Hopefully this is the beginning of a real dialogue between those that call the shots and those that fire the actual bullets. Come prepared to ask questions, those of you invited. Things I've seen and heard lately that should be brought up are:
- The service distributor vs the service receiver view of the new banner
- The inconsistant implementation of the standards. Look at the following sites (not picking on anyone, just grabbing some with different looks) and compare their implementation of the standards: http://www.voc.state.va.us/index.html , http://www.boa.virginia.gov/ , http://www.governor.virginia.gov/ , http://www.virginia.gov/cmsportal2/ , http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/ , http://www.ehealth.vi.virginia.gov/
- How often will the banner and related standards change? And how much notice will Webmasters get?
- What *really* happens if someone refuses to use the standards?
- Whatever happened to the statewide content management system plans from way back?
- Who ate all the apple danishes?
15 comments:
I think the inconsistant implementation is a matter of quality control. VITA will need to police those issues one at a time. I don't think it's something that's "allowed" per se.
It's not easy policing everybody. The first site you have listed is not even in-scope and does not need to follow the standards. I'm not even going to address half the other comments, but if a site fails to comply they will get points taken off on the agency scorecard and will have to rectify it.
Yes, it is difficult policing everyone. That probably should have been taken into consideration before issuing an unfunded mandate.
And I'm not asking you to address ANY of the comments; these are just the things I've heard around the water cooler as being concerns, and that VITA should address at the meeting. Do you represent VITA, anonymous 3:38?
Not being high enough in the food chain to know, but what happens if points are taken off of the agency scorecard? Does the agency have to retake Spanish 101 or something? Extra credit classes? After school detention? A book report?
I do not represent VITA, but I know a lot of people over there. They get a bad wrap a lot of times when they are just trying to help. Haha. I like your response to the agency scorecard question. I think what happens is the agency head gets a phone call from some sort of official. Then, funding can be cut, etc.
I can understand the whole idea of wanting consistency between all sites, and honestly think it makes a lot of sense. It's just a matter of how do we all get there and not have everybody hate each other. There are just so many political issues that fall in to play. :)
Also, I hope you didn't take the last post as being demeaning, I didn't mean it offensively at all.
There are a lot of people at VITA that I also like, and respect. To be clear, when I criticize VITA, I'm not referring to the general rank and file, or the good intentions. I'm referring to management, to policies, and to processes that were created for short sighted reasons and hidden agendas.
Not insulted, just facilitating. :)
I'm glad that the VGWG meetings are starting back up. They've always been a good way to share knowledge, and they have been missed.
Shadow.. you need to join the workgroups. I think your opinion could go a long way. That way you would be part of the decision making on policies. Are you on the listserv?
My joining a workgroup would preceed the termination of my employment by only a few seconds. But I have access to the listserv through my vast network of spies and agents. :)
ooh baby come on and join a workgroup! don;'t know how n-e-one has ever gotten n-e-thing done without you! our agency has had no problems and it's about time we got together instead of wasting time on stuff like your badmouthing.
I completely agree, n-e. I could point out that still you come by and read, and even post during business hours.
But I won't.
I'll just agree with the kernal of truth in your post, that it is more productive to get together and make a difference than to waste time on negatives. So you do that, and I'll continue with my personal crusade so you don't have to waste time with it.
Concerning the work group, I can't help but wonder what this "shadow" could say or do to cause his termination within a few seconds. He makes himself sound like a school boy caught in a fantasy with spies and and dire consequences. If he wishes to complain, let him. There will be no outcome or result from a shadow player. It is quite clear he does not wish to act upon his rantings and the state Web presence will continue to evolve without him.
Neither your lack of imagination or my career risks are really the point of the original post.
Complaining isn't the goal of this blog; shedding light is. How I choose to do it is my business; surely if it is so inconsequential then it would be beneath your time to comment on it. Yet the theater involved has gotten you here as well, hasn't it?
My crusade here is not to create a light to shine on myself, but to shine that light on things others would prefer to hide. I bring out of the shadows things that good citizens fear to challenge for risk of reprisals. And your limited imagination not withstanding, there are many who would lose their jobs for blowing such whistles. Look through VITA's short history to see how that works. Dissent has historically be dealt with harshly.
But, despite your approach and your opinions, you're still here in dialog. And I do agree on one point; the Commonwealth's Web presence will continue to evolve whether I throw my heels in the ring or not. Thanks for playing, and please come again.
If the Shadow doesn't feel comfortable being in a workgroup, that's her right. She didn't raise the issue, someone else did.
As to the rest, using ad hominem attacks to discredit negativity is a bit warped, don't you think?
Personally, I occasionally visit this blog more for the "sock" puppet entertainment vs. the "shadow" puppet enlightenment.
Ok, you've lost me. Nothing new, but all the same...
Post a Comment