...and it's gone.

[Papabird]

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/

And the draft is gone from eServices as well.

So, now we wait.  Again.   

[BFreemanMA]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[a2capt]

Yup. I just love shoving server metrics into an argument.

[NIN]

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.

[JeffDG]

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...

[LSThiker]

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.

[UH60guy]

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.

[Papabird]

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. 

[LSThiker]

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.

[NIN]

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

[arajca]

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.

[a2capt]

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.

[NIN]

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.

[Eclipse]

It 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.

[Panache]

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.

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.

[LSThiker]

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?

[NIN]

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.

[UH60guy]

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.

[NIN]

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).