OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emergency message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [emergency] Re: [emergency-comment] PPW letter re CAP

> Industry won't care what excuses we offer for not addressing their 
> needs... they just need to decide, very shortly, whether to embrace 
> CAP or go their own way.

Keep in mind we can not now or ever be everything to everyone. It is
simply not possible - especially in the first version of a spec. 

In fact, the unspoken rule of a v1 is often not to address everyone, but
rather address a core set of needs that are prepared to act on/support a
standard and to not limit v2 from expanding on that to include a wider
range. You focus on the areas that have the most interest, which is
represented by their involvement in the standards process, and you hit
that first. Then you move on to the next target. Its not about leaving
people out of things - its just about being smart as to how we target
our efforts and resources for the first step.

> Anyway, I have difficulty with the idea that a lack of representation 
> has somehow made us unable to address this.  In fact, there was and 
> is representation: PPW, among others.  We've also received input on 
> this issue in public comments.  And ultimately we can address 
> whatever we choose to address.

What Rex is referring to is the simply fact that media/broadcast is
represented only by 1 member of 1 OASIS membership organization, while
other areas have a larger (in terms of bodies, which is what ultimately
drives a democratic process like OASIS) level of commitment. 

> And the media standards and technologies involved are no more 
> uncertain than in any other area.  In fact, because of the 
> stabilizing force of the gigantic capital investments involved, I'd 
> say that DTV in particular is actually one of the least uncertain 
> environments in all of advanced digital technology.

If you are comparing medai to non-media standards and technologies, then
I disagree. If this were the case, then we would not have any demos or
products able to release support for CAP day 1 of it being official.

> And those colossal investments, which are being programmed right now, 
> are also why we're not likely to get a second chance to be responsive 
> if we blow it this time.

There is always a "we have to hit it" deadline - anyone in this space
knows this. If broadcast media is so special that its one and only ship
is about to sail, then what is driving that?

I think the point here is not that anyone disagrees that broadcast media
should not be addressed, which is something we talked about and I
thought agreed to at the 7/15 meeting. But rather a) now is not the
time, b) including IN CAP (vs as an official or unofficial note or
recommendation) may not be the right way to do it, and c) how they
propose addressing it is not the best way (our IF SC can help guide us

> - Art
> >Thanks Art,
> >
> >This is very informative and useful. If I might suggest a way of 
> >addressing the specific issue of full-spectrum media specification, 
> >I think we should make it clear, perhaps with a disclaimer in the 
> >spec or an open letter invitation aimed at broadcast television 
> >media representatives to the effect that due to a lack of 
> >representation of these interests combined with uncertainty about 
> >both near-future technological development and existing and/or 
> >planned technical standards directly related to these media, we were 
> >unable to include such media in this initial, admittedly partial CAP 
> >specification. This assumes that we all agree that the goal of 
> >including these media is unanimously supported if we can determine 
> >that it is both appropriate within OASIS and does not conflict with 
> >other efforts.
> >
> >Just tryin to be helpful.
> >
> >Ciao,
> >Rex
> >
> >At 10:46 AM -0700 10/8/03, Art Botterell wrote:
> >>The attached is a letter from Craig Fugate, Chairman of the Board 
> >>of Trustees of the Partnership for Public Warning.
> >>
> >>Attachment converted: Enterprise:PPW_Letter.PDF (PDF /CARO) (0029B681)
> >>To unsubscribe from this list, send a post to 
> >>emergency-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org, or visit 
> >>http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/.
> >
> >
> >--
> >Rex Brooks
> >GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
> >W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
> >Email: rexb@starbourne.com
> >Tel: 510-849-2309
> >Fax: By Request
> >
> >To unsubscribe from this list, send a post to 
> >emergency-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org, or visit 
> >http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/.
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/members/leave_workgroup.php.
R. Allen Wyke
Chair, Emergency Management TC

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]