Bo, I was wrong. Very wrong.

Zazula has tons of "assistants" under him called "Senior Supervisors" and a VP SUPs "Secretary". Kyle is now following in Zazula's footsteps and hiring a bunch of people to do his work. In a company where a manager can afford to hire out his work, there would be nothing wrong with this. But in VATSIM, too many people with titles are getting in the way of true progress and meeting the desires of the Founders, how ever many we have left...

Callum, none of this is a dig at you at all. I know you are doing a fantastic job in Kyle's department which is clearly a great example of teamwork and dedication to this hobby. However, the amount of people with titles around here is excessive and is quickly becoming a joke, or circus, if you will.

General Discussion / What we need to be discussing
« on: February 19, 2010, 10:48:22 PM »
Quote from: Jeff Thomas
Three problems.

1) We make it too hard to become an app or center controller.  Staff it and they will come.  No staff=no pilots.
2) The pilot software is a bit daunting to non-computer types.
3) There is no training available for pilots, and the pat answer is always

Pilot training is on its way, but currently there are plenty of organizations providing training until we can get the VATSIM program off the ground.  

General Discussion / Do we even need a VATUSA1?
« on: February 17, 2010, 09:25:57 PM »
Quote from: Dave Klain
No disagreement from me.  Several people have emailed me on occasion unhappy with the words I've used in a particular post, but after almost 20 years' experience as a speechwriter to some of the senior military and elected leaders in this country, I'm pretty good at choosing words that convey exactly what I mean to say....



Therein lies the problem, saying what you mean to say doesn't always make it right or appropriate. I don't believe you truly understood Andrew's words, or maybe you did and simply choose to use it as another platform to share with us your wonderful career in the military, which we've heard ad nauseum. Regardless, you encourage resignations and show people the door whose views differ from your own. If you mean to say these things, then by all means continue to leave yourself open to scathing criticism. That attitude doesn't help VATSIM...

General Discussion / Do we even need a VATUSA1?
« on: February 16, 2010, 09:35:04 AM »
Point is, the RD could never get answers for the DD because no information was passed down. The BoG only seemed interested in the operations of VATUSA when something was going wrong. There was absolutely no support any other time.

General Discussion / Do we even need a VATUSA1?
« on: February 15, 2010, 01:44:13 PM »
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]The implementation of Divisions is where things have gotten quite interesting and VATEUD and VATUSA present very different models of how things are managed. In VATEUD, the Division chief is an interface between the FIR chiefs to the RD, handles administrative things (CERT, etc.). In VATUSA, the Division Chief has a staff which duplicates many of the things done at the FIR/ARTCC level due to a desire to standardize things (thus the VATUSA TA, Events Manager, etc.).[/quote]

Huh? VATEUD lists more people on its staff page than VATUSA does and most positions tend to compare to VATUSA positions as well. VATEUD also has a training director and events manager. What you described for VATEUD is also the case for VATUSA. The Division Directors act as an interface between FIR/ARTCC chiefs and the RD, we handled admin duties, and that was about it. I fail to see your point.  Did you ask any former division directors what their duties were or did I just miss the point of this paragraph being an assumption?

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]I am not saying one is better than another, but they are different. VATEUD takes on the role of primarily information dissemination and coordination. VATUSA takes on the role of managing the ARTCCs in far greater detail than VATEUD would ever consider doing. Different models...[/quote]

Again, what are you basing your opinion on? The only role VATUSA has taken in managing the ARTCCs is simply doing what you guys wanted us to do. The BoG failed entirely when I was DD to provide guidance and assistance with the VATSIM policies, specifically what ATMs had the authority to do. I assume this was also the case under Andrew's leadership. You guys consistently tell us that ATMs have no authority to do anything, then wonder why we spend so much time regulating their activities. We wouldn't be doing this if we were allowed to put trust into our staff to do their duties.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]VATSIM President - Prime Minister
BOD - the Cabinet members (each with a different portfolio)
EC - Parliment with each EC member being an RD representing his/her regions
Division Directors would probably be something like County Managers or Town Council Presidents...[/quote]

Such a huge jump from EC to Division. Is this why the ego of some upper VATSIM management is such a distraction to DD's who want to improve their division? Is this why you look down upon everyone with such ease? This exact attitude is what turns away your volunteers and sparks such hostility in these forums.

General Discussion / Do we even need a VATUSA1?
« on: February 14, 2010, 02:50:03 AM »
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Now I have heard more than one former VATUSA1 report to us in these forums that the problems stem from the VATSIM leadership, and I have no emprical way to tell whether this is true. However, I would argue that, objectively, the former VATUSA1 representatives have no empirical way to tell that their allegations are true either, having not been members of the BOG. The BOG doesn't seem to think that they are the cause of any problems, and neither do our former VATUSA1's. So I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here, I'm just saying that I can't say with proof that either of the parties are fully reliable, as they both are, by design, meant to represent the interests of only a subset of the VATSIM population. The VATUSA1 clan is trying to do the best they can for VATUSA, and the BOG is trying to do the best they can for the EC and the RD's. All I can objectively deduce from this is that more communication is needed between these parties. If one of the parties is indeed actively trying to subjugate the needs of the other, then this will eventually make itself known, but I have a hard time believing that this is the case, as it would take an act of willful malice from a person, or group of persons, who have concurrently supplied the VATSIM network with voluntary resources (monetary and otherwise) - and those two concepts simply don't mix (charity and malice). So we have to deduce that both parties are acting in their own best interest, and with their best intentions, and that there is simply more work that needs to be done (on the part of both parties) in order to get VATUSA running the way that both VATUSA and the BOG want VATUSA to run.[/quote]


You hit the nail entirely on its head with these comments. Every VATUSA1 has represented what they thought was best for VATUSA. Each one utilized their own talents and abilities to make this division a better place, and I believe each Director has done just that even if we weren't around for very long.

We also have our opinions on the state of this network, and ultimately all had our own reasons for resigning. From my personal opinion backed with various evidence, I believe the breakdown comes with lack of communication and the current management style of the BoG. It seems that a big "event" must happen to get the BoG to take notice of anything, at least within VATUSA in the past year. From my personal experience, the BoG was very quick to criticize and attempt to stake someone (usually when someone below the Director such as an ATM made a "mistake") but wasn't available to answer questions or provide guidance for proactive measures. Again, this is my personal opinion and view of the situation, but where is the motivation to not tell the truth? I don't want to turn this thread into the destructive nature of the other one, so we'll stick to what I believe is a serious problem with communication and the lack of attention to any situation that doesn't cross the BoG mailing list. The BoG seems to work off of a reactive approach to management, rather than a proactive approach to maintaining the network. More time is spent playing damage control rather than managing people and preventing situations before they occur.

Division Directors wouldn't have left on such quick terms if this weren't the case. Ultimately we get sick and tired of the "over communication" when somebody screws up, and wish we could get that same level of communication when we needed some guidance. Each Director takes the position with the intent to stick around for years and each one thinks they know the climate of the position. However, you quickly realize the number of things you CAN'T do and find yourself with a tiny list of things you can do. I realized that I could no longer be an effective leader and stick to the goals I put out for myself simply due to the fact that I could not continue to represent the views of the ATMs when they had questions that I could never get answered from above. At some point you begin to realize you're just a pawn and that's when you decide that this isn't for you anymore. David, you clearly mentioned that there should be no malice with charity, and you're right. But there is still posturing by various individuals inside and outside of the BoG. Some want to move up within the BoG and become President, some outsiders want on the BoG and will be a "yes man" to do it, and others on the BoG are there for the right reasons and truly want to use their position not as a title or circle of influence, but as a true desire to do the work to improve our community.

It all comes down to effective management. The tactics currently employed simply don't portray a good image to those who see how it really works "up there". The "take it or leave it" comments and various other power plays turn off the staff who are trying to do everything they can to fix the problems. As I said before and in other threads, it takes people skills and the realization that "in your face" management doesn't work outside of the military and it will only sour those who are subject to it. VATUSA Division Directors want guidance and support, and it unfortunately has not been happening under the current administration.

None of this is being said to rake over the coals. These are conclusions I arrived at by combining various experiences in the position, and I firmly believe that any corrective measures begin with the Founders and BoG. If those deficiences aren't accepted and accounted for first, then no matter the measure taken at this level there will still be serious problems. You can take away VATNA or VATUSA or even the ATMs, but it's not going to correct the flow of information or the general leadership provided by the BoG. Friendly gestures and genuine offers of assistance backed up with action will always go 100 miles further than swooping in after a conflict.

Tell the VATUSA Directors what they CAN do, what SUPPORT they have, and what they are doing RIGHT. Build a positive relationship and correct the poor image of the board. Fix the top first and get a cohesive bond among and between Founders and the BoG. Once you do this, your staff will enjoy working with you and probably won't leave in 5 months.  

General Discussion / Check-In Responsibility
« on: February 12, 2010, 06:32:49 PM »
Fact of the matter is, some regions do better with people management and working WITH their staff rather than against them. When I had the privilege of negotiating the oceanic agreements with Oceania, Terry clearly had an excellent relationship going with his staff in the region. There was a bond between them and they worked together for the common good.

I have countless records of VATSIM doing the complete opposite with VATUSA. Not once did I ever see anyone above Bryan trying to work with us to solve problems. Bryan gets the short end of the stick in some of the comments coming from people, but he did an excellent job working with me when I was Director. As Andrew said, we were only told what we couldn't do and the only time there was any communication was after an "oh s***" event when the seagulls flew in.

Mike Hodge will have to refresh my memory, but how many emails did we send "up" regarding the behavioral issues we were encountering and how many did we get back?

I have a BoG member on record stating that ATMs have no authority and therefore serve at the whim of VATSIM. I have the same BoG member on record calling Jason Vodnansky a "crap ATM". I have the President of VATSIM threatening ME because an ATM removed a controller from an ARTCC and that controller decided to complain to the BoG after I gave him a solution to the situation. I had no idea he chose to ignore my email (which was his reinstatement to that ARTCC if he wanted it) and go to the BoG, but Mr. Klain so kindly requested information by stating "Bailey better provide some answers or he may find himself out of a job in 3 days" (something to that effect). That sure is a great way to motivate your staff and create a positive working relationship.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]The story I heard is that they are better at asking forgiveness. For their recent VATSIM sins they had to repeat the COR 4 times, the GRP 3 times, and Visiting Controllers 2 times.  [/quote]

So Ron, what is a "VATSIM sin" and why is it a laughing matter? It appears that the problems happening over there were due to lack of oversight from both EC and BoG. Policies don't continue to be broken when people actually care to provide guidance to their staff.

General Discussion / Check-In Responsibility
« on: February 10, 2010, 08:27:55 PM »
Quote from: Richard Jenkins
Okay...let me think about this for a second. I was on the BoG for 9 years. I might know something about this list, but I'm a Founder also. Are you saying the BoG is hiding things from the Founders? Show me an email from this list. I find the BoG is keeping secrets....There is going to be a big problem.

Send me an email/PM if you'd like to hear about it, forum is no place. As for the true issue here, the amount of staff at the division and local level is NOT the reason for all of these issues and shouldn't even be looked at until the upper management fix their problems. VATUSA staff are leaving because of this, and we're talking qualified managers who put their heart into this organization are now leaving. This should send a clear message, and no matter how hard it is to admit the problem and work to fix it - the Founders and BoG must drop the politics and the attitude towards its members and do a better job of calculating decisions and managing the network. You can reject ideas without insulting the well-intentioned VATSIM member who wants to see this place succeed.

I mentioned seagull management above. This is the style of management currently employed by the BoG across many situations. It's an insult to the excellent work being done by division and ARTCC level staff. These guys poor money and time into running their communities and they don't get near the recognition that they deserve. To be completely honest, as VATUSA1 I never did thank them enough or recognize their efforts as best as I could, but through all of the arguments and discussions on policy each one of them has the best interest of VATSIM at heart. Andrew does, Jason does, Dave Klain does - everyone does.

General Discussion / Check-In Responsibility
« on: February 10, 2010, 08:04:34 PM »
Quote from: Richard Jenkins
Are we saying ZLA and the likes couldn't do what they are doing today wtihout VATUSA. If so, why? Could what needs to be done happen at the region level?

As I said, the problem rests with the Founders and BoG. Cut out anything below the EC level and your problems will still exist. The problem isn't the amount of assistants to the assistant events coordinator (that's bad too, but not the real problem). The problem is the management of VATSIM doesn't gel, doesn't realize the impact of their decisions or comments, and then wonder why such turbulence exists. Ask the BoG about their back channel mailing list that the Founders can't see. So where, then, does the problem exist?

Fix the top before you mess with the bottom.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6