RFC: Migrating Advancement from 2009 to 2011 edition

[miksmi]

This is a Request for Comments (RFC) for the Advancement page, which has references to and excerpts from the Advancement Committee Policies & Procedures, October, 2009 Edition (BSA Supply No. 33088). ACP&P is superseded by the Guide to Advancement, 2011 (BSA Supply No. 33088), so I'd like your input.

Advancement page: organization ok. Does the bottom table contain the salient points?

Advancement Policies page: is there a better way to present this page?

Thanks for your ideas.

[smtroop168]

Thanks for taking this on. You could just show the link to the GTA.

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/Gui ... ement.aspx

[miksmi]

Thanks smtroop168, it's on my list.

The issue is that quotes, references, and page numbers to the 2007, 2008, and 2009 editions have changed and I need to find equivalents in the 2011 edition. E.g., Advancement references:

A badge is recognition of what a young person is able to do, not merely a reward for what he or she has done. The badge is proof of certain abilities, and is not just a reward for the completion of a task.

But this phrase is no longer in the Guide to Advancement (GTA). Should I just delete it?

For me, it's going to be easier to re-organize and re-write the advancement sections. So, here are questions for all:

What do you like about the Advancement pages?
What do you dislike?
What's missing?
How would you prefer it to be organized?

Or, since the GTA removed most quotes on the wiki, should I delete all Advancement pages and make a link to GTA?

[miksmi]

I'm going to create a new template for the 2011 Guide to Advancement source document. I've studied the list of templates. Is there a naming convention?

[Fred Johnson]

I have used the meritbadge.com advancement pages, but it's just a starting point. Readers need to get to the "official" version. I'd quickly at the start include the link to the offical and list what's discussed in it.

Now if you want to provide useful content, include things such as how requirements have changed over the years. For example, I've found it very helpful when I see things such as "callouts" that say what the requirements were say before 2007.

Same for the active page. To understand how to interpret active, you need to read GTA. But I've found it useful when I see how active interpretation has changed over the years. What's been added or removed?

I've found it useful when I've found things such as when Baden Powell associates advancement with getting a sun tan.

My main concern is just don't copy and paste the whole GTA. To me that's just extra stuff to wade thru.

======================

As far as the link provided earlier by smtroop168... I know it's not under review, but scouting.org comments...

ISSUES #1 - If you use the navigation aid that has "Boy Scout of America > Guide to Advancement 2011" and click "Boy Scouts of America" it seem slike it should take you up a hierarchical tree organization. But you can't find the GTA in that next higher page. So you can navigate up, but not down. huh???

ISSUE #2 - Can't find a printer friendly version of GTA on the GTA page. G2SS has a printer friendly page. I always use the printer friendly version because scouting.org is so slow and I just find it more natural to read PDF files than to hit and miss over a set of web pages. Plus, I don't trust scouting.org web pages. Some are just too out of date. At least I know the PDF was the last published version and it's the published version.

[Fred Johnson]

Another useful content item would be after reference GTA ... reference debates that exist. Don't necessarily try to resolve them as much as fairly cover each side. So that readers can come up to speed on the debates and take a position.

Some of those debates are such as...
- What is active?
- Retest or once and done?
- merit badge scoutmaster approval

Just a thought.

=====================

A good example is the Venturing advancement page. A good example is the venturing advancement page. http://meritbadge.org/wiki/index.php/Ve ... dvancement The graphic image is very very useful. The copy/pasted text is not. That's better left as an overall link to the official PDF document.

[miksmi]

Fred, I appreciate you taking the time to answer as I'm unclear on the best direction to take this project. I like the idea of historical changes but that'll take a lower priority to presenting the 2011 GTA.

I'm not sure what a new Advancement hierarchy would be, I just not fond of the existing structure (aesthetically).

Any other ideas? A suggested hierarchy?