Spring 2011 NEC Agenda

[davidsinn]

We both know that this will do nothing. Its going to pass because of the way it is worded. The NEC will vote yes because "optional" wont hurt anyone....right? 

The NEC also made the Wing Patch optional, but try to find a Wing that doesn't require the wear on BDU's

Every one except yours and mine.

[Eclipse]

"Optional" is the way management gets things done that are unpopular when no one wants to simply make a decision and move on.

"Optional" today.

"Encouraged" tomorrow.

"Mandatory" next week.

It is, what it is.

[wuzafuzz]

If National insists on lusting after triangles, I wonder how long it will be until we see this on our uniforms.  At least the other folks wearing this particular triangle don't have to wear day-glo ultrmarine.

[RiverAux]

"Optional" is the way management gets things done that are unpopular when no one wants to simply make a decision and move on.

You're right about that.  This decision is actually even worse than just deciding to go ahead and nix the current emblem and replace it with the new one.  By adding an option it just dilutes the brand even more rather than strengthening it. 

[a2capt]

Is there any way to submit feedback on an agenda item, or is it "too late" because it's on there now?

That is the first time I've seen that comment about that thing being created for a summer board meeting, it looks like it. It's just plain awful and cheap looking.

A motion to make something officially optional? Come on. Who thinks this stuff up? With all stretched points of view on the three existing official items - we need another one? One that looks like it came from a cheap disc of clipart from the dollar store close out reject bin?

Sorry, but thats just how I see it. Whoever created it may be bent because of that viewpoint, so be it. There's obviously a lot of disdain for the item, yet they either choose to ignore it, or they don't know about it. 

We have enough graphics and they are just fine for their use.  We do not need yet another one that is an abomination of an exiting one.  The others are plenty recognizable. If only they would actually use them and stop this madness of swapping with the season change.

[SarDragon]

We both know that this will do nothing. Its going to pass because of the way it is worded. The NEC will vote yes because "optional" wont hurt anyone....right? 

The NEC also made the Wing Patch optional, but try to find a Wing that doesn't require the wear on BDU's

Every one except yours and mine.

And mine. 

[jimmydeanno]

Is there any way to submit feedback on an agenda item, or is it "too late" because it's on there now?

That is the first time I've seen that comment about that thing being created for a summer board meeting, it looks like it. It's just plain awful and cheap looking.

A motion to make something officially optional? Come on. Who thinks this stuff up? With all stretched points of view on the three existing official items - we need another one? One that looks like it came from a cheap disc of clipart from the dollar store close out reject bin?

Sorry, but thats just how I see it. Whoever created it may be bent because of that viewpoint, so be it. There's obviously a lot of disdain for the item, yet they either choose to ignore it, or they don't know about it. 

We have enough graphics and they are just fine for their use.  We do not need yet another one that is an abomination of an exiting one.  The others are plenty recognizable. If only they would actually use them and stop this madness of swapping with the season change.

You can submit feedback to your respective NEC member.  They still need to be voted on.  Just because it hits the agenda doesn't mean its a done deal.

I sent a message to my Wing Commander asking that he forward my opinion about Item #5 to my Region Commander.  the good news is that he said, "I agree with your assessment and will pass along this feedback."

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

The bog-awful triangle thingy is just another visual symbol of distancing CAP from the Air Force.

We lost the CAP crest for flight suits, and replaced it with the first MAJCOM-type shield.

Then we had the relatively-brief "U.S." shield.

Now we have just "Civil Air Patrol."

I wonder who is behind this...is it the Air Force, or the "corporatists" or a mixture of both, like killing off the CSU for no reason, and when we ask why we get told "Don't ask."

The old "mushroom management" syndrome at work.

At least when the Army went to the blue service dress they were given a semblance of an explanation (streamlining uniforms, and the heritage of the Army blues; i.e., the old Cavalry/Civil War blues).

TTT has nothing to do with our heritage, and it certainly doesn't have anything to do with the Air Force.

If we're going to adopt a one-crest-to-find-them, one-crest-to-bind-them, it should be this:



And book the Wing patches altogether and replace with:



...maybe incorporating a rocker with the state/region/national title.

THAT has a direct link to our history, even predating the Air Force.

Again, I don't like to foment conspiracies, but at this rate I believe that one day, sooner rather than later, the polos/greys zealots will finally have us out of the AF uniform.



...though the hat on this one may look "too military."

[ßτε]

We both know that this will do nothing. Its going to pass because of the way it is worded. The NEC will vote yes because "optional" wont hurt anyone....right? 

The NEC also made the Wing Patch optional, but try to find a Wing that doesn't require the wear on BDU's

Every one except yours and mine.

And mine. 

Actually, not yours.

[jks19714]

If National insists on lusting after triangles, I wonder how long it will be until we see this on our uniforms.  At least the other folks wearing this particular triangle don't have to wear day-glo ultrmarine.

Been there, worn that, but not on my T-Shirt. 

The good news was that the S. Koreans weren't sure whether to salute me or not...

[SarDragon]

Reformatted to get around the quote limitation.

MSG Mac sez: The NEC also made the Wing Patch optional, but try to find a Wing that doesn't require the wear on BDU's

davidsinn sez: Every one except yours [FL] and mine [IN].

SarDragon sez: And mine [CA].

ß τ ε sez: Actually, not yours.

So, what are you trying to say? AFAIK, all three of the noted wings require the wing patch on BDUs. Am I missing something here? Help me understand.

[ßτε]

The current CAWG Supplement to CAPM 39-1 doesn't require a Wing Patch on BDUs.

[SarDragon]

The current CAWG Supplement to CAPM 39-1 doesn't require a Wing Patch on BDUs.

Well hush ma mouf! I guess I can take all my wing patches off now. 

[RVT]

The current CAWG Supplement to CAPM 39-1 doesn't require a Wing Patch on BDUs.

So unless we are wearing that orange shirt ground team outfit we don't need a wing patch at all.  However theres nothing else you can put on the right shoulder of BDU's in place of it.  They moved all that stuff to the left pocket.

It would have been a lot simpler to just say to replace the wing patch with a US Flag and leave everything else where it was.

[JC004]

LMAO.  The various explanations/"rationale" for the Triangle Thingy approval made me laugh.  They're hysterical.  They're self-contradictory (like saying adding an additional logo supports consistency).  They rely on looking at what logos the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and Coast Guard use rather than considering any standard marketing and branding practices. 

I'm going to propose to my organization that we add random, optional logos.  The board will laugh at me, but that's fine. 

:clap:  Thanks for the laugh, guys.

[Ned]

What, no comments on the web stream?  You guys are unnaturally quiet.  Makes me nervious.   

The RCLS agenda item was just postponed to allow curriculum work to be completed before any final decision.

At least we are meeting in a room with free wifi . . . .

[MSG Mac]

What, no comments on the web stream?  You guys are unnaturally quiet.  Makes me nervious.   

They're all watching the royal wedding

[Spaceman3750]

What, no comments on the web stream?  You guys are unnaturally quiet.  Makes me nervious.   

The RCLS agenda item was just postponed to allow curriculum work to be completed before any final decision.

At least we are meeting in a room with free wifi . . . .

It's stuttering at times, but they gave us a disclaimer to that effect.

[Smokey]

OH no......the triangle thingy is being discussed

[Ned]

OH no......the triangle thingy is being discussed

And they are discussing the very points that have been raised here -

• We already have three or so logos
  
  
• They are even using the word "branding" in the discussion
  
  
•   Why should it be optional?  Should we use and stick to a single choice?
  
  
• Compare this to the updated and current ARC and YMCA lgogs.
  
  
• Shouldn't we have a "non-military style" logo available when we partner/outreach to educational organizations in AE and STEM work?  IOW, different logos for different constiutencies.
  
  

It's actually a reasoned discussion.