IDC to URL

Postby LIVINGIW » Mon Oct 31, 2011 2:48 am

I had no issue with us not being included in the PMP program. If you want to go be a college prof, get out of the Navy, go get your PHD, go teach.
  • 0

LIVINGIW
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:36 pm
Location: CA
Reputation: 12

Postby arvizo » Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:20 am

LIVINGIW wrote:I had no issue with us not being included in the PMP program. If you want to go be a college prof, get out of the Navy, go get your PHD, go teach.

1. We are included in PMP
2. If the Navy didn't want military professors they wouldn't have this program
3. J-PMP was just created last year, so this implies to me the Navy feels military professors are very important
4. A PhD is not required for J-PMP
  • 0

arvizo
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 3:59 am
Reputation: 8

Postby LIVINGIW » Tue Nov 01, 2011 2:29 am

Glad you are passionate about it. Go for it. Best of luck.
  • 0

LIVINGIW
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:36 pm
Location: CA
Reputation: 12

Postby Musketeer » Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:00 am

das wrote:Imagine something like this, at least in the beginning...

1800 - Information Dominance Warfare Officer (Intelligence)
1800 - Information Dominance Warfare Officer (Cryptology)
1800 - Information Dominance Warfare Officer (Technical)
1800 - Information Dominance Warfare Officer (Oceanography)

So since our warfare qualification makes us Information Dominance Warfare Officers, and given the URL transition, it would seem that calling us IDWOs makes sense...

Ok, now I understand the logic behind the 18xx URL community designators, but why call us Information Dominance Warfare Officers (IDWOs)?

If we have Air Warfare, Surface Warfare, Subsurface Warfare, and Special Warfare; then why not just call us Information Warfare Officers (IWOs)?

I don't see any Surface Dominance Warfare Officers. It just sounds like we are trying too hard. We should keep it simple.
  • 0

Musketeer
Registered Member
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: Stuck in the Middle with You
Reputation: 0

Postby jitter » Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:08 am

Great idea, lets keep it simple. I IWO says it all.
  • 0

User avatar
jitter
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:25 pm
Location: WV
Reputation: 3

Postby das » Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:17 am

Musketeer wrote:Ok, now I understand the logic behind the 18xx URL community designators, but why call us Information Dominance Warfare Officers (IDWOs)?

If we have Air Warfare, Surface Warfare, Subsurface Warfare, and Special Warfare; then why not just call us Information Warfare Officers (IWOs)?

I don't see any Surface Dominance Warfare Officers. It just sounds like we are trying too hard. We should keep it simple.


It's just a guess on my part -- the only reason I would think it wouldn't be "Information Warfare Officer" is because of confusion with the current Information Warfare Officer community, and the doctrinal* (and vernacular) term "Information Warfare".

So using that logic, and the fact that our warfare qualification is called "Information Dominance Warfare Officer" and that our corps of communities is the "Information Dominance Corps", "Information Dominance Warfare Officer" was my guess...

* Even though this doesn't appear in current doctrine...
  • 0

Visit Information Warfare Community Self Synchronization on Facebook, Twitter, and at IWCsync.org!
User avatar
das
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 1:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Reputation: 4

Postby yoshi » Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:24 pm

Had an interesting discussion today with a flag who asked about what I/we have been hearing regarding mergers and/or URL stuff. I responded with what has been circulated here and elsewhere. Interestingly, the flag indicated to me that recent discussions on this topic were centered more on IW and IP merging, rather than all four communities (nothing mentioned on URL status). Anyone else hear the same or any other versions recently?
  • 0

yoshi
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:10 am
Reputation: 19

Postby das » Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:03 pm

I heard the INTEL Community Leader say that he was very much against any such merger, and that he would say that publicly to anyone who asked. Interestingly, his comments made me think he felt it was the INTEL community that would lose its identity in such a merger, even though it's the oldest and largest of the IDC communities. I have felt, as a newbie, and especially with the disestablishment of NNWC and the realignment of reserve IW under the old RIA/NIRR structure -- now called IDC Reserve Region -- would result in us having to struggle for support.

That said, if this has been refocused on just IW/IP and not the IDC as a whole, where does that leave VADM Card's clear edict to provide a roadmap for consolidation of all IDC communities into a single URL designator by the end of CY2013?
  • 0

Visit Information Warfare Community Self Synchronization on Facebook, Twitter, and at IWCsync.org!
User avatar
das
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 1:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Reputation: 4

Postby COMEVIL » Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:57 pm

yoshi wrote:Anyone else hear the same or any other versions recently?


Haven't heard this one. Haven't heard any real details, actually. That said...

I think the community leadership, at the flag level, has done a horrible job of communicating the why and how of this RL to URL change to the community as a whole. Why? I don't know. But I do know that there are a number of venues for out leadership to reach out to the community as a whole, especially in the age of social media. Instead, rumors will abound and the community will continue to be suspicious, most likely until the change is dropped on our collective heads.
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 36

Postby Sum1 » Thu Dec 01, 2011 8:50 pm

Or, more likely, they're still trying to hash out at the flag level exactly what the merger should accomplish, how it should be accomplished, and how best to enact such sweeping change. Why push out information now that will be inaccurate in a week or a month as people discuss items and opinions are made/changed?

I expect we'll be in a holding pattern on this for a while longer before anything even somewhat definitive comes out.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 15

PreviousNext

Return to Detailer/Community Management Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 4 guests

cron