So, just got an alert that the entire "Publications for Comment" section has been removed from National. :-\ Not just updated, totally gone.
http://www.capmembers.com/forms_publications__regulations/ (http://www.capmembers.com/forms_publications__regulations/)
And the draft is gone from eServices as well.
So, now we wait. Again. >:D
I wonder if they will take some changes into consideration and offer the second draft up for comment? Judging from the berth of comments on the previous thread, it sounds like people had a lot to say about the draft.
Was that a Google alert or an RSS?
I've seen those pop-up on occasion with nothing actually there. I think in some cases the code gets changed on the page or the
server and that pops up an errant alert. It's also not unusual that somebody changes a date on the server
and all the old posts are "new" again.
I don't think we'll see any pubs for comment there any more. It looks to be like anything of that nature will be
posted inside eServices, which actually makes sense.
That means that the document isn't "public", per se, and NHQ could take issue with reposting it externally (not to mention they
will know who has actually read it).
If they are using anything like analytics or similar, it's amazing how much info you can get. ICENINE used to post
policies and procedures docs in GDrive, send a link, and get the "I read it." response from CC's and staff. Later
they would disavow knowledge.
He could then go in and show the exact trail of reading it, and in the case where people said they
didn't understand, etc., show where they'd opened it for 5 second and then closed it, etc.
Yup. I just love shoving server metrics into an argument. :)
Quote from: Eclipse on February 04, 2014, 04:49:25 PM
If they are using anything like analytics or similar, it's amazing how much info you can get. ICENINE used to post
policies and procedures docs in GDrive, send a link, and get the "I read it." response from CC's and staff. Later
they would disavow knowledge.
He could then go in and show the exact trail of reading it, and in the case where people said they
didn't understand, etc., show where they'd opened it for 5 second and then closed it, etc.
Gotta love that
The ATC in the UK has a system (previously called "Project BADER", not sure what its called now) that was basically Microsoft Sharepoint for document routing and approvals, "Intranet/Extranet" for documents and announcements, signups, etc.
No more bottomless briefcase. Flight Lieutenant Smythe submits Pilot Officer Biggles for promotion to the "next higher," the PDF form goes into the workflow for promotion. The workflow notifies someone "Hey, you have a promotion request for this bloke in Swindon.." via email. They go in, approve, reject, add comments, whatever, and click to "forward it along" in the workflow. F/L Smythe can watch it go (electronically) and know whether or not Squadron Leader Mountbatten actually opened it, and if so, if he approved it and its off to wing. He can also know that SqdnLdr Mountbatten hasn't opened it and was notified 15 days ago that it was in his queue. I'm guessing that Wing Commander Sir Van Lierde will likely get a note saying that Mountbatten has fallen down on the job after a period (it would be a rather polite note, of course!) so he can then follow up.
:)
Hmmm...wonder if the name was prophetic.
Bader was an RAF pilot who lost his legs in a crash because he was hot-dogging, and learned to fly with prosthetic legs and did quite well in the war, actually.
People utilizing artificial means to compensate for being chopped off at the legs...
The Army has had a similar system for years now. I remember when I first used it and routed forms to our S1. I emailed the S1 letting her know the forms were there and she replied acknowledging that she would get them. A while went by and the BC was asking where my evaluations were. I told him that I had sent them to the S1 on X date. He responded saying the S1 did not know anything about me sending them. I showed on AKO where she had accessed them. Shortly after an email was sent by BN saying only hard copies would be accepted and that we were not to use form routing.
Yeah, we're using more paper in the paperless Army now than we were before. The reason being is us "digital natives" are fine with doing things online and sending them forward, but the "digital refugees" who have to approve things want hard copies. So, I write a document, digitally sign it, and upload it to the site. Then, I print out the hard copy with digital signature for review, the boss likes it, then I email it to him for a digital signature (since they dont know how to acess the share drive we're required to use), then have to print out another hard copy with both digital signatures. Repeat as necessary depending on the level it needs to go to.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 04, 2014, 04:49:25 PM
Was that a Google alert or an RSS?
Neither, it is a bot (change detection site) that I use to monitor the public pages. And I agree, that we won't be seeing that area anymore on the public side, as it will be in eServices.
It was a legit change, they did take that page away. And I totally agree with it. But in the same change window they also took down the draft CAPM 39-1. Just saying. :)
Quote from: UH60guy on February 04, 2014, 08:23:24 PM
Yeah, we're using more paper in the paperless Army now than we were before. The reason being is us "digital natives" are fine with doing things online and sending them forward, but the "digital refugees" who have to approve things want hard copies. So, I write a document, digitally sign it, and upload it to the site. Then, I print out the hard copy with digital signature for review, the boss likes it, then I email it to him for a digital signature (since they dont know how to acess the share drive we're required to use), then have to print out another hard copy with both digital signatures. Repeat as necessary depending on the level it needs to go to.
At least your command accepted digital signatures. I had a leave form returned because it did not have a "hard signature" on it and they would not accept a digital signature.
Quote from: JeffDG on February 04, 2014, 07:07:36 PM
Hmmm...wonder if the name was prophetic.
Bader was an RAF pilot who lost his legs in a crash because he was hot-dogging, and learned to fly with prosthetic legs and did quite well in the war, actually.
People utilizing artificial means to compensate for being chopped off at the legs...
To be fair, I think Old Tin Legs was the patron of the Air Cadets at one point.
If we had a similar system it would be Project Tooey
Quote from: Papabird on February 04, 2014, 08:31:11 PM
It was a legit change, they did take that page away. And I totally agree with it. But in the same change window they also took down the draft CAPM 39-1. Just saying. :)
Well, the comment period was over. I would like to see what comments we sent in and how the NUC dealt with them.
Considering they promised the membership would see the comments sent on the governance issue, and we know how that turned out..
I doubt it.
But I must admit, at least a categorical breakdown of what people wrote about would be interesting.
Quote from: arajca on February 04, 2014, 10:02:42 PM
Quote from: Papabird on February 04, 2014, 08:31:11 PM
It was a legit change, they did take that page away. And I totally agree with it. But in the same change window they also took down the draft CAPM 39-1. Just saying. :)
Well, the comment period was over. I would like to see what comments we sent in and how the NUC dealt with them.
Anecdotally, at one point about 2 weeks ago I heard there were over 700 comments, and that about 25 or 35% had been "closed" (ie. "addressed," much like an IG finding) and that many of the comments that had been received mentioned the removal of the flag.
Quote from: Papabird on February 04, 2014, 08:31:11 PMIt was a legit change, they did take that page away.
So was a reg draft posted and pulled in the same breath? I thought I saw one in there last week in my RSS and it wasn't there when I checked it.
Was it the Safety Specialty Track update? That's the one I got via RSS on the 11th and it was gone when I hit it.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 04, 2014, 04:49:25 PM
That means that the document isn't "public", per se, and NHQ could take issue with reposting it externally (not to mention they
will know who has actually read it).
While the initial notice was in eServices, once you had the link (which was widely distributed), you can download the draft without having to log into eServices. And I doubt IP tracking would help much. Heck, for some reason, my IP localizes back to Melbourne, Florida.
Quote from: NIN on February 04, 2014, 10:13:17 PM
Anecdotally, at one point about 2 weeks ago I heard there were over 700 comments, and that about 25 or 35% had been "closed" (ie. "addressed," much like an IG finding) and that many of the comments that had been received mentioned the removal of the flag.
Would those who's comments had been "closed" be notified of such? I made several comments (none about the flag, as I'm okay with its removal since I understand the reason why) and never got any feedback. But then again, I wasn't really expecting any, either.
Quote from: NIN on February 04, 2014, 10:13:17 PM
Anecdotally, at one point about 2 weeks ago I heard there were over 700 comments, and that about 25 or 35% had been "closed" (ie. "addressed," much like an IG finding) and that many of the comments that had been received mentioned the removal of the flag.
I am curious, were the comments in favor or not in favor of the removal?
Quote from: Panache on February 05, 2014, 05:18:41 AM
Would those who's comments had been "closed" be notified of such? I made several comments (none about the flag, as I'm okay with its removal since I understand the reason why) and never got any feedback. But then again, I wasn't really expecting any, either.
When they say "closed" its like an IG thing: You have an issue, and its either open or closed (or some other status)
So say Lt Col Timmy sends in a set of comments on the draft, he's got 10 suggestions and comments.
3 or 4 are typographical. They're marked as "closed" since there were also 100 others who already pointed those out.
A couple are incomprehensible. "Would prefer a bib be authorized for mess dress. (CLOSED: A bib, really?)"
Several are out of scope. "Civil Air Patrol should authorize embroidered nametags for flightsuits. (CLOSED: HAF has indicated they will not entertain any changes to the USAF-style FDU in this request cycle)"
(Note: I just made that up, I don't know that HAF has said that or not)There may be 1 or 2 that remain as open issues: "Suggest removing requirements for cutouts for C/AB due to cost. C/AB would only wear them a few times and then not again until C/officer. (OPEN: Referring to entire NUC for potential policy change discussion.)"
And its my understanding that the comments on removal of the flag were predominately negative. I would not be surprised if the patriotism and national loyalty of the NUC were questioned at the same time. <GRIN>
Note: I have not seen any of the commentary in the slightest. I had a brief conversation with someone in the know and that was the gist. Take it for what its worth. :)
Maybe it was closed because of the flood of requests to change the uniform (bring back khakis, I want to wear a Stormtrooper costume for ground team duties, etc) rather than a majority commenting on the content of the draft and focusing on improving that. I'd assume (I know, I know) that specific changes to the uniform were vetted and staffed prior to the draft coming out, so I wouldn't expect that they would really be entertaining new ideas, so much as looking for comments to clarify and improve upon what is written.
Quote from: UH60guy on February 05, 2014, 01:23:10 PM
Maybe it was closed because of the flood of requests to change the uniform (bring back khakis, I want to wear a Stormtrooper costume for ground team duties, etc) rather than a majority commenting on the content of the draft and focusing on improving that. I'd assume (I know, I know) that specific changes to the uniform were vetted and staffed prior to the draft coming out, so I wouldn't expect that they would really be entertaining new ideas, so much as looking for comments to clarify and improve upon what is written.
"You sir, are correct."
Like I said, I haven't seen the comments at all, but I've heard about them (700 or so two plus weeks ago), so I would imagine, just based on the comments I've made concerning policy implications, that there were a lot of comments that suggested "out of scope" items.
Speaking strictly personally, I suppose there is a can of worms issue here: do you solicit input from the field during the promulgation/staffing process for the committee to synthesize, or do you allow the committee to represent a body of knowledge?
The military gets uniform commentary all the time to their respective OPRs on the subject, and I bet they staff the collected/collated comments in front of their committee when its time for them to meet/make decisions. Now, their folks have staff supporting their uniform board and they "convene" differently (at least, the USAF one does).
I read an article a couple weeks back when they announced the new USAF uniform changes (the one that included sock & shoe color for the PFU) and at the bottom of the article it listed all the changes that had been proposed to the AFUB and rejected. It was interesting (darn it, I wish I could find that article now).
Sounds familiar. I was (briefly) on the periphery of the project to change the Army's PT uniform. Well before any decisions get made, let alone added into a draft manual, there were months of suggestions, trials, discussions, vetting, senior leader guidance, etc... none of which the Army as a whole was privvy to until a survey came out soliciting opinions on what we narrowed it down to. I've since come off the project, but as nothing new has come out in a change letter, I have to assume the back room dealing is still going on.
When the actual publication comes out for comment, they're looking on comments on the publication- not the uniform itself at that time, as the major decisions have already been made. I think there was a lot of misunderstanding with the draft 39-1 along those lines, as most comments were "we should do X," not like "para X.1 sentence two has a subject-verb disagreement." Again, I'm basing this off of the discussions I saw here (as I'm not privvy to the actual comments submitted), but that seemed to be the theme that carried the day.
As much as it pains an old -47 guy to say this, I think you and I are on the same page on this. :)
Quote from: NIN on February 05, 2014, 01:56:12 PMI read an article a couple weeks back when they announced the new USAF uniform changes (the one that included sock & shoe color for the PFU) and at the bottom of the article it listed all the changes that had been proposed to the AFUB and rejected. It was interesting (darn it, I wish I could find that article now).
Look at virtually any meeting of the Coast Guard uniform board - probably 20 things come up, 18 of which are rejected and two are delayed pending a future meeting. And I have seen submissions that go as far as suggesting the entire CG uniform be trashed and to go back to the Navy uniforms. I think the most significant thing I have seen approved regarded lettering on the T-Shirt.
And thats the active duty board - there is no AUX equivalent of it.
I did not take part in the comments on the 39-1 revision, for two main reasons.
First off, once I read the posted draft, I knew that any suggestions about uniform changes would be an exercise in futility. The 39-1 turned out almost exactly as I expected - a very conservative ("conservative" as in minimalist) revision that had very few surprises (for me) and basically was 99% status quo, just closing a few loopholes; i.e., clarifying the flight cap with the blue flight suit/utility uniform.
Second, with my convoluted mix of linguistics, there are others better qualified than me to suggest changes in line with standard American English.
I submitted several comments (all within scope) addressing omissions, inconsistencies and requesting clarification due to vague or unclear wording.
I didn't request changes to the existing uniform, as I considered those out of scope for the current draft. I also didn't comment on existing pictures, although I hope many are addressed on the second draft; I will comment then, if needed.
I think you guys are right in that much of this 39-1 (this time around) was consolidation of the myriad of ICLs, fixing of the "loopholes and contradictions" and simplifying (even though update to the format of the AF Instruction didn't precisely do that! LOL).
Quote from: NIN on February 05, 2014, 05:42:27 PMI think you guys are right in that much of this 39-1 (this time around) was consolidation of the myriad of ICLs, fixing of the "loopholes and contradictions" and simplifying (even though update to the format of the AF Instruction didn't precisely do that! LOL).
This time around there was such a significant format change they didn't want major revisions to content. Just the same they introduced two new items of corporate uniform, giving us now three different corporate jackets and a fleece while still not having a service coat.
And do they really think anybody is going to put on / take off the black fleece every time they walk through a door?
Quote from: NIN on February 05, 2014, 01:09:24 PM
A couple are incomprehensible. "Would prefer a bib be authorized for mess dress. (CLOSED: A bib, really?)"
Sweet. They
did get my comments!
Quote from: Panache on February 05, 2014, 06:46:34 PM
Quote from: NIN on February 05, 2014, 01:09:24 PM
A couple are incomprehensible. "Would prefer a bib be authorized for mess dress. (CLOSED: A bib, really?)"
Sweet. They did get my comments!
You're not the only one.
Quote from: VNY on February 05, 2014, 06:40:34 PM
And do they really think anybody is going to put on / take off the black fleece every time they walk through a door?
This rule is straight from AFI 36-2903. I believe the intent is that if you're working/training indoors, you're not supposed to wear it. I doubt anyone is going to care much if you enter an office/classroom for a minute, then go back out. It's not an issue in the Air Force, so why should it be in CAP. Then again...
Quote from: VNY on February 05, 2014, 06:40:34 PM
This time around there was such a significant format change they didn't want major revisions to content. Just the same they introduced two new items of corporate uniform, giving us now three different corporate jackets and a fleece while still not having a service coat.
I think they are adamantly
against having a service coat (or cap) for the corporate uniforms; I think it's the long-standing mindset of "it'll tick off the Air Force" without even ASKING them.
For each of the AF-style uniforms, there should be a corporate equivalent. There is not, nor is there likely to be.
Quote from: Papabird on February 04, 2014, 04:20:17 PM
So, just got an alert that the entire "Publications for Comment" section has been removed from National. :-\ Not just updated, totally gone.
http://www.capmembers.com/forms_publications__regulations/ (http://www.capmembers.com/forms_publications__regulations/)
And the draft is gone from eServices as well.
So, now we wait. Again. >:D
Actually, it's still there, just no open links to it: https://www.capnhq.gov/Documents/CAPM_39-1_Draft_for_comments_(2013-12-31).pdf (https://www.capnhq.gov/Documents/CAPM_39-1_Draft_for_comments_(2013-12-31).pdf)
I'm still amazed that there's a link within that CMS that is -NOT- a jumbled mess of characters.
I swear, that's going to be an "Ask the National Commander" question..
Probably low hanging fruit, but the file names just look unprofessional and sloppy.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 07, 2014, 05:12:04 PM
Actually, it's still there, just no open links to it: https://www.capnhq.gov/Documents/CAPM_39-1_Draft_for_comments_(2013-12-31).pdf (https://www.capnhq.gov/Documents/CAPM_39-1_Draft_for_comments_(2013-12-31).pdf)
Shh... 8)
Besides, many of the older revisions are still present on that server, too.
When you search via search engine for CAP regs, it's not uncommon at all to get the older one as the first offering. Another reason why those file names should be consistent. So the only regulation offered from that site is -always- the current one.
Even if it's labeled "CAPR 39-1 12-DEC-2012" and it's now 2014, how do we know that is the current one?
Easy. You don't.
Quote from: a2capt on February 07, 2014, 06:08:44 PM
Besides, many of the older revisions are still present on that server, too.
When you search via search engine for CAP regs, it's not uncommon at all to get the older one as the first offering. Another reason why those file names should be consistent. So the only regulation offered from that site is -always- the current one.
Even if it's labeled "CAPR 39-1 12-DEC-2012" and it's now 2014, how do we know that is the current one?
Easy. You don't.
Yep, hard versioning is important. And consistency would be wonderful.
So, (to answer your question), a person has to check everything against the authoritative source. "The most up-to-date publications and
forms are on the National CAP website.", that is per the O-2.
That is the best answer, at this time. Which means that you need the CAP Publication site any time there is a disagreement/reference/discussion. Otherwise you may not be referencing the most current information.
Here's a question for those "in the know".
Just how set in stone is the "navy blue background for nametapes and grade insignia" for BBDUs? Is that pretty much happening when the new 39-1 takes effect, or is that still up in the air?
I ask because I need a new set of BBDUs and on top of that, a promotion is in my immediate future. If I can just save myself a little bit of time and money and order the grade insignia with the navy blue background for when the new 39-1 becomes official, that would be great. I'll just wear my old shabby BBDUs until the new version kicks in.
Quote from: Panache on February 10, 2014, 04:39:12 PM
Here's a question for those "in the know".
Just how set in stone is the "navy blue background for nametapes and grade insignia" for BBDUs? Is that pretty much happening when the new 39-1 takes effect, or is that still up in the air?
I ask because I need a new set of BBDUs and on top of that, a promotion is in my immediate future. If I can just save myself a little bit of time and money and order the grade insignia with the navy blue background for when the new 39-1 becomes official, that would be great. I'll just wear my old shabby BBDUs until the new version kicks in.
A) There will be a decent phase in period (IIRC, it was > 2 years?)
B) That concept is there to tie into the same insignia across the board for BBDUs/ABUs. Who knows when the ABU part will *ever* happen.
C) I'd just setup your BBDUs under current standards and swapperoo when it makes sense. I held off on BDUs until I just couldn't anymore. I'm sure I'll pay for my impudence. :)
I heard that the 1200 comments were received and the action officer has about 95% of those "addressed" (ie. "Closed out")
600 involved grammatical or structure of the document comments. :)
I sure hope they will post draft #2, so that we could correct the grammatical errors and inconsistencies that were (doubtless) introduced while they were fixing the hundreds of omissions, grammar, and inconsistencies that were brought up in comments about draft #1.
Cause otherwise, it's gonna suck to be stuck with those errors for the next 18 years.
Quote from: mdickinson on February 26, 2014, 02:12:58 PM
I sure hope they will post draft #2, so that we could correct the grammatical errors and inconsistencies that were (doubtless) introduced while they were fixing the hundreds of omissions, grammar, and inconsistencies that were brought up in comments about draft #1.
Cause otherwise, it's gonna suck to be stuck with those errors for the next 18 years.
Well, I suspect there may be a 2nd round of draft, but I kind of doubt it. They're already reeling under the weight of the first round.
About 600 also were pertaining to policy questions, or requests to change policy that was in the draft.
( "I would like the digitals. I want the ABU")
:)
A lot of of feedback had to do with the flag (the majority, as I recall), followed by ABUs ("I would like the green boots."), berets (really?), beards and ribbons, etc.
Quote from: NIN on February 26, 2014, 03:28:01 PM
Quote from: mdickinson on February 26, 2014, 02:12:58 PM
I sure hope they will post draft #2, so that we could correct the grammatical errors and inconsistencies that were (doubtless) introduced while they were fixing the hundreds of omissions, grammar, and inconsistencies that were brought up in comments about draft #1.
Cause otherwise, it's gonna suck to be stuck with those errors for the next 18 years.
Well, I suspect there may be a 2nd round of draft, but I kind of doubt it. They're already reeling under the weight of the first round.
About 600 also were pertaining to policy questions, or requests to change policy that was in the draft.
( "I would like the digitals. I want the ABU")
:)
A lot of of feedback had to do with the flag (the majority, as I recall), followed by ABUs ("I would like the green boots."), berets (really?), beards and ribbons, etc.
Yea, but those issues are addressed very quickly. Click delete. Move on.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on February 26, 2014, 03:51:15 PM
Yea, but those issues are addressed very quickly. Click delete. Move on.
Wait, you're telling me you'd just delete people's concerns out of hand?
Quote from: NIN on February 26, 2014, 04:02:23 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on February 26, 2014, 03:51:15 PM
Yea, but those issues are addressed very quickly. Click delete. Move on.
Wait, you're telling me you'd just delete people's concerns out of hand?
If they're not relevant to the feedback requested, yes. That was not the appropriate forum to request policy changes. Some of our members need to learn how to follow directions.
Quote from: NIN on February 26, 2014, 04:02:23 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on February 26, 2014, 03:51:15 PM
Yea, but those issues are addressed very quickly. Click delete. Move on.
Wait, you're telling me you'd just delete people's concerns out of hand?
If they are:
Duplicates.
Out of scope (policy or blue-sky based).
Unfeasible.
Cranky manifestos.
Then yes. I'd guess that's 1/3rd at least.
Quote from: NIN on February 26, 2014, 01:44:25 PM
I heard that the 1200 comments were received and the action officer has about 95% of those "addressed" (ie. "Closed out")
Kudos to whoever is handling this job.
Quote from: Panache on February 26, 2014, 06:02:16 PM
Quote from: NIN on February 26, 2014, 01:44:25 PM
I heard that the 1200 comments were received and the action officer has about 95% of those "addressed" (ie. "Closed out")
Kudos to whoever is handling this job.
Its not a job I'd want, thats for sure.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 26, 2014, 04:35:25 PM
Quote from: NIN on February 26, 2014, 04:02:23 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on February 26, 2014, 03:51:15 PM
Yea, but those issues are addressed very quickly. Click delete. Move on.
Wait, you're telling me you'd just delete people's concerns out of hand?
If they are:
Duplicates.
Out of scope (policy or blue-sky based).
Unfeasible.
Cranky manifestos.
Then yes. I'd guess that's 1/3rd at least.
Certainly.
Duplicates? Yeah, confirm its truly a duplicate and then *poof* off with the subsequent ones.
Out of Scope? Well, that one is a little fuzzier. There is a ragged line between "doing the staff officer thing and appropriately filtering the data for the decision makers" and "deleting something I think is out of scope, but clearly others did not think was." Example? Yeah, I'm not a gigantic fan of berets. "Find all: 'beret'. Delete." Is that out of scope? Maybe. Maybe its better that the feedback go to the commander and the commander can be the guy who gets to use his filter.
Unfeasible? Well, we've already seen "unfeasible" shouted down right here. Like out of scope, your "unfeasible" is maybe right in the center of my wheelhouse. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so maybe you put the "are you kidding?" ones into their own tab, still pass them along, but you still have to manipulate them.
Cranky manifestos? Hey, thats my
ENTIRE feedback screed. Don't you dare delete that! :)
By "out of scope" and "unfeasible" I meant things not addressed this round.
ABUs, for example, aren't mentioned, so anything in that context is dropped,
or at most forwarded to the list or committee still pretending we're ever getting those working on that.
I see your point, but the problem is that if you don't cut things off, you never get out of the gate,
and it could take 10 years to...oh, yeah...
Quote from: Eclipse on February 26, 2014, 07:25:49 PM
By "out of scope" and "unfeasible" I meant things not addressed this round.
ABUs, for example, aren't mentioned, so anything in that context is dropped,
or at most forwarded to the list or committee still pretending we're ever getting those working on that.
I see your point, but the problem is that if you don't cut things off, you never get out of the gate,
and it could take 10 years to...oh, yeah...
Well, if it were up to CAPTalk, we'd have 4 more rounds of draft review so everybody could get their voice heard.
And the manual would be out by 1 March.
(ETA: And if its not, well, its clearly the evil cabal at Maxwell who are preventing the membership from getting the information they're waiting for!)
Quote from: NIN on February 26, 2014, 07:10:59 PM
Out of Scope? Well, that one is a little fuzzier. There is a ragged line between "doing the staff officer thing and appropriately filtering the data for the decision makers" and "deleting something I think is out of scope, but clearly others did not think was." Example? Yeah, I'm not a gigantic fan of berets. "Find all: 'beret'. Delete." Is that out of scope?
"Provide better instructions on proper wear of the beret." [in scope]
"Authorize all CAP members to wear the beret as part of their basic uniform without having to attend NBB, etc." [out of scope]
"Change wording to clarify when the beret can be worn and when it cannot." [feasible]
"Allow the beret to be worn with AF-style service uniform." [unfeasible]
I don't really see the problem here.
Quote from: NIN on February 26, 2014, 08:38:47 PM
Well, if it were up to CAPTalk, we'd have 4 more rounds of draft review so everybody could get their voice heard.
And the manual would be out by 1 March.
(ETA: And if its not, well, its clearly the evil cabal at Maxwell who are preventing the membership from getting the information they're waiting for!)
Whatever, I've already started wearing the new OEF corporate variant anyway.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 26, 2014, 08:47:19 PM
Whatever, I've already started wearing the new OEF corporate variant anyway.
I hate you so much. 8)
Quote from: NIN on February 26, 2014, 08:38:47 PM
Well, if it were up to CAPTalk, we'd have 4 more rounds of draft review so everybody could get their voice heard.
While everyone has their pet peeves and policy change suggestions, I think most of the serious commentators would appreciate another chance to make sure that outright ERRORS get fixed.
Agreed, which is why it should be published as a live document, along with all other regulations, with a
process for correcting errata and omissions. It shouldn't take an act of Congress to fix something
which is obviously missing or wrong.
I know for years the CLC instructor's guide had a 1/2-sentence that just "ended". I watched for it every time,
and it caught me every time anyway. Something like "Another important point is that (blank)".
I reported it a number of times, it's probably still in there.
Quote from: RiverAux on February 26, 2014, 11:04:02 PM
Quote from: NIN on February 26, 2014, 08:38:47 PM
Well, if it were up to CAPTalk, we'd have 4 more rounds of draft review so everybody could get their voice heard.
While everyone has their pet peeves and policy change suggestions, I think most of the serious commentators would appreciate another chance to make sure that outright ERRORS get fixed.
My point remains: multiple rounds of "error fixing" eventually means "all fix, no deploy."
If you think that you'll get a "perfect document" without errors after two rounds of draft, I think the stuff you're smoking is high quality and you should share.
It will have a few errors, but its hundreds of pages long. I would think in 1200 comments, most of the "egregious" errors will be spotted and weeded out. The rest, well, they're going to be there.
Plus there are things that some people call "errors" that others call "policy mistakes" and still others call "misinterpretations" and a few more call "a miscarriage of the USAF uniform!"
Define "error"
I am guessing that the majority of the spelling and grammatical errors will be handled.
BTW, the latest release/update of the USAF D&C manual failed to fix an error that was pointed out and acknowledged by the kind folks at Lackland over 12 years ago, so we get a SECOND manual with the wrong stuff printed in it. Eventually, it will become gospel. :) So errors in manuals aren't just the province of CAP.
ETA: Oh, and by the way: this last version was at least the third, if not FOURTH draft of this current iteration. Just because the general membership didn't see it doesn't mean it hasn't gone thru numerous revisions and reviews previously. And some things that were pointed out were fixed, others were not, and were caught again. To quote Forrest Gump: "It happens."
Since this wasn't a "finished" draft, I think it's only reasonable that the membership gets another look at it before NHQ publishes the final version. We've been waiting for years. What's another few weeks?
Quote from: Storm Chaser on February 26, 2014, 11:57:02 PM
Since this wasn't a "finished" draft, I think it's only reasonable that the membership gets another look at it before NHQ publishes the final version. We've been waiting for years. What's another few weeks?
Yeah, I will agree with that. I do know of a pretty significant change that will be coming down the pike (ain't that right, Eclipse?) and should be in any subsequent draft.
:)
Well, a second chance would be nice, but frankly I'm just happy they gave a first chance.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on February 26, 2014, 11:57:02 PM
Since this wasn't a "finished" draft, I think it's only reasonable that the membership gets another look at it before NHQ publishes the final version. We've been waiting for years. What's another few weeks?
Name another regulation or manual that has had more then one comment period?
So why should
this manual be any different?
Quote from: PHall on February 27, 2014, 01:50:30 AM
So why should this manual be any different?
1. This is one of the very few manuals that impacts every single CAP member at every single CAP activity and that every single CAP member is expected to understand and follow.
2. It has just undergone a very major re-write that incorporates many dozens of changes.
3. The first draft had a very significant number of outright errors in indicating that a second look by "the crowd" may be worthwhile to make sure that as few as possible slip by into the final version.
4. History seems to indicate that we may not get another chance to mess with it for over a decade.
Encampment Manual, 52-16, CPPT ..
Quote from: RiverAux on February 27, 2014, 02:36:44 AM
Quote from: PHall on February 27, 2014, 01:50:30 AM
So why should this manual be any different?
1. This is one of the very few manuals that impacts every single CAP member at every single CAP activity and that every single CAP member is expected to understand and follow.
2. It has just undergone a very major re-write that incorporates many dozens of changes.
3. The first draft had a very significant number of outright errors in indicating that a second look by "the crowd" may be worthwhile to make sure that as few as possible slip by into the final version.
4. History seems to indicate that we may not get another chance to mess with it for over a decade.
The last several rewrites of this manual didn't get more then one comment period, if they got a comment period at all.
So make your case, why is this time more special then the other times?
Uh, how about the errors in that version of the manual? And all the other things I said? Just can't ignore them because you don't think they're sufficient.
Encampment manual doesn't impact all members. CPPT does and if that one had the same history and was as complicated as 39-1, it would probably deserve multiple looks too. And I did say it was "one of very few" manuals that impacted everybody at all times so I was making allowances for others.
Quote from: RiverAux on February 27, 2014, 02:36:44 AM
Quote from: PHall on February 27, 2014, 01:50:30 AM
So why should this manual be any different?
1. This is one of the very few manuals that impacts every single CAP member at every single CAP activity and that every single CAP member is expected to understand and follow.
2. It has just undergone a very major re-write that incorporates many dozens of changes.
3. The first draft had a very significant number of outright errors in indicating that a second look by "the crowd" may be worthwhile to make sure that as few as possible slip by into the final version.
4. History seems to indicate that we may not get another chance to mess with it for over a decade.
What he said.
Quote from: PHall on February 27, 2014, 02:54:16 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on February 27, 2014, 02:36:44 AM
Quote from: PHall on February 27, 2014, 01:50:30 AM
So why should this manual be any different?
1. This is one of the very few manuals that impacts every single CAP member at every single CAP activity and that every single CAP member is expected to understand and follow.
2. It has just undergone a very major re-write that incorporates many dozens of changes.
3. The first draft had a very significant number of outright errors in indicating that a second look by "the crowd" may be worthwhile to make sure that as few as possible slip by into the final version.
4. History seems to indicate that we may not get another chance to mess with it for over a decade.
The last several rewrites of this manual didn't get more then one comment period, if they got a comment period at all.
So make your case, why is this time more special then the other times?
I think he just did. For a manual that has taken so long to be updated, with so few major or significant policy changes, it sure had a lot of errors, omissions, contradictions, etc. And the draft wasn't even finished (i.e. pictures missing or incorrect). Many of us submitted lots of serious feedback (I know I submitted about a dozen or so) to make this manual better than its predecessor.
No one is taking away from the effort of those directly involved with revising this manual, but this is OUR manual (the entire CAP membership) and the more people contributing to correct these discrepancies, the better the final product will be.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on February 26, 2014, 04:09:46 PM
Quote from: NIN on February 26, 2014, 04:02:23 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on February 26, 2014, 03:51:15 PM
Yea, but those issues are addressed very quickly. Click delete. Move on.
Wait, you're telling me you'd just delete people's concerns out of hand?
If they're not relevant to the feedback requested, yes. That was not the appropriate forum to request policy changes. Some of our members need to learn how to follow directions.
In what I recall, it was posted to eServices asking for "comment". Just that, "comment". It didn't specifically say
what kind of comment.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on February 27, 2014, 03:16:04 AM
I think he just did. For a manual that has taken so long to be updated, with so few major or significant policy changes, it sure had a lot of errors, omissions, contradictions, etc. And the draft wasn't even finished (i.e. pictures missing or incorrect). Many of us submitted lots of serious feedback (I know I submitted about a dozen or so) to make this manual better than its predecessor.
Oh, my. Some of those pictures...
Hopefully those, at least, have been corrected. Please tell me it's been corrected, NIN.
Quote from: Panache on February 27, 2014, 04:28:32 AM
Oh, my. Some of those pictures...
Hopefully those, at least, have been corrected. Please tell me it's been corrected, NIN.
I believe the membership will find the graphics to be greatly improved in terms of our ability to glean useful information from them.
Quote from: NIN on February 27, 2014, 10:54:01 AM
Quote from: Panache on February 27, 2014, 04:28:32 AM
Oh, my. Some of those pictures...
Hopefully those, at least, have been corrected. Please tell me it's been corrected, NIN.
I believe the membership will find the graphics to be greatly improved in terms of our ability to glean useful information from them.
:clap:
Publish the [darn] thing as a wiki, and delegate the authority to someone at NHQ to make corrective (non-substantive) modifications without formal notice, simply by modifying (and maybe keeping a change log).
Quote from: JeffDG on February 27, 2014, 03:08:51 PM
Publish the [darn] thing as a wiki, and delegate the authority to someone at NHQ to make corrective (non-substantive) modifications without formal notice, simply by modifying (and maybe keeping a change log).
Sorry, the problem with this idea is that it's too forward thinking. ;) :-X
And it will lead to the inevitable request from a lifetime member to print out the internet for his reference.
Quote from: UH60guy on February 27, 2014, 03:45:44 PM
And it will lead to the inevitable request from a lifetime member to print out the internet for his reference.
And could you fax that to me, please?
Quote from: Eclipse on February 27, 2014, 04:14:06 PM
Quote from: UH60guy on February 27, 2014, 03:45:44 PM
And it will lead to the inevitable request from a lifetime member to print out the internet for his reference.
And could you fax that to me, please?
Sorry. Snailmail only.
Quote from: A.Member on February 27, 2014, 03:25:18 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on February 27, 2014, 03:08:51 PM
Publish the [darn] thing as a wiki, and delegate the authority to someone at NHQ to make corrective (non-substantive) modifications without formal notice, simply by modifying (and maybe keeping a change log).
Sorry, the problem with this idea is that it's too forward thinking. ;) :-X
Well, the problem isn't its forward thinkingness. I think thats a great idea.
The problem is one of versioning and stability.
A wiki changes at the drop of a hat (literally), even with strict delegation of duties, etc.
I can see someone's job as commander being made 100x more complicated by the immediate need to track every time a grammatical change to the wiki-based manual suddenly results in an "either/or" situation suddenly becoming all-inclusive or something like that.
"Cadet, why are you wearing that hat?"
"Sir, the uniform manual online says I can. It changed this morning. And yesterday."
"uhhhh, really?"
Quote from: NIN on February 27, 2014, 04:30:35 PM
Quote from: A.Member on February 27, 2014, 03:25:18 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on February 27, 2014, 03:08:51 PM
Publish the [darn] thing as a wiki, and delegate the authority to someone at NHQ to make corrective (non-substantive) modifications without formal notice, simply by modifying (and maybe keeping a change log).
Sorry, the problem with this idea is that it's too forward thinking. ;) :-X
Well, the problem isn't its forward thinkingness. I think thats a great idea.
The problem is one of versioning and stability.
A wiki changes at the drop of a hat (literally), even with strict delegation of duties, etc.
I can see someone's job as commander being made 100x more complicated by the immediate need to track every time a grammatical change to the wiki-based manual suddenly results in an "either/or" situation suddenly becoming all-inclusive or something like that.
"Cadet, why are you wearing that hat?"
"Sir, the uniform manual online says I can. It changed this morning. And yesterday."
"uhhhh, really?"
Not all wikis are free-for-alls. Some have a small (as few as one) number of authorized editors.
Quote from: JeffDG on February 27, 2014, 06:03:13 PM
Not all wikis are free-for-alls. Some have a small (as few as one) number of authorized editors.
Not my point. I'm talking about "change management" not "free-for-all"
CAPM39-1, with warts and bumps and all, is a stable document. Is there, in black and white, with a publication date. You can point to it and say "On this date, this manual says this.."
There are ICLs, also there, in black and white, with a publication date. Clearly delineated and (thankfully, or regrettably) only updated occasionally. You can point to these and say "The manual said this until this date, and now, after that date, it says this."
So you can say "39-1 plus ICL1 plus ICL2 = What you wear"
You put the uniform manual in a wiki, now you have changes FREQUENTLY (even if only ever by ONE person) with the potential for a lot less forethought and a lot more "moving the wheel from side to side".
I get the idea that it is handy to have it in a wiki so that it is no longer a static document.
But I also know how CAP works: Think of how many people can't even effectively reference a "fairly stable" 8 year old document that has essentially only, what, two major changes published for it.
Now think of that same document in a wiki. Getting adjusted and updated even (generously) once a quarter or twice a year.
What was "completely acceptable and ops normal" this month could be "whoops, you're wrong!" next month. How do you reconcile a wiki-based manual with your index? And do you then no longer have a "single document" version of the manual and you MUST reference the wiki?
CAP and "change management" are not often spoken in the same sentence. Any CAP manual as an "easily updateable wiki" (even if the update was only performed by ONE person at NHQ) would be a goat rope. Seriously.
(Side note: think about all the uniform interpretation stuff that is found in the @#$% Knowledge Base, and the confusion that generates.. )
Quote from: NIN on February 27, 2014, 06:50:02 PM
(Side note: think about all the uniform interpretation stuff that is found in the @#$% Knowledge Base, and the confusion that generates.. )
And there's the problem that I'm seeking to solve. Instead of CAPM 39-1 + ICL 1 + ICL 2 + KB Article 1234 + KB Article 3321 + ... condense the guidance down to one, and only one, document.
The "abbreviated" update part would be for non-substantive changes. Grammatical errors, poorly lit pictures, etc. Heck, adding pictures that weren't there that simply illustrate the text, or for that matter, multimedia video showing how things should look.
Substantive changes would still need approval in like manner to the current manual, but instead of doing + ICL1 it would be simply updated in the live document and from that date forward become THE document.
The platform does not determine your approval process for changes. But the current process for the manual is badly broken, and perhaps dropping the entire paradigm is in order.
Quote from: NIN on February 27, 2014, 06:50:02 PM
CAPM39-1, with warts and bumps and all, is a stable document. Is there, in black and white [and gray], with a publication date... [and several ICLs.]
>:D
Quote from: JeffDG on February 27, 2014, 07:16:23 PM
The platform does not determine your approval process for changes. But the current process for the manual is badly broken, and perhaps dropping the entire paradigm is in order.
The problem becomes the fact that the uniform manual is:
a) A third-rail in CAP (anybody who touches it eventually dies)
b) effects everybody, cadet/senior, CP dude, flyer, wing commander, whomever
I think its probably not a bad thing that the uniform manual NOT change "4 times a year" or whatever.
Look at the armed services: when was the last "new" AR 670-1? 2005. EVERY CHANGE to the Army uniform since then has been conducted on the basis of an ALARACT message or now, a "Rapid Action Revision" (whatever that is). The Army has been operating off a uniform manual that a) doesn't even reflect ACUs in its base version; and b) doesn't reflect the ASU, either. All of that is handled by their equivalent of an ICL
(Mind you: I'd like to think that they could at least get their act together when there are *major* changes to the uniform, like the BDU -> ACU change, or the Class A Greens -> ASU change. But nooooooooo.....)I guess my point there is that I'm not so sure that having a uniform manual that is a "paper" (or, well, OK, PDF) manual that doesn't change that frequently is a bad thing.
I think the issue we're really dealing with is that it takes EIGHT YEARS to get a new one.
That has little to do with the
format and a lot to do with the
process.
In the interim since the last 39-1, there have been a few changes to how CAP does business (the process).
One was to remove the National
Uniform Board, er, no, I mean the National Board
of Uniforms.. no, wait, I mean the
National Board, from the process.
How many uniform items appeared on the national board's agenda in the last 8 years? For the first six or so, I'd say "A LOT!"
The problem was:
We did not have a uniform change process. Electronic or otherwise.
We had a bunch of people who met twice a year with heavily competing agendas. Potentially 64 or more ideas of what was the "right thing" for their members and for the uniform. Show up, hit and run talk about uniforms, go away for anther six months while Somebody™ on the National Staff chewed on the uniform issues.
There should be a method by which to submit proposed changes to the CAP uniform, much like there is in the USAF. It could be a daggone electronic form, thats fine, but
x times a year, there should be a meeting of the Uniform Board that takes all the submitted proposed changes, classifies them into categories: "Consider; ignore; "not that crackpot again;" and "not only no, but hell no." (LOL) Then the board considers them, staffs the "considers" in front of the commander or the CC or the National Staff, some decisions get made and they publish the results ("yes, yet again, we have decided that the BoG does not need plumed hats and sabers"), incorporates the changes into a new manual or an ICL, and we drive on.
After x months, the board then considers the submitted proposals made from the last time they cut off the incoming proposals, and they do it again.
Thats a PROCESS.
A decent wiki could be made to "float up changes since last login" or similar.
But more importantly, what we need to do is indoctrinate our members that Facebook is not
where CAP begins and ends, and that anytime they have a question, they need to
find the most-current version of the appropriate regulation themselves,
and unless and until they can show official text somewhere in regards to the "special thing
they want to do", they don't do it, wives tale, urban legend or other not withstanding.
It was drilled into members for years that the regs existed only in the magic binders at their
squadron (i.e. the unopened envelopes full of updates at the CC's house), so it was at least understandable
that these docs weren't always within arm's reach.
But today there is no excuse - everything applicable is online, and if it isn't, it probably isn't applicable.
The trouble today is that members either can't be bothered to look, have never been trained where to
look and how to read the regs, or prefer the local spin to the real reg since it validates their "special".
We get grief here when members ask simple questions regarding information that is either in their
Great Start . L1 materials, or available via a 1-hit Google search because we say "What does the regulation say?"
But that's the appropriate response, otherwise you're asking me to do your work for you.
Come up to me and say "Sir, I've hit ##-# and the KB, and even my wing's website, but I still don't understand
this..?" and you'll get a better response then "I can't be bothered to crack a browser, just give me the 1-line answer."
Also, the former tends to build on itself and reduces the questions the second time, where the latter actually
makes things worse because it turns the responder into Google.
Rather then wasting time checking a box for the 12th time on knife safety, how about a 50-question
test on 39-1 as part of Great Start and Level 1?
Hit the high notes and the big problems, then when it comes up, you can point to the Curry or Member ribbon
and say "That decoration indicates you've already been told and acknowledged we don't do 'x'. "
Sorry, but I'm more for simplicity here and in acting IAW regulations such as CAPR 5-4.
ALL of the ICLs are no longer valid. They must be incorporated into their parent publication within 90 days. Some of these ICLs are from 2006..
When the National Board forms a new uniform policy, the changes should properly be incorporated into 39-1 AT WHICH TIME they become effective. The knowledge base can serve to provide guidance on interpretation (and that can be the basis to reword items en masse when a revision to 39-1 is required).
I mean, seriously, if NHQ is doing their job right, this is not a publication that requires constant revision. They can roll up several small changes (grade insignia on both collars, SMs wear grade insignia on BDU cap, etc) once or twice per year, and maybe issue a special revision when there is a major change (introducing/sunsetting a complete uniform, for example). No one will die if they don't have the wing patch removed 6 months from now instead of next week, and if we suddenly get a new uniform (don't say it...) >:D, they can issue a revision that also includes the pending minor items.
What they really need is a better notification system when things DO change. A message on the home page of eServices is NOT sufficient. Why can't they send out an email to all members when a reg is revised?
</rant>
Quote from: JoeTomasone on February 28, 2014, 03:00:52 AM
Sorry, but I'm more for simplicity here and in acting IAW regulations such as CAPR 5-4.
ALL of the ICLs are no longer valid. They must be incorporated into their parent publication within 180 days. Some of these ICLs are from 2006.
Something pretty much just ignored. I don't understand how this is allowed to continue.
If a wing did something similar, they'd be dinged hard on a CI.
Quote from: JoeTomasone on February 28, 2014, 03:00:52 AM
The knowledge base can serve to provide guidance on interpretation (and that can be the basis to reword items en masse when a revision to 39-1 is required).
I disagree - the KB is not staffed with CC's with interpretive authority - that's one of the problems we have now. Staffers and SMEs who
give answers based on their "best guess", "how
they think it should be", or "how it will be soon".
The KB should be left to quoting regs and stating facts. Interpretation is reserved for CC's, and only within the scope of their AOR.
I do agree with the "asked twice rule", meaning the first time a given question is asked, it could just be an anomaly, but any question
asked by more then one person is usually attributed to a confusing publication or directive and should be clarified.
We also need to stop dancing around short sentences to save member feelings. Say what you mean, directly, remove wiggle room
and specify details.
Quote from: JoeTomasone on February 28, 2014, 03:00:52 AM
What they really need is a better notification system when things DO change. A message on the home page of eServices is NOT sufficient. Why can't they send out an email to all members when a reg is revised?
I agree, but the problem is that the attention span of most members for anything that isn't Farmville or Candy Crush is pretty low.
The RSS feed works really well, but most people don't even know what that is.
Email would seem to be the most efficient and effective means of notification, but a lot of members complain
when they get >anything< that distracts them from their 409 scams and virtual hugs.
Quote from: JoeTomasone on February 28, 2014, 03:00:52 AM
The knowledge base can serve to provide guidance on interpretation (and that can be the basis to reword items en masse when a revision to 39-1 is required).
Quote from: Eclipse on February 28, 2014, 03:15:02 AM
I disagree - the KB is not staffed with CC's with interpretive authority - that's one of the problems we have now. Staffers and SMEs who
give answers based on their "best guess", "how they think it should be", or "how it will be soon".
The KB should be left to quoting regs and stating facts. Interpretation is reserved for CC's, and only within the scope of their AOR.
That's another problem - the KB should only be answered by the chief of the affected directorate, who should have the authority/ability to speak on behalf of the board (preferably with firsthand knowledge of the Board's intentions, or with the ability to communicate with the Board to clarify it). It should be authoritative; otherwise, it serves no more purpose than our debates on CapTalk.
Quote from: JoeTomasone on February 28, 2014, 03:00:52 AM
Sorry, but I'm more for simplicity here and in acting IAW regulations such as CAPR 5-4.
ALL of the ICLs are no longer valid. They must be incorporated into their parent publication within 180 days. Some of these ICLs are from 2006..
Emphasis mine..
Joe, umm, which ICLs are those? I didn't see any from 2006 when I looked at http://capmembers.com/forms_publications__regulations/interim-change-letters-1708/ (http://capmembers.com/forms_publications__regulations/interim-change-letters-1708/)
That said, yes, there are two that exceed the 90/180 day timeframes as required by CAPR 5-4 para 4. However they are not from 2006, it's time to put that version of the argument to rest.
Quote from: Tim Medeiros on February 28, 2014, 03:49:07 AM
Quote from: JoeTomasone on February 28, 2014, 03:00:52 AM
Sorry, but I'm more for simplicity here and in acting IAW regulations such as CAPR 5-4.
ALL of the ICLs are no longer valid. They must be incorporated into their parent publication within 180 days. Some of these ICLs are from 2006..
Emphasis mine..
Joe, umm, which ICLs are those? I didn't see any from 2006 when I looked at http://capmembers.com/forms_publications__regulations/interim-change-letters-1708/ (http://capmembers.com/forms_publications__regulations/interim-change-letters-1708/)
That said, yes, there are two that exceed the 90/180 day timeframes as required by CAPR 5-4 para 4. However they are not from 2006, it's time to put that version of the argument to rest.
That's because they were re-issued in a roll-up dated 12 March 2012:
http://capmembers.com/media/cms/2012_03_12_Uniform_Manual_EDA9CCE9FE03A.pdf (http://capmembers.com/media/cms/2012_03_12_Uniform_Manual_EDA9CCE9FE03A.pdf)
This ICL became invalid as of June 12, 2012 - since changes intended to be permanent must be incorporated in the parent publication within 90 days.
As of today, it's 627 days late. Of course, many of the provisions within had taken effect as far back as 2006 - which I remember since it is when I came out of Patron status. Some of the items that were in effect then include:
- Removal of Wing Patch from blues (suspense 1 August 2006)
- Gortex Parka authorized (as of 20 November 2006)
- Grade Insignia on BDU cap for SMs (mandatory 1 May 2007, but was in effect in 2006)
- Grade insignia on BBDU cap (Effective August 2005)
- Reverse American Flag required (mandatory 1 April 2007 but in effect in 2006)
So I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can argue that any of the 39-1 ICLs are still valid.
Quote from: JoeTomasone on February 28, 2014, 04:05:59 AM
Quote from: Tim Medeiros on February 28, 2014, 03:49:07 AM
Quote from: JoeTomasone on February 28, 2014, 03:00:52 AM
Sorry, but I'm more for simplicity here and in acting IAW regulations such as CAPR 5-4.
ALL of the ICLs are no longer valid. They must be incorporated into their parent publication within 180 days. Some of these ICLs are from 2006..
Emphasis mine..
Joe, umm, which ICLs are those? I didn't see any from 2006 when I looked at http://capmembers.com/forms_publications__regulations/interim-change-letters-1708/ (http://capmembers.com/forms_publications__regulations/interim-change-letters-1708/)
That said, yes, there are two that exceed the 90/180 day timeframes as required by CAPR 5-4 para 4. However they are not from 2006, it's time to put that version of the argument to rest.
That's because they were re-issued in a roll-up dated 12 March 2012:
http://capmembers.com/media/cms/2012_03_12_Uniform_Manual_EDA9CCE9FE03A.pdf (http://capmembers.com/media/cms/2012_03_12_Uniform_Manual_EDA9CCE9FE03A.pdf)
This ICL became invalid as of June 12, 2012 - since changes intended to be permanent must be incorporated in the parent publication within 90 days. As of today, it's 627 days late.
Of course, many of the provisions within had taken effect as far back as 2006 - which I remember since it is when I came out of Patron status. Some of the items that were in effect then include:
- Removal of Wing Patch from blues (suspense 1 August 2006)
- Gortex Parka authorized (as of 20 November 2006)
- Grade Insignia on BDU cap for SMs (mandatory 1 May 2007, but was in effect in 2006)
- Grade insignia on BBDU cap (Effective August 2005)
- Reverse American Flag required (mandatory 1 April 2007 but in effect in 2006)
So I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can argue that any of the 39-1 ICLs are still valid.
Where did I argue that they were still valid? I merely pointed out that your comment about some of the ICLs being from 2006 was false.
Quote from: Tim Medeiros on February 28, 2014, 04:30:47 AM
Where did I argue that they were still valid? I merely pointed out that your comment about some of the ICLs being from 2006 was false.
True, sir. It's getting late here. Mea maxima culpa.
However, those ICLs WERE issued back in the years mentioned originally.
NIN, since it seems as though you have an ear to the comments, what were the comments on the aircrew wings?
Quote from: LSThiker on February 28, 2014, 09:21:17 PM
NIN, since it seems as though you have an ear to the comments, what were the comments on the aircrew wings?
I don't really have that much of an ear to the comments (in broad, general "wow, thats interesting!" strokes, really, only) and I did not hear anything specific about the Aircrew Wings.
Except, I assume, evil cackling from those who submitted that design in the first place.
Here at the Winter Board Command Council meeting in Arlington and Maj Gen Carr made a few remarks about the new 39-1. It should be finalized and released in May 2014 and he would confirm the removal of U.S. Flags on all uniforms except for flight suit/jacket and no ABUs. He had a comment on the Commander's device, but I didn't catch the details. Hopefully someone else here can fill that in.
He was impressed with the amount of comments received. It was obvious many members read the entire draft of the manual.
Quote from: Laplace on March 01, 2014, 09:15:39 PM...and no ABUs.
Hm...
Mid-year for the revised uniform manual without them in it, so not likely in FY14 and doubtful in FY15,
meanwhile the common combat uniform continues to gather momentum in Congress.
You might want to leave the tags on them if you bought them.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 01, 2014, 09:54:06 PM
You might want to leave the tags on them if you bought them.
Or, alternatively, if the common combat uniform becomes a reality, the AF phases out the ABU to transition to the CCU, and the ABU becomes a CAP-distinctive item.
I imagine that the CCU (if it happens) will be restricted by law to the Armed Services, and I would be surprised if a civilian organization likes CAP gets the authorization to wear them.
By then the ABU would have lost its cache and you will start reading "When are we getting the CCU?"
Flyer
The Department of Defense has announced that after years of study and consultation with all the branches of the Armed Service, it has chosen its new Common Combat Uniform. "The pattern we have selected has proven itself in the field time and time again. It's both revolutionary and battle-tested. We hope to start deployment of the Woodland Camouflage pattern within a year..."
QuoteIt was announced today by MG Carr at the Winter Command Council meeting in Washington DC that a decision has been made not to authorize CAP members to wear the Airman Battle Uniform (ABU). This decision was made in part as a result of the exploration of a standardized utility uniform for all services, thus potentially rendering the ABUs obsolete. The authorized field utility uniforms will be published in the upcoming revision to CAPR 39-1.
From the CAWG official Facebook page. (https://www.facebook.com/cawg.cap?ref=ts&fref=ts)
This to me begs the question, why did NHQ announce a proposed ABU configuration if we were never headed towards ABU wear? The move towards a single all-service uniform had already begun at that point, so NHQ could have made the decision against asking for the ABU then.
Makes me wonder if we were denied by the air force/DOD for our request to wear it, so we've now announced we've decided against wearing them.
Quote from: Fubar on March 03, 2014, 02:11:41 AM
This to me begs the question, why did NHQ announce a proposed ABU configuration if we were never headed towards ABU wear? The move towards a single all-service uniform had already begun at that point, so NHQ could have made the decision against asking for the ABU then.
Makes me wonder if we were denied by the air force/DOD for our request to wear it, so we've now announced we've decided against wearing them.
I have been told, by several souces, that the Air Force did approve it but that it was going to take a waiver from the SecDef.
So either SecDef said no or it was decided to to drop the request in view of Congress's demand in the latest DoD budget authorization that all of the armed services go back to a common Field Uniform.
Either way we're back to "watching this space" to see what happens next.
Quote from: Panache on March 02, 2014, 04:08:08 PM
The Department of Defense has announced that after years of study and consultation with all the branches of the Armed Service, it has chosen its new Common Combat Uniform. "The pattern we have selected has proven itself in the field time and time again. It's both revolutionary and battle-tested. We hope to start deployment of the Woodland Camouflage pattern within a year..."
Cite..
With that presentation that was given at the National Board General Assembly, and six months later they come out and say they're not bothering, seems like there is a lot more to it than that.
It's only going to get worse for uniform supply and more so quality when there's no real compelling demand for a uniform item made to spec.
Quote from: a2capt on March 03, 2014, 06:25:56 AM
With that presentation that was given at the National Board General Assembly, and six months later they come out and say they're not bothering, seems like there is a lot more to it than that.
Perhaps he said it so people would just stop asking for/about it.
Perhaps, but then to only come out with it after that, would prove what many people say.. Transparency from NHQ is .. just plain not there. Something I at least sort of get the impression that the current National CC would like to do something about.
Two steps forward, 42 steps backwards. You'd never make progress with that.
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 03, 2014, 05:23:21 AM
Quote from: Panache on March 02, 2014, 04:08:08 PM
The Department of Defense has announced that after years of study and consultation with all the branches of the Armed Service, it has chosen its new Common Combat Uniform. "The pattern we have selected has proven itself in the field time and time again. It's both revolutionary and battle-tested. We hope to start deployment of the Woodland Camouflage pattern within a year..."
Cite..
(http://falkvinge.net/files/2013/05/facepalm-320x180.png)
Quote from: a2capt on March 03, 2014, 07:13:30 AM
Two steps forward, 42 steps backwards. You'd never make progress with that.
Sure you will. If you take 42 steps backwards sooner or later you will circumnavigate the globe and end up ahead of where you started :)
My original comment was meant to be a conspiracy joke and not to be taken with any grain of salt.
Reminds me of an old joke...
What should you take, a watch that falls behind a second a day, or a watch that is broken and does not run?
The punch line is that you should take the broken watch as it will be correct two times a day every day, and the watch that falls behind is correct only once in... I don't know how many years!
:P
Flyer
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 03, 2014, 05:23:21 AM
Quote from: Panache on March 02, 2014, 04:08:08 PM
The Department of Defense has announced that after years of study and consultation with all the branches of the Armed Service, it has chosen its new Common Combat Uniform. "The pattern we have selected has proven itself in the field time and time again. It's both revolutionary and battle-tested. We hope to start deployment of the Woodland Camouflage pattern within a year..."
Cite..
Duffleblog.