Wikifing the CAP regulation process

[RiverAux]

According to the article below, the Army has begun using an online editing process similar to wikipidia that lets any Army soldier edit certain field manuals that are under review.  This seems like a great idea that could prove very useful to CAP.  The current system that requires that any suggested changes to regulations under review be sent up the chain of command is not at all efficient if it even works at all. 

I think that for this to work, there would need to be basically two "classes" of edits.   The first would be minor wording and phrasology edits that are similar to what NHQ does whenever a regulation is revised and then there would be major edits that would represent real changes in policy that would need separate consideration by the appropriate national boards.  Anyone suggesting one of them would be expected to provide justification for the change.   

It would propose that the process not be anonymous. 

There are plenty of CAP geeks out there who would provide a lot of useful comments using this process. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/business/14army.html

[Capt Rivera]

interesting concept....

Not putting it down at all.... I think its well worth consideration and possible implementation... in a planned & well defined way...
- Personally, I would support this and would participate.


Before CAP invests the time considering the implementation of such a thing.... I wonder... How we are doing so with "our" current wiki endeavors...

The most complete/static probably being the CAP related entries on wikipedia...?
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_air_patrol

How about the others... I think I've seen at least two... maybe more?
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_air_patrol

What were/are the others???

Now I have not looked at either of the above recently... How are they being accepted/used/updated/etc...?
- There are a lot of "How To" documents out there... this would be a great median of sharing that work....

Some might think the most passionate CAPers are here on CAPTalk... considering that is correct....  We have yet to establish a forum dedicated to discussing things up for commenting, NB minutes etc... Instead we find those discussions split between differing forums (membership, lobby, ES, Uniforms, ETC...)

- I believe the Mods here might open such a forum when there is "enough discussion of that type"? Mods chime in... Do we get enough discussion within this community of passionate CAPers that we might expect x% of normal CAP membership would participate in a sanctioned editing process?
-- Mods, might we open a forum of this type now? It would have no official weight other then a quick easy way for membership to find the discussion on/related to "x" (2009 Summer National Board Agenda for example) and view/make comments....

With a easier way to see the desire to discuss/offer opinion/modification, might we make a stronger argument to NHQ in consideration of the above?

I'll be honest... I searched more then a few times looking to see the entire agenda posted for the summer board and to see discussion on it... no luck finding it....

Just my thoughts, I look forward to more dialog both for and against the above ideas....

[MIKE]

- I believe the Mods here might open such a forum when there is "enough discussion of that type"? Mods chime in... Do we get enough discussion within this community of passionate CAPers that we might expect x% of normal CAP membership would participate in a sanctioned editing process?
-- Mods, might we open a forum of this type now? It would have no official weight other then a quick easy way for membership to find the discussion on/related to "x" (2009 Summer National Board Agenda for example) and view/make comments....

I don't think a forum is the right format.... Wiki possibly, but not a forum topic full of revision posts and this sucks or I like this/I agree posts.

Edited to add:  Not to mention that CAP Talk is an unofficial discussion community which is not officially sanctioned by CAPNHQ.

Cadetstuff had a wiki project going until it broke.  It was annoying to have to delete spam, or go back and edit something changed by some schmuck who doesn't really know what they are talking about... but think they do.  Get a lot of opinion or more local practice things when you have cadets or inexperienced SMs who don't "get out much" editing or posting pages.

[Gunner C]

The CAP regulation process is horrible enough with 60 colonels each sticking their thumbs in it.  Opening it up directly to 30,000+ members directly?  I don't think so.  I can't imagine what the army is thinking (if at all).  It must be a bullet on someone's OER.

[RiverAux]

Do you really think that any more than a handful of CAP Colonels are actually subject matter experts in any particular regulation up for review?  Most probably have some familiarity with 60-1 and 60-3, but I doubt very much they know the intricacies of most of the rest.  I bet no more than 25% (and probably less) actually comment on the majority of regulations (other than the major ones cited previously). 

However, there are hundreds of people out in the field who know any given regulation like the back of their hand and who know the problems with it and probably have a good idea on how to fix it. 

So, what happens is that someone with some interest and juice gets official approval to rewrite or revise some minor regulation.  Maybe a small handful of folks are intimately involved in actually wording the suggested changes.  Maybe a handful of Colonels actually care about it and read it well and provide feedback of their own.  The reg is then put up for review on the NHQ web site.  A small fraction of CAP members happen to find out it is up for review.  Most of those don't bother to comment, making the assumption that their comments will get lost or rejected somewhere in the vast chain of command between them and NHQ.  A small number make comments that get to their Wing CC and get forwarded to NHQ. 

So, we end up with probably only 2-3 dozen people having any substantial impact on the revised reg.  Quite frankly, this is not enough to ensure that even all the major problems are fixed, much less to recognize the minor problems that inevitably happen when you change any regulation. 

[Thom]

Do you really think that any more than a handful of CAP Colonels are actually subject matter experts in any particular regulation up for review?
---<SNIP>---
So, we end up with probably only 2-3 dozen people having any substantial impact on the revised reg.  Quite frankly, this is not enough to ensure that even all the major problems are fixed, much less to recognize the minor problems that inevitably happen when you change any regulation.

Well, in the Corporate world (not the CAP Corporate world...) we have levels and layers of required review and commentary on changes to existing regulations or operating instructions.  We have Subject Matter Experts (SMEs), Stakeholders, Checkpoints, Review Committees, and Process Audits.  All of these things mean that while changes are slow, they usually end up mostly functional and rarely introduce conflicts the way that CAP rule changes seem to.  There simply is no approving a new 39-1 without considering the impact on 39-3 because the 'Owner' of 39-3 would pitch a willy fit and have the 'Owner' of the new 39-1 hauled before the VPs to be castigated for screwing up the whole company.

I'm not sure how to get from Here to There, or even better, the mythical Perfect Place, but I'm not at all sure that a Wiki is the way to do it.

Thom Hamilton

[RiverAux]

The Air Force did it by opening up to suggestions from everyone via email.  I'm okay with that too, but using a wiki system of some kind would tend to keep things focused on improving the document rather than just submitting ideas for new things.