Selection Process of VATUSA1

Justin A. Martin · « **on:** March 11, 2010, 04:39:48 PM »

Has there been any progress on hiring a new VATUSA1? I am not complaining, nor am I trying to rush the process, but rather I am trying to inquire to be more informed. I'm sure that the high-ups are taking the appropriate steps, and I am not challenging that. I am more curious to see when we will have a new VATUSA1, and specifically a more fine-tuned VATUSA staff. If anyone, specifically Bryan or any BoG members, have any update on this issue, speaking on behalf of the majority of VATUSA, it would be much appreciated.

Again, no complaints from me, I'm just looking for any updates there may be.

JM

Bryan Wollenberg · « **Reply #1 on:** March 11, 2010, 05:21:23 PM »

Hi Justin,

The job should be announced absolutely no later than tomorrow.

Nicholas Taylor · « **Reply #2 on:** March 12, 2010, 09:30:10 PM »

Quote from: Bryan Wollenberg

Hi Justin,

The job should be announced absolutely no later than tomorrow.

So it's Saturday and this post was made on a Thursday...

David Klain · « **Reply #3 on:** March 12, 2010, 10:29:15 PM »

Quote from: Nicholas Taylor

So it's Saturday and this post was made on a Thursday...

Nicholas -- may want to check your forum/clock settings. I just read your post on Friday evening (not Saturday)...

Dave

J Jason Vodnansky · « **Reply #4 on:** March 12, 2010, 11:25:43 PM »

Hey, this is VATSIM. 30 days to POST the job should be considered quick...

Bryan Wollenberg · « **Reply #5 on:** March 13, 2010, 12:39:05 AM »

Quote from: Nicholas Taylor

So it's Saturday and this post was made on a Thursday...

Friday my time...job posted. Sorry for being 30 minutes late for the EST folk.

Quote from: J. Jason Vodnansky

Hey, this is VATSIM. 30 days to POST the job should be considered quick...

I assure you, there was absolutely no urgency for posting the position. VATUSA has been well-managed by the existing staff in the interim. There were things to discuss and items to take care of prior to rushing to fill the position.

J Jason Vodnansky · « **Reply #6 on:** March 17, 2010, 02:37:12 PM »

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]I assure you, there was absolutely no urgency for posting the position. VATUSA has been well-managed by the existing staff in the interim. There were things to discuss and items to take care of prior to rushing to fill the position.[/quote]

We can tell.

Chris McGee · « **Reply #7 on:** March 17, 2010, 04:29:58 PM »

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]I assure you, there was absolutely no urgency for posting the position. VATUSA has been well-managed by the existing staff in the interim. There were things to discuss and items to take care of prior to rushing to fill the position.[/quote]

AMEN!

Bryan Wollenberg · « **Reply #8 on:** March 17, 2010, 04:58:50 PM »

Like I said Jason, we weren't about to rush to fill the position just for the sake of filling the position. I'm sorry the timeline doesn't meet your standards and expectations.

David Jedrejcic · « **Reply #9 on:** March 19, 2010, 12:31:44 AM »

Quote from: J. Jason Vodnansky

We can tell.

Jason,

Can you explain to me how this comment can be construed as any one of these following things:

1) Productive
2) Professional
3) Helpful
4) Respectful
5) Generally good-natured
6) Intelligent

Please elaborate if you think your response above (or any of your posts, for that matter) fits any of these descriptions, because I fail to see any merit in it whatsoever. Next time you post something that does not meet any of the descriptions listed above, I suggest that you keep it to yourself.

J Jason Vodnansky · « **Reply #10 on:** March 19, 2010, 01:37:25 AM »

Quote from: David Jedrejcic

Jason,

Can you explain to me how this comment can be construed as any one of these following things:

1) Productive
2) Professional
3) Helpful
4) Respectful
5) Generally good-natured
6) Intelligent

Please elaborate if you think your response above (or any of your posts, for that matter) fits any of these descriptions, because I fail to see any merit in it whatsoever. Next time you post something that does not meet any of the descriptions listed above, I suggest that you keep it to yourself.

You mean like yours?

JV

David Jedrejcic · « **Reply #11 on:** March 19, 2010, 01:48:50 AM »

Sure.

1) I believe my post was productive in that I hoped it would make you think about what you are writing, and perhaps might save some heartache on the part of the rest of the members of VATUSA from having to deal with coming up with reasonable answers to your unreasonable requests every single day.
2) I believe my post was professional, as I clearly stated my intent in a curteous manner, and made what I thought was a valid and wise recommendation for your future actions which might benefit both you and everyone else in the division.
3) I think it was helpful because, like I said, I believe I am not the only member of the division that thinks your posts are a waste of everyone's time - so if you were to actually process the message within the post, then yes, it might be helpful. But since you refuse to do so, and can only respond by saying something tantamount to "I know you are but what am I," then perhaps it will not turn out to be helpful, but that's not my fault, as you are the only one who can help yourself.
4) I believe my post was respectful for the same reasons that I quoted in #2, above. I did not demean you in any way, and I am trying to help you realize that your involvement is not helping anyone in its current form, and that modifications need to be made to your methods in order to help realize your goals.
5) I believe the post was generally good natured for the same reasons I quoted in #4, above. I am trying to help you understand that your methods are detrimental to the division, and they will never help you accomplish the things you want to accomplish.
6) I believe it was intelligent for all of the reasons that I quoted in #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5, above. These all seem like very reasonable points to be made to someone who has ben continuously belligerent in laying seige to every policy and staff member that is misguided enough to entertain your rants (including myself).

So why don't you answer the question I posed to you in the first place? Do you not have any answers? Are snappy comebacks without any substance all you have to offer in the face of a prudent set of interrogations? Perhaps you are not used to being on the sharp side of the spear.

J Jason Vodnansky · « **Reply #12 on:** March 19, 2010, 02:01:38 AM »

1) I believe my posts are productive in that I am illustrating the many faults of our RD, who disregards the rights of members. Such as when Conflict Resolution procedures sit in his inbox unanswered. Further illustrating that his rules prevent the Division Director, and ATMs from doing their jobs. Choosing to ignore the rule as opposed to fixing it, is not a valid argument.

2) I believe my posts are professional as I include the reasons behind my arguments, using facts as opposed to opinion.

3) I believe my posts are helpful with reference to point 1 & 2.

4) I believe my posts are respectful. Unfortunately, I cannot control the frame of mind people are in when they read my posts.

5) My posts are generally good natured, pointed, but good natured, and posted in the spirit of furthering discussion to fix the problem.

6) I believe my posts are intelligent, and well thought out. Just because I don't come right out with a "snappy comeback" doesn't mean I didn't have one ready. Contrary to popular belief, I do not respond without having thought things through.

So there, your questions are answered. I trust there is enough substance in them to further the debate. What "spear" are you referring to?

Thanks,
JV

David Jedrejcic · « **Reply #13 on:** March 19, 2010, 02:30:11 AM »

Well I appreciate the answers, even though I had to ask twice. I disagree with a couple of them, but they are my opinions after all, and I don't suppose I'm going to convince you that your opinions are anything less than perfectly accurate, so I'm not going to waste any more of my precious time trying to do so. I hope that you can discern from my responses to your posts from today that my main point is that I believe you are going about achieving your goals in the wrong way. I never said that your right to hold people accountable is not valid, or that your intentions are without good intent. All I'm saying is that you can expect to achieve nothing at all with the tools you are using to accomplish your agenda. Your tools being repeated accusations of wrongdoing and inaction, without the consideration for human error, learning curves, different viewpoints from diferent personalities and points of reference, and most importantly the volunteer basis of this hobby. If you would acknowledge those things during the purportedly "pensive" period that you undergo every time you post something here, one would think that you could do much better in communicating your agenda.

The "spear" is your incessant targeting of all VATSIM staff for your personal interrogations. It's annoying, to say the least, and it's not getting you anywhere. So as long as you continue to poke spears, you should be ready to spend just as much time defending yourself during interrogations initiated by those that you target. I have nothing against you personally, and like I said I understand your motivations and I believe they are borne of good intention. But until you realize the heartache you are causing this division by your actions, I will continue to do my best to make it more obvious to you.