Refresh from last year - Cryptologic Community Foundational Principles

This forum is the place to post links and articles you find helpful.

Refresh from last year - Cryptologic Community Foundational Principles

Postby 1610MATROS » Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:57 pm

Still a MUST read. Our Cryptologic Community's Foundational Principles.

Our community Flags said, "Please make time to read this document and discuss it with your peers, seniors, and subordinates. Don't let this document be a piece of "shelf-ware". We must each do our part to turn these words into meaningful action."

VADM Michael S. Rogers is counting on the group to turn these words into meaningful action. Time to do our part.
  • 0

1610MATROS
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 339
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 11:21 pm
Reputation: 0

Postby Arkad » Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:15 pm

Turns out the majority of OUR community and a significant percentage of OUR wardroom is not familiar with this document and more important, don't seem to understand what we stand for as a community. Participants on this site are interested in the conversation. Let's help others become interested in the conversation. More important, let's show them how easy it is to put meaningful action behind these words. Let's truly demonstrate the power of COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP!

Consider sharing this document at wardroom/departmental/divisional/etc training. We have an entire Command ACTION Plan that supports it.
  • 0

User avatar
Arkad
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 2:07 am
Reputation: 21

Postby Sleeper » Fri Feb 03, 2012 4:15 pm

Computer Network Exploitation (CNE) and SIGINT are not separate and distinct. They require similar tools, processes, procedures, and skill-sets.


Then why do we have separate and distinct ratings and officer AQDs for SIGINT and CNE? This generalist attitude betrays an MBA-level understanding of the technical foundations of those fields. We are special duty officers. We should only have to abstract away from complexity when talking to those outside the community. When speaking within the community (i.e., this document), we should be able to lead from a position of knowledge.

Incentivize tours of duty in a training environment.


Yet officers who pursue resident postgraduate degrees (in technical fields that can't be delivered in an executive/e-learning format) do so at grave risk to their promotability. No wonder the MBAs (I'm looking at you, U of PHX) are taking over...

We haven't had a lively debate here in awhile. Talk amongst yourselves. The huggers can deal with it... :cool:
  • 0

"Also, I can kill you with my brain."
Sleeper
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:24 pm
Reputation: 4

Postby Sum1 » Fri Feb 03, 2012 4:51 pm

We're not talking technical, though. My understanding of this document is it provides a skeleton and a direction for the entire community. It's up to all of us, in our distinct fields within IW, to flesh out the muscle and bring this document to life. No one said this was going to be an all-inclusive tech manual decoding what all our day-to-day activities should be, but it SHOULD be a great incentive to lead a certain way and refocus our efforts to develop our Sailors the best we can.

You've also missed the mark when it comes to the incentivized training tours. The document isn't specifically looking at our INDIVIDUAL postgraduate work, rather incentivizing tours that allow our best and brightest to go back to the schoolhouses and teach the next generation without the stigma of it being seen as an "easy" tour. I think we do a great job incentivizing instructor tours for our enlisted Sailors (particularly E-6 going up for Chief), but on the officer side we do a horrible job. Right or wrong, those tours are looked at as far inferior to the "preferred" career track. What this document is saying is we shouldn't be cutting ourselves off at the knees by guiding our best and brightest into positions OTHER than the schoolhouses.

And frankly, your comment regarding technical degrees from NPS attained in a two year or 2.5 year period should have little or no bearing on the on-time promotion and continuation of a career. Last time that particular debate happened numerous examples were made of people who took orders to NPS exactly in the time we're all advised against it (mid-grade to senior LTs about to be in zone for LCDR) who picked up LCDR on time, the first time. If that's a major concern I imagine there are other things in those Sailors' records that should also be a concern.

I get the impression from your comment at the end that perhaps your goal is simply to stir up drama or debate on a topic that seems fairly straightforward.

*edit* I printed it out and put it on our required reading board when it was released last year, and have been planning on including it in one of our division training periods once a few more of our Sailors make it up to Bath.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 15

Postby COMEVIL » Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:43 pm

Sum1 wrote:I think we do a great job incentivizing instructor tours for our enlisted Sailors (particularly E-6 going up for Chief), but on the officer side we do a horrible job. Right or wrong, those tours are looked at as far inferior to the "preferred" career track. What this document is saying is we shouldn't be cutting ourselves off at the knees by guiding our best and brightest into positions OTHER than the schoolhouses.


This.

IW Officer training is severely lacking. What little training we do attend is broken. And there is no incentive to be an instructor, unless you want to retire in P'Cola. This MUST change, especially in such a highly-technical field.

Hopefully this document will help to push that change. But some real emphasis from community leadership must follow...

v/r

COMEVIL
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 36

Postby 1610MATROS » Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:51 pm

COMEVIL wrote: And there is no incentive to be an instructor, unless you want to retire in P'Cola.


I have to disagree with this statement. There is PLENTY of incentive to be an instructor. Our instructors (officer and enlisted) have done exceedingly well post-Corry and continue to do well.
  • 0

1610MATROS
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 339
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 11:21 pm
Reputation: 0

Postby COMEVIL » Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:16 pm

1610MATROS wrote:I have to disagree with this statement. There is PLENTY of incentive to be an instructor. Our instructors (officer and enlisted) have done exceedingly well post-Corry and continue to do well.


Allow me to restate that phrase: community leadership hasn't emphasized these tours in the past.
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 36

Postby Sum1 » Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:32 pm

1610MATROS wrote:I have to disagree with this statement. There is PLENTY of incentive to be an instructor. Our instructors (officer and enlisted) have done exceedingly well post-Corry and continue to do well.


Enlisted and Officer instructor duty are two very different animals. On the enlisted side it's basically a requirement to put on CPO that you have done an instructor tour and completed your MTS. It is emphasized at all levels.

Compare that to the Officer side, where I have NEVER heard a detailer brief or wardroom mentorship/training bring up instructor duty as something you should consider doing. Where do you put a three year gig as an instructor (non-LDO/CWO) into a career that's centered around DIRSUP, PCS afloat/air/NSW, Grad Ed, NSA/National, Staff (# fleet, cocom), Joint tour, War college ... etc? Particularly with the shrinking zones and relatively lower in-zone selection rates to LCDR, people are going to focus on what we've been told in the past gets you selected. Of course, then you can debate "chasing collar devices" vs "profoundly and positively affecting sailors and enabling mission accomplishment."

This is where flag deck and below buy-in is necessary to make this document a living and breathing entity, especially if we value training and mentorship as much as we say we do (and we should).
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 15

Postby Arkad » Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:02 am

This is where we stop debating, admiring, celebrating, and/or complaining about our wake (and even current location) and start developing, collectively owning, and making way down a shared PIM. There is no THEY, only US. How are you bringing this culture to life and encouraging others to do the same? We are all leaders, time to lead...the Flag Deck has empowered us with the WHY and the WHAT (generally speaking) and challenged us to get more specific on the WHAT and develop the HOW. I think Sum1 has it right. Run your division in keeping with this document. I can assure you that at least one command is using the document to guide our efforts. Our span of control may be limited by our position, but our span of influence is only constrained by our action. Leadership is not about control, but about influence.
  • 0

User avatar
Arkad
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 2:07 am
Reputation: 21

Postby OneShot » Sat Feb 04, 2012 5:41 am

Could any of you give me guidance on how to become more acquainted with the cryptologic community? I am a strongly pursuing acceptance to become an IW Officer via OCS, and I am hungry for any type of information you can give me about the community I strive to join one day because I am very interested.

I've been reading on idcsync.org and some other relevant materials but still want to learn more. I know most of it is top secret, but I am just seeing if there was anything out there I didn't already know about.

Thanks,
Zachary Laney
  • 0

OneShot
Registered Member
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:22 am
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Reputation: 0

Next

Return to Required Reading

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron