While it may not exactly be the most publicly pleasing way to go about it, Jason absolutely knows what he's talking about. He is the third member to join VATSIM and has held various staff positions before, he's been on VATSIM longer than anybody else on these forums. JV brings up really good points, and obviously the way he brings them up worked for 05-05, so why stop when more needs to be accomplished?

No one said he needs to stop trying to affect positive change - we're just sick of the hammering.  It's rude and noisy.  Use a different technique is all I'm saying.

And no one has questioned Jason's abilities or his areas of expertise.  But quoting the length of his tenure does not mean that all of his actions are sanctioned, carte blanche.

I find it odd and a little disheartening that a VATUSA staff member is ragging on a simple member for sharing his opinions right or wrong.  Jason has not violated the code of conduct, trust me we would all know if he did because there are a list of supervisors and admins who would have at him if he did.
...

Bruce, I would certainly characterize your post as a "sharing of opinion," and I respect that.  I would not characterize the member that I was "ragging on" as simply sharing his opinion.  I've already outlined, in great detail above, how I would characterize this behavior, and I don't feel I need to repeat it again.  So I disagree with your assessment, but that's perfectly fine.  And I know there are no violations of the CoC here, nor did I accuse there being any.  All I'm pointing out is that there is someone constantly banging a hammer on a steel pipe in the building, and nothing is being built, so I am kindly asking for the hammer to stop banging, as it is accomplishing nothing.  Yet another analogy, I know  

Dan,

One of the controllers I was referring to left a post in a related topic here recently, and they transferred out of ZAU in November of last year, stating this as a reason in his post.

I never said anyone was forcing people out of ZAU, but I did imply that people would leave due to personality conflicts.  I have seen more than one controller in my time elect to leave an ARTCC due to another controller - it doesn't have to be a staff member to make the culture at an ARTCC degrade to a point where fellow controllers simply leave due to the ambiance created by one discontented controller.  That mechanism works with great efficacy.

The jar of vinegar and the flies is referring to the lack of success on this forum in trying to see success with the items he wants to see taken care of, and has nothing to do with ZAU or its controllers.  Apparently my analogies are not being understood, but that's alright  

I understand your viewpoint, Dan, and I do not mean to say that anything is in need of attention at ZAU in particular, as I have no way of knowing that about your ARTCC.  My comments are strictly focused on the VATUSA forum, the topics being discussed here, and their effects on the VATUSA membership in general.

When will the VATNA website comply with requirements of the Code of Regulations?  Better yet, why wasn't it set up in compliance with the CoR?

It seems that following the rules still is optional in VATSIM, or shall we call it "selective enforcement"?


Regards,
Jason Vodnansky

It's in the way that you use it, Jason.  Instead of implying that the RD was doing his job poorly (and indirectly suggesting that you, yourself could have done a better job at it), you might try putting in some language that shows that you understand that the RD (and all of the other members of the VATSIM staff) have a lot to do, and that you appreciate their time.  Perhaps you could try throwing that in every once in a while.  Perhaps you don't say so because in fact you do not appreciate their time and dedication?

Next, you might try to stop alleging misbehavior on the part of these dedicated volunteers at every chance you get.  It is not appreciated by the defendants, nor is it appreciated by their colleagues (such as myself), and it only results in discontent on the part of the onlookers of your sililoquies.  My point is that you are accomplishing only negative goals with your current methods.  

Or, if you prefer, you can continue to check your local jar of vinegar to see how many flies you have so far.  As we continue to hear reports of controllers having transferred out of your ARTCC in order to distance themselves from you personally, perhaps you might try to decode the hidden message behind these actions.

Jason, we are all standing ready to attend to the items that you have on our to do lists.  Please send us a prioritized copy and we will attend to them in the order that you desire, starting immediately.  Between working full time, finishing the research on my Ph.D., spending time with my wife and family, traveling out of town and out of the country for work related issues, keeping all of the ARTCC's in the Southern Region happy, managing the LAXFO hub of UVA, controlling for ZDC, and volunteering in my community, I will make certain that your list items are completed on your timeline so as to try to avoid the incessant bludgeoning of the VATSIM staff that you seem to have made your life's work.  

Please try to keep some perspective in this life, and perhaps you could try to make some friends by sharing a kind word or two every once in a while for all of the work that this army of volunteers is doing to help you and your colleagues.  Better yet, perhaps you should apply for a VATUSA staff position so that you could actually take ownership of some of these issues that you seem to think need immediate attention instead of berating their efforts on a daily basis.

Just curious if the VATUSA staff read their emails?  I've emailed 'VATUSA1' and 'VATUSA7' a while back.  Maybe they read the forums only?

Roy,

Although the VATUSA1 email may be redirected at the moment, it should still have been seen by someone on staff.  Also, I know that Tom is around and well, so perhaps there may have been a problem with the email addresses or servers at the time you emailed them.  

Try emailing Tom once again, and if you don't hear back in a day or two, please feel free to email me, and I'll do my best to address your concerns.

Sooooo....

To answer the question at hand: There certainly seems like there is a lot of work to be done - perhaps we could use a VATUSA1 to help do it.  I'm not getting the impression that our motley crew is making much progress by acting as pundits.  I say let's get some leadership in place so that some progress (if any) can be made.  The chances of getting anything done without them are exactly zero.  The chances with leadership in place are greater than that.  I'm ready to do my part.

Jeff, that's a perfectly fine question to ask, and I understand that you are just asking, without any predetermined stake in the question, so to say.  So please understand that my response is not directed towards you in any way, but it is directed towards answering the question.  I, personally, think that abolishing the institution of VATUSA would be an enormous mistake, as any of the subtitutes that one might put in its place would either be worse, or at best, only just as good as having VATUSA in the first place, thereby rendering the idea useless at best, and detrimental at worst.

There is a great deal of value in having a VATUSA Staff, which helps to ensure a level of conformity within the constituent ARTCCs, and also takes on the responsibility of dealing with the bureaucratic issues that would otherwise fall directly onto the ATMs, who, I think we would all agree, already have enough to do.  There is, furthermore, an enormous value of having a leader for the VATUSA Staff, in the person of VATUSA1.  This role is intended to serve as a single point of contact for the entire division, as far as the eyes of VATSIM are concerned.  In every organization, there is a single point of contact - this is the person who is expected to make the final decisions, and who takes the blame for any shortcomings that befall his staff (and then takes due steps to correct them).  There is a great value in having a single leader to every organization of people.  This has been a standard way of leading organizations since...the dawn of civilization.  Have you ever heard of a co-King of a kingdom?  A co-President of a democratic state?  Every method of government has 1) a leader, and 2) a staff of advisors.  The Romans (while they were working properly) had an Emperor, and a Senate.  Each King had his court.  And Bruce, I respectfully disagree that Harold's analogy is in error.  Just because VATSIM does not have funds to dole out, does not make the analogy useless.  The Mayor can not make laws of his own devising, they must also be in line with the laws of the state, and of the nation.  This is indeed much like the relationship between VATUSA with the Region and the BOG/Founders.

If we were to take away the VATUSA staff, then the ARTCC's would answer to who?  VATNA, right?  Guess what - another single point of contact - no change in operation.  What if we were to do away with VATNA as well?  Then who do the ARTCCs answer to?  The EC?  The BOG?  Can you imagine having to run the daily operations of an ARTCC and have to answer directly to the BOG who meets, what, once a quarter?  How would this be expected to work?  

So now you have about 23 organizations that are all on equal terms, with no one to answer to except one of the two choices given above (either to VATNA1 which would be much like the status quo, with the exception that VATNA1 would not have any staff to help with the job, or it would be answering to the EC/BOG, which would basically sever any ties of responsibility between the ARTCCs and their governorship due to the limited daily operations of the BOG).  So now the ARTCCs are free to govern themselves?  This is a sure-fire way to have anarchy ensue, and the order of things would simply come to an end.

VATUSA serves a very well defined purpose, and that is to oversee the operations of the ARTCCs, enable the ARTCC staff with the tools they need in order to to do the jobs that they need to do (at least in theory), and to relieve the burden of the ARTCC staff from dealing with the globally based bureaucratic issues (which do, in fact need to be dealt with in the case of a multinational organization, virtual or not).  VATSIM is a small version of the real world, whether it's a hobby or not.  There are controllers online right now in Japan, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, Libya, South Africa and Urugay - not to mention Canada and the United States.  These are real people from around the globe that are participating in this "hobby".  The organization is complex, and with thousands of members (all of whom have slightly different goals when they log on to the network, by the way), a structure is needed in order to govern the activities on the network, and to give direction to the efforts of so many people, so that those efforts will bear fruit.  

If there were no VATUSA, then the ARTCCs which currently make up VATUSA would become a collection of organizations that would be extremely difficult to manage, to say the least.  This is about the equivalent of the head of a corporation disbanding his or her headquarters and saying, "well, each of the 23 cities in which we have offices will be fine - they can make decisions on their own - just have them each answer to the shareholders individually."  If anyone thinks that it is a good idea to do away with VATUSA, then I ask you to explain to me why the analogy of the corporation giving up their leadership of their consituents is not a common business practice.  Is it because the corporation prefers to weild power that they choose not release their constinuents?  Or is it because the organization as a whole would suffer from lack of central leadership?  I think it is the latter.  Why not have each of the 50 states govern themselves - why do we have a federal government?  The analogies are endless.

And again, if you do away with VATUSA, then the ARTCCs (logically) would have to answer to VATNA1 instead.  So VATNA1 currently does not have a staff like VATUSA does, so now the entire set of functions perfomed by the VATUSA Staff is taken up by one person.  Sounds like a problem - so we should have the VATNA1 representative hire some staff.  Great - now we have simply changed the name "VATUSA" to "VATNA", and our problems stay exactly where they always have been, but with a new, fresh name.  This is not a solution.  The only logical separation from the status quo is to have the ARTCCs answer to the EC or the BOG, and that is where my previous analogies (hopefully) shed some light on why having VATUSA Staff (and particularly a VATUSA1 representative) is a good idea.

Lastly, Luke - I just wanted to give the same sort of analogy to address your statements.  For each law-abiding citizen of the US, there is a city council, a city Mayor, a state Governor, representatives and Senators to the Federal Government,  President of the US, and then multinational organizations such as the United Nations that work together to make life peaceful and prosperous in our world.  Which of those levels can be removed without anyone noticing?  I believe that there is a good purpose to each of the structures that you named (at least, ideally).  Now, whether they are all working together the way that they should be is a different question, and one worth asking.  But abolishing any one (or more) of them is not a solution to the problem.  If the interaction between the organizations is not optimal, then this problem should be addressed.  

And finally, to respond to the allegation that "if VATUSA is the only major division that is having problems, and Europe is not, for example, then what exactly is the cause of these woes?" (I paraphrase from a different post...)  I offer the simple solution - perhaps VATUSA is the problem.  And now we are full circle to Jeff's original comment.  Now, although VATUSA may indeed be the problem (just like if you have been in dozens of car accidents, then perhaps you are the driver to blame), the solution to the problem in this case is not to just abolish VATUSA (or to take away the car, in the analogy - how are you supposed to get to work then, without a car?  The solution is to learn how to drive).  In our case, the VATUSA leadership needs to work more closely with their higher-ups and find solutions.

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.

So I say, let us choose our next leader for VATUSA, and let that work continue.  If the next VATUSA1 decides to resign in 6 months, I will be crestfallen, of course.  But I will thank that person for having given their time and effort toward achieving this goal, I will continue to do my job, and I will support their successor as well.