On Friday, April 9, 2021 at 8:08:34 AM UTC-7, wrote:
A small number of people put a lot of effort into the soaring community to benefit all of us. Sure John has some good points, but the site looks much better and will only get a bit better as the rough edges are worked out.
I would like to thank all who worked on this site and suggest that there are a number of new "volunteers" whom have posted their ideas, criticism and outright damnation. Please contact the SSA office with your donation of time or money to bring the site up to your particular needs. Ask yourself "what would Tom Brady do?", complain or act?

Jon -

1) Some of us *have* contacted the SSA, and heard nothing but crickets (remember that notices to the membership went out only *after* the site went live and many folks started contacting the SSA to ask why things changed and/or were broken).

2) Part of the frustration is that this seems like it was NOT spearheaded by a "plucky band of volunteers" who are part of the membership. I have been led to believe that an outside person was hired for this, and the project was run quietly (perhaps deliberately so) by a small number of leaders in the SSA organization without consulting the wider membership or publicly asking for a committee of qualified individuals to provide input and control.

3) The members have every right to be skeptical/critical given the lack of clarity on how this happened, why it happened, what the ultimate goal is, and what considerations were given to the launch timing, project scope, and the existing website tools.

Anyone who's been involved in technology and project management understands the serious importance of things like scope control, communications with stakeholders, and transition plans. All of these things were distinctly lacking, based on what we've seen so far.

When you fail to build buy-in or explain you goals & purpose, you set yourself up for this kind of blowback & criticism. There should be ZERO surprise about how this is playing out, based on how the project was handled! The complaints aren't simply a knee-jerk response to an updated look & feel. And they aren't criticism of some poor volunteer slaving away. They're an indictment of leadership and management - and rightly so. This doesn't mean the folks in charge of the SSA are "bad people" (I personally like many of them). But it does look like they're out of their depth and did not exercise proper control or bring in the proper expertise to manage something they themselves weren't qualified to do. And hey, its OK to not be well-versed in large-scale technology projects - but if that's the case then you need to put out a call to find someone who _is_ qualified (especially when there are several folks on the SSA membership roster that fit the bill).

--Noel