...and it's gone.

[NIN]

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.

[Майор Хаткевич]

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.

[NIN]

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?

[Storm Chaser]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[Panache]

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.

[NIN]

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.

[NIN]

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!

[Eclipse]

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...

[NIN]

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!)

[Storm Chaser]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[NIN]

Whatever, I've already started wearing the new OEF corporate variant anyway.

I hate you so much. 

[RiverAux]

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. 

[Eclipse]

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.

[NIN]

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."

[Storm Chaser]

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?

[NIN]

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.

[RiverAux]

Well, a second chance would be nice, but frankly I'm just happy they gave a first chance. 

[PHall]

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?