Aug 2012 NB Agenda

[arajca]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The Agenda for the August 2012 National Board Meeting has been released. You can find it at Aug 2012 agenda.

Let the games begin!

[Garibaldi]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The Agenda for the August 2012 National Board Meeting has been released. You can find it at Aug 2012 agenda.

Let the games begin!

I no see nuffink about no ABUs in this here agender. Perhaps it's time to put that particular deceased equine mammal to rest, eh?

[spacecommand]

I would of proposed making the Yeager a requirement for level II (instead of III) completion.  If making it mandatory for level II, this would also remove the "Yeager Award" seal that people get on their Davis Award for Level II completion if they completed AEPSM.   Currently, I think it looks strange having a seal for an award named after one person on the certificate award named for another person.  Those who complete AEPSM already receive  the Yeager award certificate and ribbon.

[Eclipse]

This is all routine administrative business.  If there's going to be anything earth shattering announced,
it's not in this agenda.

4 - Limiting What May Be Discussed As New Business

5 - Safety (Unit visits)

6 - Cadet Special Activities Program & Ribbon

7 - National Cadet Competition Escort Requirements

8 - FOUO Document Designations

9 - CAPR 5-4 Update

10- Modification of CAPR 5-4

11 - CAP Member Meal Reimbursement Rate (increase to $35)

12 - Booster Clubs

13 - ORMS Assignment of Aircraft

14 - Flight of Non-Member Spouses in Corporate Aircraft.

15 - Information Technology (IT) Mission Qualification

16 - Providing Casket Flags for Deceased Members

17 - PDO of the Year Award

18 - Requirement of Yeager Award for Completion of Level 3

19 - Non-Renewal of CAP Members

[Eclipse]

4 - Limiting What May Be Discussed As New Business
No Opinion.

5 - Safety (Unit visits)
In Wings with Groups, the wing SE should not be bypassing the chain and visiting units
In Wings w/o groups, appoint more SE's and give them a specific area of responsibility.
Though neither should be necessary since a unti is required to have a safety officer, and
the program is audited through any number of reports.

6 - Cadet Special Activities Program & Ribbon
Either it's an NCSA, or it isn't.  Don't water down NCSA by trying to elevate other activities.

7 - National Cadet Competition Escort Requirements
Concur that all escort requirments should be consistent and gender neutral.  Matching gender is
no guarantee of safety (or anything else).

8 - FOUO Document Designations
No opinion.

9 - CAPR 5-4 Update
No opinion.

10 - Modification of CAPR 5-4
Leave it as-is, there should be a clear line between what needs a supp, and what can be an OI.
OI's should not be "mini supps"

11 - CAP Member Meal Reimbursement Rate (increase to $35)
Cool by me, though I am usually happy with any per diem.

12 - Booster Clubs
Strongly concur.  No members should be allowed to be a member of a booster club.
AFAIC they should simply disallow them completely.  In all but a few cases, they are
just a way to shield money from being "stolen" from by wing by people who don't understand
how WBP works.  Once in a while they are used for activities outside CAP's allowance -
serving alcohol, an airshow, or something like that, but anyone who believes that an organization
(booster) whose sole purpose is to support another organization (unit) would not also be
getting inoput from the organization they support, probably uses Arthur Anderson as their accountants.


13 - ORMS Assignment of Aircraft
No real opinion since it's a meaningless change.  If members treat the plane like a rental car, address it
directly.  Otherwise, it's just adminstrivia that has no real impact.

14 - Flight of Non-Member Spouses in Corporate Aircraft.
No.  For the reasons cited.

15 - Information Technology (IT) Mission Qualification
Unless you stop the techs from fixing a machine in the same way you would stop
someone who isn't an MP from flying, then it won't change who is actually doing the IT support,
and in a lot of cases those will be unit or higher ITO's who may not even be interested in ES.
As mentioned, we need effort in standardization, not ratings.

16 - Providing Casket Flags for Deceased Members.
I like the idea, but the cost is a legit point for CAP. 

17 - PDO of the Year Award
No opinion about this one specifically, wish they would just do away with the "OTY" awards altogether, since they are
generally "OTY of those submitted", and in some cases that means an automatic win.

18 - Requirement of Yeager Award for Completion of Level 3
One more ticket punch.  The Yeager lost its cache when it went from a unit-level team-building
excercise to an online / open book situation.  Takes 15 minutes.  AFAIC Yeager should be required for LI.

19 - Non-Renewal of CAP Members
Yes, please.  Although these abilities already exist.  If it gets the ball moving on clearing the empty shirts,
I'm all for it.

[tsrup]

Dead horse and all, while there is no specific mention of the ABU, the Uniform Committee's findings are due at this meeting.  This should be, at the very least, the start of the official end for this particular topic one way or another.


Also, I agree with the non-concur on the new "membership non-renewal" option.



It is a passive aggressive end around for squadron commanders to exercise authority that they already have with no recourse.

MARB is here for a reason, and if the new non-renewal system is implemented MARB will become obsolete.


Squadron commanders should just be familiar with the rights that they have as commanders, and not fear a MARB review if they suspend or terminate a member for the right reasons. 
If you fear an appeal process, you probably don't have the best intentions with your decision.

[Brad]

16 - Providing Casket Flags for Deceased Members.
I like the idea, but the cost is a legit point for CAP.

Well I know the VA provides flags for free to vets at their funerals. Perhaps CAP should consider asking them or the American Legion. Yes I know we're not Real Military, but there's usually never any harm in just asking...

[PHall]

There was a reason why the Non-renewal option was eliminated a few years ago. It was abused by too many commanders for personal reasons.

[Turk]

This is all routine administrative business.  If there's going to be anything earth shattering announced,
it's not in this agenda.

No, there's nothing earth-shattering in the agenda. That said, Pineda's removal wasn't in the 2007 agenda, either.

CAP will soon have a redefining moment.

[FW]

Booster Clubs: there is a good reason why CAPR 173-4 was written in the manner it is. The NHQ comments define it well.

Non Renewals: This is why we have a Corporate Staff (corporate memory is a good thing). We have a MARB today because of the old "2d" nonrenewal policy.
In 2001 the BoG told the National Board there would NOT be a non renewal option for CAP. It was considered arbitrary and discriminatory. IMHO, any non renewal option for commanders will eventually be rejected; either by the BoG or, litigation. This agenda item should be DOA.

[Private Investigator]

17 - PDO of the Year Award
No opinion about this one specifically, wish they would just do away with the "OTY" awards altogether, since they are
generally "OTY of those submitted", and in some cases that means an automatic win.

I think we have too many "OTY" awards too but it is the only recognition our members get.

I was once asked, "why do we not have a Personnel Officer OTY award?" So I told the Squadron Commander, "why not recommend your Personnel Officer for a ComCom?"   

[Eclipse]

17 - PDO of the Year Award
No opinion about this one specifically, wish they would just do away with the "OTY" awards altogether, since they are
generally "OTY of those submitted", and in some cases that means an automatic win.

I think we have too many "OTY" awards too but it is the only recognition our members get.

I was once asked, "why do we not have a Personnel Officer OTY award?" So I told the Squadron Commander, "why not recommend your Personnel Officer for a ComCom?"   

+1 - A decoration actually means something, can be worn / displayed, and the effort will be remembered.  Being selected "xOTY" when you're the only one nominated (and in a lot of cases not the real "xOTY", but the "real" guy's CC didn't bother, or the "real" guy said he didn't care) doesn't mean much.   We've all seen OTY's where no one even knew who the guy was, or the recipient was clearly not the "xOTY".

[Private Investigator]

On the other hand. We have seen nominations where their was no way the pilot flew 300 plus hours gave 200 O-rides and had 100 finds in a year.

[Eclipse]

On the other hand. We have seen nominations where their was no way the pilot flew 300 plus hours gave 200 O-rides and had 100 finds in a year.

Holy smokes, seriously?  I'd want to see the paper.

It's not impossible - the O-rides could be in the hours, but 100 finds in a year?  Maybe if he did NBB, had a few hurricanes, and somehow managed
to get his name on every find in the wing (which I have seen people doing).

[AirDX]

Happens in the real Air Force too - we had a guy take the bullets from our entire office and submit them as his own in his package for FGO of the year, which he won handily.

Last year we won a team of the quarter award - because the guy that submitted the package inadvertently put our statistics for the entire year in as if we'd done them in the single quarter. 

[SarDragon]

On the other hand. We have seen nominations where their was no way the pilot flew 300 plus hours gave 200 O-rides and had 100 finds in a year.

Holy smokes, seriously?  I'd want to see the paper.

It's not impossible - the O-rides could be in the hours, but 100 finds in a year?  Maybe if he did NBB, had a few hurricanes, and somehow managed
to get his name on every find in the wing (which I have seen people doing).

Back when the satellites were processing 121.5 ELTs, CAWG used to average better than a mission a day. I recall one day when we silenced eight different ELTs in one day. I might question 100 finds in a year myself, but under the right circumstances, it is certainly possible to get a large number of finds in a year.

[NIN]

I no see nuffink about no ABUs in this here agender. Perhaps it's time to put that particular deceased equine mammal to rest, eh?

"I would like to buy the tiger-stripes..."

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

I no see nuffink about no ABUs in this here agender. Perhaps it's time to put that particular deceased equine mammal to rest, eh?

"I would like to buy the tiger-stripes..."

"Stop. You're giving me a brain bleed."

[Private Investigator]

Happens in the real Air Force too - we had a guy take the bullets from our entire office and submit them as his own in his package for FGO of the year, which he won handily.

Last year we won a team of the quarter award - because the guy that submitted the package inadvertently put our statistics for the entire year in as if we'd done them in the single quarter.

Happens in the police department too. I know one guy claimed 360 DUI arrests in a year. Said he had at least one on every shift he worked. I pointed out he only worked 120 shifts so he revised his claim to 120 "after" he got promoted to sergeant. Administrators, anywhere, have no clue what is going on. 

[lordmonar]

4 - Limiting What May Be Discussed As New Business

May be moot after this NB.

5 - Safety (Unit visits)

No....if SAFETY must visit.....it must visit.....a virtual visit does nothing for you.

6 - Cadet Special Activities Program & Ribbon

Sort of makes sense.....either that or just make a new ribbon....

7 - National Cadet Competition Escort Requirements

Why do we have special escort requirements for NCC?  Either be in policy or change the policy.

8 - FOUO Document Designations

Why wast the NB time on this....just add the requirement or don't.

9 - CAPR 5-4 Update

Again....staff it, write it, approve it.....move on.

10- Modification of CAPR 5-4

See above.

11 - CAP Member Meal Reimbursement Rate (increase to $35)

Makes sense.

12 - Booster Clubs

Slippery Slope.  Booster Clubs either are part of CAP....or they are not.

13 - ORMS Assignment of Aircraft

?/

14 - Flight of Non-Member Spouses in Corporate Aircraft.

NO!  If you want your spouse to fly.....pay the bloody $70 buy her/him a polo shirt and gray slacks and press on.

15 - Information Technology (IT) Mission Qualification

AS an ES specialty?   Okay....it will sit in the back of the ES training que with FLM, FSC and MC.....bottom line is that if your mission base is IT dependant....you better have someone who can work it.....ES qualified or not.

16 - Providing Casket Flags for Deceased Members

Don't waste our time and money!   If a member dies.....sure his squadron could and should provide a flag is the familiy asks for it....but let's not spend NHQ time and money on it.......it will just make a $30 flag cost $70!

17 - PDO of the Year Award

Should be a "of the Year" award for all specialty tracks.

18 - Requirement of Yeager Award for Completion of Level 3

Sounds good....but then we should just call it Senior Member AE....and eliminate the yeager ribbon and the certs.....it will just become a hoop one has to jump through and one more reason for people to not want to get their Level III.

19 - Non-Renewal of CAP Members
NO.  No....I'm sorry....not No......but HELLLLLLLLLL NOOOOOOOOOO!
Stop being lazy!  If the member is substandard......fix him or 2b him.  This wishy washy....."we want to let him go...but don't want to go through the hassle of him fighting it and getting upset and making a scene".......is just poor, lazy leadership!
It was abused in the past....it is still abused at NHQ......and will be abused even more if allowed to each and every commander.

[Al Sayre]

I really don't like the IT as an ES Specialty.  I can see a corollary to the Communications regs spinning up already.  Only those with an X level can install computers, hook up printers, install software etc.  The wireless LAN goes down but nobody at the mission has an ES qual, so they aren't allowed to fix it.  Etc. etc.  We end up hamstringing ourselves because some people in a group/specialty track wants to build their own kingdom. 

It will take about 10 seconds after this is approved before they someone has the bright idea to add a "CAP Geek Squad" patch to 39-1 and starts asking for VW Beetles so they can shuttle around between the mission bases.   

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

I know NER is looking at the IT issue for Area Command. Even at that level it looks like the ES requirement will be MSA. (Basically to be working in the ICP / ACP).

If we've got someone with the life experience to provide FREE IT Support to our mission, let's keep the flaming hoops to a minimum.

What's next? An ES qual to be updating mission status boards?

[Eclipse]

Well, from that perspective, "life experience" means you should be able to ace any testing or tasking
without too much trouble - just like a Ranger still has to actually demonstrate skills for GT, and we wouldn't let
Chuck Yeager in his prime simply fly a CAP airplane.

The challenge comes in with what you decide is "important".  Experience has shown that when it comes to technical matters, some people believe theory academics are more important than practical reality.

Any test or qualification for an operational ITO position that includes a question about the OSI model misses the point.

[lordmonar]

The problem.....is that it does not need to be an specialty......you just need someone who know how to do it.

[Eclipse]

The problem.....is that it does not need to be an specialty......you just need someone who know how to do it.

I agree, but the argument could be made for most specialties in CAP, and I know a >>>>>LOT<<<<<< of "IT Guyz" who
have no idea what they are doing. 

In fact, cleaning up their messes has put both bread and butter on my table the last few years.

You don't want to be dependent on a Geek Squad guy who professes to having a clue and makes things worse.

There are also those on the other side of the spectrum with a wall full of certs who seek to maintain their
"secret society" and believe that "effective" has to mean "expensive" and "complex".  Some identification
of common sense skillz from NHQ would not necessarily be a bad idea from that angle.

[lordmonar]

As an IT and Hardware professional myself.......and seeing what sort of IT stuff we get out of NHQ.....I don't know if they are qualified to come up with a common skills list for a mission base IT infrastructure.

And yes I too know a lot of IT pros who purposely go out of their way to make things difficult (my squadron IT guy made different ADMIN passwords for each one of our 10 computers!  I could have killed him!).

[Eclipse]

^ UGH!  BTDT!

SECURITY!  SECURITY!  SECURITY!

It's like safety - if it's your focus over usability, you miss the point!

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

The thing about the IT rating, anything to do with IT in fact, is how up-to-date a person's life experience with it is.

I have an IT degree, but it comes from the days when I was an assistant IT manager on an AS-400 based system, and Windows were something you drew the shutters over.  I also learned programming in QuickBasic.

Meaning: good for its time, but not terribly useful today...kind of like being an ace at Missile Command on an old Atari system, or being a wiz at coding on a Tandy Trash80.

One of my professors told me that as soon as technology hits the shelves, it's obsolete.

[Eclipse]

Agree - in a lot of cases, an "IT Degree" takes longer to get then the technology lasts.

Even certs these days are questionable unless you intend to stay on that train and support big-iron in the back room.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

So let's take a look at how 2 other CAP Specialty Tracks get to join the ES world. Public Affairs Officer and Chaplain

Mission Chaplain (MC)

• Be a CAP Chaplain
• IS 100, 200, 700
• A or B CUT & Basic ES Comms Task
• Chaplain's Course 221-A
• 1 Chaplain specific Task

Public Information Officer (PIO)

• Qualified MSA
• IS 100, 200, 700, 800, ICS 300
• A or B CUT & Basic ES Comms Task
• 3 PIO specific Tasks

Mission Staff Assistant (MSA) (for reference)

• IS 100, 700, 800, ICS 300
• A or B CUT & Basic ES Comms Task
• 3 MSA specific Tasks

Now why does the PIO, who talks to the press, needs IS200 & ICS300 when the MC, who talks to the families, does not?

Having looked this all up I could get on board with a SQTR for Mission IT Support (MIS). MSA qualification as a prerequisite and some tasks to cover network / internet, PC and software troubleshooting. I would not link it to the IT Spec Track as this is a function that cadets should be able to participate in (and may be the best source)

[Eclipse]

Now why does the PIO, who talks to the press, needs IS200 & ICS300 when the MC, who talks to the families, does not?

The PIO serves as part of the actual ICS staff, including processing incoming clues and related information, and
strategically deciding what should be released in an effort to get back more information.

MC's do not.  They have no strategic or tactical role in the mission, and are there solely for comfort and counselling, primarily externally,
since you can be an MC, but nor necessarily involved in CISM.

[AirDX]

Mission Staff Assistant (MSA) (for reference)

• IS 100, 700, 800, ICS 300
• A or B CUT & Basic ES Comms Task
• 3 MSA specific Tasks

MSA only needs IS-100 and -700.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

Oops. Cut and paste error.

[rmutchler]

I agree there should be an IT specialist position in ES.  Does it make sense for an IC, AOBD, or other mission staff member to be troubleshooting equipment?  Should the IC be trying to fix a wireless connection?  No!  Just like the COMM guy shouldn't be talking to media, or assigning resources.

In the spirit of ICS, the position shouldn't be a required mission staff position, but should be "spun up" as necessary for a mission.

There should be some requirements for an IT specialist, such as education, certifications, or prior experience.  The IT speciality track could also be used for this.  Being a C/ITO shouldn't be a limiting factor, if they have practical knowledge.

[PhoenixRisen]

Having looked this all up I could get on board with a SQTR for Mission IT Support (MIS). MSA qualification as a prerequisite and some tasks to cover network / internet, PC and software troubleshooting. I would not link it to the IT Spec Track as this is a function that cadets should be able to participate in (and may be the best source)

As an IT guy myself, I'd love to see something like this.  I've never really had the time to get as involved in the operations side of the house (though when possible, I'd like to start working towards GTM and MS / MO quals), so being able to use current experience to work towards a qualification, IMO, would greatly help me out.

It will take about 10 seconds after this is approved before they someone has the bright idea to add a "CAP Geek Squad" patch to 39-1 and starts asking for VW Beetles so they can shuttle around between the mission bases.

[joke]

Can we get cool, police-style badges to accompany the Geek Squad patch?



[/joke]

[Eclipse]

Thankfully, those guys are not long for the world.  I give them, and Best Buy for that matter, about another year, maybe two.

[lordmonar]

I agree there should be an IT specialist position in ES.  Does it make sense for an IC, AOBD, or other mission staff member to be troubleshooting equipment?  Should the IC be trying to fix a wireless connection?  No!  Just like the COMM guy shouldn't be talking to media, or assigning resources.

In the spirit of ICS, the position shouldn't be a required mission staff position, but should be "spun up" as necessary for a mission.

There should be some requirements for an IT specialist, such as education, certifications, or prior experience.  The IT speciality track could also be used for this.  Being a C/ITO shouldn't be a limiting factor, if they have practical knowledge.

You can have an IT guy......who fixes things.....but not an ES rateing.  When our plane breaks....we call the mechanic....no ES rating.  When the Van breaks we call the mechanic.....no ES rating.....when the radio breaks....we call the radio repair guy....no ES rating.

[JeffDG]

I agree there should be an IT specialist position in ES.  Does it make sense for an IC, AOBD, or other mission staff member to be troubleshooting equipment?  Should the IC be trying to fix a wireless connection?  No!  Just like the COMM guy shouldn't be talking to media, or assigning resources.

In the spirit of ICS, the position shouldn't be a required mission staff position, but should be "spun up" as necessary for a mission.

There should be some requirements for an IT specialist, such as education, certifications, or prior experience.  The IT speciality track could also be used for this.  Being a C/ITO shouldn't be a limiting factor, if they have practical knowledge.

You can have an IT guy......who fixes things.....but not an ES rateing.  When our plane breaks....we call the mechanic....no ES rating.  When the Van breaks we call the mechanic.....no ES rating.....when the radio breaks....we call the radio repair guy....no ES rating.

When you need a comm net set up you call a CUL:  ES rating.  When you need an aircraft flown on the mission, you call an MP:  ES Rating.

Setting up a field IT infrastructure is not a Geek Squad type of call.  You need to understand what's being done with your network and how to set it up to make sure the mission gets done.  That's a mix of IT and Mission skills, and that, traditionally, ends up with an ES rating.

[krnlpanick]

I was asked by someone yesterday how long I had been in the IT industry. Over the last 17 years I have gone from help desk to field service engineer to chief architect of software development and senior application security engineer (lot's of fancy titles, right?)

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

This is a problem across the whole of the world, not just in IT, but like people jumping in and saying "I used CB Radio's my whole life, I can be your MRO" - it has no place on a mission

CAP strives to put qualified people in key tactical and strategic roles on missions and the MIS position should absolutely be no different than any other position. Like the other qualifications, MIS should not be tied to the ST in any way/shape/form. Frankly, I think the IT ST could use a lot of work, but that is a whole seperate conversation.

My recommendation, FWIW is to have 2 qualifications

MIS (Mission IT Support) - This person is responsible for providing operational support to the mission staff for their computers, printers, networking equipment, and assigned field equipment (I still foster hope that eventually equipment like tablets will be available to GTL type people for missions). This person is also responsible for tracking corporate assigned assets assigned to mission staff and maintaining a minimal inventory of backup equipment for mission critical systems. The MIS reports to the MID or the Logistics Branch if no MID is assigned for the mission.

MID (Mission IT Director) - This person is responsible for procuring mission equipment, defining the Information Security policies for the mission, designing and implementing infrastructure as required for the mission's success and managing MIS staff. This position is not required for every mission, and the MID can also be the MIS for the mission. The MID reports to the Operations Section Chief.

This fits into the ICS system well and covers (imho) the most important aspects of Mission IT Support.

MIS
Prereqs: GES, IS100, IS200, IS700, IS800, MSA
Training Tasks:
   * Deploy and set up of mission IT equipment
   * Understand the concepts of Information Security
   * Maintain a log
   * Track corporate assets assigned to the mission
   * Implement a mission information security plan
   * ...

MIC
Prereqs: GES, MIS, IS300, IS400
Training Tasks:
   * Create an information security plan
   * Establish a Network Operations Center (NOC)
   * Assess information security risks for mission
   * Design and implement controls to mitigate mission information security risks
   * Procure corporate owned equipment
   * ...

I could probably go on for a while writing what tasks I think these qualifications should include, but as you can see this is not stuff that you would necessarily want you sister's guy who knows a guy doing - especially on an AF evaluated or real mission.

So, that is my $0.02

[JeffDG]

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

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

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

[krnlpanick]

Agreed - my mistake. ITUL is a much better title

[arajca]

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

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

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

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

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

[Eclipse]

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

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

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

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

[JeffDG]

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

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

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

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

Concur with all this.

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

[Eclipse]

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

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

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

[RiverAux]

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

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

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

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

[krnlpanick]

I disagree on a couple points RiverAux

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

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

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

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

[denverpilot]

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

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

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

[krnlpanick]

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

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

[rmutchler]

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

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

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

[ZigZag911]

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

[Eclipse]

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

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

Neither should be troubleshooting their VPN.

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

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

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

[lordmonar]

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

Same thing for his computer......

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

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

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

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

[RiverAux]

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

[krnlpanick]

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

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

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

[lordmonar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Al Sayre]

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

[JeffDG]

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

On that note...

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

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

[krnlpanick]

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

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

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

[BrannG]

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

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

We should see the following:

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

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

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

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

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

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I personally am sceptical that the uniform recommendations will do little other than to codify what already exists and close a few loopholes.

Meaning: clean-shaven, H/W compliant get to wear the AF uniform.  Otherwise - grey/white/blazer, like it or lump it.  To do anything else would tick the AF off.

[krnlpanick]

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

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

We should see the following:

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

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

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

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

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

Is there any indication where the stream of the review will be available yet? I will unfortunately be unable to attend - I was hoping to be able to swing it since Corp HQ for my job is in Columbia, MD and I had to plan a trip around the same time, but it turns out I will be in SF while it is going on at a software convention.

[BrannG]

I am sure they will post it in the new's feed of e-services as well as on facebook, least that is my guess. You know - better late then never and all

[PHall]

They didn't have a feed from the NEC meeting due to low numbers of viewers. They decided the money was better spent elsewhere.
And everything I've seen so far points towards no feed from the NB for the same reasons.

[Eclipse]

They didn't have a feed from the NEC meeting due to low numbers of viewers. They decided the money was better spent elsewhere.
And everything I've seen so far points towards no feed from the NB for the same reasons.

I don't see the need - it make C-Span look like the Olympics.

[arajca]

Are any CAPTalkers going who would be willing to post a blow-by-blow report during the NB meeting?

A separate, sticky thread with ONLY the reports (no opinions or discussions on those reports) and CAPTalkers can take specific posts out to new threads to discuss/curse/blaspheme/etc. I realize that would take agreement amongst CAPTalkers, but for one thread I hope it would be easy to get.

[lordmonar]

They didn't have a feed from the NEC meeting due to low numbers of viewers. They decided the money was better spent elsewhere.
And everything I've seen so far points towards no feed from the NB for the same reasons.

I don't see the need - it make C-Span look like the Olympics.

It was nice to have....but I agree with not spending the money for low viewship.  I do like how they taped and posted most of the session though.

[NCRblues]

I have been pretty silent on this as of late...

BUT, with the guaranteed governance changes, and the uniform report I think the money to stream this year's summer NB would be well spent. I know lots of people who would not normally watch are much more interested in this years meeting. I believe it is important for the membership to be able to hear and see first hand what is going on with a massive re-due.... just MHO of course

[arajca]

Given the past history of streaming these meetings, all the important stuff would end up not being seen since they have not been able to maintain a constant stream. It usually drops when interesting stuff comes up and more folks tune in.

I'm not suggesting this could not be overcome, but I don't think the desire is there to overcome the problems.

[Eclipse]

^ Seeing and hearing it "live" won't change the result any more then they could have done anything with Curiosity if the thing came in upside down.

The governance issues appear to be out of the hands of the NB, and if the changes anticipated occur, there won't be any more elections, so knowing "who said what" isn't going to make much difference.