- Reaction score
- 28,744
- Points
- 1,090
I thought the TCCS contract was let in Alberta, back in the day.They also aren't trying to create that industry out of thin air, over a 15 year period, to economically stimulate a contested Liberal riding...
I thought the TCCS contract was let in Alberta, back in the day.They also aren't trying to create that industry out of thin air, over a 15 year period, to economically stimulate a contested Liberal riding...
The RCN still hasn't managed to legally change the rank designation of Corporal Of The Sea from Leading Seaman, so "on time" might be a bit of a stretch.
Didn’t you object to the lack of “Canada” shoulder patches? Surely if you have thoughts on a design, and the patches going along with it, you’d agree that we need to have some kind of oversight to its design?Maybe because they don’t waste effort with standing committees for the purpose of tinkering with DEUs and garrison patches.
It’s the other way around.Why is the CAF dress committee speaking to anything environmental? The various sorts of operational and specialist dress, absolutely, but seems like Nos. 1-3 should be left entirely to their respective environmental committees.
Given the amount of changes, I doubt this!Because we have to actually make decisions about uniforms? Pretty sure it's quarterly or biannual meeting, which isn't breaking the bank in terms of staff work.
So…it should be more meetings?Given the amount of changes, I doubt this!
We have a system that does oversight of projects.Didn’t you object to the lack of “Canada” shoulder patches? Surely if you have thoughts on a design, and the patches going along with it, you’d agree that we need to have some kind of oversight to its design?
How do we have people with so little to do that they can form standing dress committees focused on aesthetics?
Which is obviously flawless and should be replicated where ever possible.We have a system that does oversight of projects.
Is the PPCLI officer in the wedge cap Major Stewart?
That gets its tasks from L1s borne out of discussions in committees like NDCDC. Either you're being deliberately obtuse on how projects get created or you actually don't know.We have a system that does oversight of projects.
No actually. Capability is the combination of several things spanning concepts, doctrine, organization, training, materiel, etc …in theory we procure to meet doctrinal needs …
I'm wondering if we are going to see the whole Sailor 1st Class thing go away after the next election.The RCN still hasn't managed to legally change the rank designation of Corporal Of The Sea from Leading Seaman, so "on time" might be a bit of a stretch.
So I guess the actually question is what do you want to be done then? Because you aren’t happy with the new service dress, but you object to any time being spent on it. You obviously accept that it meets a need, you clearly understand this update was a result of industry no longer being able to meet the material requirements. So do you want to just have industry pitch us our dress policy?No actually. Capability is the combination of several things spanning concepts, doctrine, organization, training, materiel, etc …
All of these things should be developed in coordination with each other, but we don’t actually have a coherent process synchronizing that capability development. So sometimes our doctrine, structures, and equipment staffs are working to disjointed ends (if not in opposite directions). Maybe ten people times “12 hours a year” could solve the capability synchronization problem … and that’s not even counting the time some PD is putting into creating obligatory project documentation and briefings to support garrison hats & badges.
You’re over emphasizing the standing. Sure of the committee. It meets four times a year, would you really call that “standing?” All of these people are already engaged in other aspects of the Army’s chain of command so again… what is the difference? Because if it was just up to the army chain of command, surely they have to meet once or twice or maybe more a year to make these decisions anyways. If they need to consult SMEs, surely that also a couple meetings.A standing dress committee is not needed to provide governance to a project, and it does not provide such governance. The governance comes from the army chain of command. What the standing committee offers is a platform for good idea fairies to spawn the next project to tinker (like white belts for RCN on joint parades). When there is a requirement, then we can run a project like for any other requirement. The project can even consult SMEs and conduct user focus groups without need of a standing buttons committee.
a certain CWO on the Dress Committee wants RCN officers who are on a CAF parade to wear a white sword belt over their jacket. Said CWO wants an "Uniform" look.
That would be the same committee that brought about the new CA service dress.Maybe we have more important business than conceiving new minor capital projects for DEU & garrison bling every few months? What is the institutional added value from:
The Defence Women's Advisory Organization?That would be the same committee that brought about the new CA service dress.