eServices problem?

[a2capt]

...and good luck getting a .gov DNS assignment from anyone to point anywhere. Talk about tightly controlled garbage and politics. If the provider agrees to the conventions, then so be it.

When your wing's provided web space won't support anything other than static HTML, and they've been promising PHP and MySQL for over seven years, with inquiries met with zero response over the years, no wonder many of us say screw it and do something else. NHQ has our official site as the wing provided .gov address, but it's a redirect to something else, that costs us -zero- except time maintaining the site, which you have to do anyway. So the net is zero.

As for the "use a standard email provider", that's kind of interesting. CAP.gov uses gmail itself.

[a2capt]

So, if I'm to understand this, there's movement afoot to "ban us" from using "anything" other than *.cap.gov, and yet with so many other Wings having bailed to other domains, why?

Nevermind the "it needs to be be changed, it's unprofessional", why have they bailed?

Is it because the hosting provided is nearly useless and someone at the top refuses to budge? Case in point, the recent thread about RIWG and it's new site, vs. the existing available, and wrong content, that no one could seem to get changed.  Really? Couldn't' get a password from a provider, once you figure out who that is, which certainly has to be trackable from the DNS record, that is controlled by NHQ.

My reasoning is I'm working on a wing level on doing just that, and want to use php/mysql and enter the 21st century, while at the same time avoiding the debacle that seemed to carry out with RIWG. Though I do have access to the wing level web account, at least.  Can't do much with just ftp and no idea what capabilities the server has.  Uploading a php info file results in it being handed back to me by the browser.

Static pages are it. Is it possible to run with something else, or do I use a combination of both, and do everything I want on a .org, using commercial (gratis for non-profits) hosting?

[SunDog]

Hello a2capt, I hear your frustration in every word. Your Wing is lucky you stay engaged. I dunno if this is good or bad, but I'm not sure if folks in my wing even use our web site on a regular basis. I'm an active MP, but I may go several months without hitting the site - might jump in to look at the calendar; but mostly, if something is coming up, we get an email blast. We tend to run events and keep up to date via email. We use AircraftClubs.com (pilots, anyway) to track each other down, find phone numbers, emails addresses, and warn each other about maintenance issues.

Static sites likely won't cut it anymore, and I think will probably drift into disuse. While ours has some value, it's large, has a lot of outdated info, and is kinda hodge-podge in organization. Not a real bad site, just in need of TLC, and there are quicker, more nimble ways to get info and communicate. Good on ya for trying, but unless/until a critical mass of discontent is built in the membership, things will remain as they are, most likely. Look back at this thread, see the great ideas, and also the resistance expressed.

[Eclipse]

So, if I'm to understand this, there's movement afoot to "ban us" from using "anything" other than *.cap.gov, and yet with so many other Wings having bailed to other domains, why?

Nevermind the "it needs to be be changed, it's unprofessional", why have they bailed?

Is it because the hosting provided is nearly useless and someone at the top refuses to budge? Case in point, the recent thread about RIWG and it's new site, vs. the existing available, and wrong content, that no one could seem to get changed.  Really? Couldn't' get a password from a provider, once you figure out who that is, which certainly has to be trackable from the DNS record, that is controlled by NHQ.

My reasoning is I'm working on a wing level on doing just that, and want to use php/mysql and enter the 21st century, while at the same time avoiding the debacle that seemed to carry out with RIWG. Though I do have access to the wing level web account, at least.  Can't do much with just ftp and no idea what capabilities the server has.  Uploading a php info file results in it being handed back to me by the browser.

Static pages are it. Is it possible to run with something else, or do I use a combination of both, and do everything I want on a .org, using commercial (gratis for non-profits) hosting?

No, we all host in the same way, with a robust service, and stop wasting our time on home-brewed solutions, per wing or unit.

There is absolutely nothing unique in any wing that requires a home-grown CSS.  Nothing, NADA, No. Thing.
Sure, some things NHQ puts out might not be as uber-kewl as something a person can cobble under their desk,
but I'll take the risk / reward on losing another "sweet" (typicall flakey) Sharepoint, wing-hosted server, or
social media debacle over just having basic services that don't make use look like the PTA.

[vento]

So, if I'm to understand this, there's movement afoot to "ban us" from using "anything" other than *.cap.gov, and yet with so many other Wings having bailed to other domains, why?

Nevermind the "it needs to be be changed, it's unprofessional", why have they bailed?

Is it because the hosting provided is nearly useless and someone at the top refuses to budge? Case in point, the recent thread about RIWG and it's new site, vs. the existing available, and wrong content, that no one could seem to get changed.  Really? Couldn't' get a password from a provider, once you figure out who that is, which certainly has to be trackable from the DNS record, that is controlled by NHQ.

My reasoning is I'm working on a wing level on doing just that, and want to use php/mysql and enter the 21st century, while at the same time avoiding the debacle that seemed to carry out with RIWG. Though I do have access to the wing level web account, at least.  Can't do much with just ftp and no idea what capabilities the server has.  Uploading a php info file results in it being handed back to me by the browser.

Static pages are it. Is it possible to run with something else, or do I use a combination of both, and do everything I want on a .org, using commercial (gratis for non-profits) hosting?

No, we all host in the same way, with a robust service, and stop wasting our time on home-brewed solutions, per wing or unit.

There is absolutely nothing unique in any wing that requires a home-grown CSS.  Nothing, NADA, No. Thing.
Sure, some things NHQ puts out might not be as uber-kewl as something a person can cobble under their desk,
but I'll take the risk / reward on losing another "sweet" (typicall flakey) Sharepoint, wing-hosted server, or
social media debacle over just having basic services that don't make use look like the PTA.

Php and/or SQL is not too much to ask from any respectable ISP. I still can't understand why is it so hard for cap.gov to provide that functionality. It has nothing to do with making the the site flashy or über kewl.

[SunDog]

NIH, maybe. Tension between National's need for rigid central control and membership's frustration with bad IT/ bureaucracy?

National answers to USAF,  & congress, and has to protect their fiefdom. Members want a rewarding experience and respect for the time invested. Big diffrence between CAP and AOPA - AOPA answers to thier membership. CAP National doesn't. Not ragging on them particularly; most similiar groups behave this way, except for the stellar performers.

HQ 's always feel like they manage everything (and should also control everything). Earlier in this thread someone said something about CAP National "managing aircraft". Of course, they don't - he confused accounting with managing.  The line gets a little blurry, true, if a Wing gets low on hours or sloppy on reporting. But mostly, day to day, the aircraft are managed by the volunteers.

As is the content on Wing web sites. National likely doesn't want you going too far afield, or innovating, not outside thier span of control. You might do something embarrasing. You might also do something very useful and with great positive impact. But that won't necessarily do NHQ any good. It's not worth the risk for them. You start aggregating data, building business rules, innovating with apps that catch on, they hsve to "manage" the fall-out from that. Best of luck, and we are lucky you perservere.

[Eclipse]

When you compared CAP to AOPA, you lost any credibilty.

[JeffDG]

When you compared CAP to AOPA, you lost any credibilty.

Actually when he said "AOPA answers to its membership" he lost credibility.

[Eclipse]

When you compared CAP to AOPA, you lost any credibilty.

Actually when he said "AOPA answers to its membership" he lost credibility.

Heh - fair enough.

[SunDog]

I dunno; when I compare the web sites, the service delivery via the sites, the navigation, info accuracy and organization, it looks to me like AOPA has a tiny edge, perhaps? My presumption is AOPA may feel a greater need to deliver a quailty on-line product, since they have a direct connection between their member's wallets and AOPA's continued existence as a business.

My point is that CAP's fortunes aren't as directly dependent on delivering well implemented systems for member use. NHQ can throw something over the wall that works just well enough, a 60% solution, say, and most of us will just live with it. Which we do.

Two somewhat diffrent business models, regardless of how you feel about AOPA's conduct of their business or politics. AOPA might be long gone, had they set the web-app bar at the same level as CAP. AOPA can (and does) annoy members, for sure; but you can find what you need, when you need it, on a web site that's built for member support, instead of management's convenience. They pretty much HAVE to have a modern web site to stay in business. NHQ doesn't. If it makes more sense to you, substitute another membership org wherever I typed "AOPA". Try EAA, or American Diabetes Association, or whoever. . .

Look, I recognize that almost any organization in the same boat as NHQ would probably behave the same way. Our senior leadership would be exceptional if they adopted some of the great ideas posted earlier, had that vision and ambition.  That's not in the cards right now, and I think mostly for the reasons I posted. 

[Eclipse]

Wait, you're comparing AOPA and CAP's websites?

Um, for most members that's all AOPA is (and a window sticker for their car), they better have a decent website, because without it, they ain't nothin'.

Not to mention that AOPA's web services aren't stafed by volunteers in a governmental paradigm.  It's all highly-expensive professional service companies.

[SunDog]

Kinda my point, really;

Try to track here -
1. NHQ doesn't have an incentive to deliver solid web services. So they don't.
2. Member sites that do have an incentive, deliver. Or business suffers.

Summary - NHQ isn't gonna adopt any of the ideas in this thread, because there is no incentive for NHQ  to do so. I don't know you, but I imagine you won't drop out of CAP because eServices and WMIRS are bad tools. You might get less done, or participate less, but those aren't easy metrics to capture, and not ones NHQ has to answer to anyone for.

A solid web site, with solid apps, doesn't have to be expensive; again, see previous posts. It'd take some vision to get there. You seeing any of that?

Talking to the frustrations expressed here, IMHO, I'm saying this is about as good as it's gonna get, until senior leadership has some turover, or an upper-middle manager takes it on, owns it, and has the skill to champion it successfully.  Remember North Dallas Forty? "We ain't part of team, we're part of the equipment".

[JackFrost3k]

Haven't had extensive use of eServices, duty and track stuff, but this feedback should be channeled to NHQ. If no volunteer development, maybe some help with documentation and tutoring of programs.  :clap:

[SunDog]

Good thoughts, positive approach. There is a user guide, of sorts, and word of mouth on how to navigate the pitfalls. Could be an interesting project to blog on - walk through the mine field, report back on where to step, or not step, maybe starting with the highest use, and most broken features, or least intuitive tasks.

NHQ has heard it all before. An earlier, annoyed post likely came from there. They don't have the money to do it in the tradtional way, and doing it in an innovative manner would be real stressful for the corporate culture. Hey, things always change. Maybe next year, or the year after.

Tough for the Wing level folks, too - running static sites with limited tools. It is what it is. . .