[!--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.  

Alex,

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 thing....you'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.

Richard,

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.

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

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 http://www.vatsim.net/prc

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.  

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.

[!--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]

David,

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.  

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.