Based on the publication of the regulation, the ITO Senior Member Specialty Track has only existed since Mar 2007.
I'll not even address the educational and testing requirements, they don't look very onerous, and have no time limits.
But the time-in-service is not subjective, and is successive:
TECHNICIAN - first possible, 22 SEPT 2007
Service Requirements:
After completion of Level One, of the Officer Professional
Development program, serve for a minimum of 6 months as a
staff officer intern at the squadron level. Suggested positions
included: a. Assistant to the Squadron ITO
b. Unit Webmaster
c. Unit Web Security Administrator (WSA) [if
allowed by applicable Wing policy]
d. Squadron ITO
SENIOR - first possible, SEPT 2008
The Information Technology Senior candidate must have served at
minimum of twelve months (non-cumulative; in addition to the
Technician rating service requirement) in a unit IT position listed
below as a Senior level candidate.
1. Squadron ITO
2. Assistant to the Group ITO (or higher)
3. Group (or higher) Webmaster
4. Group (or higher) Web Security Administrator
MASTER - first possible, SEPT 2010
The Information Technology Master candidate must have served at
least twenty-four months (non-cumulative; in addition to the
technician and senior rating service requirement) in an IT position
listed below as a master level candidate.
1. Squadron ITO
2. Group ITO
3. Assistant to the Wing or Region Director of Information
Technology
4. Wing or Region Director of Information Technology
I'll even grant that the actual appointment as >the< staff officer is subjective, as
there can be only one, and that limits an ability to move people along if they are actually
doing the prescribed work, but again, the actual time-to-complete is a minimum of 42 months,
and I don't see anything about prior service, which, regardless, would not be possible, because the tests did not exist.
I can understand a unit CC approving the tech rating for people who have been their MIS officers, and then the member taking the tests and waiting for the calendar, but that doesn't relieve the time-in for Senior and Master.
So how can we have people rated as "Master", when the rating isn't even a year old?
OK, I just briefly scanned the pamphlet. I am not interested in being an ITO but I am a software engineer with 20 years experience... if I wanted to be an ITO, this is telling me that I have to complete CAP training first and time in grade, etc... regardless of my background?
Quote from: Nomex Maximus on November 27, 2007, 09:56:25 PM
OK, I just briefly scanned the pamphlet. I am not interested in being an ITO but I am a software engineer with 20 years experience... if I wanted to be an ITO, this is telling me that I have to complete CAP training first and time in grade, etc... regardless of my background?
Just like any other specialty track - some of it is subjective, but the tests, and IMHO the TIS are not.
Just like ES people who come in and say they have BTDT, we still need a way to verify that, and anyone with 20 years as an IT guy isn't going to have an issue with open-book online tests.
The training referenced, is just Level 1, and then shadowing a mentor and/or serving as the staff officers indicated, there is no "CAP IT" training curriculm, beyond the applicable regualtions for OPSEC and web use, etc.
When I saw the other topic that inspired this one, this was the exact thought that went through my head. If TIS required is 42 months to get master, then that should be a hard and fast rule for everyone. These tracks are about more than just checking boxes.
Wing CCs have (or had) the option to grandfather current members performing in the appropriate role into a master rating. Not sure if it was in a reg, pamphlet or NB/NEC minutes document.
cite search engaged. standby...
Remember Upton's Third Law: For every AF regulation there is an equal and opposite Guard waiver. My time in AFSC was waived once.
It would seem a simple enough matter to waive time b/w levels if one can show they've been an computer troop for CAP for years before the regulation was issued. It's not like we were using typewriters and carbons until the day the regs got changed and computers appeared like mushrooms.
Quote from: tedda on November 27, 2007, 10:27:14 PM
Wing CCs have (or had) the option to grandfather current members performing in the appropriate role into a master rating. Not sure if it was in a reg, pamphlet or NB/NEC minutes document.
cite search engaged. standby...
If I remember correctly, this was in an e-mail from NHQ. It was a 60 or 90 day window. A Wing CC could grandfather individuals performing those duties as Tedda mentioned. However, NHQ did tell them that they only expected a very small handful of these to be approved. (I.E. ... telling the Wing CCs that they would be monitored, and not to go out of control.) I know our Wing CC granted two Master ratings, and a Tech rating. I think that was it.
Quote from: Nomex Maximus on November 27, 2007, 09:56:25 PM
OK, I just briefly scanned the pamphlet. I am not interested in being an ITO but I am a software engineer with 20 years experience... if I wanted to be an ITO, this is telling me that I have to complete CAP training first and time in grade, etc... regardless of my background?
Sigh... yeah. I'm a former IT Manager and am currently an IT Architect for a major software company who shall remain unnamed. At least 6 Months isn't "too" bad for the rating...
Quote from: TankerT on November 27, 2007, 10:55:28 PM
If I remember correctly, this was in an e-mail from NHQ. It was a 60 or 90 day window. A Wing CC could grandfather individuals performing those duties as Tedda mentioned. However, NHQ did tell them that they only expected a very small handful of these to be approved. (I.E. ... telling the Wing CCs that they would be monitored, and not to go out of control.) I know our Wing CC granted two Master ratings, and a Tech rating. I think that was it.
Yes, you are correct. (See, I
do concede that
sometimes.)
In going through my Gmail, it looks like our CC indicated the window was 120 days.
Is there some pressing emergency in CAP that I'm not aware of that makes it imperitative that we have a bunch of Master ITOs right this very minute?
Is it a problem that it will take people a while to follow the track? As people put in the time, they will move up the ladder. What else should you expect?
I guess I don't understand what the issue is.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 28, 2007, 12:26:59 AM
Is there some pressing emergency in CAP that I'm not aware of that makes it imperitative that we have a bunch of Master ITOs right this very minute?
Is it a problem that it will take people a while to follow the track? As people put in the time, they will move up the ladder. What else should you expect?
I guess I don't understand what the issue is.
I'm guessing the issue is that these people would like to promote and/or earn SM PD Awards.
"Good news! CAP's got a spec track that recognizes the important work you do for the org! Unfortunately, we'll have to ignore all the work you've done up to now and start you at the bottom. I guess you should have opted for CP when you had the chance..."
As an IT person who has more than enough qualifications to have the Masters rating I am having to wait for the time in position just as everyone else should be not only in th IT Track but any other Specialty Track. These Specialty tracks are designed for a person to have the proper experience as you advance.
We've had members serving in MIS and other IT roles for many years.
I would think what is relevant is date of appointment to staff job, not when the pamphlet finally got published.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 28, 2007, 12:26:59 AM
I guess I don't understand what the issue is.
It's not the members fault that national took years to develop the IT specialty track. Had it been in place earlier, and had CAP members fulfilling their primary duty as IT support to CAP missions been receiving proper PD credit towards "leveling up", it wouldn't be an issue at all.
But we had CAP members whose primary duties were IT related for years on end. They contributed a great deal to the program in many circumstances, but if they didn't take on another specialty track they were doomed to stagnate in their progression (and thus miss out on one of CAP's few ways of recognizing long-term contributors).
Since there wasn't an IT specialty track no one should have been sitting around doing nothing waiting for one to be developed so they could advance through the PD program. That being the case our long-time IT people probably recognized reality and went into one of the other tracks.
Our PD program is not set up to recognize outside experience. Theres a few tracks where based on my life experience I probably already was as qualified to be a senior or master as somebody who just did the CAP program, but thats the way things are.
Most of the folks, as I understand it, were awarded the ITO ratings based on their contributions and work in CAP, not because of outside work.
It does seem that more alignment in expectations of the various Specialty Tracks might be in order. As each is compared to the others, there do seem to be inequities in expectations.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 28, 2007, 12:26:59 AM
Is there some pressing emergency in CAP that I'm not aware of that makes it imperitative that we have a bunch of Master ITOs right this very minute?
High-level ITOs are not expected to have technician ratings.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 28, 2007, 02:19:36 AM
Since there wasn't an IT specialty track no one should have been sitting around doing nothing waiting for one to be developed so they could advance through the PD program.
What?
How is an ITO wrong for accepting a master rating in what they've been doing for years, most likely meeting the established criteria and being assigned to the Wing level?
By the same token, are you going to fault a master-rated IG because they achieved their rating when the specialty track was introduced because of their years of work and assigned position at wing or region? Or did you wish for those Wing, region and National IGs to
man up and start from scratch?
Quote
Theres a few tracks where based on my life experience I probably already was as qualified to be a senior or master as somebody who just did the CAP program, but thats the way things are.
Were they created
after you became a member? Were you assigned to a higher echelon at the time?
Waivers are granted at the inception of a new specialty track to recognize the folks that have met the master-level qualifications years ago. It's not automatic, nor is it widespread.
I swear, sometimes this ranting for ranting's sake just sounds like pent-up angst.
So, did anyone find anything regarding the service waivers?
Quote from: Eclipse on November 28, 2007, 06:38:55 AM
So, did anyone find anything regarding the service waivers?
Yes. The window is closed. It ended in late July.
Quote from: tedda on November 28, 2007, 12:05:09 AM
Yes, you are correct. (See, I do concede that sometimes.)
Not often. So, I printed your post and framed it on my wall. Otherwise, nobody would have believed me.
I am one of those who made it through the "grandfather" window.
I had been webmaster for two groups and seven individual squadrons back in '89 and for a few years following. Also did a region website for awhile and was a webmaster at the time I was awarded the rating.
Not a professional webmaster but have been doing websites for volunteer organizations for years and maintain three of my own.
I am quite proud of my IT Specialty badge.
Regards,
Ken
Quote from: KFreeman on November 28, 2007, 05:37:18 PM
I had been webmaster for two groups and seven individual squadrons back in '89 and for a few years following
.
Ken,
I'm thinking you might have meant `99 not `89 as the
WWW wasn't even conceptualized until `89 and one of the first useable 'browsers' wasn't created until `93.
Typo perhaps? ;D
Yeah... back in '89, a website was a place where principles were hammered and honed on the anvil of everyday living! We carried our packets on our backs.
Uphill.
In the snow.
Both ways.
and we liked it!
Now get off my lawn!
Quote from: tedda on November 28, 2007, 06:02:57 PM
Yeah... back in '89, a website was a place where principles were hammered and honed on the anvil of everyday living! We carried our packets on our backs.
Uphill.
In the snow.
Both ways.
and we liked it!
Now get off my lawn!
Instead of webmaster: veronica, archie & gophermaster!
Tedda still does his IT in CPM
Quote from: tedda on November 28, 2007, 06:02:57 PM
Yeah... back in '89, a website was a place where principles were hammered and honed on the anvil of everyday living! We carried our packets on our backs.
Uphill.
In the snow.
Both ways.
and we liked it!
Now get off my lawn!
Ah, to reminisce... and then came the days of Sneakernet, where the protocol has an MTU of 1.44 megabytes. ;D
Quote from: TankerT on November 28, 2007, 04:16:53 PM
Quote from: tedda on November 28, 2007, 12:05:09 AM
Yes, you are correct. (See, I do concede that sometimes.)
Not often. So, I printed your post and framed it on my wall. Otherwise, nobody would have believed me.
I think we should post a copy in the CAP-USAF office, no?