...and it's gone.

[RiverAux]

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.

[a2capt]

Encampment Manual, 52-16, CPPT ..

[PHall]

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?

[RiverAux]

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.

[Storm Chaser]

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.

[Storm Chaser]

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.

[Panache]

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. 

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.

[NIN]

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.

[Panache]

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:

[JeffDG]

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).

[A.Member]

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. 

[UH60guy]

And it will lead to the inevitable request from a lifetime member to print out the internet for his reference.

[Eclipse]

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?

[NIN]

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.

[NIN]

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. 

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?"

[JeffDG]

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. 

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. 

[NIN]

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.. )

[JeffDG]

(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.

[Storm Chaser]

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.]

[NIN]

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.