Aug 2012 NB Agenda

[krnlpanick]

Agreed - my mistake. ITUL is a much better title

[arajca]

My only quibble with the above would be the title of the MID.

Under ICS, a position under the LSC would be a "Unit Leader".  The Logistics Branch has units, not Branches (which have leaders titled Directors, like the AOBD).  So, I would call your MID the ITUL.

Also concur about not tying it to the IT Specialty Track.

Correction:
Under ICS, the Logistics Section (same level as Operations Section) has two branches - Support and Services. Each branch has three units:
The Services Branch has Communications, Medical, and Food units. The Support Branch has Supply, Facilities, and Ground (aka Transportation) Support units.

IT could be rolled up under Facilities Unit or Communications if it's not a stand alone unit.

[Eclipse]

So what does this mean, it means that for the last 17 years I have generally had a job in IT fixing something that (generally) some other "IT guy" did wrong. The common answer to the question, "Who did you say did your infrastructure here again?" is generally answered with the likes of "Oh, it was our secretary, Bonnie's, husband's, sister's, dog's, previous owner's, babysitter's dad. Really great guy, told us all kinds of stuff about computers and the internet"

"...the CEO's son knows all about computers..."

I agree that the skills involved in ES-IT vs. "regular"-IT are complementary but different.  A unit or wing ITO is going to be concerned with stability, long-term goals and plans, and non-emergent situations.

An ES-ITO needs to be familiar with "field expediency", a "hacker" in the traditional positive sense of the term, and have the mindset of redundancy.
He's also got to be platform agnostic, because not only do you not always know what equipment you'll have access to, but you also have to deal with a lot of member-owned equipment, which is generally band-aided together and barely functional.

[JeffDG]

So what does this mean, it means that for the last 17 years I have generally had a job in IT fixing something that (generally) some other "IT guy" did wrong. The common answer to the question, "Who did you say did your infrastructure here again?" is generally answered with the likes of "Oh, it was our secretary, Bonnie's, husband's, sister's, dog's, previous owner's, babysitter's dad. Really great guy, told us all kinds of stuff about computers and the internet"

"...the CEO's son knows all about computers..."

I agree that the skills involved in ES-IT vs. "regular"-IT are complementary but different.  A unit or wing ITO is going to be concerned with stability, long-term goals and plans, and non-emergent situations.

An ES-ITO needs to be familiar with "field expediency", a "hacker" in the traditional positive sense of the term, and have the mindset of redundancy.
He's also got to be platform agnostic, because not only do you not always know what equipment you'll have access to, but you also have to deal with a lot of member-owned equipment, which is generally band-aided together and barely functional.

Concur with all this.

That said, I personally take offense at the concept that IT is all about technology.  The first word is "information", and a good IT person know when technology is a solution in desperate search of a problem.  Sometimes the solution to an information sharing problem is a non-technological solution.  Like one small company I worked at.  The accounting system permitted one person in the system at a time (it was a LONG time ago).  Instead of some high tech scheduling system, we had a tennis ball.  Whoever held the ball was the one who could use the system!  If you needed in, you found the ball and asked for it!

[Eclipse]

That said, I personally take offense at the concept that IT is all about technology.  The first word is "information", and a good IT person know when technology is a solution in desperate search of a problem.  Sometimes the solution to an information sharing problem is a non-technological solution.  Like one small company I worked at.  The accounting system permitted one person in the system at a time (it was a LONG time ago).  Instead of some high tech scheduling system, we had a tennis ball.  Whoever held the ball was the one who could use the system!  If you needed in, you found the ball and asked for it!

I couldn't agree more.  Far too many IT projects, especially in CAP,  start with the tech and work themselves back to the mission, and usually because the
"guy" is only familiar with one platform or is antagonistic towards a vendor or platform.

I like to tease my Apple brethren, but at the end of the day, some of their products are the right choice in certain circumstances, and vice-versa.  I work with some Apple developers, and the best ones are the ones who admit that Apple doesn't always win the argument. (etc)

[RiverAux]

Having unofficially served as the IT guy on a couple of larger missions, I'm of two minds about an IT specialty track.  On the one hand, it would serve as a constant reminder that IT support is a factor that the IC needs to consider.  This can get overlooked and I'm sure we've all seen situations where there is some IT disaster that has negatively impacted performance. 

On the other hand, they way that IT is done varies so widely across CAP that I'm just not sure that there is really going to be any common set of skills that could be put down in a qual that really makes any sense. 

And finally, I see it as something akin to the stupid airborne photographer qual -- unnecessarily adding a complication to our ability to get things done that will probably be ignored most of the time.  If the network is down and you've got a guy at the base that can fix it, he is gonig to fix it whether he has the qual or not.  And if your scanner isn't AP qualified and you need photos taken, he is going to take photos.

FYI, there is supposedly a major revamping of the PIO qualification in the work that would dramatically ramp up the requirements. 

[krnlpanick]

I disagree on a couple points RiverAux

On the other hand, they way that IT is done varies so widely across CAP that I'm just not sure that there is really going to be any common set of skills that could be put down in a qual that really makes any sense.

This is part of the problem IMHO. Missions should not be the wild west, would you grab some random MSA who happened to have a BCUT to be your MRO for a mission, especially a real mission? More often than not, the problems are occuring because IT is an afterthought, if it becomes part of the planning and logistics operation then it can be flushed out before deployment on larger missions (which is where the need for such a staff member really becomes necessary) and done correctly to begin with rather than a couple guys who set up their grandma's wifi once cobbling together a bunch of random pieces of equipment to try and support the mission.

And finally, I see it as something akin to the stupid airborne photographer qual -- unnecessarily adding a complication to our ability to get things done that will probably be ignored most of the time.  If the network is down and you've got a guy at the base that can fix it, he is gonig to fix it whether he has the qual or not.  And if your scanner isn't AP qualified and you need photos taken, he is going to take photos.

I do not think AP is a stupid qual in the least, especially in Colorado where incorrectly taken pictures, pictures taken from improper equipment, and untrained staff could have been the difference between life and death for people who lived in the areas we were monitoring for fires. I feel the same way about an IT qual, again not the IT Specialty Track which has it's own list of shortcomings. This is particularly aimed at IT Support for a mission, which is a great deal different than supporting your squadron's laptop and desktop.

[denverpilot]

The real need for "IT" support at a mission these days is going to be getting IP bandwidth to a mission base when the cell and PSTN networks are down.

Having an "expert" around to beat on a dilapidated USAF cast-off laptop barely able to run Microsoft XP isn't much help without IP. The world is moving to the web.

Try running a mission without WMIRS these days. And customers who want photos... Even more bandwidth.

[krnlpanick]

You just hit the nail on the head of the problem with the ITST neighbor... Those are the problems that should be getting solved outside of mission time. I'm in COWG, how do I get internet to an ICP in the {x} area, what are our contingency plans. Can we create a slimline profile installation that gives mission personel access to key systems on commodity hardware and manage it centrally.

As the ITUL or MIS I should not have to worry about chasing down these details that can be flushed out before-hand and turned into processes and regs. There is enough to worry about setting up for a mid-large size incident as far as IT is concerned to keep these guys busy without dealing with those aspects of IT.

[rmutchler]

I think part of what make IT an afterthought is the fact that people just expect IT to hand them a computer and it works.  Speaking as an IT professional, this is how some businesses view IT.

IT does need more emphasis in the ES area.  It needs someone who can work hand in hand with different units to accomplish the common goal.  I think the thoughts around a Leader and a Support person are a good thought.  It gives you someone to focus on the bigger picture across all disciplines while you have someone to carry out the tasks as directed by the leader.  I know that it doesn't solve the afterthought problem, but it does put some attention on technology and how the resource can be used in the mission/exercise.

Don't even get me started on the ITST...that's another discussion for another topic...

[ZigZag911]

Kind of like telephones...or radios...which is why it falls under Support... ICs & mission managers don't need to understand the technical aspects of computers -- but they may well need someone on the team who does.

[Eclipse]

I think part of what make IT an afterthought is the fact that people just expect IT to hand them a computer and it works.  Speaking as an IT professional, this is how some businesses view IT.

This is how businesses should view IT.  Accounts are in charge of the money, sales people in selling product.

Neither should be troubleshooting their VPN.

One of the issues is that the scope, scale, and expectations are never set properly, or the people above, and the execs, spend too much
time listening to marketing of a product before asking their internal people if it's a good idea.

People also tend to view the machine on their desk as their personal property, instead of as a tool to get their work done - this is one of the reasons thin-client computing is making a huge come-back, because IT controls the closet and then you don't care what people do to their
"expendable" client machines.

Bottom line, IT resources should be dial-tone to the users.

[lordmonar]

As a life long comm professional....and by extention an IT guy....although I'm a hardware man myself......I agree with eclipse.  Too often the IT guys get too wrapted up in their own world that they forget the customer only wants to pick up his phone and it should be working.

Same thing for his computer......

While I agree that we need to be getting more and more IT professionals involved with CAP at all levels.....I still disagree with the idea of an IT ES rating. 

1) it is not necessary for running a mission base.....the IT is necessary.....just like the plane, van, radio net are all necessary....but I don't have to have an ITUL or an  MIT on my staff.....if the infrasturcure is alread built and in place.

2) Haveing and IT ES rating will mean that you can't bring in someone to fix you IT system....unless he is infact qualified (as CAP defines it)....and stay compliant with 60-1 and 60-3.  Which means you are adding yet another requirment to you unit's training plan.

3) Just more hoops to jump through.......get the mission done....don't worry about ratings and qualifications.

[RiverAux]

Exactly.  We don't have an ES mechanics qualification to keep the airplanes flying during the mission....

[krnlpanick]

True enough, but comparing IT to Airplanes is apples and oranges IMHO. We do have qualifications to plan and build Radio stations which is a much more applicable comparison I think. However, if you really insist on using airplanes we rely on the FAA Regulations (http://www.faa.gov/mechanics/become/basic/) for our mechanics if I am not mistaken. Would you let your brother's friend work on your CAP aircraft because he says that he has experience but no qualifications?

It's time to grow up and realize that we are in the 21st century, we rely on our systems and networking for many things (especially on bigger ops) and if things are not done correctly by people who are qualified it causes more harm than good 9 times out of 10. On small ops, sure the Information Technology requirements for the mission are negligible in most cases I suppose and so the planning of the IT Infrastructure for the OP would fall back to the IC, just like any of the other positions in the ICS.

I fail to understand the logic behind fighting this as an ES Qualification in general, if nothing else, it provides new avenues of professional training for CAP members. How is that a bad thing?

[lordmonar]

You are correct.....we should not be letting my "brother's neighbor's friend" working on our critical infrastructure.....just as we would not let him work on our airplane/van/radios/repeater.

So...that simply means we need to set the standards for that in our IT regulations.....not that we need to create an IT ES rating.

I disagree that it will provide "new avenues of professional training".  First SQTRs are not updateable in a timely manner.  Second SQTRs are too generic.  Third an IT SQTR is simply just not needed.

If you have an IT SQTR....by definition you have locked out that postion to only those who have completed said SQTR.   So on the "day of" your SAREX/MISSION if your IT system fails.....you can't get it fixed because your Mission IT Techs (or what ever you are going to call them) are all flying, did not sign in, are not safety current, what ever. 

If your plane is broke.....you call an FAA certified A&P.  If your van is broke you take it to a Certified Ford/Chevy maintenance tech.....you don't need an ES qualified A&P or ES qualified mechanic.

To use comm as example.....the infrastructe is built and maintained by CAP COMMS....which is NOT part of ES/ICS.  The MRO simply sets up and operates local radio stations.  The CUL manages the assigned MROs and coordinates the exiting comm plan with the tactical needs of the IC and our customers. 

Setting up an IT system for your mission base or even designing a deployable systems is something that should happen long before the mission base is set up for a mission.

NO....IMHO it is just another useless hoop that does not bring any value to the overall ES mission.
Should you have a trained and qualified IT guy on hand to take care of your IT system "day of" the mission?  Absolutely.....just as if you can swing it....haveing an A&P/auto mechanic/radio technican on hand would be wonderful assets......but there is ZERO need for CAP to write a SQTR, a training guide, Task Guide and manage a mission IT Tech and the ITUL that would have to go with it to have a good IT system in place for a mission.

It just adds to the over head that wing/group will have plan for in order meet the expecations of 60-3.

[Al Sayre]

I really have no problem with having an IT guy on a mission staff if one is available, where I have a problem is with empire building that ends up giving us regs that say things like no one but a master rated geeksquad member can set up a temporary wireless lan

[JeffDG]

I really have no problem with having an IT guy on a mission staff if one is available, where I have a problem is with empire building that ends up giving us regs that say things like no one but a master rated geeksquad member can set up a temporary wireless lan

On that note...

Perhaps it would make more sense to focus on only the "ITUL" level qual.  The general, basic, stuff would be left to anyone with the skills (and a GES presumably!), while high-level design and implementation would be by people who have some experience designing systems in a mission environment.

For basic missions, no real need for an ITUL, but on large complex missions, it would give ICs/LSCs something to look for that says "Hey, OK, this guy has proven he can run with the ball and get the system running..."

[krnlpanick]

I really have no problem with having an IT guy on a mission staff if one is available, where I have a problem is with empire building that ends up giving us regs that say things like no one but a master rated geeksquad member can set up a temporary wireless lan

Really I envision the MIS qualification as being about as difficult to get as the MSA qualification so I don't think in my example that would be an issue. For small (read most) ops, the IT requirements are pretty simple, a single wireless access point, a (hopefully) secure password for that access point (even though even a secure password can be cracked in under 10 minutes), and maybe a projector for the status board. There should be absolutely no reason that anyone who is currently claiming that they "know" IT and are doing the setup of these systems can not obtain this qualification extremely easily.

The problem comes in to play on larger, more complex operations. While I haven't been involved in such a CAP mission yet personally, I have heard stories from fellow members and I have personally experienced what large operations with improper/inadequate infrastructure in place can do to such an operation. Also, depending on the scope of the mission (and the client) security will increasingly become an issue. Having a ITUL who understands how to build a secure and adaptable infrastructure for an operation can only help us.

[BrannG]

All this talk over the IT ES Ratings aside.. the topic is the agenda as a whole.. sooo...

After some study and knowing how corporate minutes and agenda works, here is a heads up on we *will* see but isn't listed.

We should see the following:

1) (The Uniform) "Committee is working on Phase 3, the final phase, of its comprehensive review of all CAP uniform combinations.  It will present its report, including a summary of all phase recommendations to the Summer NB in Baltimore." - NEC Meeting / May 2012

2) "Government Issued" ID card project should issue a status report, final report should be around the Winter Board or Summer Board 2013. - Feb 2010 NB Minutes

This will prove to be a BIG uniform review per "The National Board has placed a hold on all uniform changes pending a review of the entire CAP uniform structure. This review is ongoing by the CAP National Uniform Committee and a draft report will be presented to the Summer National Board Meeting in Baltimore in August 2012. The presentation will be available online via webstream but all CAP members are encouraged to attend." (may include ABU, but I doubt it, after all per Col. White, the USAF did approve the ABU for CAP but the uniform "distinctiveness" needed to be ironed out and approved)

So we know this much - the National Board this year will be very eye opening on what may be to come of the CAP Uniform structure as well as several other great points.

I myself am eager to see what "new business" isn't listed