RE: [emergency-cap-profiles] FEMA Practiioner Group Review

["Art Botterell" <ABott@so.cccounty.us>]

Thanks for obtaining that clarification for us, Bill.  I hope Denis will
share that with members of your Practitioner Group as well.  And I
suspect Elysa or our subcommittee sub-chairs will be happy to update
your Practitioners at any time on the status, if not the in-work
details, of our activities here.

My concern is that we could run into difficulties, or at least
avoidable misunderstandings, in our public review process if some
comments are in response to one draft Profile and others relate to a
different one, or even to some other document entirely.  I'm not sure
whether the OASIS process addresses handling comments about non-OASIS
documents, and I'm fairly sure it doesn't contemplate processing
comments about two different draft documents simultaneously.  

Also I wonder  whether it would be compatible with the OASIS process
for public comments to be aggregated and/or judged "relevant and
substantive" or not by a third party prior to submission.  Maybe our
chairs or OASIS staff can help me on those points.  

- Art




Art Botterell, Manager
Community Warning System
Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff
50 Glacier Drive
Martinez, California 94553
(925) 313-9603
fax (925) 646-1120

>>> "Kalin, William <CTR>" <bill.kalin@associates.dhs.gov> 1/23/2009
12:18 PM >>>
All - the following message is being sent on behalf of Denis Gusty,
S&T
Program Manager:

To the OASIS IPAWS CAP Profile TC:

I wanted to provide a response to Art's comments and hopefully address
any questions or confusion.  The intent of providing the IPAWS Profile
document to our Practitioner Working Group (PWG) was and is to solicit
direct feedback from those directly involved in generating EAS alerts.
We will be seeking feedback on our Profile Requirements as well as on
the Profile itself, which are two separate deliverables.  The IPAWS
CAP
Profile TC has committed to meeting twice weekly in order to expedite
the Profile process.  We unfortunately do not have the luxury to keep
the PWG up on all the fast and dynamic work from the TC.  We provided
them with the original document to gain their feedback in a parallel
process to your work.  We intend to take their inputs and incorporate
the relevant and substantive comments into the OASIS 60 day public
comment period.  The PWG Profile Requirements review should not
detract
from the Profile review nor lessen the value of the document or work
accomplished to date.

I hope this helps.  Thank you all for your hard and dedicated work on
the IPAWS CAP Profile.  I know you have all put in a lot of time and
we
value your expertise and the OASIS process.  The IPAWS PMO and the S&T
PMO is grateful for your commitment to this important project.


Regards,
Denis Gusty, PMP
Program Manager
Office for Interoperability and Compatibility
Science and Technology
Department of Homeland Security

-----Original Message-----
From:
emergency-cap-profiles-return-91-bill.kalin=associates.dhs.gov@lists.oas

is-open.org
[mailto:emergency-cap-profiles-return-91-bill.kalin=associates.dhs.gov@l
ists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Art Botterell
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 1:09 AM
To: emergency-cap-profiles@lists.oasis-open.org 
Subject: [emergency-cap-profiles] FEMA Practiioner Group Review

Friends -

A curious thing came to my attention this evening.  It seems that last
week FEMA staff presented their "IPAWS Practitioner Group" with a copy
of their original in-house Profile draft (from 12/9/08) and asked them
to submit comments on that.  

Seems like it might be a confusing way to do things, having two
different versions out for review at the same time.  Can anyone shed
any
light on this?

- Art


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php