CHGPA Spring meeting motions

[mingram]

CHGPA Spring meeting motions

This is the list so far. Feel free to discuss/modify/add as needed.

Only 2014 members can vote in person or online during the meeting. This is for simplicity.

Motion to:
1. Authorize funds for Website refresh up to $5000

2. Authorize Woodstock renovation/partnership plan.

3. Authorize funds for Edith's Gap launch resurfacing. Need estimate

4. Authorize funds for Bill's Hill launch expansion. Grass seed and?

5. Add 2 new at large members to the Board of Directors responsible for updating our Site Guide and Bylaws.

6. Increase membership dues to $50 for site improvements and website refresh

7. Designate Daniels and Woodstock as P2 only with new sign off requirements for P2s and visiting pilots for site introduction and sponsorship.

Vote for board positions. The current board candidates are below. Candidates are running unopposed. We need volunteers due to vacancies in positions. If anyone else would like to run please email me.

Patrick Terry - President
Matt Ingram - Vice President
Jim McClave - Secretary
Treasurer - need volunteer
Peter O - Site guide
By laws - need volunteer

[sailin]

Daniels is a privately owned launch. It would be more appropriate for the club to first reach out to the landowner and see what they are comfortable with as a site rating. I believe the land owner is also a pilot.

thanks,
Jon

[mingram]

Very good point. We'll discuss as observers and seek advice from any landowners first.

[dbodner]

Number 1: I'm unclear what we'd be spending $5k on.
Numbers 3 and 4: We probably ought to get estimates before we authorize spending.

[mingram]

Good points. Maybe others can clarify so we can debate before the meeting.

[markc]

I can provide some information regarding motion #1 :

1. Authorize funds for Website refresh up to $5000

One major goal is to import all of the pages of the CHGPA website into a "content management system" (CMS) such as WordPress, Drupal, or Joomla, and then publish/update/modify the website via that management system. A CMS has many advantages: consistent look & feel across the site; consistent navigation among the pages with a 'bread-crumb' trail; ability to globally modify the look/theme of the site; distributed update/edit privileges, so that multiple admins can update site content; adherence to W3C standards; ability to recover prior versions of web pages; ability to add new sections/functionality to the website.

A second major goal is to have a full-fledged membership payment/roster system that requires much less manual work. Currently, we have a payment form that automates the deposit of dues to CHGPA's bank account, but it's not integrated with the club roster itself. A separate/independent form collects member info, and that goes to the Treasurer (Carlos), who then keeps track of things in a spreadsheet. We need something that integrates these two functions, and also allows us to manage member renewal campaigns, follow-up with expired members (sometimes they come back with cajoling; sometimes they donate to the club), fulfill our USHPA reporting requirements, export a web-accessible version of the roster for member convenience; etc.

A third major goal is to develop a site guide that has many more capabilities : integrated with site photos and vids of launches/landings; site protocol alerts/updates ("Smithsburg is closed to flying"); support for commenting/feedback; and linked to weather info. Peter is the person who seems most interested in making this happen. I don't know if the $5k figure includes the development of a new & improved on-line site guide, or if it simply will provide the infrastructure to help make it possible. If the latter, then I suppose Peter would be developing the actual content?

The current consensus is to stick with our phpBB-driven forum. Our forum is somewhat 'bare-bones', especially when compared to sites like this one. Why? Because extensions ("mods") to the phpBB system are time-consuming to manage, and more than a bit fragile when the phpBB software has to be updated. Which is a bit of a shame: There are a gazillion mods out there, from blogs, to photo albums, to feedback/rating systems, to e-commerce, to advertising, you-name-it! But the good news is that a next-gen phpBB is actively under development, and if finally has a REAL plug-in system for managing extensions. This makes phpBB much more attractive for the long-term. More info can be found in this blog.

So another goal is to somehow integrate the new CMS-driven website, and especially the new roster/membership system, with our existing forum. Eg, credentials in one will work in the other. Eg, if a given person is a member, or an observer, or a BOD member, then that info will translate into the group-based permission system of the forums. I've looked into this a bit, and thus far I'm skeptical that it can be made to work.... If that turns out to be the case, it might be possible to come up with a protocol by which member info is dumped from the membership system and then imported into the forum system on a periodic basis, using forum username as a common key. We'll see.

I should point out that our web provider offers all three of the CMS's mentioned above, and many many more. We can install them with a click. So in theory, if someone(s) within the club has experience with a given CMS, and is willing to take on the challenge of importing the existing site and developing a new one, then that could potentially save us quite a few bucks. Are there any hands being raised out there?

I don't know if that $5,000 is a one-time cost, or if there are recurring costs. All of the big CMS's have their own development & release cycles : New software, updated database schemas, security patches, etc. When a new release comes along, you have to (backup! backup! backup!) migrate your site. I do this routinely for phpBB, but I don't think I have the time to do so for a website CMS as well. So...... Will there be on-going costs for that sort of maintenance? Would we try to recruit a knowledgeable club member to take on that responsibility? Good questions.

Is $5,000 a "good deal" ? Ya got me there, I have no concept of what the going rate is for pulling a 100-ish-page site into a CMS and crafting a theme & layout. Hopefully some other members of the IT Committee (Patrick, Peter, John, myself) can provide additional information prior to the meeting.

MarkC

[pvanoevelen]

Good summary Mark! 5K for switching a site to CMS is a good deal in principle. I am having one web sites converted to a CMS and another newly built which cost us more than 5K (significantly) and we are still going for the more affordable companies. Of course a good deal means that there will not be frequent additional costs and we can update and extend the website ourselves.
Whatever we decide there will be issues and it will take time and lots of input by VOLUNTEERS if we truly want to make a nice CMS based website.
At first I was not in favour for continuing with phpBB but I am willing to wait for the new version and if that can be nicely integrated with our new website all the better.

[Dan T]

Pilots,

As you know the USHPA has declared that the use of the phrase "with observer" is considered to be an inappropriate function of observers. Larry Dennis came back from the recent Directors meeting with a possible solution for us. The solution, in short, is to draw a distinction between "official" appointed observers and Chapter members who are capable of providing site awareness advice to the H2s and P2s. I believe the following motion will fill the bill and request that it be put forth for a vote on Friday.

Motion: Create a list of Chapter members who have the experience and desire to provide site awareness advice to our novice and visiting pilots. Replace the "with observer" requirement at our sites that require them to a requirement that the Novice and visiting pilots must arrange for a site awareness consultation with an individual on this list. Grandfather in all the observers who currently hold observer appointments. Permit any member of this group to accept new volunteers provided that they are familiar with the volunteer's suitability for the function.

This will provide us a ready pool of members who can assist the Novice pilots and visitors. It will also increase the number of individuals who can provide these site assessment discussions thus reducing the burden on our current pool of Official Observers.

Unfortunately I am still out of the area and will be unable to attend the meeting. Please post the preceding motion or a suitable variation on my behalf.

Thanks,
Dan T

[jmcclave]

Hello Matt,

On

7. Designate Daniels and Woodstock as P2 only with new sign off requirements for P2s and visiting pilots for site introduction and sponsorship.

I would suggest that Bill's and Edith Gap also be treated like Daniels and Woodstock with new signoff requirements coupled with a site introduction and sponsorship.

Thanks,
Jim

[theflyingdude]

According to Felipe (our other Regional Director), chapters are permitted to set whatever requirements they deem appropriate for properly regulating flying sites, including how they want them rated and who has the authority to sponsor new or visiting pilots. In other words, a site can still be rated H2/P2 with Observer or anyone else the chapter designates as suitable sponsors, regardless of their "official" function within the USHPA.

Not that it matters here, but the Mountaineer HGA sites that are currently rated as H2/P2 sites w/ an Observer present (Zirks, Fairgrounds, and Pinnacle) will continue with the same requirements.

JR

[Matthew]

Hi Jim,

CHGPA is in no postion to change the site requirements for Daniel's. It is a privately owned site and the requirements are set forth by the owner.

I mostly agree with JR on this matter. I think there is some wigggle room if the club wants to go there and make specific number logged flights at a site and/or other factors to allow advanced P2s and H2s to fly without an Observer. But this would probably make things unnecessarily complicated.

Matthew

[Danny Brotto]

Before the membership starts voting on effectively allowing "mentors" to sponsor H2/P2's from "our" sites, can we objectively qualify:
1) Which sites are in the discussion? Mathew pointed out that Daniels is privately owned; "we" really have no jurisdiction there.
2) What qualities/expertise qualifies an individual as a "Mentor/Sponsor"?
3) What is the vetting process for a "Mentor/Sponsor"? Who will watch the watchmen?

I think a vote to allow a departure from "H2/P2 w/ Observer" to "H2/P2 w/ something-else" should more fully define "something-else". Until then, any vote to change the existing structure is premature and reactive.

BTW, can one of the requirements for a Mentor/Sponsor be an affirmation that he be a role model for the flying community, follow site protocols, and that the Mentor/Sponsor insist that their charges know, understand, and follow site protocols? (I guess that's 5 requirements.)

Danny Brotto

[mingram]

Agreed. I think we're really just looking to have an open discussion and won't be voting to change any changes - it's too early. I think the current observers will need to discuss it more detail after getting feedback in the meeting.