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

["R. Allen Wyke" <emtc@nc.rr.com>]

On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 23:24, Art Botterell wrote:
> We should also bear in mind that several hundred people and 
> organizations put their trust in OASIS when they contributed their 
> collective work of the prior two years to this process.  Certainly we 
> can choose to respond only to our own interests and concerns, but I 
> think we're better than that.

So, you are saying the TC has not been democratic in our process?

> >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.
> 
> If we all vote merely on our organizational self-interest then your 
> logic holds... but I don't think that's how most of us are 
> approaching this.  In a serious discussion, issues need to be 
> evaluated on their merit before we start counting votes.

It is true that people should be voting on what they believe, which
should be influenced by experience, the organization/perspective they
represent, etc. Are you saying that people have previously voted
irresponsibly, because that is what you are implying. That everyone here
has voted on "our organizational self-interest."

> >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.
> 
> Not sure I follow your logic here.  That folks have done such demos 
> as the state of the current specification allows doesn't mean that 
> there wouldn't be a wider swath of demos from more early adopters if 
> the standard met more potential users' needs.

You had said "And the media standards and technologies involved are no
more uncertain than in any other area." I was making the statement, as
it applies to CAP, that if you are implying that non-media standards and
technologies are not ready to handle XML-based alerts as the spec is
written today that I disagreed. We have shown that they are in our demos
and relative ease to support the format. True, the transport is a
different issue - which is why we have a group now focused on that.

> >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?
> 
> Not my area of expertise, really... you might want to query the 
> NDSAmerica folks or PPW for real details... but off the top of my 
> head I'd suggest that the FCC's mandatory schedule for DTV conversion 
> and the relatively long manufacturing leadtimes for consumer devices 
> might have something to do with it.

As a member organization, I would love to see PPW have a person with
that kind of expertise join the TC. FCC schedules, leadtimes for
consumer devices, inability to do two-way communication, etc. all need
substantive details.

Not to digress, but what you referred to here, I assume, are the next
generation TVs. I actually do have some experience here - have worked
with some of the early interactive, or enhanced, TV companies. I can say
they do have 2 way communication - its how Tivo today helps "recommend"
things to you. I was looking at this 3 or 4 years ago and the back
channel, at the time, was a modem that dialed back in, but they were
already working on using cable to do this. They were all over video on
demand and about a billion other things. Can't speak for all types, but
in this case I am sure we would quickly find TVs of tomorrow will have
real-time, high bandwidth, 2-way communication.

> >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
> >here).
> 
> I understand your position, but I have to disagree because:  a) 
> there's good reason to believe that this may be the only time we can 
> do it without forcing an unnecessary fork in the standard... and 
> there's no good reason we CAN'T do it now if we just allow ourselves 
> to; 

No good reason, or no good reason that impacts you?

> b) a number of companies have said that if it's not explicitly 
> set forth in the standard, it doesn't help them ensure 
> interoperability with other folks' products; 

I assume you are referring to broadcast media companies, correct?

> and, c) which way is the 
> best is a question that ought be decided by the committee after open 
> and thoughtful consideration by the committee, not preempted by folks 
> taking inflexible positions from the start.

Help me understand how we did not do this on 7/15? It seems to be your
inflexibility as to accomplishing the very same thing, but another way
that is the root of this issue.

> - Art
> 
> 
> 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
emtc@nc.rr.com
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/emergency