O-6 results

Re: O-6 results

Postby Sum1 » Mon May 08, 2017 8:59 am

COMEVIL wrote:
Sum1 wrote:
I know the new IWC positions are all-IWC jobs, but I was not tracking that DIWC was being changed from 1810 to all-IWC, as well. What's your source for that tidbit, if you don't mind my asking?


Source is my next (old) command. Haven't seen the official doc, but emails ref a CNIF instruction that establishes the IW afloat structure.

If I track down the instruction I'll post a link.


Thanks! That would be really valuable.

yoshi wrote:COMEVIL:
So, we are going to send O5s to sea in a DIWC billet when they aren't going to be the DIWC? Or are we not going to send those folks to sea at all, knowing we have tremendously important staff positions to fill? Either way, pretty clear statement on community perspective of DIWC, IFOR perspective of 1810 specific value in those roles.


As far as the DIWC position opening to the full IWC instead of 1810s, I'd be hesitant to assign any meaning to that decision beyond the fact that if IWC is open to all, then DIWC should be, as well. I haven't seen anything to confirm or deny this, but making DIWC open to all, as well, means there is detailing flexibility to make sure that if an 1810 is the sitting IWC then another IWC specialty is represented as DIWC. It wouldn't make sense to have two 1810's leading the entire information warfare area.
  • 0

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

Re: O-6 results

Postby yoshi » Mon May 08, 2017 10:03 am

How about a METOC IWC and an intel DIWC?
  • 0

yoshi
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:10 am
Reputation: 19

Re: O-6 results

Postby Schlag » Mon May 08, 2017 10:38 am

Is all of this cross-detailing only applying to the DIWC and the IWC? Or is it going to be staff wide?

Seems like we're opening ourselves up to a Chinese fire drill of everyone in positions that are not from their source designator. Either that or we're trying to follow the Aviator DH model of where everyone gets up and changes jobs every 9 months or so.
  • 0

User avatar
Schlag
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: The path of the righteous man...
Reputation: 18

Re: O-6 results

Postby COMEVIL » Mon May 08, 2017 12:55 pm

yoshi wrote:How about a METOC IWC and an intel DIWC?


Absolutely possible under this model I have mentioned.
  • 0

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

Re: O-6 results

Postby COMEVIL » Mon May 08, 2017 1:18 pm

Sum1 wrote:As far as the DIWC position opening to the full IWC instead of 1810s, I'd be hesitant to assign any meaning to that decision beyond the fact that if IWC is open to all, then DIWC should be, as well. I haven't seen anything to confirm or deny this, but making DIWC open to all, as well, means there is detailing flexibility to make sure that if an 1810 is the sitting IWC then another IWC specialty is represented as DIWC. It wouldn't make sense to have two 1810's leading the entire information warfare area.


The point isn't about assigning any meaning but instead being open and honest about the impact to the CW community and what these jobs entail in the future.

There are now 3x IW O-5s on the staff. Two have significant positions -- N2 (ACOS), N6 (ACOS) -- that haven't changed and are clearly recognized by their community. Both will have a chance to be the DIWC, based on seniority.

The 1810 O-5 position has typically been the N39 (non-ACOS) but also the DIWC (whatever that meant). Now, that position may be an ACOS (N9) and will have a chace to be the DIWC, based on seniority.

We are now potentially sacrificing that key opportunity to "give everyone else a chance." If you are a true believer in the IWC that may not mean much. If you truly recognize who is the most qualified for that position than you might take issue...
  • 0

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

Re: O-6 results

Postby yoshi » Mon May 08, 2017 2:00 pm

i'm not sure if our community views it as a sacrifice or an opportunity to "reinvest elsewhere".
  • 0

yoshi
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:10 am
Reputation: 19

Re: O-6 results

Postby COMEVIL » Mon May 08, 2017 3:24 pm

yoshi wrote:i'm not sure if our community views it as a sacrifice or an opportunity to "reinvest elsewhere".


How so? The billet remains there and remains a MS.
  • 0

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

Re: O-6 results

Postby Sum1 » Mon May 08, 2017 3:43 pm

COMEVIL wrote:
Sum1 wrote:As far as the DIWC position opening to the full IWC instead of 1810s, I'd be hesitant to assign any meaning to that decision beyond the fact that if IWC is open to all, then DIWC should be, as well. I haven't seen anything to confirm or deny this, but making DIWC open to all, as well, means there is detailing flexibility to make sure that if an 1810 is the sitting IWC then another IWC specialty is represented as DIWC. It wouldn't make sense to have two 1810's leading the entire information warfare area.


The point isn't about assigning any meaning but instead being open and honest about the impact to the CW community and what these jobs entail in the future.

There are now 3x IW O-5s on the staff. Two have significant positions -- N2 (ACOS), N6 (ACOS) -- that haven't changed and are clearly recognized by their community. Both will have a chance to be the DIWC, based on seniority.

The 1810 O-5 position has typically been the N39 (non-ACOS) but also the DIWC (whatever that meant). Now, that position may be an ACOS (N9) and will have a chace to be the DIWC, based on seniority.

We are now potentially sacrificing that key opportunity to "give everyone else a chance." If you are a true believer in the IWC that may not mean much. If you truly recognize who is the most qualified for that position than you might take issue...


Does the same CNIF Instruction you cited earlier also state that the senior IWC O-5 on staff will assume DIWC duties? Previously, it was a direct detail billet (like the IWC is now). I think it would be a mistake to let fate and timing decide the community composition of a staff's IWC/DIWC team. If I spoke to one of the Intel O-6s/O-5s down the hall from me they would probably have a different opinion on what it means to be "most qualified for that position." If we're embracing the IWC construct as fully as we've been directed, it's hard to justify requiring one of the positions to be any one designator.
  • 0

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

Re: O-6 results

Postby COMEVIL » Mon May 08, 2017 3:59 pm

Sum1 wrote: Does the same CNIF Instruction you cited earlier also state that the senior IWC O-5 on staff will assume DIWC duties? Previously, it was a direct detail billet (like the IWC is now). I think it would be a mistake to let fate and timing decide the community composition of a staff's IWC/DIWC team. If I spoke to one of the Intel O-6s/O-5s down the hall from me they would probably have a different opinion on what it means to be "most qualified for that position." If we're embracing the IWC construct as fully as we've been directed, it's hard to justify requiring one of the positions to be any one designator.


Again, I haven't seen the instruction yet. But...

Take a look at it this way. Our duties on the staff (whether as N39, N9, etc) probably won't change at all (my guess). We'll continue to focus on those designated areas the DIWC has traditionally focused on over the past 5-10 years. But, depending on timing, we may/may not get credit for serving as a DIWC.

At the same time, our IW brethren will most likely continue their duties as previously designed (N2, N6) yet may get the add'l title of DIWC.

So, where is the value added? We have created/shifted an O-6 IW Commander (IWC) billet, added a designated DIWC (senior CDR), but done literally nothing else. Is this how we get to success as an IW Afloat model by adding more titles?
  • 0

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

Re: O-6 results

Postby Sum1 » Mon May 08, 2017 8:19 pm

COMEVIL wrote:So, where is the value added? We have created/shifted an O-6 IW Commander (IWC) billet, added a designated DIWC (senior CDR), but done literally nothing else. Is this how we get to success as an IW Afloat model by adding more titles?


I think it's clear that snatching IWC away from the carrier CO and assigning actual IWC members to that position afloat is a huge win. The greater IWC needs to figure out how to smash this opportunity out of the park with our best and brightest as soon as possible to make sure we get to stay at the table as equals. I can't imagine anything more frustrating than finally getting this opportunity and then squandering a chance to set a great precedent. Fortunately, I'd be surprised to hear that our leadership wasn't thinking the exact same thing and making decisions appropriately.

So, is your question really if we're looking to get to success with an IW Afloat model or a CW Afloat model? It seems less like we're adding titles and more like our equities get a seat at the table with the perennial big boys.
  • 0

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

PreviousNext

Return to Detailer/Community Management Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron