[emergency] Re: [CAP] NOAA Undermining International Standards?

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Since I my personal experience doesn't validate the predictable 
effects, although that may in fact be the practical outcome, I can't 
be part of the we that doesn't "stand for NOAA ..." especially since 
I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt based on what Herb 
said on the record.

I don't think it serves our purposes to dig our heels in on what is, 
after all, an optional feature at this point. However, showing a 
willingness to bring the press in if intentions don't match results 
is certainly an option I would keep handy.

Also, it sounded to me like a negative OAT report in regard to 
non-implementation of "instructions" was certainly in order, also for 
the record.

Regards,
Rex


At 10:07 AM -0700 6/2/06, Art Botterell wrote:
>Friends -
>
>Apparently I've failed to sensitize NOAA to the impact of their 
>choices beyond their own organizational and national borders.  Much 
>more is as stake here than just "visibility."
>
>On Jun 2, 2006, at 6/2/06 7:33 AM, Herbert White wrote:
>>The planned HazCollect Initial Operating Capability (IOC) is just 
>>the first step in the process.  NOAA's intent is to fully support 
>>the CAP "Instruction" element.
>
>The problem is that these terms... "operational acceptance test" and 
>"initial operating capacity"... mean precisely what they say.  The 
>"OAT" isn't just some mid-point correction in an ongoing development 
>process.  It marks the acceptance of an operational product.  It is, 
>for all intents and purposes, a functional nationwide rollout of an 
>"operating capacity" that even Herb admits is incomplete.
>
>For most of a year now I've been asking Herb and others to specify 
>when those flaws would be fixed, if not prior to the initial 
>rollout.  He's been unable to do so, and rightly so, because there's 
>no guarantee he'll ever get the funds to make changes once an 
>"initial operating capacity" is accepted.  (I think we all know that 
>there's nothing as permanent in government as a "temporary" 
>structure.)  So... with all respect to Herb personally... I think we 
>need to recognize that such general statements of intent are 
>well-meaning but ultimately empty, and to focus on what's actually 
>about to be deployed.
>
>What will be some of the predictable effects if HazCollect is 
>deployed and accepted in its current form?
>
>1) Existing and developing providers of warning and emergency 
>information systems will be shut out of the system for lack of an 
>open interface in the foreseeable future.
>
>2) Emergency managers will be pressured to install the DMIS toolkit 
>on their already cluttered desktops as the only way to get access to 
>NWS warning assets.
>
>3) The market for non-NWS warning systems and products will be 
>chilled, since nobody with a full CAP implementation will be able to 
>guarantee compatibility with HazCollect.
>
>4) Many system developers in the U.S. and abroad will feel pressure 
>to "dumb down" their CAP implementations to match the HazCollect 
>model rather than try to support both.
>
>5) Ironically, other system developers (as we've seen in this 
>discussion) will take NOAA's intransigence and go-it-alone approach 
>as a reason not to bother implementing standards at all.
>
>6) Ultimately, the credibility of the standards process will be 
>eroded by the example of a huge U.S. federal agency overriding the 
>standard for their own internal convenience.
>
>Let's be clear here... it would be entirely possible for NOAA to 
>accommodate its internal back-compatibility issues internally, 
>without projecting them out to the user interface.  And both NOAA 
>and Battelle have had plenty of time to make the necessary changes, 
>during a development schedule that's already slipped numerous 
>deadlines and waived a number of original specifications.
>
>The only reason these problems persist is that NOAA and Battelle 
>have chosen not to fix them.  We must not stand for NOAA putting a 
>flawed HazCollect "initial operating capacity" online until they are.
>
>- Art
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
>at:
>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php


-- 
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-849-2309